I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world.
The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.
Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
Your advocation of your belief system lies entirely in characterising any other position as "crazy ideological zealotry". I omitted the "crazy zealotry" part because they don't have very much substance (other than appealing to what you consider to be rational and reasonable), so I focused on the "ideology" part.
>Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
This is extremely uncharitable. Zizek is a serious philosopher, and people take him seriously. Just because you don't understand the points he's making (or don't agree with them), it doesn't mean he's purveying nonsense. Very few (if any) of his critics and fellow philosophers accuse him of being nonsensical. He frequently talks about topics I can't even attempt to understand, but I'm sure high-level physics can sound like nonsense to people too. He has 164,015[0] citations counted by Google Scholar, and along with Althusser considered important in the philosophy of ideology and socialism. He's by no means a hack.
[0] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=...
In a way, Zizek and his forebears represent the problem with the modern left: they left reality behind in favour of nonsensical “theory” that intimidates most people because it sounds authoritative, despite being empty.
For balance, I’m entirely certain that you could make similar claims of being out of touch with reality of the right, but they do not, for example, try to couch their ideas in an impenetrable fog of deconstructivism and psychoanalysis.
I wonder to what degree that relates to our subjective submersion for so long into the collective percolated ideas of Hume and Hobbes and Kant and Locke and (with the extent latter-day capitalism has adopted some variant of 'the end of history) Hegel. That is to say, were any of these works being actively purveyed to the public now, rather that forming a sort constituent background radiation in which even the prenatal are bathed, whether the foundation works of what is called western-enlightenment wouldn't be viewed in the same light. (In fact, I would wager one could start publicly reading from any of the above mentioned [excepting Hegel, for obvious reasons] and be sure of getting at least a few denouncements along the lines of 'postmodern trash'.
Also, I'm tempted to say that idea or only penetrable when they're not considered at all, that is, when they are merely that constituent background radiation of our lives. (Much like how we tend to know the answer to something right up until we're asked the question.) And upon the act of engagement, that is trying to understand any of this, we're left with Adam Smith being as seemingly impenetrable as Freud.
(NOTE) Agree with Zizek / Chomsky or not, that terminal paragraph is just such a fantastic burn.
It's interesting how asynchronous this kind of thing can be. To me, and I think many other people that have been overexposed to relentless criticism of the radical left for years now, it seems to be becoming unfashionable again. For me, that's because you can only deconstruct something so much before continued deconstruction becomes boring (and a convenient harbor for crypto-rightists) and before you start pining for some construction instead.
The pendulum swings (in a limited sense, that is; I feel more charity toward the radical left rather than some awakened sympathy for the right).
However, when the pendulum swings it rarely stops in the center. I fear an over-reaction to the right. Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination.