“This is called Hegelian dialectic. Two seemingly opposing sides—“thesis” and “antithesis”—are clashed and ultimately reconciled at some point by a “synthesis.”
This is what Zizek usually does. Mashing up of two completely opposite ideas to advance his ideas or agenda.
Ah yes, I heard of Zizek a bit -- apparently he elicited a deal of left-wing flak for suggesting the long-term "benefits" of a Trump presidency in that it would provoke an eventual leftward swing, if I recall correctly. Of course, wouldn't his ideological model fit into Icke's "problem-reaction-solution" rather than "classical" Hegelian dialectic?
Exactly. I am never sure what he is about. He doesn’t have a model that clearly fits into either the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” or “problem-reaction-solution”. To me he seems to be a grifter, who will ride onto anything that’s trending. I read his “Violence” and I have literal notes like “what???” or “are you serious?”. He is a genius nonetheless in evoking strong emotions by saying polar opinions.
Well, the reason I'm suggesting Zizek's views fit into Icke's IRS model is because -- if I'm summarizing correctly -- he essentially said that voting in Trump (problem) will lead to an eventual greater leftist swing (reaction) to accomplish hard-left ends (solution). Anyways, I have not (yet, as of typing) seen his content on "Violence." Thanks for mentioning, A M.
Just watched and bookmarked -- thank you a massive ton, Michael. That <4 min. analysis just shed a massive amount of light: it most definitely explains why Zionists can with the most arrogant impunity peddle the "but Hamas doesn't care about Palestinians" narrative -- because the truth's conjunction is with the reality that the Zionists ordered Hamas to do their bidding and therefore have the advance knowledge.
On a somewhat different note:
“This is called Hegelian dialectic. Two seemingly opposing sides—“thesis” and “antithesis”—are clashed and ultimately reconciled at some point by a “synthesis.”
This is what Zizek usually does. Mashing up of two completely opposite ideas to advance his ideas or agenda.
Ah yes, I heard of Zizek a bit -- apparently he elicited a deal of left-wing flak for suggesting the long-term "benefits" of a Trump presidency in that it would provoke an eventual leftward swing, if I recall correctly. Of course, wouldn't his ideological model fit into Icke's "problem-reaction-solution" rather than "classical" Hegelian dialectic?
Exactly. I am never sure what he is about. He doesn’t have a model that clearly fits into either the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” or “problem-reaction-solution”. To me he seems to be a grifter, who will ride onto anything that’s trending. I read his “Violence” and I have literal notes like “what???” or “are you serious?”. He is a genius nonetheless in evoking strong emotions by saying polar opinions.
Well, the reason I'm suggesting Zizek's views fit into Icke's IRS model is because -- if I'm summarizing correctly -- he essentially said that voting in Trump (problem) will lead to an eventual greater leftist swing (reaction) to accomplish hard-left ends (solution). Anyways, I have not (yet, as of typing) seen his content on "Violence." Thanks for mentioning, A M.
You may find this video and transcript quite interesting I think. Less than 4 minutes long:
https://www.memri.org/tv/kuwaiti-researcher-aisha-rshed-iran-arm-of-zionist-freemasonry-hamas-created-by-israeli-mossad
Just watched and bookmarked -- thank you a massive ton, Michael. That <4 min. analysis just shed a massive amount of light: it most definitely explains why Zionists can with the most arrogant impunity peddle the "but Hamas doesn't care about Palestinians" narrative -- because the truth's conjunction is with the reality that the Zionists ordered Hamas to do their bidding and therefore have the advance knowledge.