In 1997, French physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont published a brilliant book under the French title Impostures Intellectuelles, (Intellectual Impostures in UK and Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science in the rest of the Anglo Saxon world) where they disrobed a postmodern system of fraud by promoting phony scientists and intellectuals as public icons, in exchange for the influence which the creator of the system could project through those imposters…

Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London, became famous after the Sokal Affair, where he submitted a hoax article (titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”) to an ‘academic journal of postmodern cultural studies’. On the day of its publication, Sokal revealed in the magazine “Lingua Franca” that the article was a hoax. As it is said in Wikipedia, “the hoax sparked a wide debate about the scholarly merit of commentary about the physical sciences by those in the humanities, the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general and the academic ethics…” In truth, it revealed how easy it is for the plutocracy to implant to the society a phony “scientist” who will have a “thesis” that is completely senseless, but ‘accidentally’ corresponds with the interests of the ruling class.

Today RT opened the doors to one of those globalist cocaintellectuals, who acquired significant influence in the neoliberal-neocon matrix of the new world order. He is called ‘a slovenian superstar intellectual’. His name is Slavoj Žižek, and you can see him in attempt to “explain” Yellow Vests movement, and suggest his “solution” for the future…

Zizek on Yellow vests Duration: 5:57

Censored YouTube video

Let’s analyze his opinion on the demands of the Yellow Vests. He says:

The first thing to note is the contradictory nature of the demands of the protesters. They want better care for ecology, but, typical, their first demand was lower taxes on gasoline, on fuel for cars. They want lower taxes on their income, but they want better healthcare and so on, and so on. So it’s a typical populist demand. It’s probably an authentic outrage, fury… but literally, quite literally, they don’t know what they want. Their demands are literally impossible to meet.

Now, such a statement is not worthy of an intellectual. Of course their demand are not in contradiction. A blind man would see that. People know that climate change was a result of big corporations business, and that the richest took all the profits for themselves. Now the people want that those who destroy climate, pay for its repair. It cannot be asked from the impoverished middle class to bear the brunt of climate taxes while big corporations get a free lunch… and a few billions aside.

Solution is simple — put a tax on big corporations, and you can get enough money to fight the climate change in no time. That is exactly the way how FDR has pulled up United States out of the great depression.

So, why would Žižek say something like this? We will not presume that he is stupid or that cocain has completely smashed his brains out. The only remaining option, then, would be that he is one of those intellectual imposters, clowns of the big finance, paid to “explain” how irational rebellion against the system is…

And he continues:

Impossible at least within the existing system. And that’s why I think these protest are so important. Because we have in them a confrontation of popular unrest, dissatisfaction with, we can say, many people think this — the existing system at its best. Macron is maybe the best today’s establishment can offer: a good banker, a technocrat, at the same time with certain social democratic sensitivities and so on, and so on. It’s clear that Macron met his limitations. But what can happen — let’s imagine a totally crazy scenario that somehow, through some coalition, a new party or what — protesters basically come to power. Within the existing system this would have meant probably crisis, economic chaos, and so on, and so on. And here, I think, we see what is needed. We have a clash between impossible demands and what the existing system can offer.

I still don’t want to connect his pale tan, dark bags under his eyes and constant snorting and scratching, with cocain habit — but really, how else one could see “certain social democratic sensitivities” in Macron?

Then he predicts “crisis, economic chaos” if “protesters basically come to power”. Like “the existing system at its best” — is an alternative? Does that look like an opinion of the intellectual to you?

“The existing system at its best”, ever since the foundation of the European Union, every year made the life of ordinary people in the EU more miserable, while rich were getting richer. Even in Germany which had by far most benefits from EU. It’s a system projected to plunder lower class and make the gap between the rich and poor ever greater. In that course, chaos looks like a viable solution: better uncertainty through chaos, than certain death in debt slavery.

So he continues:

The solution is not just to change the system a little bit so that these demands will be met — these demands cannot be met. We have to change, somehow, gradually the entire system. Our entire, not only transport, but way of life so that most of these demands would no longer even be meaningful.

Here is one point where we can agree — the entire system must be changed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do it gradually any more. Nor it is possible to allow system to change itself. “The system” must be destroyed.

You would think he could find some positive example for his assesments. For example, Henry Ford, who raised wages to his workers so they could afford the car that they have manufactured. But no, Žižek has another idea with citing Ford — an idea of creation new needs for the stupid population which does not know what it really needs:

You know what I was thinking here. I read somewhere that Henry Ford, who invented the mass-production of cars, when they asked him how were you able to offer to the people what they wanted. And he said something intelligent. He said: “Listen, people when I started, didn’t want a car. If you were to ask ordinary people what do they want they would have said ‘We want a stronger horse which eats less’ or whatever”. No, you have to offer them something that they don’t even know that it may serve them. This is why these protests, the ‘Yellow Vests’ are important. Because they signal that we are approaching a deadlock.

Then we can see that even in his model of the world, the system becomes untenable. And we do see how his “liberal” Dr. Slavoj turns into a fascist Mr. Žižek, who easily rejects “non-representative direct democracy”…

The system is reaching its limit, and what is needed is neither populism, which works only short-term, nor better technocracy, which works within the existing system. We need today a creative politicians who would present a new vision how to radically change things. It’s horrible to say — but I think we need an enlightened leadership. I’m not afraid to say this. I don’t believe in immediate democracy. I will say… I will go even a step further to provoke people. I don’t believe in what is fashionable with many leftists, what they call “non-representative direct democracy.”

“An enlightened leadership”… Really? Aren’t they called Illuminati? Why would he have to have courage to say this?

And then comes crescendo — his “solution”:

My formula is — I’m not kidding — bureaucratic socialism. The society I would like to live in is a society where state bureaucracy, or some kind of, whatever, public bureaucracy, somehow organizes basic things in a way which is impenetrable to me. Somehow water comes, electricity comes, there is healthcare and so on. I don’t have to know how all this works, I can live in my own niche. I think this is the future, and we shouldn’t be afraid to put this as our motto. Again, efficient bureaucracy and a level of alienation.

A “jewel” at the end, new ideology — bureaucratic socialism! “Intellectual” who still haven’t learned that “efficient bureaucracy” is an oxymoron! Contradictio in Adiecto. Contradiction in terms. True intellectual would say what should be done. Žižek dreams what he would want. And it is not a nice world. He would want a nanny state. Unelected bureaucracy that would take care of him and his needs… essentially the same thing current EU is promising but will never fulfill… And projected to the extreme — it’s Orwell’s “1984”. Since he insists that “we shouldn’t be afraid to put this as our motto”, I would remind him at one more quote from his favorite fascist, Henry Ford:

Be careful — avoid “intellectuals” who preach “beauties” of the future with less freedom. Blockchain is a powerful tool for eradication of bureaucracy and such intellectual impostures like Slavoj Žižek. With some luck, he could end in history as a stand-up comedian at the clinic for the addiction treatment. That way he could have his basic needs taken care of with the “efficient bureaucracy and a level of alienation”, and the rest of us could build a humane New World on our own.

Universal Basic Income