JBP VS ZIZEK confirmed! HAPPENING HAPPENING HAPPENING

based huehue

This. The two aren't exactly comparable in terms of what they are interested in talking about. Zizek will be off in pure metaphysics land and Peterson won't be able to keep up.

Peterson is allied with the jews and is a closet pyschopath (see his dream literature) and communist.

GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

>Capitalism vs Marxism
>What does the repeated collapse and sacrifices of capitalism to do with it

Attached: wire-2204656-1517501009-503_634x418.jpg (634x418, 90K)

hi pol

Zizek is anti-pomo, he’s still holding onto psychoanalysis+marxism

>self help
>propaganda
>post-modernism
>not propaganda
You are an absolute brainlet.

Quel retour ? J'veux dire, on a quoi comme intellectuels français en ce moment ? Onfray ? Finkfelfraut ? Zemmour ? BHL ? Mdr quoi.
Les seul gens intéressants en France aujourd'hui sont Houellebecq, Stiegler, Todd et Nabe dans une certaine mesure, et Badiou qui va mourir d'une minute à l'autre. C'est vrai qu'on a aussi des universitaires comme Meissallioux ou Laruelle, mais personne peux les comprendre. Puis on est des brelles en anglais en plus.

BASED Peterson
BASED capitalism
SJWs get OUT

it isn't propaganda

schizo jungian vs schizo lacanian
psychoanalysis was a mistake

Capitalism is a spook

post-modernism v modernism*

I like both of these guys despite both of their issues but I now doubt my original opinion of them, for thinking this embarrassing theatrical garbage was a good idea.

But then maybe it's just a machismo thing for both of them.

based

You've noticed!

Now tell the rest

I love you

>having conversation is machismo
Kys

It will be very theatrical desu. Hell the way Peterson Zizek exchanges is being portrayed with Peterson and his followers looks a lot like a boxing match

Women should be seen not heard

i imagine that beberson is diligently preparing for the debate, thinking and pondering of things he could say, how he will approach the debate, watching videos of zizek and taking notes and shit.
meanwhile zizek is doing lines off of some chlamydia sick hooker

so peterson already lost?

Wouldn't it be neat if you stopped posting your ""hot takes"" on here?

>Capitalism vs Marxism
Where do you fit into the kosher sandwich, goy.

They're the same.

I'm not a Peterson fan but it's disgusting how much this board loves Zizek. If he's so smart then why is he so fucking fat LOL

Zizek thinks health is pure ideology

Peterson is genuinely closer to PoMo than Zizek.

Peterson had already lost when the debate was announced.

this

youtu.be/DcQJYXYGSPk

Zizek is more clear lately, if he wants to be

Attached: applbla.jpg (1280x1792, 260K)

>Peterson vs Zizek
>Capitalism vs Marxism
aw geez

Attached: praljak.jpg (620x465, 23K)

Im honestly ok witj politicized psychoanalysis making a mainstream comeback after 50 years of getting memed on by esalen mkultra mind control techniques

long tradition of philosophic big bois going back to Hume

That's a nectarine

who cares about the nectarine, it's the jezebel you should be pondering

Two reactionary white supremacist transphobes walk into a bar...

they are permanently banned from twitter

which bar? i wanna go

Going back to Socrates. He’s also asocial gadfly mixing comedy and philosophy
He’s interesting, I’ll give him that

granted

Attached: upton_15yo.jpg (634x948, 166K)

Socrates was ugly but he wasn't fat
>No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship where they set aside their differences and realize at last that NazBol will win.

At best it'll be a very rich discussion where we see the best of both individuals.

At the very worst it'll be a shit flinging show ending with Kermit getting triggered and Sniff sweating profusely.

>post modernism rejects grand narratives
>capitalism is a grand narrative

Attached: huh.jpg (500x500, 27K)

What a magnificent shitshow it'll be. Can't wait.

That's pusy, babe!

Postmodernism doesn't "reject" anything. The anthropomorphizing of abstract ideological systems however is an indication of low intelligence.

CIA shill vs KGB shill

they are both losers

this is from wiki(i know)
>postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism
if this is wrong, tell my why. im here to learn :)

Years of eating from the trashcan of ideology

>replying to pedants
don't bother user, it's not worth it here

perhaps. but i think being open to the idea of being wrong/ignorant is healthy. it has served me well thus far in life

man i hate this peterson guy now. he is unoriginal it's crazy.

What that means is that those occupying top positions in humanities departments at our elite universities are hostile Marxist jews who attack the grand narratives of white societies, such as Christianity, the notion of western civilization, and nominally capitalism, though less now since global neoliberal capitalism is fully in their ethnic grip under the auspices of the dying American empire. But it is itself a grand narrative, and one that levies intense talmudic attacks on all dissenters.

This is just repackaged Frankfurt school cultural marxist conspiracy theory...

Attached: 026fdc0b162d478d3bb5c214d09bea751b75c6f287fb7e6433ea426021db99b4.gif (220x169, 1.08M)

why does Yea Forums hate peterson and worship zizek when they offer the same level of cultural insight?

fat Yugoslav marxist and a neurotic dweeby Jungian

>who attack the grand narratives of white societies, such as Christianity, the notion of western civilization, and nominally capitalism
you sound like a braindead petersonite
rejecting SOME ideologies or grand narratives does not automatically make you a post modernist. in witch case you are a hipocrite in:
(1) claming post modernism to be itself a grand narrative (this sound reasonable)
(2) rejecting post modernism
(3) claming those who reject any narrative is a post modernist
c: you are a post modernist by your own definition

One doesn't have a twitter account saturated with hot takes

Attached: 1518310767650.jpg (594x307, 33K)

don't reply to schizophrenic antisemites

dont tell me what to do

Postmodernism isn't all just Lyotard's thesis.

Attached: what could have.jpg (1024x614, 88K)

Not sure I follow your reasoning. I'm saying postmodernism, and its big brother modernism and bigger brother Marxism, is an extension of jewish nature, and is thus concerned with atomizing non jewish people and society as well as all previously held cultural beliefs. Postmodernism, or any abstract ideological system for that matter, does not have its own interests, it is a reflection of those with institutional power. Postmodernism is also the postwar institutionalization of judeo-modernist iconoclasm. Won't see this definition on Wikipedia, but it's the right one.

Foucault admits the heritage of Freudo-Marxism in the intro to Anti-oedipus, though the French new school did feel they were hot shit iconoclasts. Critical theory inherits directly from the Frankfurt school.

if this really is how you conveive jewish influence on global thought and, by extension, world events and (dis)order, then i don't see any way out for your kind
they might as well be an overwhelming force of nature. not just a seasonal hurricane, but the tempest at the end of time.

first, Foucault didn't understand AO and his intro is laughably bad
second, Foucault and Deleuze, for all their Marxist background, ended up pretty squarely liberal at the end of the day
third, no matter what memerson shills you, postmodernism is more than just Foucault.
yikes

I don't give a shit about Peterson, he's basically fucked up the discourse against these schools by making it his brand and being an idiot.

Foucault also said if he'd read Frankfurt school earlier he'd not have had to say much of what he did as they already covered it.

I can provide Deleuze quotes as well that are particularly telling.

Finally, Peterson has a hate boner for Derrida in particular, so even he doesn't just focus on Foucault.

No reason to be so dire. The arc of history is long and nomadic people become that way in the first place for a reason. This is not about my conceptions though, I'm not saying anything the Egyptians weren't thousands of years ago.

but foucault (and much of old-school pomo academia) is based and redpilled
beterson is fighting the degenerate successors to the pomo throne, and mistakenly attributing their brain spasms to actually smart people like fookoh

yeah and Foucault and Derrida hated each other and considered the other a charlatan, so that makes him even more suspect. it's easier to just quote the IEP, it makes for a pretty clear analysis of the debates between post-modernism and Habermas.

>First of all, Habermas himself has suggested a further pre-linguistic line of enquiry by making appeal to the notion of “authenticity” and “imagination”. This suggests a radical reformulation of the same notion of “truth” and “reason” in the light of its metaphorical capacities of signification (see Habermas 1984a). Secondly, the commitment of Critical Theory to universal validity and universal pragmatics has been widely criticized by post-structuralists and post-modernists who have instead insisted respectively on the hyper-contextualism of the forms of linguistic rationality, as well as on the substitution of a criticism of ideology with genealogical criticism. While Derrida’s deconstructive method has shown how binary opposition collapses when applied to the semantic level, so that meaning can only be contextually constructed, Foucault has oriented his criticisms to the supposedly emancipatory power of universal reason by showing how forms of domination permeate micro-levels of power-control such as in sanatoriums, educational and religious bodies and so on. The control of life—known as bio-power—manifests itself in the attempt of normalizing and constraining individuals’ behaviors and psychic lives. For Foucault, reason is embedded into such practices which display the multiple layers of un-rationalized force. The activity of the analyst in this sense is not far from the same activity of the participant: there is no objective perspective which can be defended. Derrida, for instance, while pointing to the Habermasian idea of pragmatic of communication, still maintained a distinct thesis of a restless deconstructive potential of any constructing activity, so that no unavoidable pragmatic presuppositions nor idealizing conditions of communication could survive deconstruction. On the other hand, Habermasian theory of communicative action and discourse ethics, while remaining sensitive to contexts, pretended to defend transcendental conditions of discourse which, if violated, were seen to lead to performative contradictions. Last but not least, to the Habermasian role of consensus or agreement in discursive models, Foucault objected that rather than a regulatory principle, a true critical approach would simply enact a command in case of “nonconsensuality” (see Rabinow, ed. 1984, p. 379 ff).

Yeah it's more the Anglo-American reception that's taken the French bullshit and critical theory (neo-Marxism) and made it into this abominable chimera and that is what we're dealing with today. Orthodox Marxist larpers online can bitch and moan about how it's not real Marxism and they're being misrepresented but they're a small, irrelevant relic and institutionally powerless by their own admission.

Stop labeling everything you don't like a conspiracy theory you fucking transvestite. But wait, actually, don't stop, because your arrogance is going to get back at you really hard. Keep on doing what you're doing.

Foucault and Deleuze were actually esoteric reactionaries. We need a horde of gay fascist s&m bikers to take down modernity and democracy

Stop labeling every batshit conspiracy you like an intellectual position you fucking cishet male. But wait, actually, don't stop, because your arrogance is going to get back at you really hard. Keep on doing what you're doing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

>so buttmad he starts impersonating me
>posts wikipedia "debunk"
You're not a real adversary.

nigga read a book and you wouldn't need wikipedia to educate you

>damage control on wikipedia
vs
>the absolute state of academic writing and culture today which anyone can survey for themselves

>post-modernism
He's not debating Todd May.

>"nigga"
>"read a book" on Yea Forums
you should add an ebin mic drop gif desu

I am a right winger, and i agree the whole focus on the frankfurt school is silly.
Though its undeniable managerial liberalism has become a secular theocracy of guilt dedicated to the subversion of all that is good in western culture (READ PAUL GOTTFRIED). But anyways im going to keep using the term 'Cultural Marxism', it may not meet your standards of etymology, but it sure pisses off trannies and /r/Chapo, and thats all that matters.

I graduated with a degree in philosophy and political science and read one post-modernist (Foucault) once in a single class. I unironically had to read more fascist literature than postmodern. I went to a left wing Canadian university. You are the one who has no idea what academic writing and culture is like today.

I'll say philosophy has tended to remain relatively insulated from the bullshit because you actually have to use LOGIC.

>being deliberately wrong to spite the libs epic style
People like you degenerate the discourse

>fuck postmodern philosophy it ruined academia
>except for philosophy
I can't even tell you are memeing anymore

Ecelebs having a debate charging $100's of dollars to spectate. The absolute state of this board.

>Though its undeniable managerial liberalism has become a secular theocracy of guilt dedicated to the subversion of all that is good in western culture (READ PAUL GOTTFRIED)

What books? I've read Laschs stuff and it's great but I want more.

In my psychology classes Foucault, Derida and Adorno were one of the most referenced authors, far more present than Freud for example.

Philosophy proper in my own experience tends to avoid the pomo shit which is far more concentrated in cultural studies type courses which have bled into general arts. I knew of them teaching Deleuze in architecture, but it's been a while.

>the whole focus on the frankfurt school is silly.
It's really not, especially when it comes to introducing someone to the JQ, since in that case it's so blatant. Like most jews though their writing style and methodology was often cryptic and is alien to many whites, so reading them is not for the uninitiated.

Broke: muh discourse
Woke: the friend enemy distinction as the ontological basis of politics

WTF

Attached: tickets.png (456x349, 16K)

>the friend enemy distinction as the ontological basis of politics
That just sounds like bitch basic tribalism

what are they actually debating?

is it literally 'which is better, capitalism or marxism?'
that sounds incredibly wide and vague

hecking B A S E D

gonna call all my bros and we're gonna get some beers and pretzels as we watch this one

>bitch basic
basic bitch

and yet there are anons ITT arguing our intelligentsia hasn't degenerated

>psychology
kek

>political sciencefag laughing at someone else's degree

Attached: img_a4342fb2572969f1d374eb563db40881_1529226069546_processed_original.png (670x435, 697K)

>is it literally 'which is better, capitalism or marxism?'
Those are the slabs of kosher rye all abstract debate must be kept between, goy.

once again Peterson demonstrates that he does not know what "marxism" is and overplays its influence in post 1980's academia and culture in general.....I suspect an awful lot of this charade will revolve around bickering over terminology.

>stop making fun of our anal obsession with prescriptive language
no

All politics is identity politics.'classical liberals' and self hating 'anti-idpol' trannies from leftypol are just too autistic to understand the real tribal nature of man

Marxism is like punk rock. All of them (marxists) are totally different and have multiple interpretations. Some people think Black Flag, others think Good Charlotte. I’ll let you guess which kinds of marxists JP rants about.

maybe it'll be like CHOMSKY V FOUCAULT where it was actually quite comfy and congenial

not him but I would be embarrassed to tell people I chose to study psychology

Attached: main-qimg-df6e8cab6c60b5656abd1b956e8e2705.png (280x873, 85K)

You could point out many flaws about the current state of psychology but I don't regret my choice in hindsight.

He was when he got older. Why he wanted to die

> Marxism is like punk rock
Only gullible teens and basedboi cucks think its edgy and anti establishment. The sex pistols were a manufactured band created by known jewish pornographer Malcom McLaren in order to advertise his S&M boutique.

Okay post-modernist

>All politics is identity politics
Only if you let it.

Attached: 1534782826523.jpg (324x271, 16K)

I got tickets.

Anyone else going to be there?

Nah, it'll be just you, Peterson and Zizek

God that would be awesome

nah you're fine, psychology can be based

>Capitalism vs Marxism. Who’ll win?
>Get your tickets goy starting at $50!
Sounds like capitalism won.

philosophy pomo is very different from the various intersectionality reskins that are being sold as a diverse and balanced set of methodological approaches in other humanities-disciplines, anyway. Try reading Derrida's work. It's not at all what you'd expect based on what the literary criticism fags have turned it into.

>Hundreds of people pay for the ticket
>Millions of people watch on YouTube for free
Yep, capitalism won alright

isnt jijek a dr. too?

You gotta pay for the theater, camera, streaming and security you fucking dweeb cunt.
You also have a limited number of seats so you have to raise the price according to demand.

yes, politics is basic bitch tribalism. were you ever confused about this?

>millions
stream wont even break 3 thousand

Good thing it will be recorded and watchable for the foreseeable future then

>FSB

This will be all over Reddit.

It is in these multiculti nations jews are creating in the west.

>selling tickets for a meme internet debate between 2 meme internet personalities

cringiest thing i've seen all year desu

As a joke Zizek will not show up. I'm calling it now.

Hopefully someone asks Zizek to address the Jewish Question.

Attached: 1550638009167.jpg (640x640, 160K)

true

What Fascist literature did you read?

The Doctrine of Fascism, sections of Mein Kampf, sections from something Evola wrote (I can't remember what). As far as postmodernism goes I read a section from Discipline and Punish in a class about ideology

i also graduated with a degree in philosophy and political science (uoft) and had to read every member of the frankfurt school

Only in party politics maybe. Other than that not everyone is as basic as you.

pseud vs pseud*

Can't say this doesn't help them sell their books. I didn't even know who Slavoj was just a year ago, and so far I have bought 3 books of his on Kindle. The courage of hopelessness, Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbors and Less than nothing. I skipped less than nothing because I couldn't totally absorb it, but the other two books were easier to grasp. Will be fun to watch Jordan Peterson try to understand him lol

Some guy on Youtube just came up with an in-depth preview on what's likely to happen in the debate. IMO he missed the possibility of Peterson rambling about gulags, but overall I think this is pretty good: youtu.be/SrUEOf-bOGg

>some guy

i still gave it a thumbs up

Psychoanalyst vs psychoanalyst

If they actually treat themselves and each other with respect and haven’t yet devolved into memetic mouthpieces of Satan this might actually be an interesting debate.

Wait what about feudalism?

christianity is a jewish narrative desu

Are you retarded or pretending to be one ?

Then why do Jews get so upset when people want to be christian.

Attached: 1540146517781.jpg (739x551, 150K)

Can you cite specifically who you are talking about here? I want concrete examples

You guys forget how debates work. It's a bunch of showmanship and people are inclined to see whoever they already like as the winner.

All that will come from these two noisy men is a bunch of blabbering, first from them, then from people watching.

Yeah, say you have a fascist state with no parties “or just one” since people are united under one ruling ideology, one state, and one people there is no room for tribalism as the in group includes everyone who matters in the nation. “And there is no significant differences between the populations in the nation” Everyone in the party has the same end goal, and different proposed policies and debates are merely people figuring out the best way to reach that end goal. Despite disagreements everyone is stil on the same team. Unlike in a multi party democracy, where the different parties divide the nation, with different end goals. And different ethnic groups and cultural groups battle it out due to differences of worldview, and intrests.

>Yeah, say you have a fascist state with no parties “or just one” since people are united under one ruling ideology, one state, and one people there is no room for tribalism as the in group includes everyone who matters in the nation. “And there is no significant differences between the populations in the nation” Everyone in the party has the same end goal, and different proposed policies and debates are merely people figuring out the best way to reach that end goal. Despite disagreements everyone is stil on the same team
This is an even more retarded delusion than communism

When everyone who is different has been exterminates, there can be no room for tribalism, as there is only one tribe.

its exactly how communism is supposed to work plus borders

>there can be no room for tribalism, as there is only one tribe.
there's always another tribe. nationalists will always try to deny this and invent the idea there is one people, but trust me bud Sicilians and Venetians are not the same and do not have one shared history or identity. Ditto for Bavarians and Prussians. Fascists had to invent the idea there was one people, which they did by just repeating it ad fucking nauseum. "One Land, One people, one leader!" "If I have to keep repeating it, it must be t-t-true, r-r-r-right?"

Agreed based dub trip user.

Every time there’s a leading coalition, they inevitably start fighting each other. It’s against human nature to not question, which defeats the whole one tribe idea. Actually people question least when they have something to hate. Your best hope of one tribe is finding an enemy to unite everyone behind; but once that enemy is gone you’re back to square one.

What if the enemy is human nature itself?

No it isn’t. If all politics are identity politics, than all people are merely a series of identities, which is retarded.

That’s basically Christianity. It’s quite brilliant, really. It allowed the West to unite enough to repel barbarians and assimilate the ones who it was too late to stop for centuries.

If there’s no divinity (I.e. using the human rational faculty to pacify the human animal) you’re back to perpetual conflict.

>all people are merely a series of identities, which is retarded.
It might be retarded, but it's true

>you’re back to perpetual conflict.
the Christian kingdoms were in perpetual conflict...

based plagiarismfag

So you have no central element of “you” that ties all of the various identities together? Or you are a perfectly average white person one minute then a perfectly average shitposter the next, and a perfectly average NEET after that? No that’s bullshit. You can make math out of people, but you can’t turn people into math.

Identity is undoubtedly an element of politics, but there’s more to it than that. What that silly line of reasoning is arguing is the same as saying that we should disregard trying to predict weather as a whole because “all weather is water lol, just predict that and you’re good”

Is there a fundamental antagonism if not class?

No doubt it fell apart, but they got a few centuries of relative unity out of it, and later on a bunch of Muslim tech too. Also worth noting that most Christians aren’t good Christians, it certainly seems built to handle the exact thing we were talking about.

Religion and an enemy makes for a lot of unity; the Byzantines never had such squabbles.

name one marxist policy that Zizek supports, he is not a marxist, he is just a normie globalist

He shills the Communist Idea, he just also thinks he's a realist about it and so accepts there's no conceivable way it'll come about. All he wants is for people to read more and then maybe there's a chance.

>but they got a few centuries of relative unity out of it
No they didn't. They were always at war somewhere.

>Religion and an enemy makes for a lot of unity; the Byzantines never had such squabbles.
How the fuck could you determine that religion creates peace and no squabbles, when the actual empires that defined internal peace as we compare to are the Roman empire and the Tang dynasty in China, both of which were not Christian and did not have a strong religious culture on the population.

Besides the Byzantine empire was horribly unstable, almost always at war trading land and borders on multiple fronts even during their golden age of the late first millenium.

Politics is about determining who are we individually and collectively, who are our enemies, our values, how we draw meaning from the past. Even orthodox marxism draws upon the identity of the worker, and muh classical liburalism is implicit anglo jew bourgeoisie identity politics.Right now, its intersectional globohomo corporatocracy vs its enemies. Everyone else is irrelevant. The only way to preserve everythibg you hace ever found meaningful from total annihilation is through militant western nationalism and white identity politics.

what is it that bothers you personally about the idea of nationalism that you have resort to childish "omg rightists are so stupid xD" rationalizations to calm yourself down?

that doesn't mean anything

Peterson already admitted in a video to pirating a few of Zizek books off the internet

Fascists need to take decisive action to smash cultural marxism now

It's in the title:
Happiness: Marxism vs. Capitalism
So basically they're going to larp out the Kitchen Debate from a point where everyone assumes capitalism already triumphed.
youtu.be/-CvQOuNecy4

>not hot dogs

Attached: 0b9e6712185f71d48d7ed7e13accb0f2.gif (500x281, 760K)

"We can discuss Kristallnacht as much as possible but never Nacht der langen Messer.
Nor the gleichschaltung of fascism and democracy. Or the similarity of Jews and their Muslim enemies. Jewish eschatology espouses self-death towards the living. The Holy City will grow as outside of its borders the goyim dies a mysterious mass death. Sometimes even their own people die. Is this not at the core of Judaism? Its eternal wandering against anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic: the monopolising territorial claim subsumes non-Jewish Semites as a disappearing border to the black square of the true Semites, the Jews. Their myths included a syntax of annihilation in that attacks on the Jewish Semites disappeared them into the void of Semitism. They became anti-Semites in Jewish fiction, and needed only to be give a push to fall into the void which would allow for Jewish eschatological realism and internationalism; at least in the world they knew, the rest of the void could be filled with the deabstraction of Jewish myth. The Jews could then live abstractly on in fiction - their people would live on, and them through the wandering of abstraction and Talmudic retelling of their sacrifices. Holocaust tragedy with a comedic twist!

Hold it there. You’re saying that Jews benefit from genocide in their production of reality and myth? Even against their own people? According to this logic, the Jews could desire their own genocide as it would actually strengthen their genetic competition. Wouldn’t this mean the Jews profited politically and culturally from The Holocaust? How can you say this?

I didn’t say it. You did. Your entire theory is based upon antifragility being born of fragility. In other words, devalorisation from valorisation; profit from loss; synthesis from negation; form from reality and change. If there is always some antifragility in fragility then the fragility of Jews in the holocaust also led to their antifragility. For example, they now have been granted an international pass, an eternal armistice: their victimisation has been declared exceptional within human suffering, and so too human rights where they are the essential peacekeepers. Everyone, at least in the capitalist west, believes in the eternal suffering of the Jews and how we were all responsible, at least abstractly, and if all else fails then we must give disorder to the orders to kill Jews. All else has been forgotten. The Jews lost six million people and the holocaust has been declared the worst event in history, of which no worse can happen. When you consider the outcome they might as well have said six billion Jews.

…
"

"You are shaking your head but my point is serious. I mean to say this, what is lost in the fetish of the Jewish and anti-Jewish event of the holocaust? Its very abstract negation causes it to become the only tragedy, the absolute tragedy. And this is not so far from The Most Beautiful Tragedy. Do you realise how many people are killed by democratic abstraction, this thing we call capitalism? It is at least 16 million every year. So the equivalent of the Holocaust plus its partis freres the Holodomor, every single year. This is an impossibilism… an impossibility. No one can imagine it. We know it is happening and yet we refuse to acknowledge it. And this is why I say 'we are living in a gleichschaltung of democracy': the nazis were simply plagiarising democratic techniques. They could never live up to the democratic cult of death, and so they made a mess of it.

And so too does democracy fetishise its mockery of the fascist mockery.

Certainly. And do you know why I am so interested in this? It is not for some petty foolishness, like a new way to contribute to the critique of political economy, but to think about how we have fallen into the phantasmagoria of eschatology. We have become its realism. And not just ironically but unironically. We are the victims and perpetrators of this gleichschaltung. Much like the Jewish political authority claimed sole possession of the term 'anti-Semitism’ they have also claimed the right over the term 'holocaust’. There is some sick joke in this. Too sick. In Stalinism one could easily make a joke of the horrors, gallows humour was possible there - but democracy makes it an impossibilism…"

"People have now forgotten the Holocaust and joke about it online.

Yes, but more than this. They also joke about all tragedies and horrors. After Fukushima everyone joked about Godzilla taking revenge for Pearl Harbor as some kind of mass-American double agent, as if the Japanese deserved another atrocity… And no one acknowledges the true possibility of Fukushima because it is too much to think about. It may be that there will be six billion people killed. We’ve gone from Holocaust Comedy to Eschatological Comedy. And it is all down to democratic thought. No wonder everything has descended into conspiracy, it is all an impossibilism… an impossibility. I don’t know why I keep saying that word. Maybe there is something to it. Maybe there is some group out there calling themselves impossibilists who have all the answers. But my point is this, perhaps no one will wake up from all of this until all of the dead rise from the Holocaust and come to terrorise democracy. Not just the Jewish living dead, but also the Nazi living dead, all of the African living dead, and the democratic black ops living dead (both). All of them running through neighbourhoods and destroying America. Hahaha. And staring into their smartphones watching eternal Youtube loops of the Hitler meme. The ultimate runaway of democratist lunacy. A thousand times worse than Hitler, until the dead return to protest against the living and occupy their homes. Hahaha. I thought of this while playing Call of Duty Black Ops Zombies with my son; with Jaws playing in the background. I hope you enjoy the image."

Exactly and they should remain quiet while we observe them

But they sound so nice.
youtu.be/n14_Z0EirS4
I hope you guys realise that attempting to control every aspect of women just shows your impotence.

I’m curious to know what peterson would say about Zizek’s interest in the post-modern theological turn, especially since Peterson could arguably fall into that movement despite his criticisms of Post-modernity. The way he suspends judgement about the existence of God while also acting as if God was very much real is 100% pomo theology.

Zizek's answer is that even if your wife is really cucking you, and you get upset, it's still pathological to get upset and the problem is inside yourself

i'm not even memeing, he literally says this in multiple articles

and yet with all his philosophic tradition Zizek has answers to nothing and got cucked in that Will Self debate when he pushed him on some of this assertions

>tradition of Hume
>has all the answers
I don't know if this post was satire but if it is it's mighty fine

i've always thought this too. peterson's therapeutic theology is latour for brainlets

that's not what he means, and it's not even his idea it's Lacan's -- the idea here is that the jealous husband is pathological even if all his paranoia ends up being true, because the nature of a jealous husband also needs the fantasy of the unfaithful wife, regardless of the reality his worldview is always based in the pathological fantasy

I'm calling it now:

They are going to agree with 80% of what they talk about, and ignore talking about the 20% where they disagree.

Attached: WokeCapitalism.png (755x433, 51K)

Krab:
>muh sjw, feminists, PC culture, Stalin - BAD!

Sniff:
>muh sjw, feminists, PC culture, Stalin - BAD!

Oh, wow, what a debate it'll be.

He's right though. Modern nation states are pasteurized versions of much smaller and more diverse cultures that lost their uniqueness and became theme park caricatures of themselves, by and large. Everything from genocide to globalism to linguistic extinction has contributed to this. What the traditionalists are preserving is often not very traditional at all, it just gives them a feeling of such. Your average white identitarian learns about his ancestors from pop culture and imageboard politics instead of actual history.

>scientific socialism
imagine having an idea so dumb and wrong that even popper can btfo it

he is still implying you shouldn't be mad at your wife even if she's cucking you, and that's his answer to it, interpret that however you want

if that's pathological i guess i have no interest in being """healthy"""

>you shouldn't be mad at your wife even if she's cucking you
Correct. Fuck monogamy and fuck cuckservatards

that's how civilizations have always worked: romans were larping about being greeks, everybody else afterwards was larping about being romans

>What the traditionalists are preserving is often not very traditional at all, it just gives them a feeling of such.
This is a flat out lie that's so insidious it makes you wonder who would profit from telling it.

the current left everybody

>... Never get so racist that you forget white leftists are the worst people in the world.

Who are you quoting, right-tard?

no it's not, it has everything to do with the husbands ideology and nothing to do with the cheating wife. if you catch your wife cheating and leave her you did not operate as the jealous husband who tries to catch his wife cheating. if all you got from it was "let women cheat" you should probably go back to the Greeks and get caught up on this whole philosophy business

he is literally saying blaming the wife is wrong, and we all know what that means lets not kid ourselves

>blaming the wife is wrong
it is

greeks were larping as egyptians, and egyptians were larping as zulu shamans, who were larping as the post-atlantean descdents of YAKUB, the mad scientist who created silver tongued white people to get back on his political foes on the Mother Wheel wake up sheeple

>because the nature of a jealous husband also needs the fantasy of the unfaithful wife
So what he's saying is any lack of blind trust is based pathological fantasies, which is completely retarded.

then blaming fascists is wrong i guess

no he's saying the nature of a jealous husband needs the fantasy of the unfaithful wife. the very position of a jealous husband requires as a prerequisite the ideological fantasy of an unfaithful wife, that's what he's saying. you are trying to make moral claims about relationships and cheating, which is fine, but it's not what Lacan/Zizek are interested in

Then the Earth is flat, i guess.

the question Zizek was answering was political, not about wives, and he is saying that even if somebody is working against you, it's your fault if you get mad

but i bet he doesn't apply this when leftists get mad at fascists for some leftist magical reason

no he never makes a moral claim about it, he's simply describing how the ideological fantasy operates

he was talking about a concrete political example, not about magical fantasies

but user, people do cheat, steal and lie all the time. people will do whatever they can get away with, assuming that all people in your life will always play fair with you is naive and allows for the conclusion that the person lacks any sort of intuition or life experience. pathologizing this healthy skepticism is beyond retarded.

Open Borders Grifter vs Spitting Commie

>healthy skepticism
lol

what point are you making?

just be a degenerate and not care about what your wife does, it's the way of the future

>he is saying that even if somebody is working against you, it's your fault if you get mad
I feel like you are missing the point he is making by a mile. you are instantly jumping to the idea that there is harm going on, but the jealous husband does not know that, he only assumes it. even if he turns out to be right, there is something inherent to this assumption on the jealous hisbands mind that is pathological. there is NO moral claim being made on cheating on your spouse. guess what? you can be a paranoid schizophrenic and be monitored by the CIA, we wouldn't say, oh, he is being watched so he wasn't crazy all along -- no, even if the paranoid schizophrenic is right, he is still a paranoid schizophrenic, and this is NOT a claim that the CIA should be allowed to spy on people.

his concrete political point is to tie it to the ideological fantasy of the Jew in antisemitism

Trust is good, control is better.

see
you are all taking this strangely personally. no one is saying your wife should be allowed to cheat on you

>if you don't want to get cucked by your wife you're basically a paranoid schizophrenic
behold the wisdom of the modern philosopher-king

>just turn off your brain and watch tv, everything will be ok
never expected to hear this argument from the left

so if wives cheat, and you have reasons to believe your wife is cheating, why is it """pathological""" to act on those concerns? what should you do instead? get a boner about it?

Your wife has full rights to cheat on you.

certainly an original way of looking at it, to say the least.

what the fuck are you talking about? he's talking about the archetypical pathologically jealous husband and all you can imagine is a roastie cheating on you

you are just changing subjects, which has been basically the whole intellectual project of the left in the last 40 years: finding new and ingenious ways to change the subject

>the archetypical pathologically jealous husband
meme

>he's talking about the archetypical pathologically jealous husband and all you can imagine is a roastie cheating on you
yeah, how far fetched.

he is not talking about that, Zizek doesn't believe in archetypes, and the wife is the least important part of this example

it's not, ask her if she's cheating. it becomes pathological when you operate as the jealous husband. there is a role that must be played for you to fit into that archetype

>roastie

literally what I just said, I'm using the word archetype in a colloquial sense because these brainlets can't into psychoanalysis

take your fake outrage over imageboard jargon to whatever subreddit you came from.

yeah, I'm a commie defending the idea of the pathologically jealous husband in relation to the mental illness that is antisemitism, I'm sure I'll fit in just fine over at /pol/

>for free
You pay by watching ads. That's next level capitalism.

>hey honey are you cheating on me
>o-of course not sweetie :)
>ok i believe you because otherwise im a schizophrenic
holy shit how do i become this redpilled

literally like trying to have a conversation with a young child; I hope you are just baiting at this point

>I'm sure I'll fit in just fine over at /pol/
You sure seem to like using same misogynistic slurs

your concern that i am baiting is pathological

this is literally arguing about nothing either way: are there extreme cases of jealousy? yes, are there cases of justified jealousy? yes, are there a million grades in between? yes

Zizek considering that the only possibility is pathological jealousy it's just his leftist dogma showing, he doesn't justify it in any sense

if you can't tell I was making fun of them for being unable to get over the idea of a potentially cheating hypothetical wife by using incel nomenclature you should leave. actually, you should leave either way.

>i was just pretending/being ironic XD!

again, this isn't even Zizek's point, it's Lacan's; Zizek only brings it up to clairify the fantasmatic role the Jew plays in antisemetic ideology. it's not that the only possibility is pathological, why would you assume that? he's talking very specifically about certain ideological roles, not anyone whos wife is cheating on him. in fact, the wife might not be fucking cheating, but it's funny how quick people are to adopt the fantasy

leave you faggot roastie

>it sure pisses off [my outgroup], and thats all that matters

Attached: good argument.png (621x702, 67K)

Yup, you'd fit right in with /pol/shit

Peterson is relatively postmodern.

>You're a brainlet if you manage to utilize events where you have no personal goals

And I have an unopened copy of Middlemarch on my bookshelf, what's your point

>thinks in terms of utility

Attached: 1514639946786.png (364x409, 48K)

end yourself desu

Very progressive, shaming using ugly caricatures
Retweeted

I think I'd rather watch the two of them make soft, sensual love.

Attached: 554DDB53-2C67-42C2-9C25-F3E585F77FCD.jpg (719x526, 76K)

How is it fantasmic when in the US for example one of the largest lobbies is AIPAC, which was critical in getting the US into various Middle Eastern wars through patronage of Congress and government officials, and furthermore, the disproportionate presence of Jewish academics, who play a major role in shaping the thinking of the next generation of the ruling class, who advocate X in Israel but not-X in the US?

coincidence

Yeah well no mainstream outlet has talked about this. So it’s a conspiracy therory, wrongthink, and not true. Go back to \pol\ bigot!

Attached: this.png (375x385, 201K)

WHO ELSE FUCKING LOVES THE SPECTACULARIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACADEMIC DEBATES????? MY FEMININE PENIS IS SO FUCKING HARD RIGHT NOW XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Omelette du fromage

You can always tell when someone is a bullshitting/peddling a conspiracy theory when they say some retarded shit and attempt to validate it with a broad reference that would take a considerable amount of time to figure out and read.

mad

>SPECTACULARIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACADEMIC DEBATES
>ACADEMIC
>Zizek
>Peterson
they aren't academics retard, they are internet memes

>People are still watching Peterson
crazy.

>post-modernism v modernism*
And who's who in your estimate?

Almost everybody tries to salvage modernism and find an out to post-modernism. This also applies to this Christian-apologetic-Jungian and this Marxist-Lacanian.

imagine PAYING to go see something you could see on Joe Rogan's podcast any day of the week

>not knowing the ugh what could have been meme
Aren't right wingers supposed to be meme experts or something?

keker, you haven't seen the state of English departments lately m8

What is self-help propaganda? Just propagating self-help? If so I don't see what's wrong with it.

you should get help from god, not from self

Is a faithful man not obligated to help himself?

work as if everything depended on you and pray as if everything depended on god

lmao
checked

But both of those things are in JP's repertoire and neither of them in Zizek's?

> you have to schizo yourself in order to hold religious beliefs

youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

hahah, I agree with the gist of what he's saying, but not the specifics

>J'veux dire
kys

>managerial liberalism has become a secular theocracy of guilt dedicated to the subversion of all that is good in western culture
This is a thesis Benjamin went on and on and on and on before managerial capitalism was even a thing.

Post feet

Man, don't drag Victoria 2 into this, it's a good game regardless of the Wehraboos (which is why the real chads play Austria)

Who's this cute little oinker?

I found her on pointerpointer.com

Shame. I'd love to use those Mardi Gras beads as a bridle

zizek likes fisting

gentle fisting

Recession does not mean famine, insectoid retard

daily reminder that psychoanalysis has literally never cured a single person

What to read to catch up to the current state of marxism? I only know basic shit from sociology 101.

Delete that photo from your computer now, user

there's no current state of marxism, it's been just excuses for the last 100 years

Attached: 1647e3aaa13fe72cc0791a858de12713-d.jpg (333x500, 14K)

>Richard D. Wolff
isn't he just about appropriating catholic distributism successes as if they were commies?

why does it have to be one thing or the other?
"communism" can refer to a tradition, but it can also be a descriptive term.
If you're living in a community where you share the work and the spoils in a democratic way, you're a communist.
>ew, no, communism is a icky word! I don wanna be associated with it!!!
grow up.

totally different conceptions of man, you can redistribute wealth while thinking all of commie theory is garbage
>If you're living in a community where you share the work and the spoils in a democratic way, you're a communist.
no

>I want all the obvious benefits of communism but I want to remain a RED BLOODED MERICAN
ok

i'm not a burger nor care about capitalism

alright. So you just don't understand what I mean by 'communism as a descriptive term', is that it?

Not him but what you mean is kind of stupid

works out at the library

oh, shit, thanks

any /fitlit/ public intellectual?

If you combine those two you'll get Fromm lol

Attached: Db7R4csVwAARMxL.jpg:large.jpg (1536x2048, 439K)

he said that he downloaded his books to better understand Zizeks pov. you heard about e-books, right?

yes, downloading is pirating

amazon.com/s?k=zizek&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss

you have to pay, you can't just download them

well yes. you still legally download them after purchasing.