Nisem se mogel upreti, da bi še
jaz objavil spektakularno razkritje, ki me niti ne preseneča. Slavoj Žižek, je
naredil plagiat prispevka Stanleya Hornbecka v reviji American Renaissance. Nekega blogerja je zmotila konsistentnost in lucidnost Žižkovega pisanja, ki je po
navadi nekonsistentno in z napisanim stavkom zanika prejšnjega. Tako mu je
uspelo odkriti, da je Žižkovo delo popolni plagiat iz ultra nacistično-rasistične
revije. Zanimiv izlet priznanega marksista. Potrjuje tezo, da med kolektivističnimi
idejami (nacionalnega) socializma, socializma in komunizma ni bistvenih razlik.
 |
Slavoj Žižek - Marksistični
plagiator nacističnih besedil, ponos levice
Še bolj bizarna stvar postane, ko
se je prejšnji teden Žižek po e-pošti začel izmikati, češ, da mu je misli
povedal prijatelj po telefonu:
»With regard to the recent accusations about my plagiarism, here is
what happened. When I was writing the text on Derrida which contains the
problematic passages, a friend told me about Kevin Macdonald’s theories, and I
asked him to send me a brief resume. The friend send [sic] it to me, assuring
me that I can use it freely since it merely resumes another’s line of thought.
Consequently, I did just that – and I sincerely apologize for not knowing that
my friend’s resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck’s review of
Macdonald’s book. (These passages are also taken over in Part III, Chapter 1,
of my book The Parallax View.) As any reader can quickly establish, the
problematic passages are purely informative, a report on another’s theory for
which I have no affinity whatsoever; all I do after this brief resume is
quickly dismissing Macdonald’s theory as a new chapter in the long process of
the destruction of Reason. In no way can I thus be accused of plagiarizing
another’s line of thought, of »stealing ideas.« I nonetheless deeply regret.«
Slavoj
Žižek
|
Stanley
Hornbeck
|
The main
academic proponent of this new barbarism is Kevin MacDonald, who, inThe Culture of Critique, argues
that certain twentieth-century intellectual movements led by Jews have
changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence
of Western man; these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously,
to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as
universalistic and even utopian.
|
In The
Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century
intellectual movements – largely established and led by Jews – have changed
European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of
Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or
unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to
non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian.
|
One of
the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been
to promote pluralism and diversity—but only for others. Ever since the
nineteenth century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the
traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the
Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.
|
Prof.
MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have
advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity – but
only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that
tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society:
patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social
homogeneity, and sexual restraint.
|
MacDonald
devotes many pages to The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a collective project
coordinated by Adorno, the purpose of which was, for MacDonald, to make every
group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder; everything,
from patriotism to religion to family—and race—loyalty, is disqualified as a
sign of a dangerous and defective ‘authoritarian personality’. Because
drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group
loyalties—even close family ties—are ‘prejudice’.
|
Prof.
MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. [.
. .] The book’s purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to
family – and race – loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective
‘authoritarian personality’. Because drawing distinctions between different
groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties – even close family ties! – are
‘prejudice’.
|
MacDonald
quotes here approvingly Christopher Lasch’s remark that The
Authoritarian Personality leads
to the conclusion that prejudice ‘could be eradicated only by subjecting the
American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them
as inmates of an insane asylum.’
|
As
Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the conclusion that
prejudice ‘could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what
amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an
insane asylum.’
|
However,
it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and
consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that, according to
MacDonald, Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles.
These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against
dissidents: anyone whose political views were different from theirs was
insane.
|
But
according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty,
respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish
identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles.
These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against
dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs was
insane.
|
For these
Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness:
Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews.
The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psychoanalysis, according to
which ‘oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in
early childhood are the anti-Semite’s irrevocable inheritance.’
|
For these
Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: They
concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused
hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis,
according to which ‘Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic
relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance.’
|
In
addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school
glorified promiscuity and bohemian poverty [quotes MacDonald]: ‘Certainly
many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural
revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality,
including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual
relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family
pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.’
|
In
addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school
glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the school
as a seminal influence: ‘Certainly many of the central attitudes of the
largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The
Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against
parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social
mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and
patriotism.’
|
Although
he came later, the French-Jewish ‘deconstructionist’ Jacques Derrida was in
the same tradition when he wrote: ‘The
idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong
nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric
of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and
native tongue . . . The idea is to disarm the bombs . . . of identity that
nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews
and Arabs and immigrants . . . .’ As Prof. MacDonald puts it, ‘Viewed
at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the
European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own
demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology’. Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone
opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally
unhinged ‘hate-monger’, and whenever whites defend their group interests they
are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof.
MacDonald: ‘The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was
promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most
ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.’
|
Although
he came later, Derrida followed the same tradition when he wrote: ‘The idea
behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states
with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of
nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native
tongue. . . . The idea is to disarm the bombs . . . of identity that
nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews
and Arabs and immigrants’. As MacDonald puts it, ‘Viewed at its most abstract
level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural
eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology’. This project
has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is
routinely treated as a mentally unhinged hatemonger, and whenever whites
defend their group interests they are described as psychologically
inadequate—with, of course, the silent exception of the Jews themselves [quotes
MacDonald]: ‘the ideology that ethno-centrism was a form of psychopathology
was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the
most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.’
|
Vir: Slavoj
Žižek, “A Plea for a Return to Différance (with a Minor Pro
Domo Sua)”, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 2
(Winter 2006). 2
|
Vir: Stanley Hornbeck, “Cherchez le Juif”: Review of Kevin MacDonald’sThe Culture of Critique, in American |
