This was bound to happen eventually: Žižek presents Peter Thiel as proof that progressivism can be appropriated by neo-fascist libertarians. He also claims Thiel introduced JD Vance to Girard’s work. Žižek has entered into a direct intellectual confrontation with Palantir.

unfortunately for Žižek, his work has no symbolic resonance whatsoever because he has nothing to offer beyond clever associations and lacanian deconstruction

how could a libertarian be fascist or neo-facist?

I did not expect Zizek to sell me Thiel's neo-fascism so well.

The left has a reliable reflex: the instant academic radicalism shows signs of becoming genuinely subversive, it domesticates it. When an idea slips its leash, the left rushes in to tame and neutralize it, recasting it as a deviation rather than a deeper, more universal subversion.

Karp is competent enough to save Zizek from himself.

Has Žižek ever said more about Girard's work than about some random VC investor?

@mjcoreywrites Long live Zizek 💪

Žižek's critique of Thiel is stale and staged; the real intellectual confrontation would be with Alex Karp. Karp wrote his PhD at the institutional home of the Frankfurt School, in Habermas's orbit, and still identifies as a neo-Marxist. He is Left-Palantir - a critical theorist running a militarized panopticon for the surveillance state. Žižek is performing the easiest possible critique of Right-Palantir while ignoring the Janus face within Palantir itself. The uncomfortable question isn't Thiel; it's what happens when critical theory informs the targeting system of genocide. Žižek needs to don those sunglasses from They Live - the real ideological contradiction is to his left.

@MarkAndrejevic If anything it seems late

@PerformSoz Žižek war an der HFPH und wir waren nicht da! Mileckstamarsch!

this was always part of the deal

Neo-fascist libertarians....wtf.

Están fingiendo ambos

So funny how people can't creat names anymore. A "state enjoyer" as every fascist now have a fusion with libertarian that is a "state hater". Does this make sense? No, but people use it because put the fascist work make it look evil

I applaud someone taking on Thiel, but cannot get with Zizek's ideas, even if I kind of like him, he ultimately is Hegelian. And so the irony is both he and Thiel proceed to make stuff up as they go along.

Žižek, with his past apologetics for Lenin and Robespierre, seems the real authoritarian/totalitarian, not Thiel. It is true that Thiel introduced Vance to Girard’s thinking on scapegoating and Christian revelation, which helped lead Vance back to the Church, as he recounts in his new book.

Have I understood this correctly - the VPOTUS has read Violence and the Sacred?

True: neo-fascist communism and neo-fascist capitalism are both one now: to be a communist is always already to be a capitalist: fascist-capitalism is the only ideology we have now but most people cannot see it: such is the power of ideology: to keep us all comfortably blindly.