Tag: French Revolution

Slavoj Žižek Fails to Fully Understand Hierarchies

Daniel Szewc | Poland

One must understand the realities of Eastern Europe from 1945-1989 to understand Slavoj Žižek’s mentality. His embracement of the Marxist way of being is completely the result of his comparatively strong societal position in Slovenia before the fall of the Eastern Block. This was exemplified by the fact that this hierarchal position, created on the basis of being closer to the Marxist view of a perfected human than the average man, got even stronger after the acceptance of capitalism in his native country (for all intents and purposes, Slavoj Žižek is a celebrity in Slovenia). Of course, this brought to his subconscious the notion that being closer to Marx makes you a more efficient human in general, whilst in reality, it was just the manifestation of parts of the old, synthetic establishment, Žižek included, surviving into the new era, and adapting to the new circumstances.

As for his support of leftism, contrasted by his dislike of societal decay, it is comparable to liking uranium, yet disliking the particles that it emits. No matter how hard you try to keep society stable, without the philosophical absolute, you are unable to do so.

The Maintenence of the Hierarchy

Any hierarchy without an unreachable entity, whether it be a value or a being, that cannot be toppled from the bottom is doomed to fluctuate drastically, as well as to crash in a time proportionately short to the number of active members in the said structure. For example, the morally unthinkable happened in France, the regicide of the revolution, and the hierarchy’s immovable peak was shattered.

Soon after, the bloodshed flooded over to the initial instigators of the crime, causing the whole megastructure to topple. In the end, a new hierarchy arose, with Napoleon rising to its peak. He was able to justify his role sufficiently enough not to be toppled by power-hungry contestants for his position only because of his idealization and even stronger emancipation of the traditional role of emperor.

For such processes to not happen, equality, not hierarchy, would have to dominate throughout life forms- something that is mathematically ridiculous. To assume that the total sum capability of creatures as complex as us to have equal chances at maintaining our positions at a zero level hierarchy is simply improbable. Too many variables influence our lives on the daily for this to happen naturally, and for any individual even remotely knowledgeable about cybernetics, it is obvious that no circuit can encompass a circuit equally or more complicated than themselves, therefore the human mind may never manage to understand it’s own secrets (…and variables that make us so different in outcome).

Of course, #MeToo became dominated by empty media icons, because it’s the natural consequence of having a promiscuous society, something one can earn money off, and human nature. The last of the three implies inequality in intelligence and ability, whilst the first is implied by leftism. You cannot have all three and not get the result that #MeToo got.

In general, however, I personally like Žižek’s look on Buddhism, as well as I think that his views on love can be put to good use by any thoughtful person on any side of the political arena. Alas, 90%+ of what he says is based on some ridiculous imaginary plasticity of the human condition. For example, Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, if anyone, knows the most about empirically proving the aforementioned rationalist perspective of it being improbable.

Who will win the debate between the two? Well, the better question is whether the side that in fact loses will be able to comprehend it’s fallibility, or will it stay in its shell of Marxist presumptions.

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source


Doomed Republic – How Antifa and the Far-Left Will Bring the U.S. to its Knees

By John Keller | USA

Due to recent events, the political climate has been starting to change in America. The political ideologies are becoming more militant in the streets and further polarized on the spectrum. It is necessary now to look to the past on what is beginning to appear to be the eve of revolution in America. Whether this revolution is one of military conduct or cultural conversion is irrelevant because as Mark Twain famously said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” Henceforth, this article will be an examination of the French Revolution and the failure of the First Republic, and how America is following the same road.

Prior to the start of the French Revolution was the reign of King Louis XV (1715-1774), a monarch who enjoyed lavish spending and preferred administering a party before a government. His spending drove the French economy into the ground and left the nation bankrupt. King Louis XVI took the throne in 1774, inheriting a bankrupt nation. Although he spent less than his predecessor, the French government still continued with a deficit.

The French Revolution started in 1789 with the goal of reigning in King Louis XVI by establishing a limited monarchy, mimicking that of England. The revolution was conservative in nature; starting with the cahiers, or books of grievances to be sent to the king. These sought reform, not abolishment, of the monarchy. The revolution transpired with the breakdown of the Estates-General, as the Third Estate broke off and declared themselves to be a National Assembly, with constitutional writing powers. King Louis XVI surrounded the building where they met and after a tense week, King Louis XVI called off his troops, letting the revolution traspire. The formation of the National Assembly, their most notable accomplishment being the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, laced heavily in natural rights. In 1791 they formed a constitution composed of a limited monarchy and a new Legislative Assembly.

It is at this point the revolution began to break down. The Girondists emerged as a centrist revolutionary body, seeking to implement the American political system in France. Their voices in this new revolution were drowned out by another revolutionary wing, the radical left-wing Jacobins. This revolutionary group was more radical, wanting a full fledged republic of universal adult suffrage. The Jacobins formed the Committee of Public Safety to run France while they devised a new government. The result was the Reign of Terror, which killed upwards of 40,000 French citizens, political opponents, and aristocrats

America is now on this same course. With the previous administration adding $7.917 trillion to the debt, the voters set out to have their grievances be heard. With this call Donald Trump was elected but still the deficit remains at a crippling level of almost $700 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the national debt continue to rise, Donald Trump adding an additional $1.026 trillion in his presidency as of 17 December 2017.

A BBC News article published on 14 August 2017 titled “Antifa: Left-wing Militants on the Rise” writes:

“Antifa does not shy away from militant protest methods, including the destruction of property and sometimes physical violence.”

As the Jacobins inflicted a Reign of Terror on anyone who opposed them, the alt-left is growing to be the same force. In 1794 the French set up the Directory, a national government led by the Girondists that was unable to function properly. The only thing that stopped the violence and dominance of the radical left was the rise of an emperor in France, Emperor Napoleon. If history comes around to rhyme once again America will either fall to Antifa and other radical alt-left factions or come under the control of a new imperial regime that will make the Imperial Presidency look like anarchy.