Is Zizek Right Here

[Anonymous No.13648723]

>"Throughout 2009, the gay community in the Netherlands increasingly began turning towards anti-immgrant nationalist parties. The reason was simple: the Muslim community locally, as the strongest and most organized immigrant group, had become more and more vociferous in its homophobia, including even occasional recourse to violent acts."
>"How should one react to this tension? Who should we support? The pure liberal multiculturalist line gives a clear answer: we should support tolerance and symmetry. It is unfair to demand of the gay community that they work hard to convince the Muslims of their acceptability-they are what they are and nobody should be made go justify what he or she is. The first move should thus be made by the Muslim immigrants-it is they who have to accept a multiplicity of (religious, sexual,etc.) ways of life, accept that the properly political struggle shouldn't concern particularly ways of life. There is also an obvious asymmetry: when in November 2009, the Swiss decided in a referendum to prohibit the construction of minarets. Turkey (along with other Muslim countries) vigorously protested-calls were made for the boycotts of Swiss banks etc. But what about the fact that in Turkey itself, a country which sees itself as modern and wants to join the European Union, the construction of all sacred objects with the exception of mosques is prohibited? How about a new Catholic church or synagogue in Istanbul, or even better a center for atheist studies in Riyadh?"
>"What nonetheless complicated the simplicity of this position is the underlying gap in economic and political power: the tension is ultimately between the upper middle class Dutch gays and the poor exploited Muslim immigrants. In other words, what effectively fuels the Muslim animosity is their perception of gays as part of a privileged elite which exploits them and treats them like outcasts. Our question to the gays should be what did you do to help immigrants socially? Why not go there, act like a Communist, organize a struggle with them, work together?"
>"The solution of the tension is not to be found in multicultural tolerance and understanding, but in a shared struggle on behalf of universality which cuts diagonally across both communities, dividing each of them against itself but uniting the marginalized in both camps."
>"Something along these lines occurred during 2009 in the West Bank village of Bilin, where a Jewish lesbian group, complete with pierced lips, tattoos etc, came each week to demonstrate against the village's partition and demolition, joining ranks with conservative Palestinian women, each group developing a respect for each other. It is through such events, rare as they are, that the conflict between fundamentalists is exposed for what it is: a pseudo struggle, a false conflict obsfucating the true issue."

[Anonymous No.13648771]

>>13648723
>. In other words, what effectively fuels the Muslim animosity is their perception of gays as part of a privileged elite which exploits them and treats them like outcasts
wrong
and therefore
>Our question to the gays should be what did you do to help immigrants socially? Why not go there, act like a Communist, organize a struggle with them, work together?"
is a pipe dream

[Anonymous No.13648778]

>>13648723
>the poor exploited Muslim immigrants.

its all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.13648780]

>>13648771
How is if wrong? If anything it's pretty spot on

[Anonymous No.13648784]

>>13648778
So no actual counterargument just /pol/ virtue signalling and getting triggered because someone didn't believe Zionist propaganda about Muslims?

[Anonymous No.13648786]

>>13648723
Yes in theory but not so much in practise. Try telling muslims to have a "shared struggle" with the gays and they'll probably try to behead you.

[Anonymous No.13648792]

>>13648786
He literally gives an example of it working without violence at the end of the quote

[Anonymous No.13648794]

>>13648723
>something along these lines occurred during 2009 in the West Bank village of Bilin, where a Jewish lesbian group, complete with pierced lips, tattoos etc, came each week to demonstrate against the village's partition and demolition, joining ranks with conservative Palestinian women, each group developing a respect for each other
And this is why Zizek is cucked. Women do not respect other women, they simply take advantage like parasites when the opportunity arises. As soon as there is no conflict, it’s back to business as usual. This can be seen in almost any white suburban class neighborhood. Most women hate each other just the fact that they exist and take attention away from themselves. They are opportunists, and Zizek makes the gayest comparisons.

[Anonymous No.13648795]

>>13648723
Based and truly redpilled.

[Anonymous No.13648798]

>>13648723
Fuck faggots
Fuck muzlims
Fuck communists
Fuck Op and fuck jannies

[Anonymous No.13648808]

>>13648794
>argument is unfalsifiable nonsense >>13648798
Thanks for the contribution to board quality

[Anonymous No.13648815]

>>13648784
the entire premise of the argument isn't even on solid foundation. multiracialism and multiculturalism dont 'work'(they dont form cohesive countries with a high quality of governance), and have never been successful, the most aggressive elements of such societies simply subvert the least aggressive

[Anonymous No.13648825]

>>13648792
It was more of a joke than a comment on the feasibility of a universal struggle. "shared struggle"? anyone? no?

[Anonymous No.13648826]

>>13648815
Zizek's entire point is that multiculturalism doesn't work you fucking brainlet. Good to know that you didn't even read the whole thing and try to actually argue against the point you just saw the phrase "poor muslims" got triggered and resorted to your pre-programmed/pol/ talking points

[Anonymous No.13648828]

>>13648825
>it was a meme bro

[Anonymous No.13648833]

>>13648808
Oh? So Zizeks argument is verifiable?

[Anonymous No.13648836]

>>13648723
>In other words, what effectively fuels the Muslim animosity is their perception of gays as part of a privileged elite which exploits them and treats them like outcasts.
Or maybe they just hate gay people.

[Anonymous No.13648837]

>>13648780
Because reframing what is inherent to fundamentalist religious beliefs as class conflict is astonishingly stupid.

[Anonymous No.13648843]

>>13648833
Zizek states his thesis and gives real world examples to develop and ultimately persuasively argue for it. Saying "he's wrong cuz women are dumb and so are mudslimes" isn't a persuasive counter argument unless you try to provide evidence which is more persuasive than Zizek's to justify it.

I'm sorry that you think shitposting like a redditor incel is what an effective counterargument looks like

[Anonymous No.13648844]

Nonsense. Surely we, the good communists we are, should be doing our best to turn the Muslims into atheists, getting rid of the root of the problem.

[Anonymous No.13648845]

>>13648808
Of course having a common enemy can create a temporary alliance, but what is that enemy supposed to be "huwhite patriarchy"? And what will happen once the supposed enemy is destroyed? Or should it be an imaginary enemy with which we are eternally at war with?
Anyway the thoughts of zizek are retarded as usual and i hate muzlims.
Now please go back to leftypol

[Anonymous No.13648846]

>>13648837
But why?

>>13648836
He literally says as much

[Anonymous No.13648863]

>>13648844
>Noooooooooo that would be cultural imperialism you fucking racist

[Anonymous No.13648865]

>>13648845
>what is that enemy supposed to be "huwhite patriarchy"?
It's absolutely incredible how good you are at framing shit zizek explicitly argues against as something he is in favor of. Why are you even in this thread if you don't know what you're talking about?

>>13648844
Again, zizek says this both in the book this is quoted from (Living in the End times) and throughout interviews. His point is not to tolerate identity politics in either direction but also that in order to work towards the dissolution of religion you have to do it in a material way or else you'll just create resentment that makes the religious double down in the long run. Hoxha tried to aggressively eradicate religion through force and look at what happened in Albania after his regime fell: there is more religion and more tension between both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than ever.

[Anonymous No.13648868]

>>13648843
>I'm sorry that you think shitposting like a redditor incel is what an effective counterargument looks like
You’re clearly compromised by emotion and cannot properly understand human behavior.

[Anonymous No.13648870]

Has nobody on/lit/ read zizek? All of the counter arguments itt are against things zizek would agree are stupid.

[Anonymous No.13648873]

If there is one good thing that comes out of the clash of cultural values of near east and liberal west it's that it exposes and highlights the hypocritical and untenable aspects of western liberalism, such that their only recourse is to argue from bad faith ala >>13648780
>>13648846

[Anonymous No.13648877]

>>13648846
>But why?
Because poor Indians or Chinese immigrants who move to the west don't kill faggots or do terrorist attacks, it isn't an economic issue it is just their religion.

[Anonymous No.13648884]

>>13648865
>It's absolutely incredible how good you are at framing shit zizek explicitly argues against
So what is supposed to be the common enemy or problem for both communities?

[Anonymous No.13648892]

>>13648792
I do not believe at all that such an example is comparable simply because it's not really the same situation and the scale (a small village) isn't the same either.
I believe that for peaceful cohabitation to works there must not be a separating drive at works and the way I see it, that means
>No inner divisive force: no inherent drive to division in human beings, if that condition cannot be met then everything falls down
>No outer divisive force, that means going against the media, universities, politicians trying to buy new voters, non profit associations making a buck out of victimisation, no echo chamber where hatred could be built, policing every one until they can cohabit together naturally (assuming it's possible)
It's a losing fight in my opinion, the only way feasible to stop our societies to be further polarized is to make them as homogenous as possible to prevent as much conflicts as possible and that means for instance stricter immigration laws; leftists want to either change the world or do nothing but they haven't been able to make the first one come true and the later is not acceptable anymore.

[Anonymous No.13648901]

>>13648870
Zizek mumbles randomly about everything and nothing without any clear point.

[Anonymous No.13648908]

>>13648870
>against things zizek would agree
I always read this shit. Zizek is such a safe faggot, everybody agreed with him at the end, etc. And you idiots call him "provoker" or some edgy Youtuber shit. Is so annoying

[Anonymous No.13648922]

>>13648865
>work towards the dissolution of religion you have to do it in a material way
They can stay in their own shitholes and we wouldn't have to deal with such issues.
Just remove them and don't allow them to get in.

[Anonymous No.13648926]

>>13648865
>His point is not to tolerate identity politics in either direction but also that in order to work towards the dissolution of religion you have to do it in a material way
Most young muslims in the west are rootless individuals with barely any islamic values and yet they are way more agressive and way more identitarians than their pious elders that had a way shittier life than they had. It seems like eradicating differences even without using force is bound to create conflicts
Also "not tolerating identity politics" is of course a fine idea but not a feasible one

[Anonymous No.13648937]

>>13648884
The bourgeoise, capitalism and liberalism. Zizek would advocate both groups uniting with old white guys too because that's his point. Isolating the common enemy among certain religious or ethnic or other identitarian lines only reinforces their power because it dooms the movement to an inflexibility. You need to be dynamic in order to defeat the ruling class because it's structures cut across all groups and because the working class is too large to define along any one specific identity which makes up a majority. Attacking "le patriarchy" ends up perpetuating the power of capitalists because of the fact that neoliberalism utilizes social liberalism and virtue signalling to further entrench corporate power structures.

>>13648892
How can you guarantee returning to a precious socioeconomic era won't ultimately end up back at square one (ie back at liberal capitalism)

[Anonymous No.13648946]

>>13648926
>It seems like eradicating differences even without using force is bound to create conflicts
You should probably stop supporting capitalism than

>>13648908
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13648948]

>>13648908
>Slavoj "the millitary should deal with the refugee crisis" Zizek
>Slavoj "Germany shouldn't take in more refugees" Zizek
>Slavoj "transgender ideology is nonsensical" Zizek
>Slavoj "there is no Bernie Sanders without Donald Trump" Zizek
>Slavoj "being for socialism is stupid" Zizek
>Slavoj "Hitler should have been more violent" Zizek

[Anonymous No.13648957]

Reminder to vote for DENK

[Anonymous No.13648958]

>>13648946
well duh i was just making fun of you, etc

[Anonymous No.13648967]

>>13648937
>The bourgeoise, capitalism and liberalism.
Life in Europe was good enough for the masses, things go worse only after the influx of immigrants. Low skilled jobs become more difficult to get and crime rate went up.
So the enemies that i see are quite different.

[Anonymous No.13648976]

>>13648946
>stop supporting capitalism than
The only problems the west has are commies and shitskins

[Anonymous No.13649010]

>>13648844
He identified the neolibs as primary opponent and argues again simpleton progressivism on the side, not more or less.
Whether rightfully or not, the hope of the lefties of his kind is that - like history kept demonstrating - that if the lower class become more middle class, those folks end giving a fuck about their of final religious doctrine and shed their conquering spirits.
If you're /Pol/, you've lost the war anyway. There's no stopping minorities becoming the majorities in the West. So if you don't want to life your life in anger and shitpost till the end of days, best try to look out for the perspective of gues like him tbqh
>inb4 reply to this post
>inb4 I have to reply "yes, good and well - but read again, ethic replacement isn"t stoppable, so what's the point of your reply in the way you do

[Anonymous No.13649028]

>>13648937
I can't guarantee anything and neither am I trying to, I am not looking for the perfect solution that would solve everything while ignoring that my country is getting worse and worse, the more I wait the less power I have because the more divided the country gets. I cannot just hope for muslims and other minorities to embrace fraternal communism some time in the future maybe, I can on the other hand keep them out so I don't waste my energy on a divisive fight or what could be worse, the balkanisation of my country. Identity politics cannot be overcome, conflicts can't be prevented and a fraternal union is impossible.

[Anonymous No.13649032]

>>13648946
I didn't say anything about capitalism

[Anonymous No.13649037]

>>13648967
>>13648922
What you're both failing to realize is that you can't have homogenous communities under capitalism anymore, at least not indefinitely. Capitalism is at a point where it constantly is using immigration to drive down wages for domestic laborers and so that there is constantly a cheap source of labor who have literally no labor protections at all. When it becomes feasible they will do the same thing with automated machines (which is why a certain degree of anti-immgrant right populism is being tolerated by western liberal elites, they're going to need someone to start strongarming both the domestic working classes and the immigrants when automation really begins to ramp up, not to mention other things such as climate change)

Why do you think Trump has only gone through with half-measures on the trade war and cloaking the border with Mexico, along with pretty much totally capitulating to neoliberals and neoconservative on foreign policy? Why do you think the bourgeoise are unilaterally against Brexit? (And in a sense are correct. Personally I think the EU should be obliterated so I am pro-brexit in that sense but theres no doubt it will cause at least severe short term economic upheaval) You literally can't disrupt global trade atal without threatening the entire system and to maintain it you have to exacerbate it.

The "Great Replacement" narrative is pretty much correct in the sense that elites have intentionally created a scenario where they want to flood Europe and North America with huge masses of immigrants from the global south but the conclusion that it is to gradually kill off white men is incorrect. To be sure, one of the goals is almost certainly to use the immigrants backwardness in order to divide the working class, but the ultimate goal is to preserve a massive cheap labor pool.

[Anonymous No.13649043]

>>13648723
SO basically his answer is the groups need to find a common enemy in the oligarchs/bourgeois leaders?
He has even less awareness than is apparent from his blatant cole addiction- the Muslims of the world are not insterested in the neo liberal progressivism with capital as their god, they already have a god. Any agreement with them would be a temporary speed bump delaying inevitable religious war
Leave it to a narcissistic westerner to not take a whole religion at its word. Muslims writ large are not at all confused about the reason for conflict and it’s logical end
Retard

[Anonymous No.13649046]

>>13649010
>There's no stopping minorities becoming the majorities in the West.
Do you have any reason to believe this?
Immigration can be regulated or outlawed completely you know.

[Anonymous No.13649063]

>>13649046
>spawns 6 kids

[Anonymous No.13649079]

>>13649028
Subvert Islam and seperate people from their backward elders.
Half of the aggressiveness is class struggle anyway. Yes, the Turk who knows he'll never like math or Proust and will switch from hairdresser to clerk if it pays 30€ more per month, this guy will be a threat to cohesion, but not because of he thinks Sharia is God given. It's shitloads of unusable people with not future that makes it dangerous.

[Anonymous No.13649083]

>>13649063
>removes you and your progeny from the country

[Anonymous No.13649090]

>>13648723
>"Something along these lines occurred during 2009 in the West Bank village of Bilin
He has actually said since then that he doesn't really believe in this kind of stuff, even giving an example of Palestine/Israel. Although he still pushes this idea of shared struggle that cuts diagonally across communities.

What he has been advocating as well is segregation. It reminds me of the way the Ottoman Empire used to work, at least ideologically, in the later centuries of its existence. Basically you have an appartment building, the state is the janitor going through the halls and every community is in its own flat. Of course there were only a limited amount of officially sanctioned communities, faith-based, and islamic/secular-islamic rules were in place to govern the whole thing.

Zizeks emphasis on Leitkultur and Hegels notion of Sittligkeit as the social fabric of unwritten rules is at the ground of his vision, I think. What's interesting to me is the need for developing a secular domain of thought and practice in western societies, esp. Europe, by muslims within their islamic identity. This is something that requires effort, time and intellectuals and is will continue to be a struggle within their communities. Derrida said this as well, that there has to be space for developing secular thought.

Then there's other folk who would like to develop a kind of religion of society à la Rousseau, or the USA, where we 'worship' secular society which allows citizens of all kinds of ethnicities and religions to participate. But this also has a very individualist bend to it, and given the instabilities in the coming decades people will fall back on trusted communal identities along well-known fault-lines I suppose.

[Anonymous No.13649091]

>>13649043
See
>>13648937

[Anonymous No.13649109]

>>13649037
I don't see how it is a necessity for capitalism to have unemployable people imported to the country who for the most part exploit welfare.
The only people who profit are leftwing politicians and for profit ngo's.

[Anonymous No.13649118]

>>13649079
>Subvert Islam and seperate people from their backward elders.
Or don't let them come in, that seems way more feasible than your solution. It's not even about Islam anyway, it could have been mexicans or shitload of asians or anyone else, the point is there is going to be division and people faning the flames no matter what and the conflict cannot feasibly be sursumed.

[Anonymous No.13649126]

>>13649091
But a group like “gays” can not attack liberalism under any circumstances- at least not fully: liberalism is the only reason they’re allowed to exist
If homosexuals want ANY future they ought to stop playfighting with the forces of capitalism and champion then against their actual ultimate enemy, religious fundamentalists of all stripes

Homos and Muslims aren’t two differing groups: Muslims are the targets/enemies of capitalism and homos are success projects: people with no culture or community except the market that provides them gay bars, queer eye, and rainbow flags

Homos and Muslims are representatives of the two forces fighting: traditionalism and capital. Zizek aregument is lughablbly ignorant even in its framing

[Anonymous No.13649131]

>>13649090
>where we 'worship' secular society which allows citizens of all kinds of ethnicities and religions to participate.
I do not believe this "worship" to be sincere, but that's just my opinion

[Anonymous No.13649132]

>>13649118
>Or don't let them come in, that seems way more feasible than your solution
It's actually not very feasible, unless entire Europe starts what would basically be a war against the immigrants.

[Anonymous No.13649138]

>>13648865
>His point is not to tolerate identity politics in either direction but also that in order to work towards the dissolution of religion you have to do it in a material way or else you'll just create resentment that makes the religious double down in the long run.
Yes, people are conspiring to subvert religion, and that's a good thing :)

[Anonymous No.13649139]

>>13649126
Just one last point on this:

The only two sides are religious fundamentalists fighting every form of capitals manifest infection (homosexuality, women’s rights, etc) and those who are, on some level, falling for capital

The fundamentalists he describes in the West Bank allying with feminist Jews have no right to claim being on the side of anti-capital bourgeois etc. They sell their membership to fundamentalism to engage in the pseudo conflicts given to capitalist proletarians and accept their rightful place as drones of capital. The idea that a feminist Jewish lesbian can even pretend to hold an anti capital position is ludicrous

[Anonymous No.13649147]

>>13649132
So?

[Anonymous No.13649150]

>>13649132
I wouldn't say stopping picking up people on the coast of lybia or closing borders or stopping family reunion to be a war of any sort but if it must come to that then I'll have no choice but to support it. To be sure it would require a drastic rethinking of the european union and an anti-liberal revolution (intellectually speaking of course), it most likely won't happen but again neither will your subverted Islam

[Anonymous No.13649181]

>>13649132
>start war against immigrants
Literally the most winnable war of all time; so feasiblenits not even ducking funny and as soon as desensitized zoomers are leading Europe it will be happening

[Anonymous No.13649199]

>>13648723
lel
I'd happily kill any of these reactionary sandniggers, just as I'd happily kill any Trump-loving pol-tard, because they want exactly the same, the power to tell me what I should do and think, under threat of violence

Zizek himself should go into some Muslim ghetto and spout his other-cheek-'Communism' and see whether they would simply laugh at his drooling monkey clown act like his usual mortgage-paying Liberal audience

[Anonymous No.13649201]

He almost outlines political theology's critique of liberalism, namely that it can only tolerate permissive and passive difference which is easily integrated, but can't deal with radically exclusive difference like Islam's singular prohibition against gays. The only solution to that problem, from liberalism's standpoint, is a solution that is really undertaken and obviously takes place everyday, but which is not philosophically justifiable, so it can't be allowed to enter consciousness positively (e.g., by being articulated by a philosopher or professor). That solution is the de facto situation that Muslims do integrate, and do become deracinated from the traditions that cause them to be radically exclusive of gays.

Again, this can't be positively articulate, because the premise of posing the dilemma is implicitly to ARBITRATE between gays and Muslims in a way that is positive and satisfactory to both. That's the whole point of the dilemma in the first place: What can you say to the gay and the Muslim that satisfies both? If you simply compel the Muslim to permit homosexuality, like Zizek says, you are restricting his "rights" to be different. That's the form of the dilemma. So liberalism has to hem and haw, be evasive, even outright lie. The liberal response will be to shift the dilemma to some empirical domain, for example by citing a statistic like "Muslims in the West statistically become more and more permissive of gays with each generation." But if you pose the question purely formally, in the abstract, for instance by saying "Suppose, in defiance of all statistical trends, some one Muslim simply refused to tolerate gays," the liberal pretty much has to terminate the conversation. He can't have an answer. He just has to hope that situation never occurs.

But he's in a good situation there because the denaturing and deracinating effects of neoliberal socio-economic engineering are actually very strong. By treating people as passive and abstract consumers, and destroying or at least suppressing all other forms of being, people naturally take the path of least resistance and fit the mold of a passive and abstract consumer. Then when they are angsty because they have abandoned their ancestral traditions, you sell them some re-warmed vague humanism/progressivism as a pseudoreligion to take some of the edge off. Just enough to keep them from returning to any traditions.

[Anonymous No.13649212]

>>13649201
Zizek's response is correct in abstract form, namely that people should be given an eschatology. He prefers the Marxist eschatology. This is essentially what Carl Schmitt was saying in The Concept of The Political, when he said that in a post-political or apolitical order, where "politics" exists only in the technocratic managerial sense and there is no political, essentially anything can become the ground for the political. He even talks about Marxism or similar economic movements as one possibility. But the point is, once something becomes the political, it is the political. Just because its "origin" was the "economic sphere" in some sense doesn't mean it remains economic. That requires a philosophical anthropology or universal theory of history that splits human endeavours into distinct domains a priori, which can't be justified. The political is simply whatever is the basis of politics, in the grandest possible sense. As the political it will necessarily involve sovereignty, the sovereignty to decide in cases of organization, hierarchy, "state" violence and warfare, repression of certain behaviours and promotion of others, even terror, etc.

If Zizek prefers Marxism as his eschatology that's up to him, but he hasn't justified it at a Hegelian level of objectivity and universality, he's only staked his subjective claim on what world he would like to live in (presumably some kind of egalitarianism, without capitalist exploitation). His position is as subjective as the Muslim's, who can simply reply "I agree we need a shared struggle that cuts across both communities; that's why Islam is the way." Except the Muslim can at least make a claim from revelation, fideism, or intellectual intuition, all three of which bypass (in at least some way) the dilemma posed by the implicit political theology underlying liberal "tolerance." Zizek doesn't do this, because his appeal probably isn't to metaphysical certainty like the Muslim's, or like an old school Marxist claiming the dialectic to be self-evident (and thus accusing all those who don't see its self-evidence of insanity or infirmity). He probably appeals to the same tacit humanism, fundamentally grounded in the same political theology of "negative liberty" and "tolerance" of the liberal. The liberal refused to answer the question, more or less responding "Gee I sure hope that doesn't happen! Look at these statistics showing it might not happen!" but he was unable to respond to the dilemma in its pure form. If Zizek is similarly resting on a humanistic/progressive argument for embracing Marxist class struggle, at the logical level he is saying the same thing as the liberal: "the Muslim would be better off or happier if he embraced class struggle rather than Islam, or at least ranked class struggle higher in a conflict," which may or may not be true or arguable with all kinds of empirical data, but still simply DOES NOT ANSWER the pure form of the question: "Suppose the Muslim says 'no'?"

[Anonymous No.13649218]

>>13649212
If Zizek goes beyond an argument of "it would be for the best if ... happened" or "I would like it if ... happened," and goes over outright to "When the chips are down, I will do everything in my power to ensure that ... happens," then all he's done is prove Schmitt right. He's essentially a fascist, just a fascist whose preferred political mythology/theology happens to be Marxist.

So Zizek isn't "wrong," he's just dodging the question and he's firmly within the liberal/neoliberal weltanschauung or anti-weltanschauung when he does it. All of the presuppositions of his solution are liberal. He's actually trying to do the same thing to the Muslim as has been done to him: turn him into a follower of his belief system in name only, and a liberal at the core.

The only alternative like I said is to overthrow liberalism. But that's just fascism, even if you call it Marxism. So Zizek can either be a liberal who calls himself a Marxist (ivory tower academic scum) or a fascist who calls himself a Marxist (totalitarian communist).

[Anonymous No.13649223]

>>13649199
>Trump-loving pol-tard
>the power to tell me what I should do and think
They mostly want to reduce immigration and taxes.

[Anonymous No.13649226]

>>13649150
The only problem with this is that it would expose the lie of Liberalism, just as Trumps US is doing. The post-1945 West was 'better' than the Nazi's or the Soviets because it championed 'freedom' and 'openness'.

When you want to start gunning down immigrants because they pollute your pure culture, you are just a Nazi, exactly like the US or China, and you can no longer feel like you are heirs of 500 years of Western Liberal ascendancy

[Anonymous No.13649235]

>>13649223
Just like the sandniggers just want to be respected and not have their peaceful religion judged as superstitious garbage, and nobody's gunning down anybody anywhere.
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.13649238]

There's a Dutch homophobic muslim party (DENK) that gets labeled as progressive left in the media

[Anonymous No.13649249]

>>13649226
I don't think the west has a particularly good set up for society or that this ideology has lead to technological and economic progress.
The industrial revolution didn't happen because liberalism created the framework for it, but it started on it's own due to the creative genius of specific people.

[Anonymous No.13649267]

>>13648926
It's actually forbidden for a muslim to travel from a mulsim country to a non-muslim country if doing so will jeopardize his faith (unless your life is in danger but that must be the only reason, and once the conflict has ended in your country, you must go back).

https://www.al-islam.org/a-code-of-practice-for-muslims-in-the-west-ayatullah-sistani/migration-non-muslim-countries

[Anonymous No.13649279]

>>13649201
>But he's in a good situation there because the denaturing and deracinating effects of neoliberal socio-economic engineering are actually very strong. By treating people as passive and abstract consumers, and destroying or at least suppressing all other forms of being, people naturally take the path of least resistance and fit the mold of a passive and abstract consumer. Then when they are angsty because they have abandoned their ancestral traditions, you sell them some re-warmed vague humanism/progressivism as a pseudoreligion to take some of the edge off. Just enough to keep them from returning to any traditions.
That is obviously the gameplan but it does not seem to work, the current generation of european borned muslims are already far into denaturation: walking around town i've often heard young muslims joking about not following the ramadan, wearing chinese sneakers, smelling like mcdonald's and listening to rap music; despite all of that the violence not only does not diminish, it exponentially worsens. Add to that the constant influx of "untainted" muslims every year which, I don't know how, affects the whole in a kind of synergetic way that makes the situation even shittier and you have a big failure of liberalism on your hands.
I think that the denaturation process takes for granted things that were making western societies work which I believe were mostly cultural things (and therefore western things), now that the eradication of culture is a success liberalism is left with nothing but it's own negative movement, sadly you can't have a house without foundation and I think we'll see that soon enough

[Anonymous No.13649280]

>>13649235
It is really different, these people are migrating to a different country and trying to impose their religious views besides creating a shit ton of other problems due to their behaviour.
If the pol/tards as you call them, migrated to Zimbabue, tried to impose their moral doctrines on the local population with violence, commited the majority of crime and terrorist attacks.
I guess in that situation muslims and pol/tards would be the same.

[Anonymous No.13649288]

>>13649267
It's also forbidden to smoke weed and drink alcohol and yet here they are

[Anonymous No.13649293]

>>13649279
>despite all of that the violence not only does not diminish
Well, of course it doesn't. The leftwingers want to desperately believe that the only problem is religion here, but there is also most likely a higher predisposition towards violence possibly due to genetic factors.

[Anonymous No.13649296]

For a leftist Zizek is amazingly redpilled about the immigration question.

[Anonymous No.13649309]

>>13649147
>>13649181
Try playing less video games. Reality is a bit more complex.

>>13649150
>stopping picking up people on the coast of lybia or closing borders or stopping family reunion
Do all that, and they'll keep going. Borders are closed on many places, which is just causing distress and violence, the immigrants just go down different, more dangerous paths that make it impossible to know where they are anymore. They are uncontrolled and break into houses in rural areas. They are also smuggled through borders by opportunists in trucks.
I live in SE Europe. We'd literally need an army from other EU countries to actually prevent them from moving through. This is what is happening.

>but again neither will your subverted Islam
I'm not >>13649079, I'm just commenting on this retarded "solution" that is ridiculously difficult in practice. You can't just click here and there to send an army from the entire Europe to kill some barbarians like you would in Civilization.
What is neglected and is extremely important is also that these immigrants really do have an idealistic image of Europe, it is their central life goal to move here. And this idea is actually nurtured primarily by smugglers who transport them by ships and trucks - they make unbelievable amounts of money off the immigrants (getting into such ships and trucks usually takes entire life savings) and without them I can bet the waves would be massively smaller.

>>13649226
Also this. It kills any purpose and contradicts what makes West worthy of living in in the first place - strong and universal moral principles and justice. Bringing back tribalism into the game will just cause national conflicts all over again (the genocidal breakup of Yugoslavia was the most recent such case).

[Anonymous No.13649311]

>>13649293
That is of course possible but I didn't mean physical violence exclusively but tensions altogether

[Anonymous No.13649313]

>>13649288
It is ok if it serves to deceive the kafir and to take over his land and to expand islam (Taqiya).

[Anonymous No.13649329]

>>13649063
*implements one child policy for immigrants,

[Anonymous No.13649344]

>>13649309
Please explain how a war between a nuclear armed nation with some of the most advanced military tech would lose a land war against a country literally collapsing because of internal strife with its most comités fighters leaving for oversees
Read a fucking military textbook you insipid moron, The only reason no one has anihilated these nations is because it would cause more collateral damage- if war was actually fully on it would be done in a matter of months

[Anonymous No.13649348]

is this guy retarded?

[Anonymous No.13649349]

PEOPLE TAKE THIS SNIFFING DOG SERIOUSLY? LOL

[Anonymous No.13649359]

>>13649279
That's the real secret to the whole mess. Whether it was a conscious conspiracy or not, multiculturalism stupidly assumed that everybody could be turned into a rootless docile consumer in the same way. Apparently, not only are some peoples and cultures more resistant to this process, the old traditions remain dormant, and can be reactivated even in people who have seemingly assimilated, especially as they come into contact with unassimilated kinsmen who are more virile.

I think the biggest thing that neoliberal elites underestimated was the deep instinctive disdain that most humans have for weakness, decadence, and cultural effeteness, for how ugly and trashy hedonism can be. The average joe probably took to hedonism so quickly that it looked all too easy, it looked to the elites like any people could be turned into the neoliberal ideal of docile consumers within a generation at most. But paradoxically I bet you that the ease of that transition wasn't an OBJECTIVE feature of human beings, a priori, but a function of the very fact that they were deracinating people who came from more traditional cultures. If you take the child of a strict Lutheran family and tell them that they can do whatever they want, be a hippie, smoke weed and lounge around all day, they're going to go nuts. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the hippie's kids are going to want more of the same. It's just as possible that the hippie's kids are going to reverse the process.

The neoliberal elite's tacit understanding of human consciousness is that it's 100% constructivist, 100% immanently historicist. So, if you dilute all the structures and institutions of tradition (the Lutheran parental generation), after a few generations there will be no more traditions to preserve, and people will be gelatinous consumers, totally open to manipulation by something like B. Stiegler's "drive-based capitalism." But this understanding wasn't justified, only assumed (or outright gambled upon) tacitly. What we may actually be seeing right now is the empirical manifestation of a transcendent fact about the human being: humans primordially crave tradition, and even if all their traditions have been smashed, they will still crave tradition in the abstract, tradition as such, and try to "found" a "new" tradition (which they will obviously perceive as uncovering the latent tradition), i.e., in the absence of politics, the political will always be rediscovered.

[Anonymous No.13649368]

>>13649309
So what's your point? Even if it doesn't mitigate the flow it should be done instead of just letting them come in, as for smugglers we have more than enough ressources to deal with them with extra-judiciary means if you catch my drift. The only thing lacking is the will to do it and it is the unsurmountable obstacle

[Anonymous No.13649369]

>>13649349
Only college students in the west with no real world experienxe

[Anonymous No.13649385]

>>13649309
>Reality is a bit more complex.
Yes anon, but only if it is something that you might not agree with.
>Do all that, and they'll keep going
Wrong, traveling to europe is quite expensive for them only the middle class among them can do it, and if you start sending them back. They will with time understand that it is an enourmous waste of money and time.
>what makes West worthy of living in in the first place
The west is good to live in because it has low crime rates, a good economy and non oppressive governments. There is no principle fundamental to the west that implies free immigration and no borders.
Anyway most of the good elements are eroding due to leftist politics, the governments are more oppressive, the economy is going to shit due to immigration and the crime rates are up.

[Anonymous No.13649462]

>>13649201
>The only solution to that problem, from liberalism's standpoint, is a solution that is really undertaken and obviously takes place everyday, but which is not philosophically justifiable, so it can't be allowed to enter consciousness positively (e.g., by being articulated by a philosopher or professor). That solution is the de facto situation that Muslims do integrate, and do become deracinated from the traditions that cause them to be radically exclusive of gays.
Interesting point. I'm not sure how relevant these series of articles are relevant to your post, but they are pretty relevant to the thread. I know it's an Arktos article, but it does point out how the progressive left has subverted the right with Islamophobia by turning conservatives against the only far-right ideology with any semblance of respectable international power, while convincing muslims to more secular and open to progressive ideals.

https://arktos.com/2019/04/26/islamophobia-trojan-horse-amidst-the-right/

[Anonymous No.13649483]

>>13649344
Holy shit, you really have played too many video games.
>how a war between a nuclear armed nation
Europe is not a nation, believe it or not.
Also, throwing nukes would open a whole new can of worms and it's just spectacular how braindead you are by thinking they are an option in any way.
>a land war against a country literally collapsing
This would not be a war against a specific country you complete retard, oh my god, the problem is in the immigrants that have abandoned that country. Libya or whatever country you imagined the entire Europe attacking is actually supposed to be more developed so that people don't want to escape from it into Europe.
Stick to playing Civilization, seriously.

>>13649368
>Even if it doesn't mitigate the flow it should be done instead of just letting them come in
But we're not letting them all come in. Instead, they stay near fences, die of hunger and diseases, slowly are let in, or go down different unguarded paths and wreck shit, uncontrolled. This has been going on for quite a while, they know well enough how difficult it is to get through, and their numbers are still not significantly declining.
>as for smugglers we have more than enough ressources to deal with them with extra-judiciary means if you catch my drift
epic, except that Europe is not Philippines

>>13649385
>Wrong, traveling to europe is quite expensive for them only the middle class among them can do it, and if you start sending them back. They will with time understand that it is an enourmous waste of money and time.
Ah, obviously. Just create EU army, send it to Balkan to catch all the tens of thousands of immigrants and organize their transport back to their countries of origin. Also a fleet for those who travelled over the Mediterranean and ended up in Italy, for example. Easy peasy.
>The west is good to live in because it has low crime rates, a good economy and non oppressive governments. There is no principle fundamental to the west that implies free immigration and no borders.
Freedom of movement has been an extremely important thing within the EU for decades.
And the governments are not oppressive precisely because of those specific western ideas and ideals of equality of opportunity.

[Anonymous No.13649485]

I don't always agree with him but I'm going to miss him so much if he dies, I want him to live forever.

[Anonymous No.13649500]

>>13649483
>But we're not letting them all come in
the legal immigration numbers beg to differ, even discarding illegal immigration they are already way too high
>epic, except that Europe is not Philippines
yet
that is not an argument, survival is not a matter of principles and there's nothing that inherently prevents europeans from doing these kind of stuff, as they are probably doing currently anyway but to a smaller scale.

[Anonymous No.13649505]

>>13648771
fpbp /thread

Žižek is pretty bad at politics most of the time.

[Anonymous No.13649510]

Well in way yea, he is trying to navigate a way between 2 opposite groups. But I'm not sure the Muslims will accept the hell of the gay even for material betterment. The cause has to be insanely important for the Muslims to accept fags help, and that certainly in to the rising to middle class.

[Anonymous No.13649520]

>>13649483
>Just create EU army, send it to Balkan
Or you can just finance local governments to do this on their own. Which would be way more cost efficient than taking in the immigrants.
>Freedom of movement has been an extremely important thing within the EU for decades.
Not really that essential, and it was applied only to european countries not the entire fucking world.
>western ideas and ideals of equality of opportunity
No, not really. It is mostly a liberal idea of not trying to oppress political dissent, which the left can't do, since if they did the local population would express what they really think about immigration and shitskins.

[Anonymous No.13649525]

>>13649505
>big sniff on anything other than hegel and toilets
I would prefer not to.

[Anonymous No.13649532]

>>13649483
Also european courts are making sure that there is no effective way for countries to check the flow of illegals, they raised the difficulty of deportation so high it has become almost impossible to do it. You can't deport them at sight even when you've caught them illegally trespassing borders or when they've assaulted guards that aren't allowed to defend themselves, you can't deport them collectively, you have to assess every individual situation while you can't keep them locked at your disposal, time is of course restricted, you can't deport them to some countries because of bullshit reasons (healthcare for instance), the list goes on... So tell me again how we aren't letting them in.

[Anonymous No.13649534]

>"When I speak of the "Marxist movement" or of "Marxists," I mean all of these groups and individuals, all those, that is to say, identified in common speech as Marxist and who, historically and theoretically, have a plausible connection with Marx and Marx's theories. This must be made clear because of a habit which Marxists have taken over, perhaps, from the Church. Whenever an analysis is made of actions of members of the Church or institutions of the Church which might seem to be detrimental to the good name of the Church and its divine claims, the reply is always given that these actions are not "really" those of the Church, which is a mystic and supernatural body, but only of some erring human acting not for the Church but in keeping with his sinful human nature. By this argumentative method, the record of the Church is, of course, perfect.
Similarly, each variety of Marxist denies responsibility for the actions of all other varieties, and indeed for all actions of his own group which have not worked out well or which have seemed to move away from instead of toward socialism. Just as with the Church, the case for Marxism is irreproachable by this method. We can, however, permit neither of them this comforting luxury. When we deal the cards, we will make sure that they are not stacked."

[Anonymous No.13649536]

>>13649483
>deh le video games
Hahah fuck kid, you got me laughing with your inane pedantry
Wars have not been fought between solitary nations over solitary issues in decades, pardon me for trying to use words you’d understand- you’re still yet to explain why a functioning and advanced entity would be unable to wage war on one literally broken up on the societal level
But please, evade again and tell me more about video games and how wars don’t actually happen in the real world

Fucking ignoramus- the whole reason the regions are failing is because the west has been predating on them since WWI- lol what are you even talking about? Your comparing entities with barely unified armies with nations that have the most refined military institutions in existence

Brainless shit

[Anonymous No.13649566]

>>13649536
Just posted this and I can feel the stupid counterproductive réponse about to manifest, so let me be unbearably specific:
People openly affiliated with nations/regions/peoples X are flooding region Y and committing crime
To declare open warfare on X, Y would have only to find a singular event and a purported official target, and then begin warmaking processes which are intricate and sundry and would likely involved outsourcing wars to friendly rebels and then repeating the process as necessary
This actually HAS been done on smaller scales and could be done on a larger broad scale focusing on a populace in general

[Anonymous No.13649579]

>>13649483
>nukes would open up a can of worms
>believing neolib indoctrination
Japan was hit by two nukes and was grieving within a decade
Just accept you know fuckall about warfare pls

[Anonymous No.13649583]

>>13649483
Also why is waging war on the people abandoning their country harder? Lol you’re just failing to see steps ahead

Europe sinks immigrant ships, immigrants run back home and their governments take umbrage against le ebil westerners
Then Europe goes to war with them
What are you missing?

[Anonymous No.13649588]

>>13649579
>grieving
Thriving, obv. Really hope you got that and aren’t going to be a pedantic shit once more

[Anonymous No.13649589]

>>13649520
>Or you can just finance local governments to do this on their own. Which would be way more cost efficient than taking in the immigrants.
Balkans are far too shitty and disorganized to actually do that successfully. What you suggest would most likely turn into heavy bullshittery and breeding grounds for financial malversations. I live in one of the supposedly better Balkan countries and know well enough that our military just doesn't have the education, manpower and levels of organization for the project you suggest. These are your standard simplifications, at this point, just throw money at it and it'll get fixed amirite?

>>13649532
I regularly hear about the police literally beating the immigrants at the borders, starvation and illnesses. They're certainly not being let in with any ease.

>>13649566
Congratulations for saying something half-coherent finally.
Except that waging wars against islamic countries would worsen the situation in every way, create more immigrants, anti-European animosity (ergo more terrorism), and further destabilize ME and north Africa. The actual problem is in the immigrants that have broken their ties with the countries that you'd attack. Attacking Libya because there are Libyan immigrants here is missing the point so much it's just hilarious.

>>13649583
what the fuck would Europe get out of a full-blown war with the islamic world?

[Anonymous No.13649609]

>>13649589
>more immigrants
Attack the boats; see>>13649583
Not hard at all- just non workable by outdated standard of pacifist morality

>destabilization
Not pertinent to the convo at all: fuck other nations they are literally soft invading Europe- the POINT of war is to destabilize you enemy

>more immigrant shit
Again you’re just not committed to warfare- you’re understanding this as a neolib pacifist
You fucking enforce borders. Problem solved. Third world era cannot sneak into your country if you close docks and airports to them an puts troops on borders

>what would they get
No more immigrants. Jesus fuck are you retarded? How many more circles should we run around?

[Anonymous No.13649616]

>>13649589
>I regularly hear about the police literally beating the immigrants at the borders, starvation and illnesses. They're certainly not being let in with any ease.
It might be the case outside of western europe (I remember some meme bulgarian tracksuit guy who became a hero through beating migrants into a pulp) but that is in no way because of the european union which is well set into making deportations impossible, you are talking about minor local stuff

[Anonymous No.13649650]

>>13649609
LMAO, except that ME is already destabilized and that is why we have immigrants in the first place. You think they'd suddenly all decide to stay in their shitholes while/because the EU army bombs them?

>other nations they are literally soft invading Europe
Except that they're not, the immigrants abandoned their countries of origin and don't really care if you bomb them or not. The islamic countries are in general not benefiting from those immigrants in here, they're just losing population.

>>13649616
That's how most of Balkan functions, and that is one of the two key paths of the immigrants.

[Anonymous No.13649653]

>>13649589
They get to the balkans by going through greece, so you can finance greece.
>just throw money at it and it'll get fixed amirite?
Yes and no. What lacks isn't the man power, it is mostly a lack of political will to actually deal with the issue (because if you do, you are a wacist).
Also, by your logic there is no point in having laws of any sort.
>dude the police doesn't capture all the criminals
>dude the police is corrupt
>therefore it's literally impossible and or useless to have a police force and to attempt to prevent prime or capture criminals

[Anonymous No.13649669]

>>13649650
>The islamic countries are in general not benefiting from those immigrants in here, they're just losing population.
God damn, you are trully a retard.
The turkish immigrants in Germany support Turkey and Erdogan, pic related is a """German""" city.

[Anonymous No.13649676]

>>13649669
The current illegal immigration waves do not come from Turkey though, lel

[Anonymous No.13649691]

>>13649676
It doesn't matter. They still support their nation of origin, people of their same ethnic group and their religion.

[Anonymous No.13649694]

>>13649676
Neither does it come from the ME

[Anonymous No.13649701]

>>13649650
Oh my god- you have to read the posts to have a convo retard
The immigrants stop coming if you staring booming their rafts, guarding your borders, throwing illegals out, and stopping flights from non grata airports. Obviously not perfect but 100% different than the “enforcement” of now

And if you don’t think it’s a soft invasion you’re not listening to your local imam who, by the way, is a more credible source for info than any political leader

Also, the destabilization can increase until the people stop entering Europe there is literally no bottom limit to how bad it can get. This is a war strategy- see WT Sherman as a quick reminder

[Anonymous No.13649710]

>>13649109
Okay i'll explain. If you put a enormous number of wage worker on the labor market, it drive the price of labor down. Why is that? Because the owner of the mean of production is in a position of strenght when the wage has to be determined.
Wage labor is like another produced item. The more an item is scarce, the more expensive it is. The more wage labor is scarce, the more expensive it is. The opposite is also true. The less wage labor is scarce, the less expensive it is. Hence, the massive push for mass immigration. More and more wage worker on the labor market. Thus it drive the price more and more down.
About welfare, it is not paid by companies. Companies pay very few taxes. Welfare is paid by the wage worker themselves. So yes, mass immigration is a weight, but not on the Capital. It is a weight on the working class, which has to pay more taxes, in order to pay new immigrants welfare.

[Anonymous No.13649734]

>>13649223
Nah, they also want to see all of their enemies put away, eradication of the 'Dumz' and anyone who doesn't follow the ZioGod Emperor.
During and after the election it was common for them to call for anyone disagreeing to be sent to FEMA camps. Big part of why I hate Trumptards, just as ridiculous and dogmatic as the 'Dumz'.

[Anonymous No.13649763]

>>13649710
>Okay i'll explain
I know all of this. But considering that the absolute majority is unemployed ( more than 80% of Syrian refugees in Europe) and that they haven't reduced the price of labour and that there was already a high unemployment rate among young europeans, this really doesn't make sense.
The state literally has to force companies to employ those immigrants, most of who don't have any skills what so ever.
The only people who benefit are the immigrants and maybe leftwing politicians.

[Anonymous No.13649778]

>>13649734
>they also want to see all of their enemies put away
Yet they have never commited violence.
The only violence to ever happen were leftoids attacking Trump voters.

[Anonymous No.13649796]

>>13649181
>the boomership of the zoomertariat
yikes

[Anonymous No.13649813]

>>13649778
Fake and gay
But even if real it would be irrelevant. Learn basic logic, /ptg/

[Anonymous No.13649834]

>>13649813
I don't even support trump.
But the reality is that there were massive attacks on trump supporters and zero (real) on democrat supporters.

[Anonymous No.13649862]

>>13649763
Even if the decrease in wage wasn't obvious, 2015 mass immigration had an effect on wage labor. Even stagnated is a victory for the Capital. In any case, you seem to underestimate how ruthless the Capital is, when it comes to push the labor price down. If for you it doesn't make sense, for the Capital it is litterally a struggle to death against the working class. It is not something new. It already happened in the 16th century, when peasant were expropriated of their lands, in order to be put on the labor market, or in the 19th century, when the factories used the extra workers from the countryside, to work into the city factories.
If Syrians don't have any skill yet, after a few year to learn German in public schools, they'll be able to compete with native Germans in low skill labor.
Low skill labor require very low mental ability. Even the less intelligent races are good material for the Capital in order to put constant pressure on wages. A Congoid is not as stupid as you think. He most likely won't crack the atom, but he can work in a factory, clean, work in construction, cook etc...

[Anonymous No.13649869]

>>13648780
>muslims harrass fags and throw them off the rooftops
>"Ugh this is your own fault, you have to help the muslims"

[Anonymous No.13649893]

>>13649869
Imagine having reading comprehension this shit

[Anonymous No.13649911]

>>13649893
Imagine having to mentally contort yourself into knots to support both multiculturalism and gay rights.
Imagine imagining things.

[Anonymous No.13649912]

>>13649763
https://www.ft.com/content/bea8507e-64cb-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56

[Anonymous No.13649917]

>>13649763
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-refugee-intake-boost-economy-ageing-population-unemployment-a8901161.html

[Anonymous No.13649923]

>>13649911
>support multiculturalism
Pretty funny that you think that's what the argument is about when the op is specifically criticizing the liberal approach to the issue

[Anonymous No.13649964]

>>13649763
>>13649710
>>13649037
>>13649109
>leaving out the fact it artificially inflates the price of real estate

[Anonymous No.13650023]

>>13649917
>propaganda from the ministry of truth

[Anonymous No.13650051]

>>13649201
Nice post

[Anonymous No.13650083]

>>13650023
Boomer tier reply

[Anonymous No.13650113]

He's not talked much about here, but Maurice Cowling nicely phrases why Zizek is wrong here--and also why, despite his thrashing, Zizek is a Liberal to boot:

"Liberalism is essentially the belief that there can be a reconciliation of all difficulties and differences, and since there can't, it is a misleading way to approach politics."

[Anonymous No.13650137]

>>13650113
This sounds interesting, you read any of his works? Any recs?

[Anonymous No.13650157]

>>13650137

Only read The Nature and Limits of Political Science. Highly recommended. Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England is evidently his greatest work.

Really I don't understand why he hasn't become a meme yet. He's ripe material for it.

Choice quote: "I am set against against the higher liberalism and all sorts of liberal rhetoric...and in favour of irony, geniality and malice as solvents of enthusiasm, virtue and political elevation."

[Anonymous No.13650173]

If Europe gets done in by some sandniggers then it deserved to be eradicated for its weakness. Kill, or be killed.

[Anonymous No.13650179]

>>13650157
I'll check it out, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13650188]

>>13650023
You cannot expect to win against an enemy if you don't understand your enemy, how it works, and don't even know who he is.
I don't see how a Syrian immigrant who learned German at public school and got training funded by the State cannot replace a native German, especially if this Syrian has a muslim family to feed.
You basic racism and fierce hatred of non whites makes you completely underestimate the replacement potential of sand people and Congoids. You underestimate Capitalism reserve army, and it will be your downfall.
You think they are stupid, unable to do shit, to work. But with a little training from the German State, paid with income taxes of course, teaching of the language and basic technical skills, they are able to compete with German low skilled natives, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.13650194]

>>13650113
>the belief that there can be a reconciliation of all difficulties and differences
Zizek doesn't believe this, his entire ontology is based around this being impossible

[Anonymous No.13650195]

>>13650188
Most of the migrants who recently came to Germany are not working, they are on welfare.

[Anonymous No.13650206]

>>13650195
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/germany-welcomed-refugees-reaping-economic-benefits-190617194147334.html

[Anonymous No.13650330]

>>13648826
If Zizek doesn't believe multiculturalism works, then why is he pro-multiculturalism?

Hmmmm... really gets the noggin jogging.

[Anonymous No.13650331]

>>13650188
Anon, i don't really think that african or middle eastern populations are particularly stupid.
The fact is that they indeed are smart enough to exploit the system (welfare).

>>13649917
>>13650206
Yes, the GDP increases as you have a larger population, more consumers, more workers (not much but whatever). But it is almost worthless as an indication of the economic well being of the country.