Онлайн-лекція Славоя Жижека | КНИЖКОВИЙ АРСЕНАЛ 2026
Lecture · Суспільне Культура ·
2026-05-31 · 1:21:53 · 7,025 words
geopolitics-warideologyfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnesssubjectivity
Žižek analyzes the political dynamics of the Trump era, focusing on the lack of shame in political figures and the structural role of 'shamelessness' in contemporary capitalism. He contrasts the 'shamelessness' of Trump and Vance with the moralistic posturing of the liberal left, arguing that the latter's 'pro-migrant anti-racist' stance often serves as a form of ideological cover for imperialist interests. The excerpt touches on the Ukraine conflict, the role of the 'big Other' in enforcing political correctness, and the paradoxical nature of modern political discourse where words function as empty signifiers.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 4
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “shamelessness as a permissiveness”
The idea that the lack of shame in political figures (like Trump) is not a failure of morality but a structural condition that allows the system to function without the inhibiting force of guilt.
The symbolic order or authority that enforces political correctness and social norms, which Trump's behavior is seen as transgressing.
The concept that political language functions performatively to describe and enforce a 'horizon' of reality, rather than merely describing it.
A specific ideological grouping Žižek critiques for aligning with liberal imperialism, using progressive rhetoric to justify geopolitical interventions.
Stories he reaches for 2
Žižek briefly mentions the film Ninotchka, likely as a historical counterpoint or example of a different mode of political/romantic engagement, contrasting it with current cynicism.
“Ninotchka.”
Žižek points to Donald Trump's refusal to feel shame as a key feature of his presidency, suggesting this lack of inhibition is what makes him effective or terrifying, and contrasts it with JD Vance's potential rise.
“But if Trump ceases to be president, then JD Vance will take his place. And it could be even worse.”
Works invoked 1
Ninotchka film
Referenced as a cultural artifact, likely to contrast past political/romantic ideals with current cynicism.
People invoked 4
Donald Trump positive
Žižek analyzes Trump's 'shamelessness' and rule-breaking as a symptomatic figure of contemporary politics, using him to illustrate the breakdown of the symbolic order.
Mentioned as a potential successor to Trump, with Žižek suggesting his presidency 'could be even worse,' implying a deeper ideological rigidity.
Mentioned alongside Trump, likely as part of the new political-economic alliance, but without detailed analysis in this specific excerpt.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Cited for a quote about shame, which Žižek uses to support his argument about the changing nature of political subjectivity.
Transcript 267 turns
unknown
So dear friends, here Slavoj, welcome to Mystetskyi Arsenal, welcome to the Book Arsenal. Today I am very happy to present our exclusive guest. I have hoped for a long time that we will be able to invite him. He's a philosopher, public intellectual and maybe we can say also a provocateur, Slavoj Zizek. He joined us today from Ljubljana. Originally it was planned that Slavoj will come here personally, but unfortunately there was a serious obstacle on that. And me with the organizers, we with Slavoj, decided that we will organize something that we never organize, it's an online session. We believe in the importance of being physical and present, but also at the same time last time when we did something like this it was at the Arsenal in when Nataliya Gumenyuk who is here today with us, was moderating an online session with Timothy Snyder. It was a wonderful experience and I hope that today we will also have an incredible experience with Slavoj Zizek. We worked very hard in order to make it as real and physical as it is possible. Big gratitude to our technical team who was working to make it happen. Today we will have a short lecture by Slavoj and then it will be followed by questions from you, from our audience. So please prepare your questions. Because of technical reasons, the questions should be in English. So please be prepared and when we will end the lecture, you will be able to ask your questions. So Slavoj, welcome to Kyiv, welcome to Mystetskyi Arsenal. Thank you very much. I will begin with my sarcastic style. I would want that you are wrong about the European left. But unfortunately, you are absolutely right. And this is something that haunts me for years. Why do the majority of European left take a neutral stance with regard to Russia's war in Ukraine? And even some of them give silent support to Russia. Even when the pro-Russian left makes some observations which might be true, they nonetheless illustrate Sartre's point about Khrushchev's speech that a factual truth can nonetheless function as a lie. That's a great quote from Sartre. When the power finds it necessary to speak the truth, it is because they cannot find any better lie. And this truth coming from official mouths, is it corroborated with fact? Just a marginal remark. You must have noticed how both Trump and Putin do not like to use the term war. Putin speaks of limited military operation to prevent the big war. And Trump also describes his attack on Iran as a detour to prevent the real big war. Here we are at this cynical point. Everyone is trying to prevent the big war. And this very fake attempt to prevent the big war is what pushes us towards a global conflict. And so why would Putin be considered left? Putin, remember, in his two speeches in February when he announced an attack on Ukraine, did you notice he mentioned Lenin as the main culprit, claiming that even the Ukraine should really be called the Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin? Putin calls the Octoberean revolution the greatest tragedy for Russia. Putin is systematically supporting the extreme right-wing parties in Europe, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany and so on. And on the danger of nuclear war, you know, many on the left say, "Yeah, yeah, the Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves, but let's not provoke Russia too much." Wait a minute, it's Russia and only Russia, who are talking about the possible use of nuclear weapons. Remember, around a year or so, year and a bit ago, he announced the nuclear doctrine. And in this doctrine, it is said that if Russia is in a war with a country supported by other countries which have nuclear weapons, it's legitimate to use nuclear weapons against all these countries, and they have a right to use nuclear weapons first. And just a few days ago, on May 28th, Putin, I hope you heard or read about it, signed a new law that significantly expands his authority to dispatch Russian armed forces abroad. These were the amendments to the federal laws on defense and on citizenship. Explicitly, this law allows President Putin to order the use of military formations to protect Russian citizens who are in danger of arrest or criminal prosecution. Is this not a blueprint for military interventions anywhere where Russia decides it's necessary? Whatever the final outcome of the war will be, Ukraine has achieved an unexpected miracle of being able to resist Russia for so long. And Ukraine developed its own military industry, making it less dependent on Western help. And leftists have been saying this for years. But let's face it, Ukraine should be not about if Ukraine can win against Russia. But I want to say that if you resist, and you might lose, but if you didn't even try to resist, then you already lost. And that is why,
So dear friends, here Slavoj, welcome to Mystetskyi Arsenal, welcome to the Book Arsenal. Today I am very happy to present our exclusive guest. I have hoped for a long time that we will be able to invite him. He's a philosopher, public intellectual and maybe we can say also a provocateur, Slavoj Zizek. He joined us today from Ljubljana. Originally it was planned that Slavoj will come here personally, but unfortunately there was a serious obstacle on that. And me with the organizers, we with Slavoj, decided that we will organize something that we never organize, it's an online session. We believe in the importance of being physical and present, but also at the same time last time when we did something like this it was at the Arsenal in when Nataliya Gumenyuk who is here today with us, was moderating an online session with Timothy Snyder. It was a wonderful experience and I hope that today we will also have an incredible experience with Slavoj Zizek. We worked very hard in order to make it as real and physical as it is possible. Big gratitude to our technical team who was working to make it happen. Today we will have a short lecture by Slavoj and then it will be followed by questions from you, from our audience. So please prepare your questions. Because of technical reasons, the questions should be in English. So please be prepared and when we will end the lecture, you will be able to ask your questions. So Slavoj, welcome to Kyiv, welcome to Mystetskyi Arsenal. Thank you very much. I will begin with my sarcastic style. I would want that you are wrong about the European left. But unfortunately, you are absolutely right. And this is something that haunts me for years. Why do the majority of European left take a neutral stance with regard to Russia's war in Ukraine? And even some of them give silent support to Russia. Even when the pro-Russian left makes some observations which might be true, they nonetheless illustrate Sartre's point about Khrushchev's speech that a factual truth can nonetheless function as a lie. That's a great quote from Sartre. When the power finds it necessary to speak the truth, it is because they cannot find any better lie. And this truth coming from official mouths, is it corroborated with fact? Just a marginal remark. You must have noticed how both Trump and Putin do not like to use the term war. Putin speaks of limited military operation to prevent the big war. And Trump also describes his attack on Iran as a detour to prevent the real big war. Here we are at this cynical point. Everyone is trying to prevent the big war. And this very fake attempt to prevent the big war is what pushes us towards a global conflict. And so why would Putin be considered left? Putin, remember, in his two speeches in February when he announced an attack on Ukraine, did you notice he mentioned Lenin as the main culprit, claiming that even the Ukraine should really be called the Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin? Putin calls the Octoberean revolution the greatest tragedy for Russia. Putin is systematically supporting the extreme right-wing parties in Europe, Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany and so on. And on the danger of nuclear war, you know, many on the left say, "Yeah, yeah, the Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves, but let's not provoke Russia too much." Wait a minute, it's Russia and only Russia, who are talking about the possible use of nuclear weapons. Remember, around a year or so, year and a bit ago, he announced the nuclear doctrine. And in this doctrine, it is said that if Russia is in a war with a country supported by other countries which have nuclear weapons, it's legitimate to use nuclear weapons against all these countries, and they have a right to use nuclear weapons first. And just a few days ago, on May 28th, Putin, I hope you heard or read about it, signed a new law that significantly expands his authority to dispatch Russian armed forces abroad. These were the amendments to the federal laws on defense and on citizenship. Explicitly, this law allows President Putin to order the use of military formations to protect Russian citizens who are in danger of arrest or criminal prosecution. Is this not a blueprint for military interventions anywhere where Russia decides it's necessary? Whatever the final outcome of the war will be, Ukraine has achieved an unexpected miracle of being able to resist Russia for so long. And Ukraine developed its own military industry, making it less dependent on Western help. And leftists have been saying this for years. But let's face it, Ukraine should be not about if Ukraine can win against Russia. But I want to say that if you resist, and you might lose, but if you didn't even try to resist, then you already lost. And that is why,
unknown
even if left critics pretend to analyze the situation neutrally, the implicit but unmistakable joy in their jumping on the Europe's dead body shows their impression and their real thoughts. According to these analysts, they say the majority of Ukrainians want peace, but Zelenskyy is dependent on NATO and corruption spheres, and so this proxy war continues. This presents Ukrainians as incredibly stupid people because they choose war instead of peace and just follow the NATO instructions. But right now, Ukrainians do not choose between a calm life of small satisfactions or a big catastrophe. Yes, in Ukraine, there is a choice: life or freedom. But there is an additional twist to this choice. Both uses of the choice imply a possible death. If in the two choices there might be death. Let's say you choose life. Let's say let's surrender, as Czechoslovakia did in '39, we will
even if left critics pretend to analyze the situation neutrally, the implicit but unmistakable joy in their jumping on the Europe's dead body shows their impression and their real thoughts. According to these analysts, they say the majority of Ukrainians want peace, but Zelenskyy is dependent on NATO and corruption spheres, and so this proxy war continues. This presents Ukrainians as incredibly stupid people because they choose war instead of peace and just follow the NATO instructions. But right now, Ukrainians do not choose between a calm life of small satisfactions or a big catastrophe. Yes, in Ukraine, there is a choice: life or freedom. But there is an additional twist to this choice. Both uses of the choice imply a possible death. If in the two choices there might be death. Let's say you choose life. Let's say let's surrender, as Czechoslovakia did in '39, we will
unknown
survive. Let's say Ukraine chooses that. Let's do what Russia has repeatedly made clear, as they have shown what they're going to do, performing executions in the occupied territories. So, if Ukrainians choose a calm everyday life, Ukrainians are forced to continue the war.
survive. Let's say Ukraine chooses that. Let's do what Russia has repeatedly made clear, as they have shown what they're going to do, performing executions in the occupied territories. So, if Ukrainians choose a calm everyday life, Ukrainians are forced to continue the war.
unknown
Yes,
Yes,
unknown
they also face the constant threat of death. So, if they choose to stop the war, they will just disappear as a nation. It is precisely Europe that wrongly attributes what is the point of the choice for Ukraine, either choosing peaceful life or accepting the humiliation of their allies. But now comes the part that might be problematic for some of you. With regard to this conflict, we must stick to the emancipatory universalism based on the link between the Russian aggression on Ukraine and the Israeli ethnic cleansing in Gaza. These are two moments of the same process of denying the very existence of an ethnic group, Palestinians and Ukrainians. If we support Palestinians, but we don't support Ukrainians' struggle, as some leftists do, or if we support Ukraine but ignore what Israel is doing with the Palestinians, both outcomes will be catastrophic. Russia will succeed when they will present themselves as the leader of the Third World fighting against European colonialism. And I am a realist. Yes, Ukraine still needs military help from the US. So, Ukraine cannot enter into an open conflict. I am not criticizing the Ukrainian state, not at all. But you should be aware who you are dealing with. It's not a true friend. Why? Where are we today? Three decades ago, as you all know, Francis Fukuyama presented his vision of the end of history. Liberal-democratic capitalism is the best possible social order. And
they also face the constant threat of death. So, if they choose to stop the war, they will just disappear as a nation. It is precisely Europe that wrongly attributes what is the point of the choice for Ukraine, either choosing peaceful life or accepting the humiliation of their allies. But now comes the part that might be problematic for some of you. With regard to this conflict, we must stick to the emancipatory universalism based on the link between the Russian aggression on Ukraine and the Israeli ethnic cleansing in Gaza. These are two moments of the same process of denying the very existence of an ethnic group, Palestinians and Ukrainians. If we support Palestinians, but we don't support Ukrainians' struggle, as some leftists do, or if we support Ukraine but ignore what Israel is doing with the Palestinians, both outcomes will be catastrophic. Russia will succeed when they will present themselves as the leader of the Third World fighting against European colonialism. And I am a realist. Yes, Ukraine still needs military help from the US. So, Ukraine cannot enter into an open conflict. I am not criticizing the Ukrainian state, not at all. But you should be aware who you are dealing with. It's not a true friend. Why? Where are we today? Three decades ago, as you all know, Francis Fukuyama presented his vision of the end of history. Liberal-democratic capitalism is the best possible social order. And
unknown
now
now
unknown
that we discovered it, we reached the end of history. No further
that we discovered it, we reached the end of history. No further
unknown
progress is possible, only a gradual full realization of this order all over the world. Fukuyama soon realized his mistake. Now he supports Bernie Sanders in the US. And a
progress is possible, only a gradual full realization of this order all over the world. Fukuyama soon realized his mistake. Now he supports Bernie Sanders in the US. And a
Slavoj Žižek
mere
mere
unknown
three decades later, we are at the opposite edge, that from liberal democracy, and the liberal-democratic-capitalist world, that is a set of rules that guarantees the basic human rights, access to education, to health care, freedom of speech, is now disintegrating. What is destroying this order is the brutal new world where the big fish eat small fishes, where ideology is not taken seriously, because what actually matters is raw economic, military power. Trump did not intervene in Venezuela in order to bring democracy there. He did it to have access to oil and minerals. Same with Ukraine. Remember how Trump was setting conditions for why he would help Ukraine? Because he wanted to have access to your minerals. And the basic stance in this situation is realism without any illusions. The idea is we must live in fear. If you are a small country, and you have some influence, you must remember that principles don't matter. In this new world, state sovereignty, human rights, these masks have fallen. We are now forced to accept the brutal reality as it truly is. But is this really the case? Are we really on the verge of this new world dominated by the big superpowers, three big superpowers' blocks, where clearly there is no place for Europe? Yes, but we always should be realistic about our post-liberal world, which is penetrated by ideology even more than the liberal-democratic world. The struggle of Ukrainians, that is why I support Ukraine and the struggle of Ukrainians is not only to keep their independence from Russia, but also the refusal to become part of this new brutal world, which is emerging. Three big empires dividing the world. Let me remind you of the famous joke from Ernst Lubitsch's
three decades later, we are at the opposite edge, that from liberal democracy, and the liberal-democratic-capitalist world, that is a set of rules that guarantees the basic human rights, access to education, to health care, freedom of speech, is now disintegrating. What is destroying this order is the brutal new world where the big fish eat small fishes, where ideology is not taken seriously, because what actually matters is raw economic, military power. Trump did not intervene in Venezuela in order to bring democracy there. He did it to have access to oil and minerals. Same with Ukraine. Remember how Trump was setting conditions for why he would help Ukraine? Because he wanted to have access to your minerals. And the basic stance in this situation is realism without any illusions. The idea is we must live in fear. If you are a small country, and you have some influence, you must remember that principles don't matter. In this new world, state sovereignty, human rights, these masks have fallen. We are now forced to accept the brutal reality as it truly is. But is this really the case? Are we really on the verge of this new world dominated by the big superpowers, three big superpowers' blocks, where clearly there is no place for Europe? Yes, but we always should be realistic about our post-liberal world, which is penetrated by ideology even more than the liberal-democratic world. The struggle of Ukrainians, that is why I support Ukraine and the struggle of Ukrainians is not only to keep their independence from Russia, but also the refusal to become part of this new brutal world, which is emerging. Three big empires dividing the world. Let me remind you of the famous joke from Ernst Lubitsch's
Slavoj Žižek
Ninotchka.
Ninotchka.
unknown
"Waiter, a cup of coffee without cream, please." And the waiter answers, "I am sorry, sir, we are out of cream, only milk. So can it be coffee without milk?" At the factual level, coffee remains the same
"Waiter, a cup of coffee without cream, please." And the waiter answers, "I am sorry, sir, we are out of cream, only milk. So can it be coffee without milk?" At the factual level, coffee remains the same
Slavoj Žižek
coffee. But what we
coffee. But what we
unknown
can change is to turn a coffee without cream into a coffee without milk. And I think the same applies to Ukraine. Ukraine, we want Ukraine without... we don't want
can change is to turn a coffee without cream into a coffee without milk. And I think the same applies to Ukraine. Ukraine, we want Ukraine without... we don't want
Slavoj Žižek
Ukraine
Ukraine
unknown
without its European background, we don't want this. And what we want is Ukraine without this Euro-Asian background, as Russia claims that this is the background of Ukraine. Putin legitimizes his power with the Euro-Asian ideology, opposing
without its European background, we don't want this. And what we want is Ukraine without this Euro-Asian background, as Russia claims that this is the background of Ukraine. Putin legitimizes his power with the Euro-Asian ideology, opposing
unknown
it to Western individualist liberalism, traditional values, family life, giving priority to community over individual interests, up to the readiness to sacrifice oneself for the state. Along this
it to Western individualist liberalism, traditional values, family life, giving priority to community over individual interests, up to the readiness to sacrifice oneself for the state. Along this
Slavoj Žižek
line,
line,
unknown
Alexander Kharichev, a top Putin ideologist,
Alexander Kharichev, a top Putin ideologist,
Slavoj Žižek
formulated the basic
formulated the basic
unknown
traits of Homo Putinus, this supposedly self-sacrificing nature of the Russian people. To quote him: "For us, life itself seems much less than for the Western man. We believe there are things more
traits of Homo Putinus, this supposedly self-sacrificing nature of the Russian people. To quote him: "For us, life itself seems much less than for the Western man. We believe there are things more
Slavoj Žižek
important than simple existence. That is in essence the foundation of any faith." End of quote. The
important than simple existence. That is in essence the foundation of any faith." End of quote. The
unknown
irony here is that Ukrainians by their very resistance to Russia, have demonstrated exactly that, that for them there are facts more important than simple existence.
irony here is that Ukrainians by their very resistance to Russia, have demonstrated exactly that, that for them there are facts more important than simple existence.
Slavoj Žižek
Moreover,
Moreover,
unknown
we must remember that Putin actually skillfully
we must remember that Putin actually skillfully
Slavoj Žižek
plays
plays
unknown
both cards: the conservative and the anti-colonialist. For Putin, and indeed for many countries of the Third World, the Ukrainian war is the
both cards: the conservative and the anti-colonialist. For Putin, and indeed for many countries of the Third World, the Ukrainian war is the
Slavoj Žižek
war of the Third World
war of the Third World
unknown
against Euro-centric colonialism. The two sides come together in Afghanistan. Do you know that Ukraine was the first country in the world that established diplomatic
against Euro-centric colonialism. The two sides come together in Afghanistan. Do you know that Ukraine was the first country in the world that established diplomatic
Slavoj Žižek
relations with
relations with
unknown
the Taliban government? And actually, even now, they signed a military pact with the Taliban. So, when the Russian army was still occupying, or as they said, liberating, here and there Ukrainian villages, the old joke, you must know it, how people say, "In our village we don't have cannibals, we just ate the last one yesterday." And that clearly shows you the Russian
the Taliban government? And actually, even now, they signed a military pact with the Taliban. So, when the Russian army was still occupying, or as they said, liberating, here and there Ukrainian villages, the old joke, you must know it, how people say, "In our village we don't have cannibals, we just ate the last one yesterday." And that clearly shows you the Russian
Slavoj Žižek
logic.
logic.
unknown
In all these cases we are as far as possible
In all these cases we are as far as possible
Slavoj Žižek
from seeing
from seeing
unknown
the world as it truly is. What the predominant realism ignores is its extreme ideology, our realism which is so needed for our reality for self-reproduction. However, there is also a third aspect we must take into account to better understand the difficult situation among the left. This is the legacy of the protests. In the aftermath of the French so-called progressive press published a petition demanding the decriminalization of pedophilia. The idea was that criminalizing pedophilia is an artificial
the world as it truly is. What the predominant realism ignores is its extreme ideology, our realism which is so needed for our reality for self-reproduction. However, there is also a third aspect we must take into account to better understand the difficult situation among the left. This is the legacy of the protests. In the aftermath of the French so-called progressive press published a petition demanding the decriminalization of pedophilia. The idea was that criminalizing pedophilia is an artificial
Slavoj Žižek
and oppressive culturally
and oppressive culturally
unknown
constructed border which separated
constructed border which separated
Slavoj Žižek
children from adults. The idea
children from adults. The idea
unknown
was that we will truly perform a sexual revolution when parents will be able to, quote, "love"
was that we will truly perform a sexual revolution when parents will be able to, quote, "love"
Slavoj Žižek
their own children. Of course, today
their own children. Of course, today
unknown
pedophilia is considered one of the worst crimes.
pedophilia is considered one of the worst crimes.
Slavoj Žižek
And instead of fighting
And instead of fighting
unknown
for all this in the name of anti-Catholic progress, pedophilia is associated very
for all this in the name of anti-Catholic progress, pedophilia is associated very
Slavoj Žižek
often with the dark forces of
often with the dark forces of
unknown
the Catholic Church. The situation is not just changing, there's one thing that remains, it's the rise of a new
the Catholic Church. The situation is not just changing, there's one thing that remains, it's the rise of a new
unknown
shamelessness. This shamelessness survives as part of the regime
shamelessness. This shamelessness survives as part of the regime
Slavoj Žižek
itself. I mean
itself. I mean
unknown
this Epstein circle in the US. Epstein is precisely that deep state in which both left and right, Noam Chomsky and Steve Bannon can survive side by side
this Epstein circle in the US. Epstein is precisely that deep state in which both left and right, Noam Chomsky and Steve Bannon can survive side by side
Slavoj Žižek
and peacefully
and peacefully
unknown
cooperate. How could this happen? Psychoanalysis is as a rule understood either wrongly or too leftist, in the sense that we must cancel all forms of repression and fully liberate sexuality, or it's understood too conservatively,
cooperate. How could this happen? Psychoanalysis is as a rule understood either wrongly or too leftist, in the sense that we must cancel all forms of repression and fully liberate sexuality, or it's understood too conservatively,
Slavoj Žižek
and that is that a certain level of
and that is that a certain level of
unknown
repression is necessary to prevent social disintegration and preserve social morality. But Jacques Lacan, my teacher, had his own definition of the goal of psychoanalytic treatment. And this goal was in something absolutely opposite, which might surprise you. He thought that in our time, the real
repression is necessary to prevent social disintegration and preserve social morality. But Jacques Lacan, my teacher, had his own definition of the goal of psychoanalytic treatment. And this goal was in something absolutely opposite, which might surprise you. He thought that in our time, the real
Slavoj Žižek
opposition is not between
opposition is not between
unknown
free sexuality and the suppression of sexuality, but between shamelessness and dignity. And I think it's difficult to
free sexuality and the suppression of sexuality, but between shamelessness and dignity. And I think it's difficult to
Slavoj Žižek
overestimate
overestimate
unknown
the political relevance of Lacan's position. Around us there are many protesters who attack the notion of shamelessness of their opponents
the political relevance of Lacan's position. Around us there are many protesters who attack the notion of shamelessness of their opponents
Slavoj Žižek
and
and
unknown
demand to be treated with dignity. Dignity is precisely this common answer to the open cynicism of those in power, or more precisely to their shamelessness. As Peter Sloterdijk, the German philosopher and my good friend, he was saying that half a century ago. He said that the modern formula of ideology is not that they don't know what they're doing but nonetheless do it, but that they know very well what they're doing and nonetheless continue to do it, and do it shamelessly. In his seminar from "The Other Side of Psychoanalysis", Lacan reacted to the events of May and made a provocative
demand to be treated with dignity. Dignity is precisely this common answer to the open cynicism of those in power, or more precisely to their shamelessness. As Peter Sloterdijk, the German philosopher and my good friend, he was saying that half a century ago. He said that the modern formula of ideology is not that they don't know what they're doing but nonetheless do it, but that they know very well what they're doing and nonetheless continue to do it, and do it shamelessly. In his seminar from "The Other Side of Psychoanalysis", Lacan reacted to the events of May and made a provocative
Slavoj Žižek
statement at that time. He said, "What you aspire
statement at that time. He said, "What you aspire
unknown
to as revolutionaries is to find a master and you will
to as revolutionaries is to find a master and you will
Slavoj Žižek
find him."
find him."
unknown
However, there is a much more important point in this critique by Lacan of the student protesters. He was saying, "In fact, you lack a bit of shame." Lacan repeatedly used the same motif. For example, he said that students who were taking part in the protests were afraid that they might be taken over by buffoonery, clownery.
However, there is a much more important point in this critique by Lacan of the student protesters. He was saying, "In fact, you lack a bit of shame." Lacan repeatedly used the same motif. For example, he said that students who were taking part in the protests were afraid that they might be taken over by buffoonery, clownery.
Slavoj Žižek
But I would start
But I would start
unknown
rather from the fact that this buffoonery or clownery already exists.
rather from the fact that this buffoonery or clownery already exists.
Slavoj Žižek
Maybe if we add a bit
Maybe if we add a bit
unknown
of shame to that, then we'll be able to contain it. So I think that we should read contemporary
of shame to that, then we'll be able to contain it. So I think that we should read contemporary
Slavoj Žižek
shamelessness as a
shamelessness as a
unknown
certain mutation in capitalism. It's no longer capitalism which relies on the repression of
certain mutation in capitalism. It's no longer capitalism which relies on the repression of
unknown
enjoyment. It's the new mode of capitalism. It's rather a
enjoyment. It's the new mode of capitalism. It's rather a
Slavoj Žižek
permissiveness
permissiveness
unknown
where the cause of the
where the cause of the
Slavoj Žižek
difficulty or challenge can be exactly
difficulty or challenge can be exactly
unknown
the prohibition of
the prohibition of
Slavoj Žižek
prohibition.
prohibition.
unknown
Lacan is not advocating for a minimum of morality or repression which should be maintained in order to prevent social disintegration. On the contrary, he rather points to the fact that the members of the Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer, already in the 1940s referred to this by the wonderful term "repressive desublimation" or "sublimation of repression". You can cancel all the prohibitions and carry out your darkest dreams but the repression remains. You're still not free. And today what do we get in all this? We get this general generalized perversion. And Freud knew well that nowhere is the unconscious more repressed or more inaccessible than in perversion. Please think about this now, it's a very important theoretical point. For true psychoanalysts, perversion consists not in that I don't have any prohibitions anymore, I will do whatever I want. Actually yes, this is also perversion, but I'm talking about something else. This
Lacan is not advocating for a minimum of morality or repression which should be maintained in order to prevent social disintegration. On the contrary, he rather points to the fact that the members of the Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer, already in the 1940s referred to this by the wonderful term "repressive desublimation" or "sublimation of repression". You can cancel all the prohibitions and carry out your darkest dreams but the repression remains. You're still not free. And today what do we get in all this? We get this general generalized perversion. And Freud knew well that nowhere is the unconscious more repressed or more inaccessible than in perversion. Please think about this now, it's a very important theoretical point. For true psychoanalysts, perversion consists not in that I don't have any prohibitions anymore, I will do whatever I want. Actually yes, this is also perversion, but I'm talking about something else. This
Slavoj Žižek
does
does
unknown
not function in this way. It doesn't liberate. Why? Because
not function in this way. It doesn't liberate. Why? Because
Slavoj Žižek
desire,
desire,
unknown
human desire itself, is inconsistent, immanently inconsistent. That's why the permissiveness of perversion or perversity finally leads to a
human desire itself, is inconsistent, immanently inconsistent. That's why the permissiveness of perversion or perversity finally leads to a
Slavoj Žižek
self-destructive dead end, which
self-destructive dead end, which
unknown
finally leads to a call for a search for a new master, new lord. And I want to repeat this again because this is my central point, that the more oppressive the power is, the more it needs some additional things in the sense of internal perversion or perversity. If you know my work, maybe you know that I observed this a lot, especially when I was serving in the Yugoslav army. I was sure that I would
finally leads to a call for a search for a new master, new lord. And I want to repeat this again because this is my central point, that the more oppressive the power is, the more it needs some additional things in the sense of internal perversion or perversity. If you know my work, maybe you know that I observed this a lot, especially when I was serving in the Yugoslav army. I was sure that I would
Slavoj Žižek
find
find
unknown
discipline and order there. But actually I realized that behind this facade, surface, you have to take part in perversive rituals, joking with shameless jokes and so on. And actually, that was what was needed to sustain power. And as the ongoing wave of new populism shows, this shamelessness of this new master, it exceeds even the shamelessness of former protesters from the left. In '68 and later we thought that power shouldn't have dignity anymore, or it is dignitive, but we should use some dirty
discipline and order there. But actually I realized that behind this facade, surface, you have to take part in perversive rituals, joking with shameless jokes and so on. And actually, that was what was needed to sustain power. And as the ongoing wave of new populism shows, this shamelessness of this new master, it exceeds even the shamelessness of former protesters from the left. In '68 and later we thought that power shouldn't have dignity anymore, or it is dignitive, but we should use some dirty
Slavoj Žižek
gestures or
gestures or
unknown
words to topple them. But now we have faced that the new political masters are
words to topple them. But now we have faced that the new political masters are
Slavoj Žižek
doing
doing
unknown
what we did then even more openly, more brutally than we did then. And this is for me precisely the
what we did then even more openly, more brutally than we did then. And this is for me precisely the
Slavoj Žižek
problem with the figure of
problem with the figure of
unknown
Donald Trump. Because at least for me, that's the best definition of Donald Trump. He is an authoritarian master without authority. He has a lot of power, he knows how to use
Donald Trump. Because at least for me, that's the best definition of Donald Trump. He is an authoritarian master without authority. He has a lot of power, he knows how to use
Slavoj Žižek
it. He breaks numerous unwritten and now even written rules
it. He breaks numerous unwritten and now even written rules
unknown
of social and political life. But actually he lacks power, authority, that's this silent confidence that certain
of social and political life. But actually he lacks power, authority, that's this silent confidence that certain
Slavoj Žižek
personalities exude,
personalities exude,
unknown
which gives their actions a
which gives their actions a
Slavoj Žižek
special
special
unknown
non-violent power. Moreover,
non-violent power. Moreover,
Slavoj Žižek
although Trump likes to present
although Trump likes to present
unknown
himself as someone almost almighty, as someone who
himself as someone almost almighty, as someone who
Slavoj Žižek
whimsically
whimsically
unknown
blackmails other countries, attacks them, but actually his power and force is very limited. He knows that well. He terrorizes small states
blackmails other countries, attacks them, but actually his power and force is very limited. He knows that well. He terrorizes small states
Slavoj Žižek
but so far has not
but so far has not
unknown
dared
dared
Slavoj Žižek
to truly
to truly
unknown
confront Russia or
confront Russia or
Slavoj Žižek
China,
China,
unknown
or even Iran. At least
or even Iran. At least
Slavoj Žižek
now it seems so
now it seems so
unknown
to me. So figures like, for example,
to me. So figures like, for example,
Slavoj Žižek
Donald Trump and Elon Musk
Donald Trump and Elon Musk
unknown
are for me exactly the best representatives of the descendants of the '68 generation. A president like Trump, I will not repeat, but I'm just
are for me exactly the best representatives of the descendants of the '68 generation. A president like Trump, I will not repeat, but I'm just
Slavoj Žižek
shocked by him, I'm
shocked by him, I'm
unknown
ashamed of what he is doing. He does a lot of shameless acts and
ashamed of what he is doing. He does a lot of shameless acts and
Slavoj Žižek
he repeats by that exactly what was happening in '68.
he repeats by that exactly what was happening in '68.
unknown
Peter Sloterdijk clearly stated in his characterization of Trump
Peter Sloterdijk clearly stated in his characterization of Trump
Slavoj Žižek
that this
that this
unknown
is a person who cannot
is a person who cannot
Slavoj Žižek
feel even a bit of shame. This is actually a quote from a recent interview with Sloterdijk. I have no
feel even a bit of shame. This is actually a quote from a recent interview with Sloterdijk. I have no
unknown
doubts that this is the reason why Trump is attractive to his followers. They also would like to be in a similar way shameless, brutally inconsistent, open, shameless and act as a crowd, and not as individual persons. Sloterdijk also believed that Trump would soon lose his power, maybe even be hospitalized in a mental asylum.
doubts that this is the reason why Trump is attractive to his followers. They also would like to be in a similar way shameless, brutally inconsistent, open, shameless and act as a crowd, and not as individual persons. Sloterdijk also believed that Trump would soon lose his power, maybe even be hospitalized in a mental asylum.
Slavoj Žižek
But if Trump ceases to be president, then JD Vance will take his place. And it could be even worse. If you remember, Vance
But if Trump ceases to be president, then JD Vance will take his place. And it could be even worse. If you remember, Vance
unknown
said that the withdrawal
said that the withdrawal
Slavoj Žižek
of US aid forces from Ukraine makes him proud.
of US aid forces from Ukraine makes him proud.
unknown
Remember that famous conversation between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy in Washington. It was Vance who shamelessly started saying, "You never thanked us. Why don't you thank us?" And the problem with this shamelessness
Remember that famous conversation between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy in Washington. It was Vance who shamelessly started saying, "You never thanked us. Why don't you thank us?" And the problem with this shamelessness
Slavoj Žižek
is precisely that it allows us
is precisely that it allows us
unknown
to openly admit our crimes
to openly admit our crimes
Slavoj Žižek
without feeling any
without feeling any
unknown
guilt. Remember Alphonse Allais? Allais is a French satirist who wrote over a hundred years ago, his joke. He pointed to a woman walking down the street and shouted: "Look at
guilt. Remember Alphonse Allais? Allais is a French satirist who wrote over a hundred years ago, his joke. He pointed to a woman walking down the street and shouted: "Look at
unknown
her! Under her clothes she is absolutely naked!" In the same way, a person is guilty only under the cover of their shame. Wasn't that meeting in the Blue Room that I already mentioned, wasn't that the ultimate instance of shamelessness? This deal on rare minerals between the US and Ukraine, it was a clear example of brutal extortion by the US. "You will get our help if you pay for it, by allowing the US to exploit your natural resources for the next decade." The whole thing becomes even more
her! Under her clothes she is absolutely naked!" In the same way, a person is guilty only under the cover of their shame. Wasn't that meeting in the Blue Room that I already mentioned, wasn't that the ultimate instance of shamelessness? This deal on rare minerals between the US and Ukraine, it was a clear example of brutal extortion by the US. "You will get our help if you pay for it, by allowing the US to exploit your natural resources for the next decade." The whole thing becomes even more
Slavoj Žižek
offensive if you combine it with Trump
offensive if you combine it with Trump
unknown
and Vance's requests for
and Vance's requests for
Slavoj Žižek
thanks.
thanks.
unknown
That is, Ukraine should not only show slavish thanks and repeat constant thanks to the US, but they also have to pay for this support later. And this is just incredible obscenity. And this is spreading all over the world. Israeli media, and it's worth subscribing to them, but not in English what
That is, Ukraine should not only show slavish thanks and repeat constant thanks to the US, but they also have to pay for this support later. And this is just incredible obscenity. And this is spreading all over the world. Israeli media, and it's worth subscribing to them, but not in English what
Slavoj Žižek
they
they
unknown
write in the West, but how they communicate with their own
write in the West, but how they communicate with their own
Slavoj Žižek
public, with
public, with
unknown
their public organizations and so on. They openly talk about the brutal torture of Palestinians. It's not a secret, they admit it. Russian media characterize Zelenskyy as a neo-Nazi junkie and so on. In a
their public organizations and so on. They openly talk about the brutal torture of Palestinians. It's not a secret, they admit it. Russian media characterize Zelenskyy as a neo-Nazi junkie and so on. In a
Slavoj Žižek
certain
certain
unknown
caricature of postmodern relativism, words lose meaning. All that
caricature of postmodern relativism, words lose meaning. All that
Slavoj Žižek
remains
remains
unknown
important is the immediate effect. That's where
important is the immediate effect. That's where
Slavoj Žižek
we are now. Remember,
we are now. Remember,
unknown
for example, that joke about how Trump
for example, that joke about how Trump
Slavoj Žižek
described the
described the
unknown
leader of Saudi Arabia who is now
leader of Saudi Arabia who is now
Slavoj Žižek
kissing my ass and has to do it even more. Yes, it's just words. But words are not always just words. They describe the horizon
kissing my ass and has to do it even more. Yes, it's just words. But words are not always just words. They describe the horizon
unknown
according to which we act. Because we as Europeans, like me and you, Ukrainians, what should we do today? In a recent interview
according to which we act. Because we as Europeans, like me and you, Ukrainians, what should we do today? In a recent interview
Slavoj Žižek
with
with
unknown
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Sloterdijk
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Sloterdijk
Slavoj Žižek
expressed
expressed
unknown
his vision of where Europe is today. His main position is
his vision of where Europe is today. His main position is
Slavoj Žižek
that
that
unknown
after successfully passing through the process of mourning, mourning the collapse of colonial empires, Europe has already... already passed this, that is, they have already mourned the colonial period. Europe is now becoming a spectator of terrible events in its neighborhood. Unlike Europe, Russia refuses to join the
after successfully passing through the process of mourning, mourning the collapse of colonial empires, Europe has already... already passed this, that is, they have already mourned the colonial period. Europe is now becoming a spectator of terrible events in its neighborhood. Unlike Europe, Russia refuses to join the
Slavoj Žižek
group
group
unknown
of humiliated European empires, even denying that they are part of Europe. A role that until recently Russia proudly accepted, now they insist on their Eurasian origin.
of humiliated European empires, even denying that they are part of Europe. A role that until recently Russia proudly accepted, now they insist on their Eurasian origin.
unknown
Europe as a spectator must take on, according to Sloterdijk, they must take on the role played by Latin America and New Zealand, North Africa when Europeans were killing each other in two world wars. Europeans no longer have the privilege of acting, but they are also no longer haunted by the curse of action. In a sense, we Europeans will all become citizens of Switzerland, who were the first to receive the privilege of watching the massacre committed by their neighbors. So when Sloterdijk talks about the future, about future massacres that Europe will only watch, not being able to do anything, he means in particular the devastation in Africa, and also in Russia, which sooner or later may collapse. And my last quote: "Crimes that are now being prepared will sooner or later be committed. At that moment, Europe will have to maintain a certain cold-bloodedness." End of quote. As always in the case of Sloterdijk, his thoughts provoke... provoke reflection. But in this case I cannot completely agree with him. Switzerland has never been just a spectator. It played a key role thanks to its neutrality as a place for financial transactions,
Europe as a spectator must take on, according to Sloterdijk, they must take on the role played by Latin America and New Zealand, North Africa when Europeans were killing each other in two world wars. Europeans no longer have the privilege of acting, but they are also no longer haunted by the curse of action. In a sense, we Europeans will all become citizens of Switzerland, who were the first to receive the privilege of watching the massacre committed by their neighbors. So when Sloterdijk talks about the future, about future massacres that Europe will only watch, not being able to do anything, he means in particular the devastation in Africa, and also in Russia, which sooner or later may collapse. And my last quote: "Crimes that are now being prepared will sooner or later be committed. At that moment, Europe will have to maintain a certain cold-bloodedness." End of quote. As always in the case of Sloterdijk, his thoughts provoke... provoke reflection. But in this case I cannot completely agree with him. Switzerland has never been just a spectator. It played a key role thanks to its neutrality as a place for financial transactions,
Slavoj Žižek
economic
economic
unknown
exchange between the warring states around it. Europe cannot play this role of neutral spectator. Not only because its... because its very existence is not under threat. Ukraine is part of Europe, in my opinion,
exchange between the warring states around it. Europe cannot play this role of neutral spectator. Not only because its... because its very existence is not under threat. Ukraine is part of Europe, in my opinion,
Slavoj Žižek
but
but
unknown
also because it is itself a potential target of future catastrophes: military, political and
also because it is itself a potential target of future catastrophes: military, political and
Slavoj Žižek
financial.
financial.
unknown
We cannot be spectators of
We cannot be spectators of
Slavoj Žižek
our
our
unknown
own destruction. What is happening here? Some of us still remember the famous beginning of the Communist Party Manifesto: "A specter is haunting Europe the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French
own destruction. What is happening here? Some of us still remember the famous beginning of the Communist Party Manifesto: "A specter is haunting Europe the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French
Slavoj Žižek
Radicals
Radicals
unknown
and German police-spies." Can't we say that today the specter haunting the whole world is Europe itself? All the forces of old Europe and the New World have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter of Eurocentrism. Trump and Putin, they all hate a united Europe. Le Pen and Farage,
and German police-spies." Can't we say that today the specter haunting the whole world is Europe itself? All the forces of old Europe and the New World have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter of Eurocentrism. Trump and Putin, they all hate a united Europe. Le Pen and Farage,
Slavoj Žižek
pro-migrant anti-racists and defenders of
pro-migrant anti-racists and defenders of
unknown
traditional European values. Latin American progressives and Arab conservatives, Zionists and Palestinians, Chinese patriotic communists and new Hindu nationalists. Have you noticed this paradox?
traditional European values. Latin American progressives and Arab conservatives, Zionists and Palestinians, Chinese patriotic communists and new Hindu nationalists. Have you noticed this paradox?
unknown
Right or left, liberals or conservatives they all hate a united Europe. And what unites them is
Right or left, liberals or conservatives they all hate a united Europe. And what unites them is
Slavoj Žižek
not
not
unknown
the reality of Europe, which is actually quite unhappy, but this emancipated core of the Enlightenment. Critics of Europe repeatedly repeat that Europe is dead, irrelevant, marginalized. But I have a problem with that. If it's true, then would they talk about it so much? There is a wonderful Russian joke from a few years ago, you probably know it. About why Russia should unite its time zones and cancel the nine-hour difference between one side of the country and the other. To understand this joke, you should remember that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner group, who started speaking out against Putin, died in a car accident... um, his plane was shot down "accidentally," organized by the Russian secret service. So the Prime Minister of Russia went to Vladimir Putin and said: "There is a problem. My family was on vacation, I called them to wish them goodnight, and where they were, it was already morning and they were on the beach. Then I called Olaf Scholz to wish him goodnight, but he said that I called him a day earlier. I called Xi Jinping to congratulate him on the New Year, but he replied that I was calling a day later." Putin replies: "Yes, it happened to
the reality of Europe, which is actually quite unhappy, but this emancipated core of the Enlightenment. Critics of Europe repeatedly repeat that Europe is dead, irrelevant, marginalized. But I have a problem with that. If it's true, then would they talk about it so much? There is a wonderful Russian joke from a few years ago, you probably know it. About why Russia should unite its time zones and cancel the nine-hour difference between one side of the country and the other. To understand this joke, you should remember that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner group, who started speaking out against Putin, died in a car accident... um, his plane was shot down "accidentally," organized by the Russian secret service. So the Prime Minister of Russia went to Vladimir Putin and said: "There is a problem. My family was on vacation, I called them to wish them goodnight, and where they were, it was already morning and they were on the beach. Then I called Olaf Scholz to wish him goodnight, but he said that I called him a day earlier. I called Xi Jinping to congratulate him on the New Year, but he replied that I was calling a day later." Putin replies: "Yes, it happened to
Slavoj Žižek
me too. I called
me too. I called
unknown
Yevgeny Prigozhin's family to express my condolences, but then I found out that his plane hadn't taken off yet." Doesn't the same apply to the critics and even some supporters of a united Europe who again and again proclaim... proclaim Europe dead? It's that it hasn't died yet. And with the help of Ukraine's struggle, it will stay alive. So Europe's support for Ukraine is not ordinary sympathy for the victims. It's support born from the realization that it's not only your, but our own destiny that is decided there. Not only our future, but also our past. Walter Benjamin you probably know who that is he wrote in his Theses on History: "The past carries with it a temporal index by which it refers to redemption. There is a secret agreement between the past generation and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth." A great idea that
Yevgeny Prigozhin's family to express my condolences, but then I found out that his plane hadn't taken off yet." Doesn't the same apply to the critics and even some supporters of a united Europe who again and again proclaim... proclaim Europe dead? It's that it hasn't died yet. And with the help of Ukraine's struggle, it will stay alive. So Europe's support for Ukraine is not ordinary sympathy for the victims. It's support born from the realization that it's not only your, but our own destiny that is decided there. Not only our future, but also our past. Walter Benjamin you probably know who that is he wrote in his Theses on History: "The past carries with it a temporal index by which it refers to redemption. There is a secret agreement between the past generation and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth." A great idea that
unknown
when you fight for freedom, what you are doing now, you are not just now fighting for your freedom, you are elevating and you are redeeming all previous failures when you fought, but it didn't work. In tsarist Russia, in the times of Stalinism and so on. So if you succeed now, you will restore and redeem all your past gaps. All... all these losses will disappear. It... it will be such a mystical ideological experience. We are not just fighting for our freedom now. We are fighting to redeem our past. As T.S. Eliot said, and here I agree with him, that every new event in art, poetry it not only breaks the connection with the past, it changes the whole past. That is, the whole past begins to be read in a new way. Therefore, in this sense, what is happening now in Ukraine will affect how we will perceive not only the past of Ukraine, but also the past of Europe. If Ukraine loses and disappears, or if it survives as a doubly colonized state the east directly becomes part of Russia, the west an economic colony of the US Europe itself in a certain spiritual sense will die. It will survive as a tourist attraction for many Americans and Chinese, and also as a set of states dominated by neo-fascist new populist right. And that is why I am for Ukraine. Sometimes something happens in a certain country and you can play the European game, play the extreme right, extreme left and say "This doesn't concern us." No, I declare that what is happening now in
when you fight for freedom, what you are doing now, you are not just now fighting for your freedom, you are elevating and you are redeeming all previous failures when you fought, but it didn't work. In tsarist Russia, in the times of Stalinism and so on. So if you succeed now, you will restore and redeem all your past gaps. All... all these losses will disappear. It... it will be such a mystical ideological experience. We are not just fighting for our freedom now. We are fighting to redeem our past. As T.S. Eliot said, and here I agree with him, that every new event in art, poetry it not only breaks the connection with the past, it changes the whole past. That is, the whole past begins to be read in a new way. Therefore, in this sense, what is happening now in Ukraine will affect how we will perceive not only the past of Ukraine, but also the past of Europe. If Ukraine loses and disappears, or if it survives as a doubly colonized state the east directly becomes part of Russia, the west an economic colony of the US Europe itself in a certain spiritual sense will die. It will survive as a tourist attraction for many Americans and Chinese, and also as a set of states dominated by neo-fascist new populist right. And that is why I am for Ukraine. Sometimes something happens in a certain country and you can play the European game, play the extreme right, extreme left and say "This doesn't concern us." No, I declare that what is happening now in
Slavoj Žižek
Ukraine
Ukraine
unknown
is such a turning point. The fate of Europe is
is such a turning point. The fate of Europe is
Slavoj Žižek
decided
decided
unknown
in Ukraine. Why is this so important? And in conclusion
in Ukraine. Why is this so important? And in conclusion
Slavoj Žižek
I want to repeat
I want to repeat
unknown
once
once
Slavoj Žižek
more.
more.
unknown
Because for me a great political task is to prevent this tendency towards
Because for me a great political task is to prevent this tendency towards
Slavoj Žižek
these
these
unknown
three big political blocks or empires that essentially redistribute the world. Trump said this
three big political blocks or empires that essentially redistribute the world. Trump said this
Slavoj Žižek
quite clearly.
quite clearly.
unknown
And in fact, yes we are as if giving Putin Ukraine while we will interfere in Cuba, Venezuela
And in fact, yes we are as if giving Putin Ukraine while we will interfere in Cuba, Venezuela
Slavoj Žižek
and
and
unknown
so on. And it's scary when in the future there will be three political blocks. None of them is
so on. And it's scary when in the future there will be three political blocks. None of them is
unknown
democratic. Europe seems
democratic. Europe seems
Slavoj Žižek
confused
confused
unknown
and weak. And I think that's also a good sign. It means that Europe doesn't belong to this new world that is just emerging. The brutal world of big superpowers, a block of big superpowers. The European Union, Europe as such, the very idea of the EU doesn't fit into this new world order. And the fate of this idea is being
and weak. And I think that's also a good sign. It means that Europe doesn't belong to this new world that is just emerging. The brutal world of big superpowers, a block of big superpowers. The European Union, Europe as such, the very idea of the EU doesn't fit into this new world order. And the fate of this idea is being
Slavoj Žižek
decided in Ukraine.
decided in Ukraine.
unknown
If Ukraine loses Europe will also die. That is why for my own interest I think you will be surprised I as a leftist, I am for you. And I thank you very much for your attention and patience. Thank you. I don't hear anyone yet. Thank you very much, thank you Slavoj. It's been very
If Ukraine loses Europe will also die. That is why for my own interest I think you will be surprised I as a leftist, I am for you. And I thank you very much for your attention and patience. Thank you. I don't hear anyone yet. Thank you very much, thank you Slavoj. It's been very
Slavoj Žižek
interesting
interesting
unknown
and we
and we
Slavoj Žižek
already have some
already have some
unknown
questions and I am afraid Nataliya Gumenyuk was the first one. Why are you afraid? Because there are other hands in the audience. Slavoj, thank you. I'll try to
questions and I am afraid Nataliya Gumenyuk was the first one. Why are you afraid? Because there are other hands in the audience. Slavoj, thank you. I'll try to
Slavoj Žižek
ask a different
ask a different
unknown
issue on legitimate use of weapons and ammunition in the context of this revolution of drones. How in this discussion on new Europe, in this discussion about new Europe we can speak about legitimacy of the use of weapons?
issue on legitimate use of weapons and ammunition in the context of this revolution of drones. How in this discussion on new Europe, in this discussion about new Europe we can speak about legitimacy of the use of weapons?
Slavoj Žižek
Specifically
Specifically
unknown
in the, you know, leftist
in the, you know, leftist
Slavoj Žižek
tradition.
tradition.
unknown
Because armed movement was part, but then leftists moved to this
Because armed movement was part, but then leftists moved to this
Slavoj Žižek
pacifist
pacifist
unknown
position and ban on the use of weapons. This is an ethical question. And I also want to ask about it from the economic-political point of view. Because
position and ban on the use of weapons. This is an ethical question. And I also want to ask about it from the economic-political point of view. Because
Slavoj Žižek
as far as I know,
as far as I know,
unknown
the drone is so-called grassroots revolution in the warfare, it's a kind of decentralization of warfare. Do you think we can break this
the drone is so-called grassroots revolution in the warfare, it's a kind of decentralization of warfare. Do you think we can break this
Slavoj Žižek
monopoly of defense? Thank
monopoly of defense? Thank
unknown
you for
you for
Slavoj Žižek
the
the
unknown
question. I think we must accept this paradox which consists in that sometimes the only way to prevent war consists in preparing for war and even when you are attacked you must defend yourself. The entire World War II being proof. Munich Agreements, famous speech of Chamberlain, nonetheless opened the path to World War II. I think here lefties are playing a very selective game.
question. I think we must accept this paradox which consists in that sometimes the only way to prevent war consists in preparing for war and even when you are attacked you must defend yourself. The entire World War II being proof. Munich Agreements, famous speech of Chamberlain, nonetheless opened the path to World War II. I think here lefties are playing a very selective game.
Slavoj Žižek
In
In
unknown
my country, for example, there is a similar discussion. Pacifists are
my country, for example, there is a similar discussion. Pacifists are
Slavoj Žižek
saying:
saying:
unknown
using weapons or giving arms to
using weapons or giving arms to
Slavoj Žižek
someone is always bad because
someone is always bad because
unknown
this way we will not reach peace. And I then ask them: "And what about the Yugoslav partisans who were fighting against the Germans during World War II?" At least in the beginning, their acts were even more suicidal than the actions of Ukrainians today. They fought because they just didn't have any other choice. And only then my interlocutors think: "Okay, maybe here there is some difference." So they have to reassess their
this way we will not reach peace. And I then ask them: "And what about the Yugoslav partisans who were fighting against the Germans during World War II?" At least in the beginning, their acts were even more suicidal than the actions of Ukrainians today. They fought because they just didn't have any other choice. And only then my interlocutors think: "Okay, maybe here there is some difference." So they have to reassess their
Slavoj Žižek
position. And
position. And
unknown
here I will not name them by names, that would be unfair, some leading contemporary scholars, just top, I'm sure you know their names, I will not say them here, they were telling me: "But why resist when
here I will not name them by names, that would be unfair, some leading contemporary scholars, just top, I'm sure you know their names, I will not say them here, they were telling me: "But why resist when
Slavoj Žižek
you
you
unknown
are attacked? Is it so bad to lose a war?" For example, they gave me an example of Italy and Germany. "Okay, they lost World War II, but now the situation in these countries is better than in those who won." Germany now, well, it's a slightly different
are attacked? Is it so bad to lose a war?" For example, they gave me an example of Italy and Germany. "Okay, they lost World War II, but now the situation in these countries is better than in those who won." Germany now, well, it's a slightly different
Slavoj Žižek
situation,
situation,
unknown
we see that in Germany indeed economically the state can be better, for example, than in the United Kingdom and others. One can discuss that. But my answer to that is very obvious.
we see that in Germany indeed economically the state can be better, for example, than in the United Kingdom and others. One can discuss that. But my answer to that is very obvious.
Slavoj Žižek
Yes,
Yes,
unknown
indeed the situation there is better because, sorry for using this term, it's problematic but I think it's right, because the good side won. If Germany
indeed the situation there is better because, sorry for using this term, it's problematic but I think it's right, because the good side won. If Germany
Slavoj Žižek
would
would
unknown
have won, actually, interesting what would have happened if, for example, France, United Kingdom or Slavic countries could have said the same. I think that we must accept this paradox: if you are not ready to fight for freedom, for peace, you provoke further aggression. With regard to drones, I agree, this for me is something unspeakably beautiful. Because it's what allows Ukrainians to stand on their own and in this
have won, actually, interesting what would have happened if, for example, France, United Kingdom or Slavic countries could have said the same. I think that we must accept this paradox: if you are not ready to fight for freedom, for peace, you provoke further aggression. With regard to drones, I agree, this for me is something unspeakably beautiful. Because it's what allows Ukrainians to stand on their own and in this
Slavoj Žižek
sense
sense
unknown
not be so dependent on external help. It seems to me that
not be so dependent on external help. It seems to me that
Slavoj Žižek
Trump...
Trump...
unknown
actually I know people who know other people who know someone in the White House and they were saying that Trump is now with a bit more respect to Ukraine. He is ready to cooperate because Ukraine showed its strong sides, in particular on the battlefield with the help of drones and other means. This exactly for me is a basic thing we must not forget when it comes to peace. I know that in Ukraine there is also Azov and also patches with Nazi symbolism. Okay, I will not talk about it, actually I don't know much about
actually I know people who know other people who know someone in the White House and they were saying that Trump is now with a bit more respect to Ukraine. He is ready to cooperate because Ukraine showed its strong sides, in particular on the battlefield with the help of drones and other means. This exactly for me is a basic thing we must not forget when it comes to peace. I know that in Ukraine there is also Azov and also patches with Nazi symbolism. Okay, I will not talk about it, actually I don't know much about
Slavoj Žižek
it. But
it. But
unknown
remember my joke about Prigozhin. Do you know why his group was called Wagner Group? Because he liked Hitler
remember my joke about Prigozhin. Do you know why his group was called Wagner Group? Because he liked Hitler
Slavoj Žižek
and
and
unknown
he found out that Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. And look what happened. Wagner Group no longer exists as such. Some of the fighters are reintegrated into the Russian army. And they have a whole unit in Africa. And do you
he found out that Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. And look what happened. Wagner Group no longer exists as such. Some of the fighters are reintegrated into the Russian army. And they have a whole unit in Africa. And do you
Slavoj Žižek
know
know
unknown
how they called it, and officially, it's not just some nickname? "Africa Corps." The same name which was given also to a German unit in Africa. In my opinion, it is important to consider also about this Nazi movement or sub-movement and also in Russia. Anyway, the point here is that we should not fall into this trap, drones, even more militarization and so on. No, actually, drones are a way with which you can change the rules of the law and order. I want to say, I had an absolutely wild dream. This will never happen, but nonetheless, I'm talking about drone warfare. Why don't we choose some large, for example, desert somewhere in the middle of Libya or Saudi Arabia and when a conflict happens between two big states, we can designate a certain territory in this desert and
how they called it, and officially, it's not just some nickname? "Africa Corps." The same name which was given also to a German unit in Africa. In my opinion, it is important to consider also about this Nazi movement or sub-movement and also in Russia. Anyway, the point here is that we should not fall into this trap, drones, even more militarization and so on. No, actually, drones are a way with which you can change the rules of the law and order. I want to say, I had an absolutely wild dream. This will never happen, but nonetheless, I'm talking about drone warfare. Why don't we choose some large, for example, desert somewhere in the middle of Libya or Saudi Arabia and when a conflict happens between two big states, we can designate a certain territory in this desert and
Slavoj Žižek
say:
say:
unknown
"Okay, launch drones there, let them fight each other and we'll sit here quietly." Actually, I
"Okay, launch drones there, let them fight each other and we'll sit here quietly." Actually, I
unknown
see that such a war can be absolutely different. What about Russia? Then what we can do so that Putin again and again in this direct shameless way announced that he wants now to attack
see that such a war can be absolutely different. What about Russia? Then what we can do so that Putin again and again in this direct shameless way announced that he wants now to attack
Slavoj Žižek
Baltic
Baltic
unknown
countries or
countries or
Slavoj Žižek
any
any
unknown
other countries? According to new Russian legislation he can do it. I hope he will not do it, but after all, Russia actually started talking about it at the global level. They started the nuclear blackmail, it was them who started it. It's not what they say: "We will never do it," on the contrary. And this is a serious threat which we should not ignore. Okay, I'll probably stop here. Just a second. The only way to prevent war, I claim, is to not play into this war which US and Russia are playing now. They say that it is some special military operation, some operation in Iran and so on. And three
other countries? According to new Russian legislation he can do it. I hope he will not do it, but after all, Russia actually started talking about it at the global level. They started the nuclear blackmail, it was them who started it. It's not what they say: "We will never do it," on the contrary. And this is a serious threat which we should not ignore. Okay, I'll probably stop here. Just a second. The only way to prevent war, I claim, is to not play into this war which US and Russia are playing now. They say that it is some special military operation, some operation in Iran and so on. And three
Slavoj Žižek
days after
days after
unknown
the start of the war in Iran, Trump said that the war was over. No, the only way to prevent war is to openly state: "We are so far not in a state of full-scale war, we are on the eve of war. We are already fighting, actually." The only way to prevent full-scale war is to be completely ready for it from a military point of view. Thank you very much, Slavoj. We will take two more questions, but please be laconic. Okay, laconic question, it's a personal
the start of the war in Iran, Trump said that the war was over. No, the only way to prevent war is to openly state: "We are so far not in a state of full-scale war, we are on the eve of war. We are already fighting, actually." The only way to prevent full-scale war is to be completely ready for it from a military point of view. Thank you very much, Slavoj. We will take two more questions, but please be laconic. Okay, laconic question, it's a personal
Slavoj Žižek
historical
historical
unknown
question. Slavoj,
question. Slavoj,
Slavoj Žižek
you
you
unknown
lived main, main part of your life and early life under
lived main, main part of your life and early life under
Slavoj Žižek
communist dictatorship. How did you
communist dictatorship. How did you
unknown
manage to remain leftist? It's very interesting for me. Now I will shock you with my answer. People ask me, and ask often: "What kind of communist you are? Can you be a communist?" Now just don't laugh. I consider myself a moderate communist. A
manage to remain leftist? It's very interesting for me. Now I will shock you with my answer. People ask me, and ask often: "What kind of communist you are? Can you be a communist?" Now just don't laugh. I consider myself a moderate communist. A
unknown
moderate liberal communist. Maybe you will believe in that, but anyway, even conservatives say it. We all, as humanity, are now approaching three mega crises: ecological crisis, the crisis of artificial intelligence—I am not
moderate liberal communist. Maybe you will believe in that, but anyway, even conservatives say it. We all, as humanity, are now approaching three mega crises: ecological crisis, the crisis of artificial intelligence—I am not
unknown
against
against
unknown
it, I am just saying we so far don't know where it will lead us—and of course, migration, wars and so on. This is the third crisis. And my insight a priori consists in this: the only way to deal with this problem is to coordinate at the supra-state level in order to limit the market. We cannot allow the market to grow so much and for
it, I am just saying we so far don't know where it will lead us—and of course, migration, wars and so on. This is the third crisis. And my insight a priori consists in this: the only way to deal with this problem is to coordinate at the supra-state level in order to limit the market. We cannot allow the market to grow so much and for
unknown
it
it
unknown
to become the only neutral way of cooperation between countries. And if you say that it's utopia, then I will answer you this. Here I agree with one of my philosopher friends with whom I have many disagreements, especially regarding Ukraine. He said: "When the left was against capitalism, the capitalism which we observe today, it's already not real capitalism." I want to say that for me communism is just a way of survival. If we let it go, we
to become the only neutral way of cooperation between countries. And if you say that it's utopia, then I will answer you this. Here I agree with one of my philosopher friends with whom I have many disagreements, especially regarding Ukraine. He said: "When the left was against capitalism, the capitalism which we observe today, it's already not real capitalism." I want to say that for me communism is just a way of survival. If we let it go, we
unknown
will
will
unknown
not be ready for new challenges, in particular military, ecological and others. And then it's over for us. For me it's a certain form which I use in my life. Communism has nothing in common with the communism of the 20th century. You can, of course, say: "Why do you then call it communism?" And I do it because I need a radical name, radical title in order to tell people that serious problems are waiting for us. Actually Bill Gates says that he is a socialist, Elon Musk says the same
not be ready for new challenges, in particular military, ecological and others. And then it's over for us. For me it's a certain form which I use in my life. Communism has nothing in common with the communism of the 20th century. You can, of course, say: "Why do you then call it communism?" And I do it because I need a radical name, radical title in order to tell people that serious problems are waiting for us. Actually Bill Gates says that he is a socialist, Elon Musk says the same
unknown
and
and
unknown
for me these
for me these
unknown
words are absolutely meaningless. Socialism is something for me not clear. As for Yugoslavia, it was an interesting state. I never had any illusions about this state. And do you know what the irony is? At that time I didn't have a job for a long time, for five years I was unemployed because I was considered a non-Marxist. And now the same people who used to attack me because I was not a Marxist, now accuse me of being a Marxist. And do you know in what sense I am not a Marxist? Marx described very well a certain dynamics of capitalism. But Marx remained too much on the level of theology. He thought that there are certain levels of history, after declining capitalism we will move in a certain hierarchical order to communism. And remember what Rosa Luxemburg said, that it will be either communism or barbarism. And do you know what history taught us? But yes, they can happen simultaneously as in Stalinist Russia. And what I want to say here: I don't think that
words are absolutely meaningless. Socialism is something for me not clear. As for Yugoslavia, it was an interesting state. I never had any illusions about this state. And do you know what the irony is? At that time I didn't have a job for a long time, for five years I was unemployed because I was considered a non-Marxist. And now the same people who used to attack me because I was not a Marxist, now accuse me of being a Marxist. And do you know in what sense I am not a Marxist? Marx described very well a certain dynamics of capitalism. But Marx remained too much on the level of theology. He thought that there are certain levels of history, after declining capitalism we will move in a certain hierarchical order to communism. And remember what Rosa Luxemburg said, that it will be either communism or barbarism. And do you know what history taught us? But yes, they can happen simultaneously as in Stalinist Russia. And what I want to say here: I don't think that
unknown
history
history
unknown
in its objective tendency moves towards socialism. No, it moves towards self-destruction. And there is a German, I forgot his name, a sociologist, he said that yes, capitalism is disintegrating, but there is no higher sort of order. Now we have digital neo-feudalism. And this... as it is, it's also some form of capitalism. So forget about titles and names. And when communism was here, I was
in its objective tendency moves towards socialism. No, it moves towards self-destruction. And there is a German, I forgot his name, a sociologist, he said that yes, capitalism is disintegrating, but there is no higher sort of order. Now we have digital neo-feudalism. And this... as it is, it's also some form of capitalism. So forget about titles and names. And when communism was here, I was
unknown
unemployed. But do you know why I was lucky? In the sense that I will finish with a joke that I like. When people ask me "How did you manage to achieve success in the West?", I said "Through the repression of communism". Because when I finished my education in the early seventies, it was such a last period of such hard communism. I moved to a western country, established contacts with contemporary philosophers and achieved success. That is, without the pressure of communism I would now be some unknown stupid professor at... at the University of Ljubljana. However hard it sounds, that is, this
unemployed. But do you know why I was lucky? In the sense that I will finish with a joke that I like. When people ask me "How did you manage to achieve success in the West?", I said "Through the repression of communism". Because when I finished my education in the early seventies, it was such a last period of such hard communism. I moved to a western country, established contacts with contemporary philosophers and achieved success. That is, without the pressure of communism I would now be some unknown stupid professor at... at the University of Ljubljana. However hard it sounds, that is, this
unknown
pressure of communism
pressure of communism
unknown
saved me. On this note, we have to finish this session. Sorry, we cannot take more questions. Thank you very much, dear Slavoj. Thank you very much for your lecture, for this Q&A session. Thank you. Can I just add something in conclusion? I am very sad because I have always been tired, but when the discussion begins, I'm getting alive. I could with all of you continue all your provocations, react... so, but the lady who is running the show, lady, yes... just to say, because lazy leftists, when they want to stop a discussion, they say that, "well, we
saved me. On this note, we have to finish this session. Sorry, we cannot take more questions. Thank you very much, dear Slavoj. Thank you very much for your lecture, for this Q&A session. Thank you. Can I just add something in conclusion? I am very sad because I have always been tired, but when the discussion begins, I'm getting alive. I could with all of you continue all your provocations, react... so, but the lady who is running the show, lady, yes... just to say, because lazy leftists, when they want to stop a discussion, they say that, "well, we
unknown
would like to continue, but we have to protect the rights of our employees, the cleaning lady has already come to clean our audience."
would like to continue, but we have to protect the rights of our employees, the cleaning lady has already come to clean our audience."
unknown
Therefore, yes, and therefore we have to go home because we have to clean, yes. I hope that next time I will come to you personally, so I will discuss with you to the end and I'll clean the audience myself then so as not to delay the cleaning
Therefore, yes, and therefore we have to go home because we have to clean, yes. I hope that next time I will come to you personally, so I will discuss with you to the end and I'll clean the audience myself then so as not to delay the cleaning
unknown
lady.
lady.