Zizek : "Game of Thrones tapped into fears of revolution and political women"

Gotta agree with this analysis. I know it's probably not such a critique in reality, but it can be seen that showwriters at least recognize that the bourgeoisie aren't that great at revolution, unless they suffer a lot and go through what the lower classes go through, as in the case of, well, pretty much everyone but Daenarys, who lives pretty much in luxury the whole series long. Daenarys was pretty much as much a tyrant as her brother, if a self-righteous one at that, and definitely destined to blow everything up in self-righteous rage. (Note I am not forgiving the shitty writing as a whole.)

lol

Attached: olennareaction.gif (540x300, 1.94M)

Daenerys goes around the world freeing slaves and killing masters for years, but she gets a little caught up in the heat of battle and burns 1 city to the ground and then she's all of a sudden the bad guy. And she gets killed by a reactionary who literally executes children and hes supposed to be the good guy? Bull shit jon snow is more of a tyrant than Daenerys

GoT is not that deep. Would have been way more interesting if Targs were black like Gurm initially intended. The reaction to Jon Snow killing a proud POC kween would have been legendary.

She spent some time camping with the Dorthraki, to be fair, but she still was considered nobility among them.

Are you watching the same show I did?

Daenarys offered them deals so they could get out of being killed. She was kinder to slave masters than the peasants of Kings :Landing.
Also,she killed more people than Cersei and the other tyrants combined in one day. They even said as much in the show. Also, that kid was part of the Nights Watch and stabbed Jon first. Not really equivalent.

Attached: D7GEDmYW0AIhtj8.jpg (1242x1845, 230.24K)

Extremely this.

The show downplays it a lot but it's constantly hinted that she's not all there and a huge narcissist. GRRM said the show's ending is basically the books' ending, as in he gave the showrunners the main points and they had to figure out how to get there. People are pissed that they rushed it basically and didn't know how to make it work.

The only people in that scene who even saw the Night King were the Starks, Tyrion, and Grey Worm. As far as everyone else was concerned, the undead army was still just a myth. What's weird though is why they would give the crown to some crippled autist who claims he can see forever. In the books this would probably relate to the themes of people not caring about the nature of the world in favor of petty squabbles but the show just ignores it.

It's also retarded because it's a system prone to wars for succession. The funny part is that even though they think universal suffrage is dumb, allowing the nobles to vote does raise the question and it could sow the seeds of a revolution. The Sparrows already showed Westeros that the people have immense power too.

Both of those are good things you idiot.
The battle was over. The army had surrendered. She won with minimal casualties - the pirate navy, the siege crews, and the mercs. Before she started the slaughter she even stopped to wait and see if they'd surrender.
How's Jon a reactionary? AFAIK the only "children" he executed was one teenager who helped murder him. Every time he gets given authority or a chance to have it, he abdicates as quickly as he possibly can.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1200x718, 1.95M)

Dany is American foreign policy. It goes around liberating and regime changing everywhere convinced of it's own exceptionalism power and being above the rules. While it goes around murdering through exotic brownsih locations like Astapor and Mereen its heroic and cheered on by everyone when it attacks white Kings Landing then it becomes a villain

She did actually free slaves though, so comparing her to US imperialism is complimentary. She's what imperialism pretends to be, not what it actually is (unless the show/books depict how everywhere she goes turns into a complete failed state worse than before she arrived).

Yeah she freed the slaves the logistics of that consequence are not talked about in the show and are mentioned in the book disease and starvation and gladiatorial battles happen and all the slaves get either conscripted and die in some new war shes doing or something else bad happens to them

This is hardly true. You can interpret daenerys as some sort of white saviour because she's a hwite woman and liberates non-white-ish slaves and leads non-white-ish armies which when viewed through the prism of irl politics and racism does look somewhat questionable.
However the narrative taken on its own is far from it, she doesn't live in some great luxury through the entire show, she lives her childhood as an exile with no home moving from place to place and only living as well as he patron's hospitality allows while being abused by her spoilt, sadistic brother, gets sold into sexual slavery of a sort and while her position as the Khal's wife protects her for a while after his death she ends up travelling the desert with basically nothing and comes close to death. She's been through quite a lot and develops empathy for people which is the root of her principled anti-slavery ethos which leads her to attempt liberating the city-states of slavers bay and abolish the institution of slavery, relying on the strength of the masses and implementing revolutionary terror against the ruling class while setting up bourgeois democratic republics in astapor and yukai.
While the whole overplayed 'break the wheel' bullshit is entirely a show invention with he overriding motivation in the books being a hereditary claim to the throne she believes is hers by right of birth (albeit tempered with the aforementioned empathy and seemingly sincere belief the people of westeros are cruelly repressed by the usurpers of her father's throne), its unquestionable that Daenerys is a progressive historical force, as Zizek says, a Bonapartist.
We don't know what her plans for Westeros are exactly but from what was shown in the show there's an implication of abolishing serfdom and removing the noble houses which again would be a good thing. Talking about tyrants is anti-materialist nonsense and if Daenerys' reclamation of the iron throne amounted to bourgeois dictatorship and/or monarchist absolutism that is a progressive historical force.

She exterminated slave masters in revolutionary terror, inflicted mass classicide through crucifixions on the reactionary class enemies of her regime and offered deals to non-slave-owning aristos in return for political support in the face of wrecking and sabotage, its not wrong to make pragmatic compromises, Lenin did so with the peasantry and kulaks in the NEP allowing small businesses and 'state capitalists' and such.
You do realise the reason pretty much everyone hates the last season in large part because of the absolutely garbage writing which amounts to outright character assassination whereby Daenerys out of nowhere decides to behave in an entirely out of character fashion deciding to spend a hour strafing civilians for no reason whatsoever.
Of course, regardless of her prior actions doing what she did to King's Landing is unjustifiable she deserves to be immediately killed for it, no one is mad she's killed for it, what people are mad at is that she does something irrational and out of character that is contrived entirely to justify her being killed for plot reasons because the writers are inept hacks rushing to the finish line. The Daenerys of seasons 1-6/7 is entirely incongruous with the Daenerys of season 8, and even the Danerys of season 8 till the bells ringing is entirely incongruous with what happened immediately after.

...

Basically the way it turned out regardless of the writers intention is pretty good. First world liberals are Dany they are aristocratic shitheads with delusions of grandeur who get shit given to them and they then go about liberating the world cheering on Foreign intervention through Fire And Blood while looking sexy and being thanked for it by everyone at least in their self insert fantasy which is why there is outrage over her becoming evil because they would have to critically self examine

She has none because she knows literally fucking nothing about the continent other than stories about how cool the Targ dynasty was. This is brought up in the show I think, but it's another element suggesting that she'll be a huge fuckup and she's not a hero at all.

didn't know you guys watched so much mainstream shit

Nuke the US already I cant take anymore of this shit

begone lifestylist

Or maybe reactionary liberal hack writers related to actual goldman sachs execs took the opportunity to demonise a model of radical change that requires violence and revolutionary terror that up to that point had been seen sympathetically by the audience so a senseless, irrational, unjustifiable atrocity had to be contrived alongside literal nuremberg rally tier nazi-baiting to justify a progressive character being killed and the status quo being preserved with insipid liberal anti-communist, anti-radical talking points being propagandised to boot.

She knew literally fucking nothing about the cities of Slavers bay and yet she managed to do good there and be an objectively progressive historical force. She's not the most competent administrator, she's not a marxist revolutionary, but she's guided quite firmly by a progressive liberal principle and has the power to enforce it. She's a bonapartist and its good.
Killing slavers and being the vanguard of anti-slavery revolution is 100% heroic and if you disagree you're a facile reactionary

I'll rephrase then. She's not a hero to Westeros. They got rid of slavery hundreds of years prior. Her program is in no way progressive in the Westerosi context, only for the places she passes through on her way there.

MEN OF WESTEROS

Attached: SPOILER_kang.jpg (451x738, 122.97K)

So what? Have there not been class traitors? Sure she's not a slave girl raised with no literacy who has risen to be a revolutionary, but we don't really get those often, as unfortunate as it is, but revolutionaries often come from the better off because the lower classes, especially in pre-modern societies, lack the education and resources to ever organise. Daenerys' 'nobility' (which amounts to some limited prestige, no wealth and holdings, she's not really an aristocrat and has very limited class interest with them) helps a little but her rise to power comes almost entirely from her playing her dragons, the gun from which power grows in this metaphor, to her advantage. She comes, through pretty much complete dumb luck, into possession of immense firepower and objectively uses it for good.
This is an uncharitable reading, yes her real goal is nothing to do with Essos and she really consistently intends to reclaim the iron throne and the conquest of slavers bay is mostly for the purpose of gaining a fleet with which to travel to Westeros, however she consistently also maintains the interest of the freed slaves as a priority and does everything in her power to establish bourgeois democratic client republics in other cities and repress the reactionary class forces. She's a bonapartist figure, pure and simple.
So what? She frees them and they are free to leave when they will, but due to their unique condition continue to support her as her troops, what else are they to do? Its not her fault they continue to support her. Daenerys does literally nothing wrong to do with the unsullied and i don't see the relevance of you bringing it up.
It does, i mentioned it because the show explicitly portrays her as even more principled than she is in the books where her motivation being her right to the iron throne is kept more in focus.
Correct, this ridiculous contrived dialogue that amounts to character assassination to justify her being put down like a mad dog is clearly indicative that the writers are reactionary hacks intent on presenting radical change as bad and revolutionaries are inevitable tyrants. Good job on buying it.
You can end slavery without ending monarchy you dumbass, slave society precedes feudalism, Westeros has no slavery and is a feudal monarchist society.
Moreover if you had any idea about historical materialism you'd be aware that absolutist monarchism is step forward from feudalism which set the stage for bourgeois democratic revolution. Daenerys' enlightened absolutist despotism over the seven kingdoms, constraining the power of the feudal nobility and ending serfdom through dragon-backed reform is an objectively progressive historical force and any marxist would support it to fulfil it historical role. Again: B o n a p a r t i s t

Through two-thirds of the show, she does though. Yes, she's horribly abused but she still held nobility through most of the show, and was treated as such by those loyal to her, even among the Dothraki. Yes, she liberated Slaver's Bay, but it was really for her own benefit. The slaves are essentially a shield for maintaining her monarchy. Having groups like the unsullied on her side makes her a brutal force to be reckoned with. Grey Worm may not be a slave anymore, but he still has the mentality of one. You see him struggling with what to do with his own freedom throughout the series. It's why he's still so servile to Daenarys. She found out that former slaves make the best subjects.

really doesn't matter since we weren't discussing the books.

Yeah we do. She thinks that she's knows "what's right" and that "no one else gets to have a say". This is what she told Snow. She has no problem with monarchy, and thinking that you can end slavery without dissolving monarchy is way more anti-materialist.

Attached: D7GmuSkXoAI8_r6.jpg (1024x721, 100.18K)

Kjek.
Tbf, the entire elector thing does actually make sense thematically, considering GoT has been about how everyone wants this one role of absolute power so you create an elective oligarchy to ensure that there aren't civil wars or succession crises.
And for those saying "won't elective monarchies create succession crises?" eh not really in Westeros' case, since there are only six electors. Even if there were more, the HRE was pretty stable in terms of succession compared to say a country like Spain.

Whatever man shits retarded who cares

Attached: Screenshot_20190521-115606_Twitter.jpg (1080x877 290.37 KB, 252.1K)

Not just Daenerys but a lot of other female characters in GOT are portrayed like this as well. The show writers did such a poor attempt of portraying empowered women that come off more like insane bitches. It perfectly feeds into reactionary patriarchal ideology. In making Daenerys an absolute nutter that burned millions of innocents the show actually proved that in the end, 'Based Bobby B was right all along in attempting to assassinate her.

Attached: 1502782814085.jpg (1280x720, 314.28K)

I mean the show does a horrible job showing this. Cersei just blows up the Westeros version of the Vatican and Faith Militant just disappears

Literally popcorn-fiction with the depth of tree bark. Read/watch better stuff, I swear fucking Terry Pratchett is deeper than this shit.

Which she gained by birthright, after her brother was killed. It still plays a part in her despite how you try to push it aside. She never really had to betray any class because she was consistently of a higher class even among groups where the structures of governance and economy were different than her home.

It's no skin off her nose to free them, as she's already established herself as the breaker of chains. Like I said, they make the best subjects.

You don't think people being conditioned their entire lives to be slaves, has anything to do with how they relate to power and what they are willing to expect from that power? The point is that these people jump from their role as slave to serf so willingly not because they love their queen, but out of conditioned servility. She willingly, although possibly unknowingly, plays up this facade when she points to all the former slaves who support her. Most of these people wouldn't even know where to go after being freed. It's the transference of Stockholm syndrome onto a new master, and then she drives these people into war. I'm just pointing that it's not just a "freeing the slaves for progress" crusade. it's politically advantageous and in her interest to do so. Every regime needs a moral crusade, just like the U.S.

There was never any indication that what she was bringing radical change to Westeros. Most of the good she did was on her way to the throne. Who is she supposed to free there? I guess I could see how burning Kings Landing was overkill, but seeing as how she has had advisers reigning her in for a couple seasons now, and all her advisors are now dead or she's done taking advice from them, I don't think her deciding to release the Dragon nuke is that out of character. There's so much else wrong the last couple of seasons, that obsession over Daenarys seems nearsighted comparatively. It's way overhyped by liberals who want to defend white savior lady's honor.

I'm speaking nearly ubiquitously. Yes, we both know that it's possible, but the conditions are way more favorable once monarchy has ended. Why are you even denying this?

seriously tho, fuck this show.

Attached: D7CC9_UXoAAOV4K.jpg (960x720, 80.24K)

Honestly, can you name a single person who isn't insane that's vying for power in this show and hasn't died? I can't.
Maybe Tyrion, but that's a big maybe. Most people power hungry are schizo.

Women are more susceptible to emotional motivations forsaking rational actions for emotional reactions.
The Khaleesi demonstrated the problem with women in positions of power that can occur.

Attached: itisknown.gif (570x321, 3.29M)

The eggs were a gift and had only exchange value which was never utilised and would've been comparatively useless had they not hatched. Her brother has no relation to the dragon firepower she gains.
The point is she has no holdings, no property, no real material class status, she is a bona fide slave with limited agency until she gains dragons and from having nothing but dragons she makes her way up. This means she shares no class interests with the Masters of slavers bay, or the feudal aristos of Westeros for that matter, she is uniquely placed to suppress these reactionary classes due to not sharing their class interests and having the means to (dragons and an army). This is what allows her to assert a new mode of production, to enforce radical change and makes her a progressive historical force.
So what that it doesn't cost her much and in fact benefits her? Why does it matter that she's not a purely altruistic saviour sacrificing herself for the good of the masses? She fulfils an objectively progressive historical role, if you were a materialist you'd realise this rather than moralising about how her intentions aren't pure enough.
of course it does, so what? Should they remain slaves? She frees them, changes their material conditions, making them freedmen not serfs fyi, she creates the conditions for a capitalist not feudal mode of production. You point to people not knowing what to do with their freedom as if it were a problem or daenerys' fault, while i don't see what your issue is at all. Yes people who have been slaves all their life may find it difficult to acclimate to freedom, how is this an argument against freeing them however? You don't point to anything Daenerys' has done wrong, you just gesture vaguely with moralising about how Daenerys isn't single-mindedly dedicated creating an anarcho-syndicalist commune in meereen where supreme executive power is decided at biweekly meetings.
except all that break the wheel of the great houses for good which pretty strongly implies destroying the feudal system and establishing a centralised government as well as liberating the people of westeros from serfdom. It seems pretty clear she was a bonapartist leader looking to set the foundations for capitalism, given its what she did in slavers bay as well.
there was zero rationale for it. They tried to give some framework via the whole 'cersei is flooding the red keep with civilians so daenerys can't attack it with dragons without mass civilian casualties' but then they don't even address it, while it would make sense for daenerys to rage and fly at the red keep and burning it, killing a bunch of women and children inside trying to kill cersei, or even this setting off old wildfire under to city to increase civilian casualties further and make daenerys actually commit some plot-reasonable war crimes through her actions, instead the writers threw logic out the window and had her strafe civilians out in the surrendered streets of the city for an hour, this was done for no other purpose than to contrive a narrative justification for daenerys suddenly being so bad its morally right to put her down like a mad dog.

(cont.)
A dragon is not a nuke, its rather precise, nothing at all stopped daenerys from flying straight for the red keep and killing cersei, hell even strafing the red keep as a whole a few times and incurring some civilian casualties, but no, she gets triggered by bells and decides to spend an hour killing innocents, an action so irrational and out of character they didn't give us a single shot of her while she was doing it because there's no conceivable way for the actor to convincingly portray her doing it so its abstracted completely and we don't see her doing anything.
Also mind you her advisers have consistently given her poor advice, had she attacked kings landing straight from dragonstone upon arrival as she intended and not been dissuaded by varys and tyrion as it threatening to kill too many civilians, she would've had the jump on cersei who would be defenceless with no euron fleet, no auto-aim scorpios, no time to stuff civilians in the red keep as human shields and three living dragons, the battle would've been won easily and with even less justification for daenerys snapping and napalming streets for an hour.
Its absolutely true that there's lots and lots more wrong with season 8, lots of terrible decisions and bad incongruous writing with plenty of characters acting out of character. However its pretty undeniable that the character assassination of daenerys is one of the most glaring and also pretty much the final nail in the coffin at which point all hope of any redemption for the season went out the window so its naturally attracted much criticism.
The fact that you're accusing supposed liberals(?) of 'overhyping' this while resting your justification of 'daenerys actually bad tyrant who need die' with literal radlib bullshit about how she's a white saviour and resting the entirety of your arguments on petty moralising and ignoring any materialist analysis of the setting and the events that unfolded as well as pathologically inferring inane nonsense about how daenerys represents 'bourgeois liberal hwite womyn and us imperialism' is pathetic and phil greaves tier
What am i denying pray tell? You stated its anti materialist to think you can end slavery without ending monarchy, this is patently untrue and is demonstrated consistently in history, there is no relation between slavery and monarchy, there have been monarchies with and without slavery, there have been republics with and without slavery. Your preoccupation with monarchy as the great evil the most anti-materialist thing here, what matters is not so much the mode of government, but the mode of production which it comes to reflect. That Daenerys is not a total jacobin and doesn't wish to create a republic in Westeros does not make her reactionary, her despotic empire would nonetheless be a progressive historical force in that it would suppress the feudal aristocracy and set the stage for the capitalist mode of production. This is undeniable. Sure she could be better, she could be an anarchist revolutionary abolishing monarchy, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and setting up utopian socialist communes where ever she went, but alas i feel the writing would feel pretty contrived were that the case and out of place in a pre-modern setting, but a Napoleon with dragons is nonetheless good.

its basically the french or american revolution rather than the russian revolution

Zizek is right as always.

The head writer of this steaming pile of shit is a son of Goldman Sachs banksters.

He also wrote a book set during the siege of Leningrad in the Wehrmacht are portrayed as noble and righteous and the Soviets as incompetent, stupid, basically subhuman animals. This is despite the fact that he's Jewish - but I guess his class consciousness is stronger than his ethnic consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benioff

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Thieves_(novel)

Hilarious that the bourgouise is so afraid of the specter of a near-dead ideology that they can't help but push anti-communist tropes everywhere, even in a fantasy TV show like GoT.

The reason is muh human nature, muh power corrupts (except the power my Goldman Sachs CEO father had, which never corrupted him in any way), muh all revolutions and all attempts at positive change for the majority of people always end in mass murder and misery so don't even think you can change shit, keep choking on daddy's Gold ManSacks until the end of your fucking days prole motherfucker!

bro did you even read the book
yes, higher ups are portrayed as assholes but the people are IIRC (I read it years ago) portrayed sympathetically

I can't decide if this is r/chapo shit or Zig Forums shit, either way the idea that there is a vast conspiracy of media being orchestrated by these idiots as some kind of conscious effort to influence society is stupid because Daenerys isn't even a revolutionary force or anything, she's annihilating several oligarchic republics throughout all of Essos to liberate slaves that she ultimately uses to reinforce her monarchy. Sure she is a fairly benevolent ruler at the start, but the constant personal loss she feels throughout the series with plots and war and disease is ultimately what starts sending her into a downwards spiral into authoritarian rule and mass-murder. Eventually she has a vision in which she finally embraces her heritage as a Targ and becomes far more willing to use force as a solution.

Like honestly, especially with the TV series a lot of the political tones are muted, but even in the books the politics is part of the broader aspect of the characters you observe, many of which are lowborns or social misfits. And all of the politics that happens is more or less centered around monarchy, there is never a real hint of anything outside of the system of the Iron Throne for the entire series. It's not some bold statement about our political system or classes unless you want to really stretch some meanings into this grand narrative about how an entire tv series was built for the purpose of… delivering a lackluster ending with a mild political statement? Like honestly, sometimes it's just a fantasy tv show.

I think that's a reactionary point

Watch the finale again, notice the language they use

Tyrion says to Jon (referring to Daenerys) something like

Which other ideology is smeared as brutally destroying everything and everyone standing in the way to a "false" utopia?

Daenerys says before she was killed:

Which other ideology promises an entirely new world, with entirely different socio-economic relations?

It's painfully obvious they are trying to paint Daenerys as an evil Mao/Stalin/Fidel type figure. I would re-watch it and provide some more quotes to support my thesis, but the finale is way too shitty and boring for a second watch.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think an elite Goldman Sachs failson doesn't hate and fear communism or any other attempt at radical redistribution of wealth.

Bourgeois anti-communist ideology saturates every aspect of bourgouise culture. You can't escape it. It doesn't even have to be a concerted "conspiracy" - there doesn't have to be intent involved to make this true.

Daenerys doesn't have a cohesive ideology. The closest thing she has to one is "absolute power so I can protect the people I care about" because her life experience has just been the existing power structures taking everything from her. Her brother, her unborn child, her friends, her dignity, one of her dragon children, and has even turned "the people" against her (which was more of her paranoia coming to the forefront with nobody willing to help her obviously declining mental health), all for the power of the throne. She hates the republics, the monarchies, the nobles and the courtiers, all of them. Who are the people she is associating with by the end of the series? Bastards, misfits, ex-slaves, and lownborns. People are right that she didn't want the iron throne, but she was going to replace it with her absolute rule, with her band of rejects as her retainers. Hell, she isn't even past her teens, how would she even have conceived of an ideology in that time?

Jon, Tyrion, and the rest of what is left of the crew are not as keen on this plan for pretty obvious reasons. Jon doesn't want the northmen (and probably even the wildlings) ruled by and absolute monarch like Daenerys. Tyrion is obviously upset with Daenerys killing both of his siblings, which was the last of his close family being wiped out when they didn't have to be. It's not a big mystery why he'd be pretty pissed at Daenerys.

Also when the fuck did Daenerys even hint at wealth distribution? The most she ever did was get a few slavers murdered, But even then she didn't kill the majority of them in exchange for them giving up their slaves. The only thing she did was centralize the monarchy further and abolished slavery, which isn't as radical as you seem to think it is.

So unless you literally just take "vaguely populist and very keen to centralization" as "literally Stalin" then I don't know why you aren't cheering on comrade Trump or whatever, you have to boil down ideologies to meaningless characteristics for any of this to even make sense.

She's literally just the fantasy equivalent of the affluent liberal white woman that thinks she's the solution to everyone else' problems

Attached: 1558472629988.png (758x660, 379.86K)

I don't think anybody says that she had a cohesive ideology, but come on dude, it's quite obvious what the writers tried to imply.

She clearly was a Bonapartist figure, who got murdered for being too radical because hurr durr revolutions never work. She doesn't have an ideology but everything hinted at that she was trying to abolish feudalism. Of course you can argue that the storyline made her murder justified, which was the point of the writers or even Gurm, the fat liberal fuckface.

WTF I HATE HITLER NOW

Ehh the French revolution was radical as fuck

VOR UNS

Men in positions of power have their own problems.

I don't remember that at all. You're just making it up, arne't you?

I don't know if you noticed during your skimming of the wikipedia article but the book is set during world war 2, so the commoner isn't suffering communist stupidity, the commoner is suffering literal nazi aggression, and the commoner is often a communist himself
but of course, every portrayal of a soviet officer has to be hagiographic otherwise it's imperialist capitalist propaganda

first off, the show is fantasy and escapism. it's not necessary to read it for politics or for it to have a deeper meaning. That said, if you do look for a political message, the one I see is a ratification of the basic tenets of conservatism:

The message of the ending is conservatism in a nutshell. During the years it seemed progressive in some ways but the moral of the fable is ultimately anti-revolutionary (especially anti-tankie) and pro-status quo.

This isn't how politics works.

You brought up this parellel to US imperialism in another thread but it's just not tenable. The writing post season 4 is extremely on-the-nose, there's no nuance to what Daenary's agenda. She legitimately WANTS to free people from bondage, yes she does it in extreme ways but it's NOT comparable to the US.

The US DOESN'T WANT TO FREE PEOPLE, it doesn't even claim as much anymore. It literally wants to prevent other rival nations from acquiring oil reserves while taking resources for itself. It's agenda is colonialism to benefit the imperial core.

People decry Dany as extreme but we're looking at this through a modern, liberal perspective. She is freeing people from the yoke of feudal and literal slave societies, whatever she brings CAN'T be any worse than the hell that these people are already living in. Who gives a shit if she burns nobles and slave masters? Honestly are you a fascist?

The real issue is that her character was "assassinated" only in this season so that the story could leave on a shocking end, as the writiers were STILL trying to ride off the coat tails of the earlier seasons. What the don't realize is that those earlier twists and tragedies were serving a narrative and that the end would have SOME closure to all the "evil" that had come before. Instead we got "nothing ever changes", "people never change", "never hope for anything because you'll just be disappointed" - a misanthropic, nihilistic mess of an ending. People say that Dany's madness was foreshadowed because of her earlier actions but from what arbiter? Us? As people brought up under post-enlightenment liberalism? Her actions before the out-of-turn sacking was completely in line. And let's address the razing of KL itself, others were suggesting a protracted siege instead, so starving people to death is fine but burning them isn't? Yeah, neither is acceptable TO US, but this is fucking war under feudalism. What do you want?

I would like to end on this, do you think GoT would EVER besmirch US foreign policy and not have Dany be a caricature of every leftist "dictator" that the US opposes? HBO is the same fucking channel that's hosting the INSANELY anti-communist "Chernobyl" and pic related.

Attached: toldyaso.png (671x905, 447.94K)

Feudalism is a progressive step from slave society though. Yes they're both shit but it's undeniable.

Attached: 1500324516877s.jpg (600x701, 35.94K)

A show watched by millions and reaffirming the narrative which you just described. People DO read into the politics without being conscious of it, that's the power of the prevailing ideology, to make it seem like nothing "political" is being said at all.

I've used this before to explain that most capitalist are not evil people that willfully do evil shit. That capitalism as a system forces them to make rational and "necessary" business decisions (to not go bankrupt, for example). And also, that ideology and confirmation bias makes them think that their charitable work (ie. good intentions) outweighs their unforgiving "rational business decisions". Hence, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that can only be remedied with serious materialist analysis.
As for Denerys in season 8, that shit didn't even make sense, it's hard to make an analysis, IMO. Before that though, I think she embodies the liberal "I want to do good, but have shit for brains" capitalist. It's Bill Gates doing shit in Africa, "Actually making a difference"™.
The whole army that frees people also has shit for brains. Free people from feudalist lords, like wtf. But the ideology of the show is that some people deserve to rule, like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Obama, contrasted with the random people they chose to be in the gathering of lords. They innately deserve a seat on the big boys table. Sam's fan service for liberals, shilling for democracy, just hides the fact that people will vote for the same assholes that are sitting there. The ideology of the show is not of "revolution is dangerous" but rather that liberalism is revolution, "slowly making progress" revolution. The parallel being that the new lords are now better, more kind and caring. In the same sense that each election cycle promises better leaders, yet it's the same shit with different flavor, each an every time.

he's 100% correct
if some people disagree, remember he's not analysing a show (that he probably hasn't seen) but the ideology of the ending and the reaction it caused
I liked the point about sansa being the perfect neolib politician, very funny how the description he gives to sansa fits perfectly with hillary

the actual end(giving lords votes, HRE style) was more progressive than her

Why? Before monarchies becoming constitutional ones/republics, the first elements of the bourgeois state (centralization and everything implied by that) were starting appear thanks to absolutism.

tldr don't hate the player hate the game

The point of an analysis like Zizek's isn't to find a deeper meaning (or what truth lies behind the veil of innocent entertainment), it's to find where the limit or contradiction within the fantasy that the artwork presents lies. If you interpret mass culture as interventions in the symbolic space to mask an antagonism with inherent political power (say, class struggle) by staging a fantasy, or Relation, then it's obvious that the only way to find this antagonism is not to "tropify" certain aspects or elements of the work and reify their relation to a larger body of cultural production (because it is undialectical, unflexible and ultimately doesn't get to the "meaning" of those tropes), but to consider both the negativity of the work (i.e. it's relation to larger cultural or material phenomena that makes it's fantasy perhaps not only appealing but necessary) and the utopian quality that the fantasy posseses. That said, i can't find this stuff very useful aside from pseud wankery.

Daenerys is the BEST kind of villian, like The Master from Fall Out or something like that.

Her intentions, are good. I really believe that Daenerys believes that she's spreading justice and helping the world, but her means are delusional.
Whenever she wants something, she summarily execute everyone who even object, without really trying to understand the totality of the situation she's dealing with.
As a consequence, in the books at least, everything around Dany is a fiery, manic chaos.
Once she takes Westeros, things will be even worse, because she has no allies, no friends, no relationship or understanding of the religions and the cultures.
If you think the Mereen-plot is messy, the Westeros plot will be SO much worse.

Dany is a great villian, not because she's evil, but because she's wrong.

The people who liked her as a hero remind me of people who think Rick Sanchez is someone to aspire to be.
No, they're the protagonist villains.

Stalin is the BEST kind of villain, like The Master from Fall Out or something like that.

His intentions, are good. I really believe that Stalin believes that he's spreading justice and helping the world, but his means are delusional.
Whenever he wants something, he summarily purges everyone who even objects, without really trying to understand the totality of the situation he's dealing with.
As a consequence, in the Politburo at least, everything around Stalin is a fiery, manic chaos.
Once he takes Germany, things will be even worse, because he has no allies, no friends, no relationship or understanding of the religions and the cultures.
If you think the Poland-plot is messy, the German plot will be SO much worse.
Stalin is a great villain, not because he's evil, but because he's wrong.
The people who liked him as a hero remind me of people who think Adolf Hitler is someone to aspire to be.

No, they're the protagonist villains.

:^)

ITT: class analysis vs. muh feels

This. The CIA perhaps took over writing to promote anti revolutionary sentiment.

t. facile reactionary idealist

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (768x1033, 1.54M)

zizek has recently published 2 articles including this one in one of germany's most reactionary, zionist bourgeois newspapers.
i wouldn't touch a product of axel-springer-verlag wearing gauntlets and 3 layers of armour, but zizek has apparently no problem rambling about got next to extremely anticommunist ancrap written by the likes of broder, poschard, that überbourgeois faggot don alphonso and similar mainstream Zig Forums-tards.
he is too smart to not know what "springerpresse" means for the german left in particular. so he could have opted for bourgeois-liberal media such as spiegel, zeit or taz which would still be shit but a little less shit. or, god forbid, he could have sent his article to an actual /lefty/ newspaper such as junge welt. but he chose fucking springer… not sure what to make out of this. definitily doesn't increase sympathy for him from my side.

Yeah, you people demanding we contain our message to a select audience are definitely on our side.

Attached: 1387863489193.jpg (604x340, 64.56K)

Not him, but it seems unlikely that a NATO magazine whose head editor was married to the leader of the libertarian party would allow a non-reactonary article.

...

nigga you are being a right-wing caricature of liberals for real this is some "if you kill your renemies they win" shit

Fuck off back to Zig Forums

if you honestly believe that it's not a total waste of time to talk about communism to an audience composed of say the ceo of goldman-sachs, multi millionaire bourgeois frat boys/girls and other wealthy libertarian, fascist and reactionary upper middle class types you are completely deluded. people who read springer's welt are most of the time actual porkies of the worst kind.

Attached: Axel-Springer-Award-Jeff-Bezos-630x353.jpg (630x353, 29.27K)

I though Daenarys was supposed to represent imperialism and fascism.

...

Am I supposed to take the opinion of someone seriously who is writing thinkpieces about the latest GoT episodes? Fuck Zizek and fuck Fisher.

Then perish.

Attached: fisher.jpeg (940x736, 62.68K)

thats a pretty high bar to set you fucking faggot

also pretending Dany is a force for progress is laughable, the books make it very clear how the power vacuum she creates by killing slavers just lead to brand new slavers created from old slaves. she has no theory, no plan for the future, she just destroy and kill leaving people and society at large worse off than before her. nowhere does she talk about serf or anything meaningful, just generic feelgud bullshit while crushing her ennemies. and at least in the book she feel bad about it, here she just go 'who cares, im right ! i will rule with fear btw.' im mad about alot of things with the story, but dany being a bitch made sense and was clearly hinted at, even if they could have done a better job