Two declarations denouncing the Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, both, allegedly belonging to Russian academics, have recently (beginning from the March 8, 2022 to our knowledge) been made circulated among the scholars affiliated to NATO academic-Gladio.
We will not indicate the specific personages and the name of the University, with whom and where this incident took place. The scholars who got engaged in this fraudulent dissemination activity have already been acknowledged by the nature of their involvement.
To our knowledge, there are two declarations of similar kind. One of them is written on behalf of Lomonosov Moscow State University’s scholars, graduates and students. Hereunder in the pdf file you can find the full text:
And the other declaration is written on behalf of the university rectors in Russia, citing a bunch of rector names currently on duty at Russian Universities. Hereunder in the pdf file you can find its full text. The other pdf life lists the names of the rectors:
FakeОбращение Российского Союза ректоров
Simply by checking their domain name registries we didn’t see any connection of these texts with any academic institution in Russia. Then we did confirm this fact by simply asking to Russian colleagues.
The result is: Both declarations are fake!
At first sight this incident looks just like as a fake news as we got used to. One can say it’s not an unusual stuff in today’s post-truth society, in war conditions and so on. Yes, it’s easy to dismiss it that way. But considering it’s collateral implications concerning the status of academia, knowledge and power, this incident bears a lot of features to think and remark about.
In this text we will examine what makes such a forger possible in academia and its conceptual mechanisms behind.
Let’s start by the first key concept:
The “NATO academic-Gladio”
Ruling out all kinds of ethical and legal concerns, let’s imagine a group of scholars at some university, sharing a fake declaration on behalf of some other scholars at another university. And, let’s imagine, this university is in the next door or in the same city or in the same country, or, in another country they once upon a time had been in touch with… again, leaving aside all sorts of ethical and legal concerns, such a forgery would still be unimaginable just because their colleagues they violate could simply call them and ask them: “Hey, what the f*ck are you doing!?!“.
Thus, a slight possibility for any decent academic correspondence would make this forgery unimaginable — unimaginable, even for the most unethical person.
But what if the scholars they trick are from a university in the Planet Mars?
Then everything goes. Because in this case no one can call them and ask them what are they doing.
Here where NATO comes into play.
NATO is not just a military block. It’s also an “academic” block. It manages and regulates the scopes and limits of academic activities and correspondences. By doing that, it carefully marginalizes the questions, correspondences, research activities that are outside its scope. For a NATO affiliate “scholar” a Russian scientist is a Martian scientist and a Russian university is a university in the Planet Mars. Therefore everything goes with them.
What if Marginalization fails:
The three subvariants of plus-de-jouir
In our previous Opus “From Sartre to Zizek, freedom or Bashi-Bazouklouk¹” we have already studied a case concerning the failure of marginalizing. What strategy the ideological subject pursues when the marginalization fails, namely, when the “other” appears as a non-negligeable phenomenon which doesn’t fit the scheme of self-identification?
In that case, it sneakily attributes itself a moral superiority that overrides its skunk.
There are several variants of this strategy.
One typical example was the mayor in Munich who sacked the two Russian musicians because they rejected denouncing the Russian military operation in Ukraine. We examined this case as a subvariant (a more elaborate variant) of the plus-de-jouir of Hitler who allegedly didn’t shun shaking hands with the champion Jesse Owens (the familiar story is somehow the opposite: Hitler left the stadium upon seeing Owens’ finishing the race first, but considering that the former version is true) shaking hands with Owens doesn’t make him any less racist than he is but just a smarter — or a more politically correct — racist, sneakily profiting out of his sporadic renunciations of his racism.
In contrast to the Hitler’s plus-de-jouir model above, we examined the expulsion of two musicians from Munich Philharmonic as the extortion of plus-de-jouir from the “other” : they are blackmailed to renounce —both— on behalf —and also— in the servitude of Master’s plus-de-jouir so to enjoy their patronizing/emulating position. This is a typical examplary of the usual Nazist mind-control.
The Hitler’s case we exemplified above, we call it “simple plus-de-jouir“.
The second case we exemplified by the expulsion of the musicians, we call it the “extorted plus-de-jouir“.
So, we have a third variant now: the dissemination of a fake declaration on behalf of Russian scholars…
In this case, instead of the extortion (a blackmail) of other’s plus-de-jouir, we have the sneaky stealing of other’s plus-de-jouir.
We call this third variant the “stolen plus-de-jouir“.
This third variant is even worse than the second, the Nazi version. Because in this variant the victims may not even be aware that they are violated. The text is concocted, compiled, written and disseminated on behalf of them and beyond their awareness.
This is not scholarship but it’s Gladio-scholasticism in it’s purest.