Tag Archives: Guy Debord


Let a thousand mafias bloom

Zaplet okoli Metelkove 6 izpade, kot da se bodo nekatere entitete – Laibach, Irwin, ostali NSK derivati – dobesedno znašle na cesti. It’s a laughable proposition. Bodite brez skrbi: Tito bo še naprej na Brionih.

Seveda ni nobenega dvoma, da ministrstvo za kulturo trola oziroma se gre vojno, ki je odkrita in perfidna hkrati. Pri tem je – kot vselej – neizogibna tudi kolateralna škoda aka QAnon futr, čeravno gre povečini za Janševo programsko potlačitev (svoje in njihove) ZSMS-jevske zapuščine. Ven naj bi med drugim letel tudi SCCA aka Soros Center for Contemporary Arts, kar je protokol izganjanja “sionskega modreca” povsem v skladu z Grimsovimi in JJ retviti. Kot je Grims pripisal k tvitu Jamesa Woodsa: “The real problem today is George Soros versus whole western civilisation and democracy.” V skladu s to perspektivo gre celo za sorazmerno blag ukrep.

A kaj če je tukaj najadekvatnejši tisti znameniti Mahničev nastop?

Mahnič praktično izvede Groucha Marxa: “Delujejo kot mafija, organizirani so kot mafija, a naj vas to ne zmede, tudi so mafija.” Problem je seveda v ednini. It’s not mafia, it’s mafias. Kot bi rekel Mao, sort of: let a thousand mafias bloom.

Kolumbijska narkomafija je januarja leta 1988 objavila proglas: “Mi, mi nismo del birokratske in politične mafije, niti bančne niti finančne, niti mafije milijonarjev, niti mafije pri velikih goljufivih pogodbah, monopolih ali nafti, niti mafije velikih komunikacijskih sistemov.” Debord komentira: “Avtorji tega razglasa so nedvomno, tako kot vsi drugi, hoteli svoje delovanje zliti v široko reko motnih kriminalnih voda in bolj banalnih nezakonitosti, ki po vsej svoji dolžini napaja sodobno družbo; toda treba je tudi priznati, da gre za ljudi, ki v svoji profesionalnosti vedo bolje kot drugi, o čem govorijo.” Mahničeva intervencija je imela identično funkcijo. Kot zapiše Debord: “V teh posebnih okoliščinah je ta mafija, vznemirjena, ker je bila edina v središču pozornosti, šla tako daleč, da je omenila druge skupine, ki so hotele ostati skrite, njo pa narediti za grešnega kozla.”

And that’s about it. Če ste del katere izmed omenjenih mafij, sure thing, fight the other one(s) and fight hard. But don’t be righteous about it.1 Oziroma kot je Foucault povedal skavtu Chomskemu: “One makes war to win, not because it is just.”

  1. Of course, being righteous is precisely a method of war – Nietzsche calls it the slave morality. []



A meme is dangerous, much more than Janez Janša

Our essay on memes got published in the Eternal September catalogue, read it on pages 14-23.

Keywords: Walter Benjamin, modishness, LOLcat, Deleuze & Guattari, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins, Social Darwinism, bi-winning, critical theory, Frankfurt School, Freiburg School, Theodor W. Adorno, Slavoj Žižek, Guy Debord, spectacle, Robocop, John Maus, Gustave Flaubert, literacy, N. Katherine Hayles, hyper attention, Matteo Pasquinelli, Daft Punk, Vstaja, Federico Campagna, Saul Bellow, Silvio Berlusconi, satire, humour, Karl Kraus, carinature, Paolo Virno, Tiqqun, hapax legomenon, Franz Kafka, Robert Walser, autonomism, movement of ’77, withdrawal



Predavanje o memih je kot razlaganje vica. 53-minutno razlaganje vica



Tags: Memefy

Guy Debord: The Role of Žižek (a few excerpts)

“In ‘radical theory’ Žižek currently represents formal pseudofreedom and the pseudocritique of manners and values — the two inseparable manifestations of all fake, co-opted contemporary thought. Everyone does everything to present him as a misunderstood and unappreciated thinker, shockingly audacious and unjustly despised; and everyone praises him, from Purple Fashion magazine to London’s Royal Opera House. Despite the absence of any real critiques of Žižek, we see developing a sort of analogy to the famous theory of the increase of resistances in socialist regimes: the more Žižek is hailed as a brilliant leader of modern philosophy, the more people rush to his defense against incredible plots. Repetitions of the same clumsy stupidities in his books are automatically seen as breathtaking innovations. They are beyond any attempt at explanation; his admirers consume them as confusedly and arbitrarily as Žižek produced them, because they recognize in them the consistent expression of a subjectivity. This is true, but it is a subjectivity on the level of a graphic designer educated by the indie media. Žižek’s ‘critiques’ never go beyond the innocuous humor typical of nightclub comedians or The Daily Show.”

“Žižek is a Slovenian from Ljubljana who envied the chic of the French of Paris, and then the radical chic of Park Avenue, and his successful ascent up from the provinces is most exemplary at a time when the system is striving to usher everybody into a respectful production/consumption of culture — even ‘avant-garde’ culture if nothing else will do. We are not referring here to the ultimately conformist exploitation of any thought that professes to be innovative and critical. We are pointing out Žižek’s directly conformist use of ‘radical politics’.”

“Žižek is to philosophy what Tarantino is (or was) to film: both possess the appearance of a certain freedom in style or subject matter (in Žižek’s case, a slightly free manner in comparison with the stale formulas of writing theory). But they have taken this very freedom from elsewhere: from what they have been able to grasp of the advanced experiences of the era. They are postmodernism for dummies.”

(Debord’s integral text can be found here.)

Quentin Tarantino – Madonna Speech




Evergrin, part deux

Prva stvar, ki nas na njem presune, je nasmeh. Presune v prvi vrsti zato, ker takoj občutimo, da je ta nasmeh postal stereotipen. Javna osebnost je, zato se je, kot vse kaže, primoran smejati: toda njegov nasmeh ni pomirjujoč, sijoč, še več, žareč nasmeh “povprečneža”, ki je dober družinski oče, simpatičen delavec, zgleden državljan in si kot takšen nima česa očitati; in kajpada to tudi ni nasmeh, ki na široko razkazuje vse zobe in navsezadnje razglaša, da življenja ne gre jemati tako resno, saj je že sámo po sebi lépo in vredno, da ga živiš, in sicer natanko na takšen način. Ne. Ne gre za nasmeh te vrste, ki je tako pogost med javnimi osebnostmi. Nasmeh je zarotniški, skorajda namigujoč: očitno gre za nasmeh, ki priznava krivdo. Vtis je, kakor da hoče tistim, ki ga opazujejo, z njim povedati, da se dobro zaveda, kako ga imajo za pokvarjenega in ambicioznega moža, zmožnega česarkoli in brez vsakršne šibke točke, in to kljub njegovemu videzu nekdanjega revnega semeniščnika in farškega lizuna: istočasno pa hoče opazovalcem, ki ga imajo za takšnega, povedati, da naj kar mislijo tako in da bo, če bi s tem v zvezi slučajno ostali še kakšni neporavnani računi, vsa zadeva objektivno preložena sine die (namreč do dne, ko ne bi bil več mogočnež). A ne le to: vsakršno poravnavanje računov z nemočnim in idealističnim “navadnim državljanom”, ki bi si dovolil izraziti svojo sodbo glede gnusne resnice o njem (ki jo je sam sicer priznaval), je vselej preprečevalo nekaj urgentnejšega, javno urgentnejšega. In prav to “skrivnost nečesa urgentnejšega” je v prvi vrsti skrival nasmeh. Nazadnje je ta nasmeh izražal še eno sporočilo, ki je bilo temeljno, neobhodno in skorajda sveto: s svojim zvitim nasmehom je neprekinjeno, na vsakem koraku in vsem dajal vedeti, da je lisjak. Torej da naj ga za božjo voljo pustijo pri miru, ker “pač ve določene stvari”, “ima določene urgentne opravke državnega pomena” (o katerih se bo prej ali slej razvedelo), “je tako spreten in recimo tudi izmuzljiv”, da se vedno znajde na najboljši način in v interesu vseh. In ker je bil ta nasmeh zarotniški, je bil kajpada tudi beraški: beračil je za sočutje do svoje razodete krivde.1

In January 1988 the Colombian drug Mafia2 issued a communique aimed at correcting public opinion about its supposed existence. Now the first requirement of any Mafia, wherever it may be, is naturally to prove that it does not exist, or that it has been the victim of unscientific calumnies; and that is the first thing it has in common with capitalism. But in these particular circumstances, this Mafia was so irritated at being the only one placed under the spotlight that it went so far as to give details of the other groupings who were trying to cover themselves by illegitimately using it as a scapegoat. It declared: “We ourselves don’t belong to the Mafia of politicians and bureaucrats, bankers, financiers or millionaires, nor to the Mafia of fraudulent contracts, monopolies or oil, nor to the media Mafia.”3

It is always a mistake to try to explain something by opposing Mafia and state: they are never rivals. Theory easily verifies what all the rumours in practical life have all too easily shown. The Mafia is not an outsider in this world; it is perfectly at home. Indeed, in the integrated spectacle it stands as the model of all advanced commercial enterprises.4

Japanther – Um Like Yer Smile Is Totally Ruling Me Right Now

  1. Minimalno prilagojeni odlomek iz romana P. P. Pasolinija Nafta, ki ga je prekinila avtorjeva smrt leta 1975 (prevod: Gašper Malej; Moderni klasiki: 58, Cankarjeva založba). Opisan je nasmeh Alda Troye aka Eugenia Cefisa, predsednika italijanskega državnega naftnega podjetja Eni. []
  2. Mafija je vmes postala precej smešna beseda, tako rekoč anahronizem, op. S. []
  3. Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (1988), XXIII []
  4. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, XXIV []


Tags: Revisionisms