The Impotency of the Left against Trump
Radical Leftist Slavoj Zizek is considered one of the world’s leading contemporary philosophers, famous for his ideological critiques which connect disparate and seemingly unrelated phenomena. His method is to make intelligible the previous obfuscated realms of Lacan, Hegel, Freud and Derrida, insights which are then used to shine a clarifying and sobering light on contemporary events, politics, literature and film. Among American Campus’ Zizek has a status that befits a ‘rock star,’ as professor’s fawn for his attention and students flock en masse to hear him lecture. But how radical and coherent are Zizek’s arguments when it comes to Trump? In the clip and commentary below, you will see just how ‘impotent’ Zizek is in making a case against Trump. I would also assert that Zizek’s ‘impotency’ exemplifies and mirrors the Left’s ‘impotency,’ as Zizek is unable to string a single coherent argument against Trump. It truly is awful.
Zizek's first line of attack is to call Donald Trump disgusting. Witness the irony as the ‘unwashed’ Zizek calls Donald Trump ‘disgusting’ as his spit flecks and hangs from his beard while his double chin wags with palpable disgust. Typically, as in most ad hominem attacks, Zizek cannot articulate why he finds Trump ‘disgusting,’ only that he thinks Trump is ‘disgusting.’ That is, Trump, as a basic property of nature, is 'disgusting,' in the same manner that faeces is disgusting. He does not say ‘morally disgusting’ only ‘disgusting,’ so we can assume that Trump induces within Zizek a feeling of raw disgust, of revilement, and now he is articulating this feeling of disgust. This is not an apposite state from which to build a philosophically coherent argument. This signals that the argument henceforth will be one of rationalising Zizek's disgust.
This isn't really a criticism of Zizek considering all argument stems from an emotional impulse, as recent findings in Neuroscience have shown us, but it does emphasise his emotional starting point is one of shrill disgust, as such we can expect Zizek's reasoning to follow this line. If his starting point was less virulent, a more objective and logically reasoned line of thought could be expected - but that is evidently not the case (as will be demonstrated henceforth).
I was expecting from Zizek a typical polemic about the ‘moral horrors’ of restricting immigration or at least anything from him to justify his one worded SJW placard of 'disgusting', but he avoids even attacking Trump on a routinely attacked and misunderstood policy issue. Demonstrably, this signals to us that Zizek is motivated emotionally rather than analytically towards Trump.
Zizek then admits that ‘’with Trump he [Zizek] becomes a ‘racist.’ Although, typical of Zizek, he gives no argument for this transitive claim. Now, despite completely misusing the word ‘racist’ as the Left generally do, we must take this word as it exists in the nomenclature of the Left, that is, ‘racist’ is synonymous with stereotypical and/or pre-judgemental.
According to the Left, ‘racism’ is completely unnatural, irrational and motivated out of hatred, a hatred that denies the merit and equality of the individual. This ‘hatred’ of the ‘other’ is argued not to be the result of biological differences (the Left deny biological racial differences) but only a result of ‘a difference skin deep,’ a meaningless and irrelevant difference. ‘Race,’ the Left argue, is not real but an oppressive social construction that seeks to divide. To be ‘racist,’ then, is to irrationally hate an individual based on prejudice and an erroneous social construction. In light of this, we have to take Zizek’s ‘racist’ statement, then, as confirming his own irrational and emotionally charged stance against Trump, a charge, no less, irrationally motivated out of hatred. This is hardly the most stable foundation in which to launch a withering philosophical critique.
Zizek with observable gaps in his teeth and in his bland, messy black t-shirt poses the rhetorical question ‘‘is he [Trump] civilised, is he [Trump] really one of us’’? I’m not sure what the point of this rhetorical question is, and I’m not sure what Zizek is trying to say by positing that question? As per a regular theme in this clip, he is unable to specify what makes Trump uncivilised, so it is hard to ascertain what Zizek could mean by ‘civilised,’ other than stating that Trump strays from the bounds of accepted (leftists) discourse. This is of course nonsensical. It is truly hard to ascertain how Trump could be 'uncivilised', considering his fortune, his exceptionally high IQ, decorum and massive fanbase that love hearing his discourse on issues that actually matter to them. Not only is Trump's discourse not 'uncivilised,' it is popular to the extent that it constitutes a new movement and paradigm shift in American politics.
Zizek qualifies his previous statement in a typically cuckoldry fashion, and asserts, ‘’I have no problem with Jews, Black and Arabs, but I have a problem with Trump.’’ Firstly, it is extremely strange to see Zizek compare Trump to minority groups. Zizek, of course, is ‘’virtue-signalling,’’ to signal how tolerant and how unprejudiced he really is. The very fact that he has to ‘virtue-signal’ is testament to the fact that his argument is extremely prejudiced and irrational, now matter how much he tries to camouflage it. It is akin to the clichéd, ''I'm not a racist but... I hate [insert racial expletive here]. Yes, Zizek, if you judge a tree by its fruits, you really are an extremely prejudiced person. Bigotry towards individuals can exist between opposing political ideologies.
To make matters worse for Zizek, Zizek calls Trump a ‘’confused opportunist.’’ I’m not sure how campaigning for the presidency can make you an opportunist, especially when you self-fund your own campaign? Does that make Obama and Hillary Clinton opportunists? Are they not more opportunistic than Trump if they take money from special interests? A very bizarre and irrelevant criticism. Of course, what really is going on is that Zizek doesn’t like Trump because a) he’s a Republican b) is exposing the system for being the corrupt edifice that it really is. That is, Zizek doesn’t like Trump only on the basis of Trump’s ideological opposition to Zizek's leftism - okay for a political polemicist, but not for a seemingly 'objective and rational' philosopher. More bizarre is that Zizek cannot seemingly understand that to run for office you don’t have to be a ‘professional politician,’ a strange critique considering the Left’s call for tolerance and equality – surely Trump should be judged as an individual on his own merits? Is Zizek really suggesting that you can only run for office if you take special interest and donor money?
Zizek apparently fears an ‘opportunist’ in the White House. Again, considering the excessive amount of unconstitutional collusion between corporate interests and the government with ‘politicians’ bought and paid for at the helm, this is an illogical and incoherent criticism. Of course, Zizek cannot specify why Trump as President would be bad, nor can he argue successfully why an ‘opportunist’ at the helm would be bad.
Predictably, because Zizek is only rationalising his emotions, he doesn’t deign to argue or justify his criticism of Trump. Ostensibly, he is stereotyping Trump as a crass, impulsive redneck, ready to launch nuclear war at a whim. Not only is this characterisation nonsense, it is extremely stereotypical and racist (white redneck). Not only is Trump not a redneck, but he has an IQ over 140 + and is a self-made billionaire (yes, I know he received a million in inheritance from his father, it doesn’t change the fact that he is self-made). Trump is literally at the top of the financial and cognitive percentiles. It is very unlikely that Zizek has a comparable IQ. But, moreover, when people do act stereotypically towards minorities, it is not irrational, it is based on group empirical evidence of low minority IQ and high crime rates. Zizek, then, is not only prejudicially stereotyping Trump, his stereotyping is nonsensical and irrational.
Weirdly, Zizek, while rambling and talking in non-sequiturs, and asserting how he hates how Trump ‘improvises,’ then agrees that Trump’s policy recommendations and conduct towards Russia is exemplary. Considering Clinton’s warmongering stance towards Russia, Trump’s conduct towards Russia cannot be starker. Obviously, in critiquing a politician, then, policies and leadership should weigh substantively heavier than whether Trump improvises – but not in Zizek’s irrational world. Ironically, the only empirical evidence Zizek can invoke against Trump is evidently pro Trump - a clear sign of cognitive dissonance. This is further reinforced by Zizek’s comment that Trump’s proposal towards the Israeli/Palestine conflict is ‘’most sound and moderate’’ Trying to take Zizek’s words at face value, I’m struggling to objectively discern from Zizek a criticism against Trump. In the most sensitive matters of foreign policy, it seems as if Trump has, in some strange way, Zizek’s backing.
Zizek’s hatred of Trump is meant to be camouflaged by his attack on Ted Cruz for being ‘evil,’ but it revealingly makes explicit that Zizek’s hatred of Cruz is comparable to his hatred of Trump – Republican and conservative values (except, Cruz’ Christianity makes him especially malicious, as per leftist hatred of religion). Zizek’s grand criticism of Trump? Etiquette of decay (yes, in a world of ISIS, ethic conflict, government and corporate collusion and racial dispossession, it really is that banal and mundane).
Zizek states that the Left are the last defenders of common simple decency (obviously false) and compares Trump to ‘a man who noisily defecates in a room,’ by being bombastic. Zizek and his cronies revel in this falsity and cronyism, whilst WikiLeaks and Anti Trump violence has revealed the insidious baseness of Leftist’s. Zizek then proceeds to make a rather tortuous and frankly mundane point that the Left should be dogmatic about etiquette, using being dogmatic against rape as an example. Zizek in this rather inane ideological assertion is exemplifying Typical Leftist thought, that is, focusing on optics rather than policies or objective criticism.
But perhaps Zizek’s most inane criticism is reserved for WikiLeaks. In some weird mental gymnastics, Zizek blames WikiLeaks for confirming what we already knew – but which we long to forget. Considering WikiLeaks expose corruption and brings truth to light, Zizek’s criticism is tantamount to arguing that free-speech should be censored and suppressed, especially information reporting the illegal and murderous proclivities of the government. This weird diatribe against exposing government and corporate abuses only makes sense when we consider that Zizek is an avowed Marxist and Communist – that is, communist societies are built on the foundation of the suppression of knowledge and the enforced repression of individuality and freedom.
Concluding this clip is Zizek’s most truthful and insightful comment, with the admission that the election should have been between Trump vs Sanders (i.e. Clinton stole the vote).