Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Exposing the Hidden Motives Behind Liberal Policies

Still, sometimes restricting your range of vision is necessary to keep your sanity, or hold off a sense of overwhelm.

16 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

I will return and watch when I can concentrate...thank u for posting my friend and Blessings always:)

-FJ said...

thanks for stopping in, Angel!

Gert said...

Hi FJ:

Conservatives never feel solidarity? Hell, in the US you need only one 'liberal' guy saying 'Happy Winterval' and they're all falling over each other to declare there's a 'War on Xmas!'

I feel there may be a lot more to Zizek's specific argument than meets the eye in this miniclip...

Thersites said...

Yes we do feel solidarity, but it is generally only with people we actually care about. And we do it to get "closer" to them, not create a "distance"/ separation from them. Perhaps if you read the book "The Tragedy of American Compassion" by Marvin Olansky, you would better understand what I mean.

Zizek actually looks favorably upon the "Christian" form of compassion and disdainfully upon the phoney progressive liberal legal/ governmental form of compassion that creates "distance" between those who are trying to help. For the former actually does help, whilst the latter merely creates social stagnation and a permanent form of "dependency."

You may not realize this, but "capitalism" is a system for undoing and neutralizing normal social relations... of neutralizing/ discharging the necessity for social indebtedness that would otherwise be found in a purely "potlatch" society and/or "patriarchical" one. It liberates people from the social ties that would ordinarily bind them to a particular family and/or group (tribe)... although our current banking system built upon a system of "credit" does tend to re-bind us to the current existing social "order".

Thersites said...

The problem for "progressive liberalism" is that their call for "multicultural solidarity" is a phoney one... they don't love "the other", they love a "decaffeinated" form of "the other"... they love Mexicans with their great food and tequilla, but they don't want their children going to the same schools as their own children. They love rich progressive blacks with their affirmative action banking jobs and who make them feel like they are not prejudiced, but who live in a gated community and would never dream of moving into a black ghetto neighborhood.

And so they cannot ever "criticize" the "decaffeinated" other. The Christian WILL criticize the other, but will love him DESPITE all of the dangerous traits that make him dangerous... as well as WORK with them to "change" their dangerous behaviours.

Thersites said...

This might help you better understand Zizek's argument.

Gert said...

Hi FJ,



Freud???

Hahahahahhahahhahhahhahhha...hahaha. What a clown! Does anyone still take those scribblings seriously?

Your spiel is essentially 'us good, leftards bad', slightly sugar coated.

I know very well why I support certain causes and why I can feel genuine empathy for those who I see as oppressed, even if I don't know a single member of that oppressed group. Here Zizek comes across as a charlatan, unintentionally insulting me. The 'Media' isn't the 'Left' either, as you seem to read it.

Idolators of Capitalism, please also stop imputing attributes and properties to your beloved free market mythology.

Thersites said...

The invisible hand is an unattributable property? Who knew?

ps - If the media isn't Left, then what's the problem with Faux News? ;)

Thersites said...

pps - Perhaps you need to stop imputing proprties and attributes to "the other" of "the Other". Capital doesn't speak Yiddish. ;)

Gert said...

Hi FJ,

I was initially going to put up a beefier (first) rebuttal, but lack of time due to setting up a new business made it impossible.

Zizek is an interesting guy but very confusing. I don’t see how one can today still believe in Communism (even say, v2.0), let alone arrive at justifications for it via psychoanalytical mumbo jumbo.

I see Capitalism as a wealth generation system. How enamoured one is with it depends largely on the gains/losses one stands to make by being part of it.

Capitalism has served the US quite well but its emergence there was also quite different from in Europe. That has led to American Capitalism becoming the core of an entire ideology, replete with followers, useful idiots and its own ‘holy texts’. And the grafting on of Americanised versions of Godology v1.2 (Christianity. Sorry, now ‘Judeo-Christianity’, courtesy of Zionism ;-) )

Faux News proves of course that ‘the MSM are leftwing’ is a perspectival fallacy: it’s the largest satellite new network in the US, for G-d’s sake! And there’s no shortage of other mainstream Republican/Conservative news outlets, never mind Talk Radio, or the rightwing ‘alternative’ media.

‘Invisible hand:’: explain?

-FJ said...

The invisible hand has already been explained.

The point is, that evan an ideology born of a void/vacuum like "laissez faire" economics can have "attributable properties".

Of course with all the prevalent "State" domestic and mercantilist forms of capitalism around, the laissez-faire "variety" of capitalism is an increasingly vanishing breed. And the extreme Libertarian form of Anarcho-capitalism is a bit much, even for the most "strident" Libertarian-leaning conservative, as myself.

And so, what to do? There must be some room for common ground... for addressing the "issues of the commons". Perhaps allowing "Just enough" Government to ensure a "level playing field" for laissez-faire to regain some lost ground. Because I put little stock in the coming post-democratic capitalist consumerism, of the "Chinese"and/ or American/ European "corporate" varieties.

Gert said...

I may misunderstand you but there seems to me to be a contraction in your last paragraph. It may just look like that from my perspective though.

Allowing ‘just enough G’ment to allow laissez-faire to regain ground’: it seems to me that post-Reagan G’ments have deregulated the financial system on behalf of corporate ‘democratic players’ (read lobbies) to allow more laissez-faire, with the promise of greater profits and more wealth generation. In Europe the slow conversion of ‘normal banking’ to ‘investment banking’ by deregulated increased conflation of the two systems, leading to some of the mega problems we’ve seen, leading in turn to loss of consumer trust in many of these banks and subsequent G’ment need to rescue ‘too big to fail’, is something I witnessed firsthand.

As regards corporate democracies being ‘post-democracy’, I'd agree but I’m not sure it’s what you mean in light of the first part of that paragraph. In my opinion the increased ‘democratic’ power of corporations (in the US: ‘money is speech’ for instance) leads inexorably to further laissez-faire and loss of power, both economic and democratic, of the less powerful.

Thersites said...

It's no"contradiction" provided you understand that a corporation is a legally constructed "socialist" construct that needs to get "deconstructed."

Thersites said...

...I want lasssiz faire for living, breathing people, NOT "imaginary" legal constructs (corporations).

Speedy G said...

In other words, no government established "special" legal and tax breaks for "corporate" entities. The Roman Catholic Church was the very first western-style "corporation". Corporations have been accumulating "special" privileges ever since.

Gert said...

"socialist" construct...

Did you mean "social" construct? What's 'socialist' about a corporation?