Daily reminder about anti-semitism

Read Lacan

If there is reason to believe your wife is cheating, you can not be paranoid, you can be suspicious. It's gaslighting as they say to frame it like paranoia.

Capitalists will not allow their capital to be taken, Jewish or not. And, guess what — some Jews don't own any capital. It's appalling we still have to even discuss this bullshit on a supposedly leftist board tbh.

Well I'm not an anti-Semite, so I'm sure whatever is being said here would not be of any use to me.

yes, he is.

Jesus the point isn't all Jews aren't billionaires, it's the specifically Jewish form of attack that will be used, by both Jew and non-Jew to defend capital.

ok, which seminar does it come up in

that's not how the human brain works. you thought of your wife cheating on you BEFORE you found any evidence of her cheating, other wise you wouldn't have made such an extreme prediction. By

...

What the fuck is a "specifically Jewish form of attack"…? Are rabbis going to disrupt strike actions using krav-maga techniques?

same goes for Holla Forums racism in general, it's irrelevant if muh niggurs are really criminals, but take away the disproportionate terror of the other, and the whole ideology falls apart.

deep down, right wingers worry that liberals might be right about them. Liberals don't actually take any of that 'white guilt' stuff seriously, if anything they enjoy the feeling of moral superiority like the good protestant bourgeoisie they are. Meanwhile, the alt right internalises the guilty white identity and is tormented by it. No one is as fully possessed by liberal idpol as right wingers are.

...

the left has already been accused of antisemitism, see Corbyn and BDS for example. But muh jews are far from an homogenous group, leftists, antizionists and apolitical normies outnumber the neocon zionists.

monogamy is a lie

He's not entirely wrong though. It's the same way Polish capitalists defended their control of capital by claiming that the "judeo-bolshevists" were out to exterminate Poland.
When bourgeois control over capital is threatened, it will make appeals to nationalism, patriotism or imminent threat of genocide to protect itself.
Porky jews claiming that anti-capitalism is antisemitic falls right into that pattern.

Never underestimate the hypocrisy of human beings, left wing Jews are utter hypocrites and see no issue with that either. When the time comes and the attacks on Jews by communists (propaganda) they will be saying why are you not attacking the muh privileged capitalists, the whites. This is why Idpol doesn't focus on Jews at all, they never are asked to lose jobs for diversity, despite being over represented in capitalist key areas by a ridiculous degree. A true analysis of muh privilege would be a disaster for Jews, and I don't think anyone who wants to work in any prominent field will point that out for obvious reasons.

...

That is why Jews would be the biggest losers in a real revolution, the majority of Europeans and ethnic whites would be net winners.

Jews were and would be the biggest losers in Nazi counter-revolution. Shit, antisemitism is sincerely the worst idea for worker's movement in it's history.

Fuck you.

Obviously, they were specifiacally told so. And after the revolution Jews might be right to fear being persecuted and have no power to stop it relative to their capitalist power structure. That is why they will not accept it, and why the idea the left wing Jews will be against them when the time comes is laughable.

Trig'reded

No, u

if intersectional idpolers saw a handful of Holla Forums infographics, they would become nazis

Blacks and muslims due to their given oppressed status under intersectional are the only ones who could really be politically antisemtic as they have been told they can't be racist. The definitions might change after that.

I think an accurate 'progressive stack' would clearly put non-jewish whites below jews
this would allow them to 'punch up' according to progressive logic

I'm hispanic can be antisemitic

*can i

t. Dr. Zizek

Nobody 'can' be really, it's only muslims and blacks who could fight the rap if you get me, bur their own leaders would disown them as the idpol gravy train would be stopped.

IMO it's about portraying the opponent as weak. Guilt, self-flagellation, masochism, they all share the theme of weakness. Same with the whole "cuck" thing.

something I've always wanted to ask.
how did they find the time to draw this?
they're getting raped and exploited but whos making the posters?

Even if it was true thinking that Jewish power stemmed from their nefarious ethnic /religious character and not due to the system itself is pathological and a sign of an eclectic, diseased mind.

Oh yes, it's now extra persuasive with additional synonyms. How very foolish of me to not take diagnoses from a hyper-neurotic, sexual deviant, cocaine addict or his brown nosing cohort seriously.

Their ability to use capitalism is not equaled, it would be laughable to not put it down to Ashkenazi character. They do themselves for God's sake. If you think that is a diseased mind you are not very good at analysis.

lol it almost seems like you guys are learning something

wow, so enlightening. you're not special.

...

is not the same as

Post your faggot faces when you realize marx hated kikes like the best good boys on Holla Forums. Get fucked virgins.

this doesn't mean you want to gas the kikes. Holla Forums is retarded and supports capitalism and blames all their problems on the jews, Marx doesn't.

Why does he seem to think there is only one way to be antisemtic?
Also

Im sure many Germans had this view.But also many more were already somewhat antisemitic but not on a nazi scale.

You're constitutionally incapable of addressing it rationally as you have already suggested it cannot be anything but the product of irrational mental corruption. I was specifically making fun of Zizek's argument here. If you/re this antsy about demeriting the JQ on an analytical basis I suggest you take it up with Holla Forums

I've seen a few of those threads. They're usually spooky as hell.

if they're are a handful of jews trying to genocide the white race or something it doesn't mean we should gas the kikes. you're mentally incapable of understanding anything.

How is this relevant to Zizek being a OCD schizoid slob who is in no position to call anyone a nut?

...

how are you buzzword prejoraitves relevant to anything? how are you relevant at all? just stop posting.

Thanks for the Sargon tier response. I never said anything you claim. I said they thrived under it like no other ethnic group and have used that capital to be represented in every key area of it. Their influence is not an accident, they excel at business.

So there should no analysis of the obvious problems that will occur from the specific Jewish bent of shutting down a revolution, because you don't like Nazis?

You're the one who has constructed some kind of monolithic Other to joust with here, pal. Appealing to Nietzsche won't help you, when you're trying to call Marx a sicko, meanwhile with a very strong chance of being a tranny.

Plastic penis, dildo.

He actually has a PhD in psychoanalysis.

That's like trying to argue all these Nobel laureates in Economics must have the right idea wrt capitalism. I see no evidence to suggest psychoanalysis is legitimate, quite the contrary, look at its doctors. If you'd willingly spend time on the couch with Zizek picking at your insides I'm horrified for you, honestly

...

But isn't the opposite also true? Here we must return to Kant, Hegel and so on.

You've yet to establish how this specific Jewish bent of shutting down a revolution is any different then the counter-revolutionary strategies of other capitalists. How will being le """"redpilled"""" on the JQ help a communist movement looking to smash capitalism? All genuine communist movements are anti-Zionist, so I'm not sure what you think that you're addressing here that desperately needs to be addressed.

Ok. Would you mind explaining how the Jews are better businessmen then the Asians who rose to near-Western parity in the economic realm in about 130 years in Japan's case and merely five decades or so in the case of the rest of Asia. The West (including its Jews) had a five-hundred year headstart in economic development but has not found itself immune to competition despite that. If its a cultural thing then Israel ought to have the richest economy in the world and its billionaires and its population ought to be the wealthiest of all. But the richest man in Israel is worth less than 10 billion whereas Israel itself has some of the lowest wages in the OECD.

Even if you were right that the Jews were just uniquely gifted businessmen that would make focusing on the Jews not a fruitless pathological endeavor. I honestly don't think the right-wing case on the JQ is even that good, the American industrial oligarchs of the 19th century were richer then their European Jewish counterparts (Rothschild, Wittgenstein, Warburg) while being non-Jewish and mostly North European/Anglo in origin. Even in Europe itself non-Jewish wealth was certainly competitive with the best Jewish businessmen and even certain Royal families like the Romanovs certainly were as well-off or better then the best Jewish families.

Marx says nothing that isn't inconsistent with what I'm saying here, if you want to abolish Jewish "p.rivilege" you have to abolish capitalism. Marx and Engels probably thought that Jews and crypto-Jews were disproportionately influential on the European transition to capitalism but that was due to the material conditions they found themselves in and not due some in-born ethnic character or even cultural particularity. Before Christianity the usury was a completely normal practice in pagan Roman Europe and certain crypto-Pagan groups like the Lombards were money-dealers in their own rights. Loose attitudes towards usury and trade wasn't particularly unique to Jews alone in that time or since.

In the end, it turned out to be Christian forms of usury pioneered by Italian republican city-states and bankers along with Christian orders like the Templars that were the most revolutionary forms of finance capital. The primitive usury practiced by the medieval Jews was suppressed in favor of these new practices that benefited industrial and agricultural capital even the Rothschilds were mere perfecters of these methods and not innovators.

*that wouldn't make

No I said it in detail. The state will be used under the pretence of antisemitism, the media will be used to poison working class into despising the antisemites. Why? Because any revolutionary vigour will already have established that the system is not working for them and will be better off. That includes majority of Europeans. Antisemtism will be the main tool, of Jew and gentile working together to destroy the movement. And it will work because people like you are cowards and will not spend a minute thinking about how to disarm the biggest threat within capitalism to revolution.

The point is that if the man was healthy, self-confident, a chad in short, he would not even start to worry if his wife was sleeping with other men - he would go about his business, and confront such a situation if it became an acute issue. It is after all no skin off his back until that time, so why worry? To worry about it before that time is always pathological.
It would be like the cartesian man who started to really believe an evil demon was directing his sensory inputs, without any prompting - even if we can't prove him wrong, if he is right in the abstract, it is still a totally dysfunctional way to go about the apparent life.

I suppose this goes along with your theory that proletarian and left-wing Jews will always come together to protect Jewish interests? I've heard similar theories about how working class whites and white capitalists will always come together to protect their racial interests and the same has also been said of black workers and black capitalists.

I'm not sure why its bad to despise anti-semites tbh that would be like saying its bad to despise blacks with deeply triggering and problematic idpol and so on. Racism of all kinds is bad for the working class movement.

Only in the sense that retards will fall for gentile capitalists who prate on about Jews in order to protect their own interests and actually work in alliance with the Zionists who think anti-semitism can enhance the interests of the Israeli state by furnishing more Jewish settlers and converts to Zionist ideology.

If we maintain that we are against anti-semitism and all forms of racism then the workers will see through the lies that we are anti-semitic. Anti-semitism and Zionism are merely a double game that snares anyone who tries to play it but go on ignore history and try to play into it from a "Left" perspective.

*with anti-w.hite idpol

...

...

So then why call it Jewish at all if it isn't exclusive to Jews, but seems to be inherent to defending capital?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be saying all conservatives are Gentile capitalists or Jewish, but that can't be right.

Next you'll trot out le Protestant work ethic.
Well aware of the history of finance capital. Moreso I'd venture than many so called socialists who suspiciously devote almost all their attention to the corporation.

In any case, what Marx actually wrote is historical record, you can whitewash it all you want as pure cool headed materialist analysis with the facts available at the time, while casting aspersions of insanity at anyone who dares to take it seriously, but there it remains indelibly for all of history to judge forever more.

Namefag "onanist" trying to call anyone else perverse…

I didn't and never fucking have. Capitalism is capitalism. There are factions to it and vested interests. Antisemitism is the one they all know stops everyone dead in their tracks, that is before we take into account the actual Jewish pushback would be immense, and they have the power for it to be brutal via political capital and capitalist control of the media. Now don't fucking tell me they don't have major influence in corporate media, either via ownership or overrespresentation of Jews in the industry.

Well I mean I'm certainly not going to deny that Jews have a lot of influence, or at the least seem to be over-represented in industry, but I was confused why you seemed to call it a Jewish form of attack rather than just capital acting the way capital tends to. I don't get what's specifically "Jewish" about anything.

Because it will use their influences as the point man if you will. The usual 'muh gulags' at that stage won't work. The state will enforce hyped up antisemitism laws and jail you. Guaranteed.

Don't tell me you're some kind of protocols reader who thinks its all some sort of plot to put the blame on the Goys and their governments. What we're talking about is quite apart from "blame" but it is telling to me that that is where your mind immediately goes.

In the first place, capitalism was at one time progressive and thus the Christian and Jewish capitalists and bourgeois who helped bring about the change from feudalism to capitalism deserve a certain amount of positive credit for what they did.

Secondly, capitalism as a mode of production emerged from the tendencies and laws of commodity production itself. Human will could only delay its emergence but it couldn't forestall it. Whether Protestant, Jewish, Catholic etc. Europeans participated enthusiastically or unwillingly is irrelevant. One might as well upbraid the Greeks for having slavery or Charlemagne for being a feudalist, these were material conditions that both made sense and were progressive for their time, that is a fact quite apart for whoever is to "blame" for the resulting human cost.

Pathology isn't merely insanity, friendo. Perfectly sane people have pathologies that don't necessarily disqualify the reliability of their agency, thoughts, and actions in the way a severe mental illness might.

Eclecticism also isn't insanity but seems to be a primary trait of nearly all anti-semites whatever the hue.

If you believe in anti-semitic ideas or are obsessed with the question of Jewish power that doesn't mean you're necessarily mentally ill but you can't avoid the fact that many of the people who do take it seriously actually are mentally ill in some capacity.

Wait a minute… Is Zizek for, or against the Jews?

I think he might have too many enablers that tell him his style of writing is perfectly fine. He could probably stand to be a little less ambiguous? I don't think he's being too ambiguous here, but he didn't have to bring up hitler or Nazis being partially right about the Jewish question.

The ideological and cultural apparatus reflects the constitution of the controllers. This goes beyond some spectral holonomic class interest, vaguely construed. Psychoanalysis is a joke, desperate; doesn't fill in the gaps.

This. "Antisemitism" is a reflexive control mechanism. Preserving it as a taboo, let alone as some kind of ultimate, let alone in 2017, is utterly nonsensical and serves no one but the worst of the worst elite. This obsession with calling it out as some kind of derangement is a crippled analysis based on, from what I can gather, left over Cold War propaganda.

Again with the diagnostics. If anything, this obsession of yours to uncover root pathology seems like just that, obsessive, and compulsive.
All over what, a perhaps inelegant use of the word "blame"?
Then you shift right back into the blame/credit mode of analysis?

My point was more about accepting the underlying premise of the validity of ethno-cultural analysis, which all too often I see in "strict materialists" delve into to bolster their assumptions while decrying it as error in anyone who steps away from the line they're currently pushing.
Define this? Fail to see how this could be construed as morbid, especially on an image board. Pretty rich coming from modern Leftists such as Zizek and those who take him seriously.
Not a valid argument. Here again you mention "obsession", I note, interesting… If I were anti-socialist and interested in making up a similar smear I could start with de Sade, Althusser, Beria, you see? Hell I could just use anti-Semitism as a cudgel which is very frequently accomplished with great success already.

where did the goalposts go?

O-okay.

you never presented a coherent position or argument. don't post in the first place if you have no reason to.

We need an anti-anti-semitism thread tbh

I did perfectly well in deconstructing and mocking the incoherent arguments presented here. Try not to butt in unless you have the brain power to follow along.

you don't even have the brain power to understand what Zizek said. nowhere did he mention antisemitism being taboo or insane.

What do you mean by this here? Are you implying that Jewish capitalists are any worse then the rest of the capitalist class?

Saying that certain things and figures that were "bad" "immoral" and "unethical" from our modern perspective but also had positive results is not the same as positing there's some kind of historical or ancestral debt weighing on all of us. I'm perfectly fine with saying slavery and genocide and all kinds of terrible behavior has yielded positive results. By pointing out the Christian/Gentile capitalist influence I only meant to correct the monocausal historical narrative of anti-semitism and not to blame any historical figure or group of people for anything. As I said before the triumph of capitalism while involving human will, intellect, and effort is also quite apart from it in the sense that laws of political economy cannot be bent by mere will.

It could also easily be said that in your effort to deny the validity of any kind of psychological analysis you have yourself slipped into a counter-psychological analysis of your very own.

You've yet to either prove your case in that regard and I would note that cultural analysis is quite different from "ethnocultural" analysis that posits there is an almost biological quality to the development of the cultural particularities of whatever group. I doubt any "ethnocultural" analysis or standpoint is compatible with that of thorough going Marxism.

Papa Engels also referred to the pauper's brew of eclecticism.I've yet to see any variety of political anti-semitism that wasn't a hodgepodge of ideas thrown haphazardly into one eclectic batch.

And I would say that even if Zizek is also an eclectic himself and he is that wouldn't make his analysis here any less valid. I think you're just mad because the shoe fits way too well.

He analyses it as a delusional disorder existing in some nebulous region of the psyche regardless of any dis/confirmatory evidence. After laughing at this, I was thereafter responding to another poster and speaking in general terms.

In some ways "worse" yes, due to the supra-class cohesion and eschatological principles they seem to adhere to. In any case it goes beyond what mere class analysis can describe.
I was unfair here maybe, and I think is a much better case to make with reactionary anti-capitalists if I'm being honest. Distilling it all to pathology is a fool's errand is all.
It's difficult to engage with more doctrinaire Marxists on this, and heaven forbid they actually have to defend this pillar rather than putting everyone else on the defensive. For the purposes of this thread, I only point out they seem to be fine with claiming e.g. Lacan is materialist when it suits them.
Implying it's worse to be widely read and original in these insane times, than a tunnel vision, defunct Party line spewing dogmatist… :^

he never says it exists regardless of any evidence. he never even calls it a delusional disorder. you're making shit up because you are just offended that someone dates to throw a stone at your precious infallible antisemitism.

I think it might be helpful if people here first state their interpretation of what Zizek is saying here before responding to it. A lot of people, even here, seem to turn off the part of their brains responsible for comprehension as soon as they see mention of da joos.

What I get from this is as follows: Zizek criticizes idea of activism as a means to weed out "prejudice". If we really have constructed and unconsciously accepted this notion of "the Jew" with all of the negative qualities, then it is our own conception that we must grapple with. This conception leads to pathological mental states including paranoia and, presumably, anger/ frustration.

When dealing with anti-semites, it is not enough to simply dis-confirm the negative image of "the Jew" (because this will probably not work anyway). We must address what the sort of archetypal figure of "the Jew" means to this person. The caricature they have created is clearly a touchstone which they use to understand reality, and yet it is completely divorced from reality. Jewish people are not synonymous with "the Jew", obviously.

The point Zizek is making (as I understand it) goes far beyond just the example of the Jew and antisemitism. It could easily be generalized to many figures/ groups used as ideological scapegoats.

Criticism of Jewish elites is anti-semitism though, and that won't change.

except, you know, all the STDs.. or cuckoo children

How I believe Zizek would address this (style omitted):

If it is true that criticism of Jewish elites is commonly seen as antisemitism today, then that is proof that we have not yet dealt with the pathological image of "the Jew". It still haunts us.

When we can finally criticize the actions of some Jewish bankers or Israeli policy or what have you without this criticism acting as a reflection of all Jewish people, then we will know that we are on the right track.

What timeline are you in?

Anyway see:

Is this not, by definition, delusion? A disordered mode of thought? What do you think you have to gain by your letter of the law evasive tactics, denying papi was trying to pathologize dissent by smearing it with Freudian prose?

But that implies the actions of elites are reasonable, Jewish elites are as vindictive as it comes to using all tools at their disposal to ruin their critics, how is that going to change opinion of them?

You didn't actually say anything except that Jews are the paramount threats to the working class.

Zizek, for all his faults, would I hope never resort to such vulgar liberal shit like: "we" have/haven't moved past X, and "we" can/can't now discuss Y

Put this way it's clear to see how such "liberatory" "discourse" is just programming.

"delusion" as you call it isn't a disordered mode of thought. please actually learn Zizek before criticizing only two lines of what he said. you clearly know nothing about him.

you're seeing ghosts, nigger.

I would seriously recommend watching "pervert's guide to ideology" before posting about Zizek any more.

And neither are the fucking Irish, because like the Jews they're an ethno-cultural group and not the entire separate "race" you're assuming they are here. Most people who talk about "white people" are assuming Jews fall under it.

Not to say this entire scenario isn't largely bullshit, or any idpoler who actually believes in such an approach isn't an extra step retarded. But your analysis here is still wrong.

Yes they are, that is totally wrong. Irish people are priviliged the same as a German American. They are white. The diversity comes from these people not being chosen for Jobs, Jews are separate and it's bs to pretend they are treated as white in this area and they certainly don't ask for their jobs to be taken for minorities.

Conjecture, hyperbole.

I'm not pretending anything - you're starting with (probably wrong) assumptions about everyone else, and fixating on the way Jews supposedly differ. You don't seem to have any info about how other (European, like Ashkenazi Jews) ethnic groups are treated differently within their own "race" groups, or a concern for the context in which this may occur.

Like, this is nonsense. No one has to specify Jews when they do this for white people, because it's already implied. Except if this phenomenon even exists in practice (ie not some SJW circlejerk), I doubt it's even common enough to warrant observation outside of the kind of outrage porn rags that pay their bills by making as much out of this stuff as possible. This is some sharia spider invasion-tier stuff.

No I prefer to read.

It's all hidden kernels, radical negativities, wounds of nature, totalitarian temptations, jokes about killing people, and so forth. Here's a good paragraph from the intro of Sublime Object of Ideology. What have you read?

Lol, I bet you're that same motherfucker who was butthurt about Lacan a while ago. I wonder why you stopped posting with your NazBol flag, and I also wonder if you aren't that same user who suggested that only real serious leftists "Named the Jew". Problem is that there are as of yet to many posters on here that keep in mind that they're on the same site right next door to literal Nazis, and some of then can even notice sophistry and shifting goalposts when they see it.

I hope you're having fun with your meme ideology you crypto-fash fuckboy, because the only people you're going to convince are other Holla Forums posters.

If you're the guy I replied to, you haven't read Zizek if you unironically call it "Freudian prose".

Are you trying to claim that Slavoj "back to Jacques 'back to Freud' Lacan" Zizek waxes not oft in the Freudian register?

he's not suggesting that you have a mental illness resulting from sexual abuse, though I think that may actually be the case here.

It's still core Freudian even sanitized of all the weird overt pedo and incest angles. That was Lacan's whole deal, calling out "revisionists" such as the ego psychologists who did not scrutinize every letter of every manuscript.

The great thing about the Jews is that they actually gloat about basically every stereotype of them in their own writings. All you have to do is read The Foward.

Obviously for a more anti-Semitic take you could read the Culture of Critique.

It could be useful to unerstand the JQ is to realize that the Revolution, in a Western country with a non-trivial Jewish presence, is likely to have significant Jewish leadership. If you take the view of CoC that Judaism is basically a group evolutionary strategy to secure control of resources, you can view e.g. the Russian Revolution as a Jewish-led revolution to overthrow the Russian aristocracy and install a Jewish ruling class. If you're white, you can scarcely conceive of just how ethnocentric the Jewish people are, compared to us.

A similar analysis can be applied to neoliberal identity politics. Some research will quickly show you that at the roots of various idpol sects, you will invariably find Jewish thinkers. This is likely the root of the Holla Forums Cultural Marxism meme, but since they usually aren't the brightest people, they fail to just call it, for lack of a better word, Cultural Judaism. The inevitable end result of neoliberal identity politics is bureaucratic surveillance capitalism under constant thought-policing by a Jewish bureaucracy.

As an aside, this is why people like neo-reactionaries are dumb when they go on about America being a Communist country, but of course once you've read CoC and then go back and realize that the core thinkers in NRx are Jews (Moldbug) or have Jewish kids (Land) you can see that the whole point of such an ideology is to establish a Jewish dictatorship.

Best post I've ever read on Holla Forums

it's really not. can you tell me what ideology is in your own words?

It has MANY definitions. For Zizek in his Lacanian read from memory, it is not a bad phantastic illusion concealing the true reality of social relations that can be stripped away with good theoria, but essential to our experience as human subject, where our entire imaginal experience of the social reality is stitched around the impossibility of unmediated contact with Real of our desire or the objet a. Thus being-social for Zizek is always already ideological and pathological in a sense. This doesn't mean he's consistent however.

what is your point here? everything we've discussed so far has been entirely consistent. you trying to paint Zizek as something he's not for something he never even said won't change that.

My point is it's better to think of Zizek as more of a Wikipedia article of references to follow than a primary source in its own right, lest you continue to come across as a perennially befuddled beginner.

My point is it's better to think of Zizek as more of a Wikipedia article of references to follow than a primary source in its own right, lest you continue to come across as a perennially befuddled beginner.

He's saying it's impossible to disprove anti-semitism because what the anti-semites say about the Jews is correct. Therefore we must pathologize them.

Too bad that Marx knew that it was correct, accepted anti-semitism and also completely opposed capitalism.

Best of both worlds but the Jews control our media and will do anything to defend themselves from the rightful hatred against them. However, by whatever quanta we hate the Jews we should hate the Anglos a hundred times more.

This is exactly the kind of shit that leads me to question Zizek's integrity, selling out to the kike and pedalling rubbish like that. Jesus Christ.