"The phantom left took a central role on the mall this weekend in Washington. It had performed admirably for Glenn Beck, who used it in his own rally as a lightning rod to instill anger and fear. And the phantom left proved equally useful for the comics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who spoke to the crowd wearing red-white-and-blue costumes. The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left.
“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked. “We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is—on the brink of catastrophe—torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here [in Washington] or on cable TV.”
The rally delivered a political message devoid of reality or content. The corruption of electoral politics by corporate funds and lobbyists, the naive belief that we can somehow vote ourselves back to democracy, was ignored for emotional catharsis. The right hates. The liberals laugh. And the country is taken hostage.
The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money."
we can se now the importance of zizneycorep to the show, because the spectacle requires a "crazed Marxist" to stage - foreign, ridiculous - to balance the crazed right -
really practically identical in descriptions of the world...
If we don’t do it, we will be approaching–and this is a serious perspective, some French sociologist warn—a kind of a subdued, not all the times active, but nonetheless, always in the background, civil war in all developed countries, like what’s happening now in Paris, you know. Everybody knows, again and again, car burnings, all this permanent civil unrest.
Both shreiking about reverse racism and how the liberal multiculturalists (jooz) coddle the filthy gypsy/mexican threats to decent folks...
these purportedly balanced extremes, the scylla and charybdis, are not only evoked, they are performed.
how essential this imlage of the decent folks caught between the balanced extremists sytruck me when i watched Cradle Will Rock the other night. A wonderful film, but there was this moment where diego rivera and margarita sarfatti trade insults - jewish fascist! rich communist! as if these were mirror images.
whoever suggest to zizz he adapt his albanian best friend story into that "big black guy taming" anecdote has obviously some aquaintance with US cold war propaganda and with richard wright, and ellison, and chester himes' If He Hollers and Lonely Crusade. zizek consistently (and absurdly) images "the left" in the US as white and male, its antagonists as everyone else under the patronage of a sinister liberal establishement (intruder types) that is in disguise, "communist" Soros "a lie embodied" and Obama "a white guy blackened by suntanning" who looks "sterile...with his diluted black skin" (and Zizek surely didn't pull that out of the air but has studied these American dixie stereotypes or been schooled by someone who knows them - he was calling Obama a "mulatto" and evoking 19th century mythology of the "mulatto" as sterile like mules.) But he is tryng to replicate past propaganda successes, dividing the actual left by addressing resentful white men in the usual fascistic way with fantasies of black subservience (and misogyny as entertainment) and more importantly performing for women and black folks - the vast majority and radical core of the actual US left - as an alarming racist lunatic and sexual predator reminist of many characters from (some great) anticommunist literature...his performance conveys the message to black leftists beware of white communists/marxists/socialists as you can see the hide malice and supremacist dreams under a thin veil of solidarity, they just want to call you the n-word and sexually molest and harrass you.
They "the Left", "Marxists", "Socialists" are - so Zizek's performances demonstrate by dramatization - no different than Glenn Beck, bringing themselves to tears over these visions of the tamed and loyal negro devoted to and admiring his morally and intellectually superior master.
"we can se now the importance of zizneycorep to the show, because the spectacle requires a "crazed Marxist" to stage - foreign, ridiculous - to balance the crazed right -
crazed right"
Nothing you say is worth listening to, I have never read anyone so sour and disgusting in my life. I frankly hope that whatever the results today that "The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class" extends to the Elite Qlipoth Class. This blog is the most disgusting piece of shit that can be read anywhere. I'm going to paste what I wrote last night explicitly to Miss Klein, who is the spittin' image of Zizzney herself.
It is she, and she alone (oh sorry, didn't want to leave out the other Qlipothers), that makes me PRAY for a TOTAL REPUBLICAN LANDSLIDE.
Whatever k-punk may have got wrong about 'opera' or even 'currency trading', he did not mistake about your complete and total dishonesty and insanity.
If nothing else, maybe 'Zizzney' will put Qlipoth out of business. You used to say I just 'wanted to smear you'. Not then, but I do now. Just fucking SMEAR YOU.
" is not worthy of a real leftist's notice, since real leftists are concerned not with "particular" "individual" problems like kids being driven from their homes by armed racist lynchmobs, but with Grand Abstractions of lasting importance like The Kernal of The Real In Rear Window and the "fanatical moment" of "Islam"."
Interesting. I see now that with just filling in a few different objects or items in that statement, we get an exact description of your own work. I have never sympathized with your Marxist fiendishness, but I had not realized until recently that I absolutely and utterly abhor your work. I consider your only defense of it vis-a-vis 'Zizzney's', who you single out with migraine-inducing predictability, is that you have a 'small readership'. Eh bien? So that small readership can trash your grotesque and vile writings just like you do Zizek's, and the problem is that they have not trashed it well enough. You have even succeeded in cleverly devouring certain quite smart young minds, convincing them that you are not false through and through, and that you are only interested in pontificating, saving 'individual cases' for your own judgment and delectation. You pick and choose, as if a smart shopper.
So that it turns out that k-punk was on the right track about your vortex of sourness and hatred and bitterness or whatever he used that time he let you have it, but just wrongly sidetracked by your actual bourgeois habits (he gives himself way too much credit for ‘opera goeur’ and ‘currency tradeur’, since he’s hardly very impressive himself, and not a particularly good writer either) whose specifics alone constitute your 'improvement' as a 'smart Marxist feminist anti-racist' over the last years. Otherwise, he was absolutely right, and it even took two incidents to make me know how vile your writing is, how unconstructive, how stupid and disgusting.
I didn't expect to get to this point, there had always been a sense in which I thought that, ultimtately, you were a decent human being employing unusual tactics to direct people toward goals you thought were the most humane ones, and that these tactics were necessary. I thought you never believed personally the 9/11 trutherism, for one thing, that you couldn't possibly be that stupid, and that, as you once told leninino, who never bought it, 'lenin, you're not helping the people you want to help by talking like this'(he refused to do the truther line for you or your idiot warszawa). But I now realize you DID always believe it, and that you were THAT stupid. You couldn't be trusted with anybody 'individual' or any 'individual circumstance' unless it fit your ideology of a black woman (preferably, but with some extra embroidery, say ‘rampant consumerism’ of alcohol or lace or what have you) exploited by World Capital, while you tell ME that I should 'respect people's privacy' who are unrepentantly psychotic and unwell.
As it turns out, I never needed to disclose any of those things you didn't want me to, but your reasons--that someone had 'confided in me' all this falseness--are absolutely sickening. I could still do it, but that particular crisis has been averted, and I have no reason to want to cause distress just for the hell of it if it can be averted. But those were not your real reasons: You had low Marxist dogma you wanted to be true to, and that is your hobby as a professional indolent bourgeoise. So, Mr. Pinkerton, btw, there not only won’t be any ‘convincing Mlle. to do any of her old bleugs, there won’t be any meeting at all’. By far the worst was that one person’s ‘friendship’ of him was dependent on my respect of you; I have now realized that that ‘friendship’ was worth nothing if it meant having anything at all to do with anything but letting people know everything about you that is exactly like ‘Zizzney’. And you are like Zizzney, just different comparison shoppers.
I am writing this and will continue to at my fucking whim as long as you do your years-long campaign against Zizek or whoever else, whether or not I may also think badly of some of them (certainly him.) The fact is, your 'little readership' does not mean it shouldn't be critiqued as severely as his 'huge following'. You are irresponsible, and have proved so on a personal level several times. And this is known by numerous people. And yet you think you have some sort of 'humane voice' which comes wholly unearned, and frankly, spend most of your time on TV and movie reviews precisely as you criticize others’ doing--the one thing all of it has in common is the sourness of it—that little thing about 80s types having nostalgia and ‘bright lights big city’—pure vomit, as was the ‘quality TV’ going back to Playhouse 90, etc., and ending up with toilet talk in the Sopranos, etc..
But I didn't realize till your final paragraph that the way you describe the 'real leftists' applies precisely to you. The only interest is that it's a little less obviously 'working-class' than some of the ones who need careers to survive on, instead of just kvetching indolence, which is your life, isn't it? Since you tend to collect psychos more than 'embody one', your cleverness passes muster on more than a few of us for a time. You don’t seem nearly as out-of –control as most do. But then it becomes clear that you are a dyed-in-the-wool phoney. Some of the specifics of what boring k-punk said about you were inaccurate, but the meat of the matter is quite precise.
The fact is, your 'little readership' does not mean it shouldn't be critiqued as severely as his 'huge following'.
go ahead, whose stopping you? I never try to stop anyone criticisng me. Replying to criticism - which i do sometimes - is not the same as trying to prevent it.
the word verification word for this comment now is "pigess"! funny, it's like blogger is chiming in to back you up.
"well the producers of the revival of the musical at least in London are hoping it's not vomit.'
You know perfectly well 'what set me off', but it's not public matters, so as I said, I no longer need to expose it. But that's 'what set me off', which you so condescendingly say, you are simply dishonest, insufferable, hateful. I didn't know for sure until I realized you'd sell anything just like the most ordinary salesman, just like Zizek. Yes, in your ability to avoid being 'found out to be either crazed left or crazed right', or at any rate, 'some special radicals' or just SOMETHING THAT KNOWS. It's really revolting in its arrogance, and it's inhumane as well. At least it's now official that you're OUT OF THE CLOSET, I was a 'useful idiot' for you for awhile. But that's over. I don't even think you know anything about art, frankly. If you hadn't repeated the same Zizek shit that you repeat every day, as if on some seizure or something, I was going to withhold what I wrote up last night, but somebody has to tell you what an idiot you are. Not that you can change and become a 'left crazy' or a 'right crazy' of something 'in-between' that still just talks about the 'charisma of the vagina' or whatever you're trying to sell, but just so nobody thinks I believe a word you say about anything. You've always lied, just very cleverly.
zizz is too vigilant though not to cover every angle so here he is describing his own propaganda as if it's somebody else - half boasting, like an invoice to power:
"Through democracy, tolerance, in an authentic sense, means that you simply cannot say certain things publicly. You are considered—you know, like if you say publicly an anti-Semitic, sexist joke, it’s unacceptable. Things which were unacceptable ten, fifteen years ago are now acceptable"
wow bravo zizek quite an accomplishment
but also, simultaneously, he diffuses the veryu xritique he is using and coopting - Golovinskiu style now - by ever so slightly altering the analysis given of the corruption of social democracy (liberals in the US)by the capitalist ruling class which has instrumentalised the political clerks offered by Hedges and many others. Zizek seeks to discredit this analysis that is pretty obvious and widespread - there are real grievances resulting from ruling class power that are at the root of petty bourgeois enthusiasm for fasho agitation - calling it a "dirty sophistic trick" of presumably the disguised sympathisers of the far right pretending to be progressives or left (he should known, since he is a leading propagandist using this trick)
The typical rhetorical trick here is in two moves. First, you of course condemn the far right—"no place in our developed democracy." But then you add, "But they are addressing the real worries of the people," and so on and so on. So, in precisely—that’s the dirty sophistic trick—in order to prevent hatred outbursts, we have to control the situation.
But it's a very ambiguous tone he takes - this is a dirty sophistic trick but he says this so oddly and wigth such embarassment and stammering that it seems that an audience that doesn't want to hear that is reassured it need not - it can ignore that this analysis - the far right are harnessing real and sometimes legitimate pain of working people in the hard ecoinomic times - is being identified as a dirty sophistic trick meant to decieve the audience. The succcess of zizneycorp is its canniness about this - because truths can be used to manipulate - and this analysis of the growth of popularity of some fasho politics (real suffering venting in a direction offered by the ruling class) is at once valid and used to manipulate by being placed in a deceptive context by zizneycorp and slightly altered (hedges notes that tea party members are really suffering and are directed their anger at scapegoats, zizek in contrast insist that there are no scapegoats and that the Roma really are the problem, but for people not paying attention, or brain damaged from tv and academia, these seem like similar contentions because they both seem to insist on the legitimacy of the grievances of some people - in hedges' case, tea party sympathisers, in zizek's terrorist lynchmobs.
the typical zizek fan is too muddle headed to tell the difference between hedges analysis of the tea party supporters and zizek's championing of racist terrorists and the typical zizekian is skilled and manipulating the resulting gullibility to go with the fanatical worship and attachment. zizek himself is careful to paint the Roma - who are the real threat and cause the legitimate grievances with their criminal way of life - as in some sense instruments of "liberals" , so his antiroma racism and incitement to neonazi crimes can be excused by his devoted fans as a critique of liberaliusm. racist mobs terrorising children are really engaged in a muscular critique of liberalism and objection to or resistance to their action is a sissified liberal squeamish prejudice against healthful violence.
Chris Hedges:
ReplyDelete"The phantom left took a central role on the mall this weekend in Washington. It had performed admirably for Glenn Beck, who used it in his own rally as a lightning rod to instill anger and fear. And the phantom left proved equally useful for the comics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who spoke to the crowd wearing red-white-and-blue costumes. The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left.
“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked. “We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is—on the brink of catastrophe—torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here [in Washington] or on cable TV.”
The rally delivered a political message devoid of reality or content. The corruption of electoral politics by corporate funds and lobbyists, the naive belief that we can somehow vote ourselves back to democracy, was ignored for emotional catharsis. The right hates. The liberals laugh. And the country is taken hostage.
The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money."
thanks qlip
ReplyDeletewe can se now the importance of zizneycorep to the show, because the spectacle requires a "crazed Marxist" to stage - foreign, ridiculous - to balance the crazed right -
crazed right
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/rachel-maddow-sharron-angle_n_773008.html
crazed left
http://tinyurl.com/6rpoac
really practically identical in descriptions of the world...
If we don’t do it, we will be approaching–and this is a serious perspective, some French sociologist warn—a kind of a subdued, not all the times active, but nonetheless, always in the background, civil war in all developed countries, like what’s happening now in Paris, you know. Everybody knows, again and again, car burnings, all this permanent civil unrest.
Both shreiking about reverse racism and how the liberal multiculturalists (jooz) coddle the filthy gypsy/mexican threats to decent folks...
ReplyDeletethese purportedly balanced extremes, the scylla and charybdis, are not only evoked, they are performed.
how essential this imlage of the decent folks caught between the balanced extremists sytruck me when i watched Cradle Will Rock the other night. A wonderful film, but there was this moment where diego rivera and margarita sarfatti trade insults - jewish fascist! rich communist! as if these were mirror images.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhoever suggest to zizz he adapt his albanian best friend story into that "big black guy taming" anecdote has obviously some aquaintance with US cold war propaganda and with richard wright, and ellison, and chester himes' If He Hollers and Lonely Crusade. zizek consistently (and absurdly) images "the left" in the US as white and male, its antagonists as everyone else under the patronage of a sinister liberal establishement (intruder types) that is in disguise, "communist" Soros "a lie embodied" and Obama "a white guy blackened by suntanning" who looks "sterile...with his diluted black skin" (and Zizek surely didn't pull that out of the air but has studied these American dixie stereotypes or been schooled by someone who knows them - he was calling Obama a "mulatto" and evoking 19th century mythology of the "mulatto" as sterile like mules.) But he is tryng to replicate past propaganda successes, dividing the actual left by addressing resentful white men in the usual fascistic way with fantasies of black subservience (and misogyny as entertainment) and more importantly performing for women and black folks - the vast majority and radical core of the actual US left - as an alarming racist lunatic and sexual predator reminist of many characters from (some great) anticommunist literature...his performance conveys the message to black leftists beware of white communists/marxists/socialists as you can see the hide malice and supremacist dreams under a thin veil of solidarity, they just want to call you the n-word and sexually molest and harrass you.
ReplyDeleteThey "the Left", "Marxists", "Socialists" are - so Zizek's performances demonstrate by dramatization - no different than Glenn Beck, bringing themselves to tears over these visions of the tamed and loyal negro devoted to and admiring his morally and intellectually superior master.
"we can se now the importance of zizneycorep to the show, because the spectacle requires a "crazed Marxist" to stage - foreign, ridiculous - to balance the crazed right -
ReplyDeletecrazed right"
Nothing you say is worth listening to, I have never read anyone so sour and disgusting in my life. I frankly hope that whatever the results today that "The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class" extends to the Elite Qlipoth Class. This blog is the most disgusting piece of shit that can be read anywhere. I'm going to paste what I wrote last night explicitly to Miss Klein, who is the spittin' image of Zizzney herself.
It is she, and she alone (oh sorry, didn't want to leave out the other Qlipothers), that makes me PRAY for a TOTAL REPUBLICAN LANDSLIDE.
Whatever k-punk may have got wrong about 'opera' or even 'currency trading', he did not mistake about your complete and total dishonesty and insanity.
If nothing else, maybe 'Zizzney' will put Qlipoth out of business. You used to say I just 'wanted to smear you'. Not then, but I do now. Just fucking SMEAR YOU.
ReplyDelete" is not worthy of a real leftist's notice, since real leftists are concerned not with "particular" "individual" problems like kids being driven from their homes by armed racist lynchmobs, but with Grand Abstractions of lasting importance like The Kernal of The Real In Rear Window and the "fanatical moment" of "Islam"."
Interesting. I see now that with just filling in a few different objects or items in that statement, we get an exact description of your own work. I have never sympathized with your Marxist fiendishness, but I had not realized until recently that I absolutely and utterly abhor your work. I consider your only defense of it vis-a-vis 'Zizzney's', who you single out with migraine-inducing predictability, is that you have a 'small readership'. Eh bien? So that small readership can trash your grotesque and vile writings just like you do Zizek's, and the problem is that they have not trashed it well enough. You have even succeeded in cleverly devouring certain quite smart young minds, convincing them that you are not false through and through, and that you are only interested in pontificating, saving 'individual cases' for your own judgment and delectation. You pick and choose, as if a smart shopper.
So that it turns out that k-punk was on the right track about your vortex of sourness and hatred and bitterness or whatever he used that time he let you have it, but just wrongly sidetracked by your actual bourgeois habits (he gives himself way too much credit for ‘opera goeur’ and ‘currency tradeur’, since he’s hardly very impressive himself, and not a particularly good writer either) whose specifics alone constitute your 'improvement' as a 'smart Marxist feminist anti-racist' over the last years. Otherwise, he was absolutely right, and it even took two incidents to make me know how vile your writing is, how unconstructive, how stupid and disgusting.
I didn't expect to get to this point, there had always been a sense in which I thought that, ultimtately, you were a decent human being employing unusual tactics to direct people toward goals you thought were the most humane ones, and that these tactics were necessary. I thought you never believed personally the 9/11 trutherism, for one thing, that you couldn't possibly be that stupid, and that, as you once told leninino, who never bought it, 'lenin, you're not helping the people you want to help by talking like this'(he refused to do the truther line for you or your idiot warszawa). But I now realize you DID always believe it, and that you were THAT stupid. You couldn't be trusted with anybody 'individual' or any 'individual circumstance' unless it fit your ideology of a black woman (preferably, but with some extra embroidery, say ‘rampant consumerism’ of alcohol or lace or what have you) exploited by World Capital, while you tell ME that I should 'respect people's privacy' who are unrepentantly psychotic and unwell.
As it turns out, I never needed to disclose any of those things you didn't want me to, but your reasons--that someone had 'confided in me' all this falseness--are absolutely sickening. I could still do it, but that particular crisis has been averted, and I have no reason to want to cause distress just for the hell of it if it can be averted. But those were not your real reasons: You had low Marxist dogma you wanted to be true to, and that is your hobby as a professional indolent bourgeoise. So, Mr. Pinkerton, btw, there not only won’t be any ‘convincing Mlle. to do any of her old bleugs, there won’t be any meeting at all’. By far the worst was that one person’s ‘friendship’ of him was dependent on my respect of you; I have now realized that that ‘friendship’ was worth nothing if it meant having anything at all to do with anything but letting people know everything about you that is exactly like ‘Zizzney’. And you are like Zizzney, just different comparison shoppers.
ReplyDeleteI am writing this and will continue to at my fucking whim as long as you do your years-long campaign against Zizek or whoever else, whether or not I may also think badly of some of them (certainly him.) The fact is, your 'little readership' does not mean it shouldn't be critiqued as severely as his 'huge following'. You are irresponsible, and have proved so on a personal level several times. And this is known by numerous people. And yet you think you have some sort of 'humane voice' which comes wholly unearned, and frankly, spend most of your time on TV and movie reviews precisely as you criticize others’ doing--the one thing all of it has in common is the sourness of it—that little thing about 80s types having nostalgia and ‘bright lights big city’—pure vomit, as was the ‘quality TV’ going back to Playhouse 90, etc., and ending up with toilet talk in the Sopranos, etc..
But I didn't realize till your final paragraph that the way you describe the 'real leftists' applies precisely to you. The only interest is that it's a little less obviously 'working-class' than some of the ones who need careers to survive on, instead of just kvetching indolence, which is your life, isn't it? Since you tend to collect psychos more than 'embody one', your cleverness passes muster on more than a few of us for a time. You don’t seem nearly as out-of –control as most do. But then it becomes clear that you are a dyed-in-the-wool phoney. Some of the specifics of what boring k-punk said about you were inaccurate, but the meat of the matter is quite precise.
i have no idea what has set you off this time and i'm not even going to ask
ReplyDeletethat little thing about 80s types having nostalgia and ‘bright lights big city"
ReplyDeletewell the producers of the revival of the musical at least in London are hoping it's not vomit.
Then SHUDDUP.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, your 'little readership' does not mean it shouldn't be critiqued as severely as his 'huge following'.
ReplyDeletego ahead, whose stopping you? I never try to stop anyone criticisng me. Replying to criticism - which i do sometimes - is not the same as trying to prevent it.
the word verification word for this comment now is "pigess"! funny, it's like blogger is chiming in to back you up.
"well the producers of the revival of the musical at least in London are hoping it's not vomit.'
ReplyDeleteYou know perfectly well 'what set me off', but it's not public matters, so as I said, I no longer need to expose it. But that's 'what set me off', which you so condescendingly say, you are simply dishonest, insufferable, hateful. I didn't know for sure until I realized you'd sell anything just like the most ordinary salesman, just like Zizek. Yes, in your ability to avoid being 'found out to be either crazed left or crazed right', or at any rate, 'some special radicals' or just SOMETHING THAT KNOWS. It's really revolting in its arrogance, and it's inhumane as well. At least it's now official that you're OUT OF THE CLOSET, I was a 'useful idiot' for you for awhile. But that's over. I don't even think you know anything about art, frankly. If you hadn't repeated the same Zizek shit that you repeat every day, as if on some seizure or something, I was going to withhold what I wrote up last night, but somebody has to tell you what an idiot you are. Not that you can change and become a 'left crazy' or a 'right crazy' of something 'in-between' that still just talks about the 'charisma of the vagina' or whatever you're trying to sell, but just so nobody thinks I believe a word you say about anything. You've always lied, just very cleverly.
"the word verification word for this comment now is "pigess"! funny, it's like blogger is chiming in to back you up."
ReplyDeleteHow disarmingly astute of you.
zizz is too vigilant though not to cover every angle so here he is describing his own propaganda as if it's somebody else - half boasting, like an invoice to power:
ReplyDelete"Through democracy, tolerance, in an authentic sense, means that you simply cannot say certain things publicly. You are considered—you know, like if you say publicly an anti-Semitic, sexist joke, it’s unacceptable. Things which were unacceptable ten, fifteen years ago are now acceptable"
wow bravo zizek quite an accomplishment
but also, simultaneously, he diffuses the veryu xritique he is using and coopting - Golovinskiu style now - by ever so slightly altering the analysis given of the corruption of social democracy (liberals in the US)by the capitalist ruling class which has instrumentalised the political clerks offered by Hedges and many others. Zizek seeks to discredit this analysis that is pretty obvious and widespread - there are real grievances resulting from ruling class power that are at the root of petty bourgeois enthusiasm for fasho agitation - calling it a "dirty sophistic trick" of presumably the disguised sympathisers of the far right pretending to be progressives or left (he should known, since he is a leading propagandist using this trick)
The typical rhetorical trick here is in two moves. First, you of course condemn the far right—"no place in our developed democracy." But then you add, "But they are addressing the real worries of the people," and so on and so on. So, in precisely—that’s the dirty sophistic trick—in order to prevent hatred outbursts, we have to control the situation.
But it's a very ambiguous tone he takes - this is a dirty sophistic trick but he says this so oddly and wigth such embarassment and stammering that it seems that an audience that doesn't want to hear that is reassured it need not - it can ignore that this analysis - the far right are harnessing real and sometimes legitimate pain of working people in the hard ecoinomic times - is being identified as a dirty sophistic trick meant to decieve the audience. The succcess of zizneycorp is its canniness about this - because truths can be used to manipulate - and this analysis of the growth of popularity of some fasho politics (real suffering venting in a direction offered by the ruling class) is at once valid and used to manipulate by being placed in a deceptive context by zizneycorp and slightly altered (hedges notes that tea party members are really suffering and are directed their anger at scapegoats, zizek in contrast insist that there are no scapegoats and that the Roma really are the problem, but for people not paying attention, or brain damaged from tv and academia, these seem like similar contentions because they both seem to insist on the legitimacy of the grievances of some people - in hedges' case, tea party sympathisers, in zizek's terrorist lynchmobs.
the typical zizek fan is too muddle headed to tell the difference between hedges analysis of the tea party supporters and zizek's championing of racist terrorists and the typical zizekian is skilled and manipulating the resulting gullibility to go with the fanatical worship and attachment. zizek himself is careful to paint the Roma - who are the real threat and cause the legitimate grievances with their criminal way of life - as in some sense instruments of "liberals" , so his antiroma racism and incitement to neonazi crimes can be excused by his devoted fans as a critique of liberaliusm. racist mobs terrorising children are really engaged in a muscular critique of liberalism and objection to or resistance to their action is a sissified liberal squeamish prejudice against healthful violence.