A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique"

Slavoj Žižek is perhaps the highest-grossing Marxist continental philosopher.

Slavoj with the lucky 4th(?) Mrs. Žižek *

But there’s always been the suspicion that the purported Communist is a bit of a prankster and put-on artist.

Here’s the Slovenian critical theorist pointing and sputtering at Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique. Still, a reader inclined toward deconstructionism might note that Žižek summarizes MacDonald’s controversial argument quite lucidly. In fact, the superstar professor achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by Žižek:

The main academic proponent of this new barbarism is Kevin MacDonald who, in The Culture of Critique, argues that certain 20th 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. [2] 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.” 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.” However, 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.” In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty: “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” 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 “hate-monger,” and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate – with, of course, the silent exception of the Jews themselves: “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.” We should have no illusions here: measured by the standards of the great Enlightenment tradition, we are effectively dealing with something for which the best designation is the old orthodox Marxist term for “bourgeois irrationalists”: the self-destruction of Reason. The only thing to bear in mind is that this new barbarism is a strictly post-modern phenomenon, the obverse of the highly reflexive self-ironical attitude—no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.

I’m guessing that the last two sentences are Žižek’s denunciation of the preceding argument he quite ably recounted. But it’s striking how much more opaque Žižek’s prose suddenly becomes when he switches to elucidating what are, presumably, his own ideas, such as they are.

———

* Update, 7/11/14: Other sources suggest this wedding picture is of the second of the now three Mrs. Žižeks.

 
Hide 274 Comments

274 Comments to "Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique""

  1. Jason says:

    Out-marriage is not inconsistent with ethnocentrism. Male out-marriage i.e. males taking females from other tribes is a feature of ethnocentric racial/ethnic competition, and the Jewish out-marriage mentioned here tends to fit this pattern of Jewish male/gentile female out-marriage.

  2. @Jason

    I’ve seen mention that Jewish women started marrying Christians once marital attitudes relaxed in the 60s and 70s.

    And many of the most famous Jewish women in Hollywood marry Christians:

    Jennifer Connelly: Half-Jewish, married Paul Bettany.
    Gwenyth Paltrow: Half-Jewish, married Chris Martin (divorced).
    Natalie Portman: Married Benjamin Millepied.
    Rachel Weisz: Married Daniel Craig.
    Scarlett Johansson: Half-Jewish, married Ryan Reynolds (divorced).
    Mila Kunis: Married Ashton Kutcher.
    Dianna Agron: Dates gentiles.

    But even if that weren’t true, full European Jews average around 50% Christian according to Gregory Cochran, so an average full Jew who marries a Christian will have kids who are only 25% Jewish, and 75% Christian. That sounds like serious dilution, and the opposite of the evolutionary ethnocentrism that MacDonald describes.

  3. @Jason

    Also, the gender balance can’t be too uneven because the 71% outmarriage rate is so high.

    If Jewish women only outmarried at 50%, which would still be high, then that would mean Jewish men are outmarrying at 90%, which would strain belief.

  4. Jason says:

    @Southfarthing

    I never said no Jewish woman ever married a gentile man.
    The point is that out-marriage is not inconsistent with ethnocentrism.

    “Dilution” is not opposite the “evolutionary ethnocentrism” described by MacDonald or other evolutionary biologists. It can be comppletely consistent with evolutionarily ethnocentric strategies. It’s a matter of which reproductive germ lines and genetic interests dilution ulimtately serves. You yourself are a good example.

    The differential between male vs female out-marriage is what matters because that will determine the long run direction of paternal gene flow.

  5. David says:

    @Threecranes

    Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t it the standard position in biology nowadays that natural selection acts principally not on the group, or even the individual, but on the gene – defined as (roughly) the largest unit of genetic material with a good chance of passing from one generation to the next without being split up by meiosis; i.e., since natural selection is change in allele frequency within a breeding population, it is on the alleles that it acts?

    If a particular allele is successful enough relative to its rivals to outcompete them all and become the sole surviving version of a gene in that particular breeding population (at least until a more successful one comes along), then it is said to have reached fixation – become ‘a thing’ if you will, but it’s still natural selection favouring the individual alleles that have the effects of making the individuals who contain them more reproductively successful.

    Of course, if you favour memetic theory, then it becomes a lot easier to see coherent cultural groups as mutually supportive complexes of memes that thrive in each other’s presence, more-or-less regardless of the genetic success or failure of the people who carry those memes, so long as they don’t make them so reproductively unsuccessful as to die out, taking their memes down with them. But either way, as far as I was aware, the consensus of biology is that group selection is a marginal force at best.

  6. Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
ABC's Epic Steel-cage Smackdown
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?