discipline posted:

RUPER MURDOCH MAN WHO OWNS MOST MEDIA SEZ

The 21st Century Fox Chairman and CEO tweeted that "Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible," going on to tweet "Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US. Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy."

conec posted:

jiroemon1897 posted:

FAILAIDS posted:

PN aren't white supremacist. Just national anarchist. The same milieu with other kool edgebros like Weev and Kouichi Toyama.

whatever that means. they're still on the right, regardless of that indria dude, who is the perfect example of "one of the goods ones" exempt because of "culture." "national" is just a slightly gussied up notion of race, a more practical version. peste noire is a great example of modern racism's transcendence of the whole "they aren't racist because one of them isn't white" narrative. reminds me a lot of south texas, where the racism is cunning/practical enough to allow for a lot of "good ones" because the white population doesn't have a majority in most places here

theyre a black metal band. i can only remember ever listening to one of their albums, and i dont recall any political themes. i backspaced some post but basically what i said was: a one man black metal band pedophile who ruined a couple years of my tween life used the same logo. hes mexican. 95% of black metal bands are visual key. to look up the politics of a black metal musician is autistic. i looked up sth like "are peste noire racist" bcos u sneak dissed me. i skipped all the links and just went to the wiki page. judging by what you wrote about "peste noire" i am certain that u based your post off a section from the wiki page. u can try n guess if a dude from peste noire is racist bcos he claims to be a french nationalist (many black metallers flex nationalism cos it seems tough) but what is the point???? i admit i guessed they werent a racist bunch simply bcos theyve got a poc in their band. u kno they also probably consider themselves apart of LLN? how can you be LLN if youve got a non french person?? is that racism or just chauvinism??

i agree that discussing the political tendencies of black metal is pointless and autistic, doubly so regarding the hype/speculation around peste noire specifically. that's why i made the joke about it being a form of liberalism. and i agree with the visual kei comparison. the dressing up part is what's important for most of these dudes. anyway, i couldn't care less if these bands are racist/fascist, my money isn't going to them and i won't be anywhere near their shows. also, i don't see how i sneak dissed you.

my point wasn't even about peste noire (or black metal), but rather their situation of vacillating between notions of racial purity and "normal" rightist nationalism, and how it's indicative of the evolution of racism in the metropoles. the twist is that by going "beyond" race to be "inclusive" (but still definitely rightist) they drop a little racism in the short term to expand fascism in the long term; reminds me of marine le pen courting tokens a few months ago. a limited amount of racial "integration" into the reaction has always been necessary to uphold empires, a la the ottomans, and colonies, like most of latin america, but in the west this hasn't been the case, domestically speaking. seeing a similar shift within the epicenters of empire is telling of demographics and the adaption both neoliberalism and fascism are willing to take to survive. they get the same thing done in a much more practical way by extending the idea of "french" or "good ol' american" just enough. places like colombia have been doing the whole "multiracial" fascism thing for a while, but it's now solidly the trend for america too.

tl;dr: racism and chauvinism have always been peas in a pod, but they've really started to converge in the west recently

Gibbonstrength posted:

cops arent racist

this is the weirdest point paraded by the Anti-Conec Squad because all she said was that cops shooting black kids isn't a recent phenomenon? she's suggesting that cops have always been racist, it's really bizarre to read it any other way. don't let that stop you from repeating inane misreadings of weeks old posts she has made in every single thread she posts in though

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Jan. 11, 2015 02:00:50)

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

RedMaistre posted:

That was not surprising coming from Zizek, but it does summarize the general logic by which anti-capitalist thought is being mobilized for the war effort against the specter of Islamic wizardry. As SZ sums it up: "Liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left."

This is the rhetorical form of popular frontism without any corresponding social content, since what is at stake is no longer social rights, democracy, or the self-determination of the colonized but standing up for "core values", the Enlightenment brand.

they believe that they are standing up for those things, though. they believe islam is a threat to democracy, social rights, and foreign peoples. the point to be made is that this is largely right-wing talking point nonsense and pointing the finger away from our own, greater complicity

I am sure this "they" exists, but Zizek is not one of them. A constant theme of his thought is a fash argument against democracy as a latently "totalitarian" illusion of those lacking philosophy (and he means all forms democracy, from its liberal representative form to the people's democracy of actually existing socialism).

As for the possessions of social rights (right to health benefits, housing,etc).
Zizek take regarding all that is to replace the welfare state with the authentically "Communist" and "utopian" demand to be allowed to work for free:

"Pink identifies three elements underlying such intrinsic motivation: autonomy, the ability to choose what and how tasks are completed; mastery, the process of becoming adept at an activity; and purpose, the desire to improve the world. Here is the report on a study carried out by MIT:

"They took a whole group of students and they gave them a set of challenges. Things like memorizing strings of digits solving word puzzles, other kinds of spatial puzzles even physical tasks like throwing a ball through a hoop. To incentivize their performance they gave them 3 levels of rewards: if you did pretty well, you got a small monetary reward; if you did medium well, you got a medium monetary reward; if you did really well, if you were one of the top performers you got a large cash prize. Here's what they found out. As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected the higher the pay, the better their performance. But once the task calls for even rudimentary cognitive skill a larger reward led to poorer performance. How can that possibly be? This conclusion seems contrary to what a lot of us learned in economics which is that the higher the reward, the better the performance. And they're saying that once you get above rudimentary cognitive skill it's the other way around which seems like the idea that these rewards don't work that way seems vaguely Left-Wing and Socialist, doesn't it? It's this kind of weird Socialist conspiracy. For those of you who have these conspiracy theories I want to point out the notoriously left-wing socialist group that financed the research: The Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe that 50 dollars or 60 dollars prize isn't sufficiently motivating for an MIT student - so they went to Madurai in rural India, where 50 or 60 dollars is a significant sum of money. They replicated the experiment in India and what happened was that the people offered the medium reward did no better than the people offered the small reward but this time around, the people offered the top reward they did worst of all: higher incentives led to worse performance. This experiment has been replicated over and over and over again by psychologists, by sociologists and by economists: for simple, straight-forward tasks, those kinds of incentives work, but when the task requires some conceptual, creative thinking those kind of motivators demonstrably don't work. The best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. Pay people enough, so they are not thinking about money and they're thinking about the work. You get a bunch of people who are doing highly skilled work but they're willing to do it for free and volunteer their time 20, sometimes 30 hours a week; and what they create, they give it away, rather than sell it. Why are these people, many of whom are technically sophisticated highly skilled people who have jobs, doing equally, if not more, technically sophisticated work not for their employer, but for someone else for free! That's a strange economic behavior."
This "strange behaviour" is, in fact, that of a Communist who follows Marx's well-known motto: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - this is the only "ethics of gift" that has any authentic utopian dimension."
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/08/14/3567719.htm

TL; DR: Abreit Macht Frei


Zizek has often derided anti-colonial struggles by people of color under the general rubric of being redolent of slavish resentment (unless, as in the case of his praise of Haiti, he can construe it as emanation of cutting edge metropolitan whites ) and the Judaic deceitfulness of multiculturalism. At the same time he chides leftists for criticizing America.

That he viewed the Ukrainian color revolution as a blow for freedom should tell us with sufficient clarity what he thinks those much praised values of liberty and equality mean.

Edited by RedMaistre (Jan. 11, 2015 04:47:10)