This World is So Stupid they Cannot Even...

[SkyNigger]

Can anyone do Logic? At all?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...j-zizek-review

"I live as a madman!" he exclaims, and leads me on a tour of the apartment to demonstrate why his kitchen cabinets contain only clothing. "You see, there's no room anywhere else!" And indeed, every other room is lined, floor to ceiling, with DVDs and books; volumes of his own 75 works, translated into innumerable languages, fill one room alone.

If you have read all of Žižek's work, you are doing better than me. Born in 1949, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic grew up under Tito in the former Yugoslavia, where suspicions of dissidence consigned him to academic backwaters. He came to western attention in 1989 with his first book written in English, The Sublime Object of Ideology, a re-reading of Žižek's great hero Hegel through the perspective of another hero, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Since then there have been titles such as Living in the End Times, along with films – The Pervert's Guide To Cinema – and more articles than I can count.

By the standards of cultural theory, Žižek sits at the more accessible end of the spectrum – but to give you an idea of where that still leaves him, here's a typical quote from a book called Žižek: A Guide for the Perplexed, intended to render him more comprehensible: "Žižek finds the place for Lacan in Hegel by seeing the Real as the correlate of the self-division and self-doubling within phenomena."

And you morons think my writing is complex?

At the risk of upsetting Žižek's fanatical global following, I would say that a lot of his work is impenetrable. But he writes with exhilarating ambition and his central thesis offers a perspective even his critics would have to concede is thought-provoking.

He has a global following because he's playing by the rules. He's a fraud. He has a publishing company marketing & promoting his books. He gives lectures. He makes students call him Professor.

Nothing he says has provoked my thoughts. I've thought of it all and a great deal more. And I've posted about it all, already. He says lots of logical things I've already said. And he says lots of illogical things I can obliterate, with Logic.

In essence, he argues that nothing is ever what it appears, and contradiction is encoded in almost everything. Most of what we think of as radical or subversive – or even simply ethical – doesn't actually change anything.

I've been saying this since I saw reality change to another reality before my eyes, as my mood crashed from artificial high to artificial low.

"Like when you buy an organic apple, you're doing it for ideological reasons, it makes you feel good: 'I'm doing something for Mother Earth,' and so on. But in what sense are we engaged? It's a false engagement. Paradoxically, we do these things to avoid really doing things. It makes you feel good. You recycle, you send £5 a month to some Somali orphan, and you did your duty." But really, we've been tricked into operating safety valves that allow the status quo to survive unchallenged? "Yes, exactly."

This is ridiculous. I mean it's obviously true, but I've been saying this since I was 17. Morons send $5 / month to CCF and get their little annual template scrawled letter (which is mass-produced) and they tell themselves this makes them a 'good' person."

The obsession of western liberals with identity politics only distracts from class struggle, and while Žižek doesn't defend any version of communism ever seen in practice, he remains what he calls a "complicated Marxist" with revolutionary ideals.

There are literally screenshots of my posts on this forum where I rant against liberals who hate the regime in Thailand rallying around Thaksin as their identity, imaging the minds of the imprinted with another identity. New for old. The minds of the masses remain controlled.

But since the financial crisis he has been elevated to the status of a global-recession celebrity, drawing crowds of adoring followers who revere him as an intellectual genius. His popularity is just the sort of paradox Žižek delights in because if it were down to him, he says, he would rather not talk to anyone.

This notoriety game is a sham. He plays morons with this intellectual aloofness and introverted bullshit. You morons can't do logic.

You wouldn't guess so from the energetic flurry of good manners with which he welcomes us, but he's quick to clarify that his attentiveness is just camouflage for misanthropy.

Other way around dipshit. You had it right the first time until he quickly muddled your gullible face.

"For me, the idea of hell is the American type of parties. Or, when they ask me to give a talk, and they say something like, 'After the talk there will just be a small reception' – I know this is hell. This means all the frustrated idiots, who are not able to ask you a question at the end of the talk, come to you and, usually, they start: 'Professor Žižek, I know you must be tired, but …' Well, fuck you. If you know that I am tired, why are you asking me?

Since I was five years old I've been saying "Too late" to people who go, "Can I ask you a question?" This is an illogical world. And you're all insane. And you're all narcissists who do this shit ALL the time. It's what I've been using Ejay to show you imbeciles but if you're blind, you're blind.

I'm really more and more becoming Stalinist. Liberals always say about totalitarians that they like humanity, as such, but they have no empathy for concrete people, no? OK, that fits me perfectly. Humanity? Yes, it's OK – some great talks, some great arts. Concrete people? No, 99% are boring idiots."

He's right but he doesn't have the answers.

I fucking do. This isn't my 'opinion'. It's provable, you morons.

Most of all, he can't stand students. "Absolutely. I was shocked, for example, once, a student approached me in the US, when I was still teaching a class – which I will never do again – and he told me: 'You know, professor, it interested me what you were saying yesterday, and I thought, I don't know what my paper should be about. Could you please give me some more thoughts and then maybe some idea will pop up.' Fuck him! Who I am to do that?"

Žižek has had to quit most of his teaching posts in Europe and America, to get away from these intolerable students. "I especially hate when they come to me with personal problems. My standard line is: 'Look at me, look at my tics, don't you see that I'm mad? How can you even think about asking a mad man like me to help you in personal problems, no?'" You can see what he means, for Žižek cuts a fairly startling physical figure – like a grizzly bear, pawing wildly at his face, sniffing and snuffling and gesticulating between every syllable.

I am fucking sane. I don't have tics. I charm people every day, without lying to them. I can help anyone with any personal problem because I can do Logic better than anyone. And I'm unemotional. Or at least, not as emotional as you jokes and I'm only ever annoyed at the insanity.

So of course, you morons who can't do Logic think you should give me unsolicited life advice. You're too stupid to be plausible.

"But it doesn't work! They still trust me. And I hate this because – this is what I don't like about American society – I don't like this openness, like when you meet a guy for the first time, and he's starting to tell you about his sex life. I hate this, I hate this!"

What a moron. That's a good thing about Americans. The bad thing is that they're lying when they do it, because they're trying to impress. They don't impress me when I can see right through their transparent attempts at self-promotion. But then they're shooting a little lower on the Gullible Scale.

I have to laugh at this, because Žižek brings up his sex life within moments of our first meeting.

He's not insane, although you could be forgiven for thinking so here. He's just a social retard who gets trapped in his own lies. He's a narcissist, just like each and every one of you. He does what he hates you doing. You're all the same.

I might be the only authentic person alive. This terrifies me. Because I'm only staying alive hoping for something I cannot visualise. A miracle. Something stupid like that.

On the way up in the lift he volunteers that a former girlfriend used to ask him for what he called "consensual rape". I had imagined he would want to discuss his new book about Hegel, but what he really seems keen to talk about is sex.

No shit. It's a Catholic world.

"Yeah, because I'm extremely romantic here. You know what is my fear? This postmodern, permissive, pragmatic etiquette towards sex. It's horrible. They claim sex is healthy; it's good for the heart, for blood circulation, it relaxes you. They even go into how kissing is also good because it develops the muscles here – this is horrible, my God!" He's appalled by the promise of dating agencies to "outsource" the risk of romance. "It's no longer that absolute passion. I like this idea of sex as part of love, you know: 'I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery just to fuck you for ever.' There is something nice, transcendent, about it. I remain incurably romantic."

Fucking morons. All of you are morons.

This guy is the first I've seen in a long time who makes some sense, and even he's a fucking moron.

I keep thinking I should try to intervene with a question, but he's off again. "I have strange limits. I am very – OK, another detail, fuck it. I was never able to do – even if a woman wanted it – annal sex." Annal sex? "Ah, anal sex. You know why not? Because I couldn't convince myself that she really likes it. I always had this suspicion, what if she only pretends, to make herself more attractive to me? It's the same thing for fellatio; I was never able to finish into the woman's mouth, because again, my idea is, this is not exactly the most tasteful fluid. What if she's only pretending?"

Why you could be forgiven for thinking all he wants to talk about is sex.

He's too socially inept and narcissistic to be able to answer these obvious questions himself.

The answer is that it's a consensual act. Why the fuck would she like the taste? Ergo, she's enjoying PLEASING you. Is it morally ethical to allow others to suffer to please you? No. There is no way to rationalise it. If you are sane, you will only ever be pleased when others are NOT suffering to please.

He can count the number of women he has slept with on his hands, because he finds the whole business so nerve-racking. "I cannot have one-night stands. I envy people who can do it; it would be wonderful. I feel nice, let's go, bang-bang – yes! But for me, it's something so ridiculously intimate – like, my God, it's horrible to be naked in front of another person, you know?

If you are a Catholic Toddler, invested in the Bible's emotional corruption of Healthy Embarrassment into Insane Terminal Shame, then yes. If you're sane, then no. How the fuck could it be horrible?

You will find that every answer to that question is provably insane. You just have to be able to do Logic.

If the other one is evil with a remark – 'Ha ha, your stomach,' or whatever – everything can be ruined, you know?" Besides, he can't sleep with anyone unless he believes they might stay together for ever.

Well, that's perfectly sane. Fucking morons. All of you are fucking morons.

"All my relationships – this is why they are very few – were damned from the perspective of eternity. What I mean with this clumsy term is, maybe they will last."

But Žižek has been divorced three times. How has he coped with that? "Ah, now I will tell you. You know the young Marx – I don't idealise Marx, he was a nasty guy, personally – but he has a wonderful logic. He says: 'You don't simply dissolve marriage; divorce means that you retroactively establish that the love was not the true love.' When love goes away, you retroactively establish that it wasn't even true love."

I have literally said all of this on this forum many times. Love is not real. Every love is false. My logic is pure. Marx, in this instance, was correct. Look at this moron talking about logic as if it even _could_ be wonderful. Logic is logic. Of course it's wonderful. Is there a non-wonderful logic?

No. You might say that would be...illogical.

Is that what he did? "Yes! I erase it totally. I don't only believe that I'm no longer in love. I believe I never was."

No one ever is.

As if to illustrate this, he glances at his watch; his 12-year-old son, who lives nearby, will be arriving shortly. How is this going to work when he gets here? Don't worry, Žižek says, he's bound to be late – on account of the tardiness of his mother: "The bitch who claims to have been my wife." But weren't they married? "Unfortunately, yes."

Žižek has two sons – the other is in his 30s – but never wanted to be a parent. "I will tell you the formula why I love my two sons. This is my liberal, compassionate side. I cannot resist it, when I see someone hurt, vulnerable and so on. So precisely when the son was not fully wanted, this made me want to love him even more."

That's called being humane. The corrupted version of this you could see in Thailand 100,000 times per day. It starts with humane and gets distorted into insanity. Love is about ownership. Possession. It has nothing to do with empathy, not in the way you creeps define Love.

By now I can see we're not going to get anywhere near Žižek's new book about Hegel, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. Instead, he tells me about the holidays he takes with his young son. The last one was to the Burj Al Arab hotel, a grotesque temple to tacky ostentation in Dubai. "Why not? Why not? I like to do crazy things. But I did my Marxist duty. I got friendly with the Pakistani taxi driver who showed to me and my son reality. The whole structure of how the workers there live was explained, how it was controlled. My son was horrified."

Your reality is controlled. I've been saying this over and over again but none of you are sane or bright enough to have a clue.

3500 years of people too stupid to realise it's all an illusion of (corrupted) emotional perspective.

This summer they are off to Singapore, to an artificial island with swimming pools built on top of 50-storey skyscrapers. "So we can swim there and look down on the city: 'Ha ha, fuck you.' That's what I like to do – totally crazy things." It wasn't so much fun when his son was younger. "But now, we have a certain rhythm established. We sleep 'til one, then we go to breakfast, then we go to the city – no culture, just consumerism or some stupid things like this – then we go back for dinner, then we go to a movie theatre, then we play games 'til three in the morning."

I wonder what all Žižek's earnest young followers will make of this, and worry they will be cross with me for not getting anything more serious out of him. But to Žižek, Dubai tells us just as much about the world as a debate about the deficit, say, ever can. When his sweet-looking, polite young son arrives, I try to steer Žižek on to the financial crisis, and to the role his admirers hope he will play in formulating a radical response.

"I always emphasise: don't expect this from me. I don't think that the task of a guy like me is to propose complete solutions. When people ask me what to do with the economy, what the hell do I know? I think the task of people like me is not to provide answers but to ask the right questions."

At least he's being honest. And until I was 29, I asked all the right questions. I had zero answers.

I have the fucking answers now. But no one is intelligent enough to even fucking engage my arguments. You imbeciles. I have the complete solutions. I have the Logic. If you could do Logic you would see the obvious brilliance instantly, once it's been pointed out to you. Oh.

I guess you're all screwed.

He's not against democracy, per se, he just thinks our democratic institutions are no longer capable of controlling global capitalism.

No longer? They never were capable of controlling greed because you imbeciles have been turned into emotionally-stunted narcissists who think Intelligent Selfishness is setting up a Limited Liability Corporation to force someone else to foot the bills. Make others pay for your liabilities? Gosh What could possibly go wrong? Imbeciles.

"Nice consensual incremental reforms may work, possibly, at a local level." But localism belongs in the same category as organic apples, and recycling. "It's done to make you feel good. But the big question today is how to organise to act globally, at an immense international level, without regressing to some authoritarian rule."

I literally have all the answers. It's a fucking joke. Utopia is in the best interests of everybody but you're all too stupid to realise no one has to do anything to make it happen.

They just have to stop corrupting children. You imbeciles and your 'crafty' exploitation. Taking 'advantage' over other humans. Taking 'advantage' of Religious disparities. You idiotic fools. You get played so hard, it's really just pitiful.

How will that happen? "I'm a pessimist in the sense that we are approaching dangerous times. But I'm an optimist for exactly the same reason. Pessimism means things are getting messy. Optimism means these are precisely the times when change is possible."

Nonsense. There is no Logic in that statement. Optimism is hoping without reason. No, simply being in the shit is not a reason for hope. What is wrong with you morons and your dysfunctional brains?

Oh wait. I have posted the answers to all these questions and a great many more.

And what are the chances that things won't change? "Ah, if this happens then we are slowly approaching a new apartheid authoritarian society. It will not be – I must underline this – the old stupid authoritarianism. This will be a new form, still consumerist." The whole world will look like Dubai? "Yes, and in Dubai, you know, the other side are literally slaves."

Hah. He's as right as I am whenever I say it. He's just a few thousand years too late to be predicting.

There is something inexplicably touching about all Žižek's mischievous bombast. I hadn't expected him to be so likable, but he really is hilariously good company. I had hoped to find out if he was a genius or a lunatic – but I fear I leave none the wiser. I ask him how seriously he would recommend we take him, and he says he would rather be feared than taken for a clown. "Most people think I'm making jokes, exaggerating – but no, I'm not. It's not that. First I tell jokes, then I'm serious. No, the art is to bring the serious message into the forum of jokes."

There are few insanities as insane as the question I have highlighted in Red. If you cannot understand why, then LOL. How the hell could you understand? You're all too stupid. You ask questions like that all the time.

Two years ago his front teeth came out. "My son knows I have a good friend; none of us is gay, just good friends. So when he saw me without teeth, he said: 'I know why.' My son! He was 10! You know what he told me? Think, associate, in the dirtiest way." I think I can guess. "Yes! Sucking! He said my friend complained that my teeth were in the way." Žižek roars with laughter, great gales of paternal pride.

"And you know what was tragicomic? After he told me this, he said: 'Father, did I tell this joke well?'"

"Father, did I PLEASE you?"

He can't even raise his own son without exploiting his emotions with love. Fuck you morons and your stupidity. I write so simply. It just flies over your head. Go read this guy's writing and gobble up his inability to hold a torch to my mind. Go and fucking die already, you filthy slaves.

Or have a dozen children. You know, whatever's 'trendy'.