I didn’t watch this and probably won’t ever bother watching it.

But I’m posting it, because I assume some of you might want to watch it.

This article from The Guardian is probably accurate, for those who don’t want to watch it.

I really hate both Zizek and Peterson, but I will tell you, I hate Peterson a lot more.

At least Zizek on occasion says something slightly interesting, whereas Peterson is pretty much completely incomprehensible in his speech.

What Peterson does is a really cheap trick: he attaches the most basic and simple self-help material – the same stuff you can find in literally any single Tony Robbins lecture – with a load of purely nonsensical gibberish. The self-help material is fine. I have nothing against it. But again – you can get it anywhere.

Zizek is just a weirdo who relishes in being weird for the sake of being weird. And that is a very cringy bit that was only vaguely interesting in the 1960s when people first started doing it, and is now just tiresome. But when you are trying to say weird things for the sake of saying weird things, you’re eventually going to hit on something.

I don’t know.

Maybe I’ll watch it and write a proper review.

I probably won’t.

I would have much preferred that they fight physically, in the Octagon, and that also would have lead to more philosophical enlightenment.

I think Zizek would have won and I think Peterson would literally start crying.

I can’t believe this guy collects a paycheck. What a retarded take.

RT:

Across political lines, young Americans (aged 18-29) in general are split on capitalism and socialism. 51 percent of Americans aged 18-29 view socialism positively, while 45 percent view capitalism positively, down 12 points in just two years.

Slavoj Zizek sees the shift as a realization that for some, the American Dream just isn’t real.

“The roots of this disappointment can be easily identified” he told RT. ”The working class, but also the middle class feels betrayed. Generally, there’s widespread awareness that the American system doesn’t function the way people expected it to function.”

…

“The message is very hopeful,” Zizek said about the poll, which he said shows that quite a large part of the US population “no longer identifies with the American dream.” He described the drop in support for Capitalism as the “beginning of the end of what in learned terms we call ideological hegemony.”

Yeah, okay, clickbait title aside, I suppose Zizek has a point.

Economic disenfranchisement probably played a part in Trump’s election.

But Zizek is a one-trick pony. Everything is just about the Communist revolution that is assuredly, eventually going to happen. And it’s like, does anybody really even believe in this shit anymore?

Why do they keep giving this guy airtime?

Think about it. The ramblings of some random Communist are taken seriously by the media which seems to have appointed Zizek the official still-living Communist.

Some more rambling:

The only thing that can save the US is a stronger, more radical left,” Zizek claims.

Where is the left?

The radical left Zizek talks about exists, but has been muscled out by the Democratic party’s more centrist establishment. The establishment, he argues, “should look at their own Democratic Party, how they totally ignored a clear, more leftist, anti-capitalist signal from Bernie Sanders and his movement.”

Lol. What a delusion.

Yes, there is a neo-liberal left. A left that basically only cares about maximizing corporate profits, spreading The Gay and opening the borders to scab labor. It is strange that they’re called “the Left” at all.

But the “true” left is not that different.

What Zizek and all these race-blind political theorists talk about is so stupid because they don’t understand the vehicle that these “reforms” will take.

The vehicle will be brown people. And brown people will talk about implementing socialism…but it’s not going to look anything like Sweden or Germany (before the invasion).

Sanders was a popular figure, particularly with young voters. By running Hillary Clinton instead, the centrist establishment “failed the expectations of the American people”

However, since Clinton’s miserable performance in 2016, the ‘progressive’ movement championed by Sanders has slowly seeped into the mainstream. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Bronx this June, when self-professed ‘democratic socialist’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez snatched a stunning primary victory, ousting ten-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, a more centrist, suit-and-tie Democrat.

Is this an indicator of Communist ideas seeping into the mainstream or the changing demographics?

People like Zizek – race-blind Boomers – don’t realize that what is really happening is brown people coming into their own politically. It’s a tribal shift…not a shift in values. And sure, brown people are more pro-socialist… so long as Socialism is defined by White people giving them more free shit.

It’s like…damn. How can these high-level thinkers make such stupid mistakes? It’s amateur hour.

I could be a better philosopher than Zizek, by far.

Why? Because I don’t have a huge blind spot regarding race in my conception of the world. I can do the class warfare stuff, I can do the whole Marxist critique – that shit is easy, and then I just add some race to the whole theory and BOOM, just like that, I understand the world better, can make more educated critiques of the situation, AND I can make more accurate predictions of the future.

GIVE ME A JOB AND FAME POR FAVOR *SNIFF* *SNIFF* *REFLEXIVE TUG OF THE SHIRT* *SNORT* *FART*.

Well, Steve Sailer’s article on Slavoj Žižek’s plagiarism of a 1999 American Renaissance magazine article by Stanley Hornbeck in a review of Kevin MacDonald’s work is big news, and it appears unlikely the pudgy Marxist will ever fully recover from it.

He could have plagiarized someone else (likely has)  and gotten caught and gotten away with it, but the fact that he plagiarized a “White supremacist” publication while reviewing the work of another “White supremacist” is too juicy of a story to disappear easily.

Even while the Jews over at Slate try to excuse him by claiming that it was the fault of an aide, they admit that what he did was academic fraud, and illegal.

Newsweek:

When Newsweek contacted Critical Inquiry, James Williams, its senior managing editor, agreed that Žižek “absolutely” borrowed from Hornbeck’s review. “We’re very sorry it happened,” he said. “If we had known Žižek was plagiarizing, we would have certainly asked him to remove the illegal passages.”

Newsweek then contacted Hornbeck, who writes under a pseudonym. “Anyone who has seen the side-by-side comparisons can have no doubt that Žižek is a plagiarist,” he said. “I know nothing about his writing habits. Maybe he does this all the time. Or it may be that as a prominent Marxist he didn’t want it known that he reads American Renaissance. In any case, what he did is contemptible, and his publisher…should certainly have a word with him.”

Raw Story, Gawker and NPR have also run stories on the crime, each trying their best to defend the fat Marxist thief while being forced to admit he is obviously guilty of the most egregious possible academic misdeed.

He’s not going to be able to get away from this. It will haunt whatever remains of his career, and it will overshadow whatever legacy he hoped to leave.

It’s good news.  This guy really is a completely pretentious prick.