Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (861)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Zizek! will always prevail.

  • why cant we have guys like zizek running for office at the federal level in canada?

  • I just love him <3

  • This guy is smart and so high on coke, he sniffs, grinds teeth, touches nose, speaks fast?

  • @maleman112 hehe totally hyperactive for sure, he says so himself. 

  • #ConservativeSocialism means grants for churches to teach abstinence, but no grants for Planned Parenthood to hand out condoms.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • He has so many ideas that he can't get them out fast enough.

  • @ProtoCyberpunk

    :) That's actually how I am!

  • Alguien podria traducir al español el discurso completo, por favor, lo agradeceria mucho. hay una traducción por allí pero es de un fragmento solamente y con este tipo hay que escuchar de donde para entender a donde quiere llegar, Gracias.

    Somebady could plis translate the full speech to Spanish, I'll be really thanksful. There's a translate fragment but with this guy you have to now where he start to know where he's going. My english is good but with he's accent a can't understand fully this!

  • @loboarmado

    Aqui traduje hasta el minuto 29 que es donde comienza el otro video subtitulado

    Espero te sirva, puedes copiar y pegarlo en office u otro formato para tu comodidad :)

    Tienes que copiar el link, quitar el espacio despues del punto (puse uno para poder colocarlo aqui) y apretar en download

    mediafire. com/?hu10rz5b3zblpsk

  • FANTASTIC! How many times have I tried to relate to people in this way? To many to count.....Great stuff!!

  • and so on and so on... !

  • Comment removed

  • pseudo intellectual european white men on drugs.. a more than secular tradition

  • @jaymepereiranunes, perhaps you should inform yourself of the history and the reality of the things you see around you

  • Comment removed

  • the big question is whether it can work in parctice, there are now an overwhelming amount of middleclass people, in short there are not enough lower classes to carry out a revelution.Marxism as shown to not work and has underestimated the great power of capitalism and the meritocracy system

  • @Forset1 can't tell if you're trolling or not... lets just hope you're never able to get that kind of power.

  • @lolubutthurt I am damn serious. This man is no philosopher. I've read a couple of his books and he's nothing more than a political commentator like all those on fox news or cnn, with the little difference that he makes references to Marx or Hegel every now and then. His ideas have no value whatsoever.

  • @Forset1 .really? a new hitler?rather have hitler than his nonsense?lol .wow.that why european keep killing each other.i dnt agree with mass immigration and mutlicultalsim but to say you would rather have hitler shows just how pathetic a person you are.

  • /watch?v=NEe4lQP7akg

    

  • It's much more easier to listen to him (and follow his logic) when he speaks croatian/serbian language, he says so much more. Especially his jokes :)

    The fact that he is so popular in the West should give all ex-Yugoslavia intelectuals a reason to be optimistic...yet it somehow doesn't. And that sucks!

  • this kind of things have to be translated

  • This guy is a mental fucking giant, but HOLY FUCK i wanna give his speech impediment a last cigarette and a blindfold! Keep kicking fucking ass SLAV! You the MAN!

  • i've listened to this lecture like a zillion times and it always owns

  • The rhetorical vibrancy of this performance is matched only by the flagrant fallacies of the proposals. If Communism is an eternal idea, then communism is Platonic, which is to say metaphysical. This means that Zizek accepts Idealism, which leaves him with no grounds upon which to attack the Idealist romantic strain in Latin American socialism today, which he criticises as unmodern

  • @sherlockhaimes you spent time writing this, and when you stopped you nodded to yourself and hit submit. you're the pompous faggot in political science 101 that no one wants to talk to

  • @6jhamm9 And I presume you are that miraculous yellow-spotted toad discovered in Uzbekistan who was taught to read and type on a laptop by scientists researching on Chinese Government grants. What a remarkable breakthrough.

  • @sherlockhaimes Wait a little. If it's an eternal idea it doesn't necessarily relates to Plato. It might be idea not in the sense of some kind of ideal (or hyper) reality(where Idea with capital I comes from) but in the sense that if a foundational word is said about something, namely the one that names it, it can and will be passed through generations and then the possibility of reinventing is possible.

  • @sherlockhaimes Here we are not in the same platonic sense of Idea, which is "there is an ideal form that should be achieved and from where everyhting was taken" but rather in the sense that because it is an idea it can be reinvented. Reinvention is not reform because it does not relate to the previous form of organization, only with the previous atittude in a much nietzschean way..

  • @sherlockhaimes I'm not quite sure if I've been clear and nice critics by the way, at least someone has the guts to treat Zizek like a man not like a perfect Idea, in the platonic sense of the term.

  • @Thisez It is interesting that he invokes Badiou, whose theory of the event begins from a re-reading of Plato's Theatetus. The issue it seems to me is a latent theology within Zizek's Marxism that is sometimes manifest, but around which there is an anxiety because of the problem of theology, secularism, and modernity. So when he rejects the pantheism of the eco-critical dimension in Latin American socialism as unmodern, he is contradicting his own refutation of post-modernity in its reliance

  • Comment removed

  • @sherlockhaimes Sometimes there is also a lacanian belief that is more dogmatic than Lacan himself and I can tell that Lacan would much rather drop some concepts than lose the chance to explain something . But Zizek defends that it's possible for one to be dogmatic because he thinks that today we aren't dogmatic enough - in the sense that we believe but think that we do not believe, like money for marxism which is not magical but they still behave as if it was magical. I for one do not agree.

  • @Thisez I tend to support Zizek on this because I sense that he realises the revolutionary event is of its essence theological - in the Judaic notion of absolute rupture - requiring the militancy of radical commitment to the unknowable. Of course, the really controversial issue (that he deflects) is whether this involves 'terror' (as it certainly did for Sorel). Indeed, this terror may be the point of most radical connection to a politics of the Lacanian Real.

  • @sherlockhaimes I can't agree with him because at first I do not think that communism is the "stage-past-capitalism". If we are to break we should do it and live no principle behind - the true meaning of the word anarchy, in greek. If we try to find a "new order in the system" it will manage to corrupt itself from within. It's as Lacan already told, the true formula for atheism is not god is dead, but god is unconscious. Same goes from principles - they have to be unconscious.

  • Zizek rules.

    I'd like to say something smart, but all the smartness we need right now is on the video.

  • be ruthlessly critical with people in power! yes! but with each other let's be kindly critical :)

  • The greatest pity is not that Communism is impossible but that most people make it impossible by clinging to their bourgeoise habits. It is really an idea 200 years ahead of its time.

  • @MalyshevEvgeniy My bourgeois habits include sedulity, alacrity and decorum. That is, I work hard from a vacillating array of impluses, rather than a jejune "habit." Though I am bourgeois, I'm not a greedy scum bag from Wall Street.:-)

  • Has anyone heard Zizec provide proof or try to explain his statement that the fundamentalist rise in Afghanistan is directly due to that country's inclusion in "capital"? Is he perhaps inferring a direct link between capitalisation and the rise of the imams and ayatollahs during the 1960's who put across the newly fundamentalist interpretations of Jihad and other concepts in the Moslem holy books?

  • Comment removed

  • zut da foque iz dat acsent?

  • slavoj zizek is the mmmmmmmaaaaaaannnnn

  • The level of commentary in the comments, considering how sharp the lecture is, is quite low. There's a lot of work to be done.

  • @MrVoulezvous What do you expect? The stupidity of Youtube comments is legendary.

  • GREAT LECTURE WORTH LISTENING TO MORE THAN ONCE THANK YOU!

  • The problem is that he doesnt realise that we have to rise above the human condition.Collectively.

  • @MrAzdaz the only way that we can overcome the human condition is to collectively change either the definition of human, and most likely this will be though transhumanism.

  • I have to agree with him though radical capitalism must die and the sooner the better.At this stage they are just flogging a dead horse.And they know it.Yes an until now false flag managed crisis have been used to promote and reinforce neo conservative capitalism.Or in other words the greed factor.Lest you start to question or be given an interlude to question it,s continued viability.

  • I have to agree with him though radical capitalism must die and the sooner the better.At this stage they are just flogging a dead horse.And they know it.

  • Another over educated middle class utopian dreamer more in love with his ideas than he is with humanity.Christs original teachings are far more radical and universal when applied than any communist or socialist manifesto ever will be.This is just a bunch of self congradulatory socialists patting each other on the back for being good socialists.

  • The usual socialist tiatribe.Interesting sounding ultra left wing soundbites.Does he really have to go through all this just to get laid?It strike me as just so much pre coital male strutting in spite of all his pro feminist rhetoric.Communism is a beutiful abstract idea but a disaster when implemented.For it too really work you need an eternal supply of free or relatively cheap universally available energy.Otherwise it will never work.I call myself an humanist.Any other ism is poison.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • I believe in a marriage of capitalism socialist checks.Which will lead to a fairer society without a destructive revolution.But is still a radical proposal to the mainstream.Communism leads to centralisation which paves the way for dictatorship.History bears me out on this.Of course counter revolutionary forces have an important part to play in this.But that doesnt justify what happened in China, Russia , N.Korea and to a lesser extent Cuba.Communism is just another form of fundamentalism.

  • A nice man

  • one of my favourite speeches by now. srsly

  • @p4n0pt1c thumbs up fo yo playlist

  • @p4n0pt1c haha, im thumbing up the name of ur playlist not ur comment

  • why does zizek always make me feel so stupid?

  • i do like listening to him.........truth can be found, heard and seen on both sides...........should one deny the elephant sitting in the middle of the room?.......i'm a jeffersonian classic liberal...........but but.........zizek does hit on certain things........can the left say that goldwater or jefferson was always wrong? really?....of course not...........THE PINK ELEPHANT SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM.

  • thank you for posting it. Zizek is amazing.

  • What is the leftist counter-argument against Boehm-Bawerk's Critique of the Exploitation Theory of Interest? Until that question is answered I view Marxism as just another secular religion with its adherents full of envy and resentment towards civilization.

  • @truevoice08 Not all leftists advocate that the worker should receive the full future value of his or her labours. In fact, leftist policy has changed notably in the last 150 years or so (believe it or not), and Rodbertus' theories are no longer an absolute for a socialist or communist regime. Your argument disappears simply because that's not a leftist advocacy any more.

  • @Tfrne Exploitation theory is a fundamental tenet of Marxism. Without it, there is no intellectual justification for the feeling that CEOs are overpayed or that landlords don't deserve rent income. If you are serious in what you are saying then you have just admitted that there is no inherent conflict between 'labor' and 'capital' and that capitalists deserve profits. Be careful.

  • @truevoice08 I'm not saying that exploitation theory is no longer a leftist idea, I'm saying that the left no longer advocates for the worker to receive the full future value of their labours, simply that they are entitled to the current value of their labours. In other words, Bohm-Bawerk was correct when he stated that workers should be paid the value of any foreseeable returns, because the time factors are still labour in some respect and add to the value of the product.

  • @Tfrne So leftists support a theory which they know is wrong?

  • @truevoice08 Well, that's where it comes down to opinion, doesn't it?

  • @Tfrne Bohm-Bawerk's argument implies that capitalists deserve their profit. If he is right (which he is) then there is no such thing as exploitation. It's not subjective.

  • @truevoice08 Bohm-Bawerk's arguments are correct for the most part, but certain key leaps in logic must be omitted. At this point, however, we're not arguing anymore, and given I know I can't convince you and you probably know you can't convince me, I bid you good day.

  • @Tfrne I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You yourself admitted to Bohm Bawerk being correct, and now I just want to know why leftists still think that capitalists exploit labor given that Bohm-Bawerk was correct. It's not an argument but a question.

  • @truevoice08 And I replied that while key parts of his theories ARE correct, a solid number are incorrect.

  • @Tfrne We were only talking about one theory and that is the exploitation theory. I somehow feel that you are evading any real discussion here.

  • @truevoice08 I can reply to anything you ask me, but I don't speak for all Socialists.

  • @Tfrne Fine. Enlighten me on the modern basis of leftism, or at least from your perspective. I don't understand how one can agree with Bohm Bawerk's proof that capitalists deserve profit yet still remain a leftist. 

  • @truevoice08 I'll try again, it seems I'm being unclear. The part of Bohm-Bawerk's theories that are deemed correct is that he said that workers cannot be paid the full future values of their labours given that their earnings from working are payment, not investment. However, some of the people who supposedly exploit workers really ARE workers, because they increase the value of the products developed by conventional workers. A new "line" between exploiter and exploited must thusly be drawn.

  • @Tfrne Exploitation is a loaded term. I don't know what you mean by it. If exploitation means increasing the productivity of labor by more capital investment leading to higher wages then workers should be exploited all the more. Again, given that you and I understand this, I don't understand how you could think of it as a bad thing and remain a leftist.

  • @truevoice08 Well, if it does achieve the ends that it should, it's not exploitation anymore. All too often, though, it results in lowering wages and creates wage gaps between management and employee. I would agree with you that workers should be "exploited" if it leads to what you say it does, but empirically, it doesn't.

  • @Tfrne It's either you contradict yourself or do not fully understand Bohm-Bawerk's argument which you admittedly agree with. Wages are discounted from their 'full value' not by the discretion of the employer but by differences in time preference. There is nothing stopping the worker from waiting for the realization of proceeds in which time he receives his full value. If I am wrong and capital investment lowers wages then you should be happy that capital is leaving the US for China.

  • @truevoice08 Capital investment makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because ordinary labourers generally have a greater need to be paid immediately, they can't afford to speculate on their earnings like their employers. The system tends to be rigged. Hypothetically, capital investment is a good thing, but employers end up reinvesting little of their profits. What I was saying about Bohm-Bawerk's theory is that SOME investors deserve their profits, but lots are just greedy.

  • @Tfrne "labourers generally have a greater need to be paid immediately, they can't afford to speculate on their earnings" Again, this is because of differences in time preference. You need to get comfortable with the reality of natural inequality. I don't see how being greedy makes one undeserving of profit nor do I see any qualifier for exceptions in the discounting of marginal revenue product. I believe in the freedom of the investor NOT to reinvest his profits. Do you?

  • @truevoice08 On the sheer basis of welfare, I can't say I can. Maybe someday I'll see your point of view, but right now, I can't.

  • @Tfrne If the only basis of a legal framework for society was your myopic view of welfare then we might as well throw out the tools of logical reasoning. Welfare requires justice and not sentimentality nor the smug leftist conceit that society has (or can be) deliberately planned. I desire the general welfare of men that's why I study objective reality as well as the science of human action (a.k.a. economics). ON THE SHEER BASIS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT!

  • @truevoice08 Bohm-Bawerk's and the Austrians' flaw is that they start from an abstraction of the rational individual making choices, rather than viewing society historically. This is what allows you to make the absurd claim that if only workers CHOSE to wait for the realization of the full proceeds of the commodities they produced then they would receive the full value. You also have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the dynamic composition of capital and its relation to labor.

  • @roserh6 I see no dichotomy between viewing society from rational principles and from historical understanding. It is theory that interprets history. Theory needs to be consistent with history for it to be a good theory. This is why communism is not even 'good in theory' since it fails in practice. As to my 'absurd claim', you have no made any arguments, only assertions and assertions are BS

  • c'est un dommage que les choses intelligents comme les discours de Zizék ne sont jamais disponibles pour la publique général. En fait, les gens de cet époque regardent juste

  • This guy is one of the funniest philosophers.

  • @voiceofreason467 Hey, Treason, I saw the new videos you uploaded about Machwon, and I just wanted to say: you're one of the pettiest, most pathetic little shits I ever met. That is all, you may resume your plotting to brainwash young Westerners into turning against their culture now.

  • Watch him grabbing his nose! I do the same when I took some coke. :D Nevertheless great talk, great man!

  • @voiceofreason467 What? Now you can't even read properly, read my post again and this time pay attention, you fuckwit.

  • @voiceofreason467

    You said the USSR was a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, this phase is called Socialism in Leninist terminology. Ernest Mandel claimed it was a transitional phase between Capitalism and Socialism, a difference. It was not a transitional phase between communism and capitalism, and--as it turned out--it was a transitional phase between Czarist capitalism and private capitalism.

  • @voiceofreason467 Well, at least you finally got it through your thick libbie skull that I'm not here to debate, you're still under the illusion the you've won even though you have been empirically proven wrong by History and your side lost the Cold War, but we'll call that progress. How sad it must be to be a leftist living in the West... being a dirty commie yet having grown accostumed too much the freedoms of the West to leave it. People like you, Chomsky, Zinn, you're all sad and pathetic.

  • @voiceofreason467 ... with fantasies of some great global people's revolution, even though they'd probably faint if they ever fired a gun, like you. I mean, come on, do you really picture yourself and other Leftist traitors like you posing as academics fighting as revolutionaries? I mean that's just hilarious.

  • @voiceofreason467 And you're to dumb to come up with your own insult AND too dumb to realize (even though by this point you really should have, if for nothing else, the fact I outright told you to your face), that I have no interest in any entering in any kind of pointless debate with you, why? Because, well... it would be pointless, you commies have already lost. your precious USSR is gone, and now all that's the left are arrogant, self-important pseudo-intellectual twats...

  • @voiceofreason467 Could you still commit a terrorist act so we can throw your miserable, traitorous hide in Guantanamo? Please?

  • @voiceofreason467 Ah,yes I forgot... you Zeitards have a collective doctorate in missing the fucking point.

  • @voiceofreason467 So Treason, you finally stopped trying to pretend you're not a dirty commie? I'm proud of you for finally deciding come out, now blow up convenience store or something so we can mail your ass to Guantanamo, you cocksucking piece of shit.

  • @voiceofreason467

    Not really. I'm not entirely sure what you mean but you're incorrect in any case :P. Marx distinguishes between lower-phase communism (Lenin called this socialism) and higher-phase communism (i.e. pure communism). In the Socialist transition between capitalism and communism there would be labour vouchers used, these did not exist in the USSR, nor did the workers have the power. Ernest Mandel said the USSR was a transtional phase between Capitalism and Socialism.

  • Cocaine is a hell of a drug. Enhances minds like nothing else. Don't object, ask Freud. Don't party, converse.

  • 諸見里かよ

  • "Afghanistan... Communist party took power there independently of Soviet Union" :)))) comrade Zizek, what are you smoking?

  • @Fotki2

    They did take over independent from the USSR, (at least as far as I known), but then they couldn't hold on to power and so the USSR invaded Afghanistan to help them maintain control over the country.

    Not sure though.

  • @GlobalAlternateMedia

    Please read a book or at least Wikipedia ;)

    you and Zizek should really learn history, sorry, no offense, but "education is power" (Lenin) ;)

  • This man is an ideologue not a philosopher. He is attempting to overwhelm us with assumptions - this mental bully. He wants to prevent us from questioning these assumptions. He is not concerned with the practicality of these assumptions. He is very religious. He throws in some feeling-toned phrases so that his followers can feel what he feels - this priest. He's not at a philosopher because he's not a scientist. What he's arguing for is a separate matter.

  • @paul07568 please ..you are just confusing shit and making up shit now....I agree he is not necessarily a true philosopher , but he is well aware of the practicality of his assumptions

  • @panathabro Of course I'm making shit up - every time I open my mouth or type something. Do I have a point though? I think I do. I will read some of his books just to see if I'm right. Philosophers are great when they ask questions. When they create dogmas they become caricatures of philosophers. They criticize everything except their own delusions.

  • the joke with the ball was funny :D

  • This guy is an IDIOT.A foul which attracts a group of leftists fantasists.

    The problem with some of today's philosophers any REAL knowledge in math.This foul tried to engage also in math but he wasn't smart enough for it.As to marxism.This experiment was already taken and the outcome was horrifying-lack of freedom in any essence.Lack of human rights.There is a reason that this was the outcome. Capitalism is a modern slavery in a sense, but communism is not the answer.

  • @amitash77 you seem not to know what they guy is talking about... if u hear him , read about him you would have known how much he criticizes communism . don't call the guy an idiot when u do not seem to see yourself what the guy refers too !

  • @amitash77 your an idiot

  • On 11:10 when he mentions Afghanistan and Kansas as typical secular states is a LIE. Afghanistan was always a highly traditional society as most of USA is. King Zahir Shah was a good king, but reforms were not long lasting. And communism was installed by coup d'etat in 1978. So. Afganistan was and is highly backward society. Especially since Carter and Reagan administration in 1980's financed Mujahedeen.

  • To be honest i can only really read zizek because of his accent

  • great. i worship zizek.

  • Maoism third-worldism is only revolutionary theory for XXI century. This is fourth stage of developing Marxism. Visit Leading Light Communism Organisation.

  • Marxism is great, if seen as philosophy. I agree to define communism as a "eternal idea" in such a sense (having the potencial to reinvent itself in every new generation). But why not say the same for capitalism? Because capitalism has a totalistic contradiction with human existance? This seems to me the kind of formula that history was continuously presented from time to time expressing our poor capacity to predict the future - which Marx did not. Not in a materialist sence. He reinvented it.

  • @InertLoop Whats your problem now? Because his english isn't perfect, he is BS clown?

  • I love Slavoj, but what's with his constant fiddling with his nose? Does he do coke or is it just a tick or what?

  • it's a shame that the vid is not subtitled. he talks very fast ><

  • @ChibiOlia I follow him clearly (at least his words- if not always his thinking). I don't know why people have trouble; he's very good for an eastern European.

  • @iwpoe i'm also an eastern european XD but from different country. since english is my 3rd language, following him becomes a bit diffecult when he talks fast. then i'm not sure if i actually hear everything. it's a shame to miss out on things. i guess i'll just watch this again after awhile.

  • @ChibiOlia Don't worry, it would be the same if your "first language" were English. This man is a JOKE anyway...

  • Comment removed

  • he needs: A) extensive english lessons, B) speech therapist, C) serious reality check, D) basic yoga lessons (hyperactivity much?).

    folkz, this is what you get when you let a bulgarian "marxist" take himself seriously and spew out lengthy and pointless tirades on whatever the fuck. "what it means to be a revolutionary today"? wtf? spare me, lol. u intellectual people need to given a fucking shovel and forced to do some actual work, then you might actually do some good for our crumbling society.

  • @EITrollo He critiqued your position quite nicely I thought XD

  • @EITrollo A) Really? I think he actually speaks English quite well B) Its a combination of his accent and his lisp. So even if he got a speech therapist, he would still have a very heavy accent C) Why's that? D) He's so hyperactive because he has a tonne of thoughts whizzing around in his head.

  • @EITrollo He is not Bulgarian marxist, he is from Slovenia. And second thing, he is one of the living 10 smartest people in the world, just google it. And like all very very inteligent people, he is special in his own way and that is great about him. If you want to know what he is talking about, you really need to listen him closely.

  • @846524162 i really listened to him closely and i know what he's on about. his bowels are just pushing their contents upwards, all the way up to his stomach and gullet, making it come out of his anusy orifice in the form of thick brownish foam. u know what i mean. straight n simple. i suppose...

  • @84 . . . bulgaria, slovakia, whatever, he's just a god damn post-mod sophist who cant put 2 n 2 together and that’s pretty much it. and who is to decide who are the "10 smartest people on earth"? google? r u fluffing kidding me? making lists of academics and smart-asses, like we're talking about men magazine whores? wtf? hear me out pal, i'm much smarter than ur zunzek, so give me a break, cut me some slack and leave me the fudge alone! take a shovel, dig a whole, make a change - it might help.

  • @EITrollo You have some freakin serious problems man.... take a chill pill and calm a bit. First of all.... not Slovakia... its Slovenia. But its understandable you guys from USA don't know the diffrence, nothing suprising. Smartest people on the planet are measured by IQ, don't you agree? How else could you measure it?

  • @846524162 i do not agree. how could i. high IQ people r usually dumb and so are you. high IQ is high IQ, not yet "smart" by any means. it's that whorezine mentality i was talking about, "the bigger the boobs the hotter the bitch" kind of thing, aight? smartness cannot be "measured" mate, its not a gigolo's cock to be measured, it is only a common sense and let me tell u this crack addicted booger brained clown doesnt have any at all.

  • @EITrollo Sir, you have posited a ground breaking theory of an inverse relation between measured IQ and actual intelligence within a missive that contains references to the organs of both sexes, profanity AND boogers all the while handicapped by the grammatical skills of a six year old with a paint huffing habit. Kudos Sir. Kudos indeed.

  • @robtyou ibid as 846524162. for the record: we're debating SMARTNESS as opposed to mere INTELLIGENCE (IQ). thus i claim that it is "measured IQ" and "actual SMARTNESS" (not intelligence) that are often in inverse relation. i hope i made myself clear now.

    boobs, dildos and boogers r there just to illustrate my essentially simple and truthful point. there are not any signs of "grammatical skills of a six year old", just some INTENDED 1337 speak as an antidote to stale academic jargon. stay well.

  • @EITrollo Take a IQ test. U have to figure our puzzels and math, u also get a couple of questions to test your knowledge but that's not the primary test. It is based on how fast u can figure out puzzels and mathematical calculations. U could be the most knowledgefull person in the world but if u can't figure out those puzzels faster then a person with a average IQ, u get the same outcome.

  • @pyromaniak ibid as 846524162 and robtyou. grasp the concept. the better you do the IQ test the bigger your IQ is. you are intelligent. not yet smart. but even if you don't dig math and puzzles you can still be a truly knowledgeable person, i. e. smart. you don't need high IQ for that. thus, we conclude, intelligence and knowledge of fundamental matters are not directly tied.

    in fact, we are saying the very same thing = we agree. i really wonder why do you wanna argue? some dutch habit or what?

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @EITrollo hilarious what you think... so probably you are fucking living a good live in a first world country, afraid of a change. I live in Brasil, a 3rd world country, we got serious problems here caused by "democracy" and the capitalism. If you ever come here, you'll see if he is a sophist or not, if what he's saying is bullshit or not. The idea of the capitalism is utopic too. It's seems just in theory, but it's brutal in pratice, and if this ideology don't change soon, we're fucked up.

  • @rmzamith shutup

  • SZ is so awesome. He inspired me to get into Hegel, but damm it is a difficult read, but I like it, it is not mickey mouse

  • @ThePrideOfIsrael

    Is that so? Then how come that it's the Palestinians that are getting executed, imprisoned and harassed? Why do Israel continue their apartheid policys?

    Why are you repeating your own history, don't you remember what the nazis did to you? Leave Palestine, return to the diaspora which is sanctioned by the torah and await your messiah in a way that doesn't mean occupying an already inhabited country.

  • @ullvanten

    For more information watch my profile

    The so called "Palestinians" of today

    do not represent a nation or people,

    merely a bunch of Wannabe-Nazis.

    Their ideology despises both,

    the Land of Israel and the People of Israel.

    Palestinians are trying to delegitimize, to demonize and to destroy Israel.

  • @ThePrideOfIsrael

    first of all:

    Israel is not a legitimate state, it's a occupying military force.

    second,

    Palestine is the country that existed on the soil the zionists occupy, thus they represent a people under siege.

    and third,

    Again - jews are not supposed to have a nation, the torah holds the diaspora as holy as the coming of the messiah, thus you don't have religious legitamacy even through your own books of lies and deceit.

  • @ullvanten Real jews; zionists came where khazarians, a country that no longer exists right?