Slavoj Zizek - Figures of the end of the world - part 01
Lecture · John Hillman ·
2024-03 · 2:03:09 · 14,652 words
with Cathy Newman, Chris Simmons
cinema-art-cultureideologygeopolitics-warfascism-populismeveryday-lifephilosophy-generaldemocracycapitalismhistoryreligion-theology
Žižek begins his talk by expressing gratitude to Esther, referencing her past academic work on American cartoons, which he recalls fondly as belonging to 'another life.' Žižek recounts recent personal encounters with Piers Morgan and Julian Assange, using the latter to illustrate the paradoxes of modern institutional repression and the 'friendly' mask of authority. He then pivots to a theoretical analysis of the 'end of history' in East Asia, arguing that South Korea and Japan represent a post-historical state of depoliticized enjoyment, exemplified by the rise of web novels and the film Perfect Days. Finally, he contrasts this with the violent reality of Haiti and El Salvador, where the exclusion of politics returns as brutal gang rule and state terror, suggesting these are the true symptoms of our current epoch. Žižek argues that Western democracy is collapsing into a state of 'half-legal' or illegal reliance on armed gangs (Bukele, Prigozhin, Israeli settlers, Proud Boys) to maintain power, signaling the end of the liberal moral edifice. He posits that the 'Western enlightenment democratic tradition' is disappearing, leaving only direct violence, and cites Arundhati Roy to claim that human rights are no longer a usable moral compass. He concludes with a joke about Putin, Xi, and Trump facing God, suggesting the West's fate is worse than authoritarian regimes because it has lost its own normative foundation. Žižek critiques the current political climate in Germany and Israel, arguing that the Frankfurt School's shift from critical theory (Adorno/Horkheimer) to state-sanctioned philosophy (Habermas) has led to a loss of self-critical enlightenment. He analyzes the Gaza conflict through the lens of this philosophical failure, citing interviews with Israeli officials and former security chiefs to argue for a two-state solution. He concludes that Europe's support for Israel marks the death of the European emancipatory legacy, while teasing a future discussion on quantum physics and historical ontology. Žižek argues for 'total engagement' over the disengaged, pseudo-oriental stance of modern corporate elites, using examples from cinema and religious texts. He applies this to the Russian political situation, expressing deep pessimism about opposition movements and suggesting a 'controlled capitalist opening' under a strong state (Deng Xiaoping model) as the only viable path. He concludes by critiquing Deleuzian politics as naive, advocating instead for a 'dark' materialism that accepts despair and the necessity of state power.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 28
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's term for the intense pleasure derived from being attacked by opposing ideological factions simultaneously, as it validates his position as a disruptive third party.
Referencing Kojève, Žižek uses this not as a triumph of liberalism, but as a state of depoliticized, repetitive daily enjoyment where grand political projects have been abandoned.
A mode of existence where individuals withdraw into private, depoliticized daily pleasures (music, fashion, small choices) while ignoring larger political crises.
A specific literary form in South Korea that Žižek analyzes as a potential 'communist art form' due to its collective, anonymous, and interactive production, despite its depoliticized content.
as “symptal point”
The key indicator of the current global condition; Žižek argues this is not Ukraine or Gaza, but Haiti, where the 'excluded political dimension' returns with vengeance as gang rule.
A state where the democratic elite is corrupted and the alternative is direct rule by criminal gangs, creating a false choice between two forms of violence.
State-sanctioned or tolerated armed groups that operate outside the law but are used by the state to maintain power and deniability, replacing formal legal structures.
A reversal of the common dictum that democracy is under threat; Žižek argues that in its short-term populist form, democracy itself threatens liberal norms by allowing anti-immigrant right-wingers to take power legally.
The Enlightenment-derived moral and legal framework that Žižek claims is disappearing due to the Gaza tragedy, leaving a void filled by direct violence.
as “nomad proletarians”
Alain Badiou's proposed subject of radical change, defined as immigrants deprived of roots; Žižek expresses doubt about this concept.
The hypocritical but functional structure of Western human rights that provided a 'shelter' or minimal moral compass, which Žižek argues is now ceasing to exist.
as “voluntary resettlement”
The euphemistic term used by Israeli politicians for the ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, framed as a humanitarian gesture.
A vivid description of Netanyahu being exposed by a journalist's question, revealing the contradiction between his claim that Gaza is 'clear' and his blocking of aid.
Žižek's label for Habermas and his successors, who have moved from critical thinking to supporting the establishment and the state of Israel.
The Adorno and Horkheimer book cited as the Frankfurt School's greatest achievement, arguing that fascism and colonialism are inherent contradictions of the Enlightenment project itself, not just pre-modern remnants.
The title of Habermas's book, which Žižek uses to characterize the view that we need more enlightenment rather than a self-critical dialectic of it.
A joke about a Zen treatise on enlightenment, used to mock German Culture Minister Claudia Roth for trying to 'clap' (support) only the Jewish side of a documentary while ignoring the Palestinian suffering.
The paradoxical claim that secret police (like Shin Bet or Slovenian communist-era police) can be 'progressive' because they know the 'real state of things' better than the corrupted political intellectuals.
as “metaphysical status as an absolutely abyssal act of evil”
Žižek's critique of how the Hamas attack is treated in Germany: not analyzed contextually, but elevated to an ungrounded, metaphysical evil that justifies all subsequent Israeli actions.
as “European idea of universal emancipation”
The historical legacy of Europe, which Žižek argues is dying in the ruins of Gaza due to Europe's subservience to the US and Israel.
as “ontology of history”
The philosophical framework for understanding how history is open and how order is retroactively introduced, which Žižek promises to discuss using quantum physics.
A stance of full, unmediated commitment to a cause or reality, contrasted with the 'distance' of modern spiritual/corporate detachment.
The spiritual stance of modern corporate elites (Gates, Bezos) that allows them to commit global catastrophes while maintaining psychological distance and non-identification with their acts.
The only plausible mechanism for political change in Russia: a split within the ruling elite (e.g., Gorbachev vs. Andropov) rather than external popular movements.
A 'softer' form of fascism (exemplified by early Mussolini or Deng Xiaoping) focused on technological development and order rather than violent anti-semitism or self-destructive racial dynamics.
Žižek's sarcastic summary of Deleuzian 'non-linear logic' and 'rhizomatic' tactics, specifically referencing the 'sideways attack' strategy used by Israeli military theorists.
The interpretation of Deleuze (via Nick Land) as possessing a 'suicidal, self-destructive' dimension, closer to Žižek's own views than the 'happy' Deleuze of multitude.
as “pure despair”
The necessary 'reserve' or 'B version' of materialist engagement: the acceptance that things may turn totally wrong, shared in community without the promise of redemption.
Stories he reaches for 5
Heinrich Himmler favored the Bhagavad Gita because it taught SS officers to act at a distance, not identifying with their horrible acts (killing women/children), thus retaining their 'entity' while committing atrocities.
“The Nazi SS officer have to do horrible things... And he looks the answer in Bhagavad Gita which is act as a distance.”
García Linera told Žižek that organizing 'the multitude' via tribal connections in Bolivia resulted in corruption and tribal bosses seeking enrichment, proving that 'zero level of politicization' without state alienation is an illusion.
“We discovered that this was just corruption... A tribal boss came from province to La Paz and he was interested either in his own enrichment.”
Citing Primo Levi, Žižek argues that we must analyze the Hamas attack (like Auschwitz) to prevent its repetition, rather than treating it as a metaphysical evil that justifies all subsequent actions.
“He said if we don't analyze it, it will repeat itself.”
On the night before crucifixion, Christ tells disciples 'Please just stay here with me,' not promising redemption but sharing pure despair. Žižek sees this as the model for 'dark' progressive engagement.
“He is totally desperate... 'Please just stay here with me.' ... pure despair which Christ... tries to resolve through just be here with me.”
Žižek describes Haiti as a 'failed state' where criminal gangs, led by figures like Jimmy Barbecue Chérizier, have taken over. He notes the gangs' paradoxical self-image as freedom fighters (evoking Che Guevara, Robin Hood) while committing brutal massacres.
“We do not have a peaceful revolution. We are starting a bloody revolution in the country.”
Works invoked 20
They Live film
Referenced in the context of a previous joke about 'They Live' (though the specific joke isn't fully detailed here, the film is mentioned as a source tradition for a joke).
Adorno and Horkheimer's book, cited as the Frankfurt School's greatest achievement for arguing that fascism is an inherent contradiction of the Enlightenment.
Bhagavad Gita book
Cited as Himmler's favorite book, teaching 'distance' from one's acts; Žižek argues it 'spoils' the love scene in Oppenheimer.
If This Is a Man book
Primo Levi's work, cited for the argument that we must analyze evil (Auschwitz/Hamas) to prevent its repetition.
Anti-Oedipus book
Mentioned as NOT the reference for Israeli military theorists (who used A Thousand Plateaus instead).
Oppenheimer film
Used to illustrate the conflict between 'beautiful love' and 'nasty book' (Bhagavad Gita), and the 'pseudo-oriental' distancing.
A Thousand Plateaus book
Used by Israeli military theorists to develop 'sideways attacks' on Palestinian houses, ruining Žižek's trust in its emancipatory potential.
Dark Deleuze book
Nick Land's book highlighting Deleuze's 'suicidal, self-destructive' side, which Žižek agrees with.
Matthew book
Cited for the passage where Christ, knowing he will be crucified, tells disciples 'stay here with me,' modeling 'pure despair'.
Perfect Days film
A Japanese film by Wim Wenders, used by Žižek to illustrate the 'post-historical culture of enjoyment' and depoliticized daily life in South Korea/Japan.
Slow Down book
A book by Kōhei Saitō, cited as offering a solution to the ecological crisis through the attitude of depoliticization and enjoying daily life.
Žižek references this work as something he remembers from 'another life,' indicating a positive recollection of her scholarship.
Damming the Flood book
A book by Peter Hallward, used to demonstrate that Haiti is paying the price for being the first successful slave revolution.
Habermas's book, cited as representing the fatal step from critical thinking to state philosophy.
The six-part mini-series with Florence Pugh, cited for its final scene illustrating the ethical ambiguity of the conflict.
Proud Boys other
A terrorist organization (according to international law) and Trump's supporters, cited for their puritanical rules and anti-semitism.
Revolutionary Guard other
Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Basij, cited as functioning like a state but not quite, maintaining distance for the government.
Cited for the priest's funeral speech: 'I resigned to it... my love is with you forever even if you are destroying yourself,' modeling 'pure despair'.
Statue of Liberty artwork
Cited in the context of Tiananmen demonstrations, where protesters projected their desire for freedom onto it, rather than seeing it as imperialism.
Wagner Group other
A private army gang used by Putin, cited as an example of state reliance on illegal armed groups.
People invoked 69
Alexei Navalny negative
Described as a 'convenient opposition figure' whose protest voting increases Putin's legitimacy.
Bezalel Smotrich negative
Hardline Zionist politician, grouped with Ben-Gvir as determining actual Israeli politics.
Jimmy Barbecue Chérizier negative
A gang leader in Haiti who presents himself as a freedom fighter (evoking Che, MLK) but admits to starting a 'bloody revolution' and committing massacres.
Jonathan Glazer positive
Director, cited by Žižek as a 'true hero' whose work he is sympathetic to.
Nayib Bukele negative
President of El Salvador, described as a 'philosopher king' who openly engages in mass killing and gang occupation, representing a terrifying evolution of state violence.
Primo Levi positive
Cited for his argument in 'If This Is a Man' that we must analyze Auschwitz (and by extension the Hamas attack) to prevent its repetition, rather than treating it as a metaphysical evil.
Thomas Jefferson negative
Cited as an example of a 'liberal democratic Western leader' who called Toussaint Louverture 'not human,' demonstrating the barbarism of the West.
Friend of Žižek who talked with Claudia Roth, revealing her private agreement with Žižek but refusal to speak out publicly.
Wim Wenders positive
Director of the film Perfect Days, which Žižek uses as a key example of the post-historical, depoliticized lifestyle.
Yuri Andropov positive
Žižek's 'dream' was that Andropov (who died of leukemia) might have become a 'Russian Deng Xiaoping' with a controlled capitalist opening.
Mahatma Gandhi positive
Cited for his sarcastic response to British officials about democracy, and as a figure now attacked by Modi in India.
Esther positive
Žižek expresses gratitude to Esther and recalls her work fondly, stating 'the best of her works I still remember.'
Alenka Zupančič positive
Cited as a 'good colleague' whose remark about the end of the world disappointing us serves as Žižek's starting point for his theoretical argument.
Identified as Habermas's 'big successor' from the younger generation, who co-published a statement supporting Israel.
Itamar Ben-Gvir negative
Hardline Zionist politician whose stance determines actual Israeli politics, despite being mocked by the establishment.
Alex Taek-Gwang Lee positive
A friend from South Korea who convinced Žižek that South Korea, not Japan, is the current embodiment of the 'end of history' due to its depoliticized daily enjoyment.
Xi Jinping positive
Chinese leader, cited in the joke about God, where God predicts China's economic crisis and need to plead for Taiwan's help.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Co-author of The Dialectic of Enlightenment, which Žižek cites as the Frankfurt School's 'greatest achievement' for arguing that fascism is an inherent contradiction of the Enlightenment.
Steve Bannon negative
Trump's intellectual guru, who defines himself as a 'Leninist for the next century'; cited as an example of the enemy being better at radical gestures.
Adam Michnik positive
Polish dissident and owner of Gazeta Wyborcza, quoted for his statement: 'I am a socialist who will never forget really existing socialism about how it fails.'
Deng Xiaoping positive
Cited as a model for 'conservative modernization' (communism to fascism/controlled capitalism) which Žižek admires as a potential path for Russia.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited for an anecdote about a fiancée being late, used to illustrate a logical paradox relevant to the critique of Israel's status as a democracy.
Gilles Deleuze negative
Žižek argues his 'emancipatory' politics (multitude, self-organization) are naive and were used by Israeli military theorists for 'sideways attacks.' He prefers the 'Dark Deleuze' interpretation.
Toussaint Louverture positive
Leader of the first successful slave revolution; Žižek notes that Western leaders like Jefferson viewed him as 'not human,' highlighting the barbaric treatment of Haiti's history.
Yevgeny Prigozhin positive
Leader of the Wagner Group, used by Putin to gain deniability; his plane crash is the subject of a political joke.
Former leader whose Lavalas party took over in Haiti, an option Žižek says was ruined by American intervention.
Author of The Little Drummer Girl, whose novel Žižek uses to illustrate the ethical complexity of the conflict.
Arundhati Roy positive
Indian writer whose insight that the 'liberal moral edifice' is ceasing to exist in the context of Gaza is cited as crucial.
Franco Berardi positive
Cited for pointing out that Habermas rejected the Dialectic of Enlightenment and for analyzing Germany's logic of supporting Israel to 'repay' the Holocaust.
Donald Trump positive
Cited in the joke about God crying, and for his support of the Proud Boys and threat of blood if he loses elections, illustrating the failure of US democracy.
Cited for the observation that leftist rhetoric of violent overthrow is now appropriated by the new right.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Described as a 'good friend' and ex-vice president of Bolivia, who told Žižek that 'multitude' politics led to corruption.
Kohei Saito positive
A Marxist ecologist and friend who wrote 'Slow Down' and confirmed the general attitude of depoliticization and daily enjoyment in Japan.
Jesus Christ positive
Cited in Matthew as sharing 'pure despair' with disciples ('stay here with me') without promising redemption, modeling Žižek's 'dark' engagement.
Mikhail Gorbachev negative
Described as 'screwing it up' and being the 'progressive aspect of KGB' compared to Andropov.
Antonio Negri negative
Cited as part of the 'Deleuzian politics' (multitude, self-organization) that Žižek rejects.
Alain Badiou negative
Cited for his concept of 'nomad proletarians' (immigrants without roots), which Žižek doubts as a viable subject for radical change.
Jeff Bezos negative
Cited alongside Gates as practicing 'pseudo-oriental meditation'.
Friend of Žižek, now official in China, cited as an example of an intellectual exiled to a village during the Cultural Revolution.
Alexandre Kojève positive
Described as a 'great reader of Hegel' whose interpretation of the 'end of history' has shifted from Stalinist Russia to Japan and now South Korea.
Julian Assange positive
Žižek visited Assange in Belmarsh Prison, describing him as 'not in a bad mood' and engaging in friendly banter, while using the visit to analyze the prison's repressive mechanisms.
Marwan Barghouti positive
Described as the 'Palestinian Mandela' who led the intifadas but was against killing civilians, and who could beat Hamas in elections.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy negative
Mentioned in Prigozhin's quote: 'Zelenskyy Ukrainians are fighting well'.
Bertolt Brecht positive
Communist poet who defended Jünger from communist critics, arguing Jünger's ideas on social violence could be used for progressive ends.
Maxim Katz negative
Described as a blogger/figure whose protest actions increase Putin's legitimacy.
Kojin Karatani positive
Described as a 'good Japanese friend' who argues Buddhism is about 'void' and 'all that is is outside of you,' countering Western pacification.
Heinrich Himmler negative
Cited as having the Bhagavad Gita as his favorite book to justify SS atrocities through 'distance'.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Described as being 'caught with his pants down' by a journalist, mumbling nonsense, and humbling Biden. Žižek views his rhetoric as 'horror' and 'total nonsense.'
Michel Foucault negative
Mentioned only to contrast with Deleuze; Žižek says he doesn't like the 'emancipatory dimension' of Foucault/Deleuze due to the Israeli military application.
Jon Elster positive
Norwegian theorist of rational action, quoted for the reversal that 'democracy is the threat' in its populist form.
Ami Ayalon positive
Ex-chief of Shin Bet, cited as a 'rational' analyst who argues that without Palestinian hope, there is no Israeli safety, and suggests freeing Marwan Barghouti.
Actor in 'A River Runs Through It' playing a self-destructive brother.
Bill Gates negative
Cited as a corporate boss who practices 'pseudo-oriental meditation' to avoid identifying with global catastrophes.
Piers Morgan positive
Žižek references a controversial interaction with Morgan, using it to illustrate his 'intellectual orgasm' and the effectiveness of his moderate critique against hardline Zionists.
Big East German writer who, along with others, suggested that East Germany had forms of public solidarity worth learning from, which Habermas reacted to with 'paranoia.'
Director of 'A River Runs Through It'.
Walter Benjamin positive
Paraphrased by Žižek: 'to be truly civilized means you should all the time be aware how your own position the more it appears neutral, progressive to you is always on the edge of barbarism.'
Joe Biden negative
Described as having 'senility' and endorsing a militant stance to appear 'more masculine,' but being humiliated by Netanyahu.
Nick Land positive
Author of 'The Dark Deleuze,' which Žižek agrees with, highlighting Deleuze's 'suicidal, self-destructive' side.
Peter Hallward positive
Author of 'Damming the Flood,' cited by Žižek to argue that Haiti's current state is the price for being the first successful slave revolution.
Claudia Roth negative
German Minister of Culture, mocked by Žižek as a 'Zen Buddhist master' for trying to 'clap with one hand' (supporting only the Jewish side of a documentary) and for claiming it was 'not the right moment' to acknowledge Palestinian suffering.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Described as a 'German state philosopher' and 'ultra-pro-western conformist' who rejected the Dialectic of Enlightenment in favor of 'Enlightenment as an Unfinished Project,' moving from critical thinking to supporting the establishment.
Ernst Jünger positive
Reluctant Nazi fellow traveler whose ideas on 'purifying effect of military struggle' and 'verification of images' are cited to analyze the Proud Boys.
Tamer Nafar positive
Palestinian writer living in Lod, cited for resisting being pushed toward Hamas by hardline Zionists.
Max Horkheimer positive
Co-author of The Dialectic of Enlightenment, cited alongside Adorno.
Vladimir Putin positive
Russian leader, cited in the context of using the Wagner Group (Prigozhin) as a deniable private army.
Karl Marx positive
Cited for the concept of the proletariat as the subject with 'nothing to lose but their chains,' and the subsequent search for ersatz subjects.
Abraham Lincoln negative
Quoted for the saying 'you can fool all people some of the time,' which Žižek respectfully disagrees with regarding modern media saturation.
Tony Blair positive
Former UK Prime Minister, cited as being hired by Israel to inquire about 'voluntary resettlement' of Palestinians to other countries.
Transcript 16 turns
Cathy Newman
Hello everybody. Welcome. Welcome to the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities masterclass with Professor Slavoj Zizek. I'm Esther Leslie, one of the co-directors of the BIH. So we're really thrilled to have Slavoj here in his birthday week, no less. And I'm sure all of you here know who he is, or you wouldn't be here. Some of you may be new though. You might be here because you're one of the quarter of a million people, myself included, who with alarm watched him in discussion with Piers Morgan Uncensored. And you might also be one of the people, Slavoj and Piers Morgan included, who were very surprised about how much apparent agreement they were in. It seems like you're playing the role, you're being asked to play the role of controversialist a little bit again, with all those most dangerous philosopher and so on labels. But for us, I think he's important as someone who's had a relationship to the Institute and academics here since about So we're very pleased to have had ongoing discussions, and he is indeed International Director of BIH. I think the latest book about to drop, certainly in paperback, is Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist. The topic of this session is about the end or the ends of the world and the question of indifference. Slavoj will speak for between an hour and an hour Then there'll be some time for questions. So I shall slide to the
Hello everybody. Welcome. Welcome to the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities masterclass with Professor Slavoj Zizek. I'm Esther Leslie, one of the co-directors of the BIH. So we're really thrilled to have Slavoj here in his birthday week, no less. And I'm sure all of you here know who he is, or you wouldn't be here. Some of you may be new though. You might be here because you're one of the quarter of a million people, myself included, who with alarm watched him in discussion with Piers Morgan Uncensored. And you might also be one of the people, Slavoj and Piers Morgan included, who were very surprised about how much apparent agreement they were in. It seems like you're playing the role, you're being asked to play the role of controversialist a little bit again, with all those most dangerous philosopher and so on labels. But for us, I think he's important as someone who's had a relationship to the Institute and academics here since about So we're very pleased to have had ongoing discussions, and he is indeed International Director of BIH. I think the latest book about to drop, certainly in paperback, is Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist. The topic of this session is about the end or the ends of the world and the question of indifference. Slavoj will speak for between an hour and an hour Then there'll be some time for questions. So I shall slide to the
Slavoj Žižek
side and thank you very much. My gratitude to Esther. You know, the best of her works I still remember, but this was from another life. You wrote a book on American, how do you call it, cartoons?
side and thank you very much. My gratitude to Esther. You know, the best of her works I still remember, but this was from another life. You wrote a book on American, how do you call it, cartoons?
Cathy Newman
Animation.
Animation.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, yeah, the deep there is another tradition and so on. This is very important to know that it's not automatic that we allow all the Disney stuff to monopolize cartoons, you know. Things have often a very interesting history behind. As for that controversiality and so on, I know all the problematic things I said with Piers Morgan and so on. But nonetheless, it gave me, just before I flew here three days ago in still in Slovenia, it gave me an experience which I call intellectual orgasm. I was in some public space as a private person. And there were first some probably Muslims, not Palestinians but Arabs, who started to shout at me, Zionist whatever. Then behind them there were some obviously Zionists who, not understanding what they are shouting at me, began to shout at me traitor, Islamophobic, anti-Semite. And then I liked it how they were both shouting at me, and at a certain point they noticed each other. What's going on here? You know, all I'm saying that I believe my tactic, not this just Hamas is a liberation movement and so on, but more moderate, works much better. You know why? I was told, I think already said this here, the last time I was here. In Germany with my Frankfurt, I will not go again into that, Frankfurt book speech, that the attacks on me were much more violent, and a friend of mine, a progressive Jew, explained to me why. Than those who simply said Hamas is a nonetheless is a resistance guerrilla force and so on. Because it's easy to say oh, you see he is there. But hardline Zionists are terribly afraid that me with my more moderate approach, that I may convince some people. Which is what many people notice, how much more violent the reaction is to what I say. Ah, just a brief introductory another remark, then we move on. This Sunday I just upon my arrival I visited Julian Assange, and I was very nicely surprised. He is not in a bad mood because he is learning from his lawyers and so on that he has some chance, which is it's such a legal trick. He can demand non-extradition from European court, European court, even before the official decision of the British side is rendered public. And he learned how to manipulate Julian. You know that his he has connections. He knows people who knew people who are in that court. And he more or less negotiated that they will block it. And there are also some incredible surprises. Maybe Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, he knows that he went way too much for Israel, so Olaf Scholz, Olaf Scholz, you know, he said publicly Assange shouldn't be extradited. It's incredible. So he is not in a bad mood but and then I will go to my don't be afraid my talk. You know what? Nonetheless, I noticed a couple of details which are which surprised me. In Belmarsh Prison, the of course the staff there is very friendly and so on, but that's the trick of modern institution. You know, there is enough repression in the machinery itself so that the staff can be afford to be oppressive. Like the same thing than the last time I've written about it, I made a test happen. We were sitting there for two hours, you are allowed two hours. And then I bought a cappuccino there, and like usually they with this cup covered, but I on purpose when I drank it I left it uncovered. Immediately a guard came, please sir, you must cover the cup. And again I asked when I exited why. They said, poor Julian, they said you know, this is a prison, this one, for the worst criminals and they are violent. We are afraid, it's so ridiculous, that if you have hot coffee not covered, the bad guy may throw it into your face. No, and of course I'm an evil guy here. I made for one hour fun of Julian, you know that I am now afraid, will you throw coffee in me? We went on very well, but another thing which is more refined I noticed. It's a beautiful detail. I asked him what does he have access to, and here these details fascinate me. When he was a year ago already married there, no. You know that no photos were allowed. And it's very mysterious. Why? Just guards there, prison guards, took two photos of him and Stella, and they were given three or four printed versions of that photo, but they have to sign a promise that they will not render these photos public. And it's totally crazy because I asked Julian but what's the point? Okay, let's be totally paranoid. They are afraid that with your photo you cover or that on the painting there is some background which may give unsolicited information. Okay, why not he can take photos in front of a gray wall or what? No, they insist on this. It's really that he shouldn't have any public presence. Also why not why can't he give interviews or have? No, it's strictly prohibited. The irony being that he is not even officially charged of everything. Another detail and then I go on which shows that his mind is nonetheless, I'm so evil, more refined than I thought. You know of Julian. You know I ask him what does he have in his room. And he told me just a radio. I ask him but couldn't you get a TV? And then he told me yes, he could but he prefers not to. And it's very interesting logic I wouldn't have followed. He said that he has a cell alone. It's still like in old times hours per day he is alone in his cell. And he says if it's a radio you don't sit and watch it. You can move around a little bit. While if it's a TV you have to sit there but you see all the time the world outside on screen. It reminds you. And he judged that it's better for his health to to ignore TV. That precisely because you see all the time on screen the the outside you know. So I was pretty glad you know. And then I just it's so crazy the procedure. Four times in a row in different at different points you have to give your fingerprint and I caused a problem because somehow I don't know what happened my fingerprint didn't show on screen and then they almost not arrested but controlled me because you know what was my reaction, evil as I am: perfect, so I can become a thief and they will you know no worry about fingerprints they will not be able to. They don't have my sense of humor unfortunately. But okay, so today I hope you will not be too disappointed. I will approach theory there will be some theory in between only at the end. In two days I will go more into what I'm working on now. This parallel, but I'm in contact now with so-called big names, I'm now obsessed lately with quantum physics and the idea is to take this new approach of top-down superpositions and so on and apply it to history. So I will go a little bit into this and then draw some political consequences now in two days. Today let me approach things in a more direct way. I would like to begin with precisely with all naivety this topic. Some of this, but I will add things and supplement it, was already published on that Substack which was given to you. But I'm some guys already attacked me oh, you are commercializing yourself. I'm sorry, I take great care there that the payable texts are every four or fifth text which are difficult long philosophical texts. All political texts are free. So my god, you cannot accuse me of earning quite a lot of money there. Okay, the end of the world. My starting point will be a remark by my good colleague Alenka Zupančič, who noted that one should not expect too much from the end of the world, it may disappoint us. You know how I read this? It's not that in reality it will not be so bad, but it is that we will get so accustomed to it that we will change in progress so that we will not even be aware, we are less and less aware in what kind of deep shit we already are. So I would like to to focus here on the underlying assumption of our fear about the end of the world. We silently presume that if we talk and worry enough about it, it may not happen. You know this is my old storyline I repeated it here, I will not fully repeat it today and I know this, I make fun of myself, I remember as obsessional neurotic, no. I talk all the time, not in order to say something, but if you talk all the time you prevent somebody else to raise a really pertinent question, you know. This idea of talking all the time I was doing this as I told here a couple of times in my psychoanalysis, no. I talked all the time. The idea was the analyst shouldn't be allowed not even a second to ask me some really annoying question you know. So I I'm more and more have the impression that this is how we talk all the time about ecological crisis and equality, whatever exploitation. No, that's the problem incidentally. We talk much more about equality than about exploitation. But let me go on. So what if the true end of the world will not be a mega-catastrophe but the endless repetition of the same epitomized by a standard conclusion at the end of an episode in TV series you know where you usually read, you give a hint of what will happen next week. So maybe we already live in the end of the world. What does this mean? Okay, now I would like to begin, maybe some of you know the text, I will go further with my favorite example of where they are really approaching the end of the world, it's South Korea. My friends in South Korea convinced me that South Korea is much closer than Japan today the country of the end of time in some sense, of the end of history. You know how the story goes. Alexandre Kojève, the great reader of Hegel, and as all great readers of Hegel, it's now clear I have the contact in France with a guy who is editing Kojève's manuscripts. Of course he didn't read a lot of Hegel. And I agree with him there. If you read too much you just get confused. All good interpretations, you know, you just read some selected chapters and so on. Okay, but for Kojève first it was the Stalinist Russia which was the end of the world. Then he moved to Japan as this post-historical culture of enjoyment, whatever. But my good friend from Korea, Alex Taek-Gwang Lee, told me that if Kojève were to be alive today he would have chosen South Korea. Why? South Korea is arguably the country of free choice. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of daily life especially among the younger depoliticized generation. The choice we are talking about is the indifferent choice of moderate daily pleasure. The choice among options which don't really matter. What music one listens to, what you read, how you dress, how you socialize and eat, to which foreign country you will go for a holiday. There is a recent movie, not Korean but Japanese, directed by a German guy, you maybe saw it, Perfect Days by Wim Wenders. In this movie Koji Yakusho plays Hirayama, who works as a toilet cleaner in Tokyo, fully content with his simple life. Following a ritualized daily rhythm he repeats this rhythm from dawn to the evening and dedicates his free time to his passion for music in his van to and from work and books. So we have a culture here of depoliticized disengagement, like ignore the world, all the crisis, enjoy the daily life. My friend assures me that this is now the standpoint of the majority of young people in South Korea. The idea is that no, it's not that you are totally depoliticized but just like okay maybe you sign some protest against this that, but the basic point is withdraw into this privacy and without great ambitions enjoy life. What I can confirm is that when from time to time we hear about the threats from North Korea and all that, people in South Korea that I've met are they don't care about it. They think it's all a joke and you can safely ignore it. What people didn't notice, I find this very interesting, is that there was recently a great change in North Korea. People didn't notice it that North Korea officially abandoned this idea that they are really the only sovereign force, that they should at some point liberate the South. No, it's they silently dropped this. They also dropped the last remainders of whatever you call it communism, socialism and so on. In some paradoxical sense it's a similar attitude than that of the South. Forget about ideology, what matters now in North Korea is just the survival of the ruling nomenklatura elite. Now my favorite example which I'm divided about it but I like it. And somebody has told me you should teach me here that it's already spreading here in the UK, in United States and so on. The ultimate example which fits this depoliticized life-style of younger generation is a unique form of literature the so-called, they call it, web novel, the novel on the web. It's exploding in South Korea in the last decades. This web novels turn more money than their biggest company Samsung, the greatest corporation. Web novels are all produced, distributed and consumed on the web, sorry, on the web, sorry. And this has brought a big change to the existing publishing industry. The process of producing, distributing and consuming takes place almost simultaneously. Also you pay just a little bit. Like there are mega-popular authors who publish one chapter per week and for this chapter you have to pay like euros, what is this, five pence, it's inexpensive. And again there are it's a true popular movement so maybe there is something emancipatory in it. Because there are the public counts in millions, million, half the population. There are thousands and thousands of writers. So what characterizes this is serialization, a new chapter every week, genre dominance. It's not so much hardcore pornography but more romances, detective novels, fantasies and science fiction plus interaction with readers through comments like you can intervene and influence the author to change the story. It's I think that it's maybe too simple to dismiss this as the end of culture proper because I nonetheless think that this web novels contain an unexpected emancipatory potential. It's maybe, I'm not sure, the rise of a new communist art form. A mostly anonymous crowd forms spontaneous networks in which readers and writers intermix and the production process is potentially collectivized. The figure of individual genius creator disappears, art loses its elitism and becomes a popular collective process. Now why do I think there is maybe an emancipatory connection with this? Because a Jewish very pro-Palestinian friend of mine told me but something not the same, much more caught in real life, but similar is happening now in Gaza. Something really interesting. You know that many people who are there caught in Gaza and you never know will you be alive tomorrow or not are and if they still have access to internet are simply day from day from their individual perspective spreading their vision, not vision, their daily experience. Like they show their house oh you see that house near me, it was bombed. And it's always this threat, will I be alive tomorrow or not? These guys are not journalists risking their lives to report the truth. They are themselves potential victims. And there are wonderful cases of how some of these guys became in a good sense I think here immensely popular. You know like tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand check every day what is happening with that family or with that guy. I think that this is needed to really caught attention. It's not enough this general reports or or whatever children died and so on. You must have different experience. You must have different experiences. So I think that this is one way, maybe you disagree with me, that that this web interaction is not just a vulgarization but it is opening to something new. I'm not saying great art, great art will come out of it but we should be attentive to it. But nonetheless to return to my main line, what nonetheless worries me with South Korean novels and it's the same in Japan, did you read a note I think two-three weeks ago that Japan dropped now and with all its crisis Germany is now the third strongest industrial force in the world. But I spoke, we have sometimes contact you know this new Marxist ecologist Kōhei Saitō. And he told me that, you know he wrote a book Slow Down as the solution to ecological crisis and he told me that that's the general attitude now of the majority in Japan. Depoliticize, enjoy daily life, step out of this incessant competition who will be better we will overtake others and so on and so on. So maybe something new will happen there but what worries me is this depoliticization. Because when you exclude politics in this way of let's limit ourselves to our ordinary daily life, the problem is that this works only in a country which is very developed while worldwide this excluded political dimension returns with a vengeance. Where? My second part, I also published already a text which I will elaborate more. I think if there is today a symptomal point of what is going on in the in the world, yes even in the world, I would say the symptomal point is not so much neither Ukraine nor Gaza, it is Haiti. I hope you follow the news there and I will slowly extrapolate it. You know what happened a couple of weeks ago. Literally criminal gangs simply almost not quite but took over. Gangs already control of Port-au-Prince of the capital city and it's not yet clear who will win but now gangs criminal gangs build a collective and this is the saddest fate that you can imagine. Haiti is the extreme case of a so-called failed state. A state in which people confront a sad choice: the continuing reign of the corrupted democratic elite or the direct rule of gangs presenting themselves as progressive. But what if there is something progressive in them? I doubt it. I contacted some of my Latino American friends and told them nonetheless the main figure, Jimmy Barbecue Chérizier, a gang leader, likes to present himself as freedom fighter. He likes to evoke figures like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, even Robin Hood. But he also admires Papa Doc Duvalier, you know, half a century ago the brutal dictator of of Haiti. So the logic of these gangs is directly that of a brutal massacre. Chérizier said recently a month ago, we won't lie to people saying we have a peaceful revolution. We do not have a peaceful revolution. We are starting a bloody revolution in the country. So why do I mention this? Precisely not to draw the conclusion that ah you see Haiti barbarians and primitives. No, the truth is much much worse. First, yes Haiti is an extreme case but not because of the primitivity of its people. I think that and Peter Hallward in his book Damming the Flood or uh uh demonstrated this years ago. Even now Haiti is paying the price for being the first successful slave revolution in around You know it was that first Toussaint Louverture and then others. And it's I think even for the most liberal liberal democratic Western leaders they were barbarians. For example Thomas Jefferson said here the line stops. Toussaint Louverture is not human or something like that and so on. And the only slight hope was a couple of decades ago, you remember when Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his Lavalas party took over, then through this American intervention they ruined this option and now we are really dealing with an with a failed state. But should we blame them? No. The first thing to notice, not just the obvious fact external intervention, is that a similar thing, now comes the bad news, first is happening with some other Latino American countries. For example Ecuador. It's the same in some cities. Gangs, criminal gangs are no longer secret gangs in the sense of discreetly operating. No, they simply took some streets, they are occupying, openly occupying public space. And an even more terrifying example is how the establishment reacts to this. You should follow a guy who calls himself, so I felt some affinity with him, a philosopher king. Literally Nayib Bukele, the president just re-elected of El Salvador. It's something very obscene, in some sense formally similar to Gaza where you no longer do the mass killing discreetly. We have in Gaza now okay a relatively small level but nonetheless a Holocaust that you can watch live on TV no and we have the same there. This guy philosopher king who was incidentally two-three months ago re-elected with like Putin numbers of majority, You know what he did? He mobilized the army and proceeds he is proceeding against the gangs in an openly brutal way. Like you have in prison large space like this one where mostly in on the floor there are no beds you could put like people. He squeezes in people. They even cannot find a small piece many of them of ground just to stretch to lay down and you know what I find so sad and obscene is that this is not discreetly done. This guy Bukele, the president, openly boasts about it. You can see it on TV all the time. This terrible conditions there. So the message is absolutely clear. It's not in between lines is: if you are arrested you will have no basic rights. You will suffer beyond what the law permits. Now let's go on further. Because what interests me, this will be my conclusion and here I'm really a pessimist, is that our world, not just so-called third world failed states, is approaching a certain dangerous situation where the power itself is no longer able to reproduce itself without relying on half-legal or illegal gangs which are not directly identified with state. Let's mention two other examples. Do you remember now he is forgotten in Russia, Prigozhin, Wagner Group. It was exactly the same. It was basically a private army gang and Putin used it to be able to gain to retain a minimum of deniability. You know sorry we don't control them they do it but Putin needed them. Then I know there was a conflict Prigozhin took power no and this produced one of the best jokes, did already tell it here? I like this paradoxical joke. You remember how Prigozhin's plane was shot down you know? Officially it was an accident. Did already tell the last time here? I'm not so sure this joke which I love. The joke is that the Russian Prime Minister comes to Putin and says listen, we have so many time zones that it's very difficult. You know like I called the Chinese Xi president to congratulate him for birthday but he told me sorry here it's already the next day. Then I called Olaf Scholz to congratulate him on Scholz and Scholz said sorry my birthday is tomorrow and so on. And Putin says so we should do something. And Putin says, I like this, Russians still have the spirit of political jokes. Putin says I agree with you my god you know that I called Prigozhin's widow to express to her my sorrow for the death of husband but then I learned that the plane which fell down didn't even [unintelligible] yet you know. That's where we are. So then let's go two steps further. It gets worse and worse. Iran, Revolutionary Guard, also so-called Basij, also functions a little bit like this. You know it is the state but not quite. The government is very cautious. For example when in one of the few beautiful events of the last month you remember when that Kurdish girl [unintelligible] it triggered the most authentic feminist movement that I know where the feminists became a focal point of the entire society protesting the regime. And you know they like even the who is now the boss Khamenei I think. Even said he deplores, it's terrible. You know the point is to have a half-illegal gang from which you can maintain a certain distance but you need it. Now you I hope you know what will come. What will come is horror. But is not, sorry to tell you this, is not are not the Israeli settlers exactly something similar? And you know [unintelligible] that I'm not now paid by Hamas. I got all this from my Jewish friends my god. I'm more and more sympathetic to true heroes like Jonathan Glazer the director and so on. They told me that you know the Israeli government obviously to do its job which is now openly clear what they want. Now they openly adopted the slogan from the river to the sea. But for them only you know. And it's horrible how something they were denying till now they openly do it. But they cannot do it directly. So you have on the West Bank you have now settler gangs which are literally terrorizing Palestinians there and then police if Palestinians call police, police comes and does nothing or if they do something they do something pretty disgusting. Let's say settlers break into a small Palestinian village and start to beat Palestinians. Then police comes and they say we will separate the two sides which are fighting. But we are already on the Palestinian territory you know. So this means they push Palestinians even further out but what I want to say is that how Israel, here you have a failed state also. What they are doing now constructing a big Israel from the river to the sea, they also cannot even do it no matter how they twist their law, they cannot do it in a minimally legal way. They have to rely on armed gangs. Not only rely on but even solicit them. My bad guy, I mentioned him often here, Itamar Ben-Gvir who was years ago convicted by an Israeli court as a terrorist. Is now, it's a bad joke, Minister of Security of Israel. Directly helping these gangs. He gave them guns and now he is giving them more guns. So you see what fascinates me. It is how even in pretty developed country like Israel it needs illegal armed gangs to to function. Now let's go to the top. Okay you will say Israel, Middle East, it's a confusion there. What about United States themselves? Don't you remember Proud Boys to mention them. They are officially proclaimed a terrorist organization by international law and so on. And I think we should study also their ideology so that of the Proud Boys. Not only they are anti-semitic but Trump was never bothered like this that you your main supporter in the United States are anti-Semites and you fully support Israel that was... But I looked into their programs. I liked it so much because it is really... this is no longer my world maybe you can teach me where we are moving. You know what are there of Proud Boys main rules? One is they call each other brothers, no heterosexual brother and gays are prohibited so means no member, shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month. What what is happening here? You know and then they have other rules and so on and so on. Now the idea that came to me here is you know Ernst Jünger, a reluctant Nazi fellow traveler, not fully, who like Proud Boys celebrated the purifying effect of military struggle. He wrote, it's a quote, any power struggle is preceded by a verification of images and iconoclasm. This is why we need poets. They initiate the overthrow even that of titans. Interestingly enough this idea that violence that is grounded in poetry was first you know who was fascinated by Jünger at this level? She just tried to read to to give a progressive turn to it, violent communist revolution. Bertolt Brecht when after World War Two Ernst Jünger was under pressure like nonetheless in spite of his distances towards Nazism justifying this basic idea of social violence and his safety of Jünger was threatened by some communists, Brecht himself published a text where he said leave Jünger alone. Like we can also we can also use him. But what again surprises me with Proud Boys and other groups is something of which I'm far less and less from agreeing him with Yuval Harari. But at one particular point I follow him where he said that we live in a strange time where what was once considered a typical leftist rhetoric of violent overthrow, violation of law and order and so on, is now more and more appropriated by the new right. I made this point often here for example the you remember the 6th of January the attack on the Capitol. I told this story here that many of my friends cried. They said my god we should have been doing this. And I told them sorry guys, now this obscene brutality and so on is appropriated by the other side. And I'm saying this here to provoke you. I'm ready to go to the end here and to say that if when I was young we associated being radical leftist with you know brutal demonstration obscene gestures making fun of those in power. Sorry the enemy is now much better at it. So what of course the enemy is a fake here. I mean their revolution is of course nothing. They want changes so that as the old saying goes so that nothing will really change. But nonetheless they are the only ones who openly advocate this violent language. You know that how is he called Steve Bannon or what the great intellectual guru of Trump defines himself as a Leninist you know like the Leninist for the next century and so on. So what I'm saying is and now Trump is again he didn't want fully to condemn Proud Boys you know he gave that famous stand back but be ready there in the background. Again even the United States as people like to say the ultimate democracy in our world and so on. Trump said openly that if he whatever if he will lose elections there will be blood. He will not recognize the result. So you see what I'm saying. You have reference to illegal gangs as part of the political process even in the most developed democracy in our world and so on and so on. This this is where we are today. So again the sad lesson of such a role of criminal gangs is that today Western democracy itself is less and less fully applicable even in the developed West itself. And here we should maybe even doubt formulate a doubt about democracy itself the way we understand it in the West. In what sense? John Elster, I think I already quoted him the last time here, the Norwegian theorist of rational action, remarked apropos the notion fashionable today of democracy under threat. He says we can reverse the common dictum that democracy is under threat and affirm that democracy is the threat, at least in its short-term populist form. Because the true problem for example in more and more Western European countries is that what if the anti-immigrant right-wingers and so on take over democratically? It is happening. Sweden, Norway, not yet fully but that's that's the tendency. So my so again what does this mean for the United States? I used in some my late texts a version the version latest version I invented it. The first time I am not only retelling jokes but I invented a joke from you know there is an old communist dissident joke against communist politicians but I applied it now to the West and to the world. The jokes goes like this, my version: the three strongmen today, Putin, Xi the Chinese strongman and Trump are allowed briefly to meet God and each of them is allowed to ask God one question. First Putin said tell me dear God what is the future of Russia in next years? God said not so good. Even if you win in Ukraine, Russia will be in a decade or so Chinese economic colony. Putin turns around and starts to cry. Then Xi said oh, what about us, China? God says it's also not so good. You may control Russia but you are now in also in an economic crisis so either you will have to return to hardline rule which will be economically a catastrophe or you will have to not only not to occupy Taiwan but plead for Taiwanese help open yourself to Taiwan. Xi turns around, Xi not Xi a woman, Xi X-I and starts to cry. Then you can guess the finish. Then Trump said oh, what will happen with the United States if I win next elections? You know the answer. God turns around and starts to cry. And I think God was here right to do this. You know why? Because it's easy to make fun of those half-authoritarian countries. But nonetheless even when we criticize the West we rely on notions we rely on notions which still belong to the Western enlightenment democratic tradition and so on. And what is now disappearing with Gaza tragedy and so on is this let's call it Western democratic values themselves. It's a catastrophe I think so. Why? Let's first return to my doubt about democracy. I think I didn't yet use this here. You know this Abraham Lincoln well-known saying, but he didn't invent it, he just everything was already said I claim. And we live in this kind of world. I found a podcast this morning when I was awakening, a wonderful one where they said now each week hundreds of new songs are composed and we already arrived at the level of saturation where for every new hit song you can find at least five or not ten in from the last decades song which basically exactly the same melody. It's saturated you know, we cannot so again this Lincoln saying: you can fool all people some of the time and some people all the time but you can never fool all people all the time. I respectfully disagree. I would say most people can avoid being fooled some of the time and some people can avoid being fooled all the time, but most people can never avoid being fooled all the time. I think that we have to accept this. What do I mean by what do I mean by this? You know the whole history of Marxism is we know this it's an old story is under the shadow of this problem. For Marx there was a subject in whose material position the emancipatory radical emancipatory dimension was inscribed. Working class proletariat which as they say have nothing to lose but their chains. And as we know the entire history of Marxism was then in search when there was doubt if traditional working class can do it a search for another ersatz subject. The illusion of, I don't know I was there young but I was there, events is that students are playing this role. Students will be it. Then the Maoist illusion was still farmers. That's why he was sending thousands of intellectuals even if they were not great dissidents like my friend now he is very official in China I'm afraid of it, Wang Hui. He even now praises yes, I was taught much of wisdom. He was he was exiled to some a small village of farmers for two years at the time of the cultural revolution. So as if you learn some ultimate wisdom from poor farmers. Then we have today Alain Badiou's ideal new subject are are what he calls nomad proletarians. Immigrants without any any deprived of their roots free-floating and so on. I doubt it. I don't think it works like that. So I think we have to accept this that it's always a combination of groups. We cannot elevate one group into the privileged agent of radical change. But okay, let me go on so that I don't get lost. I would like to return to my crucial point which is to cut a long story short, the end of Europe. Europe as enlightenment tradition. Because some of my pro-Zionist German friends and because of this they are no longer my friends, you know. I just repeat here a wonderful joke by Lacan you must know it, it's an old anecdote. Lacan uses this as a logical paradox. He says, male chauvinist standpoint, my fiancee is never late for an appointment because the moment she is late she's no longer my fiancee. Something like this but what I want to say is that again they claim that in spite of all excesses, abuses we should support Israel because it is the only island of freedom and democracy in short the only island of Western civilization in the Middle East. My answer is yes unfortunately and this makes it much worse. That is to say if you ask a guy from Gaza what about European human rights? his answer is yes, I see them falling on us in the shape of bombs every day. So here maybe already mentioned here half a year ago but this is for me the crucial insight, I would like to quote Arundhati Roy, a very progressive Indian writer and essayist. Her starting point is this one that of course our Western developed moral edifice is hypocritical, it always already was, human rights were never truly universal and so on and so on. But her Arundhati Roy's point apropos of Gaza is that nonetheless in spite of this hypocrisy human rights nonetheless functioned how should I put it as a kind of a minimal moral compass which could be then applied also against the West like these are your human rights but you are violating them and so on and so on. But Arundhati Roy says that with what goes on in Gaza the moral architecture of Western liberalism will cease to exist. It was always hypocritical we know but even that provided some sort of shelter. The shelter is disappearing before our eyes. I think this is a much more complex and deep insight than it may appear. Crucially Arundhati Roy's idea that in spite of its hypocrisy or maybe even because of it, the liberal moral edifice nonetheless provided some sort of shelter. You know who gave a wonderful example here? I think already in late thirties, Gandhi. Now I'm a little bit more defensive about Gandhi because years ago I was more against him because of the more secular tradition of Ambedkar and others but now I learn that Gandhi is openly attacked by Modi and the gang which rules in India now no. He is considered practically a traitor. But nonetheless Gandhi visited London in late thirties I think and he was told about like in this patronizing Western way maybe do you think we can implant democracy in India no would you agree with this? And Gandhi you must know his answer which was I understand the democracy it's a very interesting idea. It would be good to try it once. you know like this. But so yes it was some kind of it provided till now some kind of shelter. And it even worked half-authentically. I remember when there were in Tiananmen demonstrations, you know one of the things that protester did on Tiananmen square was they built a rather primitive reproduction of the Statue of Liberty. And the Western enlightened leftist intellectuals laughed at them ha ha so primitive, don't you think that the Statue of Liberty stands for American imperialism and so on? No, it didn't stand for that in the eyes of the protesters. They simply projected onto the Statue of Liberty what they really what they really wanted. But freedom, safety, welfare and so on. But now I think this is over. And I don't think it's a good thing because what will not happen, I'm open to your criticism here, is that this Western notion of human rights will be replaced by some more radical emancipatory notion. I don't see that happening. I think that we are returning to a much more brutal world of direct violence, the stronger guy wins. A new world where you can simply ignore kind of a normative logic or of but is it right what we are doing. Now let me give you another example of what I found quite shocking. In some sense the end of the world. Where the world, I don't mean the universe but the world of symbolic shared values and so on. You know that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is no longer a secret plan that has to be brought out through detailed analysis. It is simply becoming the official policy. Israel has already held talks with several countries from Congo to Saudi Arabia for the potential absorption of the Palestinians from Gaza. But I want to point out and incidentally you know whom they tried to hire to do this for Israel to go around Middle East countries and inquire into are they ready to accept the Palestinians from West Bank, not only from Gaza. None other than Tony Blair. No, of course and you know where we are no. Okay, but what I want to say is that what really did shock me what shocked me is the fact that this is possible. It's that the term that Israeli politicians use now is that of voluntary resettlement or the term is resettlement as a as a as a humanitarian gesture. I mean I found this just shocking. Israel advocates Israel claims that to organize for all Palestinians of Gaza emigration to another Arab country is a deeply humanitarian concern because they're aware that that's the only way to provide for their safety. Now the shock is of course but who is making Gaza not safe? Israel with bombing and so on. So this type of brutality is for me quite shocking. How the oppression at its worst is justified through humanitarian terms. In this sense I think if this you can sell this as humanitarian approach... And there was, I like these details, a couple of days ago an interview of some official CNN journalist, a woman, with Netanyahu where but it no longer matters where he was as I call it caught Netanyahu with his pants down. Check it. What happened was that Netanyahu was giving his usual stuff while Israel while Israel is blocking humanitarian help, the trucks with foods to northern Gaza. And he said because Hamas, Hamas takes it over. But then this journalist lady, I think we need more common sense today, did something wonderful. She just quoted Netanyahu himself from a month ago when he said northern Gaza is now clear. No Hamas there. And she asked him a simple question: why then block humanitarian help when you claim that there is no Hamas now in Northern Gaza? And you should watch this, you can immediately google it. It was counted. Netanyahu was so shocked that for seconds he was silent and so. And then he somehow mumbled some total nonsense. Yes, maybe they don't have arms but some individuals of Hamas are still there and then he went even a step further and said something even if they are not formally Hamas they are sympathetic to Hamas and so on you know. It was it's just a horror. So to come close to the end, before I conclude a more theoretical point. Now since we are all here marked by big European progressive traditions, Frankfurt school and the so-called French thought, not only this but still this is the big presence, I would like to draw attention to a very sad thing that is now going on in Germany. Which is that I don't think this already happened when I was here the last time that Habermas, who is now de facto a German state philosopher, Habermas with together with two others, Rainer Forst who is his big successor younger generation and another guy I forgot who, published two months ago a statement where they fully supported Israel. With this usual bullshit, you know it's nonetheless the only democracy there and so on and so on. It's good thing for Germany that immediately theorists, professors, close to Frankfurt school, published a counter-statement. And now my concluding point. They they said something quite interesting. What a difference there is between the older generation of Frankfurt school whose greatest achievement is, for me at least, the book by Adorno and Horkheimer The Dialectic of Enlightenment. The idea being that even the that the horrible phenomena that we saw in the 20th century, fascism, let's include Stalinism, colonialist murders, that this is not simply some remainder of pre-enlightenment tradition but that it's part of the inherent contradiction, antagonisms in the enlightenment project itself. The point is not so let's return to some mythic pre-modern thinking. No. The point is that as I forgot who somebody says in a beautiful way paraphrasing Walter Benjamin, that to be truly civilized means you should all the time be aware how your own position the more it appears neutral, progressive to you is always on the edge of barbarism. Barbarian enemy is not up there. You are in it. Begin begin with this self-critical point. And the sad thing and here so that I save my attitude as a nonetheless a little bit of a philosopher not just political talk, here Franco Bifo Berardi wrote a short text where he in a wonderful way points this out how this Habermas from the very beginning rejected... he even wrote a text already years ago, against Dialectic of Enlightenment. He claims that no, we need simply progress, more enlightenment. No self-critical Dialectic of Enlightenment. His idea the title of his book says everything: Enlightenment as an Unfinished Project. So we don't have enough of enlightenment and I think that here we see how this new phase of Frankfurt theory with Habermas makes this fatal step from critical thinking to basically state philosopher, philosophy of the establishment. Habermas has a long tradition here of being an ultra-pro-western conformist. I remember years ago when the East Germany broke down some East German public figure, writers, dissidents, all of them, said that nonetheless East Germany shouldn't be simply integrated into West Germany. But that maybe there is something in the East German everyday experience... and they didn't mean to praise the German Democratic Republic. They meant more the forms of public solidarity which developed as a protest. That maybe since the West was caught in consumerism, indifference and so on, maybe... and this was quite a common idea at that point that in some cases of the disintegration of socialism the first movement was not reactionary, nationalist. It was really in some sense even naive socialism. You know who is here, not my hero, he is now too much, but he Adam Michnik, the Polish dissident, made a wonderful statement some years ago. You know he was a big dissident and then now he owns, he is a main owner of Gazeta Wyborcza, the most important Polish daily newspaper. And at some reception with some Western idiots a guy approached him and said I congratulate you, you not only overthrew socialism but you are now a successful capitalist and so on. And he nonetheless Michnik made a beautiful statement. He said sorry you get me wrong. My problem is that I am not a capitalist who laughs at socialism. I am a socialist who will never forget really existing socialism about how it fails. The idea was but we have to remain... And back to Habermas. The figures were Christa Wolf, the big East German writers and some others. And Habermas reacted with full paranoia. The idea was no we should not in any way accept that we can learn anything from East Germany. He even in a typical liberal paranoia claimed that remainders of Nazism will be smuggled into united Germany in this way. That if you don't fully accept West Germany, it means the only thing we can take from Eastern Europe is totalitarianism. So this this is I think what is so sad about the situation in Germany itself. That this politics that we see now and Germany is getting totally crazy. Did you follow when a Jewish and a Palestinian, both Israelis, made a documentary on what is happening on the West Bank and they got a big prize at Berlinale? I met her, she pretends to be a nice lady but it's not. Claudia Roth, the Minister of Culture of Germany. She was caught applauding them. And then she was immediately attacked by right-wingers that you know the logic by applauding that movie she is really applauding the the the destruction of Israel you know and so on. And she immediately broke down and made a totally absurd statement that she was really applauding just the Israeli guy. Just the Jewish guy, not the other guy. And maybe you read, I forgot where I published it, some short comment where I said ah-ha, where I proclaimed Claudia Roth to be a big Zen Buddhist master. Because you know I found a Japanese Zen Buddhist who wrote a whole treatise of how you are in deeply in Zen enlightenment when you learn how to clap with one hand. And it was so sad that she who considers herself a liberal not the worst, open to Palestinian suffering, that she then she not even the right pronounced the formula. And the formula was, it's shocking, the formula was, she openly said it: you are now allowed to say Palestinians are suffering, but you must always add in the same line of argumentation, but it's not the guilt of IDF but the guilt of Hamas, like they are basically... If you don't add this you are anti-Semitic, you want the destruction of Israel and so on and so on. Because my friend Udi Aloni talked with her two months ago at some reception there and asked her what's going on. She asked her why she also joined the critics of me at [unintelligible] and it's so disgusting what she told Udi. She said you know at the level of argumentation she said she agrees with me, but it was not the right moment to say that. I heard this at least times from my German friends. Privately I agree with you but it's not the right moment. And my answer is so when will be the right moment to say this? I have an exact answer: when it will no longer matter if you say it. I know. Now it's the right moment because now it means something to say that publicly. And again to conclude with an ultra-provocation. You know where if you don't believe me where you can see the... ah sorry back to so to conclude with Habermas and so on... I hope you will agree with me here that this is a wonderful example where you can see how a totally abstract philosophical position. Are you naively pro-enlightenment which should go on or do you admit an inner antagonism which makes enlightenment itself self-destructive? Self-destructive measure by its own standards. How this is not just an abstract theoretical position. It immediately influences how we relate to Gaza today. I mean and again which is why I think that Germany is on the path of simply irrelevance. As long as Germany will remain Habermasian to put it like this. I mean it's I in one of my comments maybe you read German Fake or what, I I really think that an appropriate gesture at this point would be more than to boycott Israel. There are still there guys which are not radical enough but good guys very critical and so on of present government. It's almost more important today to boycott culturally at least Germany. Germany is the most... they it's so disgusting. You know what they are doing as Bifo Berardi points out. I think I already said this half a year ago here. Their logic is this one: yes, we were guilty of Holocaust and how will we repay the Jews, to support them when they do a similar thing on other people? you know. It's so it's so absolutely disgusting and my German friends told me another thing which is crazy. You know that a little bit over people were already punished, seriously affected by this struggle against anti-Semitism. You know if they were considered too sympathetic to Palestine it's you lose a job, you are canceled from public space and similar things. But you know one data. Although in Germany there are I don't know and a half of Jews, over of those affected are Jews. So as many people friends told me, you know if you are a Palestinian today or Islamist in Germany and criticize Israel they say okay that's normal we know where you come from. But if you are a Jew who doesn't identify with Israel, you're considered a true traitor. The the attack is much more the attack is much more ferocious. So I really think the time has come maybe culturally to to boycott Germany. Now so that you will not tell me, that's my now I have a new quote, the last time I quoted another guy, whom do I trust in Israel? Usually people tell me but you are a utopian, blah-blah-blah. Listen. You know who are the best analysts? Last time when I was here I quoted another guy. This time I got even a better guy. Now you will not accuse me of utopianism when I quote ex-bosses of Mossad and Shin Bet. Please read them. They are extremely rational people. You know, did I already quote it? I don't think so. Ami Ayalon, ex-chief of of Shin Bet, who made a wonderful interview where he says it's as simple as that: if we don't give Palestinians a hope, political subjectivity and so on, there will not be safety for us. And then he goes on to the end and even says what Israel should do. First, free Marwan Barghouti, that guy who is a Palestinian Mandela. He led the first two intifadas but he was always against killing civilians, this type of violence. And everybody knows this secretly in Israel. That he is the right person. He can beat Hamas in elections. He is a cult figure like years in prison Mandela, at the same time he renounces violence. But you know I made a couple of times when I made some trips to recently to I don't know Netherlands up and down. I did a wonderful experiment. I when I smelled that I am in hardline Zionist circles, they asked me okay you're bullshitting in easy to criticize Israel but what's your solution? Without attributing them to Ayalon, I quoted his statement. And I was interrupted as this is anti-Semitic bullshit and so on and so on. You see where we are. People there, secret police... I'm more and more getting so desperate that I'm saying sometimes secret police is better than the people. Because in Israel, you know this is a sad thing, according to the last opinion poll, of the Jews in Israel are against two-state solution. What was an eccentric view a couple of years ago that it's Israel who should be from the river to the sea is now the majority you know. And my good friend, you should listen to him, Tamer Nafar. He lives in Lod, a suburb of Tel Aviv which is a small Palestinian enclave. And he's absolutely not violent. He is even now from time to time published in Haaretz. He put it so nicely. He said even the liberal Jews when they allow him some public appearance, the first question is always but do you reject Hamas? you know. And he provided a perfect answer or rather the question is usually but do you secretly support Hamas? And his answer that he now repeats is although you hardline Zionists try in all possible ways to push me towards Hamas, I still resist that. you know I don't want to do that. So but isn't this sad that in Israel today again the most not most but almost only rational proposal which is self-evident, a proposal which if you do it in Germany you will be instantly attacked as anti-Semitic, it comes from from Shin Bet leaders, from from the secret police. And I'm here I warn you very ambiguous. I remember in my own country, in Russia even, don't underestimate, this is hollow I want to shock you, don't underestimate the progressive aspects of secret police. You know why? Because yeah they do horrible things but at the same time they are brutal in the sense of they know the real state of things you know. For example in Slovenia it was the same. It was tragic to discover when socialism was falling apart that the worst to stick to the old regime were corrupted party communist party intellectuals. Secret police was the most progressive. Why? Because they simply knew the real state of things and so on. So just three concluding points and it's over. First, you know the big game played by Israel now is to claim Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and those hardline Zionists are just a crazy minority of fundamentalist radicals which are usually mocked by the Israeli establishment. But nonetheless their their stance determines the actual politics of the state of Israel. That's the problem, that's the deep cynicism. That even if they are not openly praised by the establishment, they are determining the actual politics. In other words what the silent majority wants in Israel is not really to stop the oppression on the West Bank but like please do it a little bit more discreetly you know, not so open. The second thing. You know I accepted at the beginning the idea that Hamas attack should be condemned. But I but what was from the very beginning problematic for me was this rejection to contextualize it. As if by contextualizing it you are half-justifying it. You know whom I, I don't think I already have that quote when I was here the last time, you know who is my hero here? As always, Primo Levi, you know the ultimate memories if this is a man, Se questo un uomo. He put it so wonderfully. He said of course we cannot understand Auschwitz if by understanding we mean like they're humans like us and so on. But we should analyze it. He said if we don't analyze it, it will repeat itself. And precisely this is still absolutely prohibited. Did you notice how even now in Germany it's worse and worse, the Hamas attack is not analyzed. It's almost it almost acquired a metaphysical status as an absolutely abyssal act of evil which grounds then everything that comes afterwards. Israeli kills people. No problem. It's Hamas responsibility. I think that the least we should do now is to say the same about what Israelis are doing now in Gaza. That it's an act which should not be normalized as just a reaction to the horror that happened before and so on and so on. It should be judged on its own. They are doing this. And it's not legitimate to say yeah but look what Hamas did there. No, it should be judged on its own. And as I already said my big conclusion: what is now dying in the ruins of Gaza is nothing else than the European idea of universal emancipation. With its self-humiliating servitude to the US and to Israel, Europe put the last nail into the coffin where its emancipatory legacy will be buried. And again I think that Trump has now a chance because again the last time already I mentioned this that I know guys who know guys who know guys who at the end knows people in the White House. And they told me all a couple of them I know the same story that Biden who, let's admit it, in inner politics he is not so bad. He was the first president of the United States to went to support you remember the auto-workers strike and so on. But what I the story I learned is that he thought that if he endorses a more militant stance in Ukraine and now Israel that this will make people forget his senility blah-blah and make him appear more masculine. But he terribly miscalculated it. Because now he is so systematically humiliated by Netanyahu that he appears weaker than ever. Wasn't this a shame, you remember a couple of weeks ago, United States, superpower, had to drop by air the supplies into Gaza. Where is the good old imperialist United States that we all love, which should say that fuck off, IDF. Give us a landing there, we will come and so on. No, all of a sudden they behave as and so one really asks ourselves where are we going. So where are we going? It is sad. Again, we are really approaching a gang rule, new forms of racism, European legacy is over. Is there any hope about this? Two days from now and again I will begin with quantum physics. It will be a much more serious reflection of how we are obliged to change our entire even let's call it ontology of history. How how what happens in history, in what sense is history open, how we retroactively introduce order into it and so on and so on. So where where am I now? What's the time? Um, it's it's... oh my watch died but we've got about half an hour for discussion. Oh there is perfect that's what I... Yeah yeah yeah perfect perfect. Okay so please now I'm here open to your criticism. How will you do it? I need a... or you will do it. Yeah. Okay, so indicate with your hand... if you will agree with me. I don't think the solution is to say we should step on our shoulder and look into the future and so on. We should I think the only way to do this is not directly to say we work for our children or what but simply to fully engage in fights here. I believe in naively in full engagement and I will give you an example. And please don't accuse me of being an Islamist fundamentalist. You should watch, did you see the two versions of Le Carré's novel The Little Drummer Girl, the two cinema versions? There was with Diane Keaton the movie version and then there was ha-ha with Florence Pugh the six, you notice sexist undertone, six-parts mini-series. But you know which is for me the nicest moment and ethically I don't agree with the guy. That guy I forgot his name who is the ha-ha terrorist who you know she is convinced by Israel secret service to to pretend to join the Israeli terrorists no and the final scene is that the main Israeli terrorist who prepares a bombing, she half-seriously begins to love him, they spend a night together and then in the morning he the terrorist when he awakens immediately senses that there is something wrong like cows are not heard which means somebody is already surrounding the building and sooner or later he guesses she informed she works for the police. And then comes quite a beautiful moment where he looks at her and she confesses crying and you would expect an evil terrorist would shoot her, torture her. No, she just looks at her and said but why did you do this? Are you a Jew, were you blackmailed by Zionists, were this that? and you know what's so tragic. Look at it, you can no you live in totalitarian country you cannot, you know in what sense then here in the UK. I'm Slovenian, we are free country which means nobody controls Pirate Bay and that no here you will get a big so I downloaded both cinema versions. It's even better than in the novel when the guy asks her are you a Jew, are you pro-America or what? He doesn't mean it the terrorist as a critique. He means it as do you believe in anything? Do you have an engagement? And his horror is when he realizes that the girl doesn't believe in anything. That she did it under pressure, you know that there is no engagement. And he then doesn't quickly kill her. She just caresses her and says something like I'm very sorry for you and allows himself to be killed. I don't agree with him a terrorist. But it's nonetheless a beautiful moment where again you see how he is horrified by her lack of belief, lack of engagement. You know how although he was put in service by Israeli secret service he even is not... she sorry even is not really engaged in that. And that's where we are that's what I meant with that. Sorry I love South Korea, bibimbap is my favorite food but that's what I like with this I don't like with this you know disengaged stance enjoy life and so on. Now I'm here quite traditional. We have to have an engagement. A full engagement. That's why you remember did already talk about this about my experience... no I didn't here, I love this, my experience with Oppenheimer. You remember in India I was so attacked. You remember a quarter of our into a movie you have a sex scene, Florence Pugh with Oppenheimer. And then one I forgot who asks the other while they're making love would you read me Bhagavad Gita? And you remember India immediately protested no many in India okay that how could they spoil the sacred text with the dirty sexual scene. And my reaction was the opposite one. I got many hate mails from India. It was that what if it is the opposite. A beautiful love scene is spoiled by a pretty nasty book Bhagavad Gita. And you know what's my foundation there? You must know the story, I know I mentioned this that you know that Bhagavad Gita, I'm not saying it's a Nazi book I'm not crazy, but Bhagavad Gita was the favorite book by Heinrich Himmler. Why? Because his answer, maybe already mentioned, it was precisely this one. The Nazi SS officer have to do horrible things: kill women, starve Jewish children, women, how can they do such horrible things while retaining their entity? And he looks the answer in Bhagavad Gita which is act as a distance. At a distance, don't identify with your acts. So here I am for, I will sorry very sorry I will use this term, for the one good things in Judeo-Christian-Muslim, I'm very open, tradition which is I think more a stance of total engagement. Don't be afraid to be fully engaged. Don't the typical corporate logic today, and I read a good analysis where they look at big corporate bosses, name them: Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and so on. You know the most popular spiritual stance among them is pseudo-oriental meditation. It's precisely the idea that we are causing catastrophes all around the world but do it as at a distance. Don't identify with your acts. And to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying that all oriental meditation whatever is necessarily this. For example from my good Japanese friend, not Kōhei Saitō but Kojin Karatani. He told me that there is, I forgot his name, I mentioned somewhere, a very intelligent from 1920s-30s already Japanese Zen Buddhist theorists who reads Buddhism in a total opposition to usual reading. Not reality is out there don't engage fully in it but his idea is no, you are void, there is nothing in you, all that is is out there. So he wonderfully notices that if you take seriously the Buddhist stance or I don't mean me as an ego I don't have any substantial content I am a void, it means precisely all there is is outside of you. And he then very intelligently this guy shows that this idea of Buddhism as a withdrawal into your interior is already a Western pacification of Buddhism. They project onto the East this distance: my shitty inner life and outside reality and then you withdrew into yourself. You know, I'm not afraid of full engagement. Sorry if I was too long. Slavoj, thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts. Just two days ago the theatrical election concluded and despite how autocratic it is and how there is a massive real support for Putin in Russia, in our so-called collective West we believe there are many people that do not like Putin and there is protest against him. And we even have convenient opposition figures and groups such as the murdered Alexei Navalny, his team, bloggers Maxim Katz and political candidates that are not permitted into the elections. But what do we actually see them doing? Navalny's widow wife and Maxim Katz they call anti-Putin, anti-war Russian people to come and to vote in protest. Or they say you can you don't have to vote but just come, just stand here, spoil a ballot if you want or join in our protest action of voting at a specific time of day for a specific candidate outcome. Obviously Putin will draw whatever results he wants at home but these actions they increase the voter turnout, they express political engagement and they increase the regime's legitimacy and its public process for us in America, for us in UK, for us in Europe. Even the substitute democratic candidate Davankov yesterday in meeting with Putin he
Yeah, yeah, the deep there is another tradition and so on. This is very important to know that it's not automatic that we allow all the Disney stuff to monopolize cartoons, you know. Things have often a very interesting history behind. As for that controversiality and so on, I know all the problematic things I said with Piers Morgan and so on. But nonetheless, it gave me, just before I flew here three days ago in still in Slovenia, it gave me an experience which I call intellectual orgasm. I was in some public space as a private person. And there were first some probably Muslims, not Palestinians but Arabs, who started to shout at me, Zionist whatever. Then behind them there were some obviously Zionists who, not understanding what they are shouting at me, began to shout at me traitor, Islamophobic, anti-Semite. And then I liked it how they were both shouting at me, and at a certain point they noticed each other. What's going on here? You know, all I'm saying that I believe my tactic, not this just Hamas is a liberation movement and so on, but more moderate, works much better. You know why? I was told, I think already said this here, the last time I was here. In Germany with my Frankfurt, I will not go again into that, Frankfurt book speech, that the attacks on me were much more violent, and a friend of mine, a progressive Jew, explained to me why. Than those who simply said Hamas is a nonetheless is a resistance guerrilla force and so on. Because it's easy to say oh, you see he is there. But hardline Zionists are terribly afraid that me with my more moderate approach, that I may convince some people. Which is what many people notice, how much more violent the reaction is to what I say. Ah, just a brief introductory another remark, then we move on. This Sunday I just upon my arrival I visited Julian Assange, and I was very nicely surprised. He is not in a bad mood because he is learning from his lawyers and so on that he has some chance, which is it's such a legal trick. He can demand non-extradition from European court, European court, even before the official decision of the British side is rendered public. And he learned how to manipulate Julian. You know that his he has connections. He knows people who knew people who are in that court. And he more or less negotiated that they will block it. And there are also some incredible surprises. Maybe Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, he knows that he went way too much for Israel, so Olaf Scholz, Olaf Scholz, you know, he said publicly Assange shouldn't be extradited. It's incredible. So he is not in a bad mood but and then I will go to my don't be afraid my talk. You know what? Nonetheless, I noticed a couple of details which are which surprised me. In Belmarsh Prison, the of course the staff there is very friendly and so on, but that's the trick of modern institution. You know, there is enough repression in the machinery itself so that the staff can be afford to be oppressive. Like the same thing than the last time I've written about it, I made a test happen. We were sitting there for two hours, you are allowed two hours. And then I bought a cappuccino there, and like usually they with this cup covered, but I on purpose when I drank it I left it uncovered. Immediately a guard came, please sir, you must cover the cup. And again I asked when I exited why. They said, poor Julian, they said you know, this is a prison, this one, for the worst criminals and they are violent. We are afraid, it's so ridiculous, that if you have hot coffee not covered, the bad guy may throw it into your face. No, and of course I'm an evil guy here. I made for one hour fun of Julian, you know that I am now afraid, will you throw coffee in me? We went on very well, but another thing which is more refined I noticed. It's a beautiful detail. I asked him what does he have access to, and here these details fascinate me. When he was a year ago already married there, no. You know that no photos were allowed. And it's very mysterious. Why? Just guards there, prison guards, took two photos of him and Stella, and they were given three or four printed versions of that photo, but they have to sign a promise that they will not render these photos public. And it's totally crazy because I asked Julian but what's the point? Okay, let's be totally paranoid. They are afraid that with your photo you cover or that on the painting there is some background which may give unsolicited information. Okay, why not he can take photos in front of a gray wall or what? No, they insist on this. It's really that he shouldn't have any public presence. Also why not why can't he give interviews or have? No, it's strictly prohibited. The irony being that he is not even officially charged of everything. Another detail and then I go on which shows that his mind is nonetheless, I'm so evil, more refined than I thought. You know of Julian. You know I ask him what does he have in his room. And he told me just a radio. I ask him but couldn't you get a TV? And then he told me yes, he could but he prefers not to. And it's very interesting logic I wouldn't have followed. He said that he has a cell alone. It's still like in old times hours per day he is alone in his cell. And he says if it's a radio you don't sit and watch it. You can move around a little bit. While if it's a TV you have to sit there but you see all the time the world outside on screen. It reminds you. And he judged that it's better for his health to to ignore TV. That precisely because you see all the time on screen the the outside you know. So I was pretty glad you know. And then I just it's so crazy the procedure. Four times in a row in different at different points you have to give your fingerprint and I caused a problem because somehow I don't know what happened my fingerprint didn't show on screen and then they almost not arrested but controlled me because you know what was my reaction, evil as I am: perfect, so I can become a thief and they will you know no worry about fingerprints they will not be able to. They don't have my sense of humor unfortunately. But okay, so today I hope you will not be too disappointed. I will approach theory there will be some theory in between only at the end. In two days I will go more into what I'm working on now. This parallel, but I'm in contact now with so-called big names, I'm now obsessed lately with quantum physics and the idea is to take this new approach of top-down superpositions and so on and apply it to history. So I will go a little bit into this and then draw some political consequences now in two days. Today let me approach things in a more direct way. I would like to begin with precisely with all naivety this topic. Some of this, but I will add things and supplement it, was already published on that Substack which was given to you. But I'm some guys already attacked me oh, you are commercializing yourself. I'm sorry, I take great care there that the payable texts are every four or fifth text which are difficult long philosophical texts. All political texts are free. So my god, you cannot accuse me of earning quite a lot of money there. Okay, the end of the world. My starting point will be a remark by my good colleague Alenka Zupančič, who noted that one should not expect too much from the end of the world, it may disappoint us. You know how I read this? It's not that in reality it will not be so bad, but it is that we will get so accustomed to it that we will change in progress so that we will not even be aware, we are less and less aware in what kind of deep shit we already are. So I would like to to focus here on the underlying assumption of our fear about the end of the world. We silently presume that if we talk and worry enough about it, it may not happen. You know this is my old storyline I repeated it here, I will not fully repeat it today and I know this, I make fun of myself, I remember as obsessional neurotic, no. I talk all the time, not in order to say something, but if you talk all the time you prevent somebody else to raise a really pertinent question, you know. This idea of talking all the time I was doing this as I told here a couple of times in my psychoanalysis, no. I talked all the time. The idea was the analyst shouldn't be allowed not even a second to ask me some really annoying question you know. So I I'm more and more have the impression that this is how we talk all the time about ecological crisis and equality, whatever exploitation. No, that's the problem incidentally. We talk much more about equality than about exploitation. But let me go on. So what if the true end of the world will not be a mega-catastrophe but the endless repetition of the same epitomized by a standard conclusion at the end of an episode in TV series you know where you usually read, you give a hint of what will happen next week. So maybe we already live in the end of the world. What does this mean? Okay, now I would like to begin, maybe some of you know the text, I will go further with my favorite example of where they are really approaching the end of the world, it's South Korea. My friends in South Korea convinced me that South Korea is much closer than Japan today the country of the end of time in some sense, of the end of history. You know how the story goes. Alexandre Kojève, the great reader of Hegel, and as all great readers of Hegel, it's now clear I have the contact in France with a guy who is editing Kojève's manuscripts. Of course he didn't read a lot of Hegel. And I agree with him there. If you read too much you just get confused. All good interpretations, you know, you just read some selected chapters and so on. Okay, but for Kojève first it was the Stalinist Russia which was the end of the world. Then he moved to Japan as this post-historical culture of enjoyment, whatever. But my good friend from Korea, Alex Taek-Gwang Lee, told me that if Kojève were to be alive today he would have chosen South Korea. Why? South Korea is arguably the country of free choice. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of daily life especially among the younger depoliticized generation. The choice we are talking about is the indifferent choice of moderate daily pleasure. The choice among options which don't really matter. What music one listens to, what you read, how you dress, how you socialize and eat, to which foreign country you will go for a holiday. There is a recent movie, not Korean but Japanese, directed by a German guy, you maybe saw it, Perfect Days by Wim Wenders. In this movie Koji Yakusho plays Hirayama, who works as a toilet cleaner in Tokyo, fully content with his simple life. Following a ritualized daily rhythm he repeats this rhythm from dawn to the evening and dedicates his free time to his passion for music in his van to and from work and books. So we have a culture here of depoliticized disengagement, like ignore the world, all the crisis, enjoy the daily life. My friend assures me that this is now the standpoint of the majority of young people in South Korea. The idea is that no, it's not that you are totally depoliticized but just like okay maybe you sign some protest against this that, but the basic point is withdraw into this privacy and without great ambitions enjoy life. What I can confirm is that when from time to time we hear about the threats from North Korea and all that, people in South Korea that I've met are they don't care about it. They think it's all a joke and you can safely ignore it. What people didn't notice, I find this very interesting, is that there was recently a great change in North Korea. People didn't notice it that North Korea officially abandoned this idea that they are really the only sovereign force, that they should at some point liberate the South. No, it's they silently dropped this. They also dropped the last remainders of whatever you call it communism, socialism and so on. In some paradoxical sense it's a similar attitude than that of the South. Forget about ideology, what matters now in North Korea is just the survival of the ruling nomenklatura elite. Now my favorite example which I'm divided about it but I like it. And somebody has told me you should teach me here that it's already spreading here in the UK, in United States and so on. The ultimate example which fits this depoliticized life-style of younger generation is a unique form of literature the so-called, they call it, web novel, the novel on the web. It's exploding in South Korea in the last decades. This web novels turn more money than their biggest company Samsung, the greatest corporation. Web novels are all produced, distributed and consumed on the web, sorry, on the web, sorry. And this has brought a big change to the existing publishing industry. The process of producing, distributing and consuming takes place almost simultaneously. Also you pay just a little bit. Like there are mega-popular authors who publish one chapter per week and for this chapter you have to pay like euros, what is this, five pence, it's inexpensive. And again there are it's a true popular movement so maybe there is something emancipatory in it. Because there are the public counts in millions, million, half the population. There are thousands and thousands of writers. So what characterizes this is serialization, a new chapter every week, genre dominance. It's not so much hardcore pornography but more romances, detective novels, fantasies and science fiction plus interaction with readers through comments like you can intervene and influence the author to change the story. It's I think that it's maybe too simple to dismiss this as the end of culture proper because I nonetheless think that this web novels contain an unexpected emancipatory potential. It's maybe, I'm not sure, the rise of a new communist art form. A mostly anonymous crowd forms spontaneous networks in which readers and writers intermix and the production process is potentially collectivized. The figure of individual genius creator disappears, art loses its elitism and becomes a popular collective process. Now why do I think there is maybe an emancipatory connection with this? Because a Jewish very pro-Palestinian friend of mine told me but something not the same, much more caught in real life, but similar is happening now in Gaza. Something really interesting. You know that many people who are there caught in Gaza and you never know will you be alive tomorrow or not are and if they still have access to internet are simply day from day from their individual perspective spreading their vision, not vision, their daily experience. Like they show their house oh you see that house near me, it was bombed. And it's always this threat, will I be alive tomorrow or not? These guys are not journalists risking their lives to report the truth. They are themselves potential victims. And there are wonderful cases of how some of these guys became in a good sense I think here immensely popular. You know like tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand check every day what is happening with that family or with that guy. I think that this is needed to really caught attention. It's not enough this general reports or or whatever children died and so on. You must have different experience. You must have different experiences. So I think that this is one way, maybe you disagree with me, that that this web interaction is not just a vulgarization but it is opening to something new. I'm not saying great art, great art will come out of it but we should be attentive to it. But nonetheless to return to my main line, what nonetheless worries me with South Korean novels and it's the same in Japan, did you read a note I think two-three weeks ago that Japan dropped now and with all its crisis Germany is now the third strongest industrial force in the world. But I spoke, we have sometimes contact you know this new Marxist ecologist Kōhei Saitō. And he told me that, you know he wrote a book Slow Down as the solution to ecological crisis and he told me that that's the general attitude now of the majority in Japan. Depoliticize, enjoy daily life, step out of this incessant competition who will be better we will overtake others and so on and so on. So maybe something new will happen there but what worries me is this depoliticization. Because when you exclude politics in this way of let's limit ourselves to our ordinary daily life, the problem is that this works only in a country which is very developed while worldwide this excluded political dimension returns with a vengeance. Where? My second part, I also published already a text which I will elaborate more. I think if there is today a symptomal point of what is going on in the in the world, yes even in the world, I would say the symptomal point is not so much neither Ukraine nor Gaza, it is Haiti. I hope you follow the news there and I will slowly extrapolate it. You know what happened a couple of weeks ago. Literally criminal gangs simply almost not quite but took over. Gangs already control of Port-au-Prince of the capital city and it's not yet clear who will win but now gangs criminal gangs build a collective and this is the saddest fate that you can imagine. Haiti is the extreme case of a so-called failed state. A state in which people confront a sad choice: the continuing reign of the corrupted democratic elite or the direct rule of gangs presenting themselves as progressive. But what if there is something progressive in them? I doubt it. I contacted some of my Latino American friends and told them nonetheless the main figure, Jimmy Barbecue Chérizier, a gang leader, likes to present himself as freedom fighter. He likes to evoke figures like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, even Robin Hood. But he also admires Papa Doc Duvalier, you know, half a century ago the brutal dictator of of Haiti. So the logic of these gangs is directly that of a brutal massacre. Chérizier said recently a month ago, we won't lie to people saying we have a peaceful revolution. We do not have a peaceful revolution. We are starting a bloody revolution in the country. So why do I mention this? Precisely not to draw the conclusion that ah you see Haiti barbarians and primitives. No, the truth is much much worse. First, yes Haiti is an extreme case but not because of the primitivity of its people. I think that and Peter Hallward in his book Damming the Flood or uh uh demonstrated this years ago. Even now Haiti is paying the price for being the first successful slave revolution in around You know it was that first Toussaint Louverture and then others. And it's I think even for the most liberal liberal democratic Western leaders they were barbarians. For example Thomas Jefferson said here the line stops. Toussaint Louverture is not human or something like that and so on. And the only slight hope was a couple of decades ago, you remember when Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his Lavalas party took over, then through this American intervention they ruined this option and now we are really dealing with an with a failed state. But should we blame them? No. The first thing to notice, not just the obvious fact external intervention, is that a similar thing, now comes the bad news, first is happening with some other Latino American countries. For example Ecuador. It's the same in some cities. Gangs, criminal gangs are no longer secret gangs in the sense of discreetly operating. No, they simply took some streets, they are occupying, openly occupying public space. And an even more terrifying example is how the establishment reacts to this. You should follow a guy who calls himself, so I felt some affinity with him, a philosopher king. Literally Nayib Bukele, the president just re-elected of El Salvador. It's something very obscene, in some sense formally similar to Gaza where you no longer do the mass killing discreetly. We have in Gaza now okay a relatively small level but nonetheless a Holocaust that you can watch live on TV no and we have the same there. This guy philosopher king who was incidentally two-three months ago re-elected with like Putin numbers of majority, You know what he did? He mobilized the army and proceeds he is proceeding against the gangs in an openly brutal way. Like you have in prison large space like this one where mostly in on the floor there are no beds you could put like people. He squeezes in people. They even cannot find a small piece many of them of ground just to stretch to lay down and you know what I find so sad and obscene is that this is not discreetly done. This guy Bukele, the president, openly boasts about it. You can see it on TV all the time. This terrible conditions there. So the message is absolutely clear. It's not in between lines is: if you are arrested you will have no basic rights. You will suffer beyond what the law permits. Now let's go on further. Because what interests me, this will be my conclusion and here I'm really a pessimist, is that our world, not just so-called third world failed states, is approaching a certain dangerous situation where the power itself is no longer able to reproduce itself without relying on half-legal or illegal gangs which are not directly identified with state. Let's mention two other examples. Do you remember now he is forgotten in Russia, Prigozhin, Wagner Group. It was exactly the same. It was basically a private army gang and Putin used it to be able to gain to retain a minimum of deniability. You know sorry we don't control them they do it but Putin needed them. Then I know there was a conflict Prigozhin took power no and this produced one of the best jokes, did already tell it here? I like this paradoxical joke. You remember how Prigozhin's plane was shot down you know? Officially it was an accident. Did already tell the last time here? I'm not so sure this joke which I love. The joke is that the Russian Prime Minister comes to Putin and says listen, we have so many time zones that it's very difficult. You know like I called the Chinese Xi president to congratulate him for birthday but he told me sorry here it's already the next day. Then I called Olaf Scholz to congratulate him on Scholz and Scholz said sorry my birthday is tomorrow and so on. And Putin says so we should do something. And Putin says, I like this, Russians still have the spirit of political jokes. Putin says I agree with you my god you know that I called Prigozhin's widow to express to her my sorrow for the death of husband but then I learned that the plane which fell down didn't even [unintelligible] yet you know. That's where we are. So then let's go two steps further. It gets worse and worse. Iran, Revolutionary Guard, also so-called Basij, also functions a little bit like this. You know it is the state but not quite. The government is very cautious. For example when in one of the few beautiful events of the last month you remember when that Kurdish girl [unintelligible] it triggered the most authentic feminist movement that I know where the feminists became a focal point of the entire society protesting the regime. And you know they like even the who is now the boss Khamenei I think. Even said he deplores, it's terrible. You know the point is to have a half-illegal gang from which you can maintain a certain distance but you need it. Now you I hope you know what will come. What will come is horror. But is not, sorry to tell you this, is not are not the Israeli settlers exactly something similar? And you know [unintelligible] that I'm not now paid by Hamas. I got all this from my Jewish friends my god. I'm more and more sympathetic to true heroes like Jonathan Glazer the director and so on. They told me that you know the Israeli government obviously to do its job which is now openly clear what they want. Now they openly adopted the slogan from the river to the sea. But for them only you know. And it's horrible how something they were denying till now they openly do it. But they cannot do it directly. So you have on the West Bank you have now settler gangs which are literally terrorizing Palestinians there and then police if Palestinians call police, police comes and does nothing or if they do something they do something pretty disgusting. Let's say settlers break into a small Palestinian village and start to beat Palestinians. Then police comes and they say we will separate the two sides which are fighting. But we are already on the Palestinian territory you know. So this means they push Palestinians even further out but what I want to say is that how Israel, here you have a failed state also. What they are doing now constructing a big Israel from the river to the sea, they also cannot even do it no matter how they twist their law, they cannot do it in a minimally legal way. They have to rely on armed gangs. Not only rely on but even solicit them. My bad guy, I mentioned him often here, Itamar Ben-Gvir who was years ago convicted by an Israeli court as a terrorist. Is now, it's a bad joke, Minister of Security of Israel. Directly helping these gangs. He gave them guns and now he is giving them more guns. So you see what fascinates me. It is how even in pretty developed country like Israel it needs illegal armed gangs to to function. Now let's go to the top. Okay you will say Israel, Middle East, it's a confusion there. What about United States themselves? Don't you remember Proud Boys to mention them. They are officially proclaimed a terrorist organization by international law and so on. And I think we should study also their ideology so that of the Proud Boys. Not only they are anti-semitic but Trump was never bothered like this that you your main supporter in the United States are anti-Semites and you fully support Israel that was... But I looked into their programs. I liked it so much because it is really... this is no longer my world maybe you can teach me where we are moving. You know what are there of Proud Boys main rules? One is they call each other brothers, no heterosexual brother and gays are prohibited so means no member, shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month. What what is happening here? You know and then they have other rules and so on and so on. Now the idea that came to me here is you know Ernst Jünger, a reluctant Nazi fellow traveler, not fully, who like Proud Boys celebrated the purifying effect of military struggle. He wrote, it's a quote, any power struggle is preceded by a verification of images and iconoclasm. This is why we need poets. They initiate the overthrow even that of titans. Interestingly enough this idea that violence that is grounded in poetry was first you know who was fascinated by Jünger at this level? She just tried to read to to give a progressive turn to it, violent communist revolution. Bertolt Brecht when after World War Two Ernst Jünger was under pressure like nonetheless in spite of his distances towards Nazism justifying this basic idea of social violence and his safety of Jünger was threatened by some communists, Brecht himself published a text where he said leave Jünger alone. Like we can also we can also use him. But what again surprises me with Proud Boys and other groups is something of which I'm far less and less from agreeing him with Yuval Harari. But at one particular point I follow him where he said that we live in a strange time where what was once considered a typical leftist rhetoric of violent overthrow, violation of law and order and so on, is now more and more appropriated by the new right. I made this point often here for example the you remember the 6th of January the attack on the Capitol. I told this story here that many of my friends cried. They said my god we should have been doing this. And I told them sorry guys, now this obscene brutality and so on is appropriated by the other side. And I'm saying this here to provoke you. I'm ready to go to the end here and to say that if when I was young we associated being radical leftist with you know brutal demonstration obscene gestures making fun of those in power. Sorry the enemy is now much better at it. So what of course the enemy is a fake here. I mean their revolution is of course nothing. They want changes so that as the old saying goes so that nothing will really change. But nonetheless they are the only ones who openly advocate this violent language. You know that how is he called Steve Bannon or what the great intellectual guru of Trump defines himself as a Leninist you know like the Leninist for the next century and so on. So what I'm saying is and now Trump is again he didn't want fully to condemn Proud Boys you know he gave that famous stand back but be ready there in the background. Again even the United States as people like to say the ultimate democracy in our world and so on. Trump said openly that if he whatever if he will lose elections there will be blood. He will not recognize the result. So you see what I'm saying. You have reference to illegal gangs as part of the political process even in the most developed democracy in our world and so on and so on. This this is where we are today. So again the sad lesson of such a role of criminal gangs is that today Western democracy itself is less and less fully applicable even in the developed West itself. And here we should maybe even doubt formulate a doubt about democracy itself the way we understand it in the West. In what sense? John Elster, I think I already quoted him the last time here, the Norwegian theorist of rational action, remarked apropos the notion fashionable today of democracy under threat. He says we can reverse the common dictum that democracy is under threat and affirm that democracy is the threat, at least in its short-term populist form. Because the true problem for example in more and more Western European countries is that what if the anti-immigrant right-wingers and so on take over democratically? It is happening. Sweden, Norway, not yet fully but that's that's the tendency. So my so again what does this mean for the United States? I used in some my late texts a version the version latest version I invented it. The first time I am not only retelling jokes but I invented a joke from you know there is an old communist dissident joke against communist politicians but I applied it now to the West and to the world. The jokes goes like this, my version: the three strongmen today, Putin, Xi the Chinese strongman and Trump are allowed briefly to meet God and each of them is allowed to ask God one question. First Putin said tell me dear God what is the future of Russia in next years? God said not so good. Even if you win in Ukraine, Russia will be in a decade or so Chinese economic colony. Putin turns around and starts to cry. Then Xi said oh, what about us, China? God says it's also not so good. You may control Russia but you are now in also in an economic crisis so either you will have to return to hardline rule which will be economically a catastrophe or you will have to not only not to occupy Taiwan but plead for Taiwanese help open yourself to Taiwan. Xi turns around, Xi not Xi a woman, Xi X-I and starts to cry. Then you can guess the finish. Then Trump said oh, what will happen with the United States if I win next elections? You know the answer. God turns around and starts to cry. And I think God was here right to do this. You know why? Because it's easy to make fun of those half-authoritarian countries. But nonetheless even when we criticize the West we rely on notions we rely on notions which still belong to the Western enlightenment democratic tradition and so on. And what is now disappearing with Gaza tragedy and so on is this let's call it Western democratic values themselves. It's a catastrophe I think so. Why? Let's first return to my doubt about democracy. I think I didn't yet use this here. You know this Abraham Lincoln well-known saying, but he didn't invent it, he just everything was already said I claim. And we live in this kind of world. I found a podcast this morning when I was awakening, a wonderful one where they said now each week hundreds of new songs are composed and we already arrived at the level of saturation where for every new hit song you can find at least five or not ten in from the last decades song which basically exactly the same melody. It's saturated you know, we cannot so again this Lincoln saying: you can fool all people some of the time and some people all the time but you can never fool all people all the time. I respectfully disagree. I would say most people can avoid being fooled some of the time and some people can avoid being fooled all the time, but most people can never avoid being fooled all the time. I think that we have to accept this. What do I mean by what do I mean by this? You know the whole history of Marxism is we know this it's an old story is under the shadow of this problem. For Marx there was a subject in whose material position the emancipatory radical emancipatory dimension was inscribed. Working class proletariat which as they say have nothing to lose but their chains. And as we know the entire history of Marxism was then in search when there was doubt if traditional working class can do it a search for another ersatz subject. The illusion of, I don't know I was there young but I was there, events is that students are playing this role. Students will be it. Then the Maoist illusion was still farmers. That's why he was sending thousands of intellectuals even if they were not great dissidents like my friend now he is very official in China I'm afraid of it, Wang Hui. He even now praises yes, I was taught much of wisdom. He was he was exiled to some a small village of farmers for two years at the time of the cultural revolution. So as if you learn some ultimate wisdom from poor farmers. Then we have today Alain Badiou's ideal new subject are are what he calls nomad proletarians. Immigrants without any any deprived of their roots free-floating and so on. I doubt it. I don't think it works like that. So I think we have to accept this that it's always a combination of groups. We cannot elevate one group into the privileged agent of radical change. But okay, let me go on so that I don't get lost. I would like to return to my crucial point which is to cut a long story short, the end of Europe. Europe as enlightenment tradition. Because some of my pro-Zionist German friends and because of this they are no longer my friends, you know. I just repeat here a wonderful joke by Lacan you must know it, it's an old anecdote. Lacan uses this as a logical paradox. He says, male chauvinist standpoint, my fiancee is never late for an appointment because the moment she is late she's no longer my fiancee. Something like this but what I want to say is that again they claim that in spite of all excesses, abuses we should support Israel because it is the only island of freedom and democracy in short the only island of Western civilization in the Middle East. My answer is yes unfortunately and this makes it much worse. That is to say if you ask a guy from Gaza what about European human rights? his answer is yes, I see them falling on us in the shape of bombs every day. So here maybe already mentioned here half a year ago but this is for me the crucial insight, I would like to quote Arundhati Roy, a very progressive Indian writer and essayist. Her starting point is this one that of course our Western developed moral edifice is hypocritical, it always already was, human rights were never truly universal and so on and so on. But her Arundhati Roy's point apropos of Gaza is that nonetheless in spite of this hypocrisy human rights nonetheless functioned how should I put it as a kind of a minimal moral compass which could be then applied also against the West like these are your human rights but you are violating them and so on and so on. But Arundhati Roy says that with what goes on in Gaza the moral architecture of Western liberalism will cease to exist. It was always hypocritical we know but even that provided some sort of shelter. The shelter is disappearing before our eyes. I think this is a much more complex and deep insight than it may appear. Crucially Arundhati Roy's idea that in spite of its hypocrisy or maybe even because of it, the liberal moral edifice nonetheless provided some sort of shelter. You know who gave a wonderful example here? I think already in late thirties, Gandhi. Now I'm a little bit more defensive about Gandhi because years ago I was more against him because of the more secular tradition of Ambedkar and others but now I learn that Gandhi is openly attacked by Modi and the gang which rules in India now no. He is considered practically a traitor. But nonetheless Gandhi visited London in late thirties I think and he was told about like in this patronizing Western way maybe do you think we can implant democracy in India no would you agree with this? And Gandhi you must know his answer which was I understand the democracy it's a very interesting idea. It would be good to try it once. you know like this. But so yes it was some kind of it provided till now some kind of shelter. And it even worked half-authentically. I remember when there were in Tiananmen demonstrations, you know one of the things that protester did on Tiananmen square was they built a rather primitive reproduction of the Statue of Liberty. And the Western enlightened leftist intellectuals laughed at them ha ha so primitive, don't you think that the Statue of Liberty stands for American imperialism and so on? No, it didn't stand for that in the eyes of the protesters. They simply projected onto the Statue of Liberty what they really what they really wanted. But freedom, safety, welfare and so on. But now I think this is over. And I don't think it's a good thing because what will not happen, I'm open to your criticism here, is that this Western notion of human rights will be replaced by some more radical emancipatory notion. I don't see that happening. I think that we are returning to a much more brutal world of direct violence, the stronger guy wins. A new world where you can simply ignore kind of a normative logic or of but is it right what we are doing. Now let me give you another example of what I found quite shocking. In some sense the end of the world. Where the world, I don't mean the universe but the world of symbolic shared values and so on. You know that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is no longer a secret plan that has to be brought out through detailed analysis. It is simply becoming the official policy. Israel has already held talks with several countries from Congo to Saudi Arabia for the potential absorption of the Palestinians from Gaza. But I want to point out and incidentally you know whom they tried to hire to do this for Israel to go around Middle East countries and inquire into are they ready to accept the Palestinians from West Bank, not only from Gaza. None other than Tony Blair. No, of course and you know where we are no. Okay, but what I want to say is that what really did shock me what shocked me is the fact that this is possible. It's that the term that Israeli politicians use now is that of voluntary resettlement or the term is resettlement as a as a as a humanitarian gesture. I mean I found this just shocking. Israel advocates Israel claims that to organize for all Palestinians of Gaza emigration to another Arab country is a deeply humanitarian concern because they're aware that that's the only way to provide for their safety. Now the shock is of course but who is making Gaza not safe? Israel with bombing and so on. So this type of brutality is for me quite shocking. How the oppression at its worst is justified through humanitarian terms. In this sense I think if this you can sell this as humanitarian approach... And there was, I like these details, a couple of days ago an interview of some official CNN journalist, a woman, with Netanyahu where but it no longer matters where he was as I call it caught Netanyahu with his pants down. Check it. What happened was that Netanyahu was giving his usual stuff while Israel while Israel is blocking humanitarian help, the trucks with foods to northern Gaza. And he said because Hamas, Hamas takes it over. But then this journalist lady, I think we need more common sense today, did something wonderful. She just quoted Netanyahu himself from a month ago when he said northern Gaza is now clear. No Hamas there. And she asked him a simple question: why then block humanitarian help when you claim that there is no Hamas now in Northern Gaza? And you should watch this, you can immediately google it. It was counted. Netanyahu was so shocked that for seconds he was silent and so. And then he somehow mumbled some total nonsense. Yes, maybe they don't have arms but some individuals of Hamas are still there and then he went even a step further and said something even if they are not formally Hamas they are sympathetic to Hamas and so on you know. It was it's just a horror. So to come close to the end, before I conclude a more theoretical point. Now since we are all here marked by big European progressive traditions, Frankfurt school and the so-called French thought, not only this but still this is the big presence, I would like to draw attention to a very sad thing that is now going on in Germany. Which is that I don't think this already happened when I was here the last time that Habermas, who is now de facto a German state philosopher, Habermas with together with two others, Rainer Forst who is his big successor younger generation and another guy I forgot who, published two months ago a statement where they fully supported Israel. With this usual bullshit, you know it's nonetheless the only democracy there and so on and so on. It's good thing for Germany that immediately theorists, professors, close to Frankfurt school, published a counter-statement. And now my concluding point. They they said something quite interesting. What a difference there is between the older generation of Frankfurt school whose greatest achievement is, for me at least, the book by Adorno and Horkheimer The Dialectic of Enlightenment. The idea being that even the that the horrible phenomena that we saw in the 20th century, fascism, let's include Stalinism, colonialist murders, that this is not simply some remainder of pre-enlightenment tradition but that it's part of the inherent contradiction, antagonisms in the enlightenment project itself. The point is not so let's return to some mythic pre-modern thinking. No. The point is that as I forgot who somebody says in a beautiful way paraphrasing Walter Benjamin, that to be truly civilized means you should all the time be aware how your own position the more it appears neutral, progressive to you is always on the edge of barbarism. Barbarian enemy is not up there. You are in it. Begin begin with this self-critical point. And the sad thing and here so that I save my attitude as a nonetheless a little bit of a philosopher not just political talk, here Franco Bifo Berardi wrote a short text where he in a wonderful way points this out how this Habermas from the very beginning rejected... he even wrote a text already years ago, against Dialectic of Enlightenment. He claims that no, we need simply progress, more enlightenment. No self-critical Dialectic of Enlightenment. His idea the title of his book says everything: Enlightenment as an Unfinished Project. So we don't have enough of enlightenment and I think that here we see how this new phase of Frankfurt theory with Habermas makes this fatal step from critical thinking to basically state philosopher, philosophy of the establishment. Habermas has a long tradition here of being an ultra-pro-western conformist. I remember years ago when the East Germany broke down some East German public figure, writers, dissidents, all of them, said that nonetheless East Germany shouldn't be simply integrated into West Germany. But that maybe there is something in the East German everyday experience... and they didn't mean to praise the German Democratic Republic. They meant more the forms of public solidarity which developed as a protest. That maybe since the West was caught in consumerism, indifference and so on, maybe... and this was quite a common idea at that point that in some cases of the disintegration of socialism the first movement was not reactionary, nationalist. It was really in some sense even naive socialism. You know who is here, not my hero, he is now too much, but he Adam Michnik, the Polish dissident, made a wonderful statement some years ago. You know he was a big dissident and then now he owns, he is a main owner of Gazeta Wyborcza, the most important Polish daily newspaper. And at some reception with some Western idiots a guy approached him and said I congratulate you, you not only overthrew socialism but you are now a successful capitalist and so on. And he nonetheless Michnik made a beautiful statement. He said sorry you get me wrong. My problem is that I am not a capitalist who laughs at socialism. I am a socialist who will never forget really existing socialism about how it fails. The idea was but we have to remain... And back to Habermas. The figures were Christa Wolf, the big East German writers and some others. And Habermas reacted with full paranoia. The idea was no we should not in any way accept that we can learn anything from East Germany. He even in a typical liberal paranoia claimed that remainders of Nazism will be smuggled into united Germany in this way. That if you don't fully accept West Germany, it means the only thing we can take from Eastern Europe is totalitarianism. So this this is I think what is so sad about the situation in Germany itself. That this politics that we see now and Germany is getting totally crazy. Did you follow when a Jewish and a Palestinian, both Israelis, made a documentary on what is happening on the West Bank and they got a big prize at Berlinale? I met her, she pretends to be a nice lady but it's not. Claudia Roth, the Minister of Culture of Germany. She was caught applauding them. And then she was immediately attacked by right-wingers that you know the logic by applauding that movie she is really applauding the the the destruction of Israel you know and so on. And she immediately broke down and made a totally absurd statement that she was really applauding just the Israeli guy. Just the Jewish guy, not the other guy. And maybe you read, I forgot where I published it, some short comment where I said ah-ha, where I proclaimed Claudia Roth to be a big Zen Buddhist master. Because you know I found a Japanese Zen Buddhist who wrote a whole treatise of how you are in deeply in Zen enlightenment when you learn how to clap with one hand. And it was so sad that she who considers herself a liberal not the worst, open to Palestinian suffering, that she then she not even the right pronounced the formula. And the formula was, it's shocking, the formula was, she openly said it: you are now allowed to say Palestinians are suffering, but you must always add in the same line of argumentation, but it's not the guilt of IDF but the guilt of Hamas, like they are basically... If you don't add this you are anti-Semitic, you want the destruction of Israel and so on and so on. Because my friend Udi Aloni talked with her two months ago at some reception there and asked her what's going on. She asked her why she also joined the critics of me at [unintelligible] and it's so disgusting what she told Udi. She said you know at the level of argumentation she said she agrees with me, but it was not the right moment to say that. I heard this at least times from my German friends. Privately I agree with you but it's not the right moment. And my answer is so when will be the right moment to say this? I have an exact answer: when it will no longer matter if you say it. I know. Now it's the right moment because now it means something to say that publicly. And again to conclude with an ultra-provocation. You know where if you don't believe me where you can see the... ah sorry back to so to conclude with Habermas and so on... I hope you will agree with me here that this is a wonderful example where you can see how a totally abstract philosophical position. Are you naively pro-enlightenment which should go on or do you admit an inner antagonism which makes enlightenment itself self-destructive? Self-destructive measure by its own standards. How this is not just an abstract theoretical position. It immediately influences how we relate to Gaza today. I mean and again which is why I think that Germany is on the path of simply irrelevance. As long as Germany will remain Habermasian to put it like this. I mean it's I in one of my comments maybe you read German Fake or what, I I really think that an appropriate gesture at this point would be more than to boycott Israel. There are still there guys which are not radical enough but good guys very critical and so on of present government. It's almost more important today to boycott culturally at least Germany. Germany is the most... they it's so disgusting. You know what they are doing as Bifo Berardi points out. I think I already said this half a year ago here. Their logic is this one: yes, we were guilty of Holocaust and how will we repay the Jews, to support them when they do a similar thing on other people? you know. It's so it's so absolutely disgusting and my German friends told me another thing which is crazy. You know that a little bit over people were already punished, seriously affected by this struggle against anti-Semitism. You know if they were considered too sympathetic to Palestine it's you lose a job, you are canceled from public space and similar things. But you know one data. Although in Germany there are I don't know and a half of Jews, over of those affected are Jews. So as many people friends told me, you know if you are a Palestinian today or Islamist in Germany and criticize Israel they say okay that's normal we know where you come from. But if you are a Jew who doesn't identify with Israel, you're considered a true traitor. The the attack is much more the attack is much more ferocious. So I really think the time has come maybe culturally to to boycott Germany. Now so that you will not tell me, that's my now I have a new quote, the last time I quoted another guy, whom do I trust in Israel? Usually people tell me but you are a utopian, blah-blah-blah. Listen. You know who are the best analysts? Last time when I was here I quoted another guy. This time I got even a better guy. Now you will not accuse me of utopianism when I quote ex-bosses of Mossad and Shin Bet. Please read them. They are extremely rational people. You know, did I already quote it? I don't think so. Ami Ayalon, ex-chief of of Shin Bet, who made a wonderful interview where he says it's as simple as that: if we don't give Palestinians a hope, political subjectivity and so on, there will not be safety for us. And then he goes on to the end and even says what Israel should do. First, free Marwan Barghouti, that guy who is a Palestinian Mandela. He led the first two intifadas but he was always against killing civilians, this type of violence. And everybody knows this secretly in Israel. That he is the right person. He can beat Hamas in elections. He is a cult figure like years in prison Mandela, at the same time he renounces violence. But you know I made a couple of times when I made some trips to recently to I don't know Netherlands up and down. I did a wonderful experiment. I when I smelled that I am in hardline Zionist circles, they asked me okay you're bullshitting in easy to criticize Israel but what's your solution? Without attributing them to Ayalon, I quoted his statement. And I was interrupted as this is anti-Semitic bullshit and so on and so on. You see where we are. People there, secret police... I'm more and more getting so desperate that I'm saying sometimes secret police is better than the people. Because in Israel, you know this is a sad thing, according to the last opinion poll, of the Jews in Israel are against two-state solution. What was an eccentric view a couple of years ago that it's Israel who should be from the river to the sea is now the majority you know. And my good friend, you should listen to him, Tamer Nafar. He lives in Lod, a suburb of Tel Aviv which is a small Palestinian enclave. And he's absolutely not violent. He is even now from time to time published in Haaretz. He put it so nicely. He said even the liberal Jews when they allow him some public appearance, the first question is always but do you reject Hamas? you know. And he provided a perfect answer or rather the question is usually but do you secretly support Hamas? And his answer that he now repeats is although you hardline Zionists try in all possible ways to push me towards Hamas, I still resist that. you know I don't want to do that. So but isn't this sad that in Israel today again the most not most but almost only rational proposal which is self-evident, a proposal which if you do it in Germany you will be instantly attacked as anti-Semitic, it comes from from Shin Bet leaders, from from the secret police. And I'm here I warn you very ambiguous. I remember in my own country, in Russia even, don't underestimate, this is hollow I want to shock you, don't underestimate the progressive aspects of secret police. You know why? Because yeah they do horrible things but at the same time they are brutal in the sense of they know the real state of things you know. For example in Slovenia it was the same. It was tragic to discover when socialism was falling apart that the worst to stick to the old regime were corrupted party communist party intellectuals. Secret police was the most progressive. Why? Because they simply knew the real state of things and so on. So just three concluding points and it's over. First, you know the big game played by Israel now is to claim Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and those hardline Zionists are just a crazy minority of fundamentalist radicals which are usually mocked by the Israeli establishment. But nonetheless their their stance determines the actual politics of the state of Israel. That's the problem, that's the deep cynicism. That even if they are not openly praised by the establishment, they are determining the actual politics. In other words what the silent majority wants in Israel is not really to stop the oppression on the West Bank but like please do it a little bit more discreetly you know, not so open. The second thing. You know I accepted at the beginning the idea that Hamas attack should be condemned. But I but what was from the very beginning problematic for me was this rejection to contextualize it. As if by contextualizing it you are half-justifying it. You know whom I, I don't think I already have that quote when I was here the last time, you know who is my hero here? As always, Primo Levi, you know the ultimate memories if this is a man, Se questo un uomo. He put it so wonderfully. He said of course we cannot understand Auschwitz if by understanding we mean like they're humans like us and so on. But we should analyze it. He said if we don't analyze it, it will repeat itself. And precisely this is still absolutely prohibited. Did you notice how even now in Germany it's worse and worse, the Hamas attack is not analyzed. It's almost it almost acquired a metaphysical status as an absolutely abyssal act of evil which grounds then everything that comes afterwards. Israeli kills people. No problem. It's Hamas responsibility. I think that the least we should do now is to say the same about what Israelis are doing now in Gaza. That it's an act which should not be normalized as just a reaction to the horror that happened before and so on and so on. It should be judged on its own. They are doing this. And it's not legitimate to say yeah but look what Hamas did there. No, it should be judged on its own. And as I already said my big conclusion: what is now dying in the ruins of Gaza is nothing else than the European idea of universal emancipation. With its self-humiliating servitude to the US and to Israel, Europe put the last nail into the coffin where its emancipatory legacy will be buried. And again I think that Trump has now a chance because again the last time already I mentioned this that I know guys who know guys who know guys who at the end knows people in the White House. And they told me all a couple of them I know the same story that Biden who, let's admit it, in inner politics he is not so bad. He was the first president of the United States to went to support you remember the auto-workers strike and so on. But what I the story I learned is that he thought that if he endorses a more militant stance in Ukraine and now Israel that this will make people forget his senility blah-blah and make him appear more masculine. But he terribly miscalculated it. Because now he is so systematically humiliated by Netanyahu that he appears weaker than ever. Wasn't this a shame, you remember a couple of weeks ago, United States, superpower, had to drop by air the supplies into Gaza. Where is the good old imperialist United States that we all love, which should say that fuck off, IDF. Give us a landing there, we will come and so on. No, all of a sudden they behave as and so one really asks ourselves where are we going. So where are we going? It is sad. Again, we are really approaching a gang rule, new forms of racism, European legacy is over. Is there any hope about this? Two days from now and again I will begin with quantum physics. It will be a much more serious reflection of how we are obliged to change our entire even let's call it ontology of history. How how what happens in history, in what sense is history open, how we retroactively introduce order into it and so on and so on. So where where am I now? What's the time? Um, it's it's... oh my watch died but we've got about half an hour for discussion. Oh there is perfect that's what I... Yeah yeah yeah perfect perfect. Okay so please now I'm here open to your criticism. How will you do it? I need a... or you will do it. Yeah. Okay, so indicate with your hand... if you will agree with me. I don't think the solution is to say we should step on our shoulder and look into the future and so on. We should I think the only way to do this is not directly to say we work for our children or what but simply to fully engage in fights here. I believe in naively in full engagement and I will give you an example. And please don't accuse me of being an Islamist fundamentalist. You should watch, did you see the two versions of Le Carré's novel The Little Drummer Girl, the two cinema versions? There was with Diane Keaton the movie version and then there was ha-ha with Florence Pugh the six, you notice sexist undertone, six-parts mini-series. But you know which is for me the nicest moment and ethically I don't agree with the guy. That guy I forgot his name who is the ha-ha terrorist who you know she is convinced by Israel secret service to to pretend to join the Israeli terrorists no and the final scene is that the main Israeli terrorist who prepares a bombing, she half-seriously begins to love him, they spend a night together and then in the morning he the terrorist when he awakens immediately senses that there is something wrong like cows are not heard which means somebody is already surrounding the building and sooner or later he guesses she informed she works for the police. And then comes quite a beautiful moment where he looks at her and she confesses crying and you would expect an evil terrorist would shoot her, torture her. No, she just looks at her and said but why did you do this? Are you a Jew, were you blackmailed by Zionists, were this that? and you know what's so tragic. Look at it, you can no you live in totalitarian country you cannot, you know in what sense then here in the UK. I'm Slovenian, we are free country which means nobody controls Pirate Bay and that no here you will get a big so I downloaded both cinema versions. It's even better than in the novel when the guy asks her are you a Jew, are you pro-America or what? He doesn't mean it the terrorist as a critique. He means it as do you believe in anything? Do you have an engagement? And his horror is when he realizes that the girl doesn't believe in anything. That she did it under pressure, you know that there is no engagement. And he then doesn't quickly kill her. She just caresses her and says something like I'm very sorry for you and allows himself to be killed. I don't agree with him a terrorist. But it's nonetheless a beautiful moment where again you see how he is horrified by her lack of belief, lack of engagement. You know how although he was put in service by Israeli secret service he even is not... she sorry even is not really engaged in that. And that's where we are that's what I meant with that. Sorry I love South Korea, bibimbap is my favorite food but that's what I like with this I don't like with this you know disengaged stance enjoy life and so on. Now I'm here quite traditional. We have to have an engagement. A full engagement. That's why you remember did already talk about this about my experience... no I didn't here, I love this, my experience with Oppenheimer. You remember in India I was so attacked. You remember a quarter of our into a movie you have a sex scene, Florence Pugh with Oppenheimer. And then one I forgot who asks the other while they're making love would you read me Bhagavad Gita? And you remember India immediately protested no many in India okay that how could they spoil the sacred text with the dirty sexual scene. And my reaction was the opposite one. I got many hate mails from India. It was that what if it is the opposite. A beautiful love scene is spoiled by a pretty nasty book Bhagavad Gita. And you know what's my foundation there? You must know the story, I know I mentioned this that you know that Bhagavad Gita, I'm not saying it's a Nazi book I'm not crazy, but Bhagavad Gita was the favorite book by Heinrich Himmler. Why? Because his answer, maybe already mentioned, it was precisely this one. The Nazi SS officer have to do horrible things: kill women, starve Jewish children, women, how can they do such horrible things while retaining their entity? And he looks the answer in Bhagavad Gita which is act as a distance. At a distance, don't identify with your acts. So here I am for, I will sorry very sorry I will use this term, for the one good things in Judeo-Christian-Muslim, I'm very open, tradition which is I think more a stance of total engagement. Don't be afraid to be fully engaged. Don't the typical corporate logic today, and I read a good analysis where they look at big corporate bosses, name them: Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and so on. You know the most popular spiritual stance among them is pseudo-oriental meditation. It's precisely the idea that we are causing catastrophes all around the world but do it as at a distance. Don't identify with your acts. And to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying that all oriental meditation whatever is necessarily this. For example from my good Japanese friend, not Kōhei Saitō but Kojin Karatani. He told me that there is, I forgot his name, I mentioned somewhere, a very intelligent from 1920s-30s already Japanese Zen Buddhist theorists who reads Buddhism in a total opposition to usual reading. Not reality is out there don't engage fully in it but his idea is no, you are void, there is nothing in you, all that is is out there. So he wonderfully notices that if you take seriously the Buddhist stance or I don't mean me as an ego I don't have any substantial content I am a void, it means precisely all there is is outside of you. And he then very intelligently this guy shows that this idea of Buddhism as a withdrawal into your interior is already a Western pacification of Buddhism. They project onto the East this distance: my shitty inner life and outside reality and then you withdrew into yourself. You know, I'm not afraid of full engagement. Sorry if I was too long. Slavoj, thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts. Just two days ago the theatrical election concluded and despite how autocratic it is and how there is a massive real support for Putin in Russia, in our so-called collective West we believe there are many people that do not like Putin and there is protest against him. And we even have convenient opposition figures and groups such as the murdered Alexei Navalny, his team, bloggers Maxim Katz and political candidates that are not permitted into the elections. But what do we actually see them doing? Navalny's widow wife and Maxim Katz they call anti-Putin, anti-war Russian people to come and to vote in protest. Or they say you can you don't have to vote but just come, just stand here, spoil a ballot if you want or join in our protest action of voting at a specific time of day for a specific candidate outcome. Obviously Putin will draw whatever results he wants at home but these actions they increase the voter turnout, they express political engagement and they increase the regime's legitimacy and its public process for us in America, for us in UK, for us in Europe. Even the substitute democratic candidate Davankov yesterday in meeting with Putin he
Cathy Newman
says that the main mission of Russia
says that the main mission of Russia
Slavoj Žižek
right now is to topple the Kyiv regime and to be victorious in the special military operation. To me all this
right now is to topple the Kyiv regime and to be victorious in the special military operation. To me all this
unknown
action is like a
action is like a
Slavoj Žižek
perfect example of when you said let him rape you but look how dusty his balls are. So I ask you how are we to understand and engage with such an opposition which plays into the hands of the forces behind Putin time and time out if not even being controlled and incentivized by them? It's a very good tough question and I will give you a totally frank answer which is an utterly pessimistic one. There are times when not only dusting the balls but cutting the balls is not possible unfortunately. You must lay foundation for it, it doesn't happen as a miracle. Okay, I will ask you what is your answer here? My answer is to um is for the people who say they are anti-Putin, anti-war to be very suspicious of these forces, of these organizations which appear to be very Western, very progressive and for the same things that that we want. We don't want Putin, we don't want the secret agent services to control what people think, what people can do. But it does not mean that this apparent good force is leading you down the right path. I think I agree. Even I'm here even because people usually misinterpret me as unconditionally for Ukraine. Oh, I can talk for another hour and a half about what I do find problematic in Ukraine. They are making fatal mistakes I think. But that's another story. But still you didn't answer my question although you are much more in the situation. I agree with you but you just gave in the same sense as I would have done the negative answer you know they are not the blah-blah-blah. Okay, okay. Do you see any positive chance at this moment? At this moment, no. You know what where maybe my logic is very desperate. Remember Gorbachev. He screwed it up. But uh... the problem with Putin is that you know remember again we are coming back to my sorry for this obscenity to my admiration of secret police. You know that Gorbachev was basically part of Yuri Andropov gang no. So again Gorbachev is the progressive aspect of KGB. Horrible as this may sound. Maybe the problem with Russia was that Andropov didn't survive. Andropov had a chance to become Russian Deng Xiaoping maybe. That's my dream. Not no democracy but this type of controlled capitalist opening under maybe even stronger state. But he I don't know what he had leukemia or what and then it was it was it was over. But the important thing, it's a very pessimistic solution, is that I don't believe in popular movement from the outside unfortunately. I think take Gorbachev that there must be a crack in nomenklatura itself. And I don't I don't know enough the situation in Russia. I notice and I find this it's a horrible event but funny to comment on it how if you are a top guy in Russia isn't it good not to approach too much windows in hotels or hospitals you know many of them fall out and so on you know. So my point is that I would like to know what is happening behind the scenes in Russia. I was even ready but you must know more than me there to see something potentially not progressive but like disturbing in Prigozhin you know. He was corrupt whatever you want but in some sense what he said it was true. He said Zelenskyy Ukrainians are fighting well we should at one point he even said we should negotiate with them the problem is the inertia the corruption of Russia and so on. We should be here ruthless that's all I would say and don't be afraid of any pacts. Exploit all forms of opposition no. Don't be a purist like no we don't talk with that guy. Because but now at this point I think maybe you can correct me the situation in Russia is worse than ever and all that can be done don't underestimate it is this what does do moles do this underground digging you know laying the laying the foundation you know. Obviously the West was terribly wrong. You remember those dreams a year and a half ago: Putin is on deathbed he is already maybe there is a double Russian economy is in deep shit and so on and so on. So the first thing I would advise the West is again to turn a self-critical gaze on itself and again we are coming now back to Gaza and so on. You know what I find most horrible that Ukraine is totally supporting Israel and so on. The catastrophe is now, look just at the list of countries which congratulated officially Putin. It's almost whole of Latin America, whole of Africa, most of Asia. You know so look at the world map. It's part of Western Europe, even there there are cracks, Slovakia especially Hungary, United States, Canada, most of Europe which are for Ukraine and this is the ultimate nightmare for me that resistance to Israel in Gaza on the West Bank and Russian aggression of Ukraine are perceived as part of the same struggle against Western
perfect example of when you said let him rape you but look how dusty his balls are. So I ask you how are we to understand and engage with such an opposition which plays into the hands of the forces behind Putin time and time out if not even being controlled and incentivized by them? It's a very good tough question and I will give you a totally frank answer which is an utterly pessimistic one. There are times when not only dusting the balls but cutting the balls is not possible unfortunately. You must lay foundation for it, it doesn't happen as a miracle. Okay, I will ask you what is your answer here? My answer is to um is for the people who say they are anti-Putin, anti-war to be very suspicious of these forces, of these organizations which appear to be very Western, very progressive and for the same things that that we want. We don't want Putin, we don't want the secret agent services to control what people think, what people can do. But it does not mean that this apparent good force is leading you down the right path. I think I agree. Even I'm here even because people usually misinterpret me as unconditionally for Ukraine. Oh, I can talk for another hour and a half about what I do find problematic in Ukraine. They are making fatal mistakes I think. But that's another story. But still you didn't answer my question although you are much more in the situation. I agree with you but you just gave in the same sense as I would have done the negative answer you know they are not the blah-blah-blah. Okay, okay. Do you see any positive chance at this moment? At this moment, no. You know what where maybe my logic is very desperate. Remember Gorbachev. He screwed it up. But uh... the problem with Putin is that you know remember again we are coming back to my sorry for this obscenity to my admiration of secret police. You know that Gorbachev was basically part of Yuri Andropov gang no. So again Gorbachev is the progressive aspect of KGB. Horrible as this may sound. Maybe the problem with Russia was that Andropov didn't survive. Andropov had a chance to become Russian Deng Xiaoping maybe. That's my dream. Not no democracy but this type of controlled capitalist opening under maybe even stronger state. But he I don't know what he had leukemia or what and then it was it was it was over. But the important thing, it's a very pessimistic solution, is that I don't believe in popular movement from the outside unfortunately. I think take Gorbachev that there must be a crack in nomenklatura itself. And I don't I don't know enough the situation in Russia. I notice and I find this it's a horrible event but funny to comment on it how if you are a top guy in Russia isn't it good not to approach too much windows in hotels or hospitals you know many of them fall out and so on you know. So my point is that I would like to know what is happening behind the scenes in Russia. I was even ready but you must know more than me there to see something potentially not progressive but like disturbing in Prigozhin you know. He was corrupt whatever you want but in some sense what he said it was true. He said Zelenskyy Ukrainians are fighting well we should at one point he even said we should negotiate with them the problem is the inertia the corruption of Russia and so on. We should be here ruthless that's all I would say and don't be afraid of any pacts. Exploit all forms of opposition no. Don't be a purist like no we don't talk with that guy. Because but now at this point I think maybe you can correct me the situation in Russia is worse than ever and all that can be done don't underestimate it is this what does do moles do this underground digging you know laying the laying the foundation you know. Obviously the West was terribly wrong. You remember those dreams a year and a half ago: Putin is on deathbed he is already maybe there is a double Russian economy is in deep shit and so on and so on. So the first thing I would advise the West is again to turn a self-critical gaze on itself and again we are coming now back to Gaza and so on. You know what I find most horrible that Ukraine is totally supporting Israel and so on. The catastrophe is now, look just at the list of countries which congratulated officially Putin. It's almost whole of Latin America, whole of Africa, most of Asia. You know so look at the world map. It's part of Western Europe, even there there are cracks, Slovakia especially Hungary, United States, Canada, most of Europe which are for Ukraine and this is the ultimate nightmare for me that resistance to Israel in Gaza on the West Bank and Russian aggression of Ukraine are perceived as part of the same struggle against Western
Chris Simmons
domination. This is for me the ultra-geopolitical catastrophe. Maybe I'm not sure, I you see I'm getting old and I notice how I know less and less you know. I'm afraid of making afraid of make this statements. Even with China I'm not sure what's happening there. I get I have some
domination. This is for me the ultra-geopolitical catastrophe. Maybe I'm not sure, I you see I'm getting old and I notice how I know less and less you know. I'm afraid of making afraid of make this statements. Even with China I'm not sure what's happening there. I get I have some
Slavoj Žižek
informers there. Let me be serious. Friends who are there deep and from some of them I get the news that the Chinese establishment is in a deep panic now you know. From others I get that it's not so bad and so on. I don't know what attracts me now is a totally crazy theory not that I want to rehabilitate fascism but theory which I like more and more that trigger warning it's madness that what Deng Xiaoping really did is organized a passage from communism to fascism. That is to say forget anti-semitism. Violent anti-semitism is something that pertains to Nazi self-destructive dynamic. But we have a much softer fascism even Mussolini, you know that in the twenties the first decade Jews were massively also supporting Mussolini. So you have another softer notion of fascism which is conservative modernization. You want to have technology, fast development but being well aware, these fascists saw very well, of this self-destructive
informers there. Let me be serious. Friends who are there deep and from some of them I get the news that the Chinese establishment is in a deep panic now you know. From others I get that it's not so bad and so on. I don't know what attracts me now is a totally crazy theory not that I want to rehabilitate fascism but theory which I like more and more that trigger warning it's madness that what Deng Xiaoping really did is organized a passage from communism to fascism. That is to say forget anti-semitism. Violent anti-semitism is something that pertains to Nazi self-destructive dynamic. But we have a much softer fascism even Mussolini, you know that in the twenties the first decade Jews were massively also supporting Mussolini. So you have another softer notion of fascism which is conservative modernization. You want to have technology, fast development but being well aware, these fascists saw very well, of this self-destructive
unknown
tendency of too much individualism and so on, you want to control social cohesion through some nationalist ideology and so on. So this is the basic idea of fascism I think. You get modernization industrial dynamic but you try to control social cohesion through some brutal more or less brutal nationalism and look Modi is doing this, in Turkey they're doing this, even Chinese up to a point. The tragedy of China is that it's really now from what my friends are telling me taking from Europe what is worst at this moment of the European legacy: a strong nation state. That's why they are now putting more pressure on Uyghurs, on Tibetans, they want to be a nation state. The same with Modi putting up pressure on Muslims and so on. Erdogan against the Kurds and so on. So I think that again we should again turn a self-critical gaze upon ourselves. Nation state is the big obstacle towards against obstacle to properly confronting the shit that is in front of us. Okay, we have one more quick question and then one more quick answer, a quickie, not if I may put it in my sense. Dr. Zizek, just going back to your discussion of state subordinating abstract flows of violence in the form of gangs to maintain de
tendency of too much individualism and so on, you want to control social cohesion through some nationalist ideology and so on. So this is the basic idea of fascism I think. You get modernization industrial dynamic but you try to control social cohesion through some brutal more or less brutal nationalism and look Modi is doing this, in Turkey they're doing this, even Chinese up to a point. The tragedy of China is that it's really now from what my friends are telling me taking from Europe what is worst at this moment of the European legacy: a strong nation state. That's why they are now putting more pressure on Uyghurs, on Tibetans, they want to be a nation state. The same with Modi putting up pressure on Muslims and so on. Erdogan against the Kurds and so on. So I think that again we should again turn a self-critical gaze upon ourselves. Nation state is the big obstacle towards against obstacle to properly confronting the shit that is in front of us. Okay, we have one more quick question and then one more quick answer, a quickie, not if I may put it in my sense. Dr. Zizek, just going back to your discussion of state subordinating abstract flows of violence in the form of gangs to maintain de
Slavoj Žižek
facto rule. I saw a lot of similarities with Deleuze's concept of the war machine and the apparatus of capture. I'm reminded of the time it was claimed that the IDF used Deleuze in their raid of Palestinian settlements.
facto rule. I saw a lot of similarities with Deleuze's concept of the war machine and the apparatus of capture. I'm reminded of the time it was claimed that the IDF used Deleuze in their raid of Palestinian settlements.
unknown
Is there any hope of reclaiming micro-political flows of resistance or do you think that the Deleuzian century, to quote Foucault, is well and truly over? I think it's over and I tell you why. Do you know what was in France or Italy that they even translated it. You know what was, maybe you are too young to remember this but
Is there any hope of reclaiming micro-political flows of resistance or do you think that the Deleuzian century, to quote Foucault, is well and truly over? I think it's over and I tell you why. Do you know what was in France or Italy that they even translated it. You know what was, maybe you are too young to remember this but
Slavoj Žižek
some years ago Deleuzians were shocked to discover that an Israeli secret military theorists elaborated the most efficient strategy how to terrorize control Palestinians. You know what was his main reference? Not Anti-Oedipus but Mille Plateaux, A Thousand Plateaus, the next book. And he even, you know all this idea not linear logic but side and so on. It's so obscene to read with direct reference to Deleuze. He elaborated the way which was then practiced by Israel of how to invade a Palestinian house where you suspect there are terrorists. Not directly frontal attack on the main door but occupy the nearby house, the sideways attack. It was something so obscene so that this somehow ruined maybe I'm wrong I'm always ready to change my mind but this somehow ruined my trust in effectively subversive or I don't like the word subversive let's say emancipatory or whatever dimension of Foucault. Because on the other hand what I like more about Foucault is who was the guy I forgot his name who write, no Foucault sorry Deleuze, who wrote a wonderful book a couple of days ago just years ago I just forgot his name, The Dark Deleuze? Nick Land. Yeah yeah yeah. This was a very interesting book where he points out that Deleuze is not that happy guy of multitude we all drive and so on. That there is a much darker side, almost suicidal, self-destructive of of of Deleuze. And I tend to agree with that. And I'm even, this is not a critique, I'm much closer to to that Deleuze. With all religions even if I proclaim myself atheist Christian. You know which Christ I like? There is a friend of mine drew to my attention there is a passage in Matthew, all good things are in Matthew, St. John, John Gospel is bullshit and so on I would prohibit it, where Christ knows that they're next day he will be crucified so he is totally desperate and he is sitting with his disciples and you know what he tells them? Please just stay here with me. No, we'll pray, not don't worry, everything will turn out well. But this pure despair which Christ, my God, tries to resolve through just be here with me. You know. These are for me the dark moments which every progressive view has to include. So to conclude with the lowest of the lowest. You saw that shitty movie A River Runs Through It? It's years ago Brad Pitt directed by Robert Redford. Brad Pitt plays a young guy, one of two brothers, who is violently self-destructive. And friends try to help, it doesn't work. At the end he is killed. They found him beaten to death. And then a priest at the funeral ceremony says, and this is I think a wonderful atheist Christian stance, the priest says: when you see somebody who is on self-destructive path and you see that you cannot do anything. Like no way to help him. You have to respectfully accept this and your message to the guy should be: I resigned to it. I'm not trying to convert you, to save you. Just be sure that my love is with you forever even if you are destroying yourself. That I think that this would be my supplement to what you asked me that yes, engagement but with this as it were reserve of pure despair which I think every materialist approach has to have this. B version, what if things turn totally wrong. And that moment is for me this moment of just let's at least share in a community our horror so that this remains. My god, that scene is wonderful. I think it's Matthew whatever version where you find even another wonderful thing while Christ is asking his apostles just to be with him. He is not saying oh I promise you redemption. Fuck it, it's over. But Christ then does something, you
some years ago Deleuzians were shocked to discover that an Israeli secret military theorists elaborated the most efficient strategy how to terrorize control Palestinians. You know what was his main reference? Not Anti-Oedipus but Mille Plateaux, A Thousand Plateaus, the next book. And he even, you know all this idea not linear logic but side and so on. It's so obscene to read with direct reference to Deleuze. He elaborated the way which was then practiced by Israel of how to invade a Palestinian house where you suspect there are terrorists. Not directly frontal attack on the main door but occupy the nearby house, the sideways attack. It was something so obscene so that this somehow ruined maybe I'm wrong I'm always ready to change my mind but this somehow ruined my trust in effectively subversive or I don't like the word subversive let's say emancipatory or whatever dimension of Foucault. Because on the other hand what I like more about Foucault is who was the guy I forgot his name who write, no Foucault sorry Deleuze, who wrote a wonderful book a couple of days ago just years ago I just forgot his name, The Dark Deleuze? Nick Land. Yeah yeah yeah. This was a very interesting book where he points out that Deleuze is not that happy guy of multitude we all drive and so on. That there is a much darker side, almost suicidal, self-destructive of of of Deleuze. And I tend to agree with that. And I'm even, this is not a critique, I'm much closer to to that Deleuze. With all religions even if I proclaim myself atheist Christian. You know which Christ I like? There is a friend of mine drew to my attention there is a passage in Matthew, all good things are in Matthew, St. John, John Gospel is bullshit and so on I would prohibit it, where Christ knows that they're next day he will be crucified so he is totally desperate and he is sitting with his disciples and you know what he tells them? Please just stay here with me. No, we'll pray, not don't worry, everything will turn out well. But this pure despair which Christ, my God, tries to resolve through just be here with me. You know. These are for me the dark moments which every progressive view has to include. So to conclude with the lowest of the lowest. You saw that shitty movie A River Runs Through It? It's years ago Brad Pitt directed by Robert Redford. Brad Pitt plays a young guy, one of two brothers, who is violently self-destructive. And friends try to help, it doesn't work. At the end he is killed. They found him beaten to death. And then a priest at the funeral ceremony says, and this is I think a wonderful atheist Christian stance, the priest says: when you see somebody who is on self-destructive path and you see that you cannot do anything. Like no way to help him. You have to respectfully accept this and your message to the guy should be: I resigned to it. I'm not trying to convert you, to save you. Just be sure that my love is with you forever even if you are destroying yourself. That I think that this would be my supplement to what you asked me that yes, engagement but with this as it were reserve of pure despair which I think every materialist approach has to have this. B version, what if things turn totally wrong. And that moment is for me this moment of just let's at least share in a community our horror so that this remains. My god, that scene is wonderful. I think it's Matthew whatever version where you find even another wonderful thing while Christ is asking his apostles just to be with him. He is not saying oh I promise you redemption. Fuck it, it's over. But Christ then does something, you
unknown
know what? He starts to pray. It's wonderful. In which other religion God himself prays? No, you pray to God. As Chesterton pointed out, only in Christianity God himself prays. Because he is lost, he is it's over. But that's another story. Sorry if I disappointed you but you see here I'm really a pessimist because I simply think that the only practical result of all this Mille
know what? He starts to pray. It's wonderful. In which other religion God himself prays? No, you pray to God. As Chesterton pointed out, only in Christianity God himself prays. Because he is lost, he is it's over. But that's another story. Sorry if I disappointed you but you see here I'm really a pessimist because I simply think that the only practical result of all this Mille
Slavoj Žižek
Plateaux Deleuzian politics was this, you know, distrust of the state, multitude, self-organization, Toni Negri stuff and so on. I don't believe that that works. I I simply think that today it's horror to say, we have to grab as much state power as possible and rehabilitate state. And you know who is my informer here? You will not believe it. Álvaro García Linera, my good friend, the ex-prime... sorry vice president of Bolivia. He told me yeah, we tried to play the multitude, you know like not just representative democracy but tribal connections. We organized that all the tribes in Bolivia send representatives to La Paz. But then he told me we discovered that this was just corruption, you know. A tribal boss came from province to La Paz and he was interested either in his own enrichment or in getting just to his tribe more money than to other tribes. So I don't believe that there is a zero level of politicization which would not involve any kind of alienation or however you call it, you know. And from what I know, I hope I'm wrong, all political attempts that referred to Deleuze did have this illusion that beyond state representation and so on there is some kind of local self-organization which may do the job. I don't believe in this. But I hope I'm wrong. Okay, on that note we'll stop until Thursday when...
Plateaux Deleuzian politics was this, you know, distrust of the state, multitude, self-organization, Toni Negri stuff and so on. I don't believe that that works. I I simply think that today it's horror to say, we have to grab as much state power as possible and rehabilitate state. And you know who is my informer here? You will not believe it. Álvaro García Linera, my good friend, the ex-prime... sorry vice president of Bolivia. He told me yeah, we tried to play the multitude, you know like not just representative democracy but tribal connections. We organized that all the tribes in Bolivia send representatives to La Paz. But then he told me we discovered that this was just corruption, you know. A tribal boss came from province to La Paz and he was interested either in his own enrichment or in getting just to his tribe more money than to other tribes. So I don't believe that there is a zero level of politicization which would not involve any kind of alienation or however you call it, you know. And from what I know, I hope I'm wrong, all political attempts that referred to Deleuze did have this illusion that beyond state representation and so on there is some kind of local self-organization which may do the job. I don't believe in this. But I hope I'm wrong. Okay, on that note we'll stop until Thursday when...