Is this true about Zizek?

Two thoughts come to mind.
1 - Why is being anti-Christian considered a leftist thing while being anti-Islam is considered a right-wing thing? I don't like religion period. I think there are some good values in both of these religions, but I believe that they also spread a lot of bad things. Saying that the spread of any kind of fundamentalism is bad shouldn't be controversial.
2 - Why does the rise of international capitalism and geo-political regimes have to be linked with Nazism? I do not like the U.S, I do not like NATO, I do not like Nazis. I don't assume that they are the same thing. Nazism did not exist prior to the 20th century, that doesn't mean that everything was fine and dandy and that Nazism was the logical end point of all evil. If you think Zizek is nuts and a right winger in disguise, that doesn't make him a fucking Nazi.
And while I'm at it - how many times must the man qualify his comments to liberal illiterates who refuse to consider new ideas? He has spend his career using contrarianism to challenge people, but this seems to be the first time anyone has really listened. The problem is that they can't understand the Socratic method and want to put their heads in the sand like true liberals.

The comments are pure cancer

Are they saying there are zero?
I mean, I hate people who believe that every refugee is a criminal. Truly, I do.
But come on, people who live in war zones have had much harsher lives and aren't exactly in the position we are. Whether this being through delinquency from the disturbed or those who have actually been radicalised by their environment. Some are going to be a problem. I say this as an Australian. (google out asylum seeker policies if you are unaware). A part of the reason I despise this country's policies is because I am appalled that women, children and other vulnerable people are in "processing centers" which are processing people who may actually be criminals. There have been stories of rape and child abuse that the government doesn't give a fuck about.
Anyone who thinks un-regulated immigration is a good thing is a moron - there is a reason our own population goes to prison - not everyone is safe to leave in society.

It's prob published by RedKhaina and her crowd, the absolute point of insanity of tankies. She's earlier claimed he's a fan of Goebbles and that to not believe 911 is an inside job is "racist".

The irony is that Zizek likely has insane stage fright, he was quite obviously extremely nervous during "Europe is Kaput" or what it was called (the one with Assange).

it's worthess drivel, people should laugh with it

despite that zizek has said a lot of bullshit especially about refugees

So who wrote it?

Was it her?
youtu.be/oLucyyJKm0U?t=84
my gott pure hysteria

Or one of them?

Was it one of us?

USA: Zizek heckled at Left Forum over stance on refugee crisis
youtube.com/watch?v=u3nMKN3akt8

anyone has a copy of this?

...

Didn't see it but fucking called it:

Jesus, even from rumor she's grown to symbolize everything wrong with the left today.

I think it's more calling him out for not being one, and for insulting Stalin while pretending to be one.

Zizek has said, however, that he has a Stalin pic ironically in his house, and enjoys seeing idiots link Stalin with communism. Dumb idea to me, but that's his thinking.

Identity politics really is the fucking worst.

dat comments

...

Stalinism is a fascist ideology, no problems there.

Zlazloj is fucking magic

what is up with the editing on that video

Its not true, but its very easy to see how someone could interpret what zizek has been saying lately like that.

But I don't really agree with zizek on most issues.

it's a mess

the editing is a mistake

found the culprits
twitter.com/fivek

Maybe it's because idiots like you constantly try to frame him as one

It's the same crew who think Zizek is a CIA plant. They have been hounding him for years.

zizek BTFO

wew, such activism

To be honest zizek was an idiot to try to defend the usage of the word "nigger" among white people; as in, he was attempting to defend the word in NYC. Should have done his research.

...

It's egregiously wrong, but it does highlight how Zizkek's writings are a bit too esoteric for normies to get a grasp on.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if stormtards think he validates their obsessive paranoia over migrants. His psychoanalytic views are highly unorthodox in mainstream politics.

He is an honorary black person, having been called "You my nigga" by one of the tribe. Like Quentin Tarantino, it's okay if he says "nigga."

tbh fam I think his support for the US bombings in Yugoslavia was bullshit. You can argue that was before Zizek was really a communist or he supported it strategically etc. his political career wasn't that successful anyway, but I'm sure such support has an effect.

He's growing closer to the European establishment at least on the issue of refugees but at least he has the balls to admit it that he's Eurocentric instead of playing the role of a better world liberal.

He's more than an academic superstar these days, and I think even he probably recognizes the need for criticism and self-criticism. I personally feel this paper is a misguided mix of "Stalinism", character assassination and Idpol

Sure. And it is a good way to make people think about stuff. But it's only his starting point. He doesn't stay there.

This is false. He doesn't say we need something. He says, "well, by your definition of democracy, if the majority of the people wants to kill the refugees, then it's ok".
And that is why, if the brains of the people are full of spooks, you need a despooker.

Literally WHAT?

And now it's full propaganda.
Holla Forums will use everything and steal from everyone to support it's "Ideology". They'll even say "Stirner is rightwing and communism is a spook". Does that mean we have to use different rhetoric, in order "not to be like pol"???
MY GOTT! NO!

SJWism.

TANKIE SJW DETECTED!

Wouldn't be surpised if mautist.

Are people really that delusional to think that there is no culture clash between the Middle East and the West? If you can't handle Western conservative culture then you sure as hell aren't going to be jiving with the conservative aspects of Middle Eastern culture. To deny it is willful ignorance.

Also, what fascist conclusions does Zizek reach?

Unfortunately they do.

tbh fam he fucked up his entire analysis of the refugee crisis because instead of filtering it through the needs of late capitalism (which caused it as well as what made it necessary for the syrians) he pulled some lacanian psycho-babbling

he did sound an awful lot like he was saying "yeah the browns are all hypersexual marauders but, uh, that's just what it turned them into" which comes across as a validation of racialism by a reluctant "redpilled" libcuck to the hard right

few people are actually viewing the crisis through a pragmatic lens and looking at the political inconsistencies which is where the usually wiener-ish lefty publications did a good job for once

but w/e no one is perfect

Well, sure, +1 that the bombings were done by the worst people ever.
But I get to agree with him on the part of "this was a war. People were suffering. Something had to be done from outside".
Was the NATO the same people that caused it? Sure!
But just like Syria, today, something has to be done.

Well… Gather a lot of people from Holla Forums toghether in an arab country, let them free, and see if they start "expressing they master race" on the women or not…

Or are we gonna go with the "muslims are better people and cannot be racists and so on" SJW BS?

The problem is that unlike in the Balkans, the US government wants there to be an indefinite cycle of things that "just need to be done" so they can always be waging war in sandland.

The suffering of innocents is how they achieve this to begin with. The populace will always have two options, let people get murdered or impulsively try to do something about it.

The US got incredibly lucky with 9/11 and will milk it for everything it's worth, because a small part of its motivation is personal: it's about revenge. Every single person that died in this tragedy is worth ten thousand of the savage browns, and we want to pay our debt with interest.

Two hundred thousand "innocents" have so far been given God's grace before their 100% chance of terrorist recruitment takes effect. Sounds like a good start.

...

The keyword is "all"

So, nothing will be done, and the refugee crisis will grow deeper, and the US doesn't really care, as they go to Europe… And fuck Europe, amma right!
And people in the US will keep fighting over "racism" and Europe will be going more and more fascist day by day…

What a wonderfull world!

it has nothing to fucking do with identity, and half of the problem here is that everyone assumes it does because it's the usual result of a superficial and empty political analysis. nobody in yurup wants to admit that islam is just christianity 2.0 because that would hurt their fee-fees which is no different from tumblr saying muslims are uhpreshd muh norities

my point is that analysis of the refugee crisis doesn't need some philosophical underpinning, just look at the finer details of the policies. almost none of the rapey criminals are actually from fucking syria but a lot of people assume refugees = syrians

And then you'll have people saying "all white people are hypersexual.." … or .. "all white people are racist biggots.." … hmmm…. There might be somethin lacanian there…

Also, No Zizek doesn't say "all". He says "the people that go to ISIS, or do these stuff, are..".

He did the same with the london riots. BUT THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT, say the SJWs that blame him for "racism" and so on.

I beg to differ.
I say, we always need a philosophical-psychological analyses. The communists in post WW1 Germany didn't want to have any of it. And Holla Forums came to power.

Sure, socioeconomics is how to solve the problems. But you have to go psychology to see the why of the problem.

To be honest, I have begun to dislike zizek because of this. As a child of brown immigrants in the west, at least. In the same way that a few years ago, I wanted to renounce my belief in god, but because of the "new aethiests" I was compelled to continue my belief, because it felt as if they were attacking me as the other rather than the idea of god

I think the US wants Europe to get all far-right, too, because it ties in so well with recent military history. After all, the powerful Western European countries were all big gay meanie heads that had the nerve to criticize America's nonsensical warmongering and get the EU on their side with dumb libtard facts and reason. Now the US has them slowly warming up to flattening the Middle East into a slippery glass parking lot.

...

...

kek i'm not implying we literally don't need philosophy… since that kind of contradicts the concept of politics

i mean, zizek's analysis just comes off as both an acknowledgement of right wing paranoia and a sad vindication for it

I'm surprised the labor demand factor and the need for a more multi-cultural society to valid the acceptance of multiculturalism as a religion by the EU-imperialists did not much play in his analysis.

EU demographers believe there is a demographic crisis, from the perspective of capital, and instead of improving things for European workers and encouraging them to have more children they'd rather "replace" them so-to speak.

I also believe that there is tension between the US and the EU in both economic interest and social model, so there is encouragement to make it into an American-style "multi-cultural" society to stop the EU from breaking ranks with global capitalism as a US-led project.

I honestly believe that the Western imperialists (not the East Asian ones) are increasingly accepting the critique of the WTO protestors in 1999 that the world order was free-trade for capital and goods but not for people.

It may sound odd, but displacing Syrian immigrants and bringing them into Europe serves the goal of continuing to destabilize Syria. People are fleeing, the people likely to leave are the "opposition" that is losing, that serves the goal of justifying the eventual removal of Assad.

The world is not going to accept the West continuing to wage wars and displace people if they don't at least provide some token relief. As Bricmont points out many of the NGO people who support foreign wars brow beat anyone who won't accept refugees.

And to address this poster's concerns, this is one way that "political correctness" "identity politics" "humanitarian imperialism" whatever you want to call it might actually be worse for the developing world.

That's the problem of Atheism becoming an Ideology/relegion.
It's no logner about you not believing. It's about forcing everyone else not to believe.

As for the Zizek part, I think most people get it wrong.
It's not about you being child of immigrands. It's about you and me being friends, and this having nothing to do with your "race" or whatever.
It is exactly the notion that you have to have "special treatment" as you are "new" that creates the polirization, and there I too agree with Zizek.

youtube.com/watch?v=5_0OVHcIMh0

POSADISM SOON!

Yes, but, you see, that's exactly the problem. *snif*.
If we start denouncing every argument as "oh, that's what pol says, so it's wrong", we end up becoming the monster of SJWism and no better than Holla Forums.

I agree

Of course. I don't want to be treated as a special minority. Obviously I also don't want to be hated and ostracized. I want my "brownness" to not even be acknowledged. This leads to hypersensitivity whenever someone acknowledges that I am middle eastern

And maybe that is why I feel personally attack whenever someone criticizes brown people while referencing their "brownness". You know what I mean?

yes, but most of Holla Forums's beliefs can be dismantled before applying them to any real world events.

Dat post-modern racism based ironically based on the universalization of American categories of "race"

I feel you brother, the do-gooder's themselves perpetuate the "otherness" of the people they are trying to help. I personally think it was more fun for everyone when Europeans spent most of their time hating each other.

I know exactly what you mean.
And that is why "PoC" is a worse racist slur than niggers.

most of pol's beliefs are reactions to actual problems.
If you say "X doesn't exist as a problem because only pol talks about it" you become SocDem. And feed pol.

We still do. Don't worry.

"as a leftist mass immigration i important to me because helping capitalist make more money through cheap slave labor is what real leftism is all about and if you dont agree you are racist"

god i fucking hate idpol

Fuck those retards, seriously.

the nature of problems is just as important as whether they even exist

I've always wondered why it is always more important to let immigrants in then to support national sovereignty in their homelands or aid support to workers movements there.

i love this pamphlet, it's a great work by a very ideologically clear comrade who doesn't buy into pseudo leftist liberal bullshit

may this faggot and his anarchist trotskyte liberal following of retards rot in shit

Viewing society and politics through a lens of "culture" is itself reactionary and pointless. It conflates completely different and separable things.

back to >>>Holla Forums

It used to be, until America weaponized it against the left by invading foreign nations and saying it's for their own good.

Now international politics have all but vilified the idea of even touching foreign nations.

Oh yeah Shariah Law should be accepted. Oh women with their rights? Fucking unacceptable.

again
back to >>>Holla Forums you tryhard fearmongering laughable faggot

...

Sharia is literally just the rules for followers of the religion. It's only the law in the Middle East because it's a theocracy, not merely a giant church.

The majority of Muslims that say they want "sharia in law" just want common law accommodations for consenting parties. It's still questionable, but not even close to as bad. Like nine in ten of them think it should not apply to non-Muslims.

Ever wonder how it is that Holla Forums talking points and Western feminism go hand in hand?

Once you've sufficiently spooked enough people about rape and patriarchy not saying they aren't real then people feel duty-bound to defend against it, especially from cultures more "rapey" then our own.

Real people from developing countries caught onto Western feminism's exclusivity a long time ago. But the far-right can say things they think but can't say; if that wasn't true, then Western feminists would've changed their practice along time ago to be in alliance with rather than cold and distant critics of the international radical Left.

And I said that we should go there intervene? Sadam disposal was the worst thing ever to happen to Middle East, he kept the retards in check.

Accept reality retard, we don't live in my little pony land.

A religion that has its base on dominance. Yeah sure they will just gather a few followers and live in peace.

you're saying murdering leaders and stealing resources is above muslims sticking to their religion while claiming they want to enforce sharia law coming here

you are a fucking retard, m8
>>>/suicide/

>>>Holla Forums

The Quran is filled with many threats thrown at non-believers but the Quran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe

Quran 7:177 "He whom God guideth is the guided, and whom he misleadeth shall be the lost."
Quran 76:5 "We have prepared chains, collars, and a blazing fire for the kafirs"

Quran 16:95 "Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but He causeth whom He will to err, and whom He will He guideth: and ye shall assuredly be called to account for your doings."

So, if God can cause people to not believe, then why would he punish them when they didn’t?

Quran 9:5 "And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."

Sura 8:12
SHAKIR: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

This is another quote from the scriptures of what some might describe as the most peaceful religion.

Quran 9:29 "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the tax, then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs to those who understand."
Quran 9:11-12 "But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ring-leaders of infidelity - for no oaths are binding with them - that they may desist."

Below is what al-Ghazali actually wrote about jihad war, and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim (dhimmi) peoples (from the Wagjiz, written in year 1101):

“One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab (People of The Book, Jews and Christians, typically) is enslaved, his marriage is automatically revoked. A woman and her child taken into slavery should not be separated…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need”

This following quote was used to justify the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Quran 8:39-40 Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's

These directions from the Quran are effectively encouraging followers to coerce others into following Islam, even if they do not want to – either by tax or by force. Some might even argue that this is how Islam grew from desert Arabia to the rest of the world.

Yeah sure I'm Holla Forums for not defending a religion that is extreme right by its essence.

After fighting, believers have a right to the infidel’s houses.

Quran 33:27 “And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and to a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.”

Islamic apologists will comb the Quran for “good” quotes and take it as proof that the Quran is peaceful. There is a quote in the Quran which says Muslims can have their religion and other people can have theirs. This is fine until you find in the Quran it says other religions may exist with Muslims, but they are to live as second class citizens by in effect paying taxes to Muslims.

Quran 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

It makes me wonder how Muslims would feel if they had to pay a separate tax to the Christians for living in the West?

Sahih Muslim 19:4368 ‘ The people of Quraiza surrendered. The Messenger of Allah said to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa'id) said: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. Hearing this, the Prophet said: You have adjudged by the command of Allah.

Sahih Muslim 19:4370 ‘ Sa'd was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. When the Messenger of Allah returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven't yet laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah asked: Where’ He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the Messenger of Allah fought against them. They surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah but referred the decision about them to Sa'd who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed among the Muslims.

Sunan Abu Dawud 38-4390 - Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. The Muslims examined us, and those who had begun to grow pubic hair were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Fucking tumblr should stay go.

yeah, next quote le ebin ebil torah maymays
you are missing the point, retard
back to >>>Holla Forums

Kill yourself.

...

Molly Klein and her clique of tankie truthers need to fuck off for good. She even contributed to a blog with Kotsko years ago so no surprise to see that faggots name on there.

Zizek's piece about the Native Americans killing more bison than the white man really upset their current year sensibilities

...

WHO THE FUCK IN LEFTY IS DEFENDING relegion PURE IDEOLOGY???

he is actually himself by centering attacks on "the other" and whitewashing imperialism, that's how much of a retarded hypocrit Holla Forumsfag he is

user accept there is shit from other places that can't be accepted under no circumstance, religion is something that should cease to exist.

>all culture should be accepted or I'm going to be a filthy imperialist.

Talk about spooks son

people that agree:
new age atheists
Holla Forums
opinion yt liberals

people that agree but scapegoat other religions:
new age atheists
occultist Holla Forums
feminazis
opinion yt liberals

people who don't give a fuck about religion and analyse material conditions:

socialists

btfo
back to >>>Holla Forums with your shitposts

Nice job retard.

The material conditions shaped the aspects of culture that are concerning. I dislike conservative Muslim culture as much as I dislike conservative Christian culture.

I TOLD YA PEOPLE!
POL HAS STARTED STEALING OUR MEMES!

You don't even know what spook is, pol.

Fearmongering tactics to avoid a discussion or even practicing such "spooky" thing. Because it will somehow destroy the illusory perfect status quo.

Kill yourself and stop pretending.

People who don't consider Islam as a political driving force are completely ignoring the material conditions set in play by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait etc and American support of this to destabilize secular nationalist nations. I guess it's easier to ignore this whole series of events playing out than to distinguish between the different sects of Islam though, huh?

Exactly, but guess what, we are filthy nazis for even considering the possibility.

Fucking tumblr.

Nothing in that entire, childish rant touched on anything within his philosophical writing directly. The quotes that are used - which are mostly from his articles which are not nearly as in depth as his books - are both cherry picked and presented in such away to appear (more) controversial.
The criticism that is leveraged at him, that he would be an islamophobe and quasi-fascist, seem to be entirely reactionary and not related to anything concrete. It is a superficial reading of his articles. The only reason why I can think it got a hold at all, is because it is the gut response someone has to reading a Zizek article.

It's vapid; not worth your time and not worth my time.

If you are a genuine, thorough opponent of Zizek then I'd like to hear what you have to say. I'm sure the mans philosophy is not infallible, but spiteful readings like in the OPs do nothing but further disdain and disjunction. (I'm sorry if I missed any insightful posts, I'm tired.)

ISLAM IS IDEOLOGY!
It is no different than Nazis or Lolbertarians.
**Or "Radical" feminists".

If you expect us to say "no, Islam is a special kind of ideology, and cannot be dealt with the same way as the other ideologies", BTFO.

The left is more concerned with systematically opposing the right than actually making any progress. Not surprising we'd end up like this after 50 or so years of being forced into the small corner of marginalized opposition, but it's about time we started an actual reassertion of leftist practices, not just leftist critiques.

wrong board, faggot
this is the company you're looking for

Ok.
Tell us your path to progress, glorius statue race.

Idk, I'm just a statue, I can only say what people carve into me.

Idk, I'm just a statue, I can only say what people carve into me

...

jesus fucking christ, and i thought the anarchists were bad

which of you faggots linked this board under some thunderf00t video?

...

At least the feminist says something regarding the factors at play, you just go

Well, then you are only a vessel.
I don't take advice from vessels. I prefer to critisize the words of the past and form myown self theory.

Welp! I guess you cannot function without IdPol. Am sorry for you.

Oh boy sorry for triggering you, should have used the word "poster" instead.

I could keep going, but you get the point.

Use Iran. It's easier.

It all goes down to "Bourgies using Racism as base of Ideology to keep prols in the dark".

It's no different than Nazi Germany at all.

Reee.

Holla Forums took over leftypol an basically destroyed the whole meaning of spooks. Guys We need to stahp the mudslimes cause Islam is bad.. mmmkay ?

tbqh I find the edgy anti-natalists far more disruptive

Not here it hasn't.

No, Zizek has said that the reason he has a Stalin picture in his house, is to piss off stupid people, like liberals.

...

[Discusses Boko Haram]

Haha they cannot even write niggers.

Are they seriously trying to convey he thinks rape victims are liars?

He's saying that we know they are truthful about trauma because, experiencing trauma, details will become awash with confusion from the fear and trauma.
Would these people not come to agree with that if they actually read the words printed without the distortion of their fucked up ideology.

n – – r

Yup, this is what revolutionary activism is all about, regulating fucking vocabulary.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of vocab struggles."
G. Marx

so basically what i'm getting out of this is

It's weird because nothing he's saying is even controversial, it's just that the idpols literally don't understand it.

It's a complete and utter disregard of reading-comprehension caused by ideology at it's most blinding.

The talk is up on livestreamdotcom.

lnik

lets fix it then comrade

/r/socialism on this:
>Even prior to the refugee controversies (which is far less innocuous then those on this thread are implying jacobinmag.com/2015/10/refugee-crisis-europe-zizek-habermas-singer-greece-syria-academia/) this mediocre pop intellectual has had a bad habit of backing some flagrantly eurocentric positions while attacking multiculturalism in ways quite parrellel to the alt-right.

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4kp6ta/usa_zizek_heckled_at_left_forum_over_stance_on/d3gow68

r/socialism is cancer.
I like how they always try to present, that if you are critical of multiculturalism and bring up potential problems that aren't caused by white guys, then you are a "racist".
Saying "fuck" isn't 'oppressive'.
I wonder if these people really believe the garbage they are spewing. I would love to read their reaction to hearing working class people swear at them. Fuck, r/socialism just wants to have their little revolutions in their reddit bubble, one "reactionary purge" at a time.

Are They trying to say that refugees form the muslim world are oppressed so We can't criticize them?
Those people are the exact ideas that Zizek criticize for living.

Don't get me wrong, I am for taking all refugees that We can. I am even for opening borders(I know that Zizek and Zizekians are opposed to this idea).
But… Refugees, are people. In the same way that christians are people, french are people, blacks are people, women are people and nazis are people.
People can have stupid ideas, people can be evil, people can hurt others.

By this insane logic("We cannot criticize arabic/islamic culture because it is filling right-wing narrative") we are not treating them as people.

Zizek often says that We need to stand up for european values. And I agree. We need to realise that European culture is not just racism, nazism, imperialism. It is also communism, socialism, anit-racism, feminism and many other great things.
Culture is not just one monolithic thing. In every culture there are divisions, opossing ideas etc.
People in the Middle East have their own divisions. There is such a thing as islamic far-right(jihadists, islamism) that We should be opposed to!

Rejecting hatred is got first step to not being a racist, but second step is to the realisation that other people are also people, no matter how different they may appear to be.
People can be great, but They can also be islamists, or white nationalists.

i'm pretty sure they mean "faggot"

Yeah. That's probably what they're saying. Not Zizek appealing to the same arguments the far right uses and then "dialectically" approaching the same conclusions that liberals do. Clearly this strawman you made up is exactly what their problem with Zixek is.

And let's also ignore the many posts that are defending Zizek, like so many of you are doing here because that's inconvenient.

Well to be honest I don't understand this position.
I also don't see where Zizek is appealing to the far-right.
And if i remember it right, Zizek conclusion to refugee crisis was to take refugees to Europe by more organized way, and to force rich arab coutries to also take refugees.
If it's evil liberal conclusion so what is the good leftist one? Not take the refugees at all? Or take them and close our eyes to all the consequences of migration on such a scale?

there's that word again

...

Ok if it is strawman, please explain to me what is the criticism and how Zizeks positions are facist/far-right or liberal.

The anti-Zizek backlash has been brewing for a while tbh, once he stuck the boot into refugees, his goose was cooked.

1. The out-of-place rhetorical question: "Should we exterminate all…"? "But is torture…?" This strategy makes part of a "left/Marxist" discussion issues that are not supposed to be under discussion, pretending to raise them only to dismiss them. In the end, no reader can prove they have "understood" what the question was really for.

2. The cross-eyed-attack: "But let no one be deceived that Russia is the alternative to capitalism we need." As no one actually does believe that, the demolition of a perfect strawman allows Slavoj to attack what he really means to attack unnoticed.

3. The shocking mix-and-match genealogy: Jacobins & Hitler; Hitler & Gandhi; Lenin & Weber; T.S. Eliot & the radical left; Chesterton & Mao. The purpose of this strategy is to i. attribute extreme right-wing content to communist ideas ii. attribute progressive content to extremely reactionary ideas iii. confuse everyone about which is which iv. slander the left while seeming to be "daring" and "provocative".

4. The expropriative slander: "As Lenin said…"; "As Mao said…"; "As Fidel Castro said…" followed by some quote that is embedded in a clearly reactionary ideological context and/or consisting in a direct distortion or falsification of a position. Hailed by your average cretin as "radical cred".

5. Extreme formalism: Hitler and Stalin are both "radical"; concentration camps and the October revolution, likewise; violence, abstractly conceived is "radical"; repression, abstractly conceived is "radical"; the effort to maintain state sovereignty is "conservative", and so on. The point is to remove every trace of political content from political value categories and convert them into propaganda tools, to "weaponize" specific terms.

6. The praise+slander performance: Eulogy on Chavez is a characteristic example. About 80% slander, masquerading as heart-broken eulogy. The point is to give someone a penny and take back a pound, so to speak; praise them on something banal, but with such terms as will immediately allow an attack far more damaging.

7. Alibi criticism. In every article doing damage to socially progressive forces through every means imaginable, there will be some token gestures at "criticizing" the other pole. A degraded version of Trot "equal distance" strategies of the "Neither Washington nor Moscow" type.

8. The terminological mixer bowl: terms from mutually incompatible and hostile traditions will be mixed without any explanation as to why they are: "miracle", "event", "revolution", "belief", "God", "divine", "violence", "barricades", "materialism", will be treated as terms belonging to the same historical and theoretical constellation. So will "exploitation", "immaterial labor", "Bill Gates", "Chiapas", "digital commons" and "Leninism".

9. Bad taste: Invariably, that element is always a sign of boorishness and reactionism thrown into a mix that is supposedly seething with righteous and progressive emotions. At the same time, bad taste will serve as a cynical reminder that this all phony, which dictates being read as a sign of liberating honesty: "Zizek gives us the means to block transference", this last being dictated as a response precisely by Zizek.

10. Je ne sais quoi: Every political article or book will introduce itself with some Wagnerian hyper-revolutionary drumroll, usually involving the words "Lenin", "Stalin", "revolution", "St. Juste", "radical", and the like, only to end up seeming to advocate nothing i. politically intelligible; ii. semantically intelligible; iii. logically consistent; iv. practically conceivable; v. progressively oriented. The managing strategy for when readers point out the fiasco –which is not a fiasco, as the goal is never to propose something, but to perform the previous operations– is to affirm that the task of the "philosopher" (self-claimed position) is to "raise questions".

"Left Forum 2016: Slavoj Žižek on BOFA"

youtube.com/watch?v=ajr8qQcZWPo

Majority of the thread is defending him.

post this to /r/zizek

Yikes

Yeah, agreed.

Zizek is a boss but he was in the wrong with that one. Whether or not white people should say that word is irrelevant, that's simply a poor hill to die on.

Okay.

Truth.

Wow fuck those guys.

I think you have gotten too anti Zizek Idpol.
All your 'complaints' about Zizek are really just whining about how he's politically incorrect, how he rightfully criticizes the left and has some conservatives views.

For fucks sake, what I get from your somewhat far leftist rant that can be summarized as "TLDR: Zizek is a reactionary FBI/CIA agent that is trying to discredit the Left".

What I love about Zizek is how he frequently mocks the stupidity of the Left and very stupid Leftists. The Leftists that are so brain damaged and retarded to think that "If you criticize the refugees, it's racism, and they will fight for our revolution", are completely fucking stupid.
And this notion that you can't ever criticize communist leaders, I mean really attack them, otherwise its "bourgeoise/reactionary propaganda".
Fuck you. Many communist leaders did commit horrid crimes, and don't white wash them by saying it was all those spooky Porkies 'fault".
It's not slander if those communists did say that, in a summarized way. Of course you will always apologize for them, and try to ignore their brutality and cruelty and promote them as "having the interests of the working class".

So what if he's extremely formal?
He's a world class intellectual who presents his ideas in a genius way, not some dip shit Redditor or piece of shit "revolutionary leader/activist" with their few thousand people support and more babble about "The workers revolution will happen any day".

"Socially progressive" forces should be criticized, otherwise you are too pathetic and weak to defend yourselves and your ideas on the world stage. For fuck sake, if you are too stupid to come up with a coherent plan for an alternative society that doesn't involve a magical time warp to the USSR, Hoxxa, Anarchist society, Paris Commune or some shitty primitivist dream, that's not his fault.

I love Zizek for the coherent, rational and brilliant suggestions he gives that can be applied to daily life, and not this dogmatic, theoretical, sectarian bullshit of stupid leftists having civil wars and killing each other like Christians over your holy texts. Marx. Kropotkin, Lenin, Mao and other leftists aren't gods, and thus should be criticized, subjected to harsh scrutiny and mockery, and tossed away if needed. Get over it.
It's the fucking 21st century, stop bitching about how an old Slovenian makes fun of your precious Lenin/Stalin/Mao.

Actually, I wouldn't say his "terminological mixer bowl" is "incompatible", as some whiny and stupidly dogmatic tankies would have you believe.
All I hear from you is "Waaa The big meanie Zizek uses new terms I don't understand and aren't another fucking useless quote from Marx or Lenin used some on obscure shitty website."

I love his humour, and it's useful for getting people interested in his ideas and explaining them.
Many leftists are socially retarded, and incapable of explaining their dialectic jargon to ordinary people, and also without coming across as some fanatical loon obsessed with some largely forgotten texts by dead leftists.

I also like how he mocks Leftists and their revolutionary stupidity.
Despite what this stupid tankie whines about, they are very, very butthurt about the fact that Zizek has advocated for reformist ideas, instead of the stupid tankie/anarchist/leftist delusion that you grand revolution will come "any day now".
Look at the healthcare debate in the USA, Zizek wants to resurrect the conversation about, how in the USA you have lots of freedom, and freedom is constantly advertised in your daily life, you can choose from different bagel flavours, junk food, cars,etc. But, when you touch the nerve, the limit of this "freedom" ideology, the American establishment will attack you for suggestion the USA should get universal healthcare.

Ultimately, what I see more of are stupid, butthurt, angry leftists that are very mad that Zizek won't lip sync their stupid bullshit and be another useless, Idpol leftist still babbling on about "revolution", and he's suggested some useful changes that can improve people's lives, instead of supporting the delusion that capitalism will be "overthrown, any day now".

I agree.
I can phosphatize with all the revolutionary dreams, and large philosophical ideas, but We live in the world We live in, and in this times We live in.
There's no revolution on the horizon. There is only romantic desire for revolution in hearts of some leftists.
If some progress is to be made, We need to think outside the box of XX century revolutionary experience.

1.
And here I thought, Marx was all about questioning everything and not taking anything for granted…
2.
Are you sure? Same applies to China.
3.
Actually, it's all about that, and, I want to be "confused" or how am I TO THINK FOR MYSELF???? WE DON'T NEED DOCTRINES AND PREMADE FOOD! WE NEED TO THINK FOR OURSELVES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS! am not
4.
I don't see a problem here. Usually it's followed by "But…". See 3.
5.
Using weaponized concepts, to counterweaponize them, is weaponizing.
6.
Think for yourself. Noones is perferct. There is not great leader. Everyone is as shit as you. Lenin best grill, cause he did everything wrong.
7.
Again. Thinking for yourself. He is not here to create answers for you.
8.
Wut?
9.
See 3. AGAIN!
10.
See 3.

TL;DR
Zizek is about "Phylosophers going back to analyzing the world, not trying to change it".
He doesn't give you anything.
He creates questions, gives you his answers and then provokes you to question his answers.

"I don't like stalin, but you'll go to gulag, but 20th century is gone but here is a picture of Stalin, and so on".

If you expect to learn ANYTHING from Zizek, you're doing it wrong. You read/listen to Zizek to question. Not to answer.

But, you don't want to see beyond you Ideology.
You WANT an ideology. And a leader. And a party like.

AND I SAY, NO! FUCK YOU!

You think Leftypol likes Zizek because he's right? We like him because he DARES not to be right! TO FUCKING THINK!

…

This is why the left is going nowhere and nazis rise… … it's the 1930s all over again…

is that the ubuntu font

Spot on, companero.

And I don't even read. Only listen to.

My gott, this is pure ideology

Plz read Zizke.

>We

So, as regards 8, what you're saying is that Zizek is taking a thesis and it's antithesis? I'm a mere pleb but IIRC didn't Hegel say something about that?

Allow me to retort to a few points. This is a slight reading and I'm primarily curious on your thoughts:
2. The cross-eyed-attack:
There are people who will readily defend and even praise both the USSR and Russia - on here as well. Not to mention that Russia, with its anti-U.S. and anti-intervention rhetoric would be a contender as an alternative to the U.S. and its globalism politics. Even if that was not the case though, your citation is too short and doesn't touch on the meat and bones of the argument/thesis: it provides us with nothing but "this is what he said at some point, this is what I think of it".
We see this in point 3 and 4 as well. Clarifying someones prosaic rhetoric is not the same as proving their fallibility - and here seems to be an attempt to attack the tone of the writing, rather than the person and their thought. The "clearly reactionary ideological context and/or consisting in a direct distortion or falsification of a position" is not yet tangible for me.

5. Extreme formalism:
Zizek has defended and even attempted to normalize the use of violence in certain situations. The claim that he uses the culturally bred assumption that "violence is radical" seems absurd in this context. It also begs the question of what 'radical' actually would mean – which would be semantics and nobody wants to discuss that.
Not to mention that to claim "the point is to remove every trace of political content of political value categories" seems insubstantial. There is an a priori ethical dimension to that claim, which manifests the possibility of "weaponization" as "propaganda tools" to begin with. Mind expanding on this?

8. The terminological mixer bowl:
Meaningless without context. It is entirely possible and even appropriate to contrast terms under specific conditions. The political or cultural - even lingual - dimensions of terms does not make them innately immutable and insoluble. I'm also hostile towards "mixed without explanation", could you provide a reference?

Point 1, 9 seem to be vague/nonsensical to me, would you mind being more specific?
I'm having trouble understanding point 6 and 7 - could you provide an example?

An attempt was made to elucidate Zizeks rhetoric and its fault. Responding with sweeping generalizations and other reductionisms, while fist pounding and war drumming, does not provide further insight.

That said:
Is beautiful. I'd like to make a macro out of it, but right now I feel it is too direct/personal. Mind reformulating it?

The confrontation video is out, Zizek answers to the accusations:

youtube.com/watch?v=_tt8zpTwFSk

He's reading from this very paper.

hmm yes, i believe he called it… dialectics?

Reputation is relative, and even the Soviets weren't as bad as burgers think.

rekt

That cunt with the bag is everything wrong with the "left." She needs a punch in the mouth.

Ok.

Probably those cunts went to post on tumblr or whatever shitblog on how mansplanning Zizek was :^)

Bumping cause we are getting filled with plebit lately…

Turns out it was Molly Klein (aka Red Kahina), again.

Some background on her: her father was former NBC exec and founder of PlayboyTV. She's rich as hell and her group of friends are rich as hell. She likes to label everyone fascist and psyop. She has a lot of time on her hand to organize "progressive" raids on proper leftists.

She's identified by the guys who made this vid
here: facebook.com/groups/Zizekstudies/permalink/10153618106850777/?comment_id=10153618735815777&comment_tracking={"tn":"R7"}&__mref=message_bubble

Molly Klein debunked: thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/28/et-tu-slavoj-must-zizek-be-destroyed/

Molly caught falsifying claims against Zizek: thecharnelhouse.org/tag/molly-klein/

pic related: Molly Klein

So much for dialogue

Started watching
Is the woman on the left a postmoderinst work of art, or something???

BOURGIES ASK ABOUT MONEY!
When it's the bourgie nomenclature getting mony it's fine. BUT NOONE ELSE IS ALLOWED!

5:30 THIS IS .. .. excellent

Isn't it also great, how most of Leftypol, no matter wether we are full inteligentsia, (Yui) or fullnot reading theory (Comrade Xexizy) can already answer, more or less the same way Zizek himself does, to the SJW accusations?
He even, almost, changes problemantic to excellent like BO did.

The rest is Zizek being Zizek.

Holy fuck did they even read Violence beyond that paragraph on raped women? Or the 3 pages before it? I know Zizek is rough sometimes but for fucks sake just try.

Here's the rest of it straight from his book:

bump

Can't wait till Zizek goes full righty as the SJWs start to denounce him.

Ideological war, gas the SJWs now!

He didn't go right after being physically and mentally abused by communists for years, he won't go right due to some third-grade shitflinging by political newbies.

Can you imagine if he'd actually won the election?

I hope you aren't implying that patriarchy or "rape culture" are seriously relevant in modern western society.

Ok. I take it back.

The time for Moskow Trials has begun.

Mods!
START THE EXECUTIONS!

POL IS LEAKING TOO MUCH!

feels bad