Zizek’s Activist Irony.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-hillary-clinton-populist-right-left-democratic-party-civil-war-a8975121.html%3famp

Cedric Nathaniel wrote in his book “the philosophical hack” that is Zizek rides the line of contradiction, which is to say, he follows the road not taken that is determined by contradiction as opposed to that path which opens up possibility by rejection of contradiction.

And here is the perfect case in point so far: he has apparently taken an active role instead of sort of just sitting back and being a political/social commentator/philosopher. But of course he’s always making opinions like this; but it seems that this one having to do with Trump really hits home.

For a long time Zizek has been telling us and every opportunity that Trump is the solution, that Hillary Clinton is the problem. But what he means by this is ironic in the sense that he is not talking about a solution to specific politicized issues; rather, he is talking about our American democratic systemic ideological woes.

Basically what he saying is that the system is fucked and the only solution to repairing it is to elect Donald Trump, but because what it will achieve is a restructuring of an effective Left — not because Trump is some sort of American savior or some super great leader. On the contrary, It is because he is a reflection of everything that the left has been trying to deny of itself. The exposure of what it’s trying to deny achieved by the election of Donald Trump will best lead to a restructuring, a “civil war” as some people have put it, within the Democratic Party itself.

So his activism was actually irony in its fullest sense, in its intentional sense, and this is why Slavoj Zizek is the Elvis of critical theory.

Block politicians on social media.

Perhaps we will learn from our current administration here in the US the amount of chaos and general BS that can arise from a president being able to use social media platforms as he wishes.

Perhaps we might have an intelligence and a motivation to make a law that if you are the president of the United States or a member of Congress that you are not allowed to use Twitter or Facebook or any of those kind of social media while you are in office.

I’m sure that texting would be sufficient for anyone needing to communicate anything important to their friends and family.

Part of this opinion stems from the idea that transparency in government could be an ideological posture more than it is a necessary tenant of democracy. Already our modern democracy is a distortion of “true democracy”, so it can appear that the ideal of transparency is able to occur more as a tactical manipulation of the politicians over the ‘good’ that transpires up from The Represented.

We might begin to see that what we want to mold together and conflate into Democracy could be a belief that misses the facts of what occurs in broad daylight, the ideal posture seeing only what it wants to see for the sake of the ideal ‘free subject’.