I'm just going to post the last paragraphs and bold of the most eyebrow raising sentences.
So how are we to act in this depressive situation? We should above all avoid the false “public use of reason” which advises neutrality and the search for peace through negotiations. The most disgusting thing to do at this moment is to repeat with triumph the old motif “we were telling you for years that Ukraine cannot win…” – obviously true, but whatever the final outcome will be, Ukraine achieved an unexpected miracle in resisting Russia for such a long time. Another stupidity is the idea that the Ukrainian war is just a moment of the conflict between Russia and NATO, with thousands of Ukrainians sacrificed to the NATO interests to weaken Russia. Are Ukrainians really so stupid to play this role while they could have enjoyed peace? What peace? Russian occupation which would annihilate them as a nation… This is why the alternative “peace through negotiations or war” is a false one: Ukraine will be in a position to negotiate only if it will remain strong enough to present a real obstacle to Russian invasion.
In such a predicament, the only serious option is to finally accept that we are entering a global emergency state: we are at war and only a full Western commitment can give Ukraine a chance. The same holds for Gaza - here again only the US military intervention can save things. Not long ago a picture circulated from inside Gaza showing smoke billowing from the explosion of a US-supplied bomb, and discernible in the background was the outline of eight black parachutes dropping US aid in precisely the same neighborhood.[2] This photo renders perfectly the opportunism of the US politics: supplying the arms to bomb Gaza and then helping the people whose lives were ruined by these same bombs – this is what humanitarian help means today.
The US has been humiliated again and again. As crazy as this may sound, the fact that the US are no longer able to act as a global superpower also has its bad aspects - history repeats itself, just recall the US army’s withdrawal from north Syria to protect the Kurds, as well as the premature withdrawal from Afghanistan. **As I already suggested in a recent text of mine, ideally the US (with some allies) should simply invade Gaza from the sea, establish its own power zone there where millions of civilian refugees will be safe, providing for their elementary welfare and in this way constrain Israeli power - it is a safe bet that Israel would not risk an open conflict with the US. In crazy times, crazy acts are needed. **Before you dismiss this idea as madness, think realistically what would happen! It would be a great relief for millions of starved and bombed civilians. Similarly, one should take the risk to raise the Ukrainian war to a higher level, setting clear red lines that Russia should not overrun. One should, of course, proceed very carefully not to provoke a global war – but, again, the only way to prevent a new global war is to take calculated risks now.
Will something like this happen? The one thing one can rely on is that the US regularly miss the opportunity to use (whatever remains of) its global imperialist power for a good cause.
People say he had good insights or something but he always had extremely weird and sus takes about trans people. The “best” argument I saw on the subject defending him was that “no actually, he doesn’t think trans people are bad, just that they’re not INHERENTLY revolutionary” which is like no bitch actually trans people ARE inherently revolutionary. The only reason someone could pretend otherwise is due to a complete failure to comprehend intersectionalism.
And are we going to talk about the weird shit about how he went on a weird tirade about buying sex toys to put into each other so he could feel like the “deed was done” and “talk intellectually” with a date? He could have just said he was pro-ace and against allonormativity instead of going into weird Freudian tirades ffs
No, it’s a failure to comprehend intersectionalism because believing that trans people aren’t at least somewhat revolutionary, requires a belief that subversions of both traditional and oppositional sexism don’t matter
haven't actually read what zizek said abt it yet, but i have a hard time seeing how a basic phenomenon such as trans people can be "inherently revolutionary", any more than any other human characteristic.
I can see "inherently revolutionary in a cisnormative capitalist context" but I've never given him the benefit of the doubt before and I'm not gonna start now, maybe he meant something stupid