Why does Zizek keep cucking out on anti-semitism and racism with only non-sequiturs and ad-hominems? What makes him do it?

https://youtu.be/SkSV4xyKkds
https://youtu.be/DEXEVDPpW84
https://youtu.be/VP5xZOA1VAo
https://youtu.be/Wvj_gzClg_o
https://youtu.be/lPs6F9Niq4s
https://youtu.be/VBh8Yu5NWHo
https://youtu.be/Afy1mRcPh90

>>24562496 (OP)
So in Lacanian theory there are three basic relational positions of the subject to the Big Other, the Master Signifier, the Phallus, The Name of the Father.

Neurosis, psychosis and perversion.

Zizek acts as a pervert standing in the place of the Phallus, not because he wants to rape you, but because he *wants you to kill him.*

>>24562518
I need to kill him? He's cucking out for israel so I mentally kill him and free myself?

>>24562518
You're just saying nonsense and it's funny because it'd fit postmodernism as the shit philosophy it is

>>24562496 (OP)
Answered here: >>24562532

>>24562528
What do you think "cutting the balls" is?
>>24562522
You need to kill The Real Zizek, not the meat robot it is inhabiting.

You'd both do well to read more Ljubljianan psychiatry.

>The background of the present book is best illustrated by the well known Soviet joke about Rabinovitch, a Jew who wants to emigrate. The bureaucrat at the emigration office asks him why. Rabinovitch answers: “There are two reasons why. The first is that I’m afraid that the Communists will lose power in the Soviet Union, and the new forces will blame us Jews for the Communist crimes ...” “But”, interrupts the bureaucrat, “this is pure nonsense, the power of the Communists will last for ever!” “Well,” responds Rabinovitch calmly, “that’s my second reason.”
>In The Sublime Object of Ideology, published in 1989, it was still possible to count on the efficacy of this joke, while according to the latest data, the main reason which Jews who emigrate from the Soviet Union cite is Rabinovitch’s first reason. They effectively fear that, with the disintegration of Communism and the emergence of nationalistic forces openly advocating anti-Semitism, the blame will be again put on them, so that today we can easily imagine the reversal of the joke, with Rabinovitch answering the bureaucrat’s question: “There are two reasons why. The first is that I know that Communism in Russia will last for ever, nothing will really change here, and this prospect is unbearable for me ...” “But”, interrupts the bureaucrat, “this is pure nonsense, Communism is disintegrating all around! All those responsible for the Communist crimes will be severely punished!” “That’s my second reason!” responds Rabinovitch.
audacious fellow

>>24562545
I have no idea what you're talking about, you're too ahead of my reading. Explain in retard terms.

>>24562532
>>24562539
How does he cope with the undeniable greater evil of the jew in subverting the west? You can't just scream capitalism and imperialism everytime...

>>24562586
Zizek doesn't speak the truth. Zizek speaks things which will provoke you into enacting truth. Zizek sets himself up as "the bad guy" and you have to defeat him. You have to defeat not the physical Zizek, but the "intellectual Zizek."

All the Slovenian marxist psychiatrists were doing this shit in 1982

>>24562600
>One can discern the same operation in Fascist anti-Semitism: what does Hitler do in Mein Kampf to explain to the Germans the misfortunes of the epoch, economic crisis, social disintegration, moral “decadence”, and so on? He constructs a new terrifying subject, a unique cause of Evil who “pulls the strings” behind the scene and is the sole precipitator of the series of evils: the Jew. The simple evocation of the “Jewish plot” explains everything: all of a sudden “things become clear”, perplexity is replaced by a firm sense of orientation, all the diversity of earthly miseries is conceived as the manifestation of the “Jewish plot”. In other words, the Jew is Hitler’s point de capiton the fascinating figure of the Jew is the product of a purely formal inversion

>>24562607
Trvke. Very Socratic

>>24562619
That's really basic, a "gaslighting."
<
"Ohh you just wanna blame the jew because you are jealous goy" in obscurantist terms, as if Hitler himself did not recognize that the Jew was only one enemy faction, one factor in the equation of decay. One just has to ask "would this be a better world if we didn't have jews subverting the west?"

>>24562619
continued
>it is based upon a kind of “optical illusion” the mechanism of which was elaborated by Victor Schklovsky and, more recently, by Fredric Jameson:
>Don Quixote is not really a character at all, but rather an organizational device that permits Cervantes to write his book, serving as a thread that holds a number of different types of anecdotes together in a single form.
>Henry James designated this kind of narrative character whose actual function is to represent within the diegetic space its own process of enunciation - the discursive structure of the work itself - by the term ficelle (Maria Gostrey in The Ambassadors, for example, is a ficelle). Therein consists also the function of the Jew in anti-Semitic ideology: in so far as an ideological edifice gains consistency from organizing its heterogeneous “raw material” into a coherent narrative, the entity called “Jew” is a device enabling us to unify in a single large narrative the experiences of economic crisis, “moral decadence” and loss of values, political frustration and “national humiliation”, and so on. As soon as we perceive as their common thread the “Jewish plot”, they became part of the same (narrative) plot.

>In this precise sense, the “criticism of ideology” consists in unmasking traditional allegory as an “optical illusion” concealing the mechanism of modern allegory: the figure of the Jew as an allegory of Evil conceals the fact that it represents within the space of ideological narration the pure immanence of the textual operation that “quilts” it. The real questions, however, are: How is this purely formal inversion possible? On what does it rely? More precisely: How is it possible that the result of a purely formal inversion acquires enough substantiality to be perceived as a flesh-and-blood personality? The psychoanalytic answer is, of course, enjoyment - the only substance acknowledged by psychoanalysis, according to Lacan. The “Jew” cannot be reduced to a purely formal organizational device; the efficacy of this figure cannot be explained by reference to the textual mechanism of “quilting”; the surplus on which this mechanism relies is the fact that we impute to the “Jew” an impossible, unfathomable enjoyment, allegedly stolen from us.

Great explanation, I did not expect that as someone who just started engaging with Zizek, I guess that's the Hegel-Lacan connection.

>>24562641
Oh so he's arguing anti-Zionism isn't necessarily anti-Semitism. Sounds like the kind of obscure argument he'd make to avoid taking a position on genocide. He did the same earlier, cheer up bosnian kid.

>>24562641
>>24562647
Where does jews owning the banks and lobbying politicians come into this cope? You have to be an idiot to self-intellectualize yourself so bad that you're blind to, let's say, the financial sector withholding investment from companies that don't implement DEI

I'll only agree in that global capitalism itself incentivizes this, and that's explained by postmodernism (which Zizek seems to dislike?)

>>24562641
>>24562647
>>24562659
Let me add: Where does "global capitalism" incentivize losing money in order to, going back to something as silly as gamergate, release DEI games & movies that continuously flop?

>>24562659
>>24562668
>Instead of the direct split “I know that the Jews are guilty of nothing, but nevertheless...(I believe that they are guilty)” comes the statement of the type “I know that the Jews are guilty of nothing; however, the fact is that in the development of capitalism, the Jews, as the representatives of financial and business capital, have usually profited from the productive labour of others”; instead of the direct split “I know that there is no God, but nevertheless...(I believe that there is)” appears a statement of the type “I know that there is no God, but I respect religious ritual and take part in it because this ritual supports ethical values and encourages brotherhood and love among people.” Such statements are good examples of what might be called “lying by way of the truth”: the second part of the statement, the claim which follows the syntagm “but nevertheless...”, can on a factual level be largely accurate but nevertheless operates as a lie because in the concrete symbolic context in which it appears it operates as a ratification of the unconscious belief that the Jews are nevertheless guilty, that God nevertheless exists, and so on - without taking into account these “investments” of the unconscious belief, the functioning of such statements remains totally incomprehensible.

>>24562668
Maximising the stability of class rule and the stability is minimally decreasing rates of profit.

They don't give a shit about particular commodities, only about riots that cause metropolitan societies to exit Eurozone capital.

>>24562679
European bankers don't gain from subverting Europe while losing money, while cosmopolitan Jews do and have tribal loyalty. Why are Europeans "not allowed" to remove this nuisance? I see no answer to this but mental olympics to say "Yes, jews do subvert your country but uhhmm capitalism does too, somewhat."

>>24562683
>Maximising the stability of class rule and the stability
zizek suggests hitler was doing just that by targeting jews
>Notwithstanding his awareness of manipulation, Hitler basically believed in its results. For example, he knows that the image of the Jew as enemy who takes “all the threads into his hands” is only a means by which to channel the aggressive energy of the masses, to frustrate its radicalization in the direction of the class struggle, and so on, yet at the same time he “really believes” that the Jews are the primordial enemy. The uncanny dimension of this split, of this simultaneous coexistence of the ultimate cynicism and the ultimate fanaticism, is what we avoid as soon as we interpret it as the cynicism of manipulation - as soon as we see the moment of truth only in the manipulation (the popular concept of the Nazis as heedless cynical authority who manipulate everything); this avoidance enables us to reduce the Nazi subject to the traditional utilitarian-egotistic bourgeois subject.

>>24562696
Yes. But that was because Capitalism was concentrated in multiple metropolitan imperialist great powers. Hitler was destabilising French Capital, Italian Capital, Soviet Capital, British Capital, American Capital and Japanese Capital.

So it worked for Hitler within the scope of control of German Capital, but it didn't work for *transnational imperialism*. Why do you think the US and Soviet Union never went to war: each was more important for the other's control of their own working class: war would have destabilised domestic control. One could suggest that the United States was the "Big Jew" of the Soviet Union.

>>24562703
interesting points, i don't think zizek would disagree with them

>>24562696
>>24562703
Interesting points that Zizek would never say in public as he'd immediately get debanked and banned from airlines

>>24562708
>>24562741
BUT ZIZEK DOES SAY THESE THINGS IN PUBLIC. You just need to have graduated from a real BA Honours degree to hear him. The French can hear him. The British from LSE, SOAS, Edinburgh can hear him. The Germans can hear him.

Why can't the Sep cunts hear Zizek when he speaks? Are sep degrees that fucking worthless?

>>24562755
Where does he say that about Hitler? Enlighten me

>>24562756
>>>24562696
How illiterate are you?

>>24562766
I'm jewish and I can't believe he said that...

>>24562802
And I'm the world-spirit of Hegel.

>>24562496 (OP)
Zizek supports NATO, Zelensky, Israel and the whole shibbang. His whole thing is he is your run of the mill demon crat but with obtuse language

>>24562844
You do realise we agreed that Zizek pretends to be naughty so we will execute him?

>>24562756
I too ignore everything about a person and base my opinion of him around what they think about Hitler. It’s such a clean and sound heuristic.

>>24562889
this but unironically

>>24562889
It's a pretty good litmus test for detecting soulless bots and agents of the state, the same way Napoleon was back in the day, Caesar and Alexander the Great before him.

>>24562496 (OP)
Because that's taboo and all philosophy and social sciences have to build around them post-Hitler
>>24562844
He chooses the best option, irony, to mask his forced intellectual impotence

>>24562982
>to mask his forced intellectual impotence
Mate, he's concealing his potence. Why do you think he's spent his semen in the dust instead of impregnating his brother's wife since Sublime Object?

>>24563024
are you too, obscuring your intellectual impotence instead of saying anything?

>>24562600
> You can't just scream capitalism and imperialism everytime
He is a self-avowed COMMUNIST, that’s the only thing they do

>>24563028
No mate, I'm speaking Australian and I'm a shit cunt, you're just a knob end gobbing your own illiteracy in St James' Station Toilets.

>>24562496 (OP)
He's right about antisemitism wrong about racism

>>24564801
who cares if some random estonian dude is right or wrong about anything

>>24564801
To expand: Racism is true because there are innate biological differences in intelligence that average out differently across the races. Its important to take this into consideration when talking about policies like immigration or the underdevelopment of Africa. But antisemitism is wrong because Jews are genetically the best race (i say this as a non jew, full blooded white "aryan" as the nazis would've called me, I'm just objective). They owned the shops etc in Germany not because they're evil but because they were smarter and just overall superior. Kind of how whites were in power in south Africa despite being outnumbered.