Slavoj Zizek - Israel, Palestine & the Future
Talk · How To Academy ·
2023-11-19 · 1:32:00 · 11,387 words
with Cathy Newman
ideologyhegel-dialecticsgeopolitics-warecology-climatecommunism-socialismcapitalismrace-antisemitismcinema-art-culturereligion-theologyfascism-populismdemocracyhistoryphilosophy-generalsubjectivity
Žižek introduces Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s concept of 'enlightened pessimism,' arguing that catastrophe is already inscribed in the current order and requires a retroactive rewriting of the past to open a new future. He applies this framework to the Israel-Palestine conflict, rejecting comparative victimhood and asserting the necessity of fighting both anti-Semitism and for Palestinian dignity simultaneously. He defines 'war communism' not as utopian affluence but as a necessary emergency state response to ecological and social collapse, citing Trump’s pandemic checks and FDR’s industrial mobilization as precedents for bypassing market logic. Žižek argues that contemporary social justice movements are a distraction from the need for genuine global economic coordination, citing Peter Sloterdijk’s concept of an 'isolated globe' and the climate crisis as evidence that local solutions fail without global circulation. He critiques postmodern cynicism and populist right-wing tactics, contrasting Donald Trump’s relativism with Bernie Sanders’ moral seriousness, and proposes a 'law and order' stance for the left. Finally, he addresses the Israel-Gaza conflict, condemning Hamas while contextualizing the rise of anti-Semitism and critiquing the exclusionary logic of both sides, invoking Stalin as a metaphor for the oppressive nature of current Q&A formats. Žižek argues that Jews are essential to the European Enlightenment as agents of relativization, criticizing modern anti-Semitism as a Zionist strategy that excludes Jews from the West. He analyzes the historical shift in anti-Semitism from conversion anxiety to genetic determinism, citing Wagner and the post-French Revolution era. He then addresses audience questions regarding Marx’s early text 'On the Jewish Question', the Balkans, and contemporary heroism, defending early Soviet Jewish leadership and critiquing the 'young Marx' as the root of Stalinism. Žižek argues that post-socialist Balkan nationalism was a survival strategy for the ruling nomenclature, not a complex historical inevitability. He identifies Julian Assange and Marek Edelman as 21st-century heroes who embody emancipatory leadership, contrasting them with the illusion of consumerist freedom. He concludes by asserting that true freedom requires radical self-discipline and that philosophy is essential for understanding contemporary ethical and political antagonisms, such as anti-Semitism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 26
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s theory that we must accept catastrophe as already having happened (retroactively) to motivate the radical action needed to prevent it.
as “retroactive creation of necessity”
The Hegelian idea that a contingent future event, once it occurs, redefines the past as having been necessary to produce it.
A French distinction Žižek uses to differentiate between the mere continuation of the present (futur) and a radical break or new arrival (avenir).
as “communism without capital”
Žižek’s critique of Marx (and Kohei Saito) for retaining capitalist dynamics of self-propelling growth rather than fundamentally changing the past.
The unique capacity of the European Enlightenment legacy to critique its own horrors and correct course, which Žižek argues is still the best tool for criticism.
as “fixed point”
Dupuy’s concept referring to the catastrophic trajectory that will occur if current trends continue unchanged.
Žižek’s term for emergency state measures (like welfare checks or industrial commandeering) that violate market rules but are necessary to survive catastrophe, distinct from utopian communism.
The paradox of globalization where we see no limits (transparent glass) and exclude those outside, creating a self-contained catastrophe rather than true global integration.
as “materialist religion”
Žižek’s reinterpretation of Christianity/Judaism where God is actualized through ethical activity toward others rather than mystical presence, grounded in iconoclasm.
as “Holy Spirit as Communist Party”
A provocative coinage equating the Holy Spirit with the first historical form of social solidarity where hierarchical status does not matter.
as “Critique of Cynical Reason”
Sloterdijk’s formula that modern subjects 'know what they are doing but nonetheless do it,' shifting Marx’s 'they don't know it but they are doing it.'
as “postmodern relativist”
A label applied to Donald Trump, describing a figure who embodies cynical distance and lack of fixed values, contrasted with Sanders' 'silent majority' decency.
The strategic aim of the Hamas attack, which sought to destroy the possibility of long-term peace by killing the 'open' elements of Israeli society.
The distinction that explaining the historical ground of an evil (like Hitler or Hamas) does not excuse it, but is necessary to understand its emergence.
A metaphor for Jews bringing necessary diversity and dissonant voices that prevent stagnation and enable progress.
A modern anti-Semitic strategy that claims to love Jews but demands they remain in Israel, effectively excluding them from European identity.
A patronizing term (analogous to 'Palestinian Question') that suggests women's issues can wait until after the main revolution, which Žižek rejects in favor of integrating them into the core struggle.
The historical shift after the French Revolution where anti-Semitism did not disappear but became darker, shifting from concerns about secret conversion to claims of inherent, genetic degeneration.
Žižek’s term for Marx’s early writings (e.g., on alienation), which he considers his 'worst' work and the ideological root of Stalinism, contrasting it with the 'later Marx' who engaged with Hegel.
A specific historical observation used to refute the idea that communism is inherently anti-Semitic: the early Soviet secret police (Cheka) was majority Jewish and Baltic, not Russian.
The post-socialist ruling bureaucracy transformed into nationalist advocates to survive the collapse of socialism, using national identity as a vehicle for self-preservation.
as “emancipatory leader”
A leader whose message is 'Yes you can,' urging subjects to transcend their limited particular destiny rather than imposing a paternalistic 'I know better' directive.
as “precarious work ideology”
The hegemonic ideology that frames precarious workers as small capitalists, suggesting they have total freedom to make life choices, thereby masking systemic domination.
The paradox that individuals are most enslaved to the system when they perceive themselves as free consumerist individuals making trivial choices.
The Kantian idea that true freedom is not relaxation or consumer choice, but strong self-discipline and ethical obligation.
The method of not accepting the premises of an opponent's question (e.g., 'Are Jews like that?') but shifting the focus to why the antagonism exists (e.g., 'Why is the figure of the Jew needed?').
Stories he reaches for 10
King Charles (then Prince) presided over a summit that produced 'absolutely practically nothing,' illustrating the failure of symbolic global action.
“Prince now King Charles was there doing everything 'All that matters five minutes to twelve, we have to do,' and absolutely practically nothing came out of it.”
The apocryphal story where Napoleon crowns himself, and the Pope remarks that Napoleon wants to destroy Christianity, which the Church has failed to do for years.
“The Pope told him 'I know Sire what you want, to destroy Christianity. Believe me, we the Church are trying to do this for years and and we didn't succeed.'”
Žižek cites Assange's book on Google to show the concrete connection between digital mega-companies and American secret services, preventing liberal hypocrisy.
“The second role... is his book about Google, where he shows up how deeply connected these new digital mega companies... are with American secret services”
Žižek contrasts Trump as a 'postmodern relativist' with Sanders, who he argues embodies the 'silent majority' and 'moral decency' without cheap subversion.
“If there ever was a person who... embodies a silent majority with its simple ordinary people moral decency and so on, it's Bernie Sanders.”
Žižek personifies the Q&A format as 'Comrade Stalin,' who 'doesn't like it' and is 'bugging him,' suggesting the democratic game is oppressive.
“It's comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin, yeah. No, no, seriously.”
Žižek imagines debating an anti-Semite who claims Jews dominate art criticism or seduce German girls. Žižek argues the problem isn't verifying these claims, but why the Nazi identity needs the figure of the Jew.
“The problem is not are Jews really like that? The problem is why did the Nazis to sustain their sense identity need a figure like a Jew?”
Žižek rejects the 'Balkan is complex' myth, arguing nationalism was a simple survival tactic for the disintegrating socialist nomenclature.
“The big problem... socialism was disintegrating, the ruling... bureaucracy... knew its approaching its end. And the problem was how to reinvent itself to survive the fall of socialism. The answer was nationalism”
Žižek claims Descartes triggered a feminist movement among rich ladies who realized 'Cogito has no sex,' allowing them to claim equality with men.
“Descartes triggered among rich ladies... a great feminist movement... 'Cogito has no sex, we are finally equal with men.'”
Žižek uses Hitler as an example of 'absolute evil' that must be contextualized (Versailles, economic crisis) to understand its emergence, not to excuse it.
“Nazi anti-Semitism could have emerged in a very specific situation after World War One... This in no way means Hitler was partially justified.”
Rich regions in North America experienced extreme heat despite following ecological rules; the cause was global air circulation, proving local solutions fail without global coordination.
“The problem is that the global, the disturbance in the global circulation of air around the northern hemisphere produced that effect.”
Works invoked 12
Bhagavad Gita book
Described by Žižek as 'one of the nastiest books' used by Himmler to justify genocide while remaining 'decent.'
Oppenheimer film
Used to discuss the Bhagavad Gita; Žižek finds the scene with Florence Pugh 'good material' for the director's cut.
Sloterdijk’s 'mega bestseller' which Žižek cites for turning Marx’s formula on its head regarding modern cynical knowledge.
Discourse on Method book
Cited as the source of Descartes' reflection on cultural relativization, which Žižek sees as the beginning of Enlightenment.
Cited as the other great Marxist corpus text, representing the mature Marx.
Cited as one of the two great Marxist corpus texts, representing the 'later Marx'.
By David Graeber; Žižek agrees with the terms but disagrees with the idealization of the Inca Empire.
The Prestige film
Cited as Christopher Nolan’s 'favorite' and a 'brilliant film.'
Slow Down book
By Kohei Saito; Žižek disagrees with the solution of 'taking it easier' or permanent self-dynamic exploration.
Cited to show the concrete connection between digital mega-companies (Google) and American secret services, revealing the 'informational complex.'
Described as Marx's early text, using anti-Semitic clichés, and considered by Žižek to be 'not Marx at his best'.
UNICEF books book
Described as 'pathetic' and 'disgusting' examples of 'we are all one humanity' that would upset Jordan Peterson.
People invoked 39
Mentioned briefly in the context of the Cheka/Soviet leadership demographics (ASR fragment 'none other than Fidel').
Janet Yellen positive
Cited as the US Finance Minister who proposed pragmatic global economic measures (global profit/tax) to prevent capital flight.
Juliano Mer-Khamis positive
A 'big Jewish-Palestinian actor and cultural' figure assassinated by Palestinian hardliners for cultural collaboration with Israelis.
Slobodan Milošević negative
Žižek argues Milošević 'got it right' in understanding that nationalism was the nomenclature's survival strategy, but implies this is a cynical and destructive political maneuver.
Narendra Modi negative
Cited as copying the European nation-state model in India.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy positive
Described as a 'good friend' and 'excellent theorist of catastrophes'; his work on retroactive necessity is central to Žižek’s argument.
Assange's partner, mentioned in the context of the glass wall preventing them from meeting physically during his detention.
Haniyeh Eyvani negative
Cited for his 'horrible' statement that 'all that land is ours' and 'no place for you' [Jews], mirroring Israeli exclusionary rhetoric.
Described as a 'good friend' who died; Žižek agrees with his 'right terms' but disagrees with his idealization of the Inca Empire.
Itamar Ben-Gvir negative
Described as a 'potential terrorist and racist' condemned by Israeli courts, now running security, illustrating the danger of the current Israeli government.
Mahmoud Abbas negative
Criticized for making a 'very stupid thing' claiming Jews deserved the Holocaust; however, Žižek notes Palestinian intellectuals condemned him.
Referenced via the film Oppenheimer; the historical figure is used to discuss the Bhagavad Gita.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Praised for going to Switzerland to read Hegel after WWI, a move Žižek sees as what 'all decent later Marxists' should do.
Richard Wagner negative
Cited as an example of 19th-century anti-Semitism that claimed Jews had a 'secret longing for suicide' and were genetically degenerate.
Marek Edelman positive
Described as an 'absolute hero of the 20th century,' a Polish Jew, Bundist, and key figure in the Ghetto and Warsaw uprisings, later involved in Solidarność and supporting the Intifada.
The actress playing Oppenheimer’s lover in the film Oppenheimer, who asks him to read the Bhagavad Gita.
Described as 'not my favorite guy' and a 'cancer'; used as an example of how even right-wing leaders are forced to implement 'communist' emergency measures.
Yuval Noah Harari positive
Cited for his proposal that Palestinians should be allowed to live 'free dignified life' in the land controlled by Israel, as a path to peace.
Christopher Nolan positive
Director of Oppenheimer; Žižek calls him his 'favorite Christopher Nolan' and praises The Prestige.
Kohei Saito negative
Described as a 'good friend and very intelligent guy'; Žižek disagrees with his book 'Slow Down' and his eco-socialist approach.
Bernie Sanders positive
Žižek 'likes pretty much' Sanders, viewing him as embodying 'moral decency' and the 'silent majority,' contrasting him with Trump.
Julian Assange positive
Identified as a 21st-century hero for preventing liberal hypocrisy regarding state torture and exposing the Google-secret services complex.
T. S. Eliot positive
Cited as a conservative who provides the best definition of a true revolutionary break: a new work redefines the entire past.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan negative
Cited as copying the European nation-state model in Turkey.
Identified as a friend from the Balkans.
Heinrich Himmler negative
Identified as the Nazi who used the Bhagavad Gita as a manual to kill Jews while remaining 'decent.'
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Žižek mocks following Netanyahu, implying his policies are dangerous or misguided.
Peter Sloterdijk positive
Described as a 'conservative friend' and 'not an idiot'; Žižek learns from him and cites his 'Critique of Cynical Reason' and 'isolated globe' concept.
Walter Benjamin positive
Žižek 'loves him' and uses his metaphor of the undeveloped film shot to describe the current historical moment.
Jordan Peterson negative
Žižek mocks Peterson’s 'disgusting' UNICEF-style humanism and recounts Peterson’s 'crisis' and 'defeat' after their debate.
Joe Biden negative
Žižek states he has 'no illusions' about Biden, criticizing his political maneuvering regarding Israel as leading to 'catastrophe.'
Barack Obama negative
Mentioned as having used the term 'Yes you can' but 'misused it,' contrasting with the ideal emancipatory leader.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt positive
Cited for ordering industries to produce during WWII, pulling the US out of crisis without market logic.
Nelson Mandela positive
Cited as an example of an emancipatory leader whose message was 'Yes you can,' encouraging subjects to transcend their destiny.
Joseph Stalin negative
Used as a foil for the 'Stalinist' leader who says 'I know better than you,' contrasted with the emancipatory leader.
Noam Chomsky positive
Žižek is 'sympathetic' to Chomsky’s neo-anarchist views but notes Chomsky 'really hates' him, which 'shocks' Žižek.
Karl Marx negative
Žižek is 'beginning to get critical of Marx,' arguing that communism comes too close to capitalism without capital.
René Descartes positive
Praised as a 'good guy' who triggered a feminist movement and initiated Enlightenment thinking through relativization.
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited for the insight that 'Freedom is duty' and that freedom requires strong self-discipline, not relaxation.
Transcript 67 turns
unknown
Well welcome everyone. My name's Matt d'Ancona as you've just heard and it's fantastic to have this full house and I know many more joining us online. You know it's funny, I can't remember an event that I've chaired where so many people have asked me about it in advance and expressed real enthusiasm about our speaker, but actually it's no surprise because I mean one can go through his academic distinctions. Slavoj Žižek is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, senior researcher at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, and eminent scholar at the Kyung Hee University Seoul. He's written more than books in many languages. As he himself would say, blah blah, right? But I think no resume of his accomplishments captures the sheer excitement and intellectual power he has brought to the public space or his capacity to make ideas of immense erudition and complexity appealing to those who lack his philosophical abilities, which is to say pretty much everybody else. So thank you Slavoj, it's wonderful to see you and thank you all for joining us. In my KGB file private I
Well welcome everyone. My name's Matt d'Ancona as you've just heard and it's fantastic to have this full house and I know many more joining us online. You know it's funny, I can't remember an event that I've chaired where so many people have asked me about it in advance and expressed real enthusiasm about our speaker, but actually it's no surprise because I mean one can go through his academic distinctions. Slavoj Žižek is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, senior researcher at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, and eminent scholar at the Kyung Hee University Seoul. He's written more than books in many languages. As he himself would say, blah blah, right? But I think no resume of his accomplishments captures the sheer excitement and intellectual power he has brought to the public space or his capacity to make ideas of immense erudition and complexity appealing to those who lack his philosophical abilities, which is to say pretty much everybody else. So thank you Slavoj, it's wonderful to see you and thank you all for joining us. In my KGB file private I
Slavoj Žižek
also there is a dossier on you and it's a good one. I know
also there is a dossier on you and it's a good one. I know
unknown
about you. So when
about you. So when
Slavoj Žižek
we the people take over, the trains to Gulag will be full. If you behave properly you will not
we the people take over, the trains to Gulag will be full. If you behave properly you will not
unknown
be on them. I feel I should quit while I'm ahead. Okay, now we're going to be discussing his new book out this week, Too Late to Awaken: What Lies Ahead and When There Is No Future, which contains a paradox which we'll tease out. Slavoj and I will be talking for about minutes and then we'll move on to your questions and I'm keen to get as many questions as we can because I know everyone is dying to ask him about all sorts of things. So let's just dive in. The book begins with a paradox, I think anyway. Let me quote it. "What if the only way to prevent a catastrophe is to assume that it has already happened, that we're already five minutes past zero hour?" Explain. Elaborate.
be on them. I feel I should quit while I'm ahead. Okay, now we're going to be discussing his new book out this week, Too Late to Awaken: What Lies Ahead and When There Is No Future, which contains a paradox which we'll tease out. Slavoj and I will be talking for about minutes and then we'll move on to your questions and I'm keen to get as many questions as we can because I know everyone is dying to ask him about all sorts of things. So let's just dive in. The book begins with a paradox, I think anyway. Let me quote it. "What if the only way to prevent a catastrophe is to assume that it has already happened, that we're already five minutes past zero hour?" Explain. Elaborate.
Slavoj Žižek
Where did you find this in my book? My god. No, quite seriously, yes, I know. No, you know what's my idea, and here I refer to, I implore you to read him, my good friend, an excellent theorist of catastrophes, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, D-U-P-U-Y, who circulates between Paris and Santa Cruz I think. His idea is precisely this one, and he has, although he is a left winger, he proposes even beautiful right-wing successful strategy examples like I remember after the Helsinki Agreements in the seventies, with Soviet Union signed that it will respect human rights and so on, there was a disorder in the West, people claiming "No, we capitulated, the Cold War is over, Soviet Union won." No, it was precisely the opposite. It worked. That is to say, some the way to, what does it mean to accept that a catastrophe already happened? It's something, sorry, I have to go very briefly if I can into some kind of elementary theory or philosophy. Every present situation involves, includes its own past and its own future. And I shamelessly here quote all the time one line from TS Eliot, a conservative who gives the best definition that I know of what a true revolutionary break means, no? He says that a really true new work of art doesn't only make a cut with the past, he changes, redefines the entire past. Okay, I will not get lost here in quoting the old examples of how each epoch reinvents its own Shakespeare and it's too easy to say no, we just project our traumas into it. No, what if Shakespeare in himself was not a fully fixed totality? But it was a text open towards the future so that we again, there are literally open spaces in Shakespeare, which means that we are maybe in a much better position than Shakespeare from later time to see what Shakespeare wanted to say or whatever you want. So Dupuy's idea is for me profoundly Hegelian one, but for some idiots not, that the future is open in the sense that something happens contingently but once it happens it retroactively creates its own necessity. Things retroactively become necessary. I will not lose time now in old examples that I like, for example, my eternal example is of course love. How you fall in love for a series of reasons. But you see these reasons only after you already fall in love. Love is never this type of external comparing. I like your, sorry for, I will try to be abstract, I like your hair, your smile, your legs. Oh, and let's make a list. Oh, you have three points, you only two, I fall in love with you. No! Only once you are already in love, you fall in, once you already, the term "fall" is here crucial. It's fall, a cut. You retroactively create reasons. And I think that today, so okay, sorry very briefly, back to Dupuy. He thinks that today we are in such an open situation. He thinks, that's the key to that cheap paradox, it's not simply there are still different options. No, there are literally different necessities. If we follow the way things are going, and also on the first page already I introduced this distinction which works only in French and some other languages, not in German, not in English, between futur and avenir. Futur is future, it's more or less continuation of what goes on. If it just goes on the way it is then I think we are lost. We need avenir, something a break, something new to come. Otherwise, and we can talk about this afterwards, for example, if you try to think about the ongoing Gaza Israel war in the terms of simple futur, it can only end in a catastrophe for both sides. There are now already clear signs of anti-Semitism exploding, of anti-Islamism and so on and so on. It will be a catastrophe. It may well end in what is an absolute nightmare for me, that Jews, the great victims of European Holocaust, will become for a new third world young generation the symbol of oppression and colonization so that anti-Semitism will become one of the big words of this fake new left. So what I am saying is that the catastrophe happens already means that if we take the existing order the way it is, the catastrophe is clearly inscribed into it at the level of immigration, military conflicts, ecology, artificial intelligence and so on and so on. So I follow here Dupuy who claims it's not enough to think in this old paradigm of "Oh, there is still time, five minutes to noon, we can make choices." No, the future is already written into our fate. But we can change our fate. I think what can save us is a much more radical change. You may say now you are dreaming. No, I'm not, although I what we need is a similar procedure but not what he is doing, like you probably all read that big bestseller from David Graeber who unfortunately died, The Dawn of Everything or whatever. I unfortunately don't agree with his idealization of the Inca Empire and so on. But he is thinking in the right terms. The only way to open a path to a different future is to begin by rewriting the past radically. We are within the narrative that we are telling ourselves. If we remain within this narrative we are lost. And not to take too much time, I'm sorry, here I also am beginning to get critical of Marx himself. I think to put it in very brutal terms that for Marx, very brutally, I develop this in some of my old books, communism comes too close to capitalism without capital, without capitalism. He still thinks in this term of capitalist self-propelling dynamics, he just thinks that we are now at a stage where if we abolish capital order we will get capitalist dynamics at its purest. I don't agree with this but at the same time, and that's my the difficulty, I disagree with my you should read him, good friend and very intelligent guy, Kohei Saito, the Japanese eco-socialist who the title of his last book "Slow Down" says it all. I don't think this is the solution. He simply thinks you know take it easier, step out into this permanent self-dynamic self-exploration. We have really to make not so much a revolution in the sense of killing millions or whatever, you know, but a revolution in the sense of changing, rewriting the entire past. Let me give you an example here and then I will stop. I don't mean I mean imagine a world, it's quite possible, where in a worldwide catastrophe Europe loses and then another narrative emerges. And please don't misunderstand me here, I am very open towards the Palestinian suffering and so on. But in this narrative which is I think a false anti-colonial narrative, Holocaust becomes a minor European, you remember that obscene debate a year or two ago between some anti-post-colonialist and some focused on Holocaust where one side said Holocaust is the absolute crime, don't even compare it with colonialism, the other side says no, Holocaust is a minor European story, the true horror is colonialism. I think the moment we think in these terms we are lost. Both are in their own way incomparable horrors. We should avoid this when you you know sometimes as a rule opposites or what appear as opposites can all be terrifyingly brutally wrong. This is why to go to the topic which we will leave to the end generally, you know, what I really hate is the logic of and you hear it on both sides. Some leftists say "Yeah, yeah, maybe Palestinians are some Palestinians a little bit anti-Semitic, but look what Israel is doing to them, they have a right to be." On the other hand, some Zionists are saying "Look, yeah, it's not nice what Israel is doing there but think about Holocaust, it's practically justified." My claim is that the moment you accept this logic you've sold your soul to the devil. If we don't accept that fighting anti-Semitism and fighting for, not Hamas, but let's call it dignified life for West Bank Palestinians must be part of the same struggle. The moment you think about this in the term of the choices, you know, it's over. So again, back to this point, I think that you know this wonderful metaphor of Walter Benjamin and I love him, why? Because a couple of years ago there was some anniversary of Benjamin and with some friends of mine I collaborated and organized, this was a wonderful event, a colloquium on Walter Benjamin, a Jewish thinker in Ramallah, West Bank! And it was a miracle, you know. Palestinians, Israelis, others debating. Walter Benjamin says something wonderful. He said that a new work of art is sometimes like a film, a shot on a film, for which the developing chemical has not yet been invented. And you see, I didn't lose my thread, immediately back and then I stop, I said I think now for the fourth or fifth time and then I stop, no? Yeah and that this is our moment today. Imagine that a new post-European culture will emerge in which Holocaust will effectively be limited to "Yes, some bad things happened there, who cares, we won the anti-colonial struggle" and so on and so on and so on. Here to provoke you I'm very sorry but today precisely when everybody likes to shit on Europe I'm more and more becoming pro-European. Yes I'm aware of all the horrors that Europe did, colonialism and so on but name me a better or even another serious conceptual apparatus to criticize precisely what went wrong in Europe which is not already embedded in European legacy of Enlightenment. It has an auto-correct facility. Sorry? It has an auto-correct facility. Yeah! and it's quite unique in this, I think. Let's ask another big question. You talk a lot in the book about war communism as a binding concept. Ah this is a tough one, no? Well you know you did ask me to be Stalin so you know. Absolutely, comrade. So what is war communism? Something very simple. I think and we may disagree, people usually yes react in a much more rude way than you did kindly, they say "Are you crazy, what do you mean by this?" And I tell them very simply. We in Western Europe and up to a point United States, incidentally United States is a true cancer today, what is going on with United States is that you know I'm here a communist conservative in it's not madness, in the sense that the base of our lives should be, our social lives, some elementary social pact of unwritten rules how we decently treat each other and for me the symptomatic point much worse than Trump. I'm such a pessimist about United States that I'm almost tempted to say maybe if guys like DeSantis but he is now happily F three points off, but this new guy Mike Johnson. If guys like this win, we will have nostalgia for Trump, I'm telling you. Bring back Trump is all we can say. Sorry? Bring back Trump is all we're saying. Yeah because you know he is if you read not just what he says but the implicit unwritten presuppositions of what he he's openly against democracy, his message is theocracy. It's horror. So what I'm saying is that in this situation we are confronting troubles. Which troubles? Ecology. Where I am also not the short-term pessimist. I'm well aware how science is uncertain here. You know, for example, I'm old enough I remember years ago around, a big topic in Germany was Waldsterben, the dying of forests, and there were predictions at that point there will be no forests in Europe and so on. So they are making many mistakes and I agree with those who say also don't focus too much on up on global warming sun, the true worry should perhaps be down in oceans what is coming but I think that we are approaching not a singular catastrophe but some kind of a generalized disorder. What do I mean by this? I read a very intelligent analysis where they claim we have a too optimistic idea of global warming. We think "Okay, temperatures will will go up for degrees and then it will be tougher, maybe this part of London will be already under water," the idea is that Hampstead up there, buy land there if you have money, that it will be the new coast, very nice, no? But what I'm saying is that it's like tougher for us but nonetheless a new stability. Many scientists are claiming something much more dangerous. What if and there are natural processes which are organized like this, what if there will not be a new
Where did you find this in my book? My god. No, quite seriously, yes, I know. No, you know what's my idea, and here I refer to, I implore you to read him, my good friend, an excellent theorist of catastrophes, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, D-U-P-U-Y, who circulates between Paris and Santa Cruz I think. His idea is precisely this one, and he has, although he is a left winger, he proposes even beautiful right-wing successful strategy examples like I remember after the Helsinki Agreements in the seventies, with Soviet Union signed that it will respect human rights and so on, there was a disorder in the West, people claiming "No, we capitulated, the Cold War is over, Soviet Union won." No, it was precisely the opposite. It worked. That is to say, some the way to, what does it mean to accept that a catastrophe already happened? It's something, sorry, I have to go very briefly if I can into some kind of elementary theory or philosophy. Every present situation involves, includes its own past and its own future. And I shamelessly here quote all the time one line from TS Eliot, a conservative who gives the best definition that I know of what a true revolutionary break means, no? He says that a really true new work of art doesn't only make a cut with the past, he changes, redefines the entire past. Okay, I will not get lost here in quoting the old examples of how each epoch reinvents its own Shakespeare and it's too easy to say no, we just project our traumas into it. No, what if Shakespeare in himself was not a fully fixed totality? But it was a text open towards the future so that we again, there are literally open spaces in Shakespeare, which means that we are maybe in a much better position than Shakespeare from later time to see what Shakespeare wanted to say or whatever you want. So Dupuy's idea is for me profoundly Hegelian one, but for some idiots not, that the future is open in the sense that something happens contingently but once it happens it retroactively creates its own necessity. Things retroactively become necessary. I will not lose time now in old examples that I like, for example, my eternal example is of course love. How you fall in love for a series of reasons. But you see these reasons only after you already fall in love. Love is never this type of external comparing. I like your, sorry for, I will try to be abstract, I like your hair, your smile, your legs. Oh, and let's make a list. Oh, you have three points, you only two, I fall in love with you. No! Only once you are already in love, you fall in, once you already, the term "fall" is here crucial. It's fall, a cut. You retroactively create reasons. And I think that today, so okay, sorry very briefly, back to Dupuy. He thinks that today we are in such an open situation. He thinks, that's the key to that cheap paradox, it's not simply there are still different options. No, there are literally different necessities. If we follow the way things are going, and also on the first page already I introduced this distinction which works only in French and some other languages, not in German, not in English, between futur and avenir. Futur is future, it's more or less continuation of what goes on. If it just goes on the way it is then I think we are lost. We need avenir, something a break, something new to come. Otherwise, and we can talk about this afterwards, for example, if you try to think about the ongoing Gaza Israel war in the terms of simple futur, it can only end in a catastrophe for both sides. There are now already clear signs of anti-Semitism exploding, of anti-Islamism and so on and so on. It will be a catastrophe. It may well end in what is an absolute nightmare for me, that Jews, the great victims of European Holocaust, will become for a new third world young generation the symbol of oppression and colonization so that anti-Semitism will become one of the big words of this fake new left. So what I am saying is that the catastrophe happens already means that if we take the existing order the way it is, the catastrophe is clearly inscribed into it at the level of immigration, military conflicts, ecology, artificial intelligence and so on and so on. So I follow here Dupuy who claims it's not enough to think in this old paradigm of "Oh, there is still time, five minutes to noon, we can make choices." No, the future is already written into our fate. But we can change our fate. I think what can save us is a much more radical change. You may say now you are dreaming. No, I'm not, although I what we need is a similar procedure but not what he is doing, like you probably all read that big bestseller from David Graeber who unfortunately died, The Dawn of Everything or whatever. I unfortunately don't agree with his idealization of the Inca Empire and so on. But he is thinking in the right terms. The only way to open a path to a different future is to begin by rewriting the past radically. We are within the narrative that we are telling ourselves. If we remain within this narrative we are lost. And not to take too much time, I'm sorry, here I also am beginning to get critical of Marx himself. I think to put it in very brutal terms that for Marx, very brutally, I develop this in some of my old books, communism comes too close to capitalism without capital, without capitalism. He still thinks in this term of capitalist self-propelling dynamics, he just thinks that we are now at a stage where if we abolish capital order we will get capitalist dynamics at its purest. I don't agree with this but at the same time, and that's my the difficulty, I disagree with my you should read him, good friend and very intelligent guy, Kohei Saito, the Japanese eco-socialist who the title of his last book "Slow Down" says it all. I don't think this is the solution. He simply thinks you know take it easier, step out into this permanent self-dynamic self-exploration. We have really to make not so much a revolution in the sense of killing millions or whatever, you know, but a revolution in the sense of changing, rewriting the entire past. Let me give you an example here and then I will stop. I don't mean I mean imagine a world, it's quite possible, where in a worldwide catastrophe Europe loses and then another narrative emerges. And please don't misunderstand me here, I am very open towards the Palestinian suffering and so on. But in this narrative which is I think a false anti-colonial narrative, Holocaust becomes a minor European, you remember that obscene debate a year or two ago between some anti-post-colonialist and some focused on Holocaust where one side said Holocaust is the absolute crime, don't even compare it with colonialism, the other side says no, Holocaust is a minor European story, the true horror is colonialism. I think the moment we think in these terms we are lost. Both are in their own way incomparable horrors. We should avoid this when you you know sometimes as a rule opposites or what appear as opposites can all be terrifyingly brutally wrong. This is why to go to the topic which we will leave to the end generally, you know, what I really hate is the logic of and you hear it on both sides. Some leftists say "Yeah, yeah, maybe Palestinians are some Palestinians a little bit anti-Semitic, but look what Israel is doing to them, they have a right to be." On the other hand, some Zionists are saying "Look, yeah, it's not nice what Israel is doing there but think about Holocaust, it's practically justified." My claim is that the moment you accept this logic you've sold your soul to the devil. If we don't accept that fighting anti-Semitism and fighting for, not Hamas, but let's call it dignified life for West Bank Palestinians must be part of the same struggle. The moment you think about this in the term of the choices, you know, it's over. So again, back to this point, I think that you know this wonderful metaphor of Walter Benjamin and I love him, why? Because a couple of years ago there was some anniversary of Benjamin and with some friends of mine I collaborated and organized, this was a wonderful event, a colloquium on Walter Benjamin, a Jewish thinker in Ramallah, West Bank! And it was a miracle, you know. Palestinians, Israelis, others debating. Walter Benjamin says something wonderful. He said that a new work of art is sometimes like a film, a shot on a film, for which the developing chemical has not yet been invented. And you see, I didn't lose my thread, immediately back and then I stop, I said I think now for the fourth or fifth time and then I stop, no? Yeah and that this is our moment today. Imagine that a new post-European culture will emerge in which Holocaust will effectively be limited to "Yes, some bad things happened there, who cares, we won the anti-colonial struggle" and so on and so on and so on. Here to provoke you I'm very sorry but today precisely when everybody likes to shit on Europe I'm more and more becoming pro-European. Yes I'm aware of all the horrors that Europe did, colonialism and so on but name me a better or even another serious conceptual apparatus to criticize precisely what went wrong in Europe which is not already embedded in European legacy of Enlightenment. It has an auto-correct facility. Sorry? It has an auto-correct facility. Yeah! and it's quite unique in this, I think. Let's ask another big question. You talk a lot in the book about war communism as a binding concept. Ah this is a tough one, no? Well you know you did ask me to be Stalin so you know. Absolutely, comrade. So what is war communism? Something very simple. I think and we may disagree, people usually yes react in a much more rude way than you did kindly, they say "Are you crazy, what do you mean by this?" And I tell them very simply. We in Western Europe and up to a point United States, incidentally United States is a true cancer today, what is going on with United States is that you know I'm here a communist conservative in it's not madness, in the sense that the base of our lives should be, our social lives, some elementary social pact of unwritten rules how we decently treat each other and for me the symptomatic point much worse than Trump. I'm such a pessimist about United States that I'm almost tempted to say maybe if guys like DeSantis but he is now happily F three points off, but this new guy Mike Johnson. If guys like this win, we will have nostalgia for Trump, I'm telling you. Bring back Trump is all we can say. Sorry? Bring back Trump is all we're saying. Yeah because you know he is if you read not just what he says but the implicit unwritten presuppositions of what he he's openly against democracy, his message is theocracy. It's horror. So what I'm saying is that in this situation we are confronting troubles. Which troubles? Ecology. Where I am also not the short-term pessimist. I'm well aware how science is uncertain here. You know, for example, I'm old enough I remember years ago around, a big topic in Germany was Waldsterben, the dying of forests, and there were predictions at that point there will be no forests in Europe and so on. So they are making many mistakes and I agree with those who say also don't focus too much on up on global warming sun, the true worry should perhaps be down in oceans what is coming but I think that we are approaching not a singular catastrophe but some kind of a generalized disorder. What do I mean by this? I read a very intelligent analysis where they claim we have a too optimistic idea of global warming. We think "Okay, temperatures will will go up for degrees and then it will be tougher, maybe this part of London will be already under water," the idea is that Hampstead up there, buy land there if you have money, that it will be the new coast, very nice, no? But what I'm saying is that it's like tougher for us but nonetheless a new stability. Many scientists are claiming something much more dangerous. What if and there are natural processes which are organized like this, what if there will not be a new
unknown
stability but imagine a new weather pattern where there will simply be sometime no summer, then
stability but imagine a new weather pattern where there will simply be sometime no summer, then
Slavoj Žižek
summer for a longer time, chaotic
summer for a longer time, chaotic
unknown
weather and so on. We have this. We have artificial intelligence. And I don't share the common stupid fears about it. They are
weather and so on. We have this. We have artificial intelligence. And I don't share the common stupid fears about it. They are
Slavoj Žižek
way too optimistic, you know, either we will become parts of the machine or the one where I
way too optimistic, you know, either we will become parts of the machine or the one where I
unknown
become defender of death penalty, you know, the idiots this new age singularity idiots
become defender of death penalty, you know, the idiots this new age singularity idiots
Slavoj Žižek
who claim we will merge with the new singularity of intelligence, we will directly become unified with God and so on, no? It's practically the I have great respect for India. Just don't mention me the name Bhagavad Gita. Because you saw the movie sorry I'm repeating myself a little bit but did you see the movie Oppenheimer? You remember at the beginning when Oppenheimer is screwing Florence Pugh, the you remember that she asked him or he her I forgot to read Bhagavad Gita. She asks him. She takes the book off the shelf and says "Read it." Yeah but the usual then Indians Hindus there exploded "Yes! dirty thing like sex they spoiled it with the most sacred book!" My opinion is the opposite one. Beautiful act of sex and they spoiled it with one of the nastiest books that you can imagine. A book which I'm repeating this all the time here which do you know that this was Heinrich Himmler's sacred book? Heinrich Himmler, the Nazi, asked himself how can we SS do the horrible thing we have to do for Germany, kill all the Jews, children, women and remain decent. His answer was Bhagavad Gita. This lesson of how don't
who claim we will merge with the new singularity of intelligence, we will directly become unified with God and so on, no? It's practically the I have great respect for India. Just don't mention me the name Bhagavad Gita. Because you saw the movie sorry I'm repeating myself a little bit but did you see the movie Oppenheimer? You remember at the beginning when Oppenheimer is screwing Florence Pugh, the you remember that she asked him or he her I forgot to read Bhagavad Gita. She asks him. She takes the book off the shelf and says "Read it." Yeah but the usual then Indians Hindus there exploded "Yes! dirty thing like sex they spoiled it with the most sacred book!" My opinion is the opposite one. Beautiful act of sex and they spoiled it with one of the nastiest books that you can imagine. A book which I'm repeating this all the time here which do you know that this was Heinrich Himmler's sacred book? Heinrich Himmler, the Nazi, asked himself how can we SS do the horrible thing we have to do for Germany, kill all the Jews, children, women and remain decent. His answer was Bhagavad Gita. This lesson of how don't
unknown
get identified with your acts but act with
get identified with your acts but act with
Slavoj Žižek
a... I think this is all good material for Christopher Nolan for the director's cut, isn't it really? I mean he needs to cut this scene out by the sound of it, it's really... I know, I know. Yeah, yeah, okay, let's not get lost into it because my favorite Christopher Nolan is The Prestige. Did you see that one about...? It's a brilliant film. That's a brilliant one, no? But okay, just I will finish directly. I think we have a whole series of what Dupuy calls fixed point, if things go on like they go on we are approaching some kind of catastrophic point. And to confront this properly we will need when I say war communism I don't mean happy communist affluence, I mean something pretty pessimistic. I think that without any panic we should prepare for new modes of emergency state. What if there is a global disaster here, a civil war there, how to react? Not in a panic but to prevent the horrible possibility that the fascists will do it for us. The fascists are always good at using these situations. So this is all I mean and when people ask me "But you must be crazy, this cannot happen," I told them well when even Donald Trump was forced to do this. You know what I mean by war communism? Trump. Not my favorite guy but remember what he had to do during the epidemic. Every family got a check for dollars and so on and so on. This was communist measure in the simple sense that a concern for welfare of the being led even Donald Trump to do things which clearly violate all the market rules. And the result should be very interesting for us if we still are some kind of leftists. The result is that how false are those standard predictions, you know "Oh if you do this or that, if you raise taxes a little bit there will be an economic catastrophe." No! Incredible things happened and there was no economic catastrophe. This gives me hope. We can, we can afford measures which are from the ruling market ideology a catastrophe and we can survive it. And so this is what I mean simply by war communism. No panic, but we have to prepare for extraordinary circumstances. And even Trump did another thing, sorry, which was done under Roosevelt, you know, this idea that when there is an urgency, for example, during World War Two, Franklin FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't just leave it to the market. He ordered certain industries produce this, that. The result was not a catastrophe, you know that only the World War Two really pulled United States out of the crisis. Late thirties it was still crisis. I'm not saying we need a new world war but what I am saying is that there will be new emergency states and we should prepare to deal with them in an open transparent way but in the spirit of global solidarity. Because and I'm not, don't mean this in an empty way, I think that the horror of what is going today is that some third world countries are taking from Europe precisely the worst part of European
a... I think this is all good material for Christopher Nolan for the director's cut, isn't it really? I mean he needs to cut this scene out by the sound of it, it's really... I know, I know. Yeah, yeah, okay, let's not get lost into it because my favorite Christopher Nolan is The Prestige. Did you see that one about...? It's a brilliant film. That's a brilliant one, no? But okay, just I will finish directly. I think we have a whole series of what Dupuy calls fixed point, if things go on like they go on we are approaching some kind of catastrophic point. And to confront this properly we will need when I say war communism I don't mean happy communist affluence, I mean something pretty pessimistic. I think that without any panic we should prepare for new modes of emergency state. What if there is a global disaster here, a civil war there, how to react? Not in a panic but to prevent the horrible possibility that the fascists will do it for us. The fascists are always good at using these situations. So this is all I mean and when people ask me "But you must be crazy, this cannot happen," I told them well when even Donald Trump was forced to do this. You know what I mean by war communism? Trump. Not my favorite guy but remember what he had to do during the epidemic. Every family got a check for dollars and so on and so on. This was communist measure in the simple sense that a concern for welfare of the being led even Donald Trump to do things which clearly violate all the market rules. And the result should be very interesting for us if we still are some kind of leftists. The result is that how false are those standard predictions, you know "Oh if you do this or that, if you raise taxes a little bit there will be an economic catastrophe." No! Incredible things happened and there was no economic catastrophe. This gives me hope. We can, we can afford measures which are from the ruling market ideology a catastrophe and we can survive it. And so this is what I mean simply by war communism. No panic, but we have to prepare for extraordinary circumstances. And even Trump did another thing, sorry, which was done under Roosevelt, you know, this idea that when there is an urgency, for example, during World War Two, Franklin FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't just leave it to the market. He ordered certain industries produce this, that. The result was not a catastrophe, you know that only the World War Two really pulled United States out of the crisis. Late thirties it was still crisis. I'm not saying we need a new world war but what I am saying is that there will be new emergency states and we should prepare to deal with them in an open transparent way but in the spirit of global solidarity. Because and I'm not, don't mean this in an empty way, I think that the horror of what is going today is that some third world countries are taking from Europe precisely the worst part of European
unknown
legacy which is strong ethnically based nation state.
legacy which is strong ethnically based nation state.
Slavoj Žižek
That's how I read slowly even as far as I know China today, why are they screwing up Uyghurs, Tibetans? It's clearly the they the more they claim they are against Eurocentric domination they are copying, following the European nation state model. It's the same in India, what Modi is doing. It's the same in Turkey with Erdogan. Never forget this. In the last centuries Turkish empire, whatever it is, what Sultan was, was a relatively very decentralized and the ones who did all the horrors, you remember the Armenian genocide? It was the Young Turks who wanted to modernize Turkey along the lines of the European nation state. So all I
That's how I read slowly even as far as I know China today, why are they screwing up Uyghurs, Tibetans? It's clearly the they the more they claim they are against Eurocentric domination they are copying, following the European nation state model. It's the same in India, what Modi is doing. It's the same in Turkey with Erdogan. Never forget this. In the last centuries Turkish empire, whatever it is, what Sultan was, was a relatively very decentralized and the ones who did all the horrors, you remember the Armenian genocide? It was the Young Turks who wanted to modernize Turkey along the lines of the European nation state. So all I
unknown
mean by war communism is let's get ready in an organized way for new unpredictable but we know where they
mean by war communism is let's get ready in an organized way for new unpredictable but we know where they
Slavoj Žižek
will come from emergency states. So so one of the things
will come from emergency states. So so one of the things
unknown
that you say in the book and I know you've talked
that you say in the book and I know you've talked
Slavoj Žižek
about a little bit before, you're deeply sympathetic to the social justice movements we've seen in the last years or so, you have great sympathy for their ideals. But you think that they are a distraction from the bigger project which you talk about we the problem is we don't have enough globalization, we don't have enough change in our socio and economic... and so what what the right call "woke-ery", a term I don't like but that's what they call it, is in in your view a distraction, is that correct? Yeah, but not but let me be very precise here. I'm not saying that the struggle for gay rights and feminine female rights or whatever you call them is in itself a distraction. I'm criticizing the specific way it is it is practiced. Apropos globalization, you know, the catastrophe today I think it's not globalization, it's globalization which my conservative friend but he is not an idiot, the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, he put it very nicely. He said that we live in a globe which is isolated. It's just from inside, you don't see, you don't see the limit. It's like transparent glass, we don't even perceive those who are outside and why am I for globalization? The the left was right traditional social democracy, although it's the best thing probably that we had, no longer fully works, so-called really existing socialism no longer really works. Now there are guys I'm sympathetic towards them, although one of them Noam Chomsky really hates me, which always shocks me, I have nothing against him, but you know, they are secretly or more and more openly neo-anarchists. They said "No, states screw everything up, we need gradual unification from low low level initiatives." I always, I'm sorry if you know it, evoke another example here. You remember some of you maybe know this example of mine, was it two years and a half ago I think, the great summer heat in Northern California, southern part of Western Canada, Seattle, Vancouver. For a couple of weeks temperatures there were around degrees Celsius. It was warmer there than in Mumbai and Arab Emirates. Now there the approach has to be global. You cannot blame them, these are rich part who followed all the usual ecological rules. The problem is not what they were doing. The problem is that the global, the disturbance in the global circulation of air around the northern hemisphere produced that effect. Even to approach the problem we have to have a global approach. We need globalization. And here capitalism is strong. I don't have any illusions about Biden. Incidentally, I have friends who have friends who have friends who are in the White House and I learned, you know why Biden reacted the way he did, it was not nice, because Jews will will pay the price, apropos Israeli war. He thought "I'm perceived as senile, weak and so on, so let me appear a strong guy warrior and let's get Jews on my side." I think this will lead to a catastrophe. But what I want to say is that nonetheless, for example, one of the first, so you will not say that I'm not a realist, economic measures which were debated, but of course nothing came out of it, and the finance minister, I don't know how she's called officially of of Biden, Janet Yellen, proposed the key is some kind of global profit, you know to prevent this, the capital if the interest rates are higher here or profit rates and so on. Quite pragmatic measures like this which could be done. So again the key is not one big world government. That would be, would you agree, unimaginable corruption unfortunately, no? But some kind of unification. And not just this pathetic unification, you know, like "Oh we are all one humanity," this sounds like this disgusting when I was young there were these published UNICEF books about human culture. It would upset Jordan Peterson, which has that on its side. Yeah but you know what happened with Peterson? I'm proud to say while I debated him he privately to me then conceded defeat, no? And then he was in a deep crisis and
about a little bit before, you're deeply sympathetic to the social justice movements we've seen in the last years or so, you have great sympathy for their ideals. But you think that they are a distraction from the bigger project which you talk about we the problem is we don't have enough globalization, we don't have enough change in our socio and economic... and so what what the right call "woke-ery", a term I don't like but that's what they call it, is in in your view a distraction, is that correct? Yeah, but not but let me be very precise here. I'm not saying that the struggle for gay rights and feminine female rights or whatever you call them is in itself a distraction. I'm criticizing the specific way it is it is practiced. Apropos globalization, you know, the catastrophe today I think it's not globalization, it's globalization which my conservative friend but he is not an idiot, the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, he put it very nicely. He said that we live in a globe which is isolated. It's just from inside, you don't see, you don't see the limit. It's like transparent glass, we don't even perceive those who are outside and why am I for globalization? The the left was right traditional social democracy, although it's the best thing probably that we had, no longer fully works, so-called really existing socialism no longer really works. Now there are guys I'm sympathetic towards them, although one of them Noam Chomsky really hates me, which always shocks me, I have nothing against him, but you know, they are secretly or more and more openly neo-anarchists. They said "No, states screw everything up, we need gradual unification from low low level initiatives." I always, I'm sorry if you know it, evoke another example here. You remember some of you maybe know this example of mine, was it two years and a half ago I think, the great summer heat in Northern California, southern part of Western Canada, Seattle, Vancouver. For a couple of weeks temperatures there were around degrees Celsius. It was warmer there than in Mumbai and Arab Emirates. Now there the approach has to be global. You cannot blame them, these are rich part who followed all the usual ecological rules. The problem is not what they were doing. The problem is that the global, the disturbance in the global circulation of air around the northern hemisphere produced that effect. Even to approach the problem we have to have a global approach. We need globalization. And here capitalism is strong. I don't have any illusions about Biden. Incidentally, I have friends who have friends who have friends who are in the White House and I learned, you know why Biden reacted the way he did, it was not nice, because Jews will will pay the price, apropos Israeli war. He thought "I'm perceived as senile, weak and so on, so let me appear a strong guy warrior and let's get Jews on my side." I think this will lead to a catastrophe. But what I want to say is that nonetheless, for example, one of the first, so you will not say that I'm not a realist, economic measures which were debated, but of course nothing came out of it, and the finance minister, I don't know how she's called officially of of Biden, Janet Yellen, proposed the key is some kind of global profit, you know to prevent this, the capital if the interest rates are higher here or profit rates and so on. Quite pragmatic measures like this which could be done. So again the key is not one big world government. That would be, would you agree, unimaginable corruption unfortunately, no? But some kind of unification. And not just this pathetic unification, you know, like "Oh we are all one humanity," this sounds like this disgusting when I was young there were these published UNICEF books about human culture. It would upset Jordan Peterson, which has that on its side. Yeah but you know what happened with Peterson? I'm proud to say while I debated him he privately to me then conceded defeat, no? And then he was in a deep crisis and
unknown
then I don't know what were doing. But he's been in a deep 45-year long crisis, I mean, you know. Yeah, but but yes, yes, he really eats only only red meat, half raw and so on, all that madness. But the point is that at that point of the debate after me about with me, he still I think at least drew attention to some correct problems. Like I liked his point against this perception of self-victimization. I don't think the strategy of those who are exploited, corrupted and so on should be you know no, this competition of victims, who is more victim and so on and so on. On the
then I don't know what were doing. But he's been in a deep 45-year long crisis, I mean, you know. Yeah, but but yes, yes, he really eats only only red meat, half raw and so on, all that madness. But the point is that at that point of the debate after me about with me, he still I think at least drew attention to some correct problems. Like I liked his point against this perception of self-victimization. I don't think the strategy of those who are exploited, corrupted and so on should be you know no, this competition of victims, who is more victim and so on and so on. On the
Slavoj Žižek
contrary, the lower classes should adopt a much more active, active self-asserting stance and so on and so on. Then he was for some time in a crisis and now he emerged as something that I must say I no longer follow. Like he said that for this I hope we make a bet here, you are whatever you are a Jew but I don't know where you stand religiously, I'm an atheist Christian and I hope we both agree when he said "God appeared to me and I was and I was talking with God." For me Gulag, Gulag for life. You know why? Because the great thing about Jewish and Christian tradition is, that's why you have already in Judaism iconoclasm. It's not this mysticism of no God is beyond, we don't, no! It means don't build paintings of God, but in your activity you actualize God. God is in how you deal with others. That's the lesson of Christianity for me also, that's why I call it materialist religion. You remember when some idiot one of those I don't know who apostles asked Christ "But how will we know that you will return?" and Christ answers very clearly "When there will be love between two of you I will be there." So in this sense I claim provocatively that Holy Spirit, what Christians call Holy Spirit, is, sorry for provocation, the first known form in humanity of of Communist Party. You know what I mean by this? A form of social solidarity where hierarchic status and so on doesn't matter. This is why, so that you will not think I'm crazy, I think that the entire history of Christianity is one big struggle against the emancipatory core of its own legacy. Just and then I will stop, my favorite example here that I quote often, you know when Napoleon was crowned and he took out of Pope's hand the crown and put it on his own head. And it's apocryphal but it's as the Italians say "se non vero, ben trovato." The Pope told him "I know Sire what you want, to destroy Christianity. Believe me, we the Church are trying to do this for years and and we didn't succeed." I want to before we move to questions Slavoj, I want to ask you, there was one sentence in the book that just really leaped off the page and it's about mobilization and you say, I'm quoting: "It's not enough to tell the truth. One has to tell it in a way that mobilizes people to act on it, not to indulge in self-righteous satisfaction." I mean that's something to have tattooed on my back. I mean I'm all there but can you...? How do you know that you have it tattooed? Do you look at yourself in double? Ah yeah you want to, no? No, I want others to see it, I mean, you know. Come on. No, no, you know what I was thinking here. I'm so sad we don't have enough time, we have to play these stupid democratic games people there asking questions but who is this devil? Who is giving us signals here? It's comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin, yeah. No, no, seriously. You know what makes me a pessimist today? I develop this in this book. He really doesn't like it, does he? It's the Q&A, it's bugging him. Yeah, no, seriously very briefly. Already Peter Sloterdijk, who is very complex person, I learn many things from him, developed in his book which is now almost years even more old, his first mega bestseller "Critique of Cynical Reason". He wonderfully turns around Marx saying that it's not as Marx says "They don't know it but they are doing it," he says today's formula is "We know what we are doing but nonetheless we are doing it." That today we live in such cynical times that it's not only that no matter what you say the dominant capitalist system
contrary, the lower classes should adopt a much more active, active self-asserting stance and so on and so on. Then he was for some time in a crisis and now he emerged as something that I must say I no longer follow. Like he said that for this I hope we make a bet here, you are whatever you are a Jew but I don't know where you stand religiously, I'm an atheist Christian and I hope we both agree when he said "God appeared to me and I was and I was talking with God." For me Gulag, Gulag for life. You know why? Because the great thing about Jewish and Christian tradition is, that's why you have already in Judaism iconoclasm. It's not this mysticism of no God is beyond, we don't, no! It means don't build paintings of God, but in your activity you actualize God. God is in how you deal with others. That's the lesson of Christianity for me also, that's why I call it materialist religion. You remember when some idiot one of those I don't know who apostles asked Christ "But how will we know that you will return?" and Christ answers very clearly "When there will be love between two of you I will be there." So in this sense I claim provocatively that Holy Spirit, what Christians call Holy Spirit, is, sorry for provocation, the first known form in humanity of of Communist Party. You know what I mean by this? A form of social solidarity where hierarchic status and so on doesn't matter. This is why, so that you will not think I'm crazy, I think that the entire history of Christianity is one big struggle against the emancipatory core of its own legacy. Just and then I will stop, my favorite example here that I quote often, you know when Napoleon was crowned and he took out of Pope's hand the crown and put it on his own head. And it's apocryphal but it's as the Italians say "se non vero, ben trovato." The Pope told him "I know Sire what you want, to destroy Christianity. Believe me, we the Church are trying to do this for years and and we didn't succeed." I want to before we move to questions Slavoj, I want to ask you, there was one sentence in the book that just really leaped off the page and it's about mobilization and you say, I'm quoting: "It's not enough to tell the truth. One has to tell it in a way that mobilizes people to act on it, not to indulge in self-righteous satisfaction." I mean that's something to have tattooed on my back. I mean I'm all there but can you...? How do you know that you have it tattooed? Do you look at yourself in double? Ah yeah you want to, no? No, I want others to see it, I mean, you know. Come on. No, no, you know what I was thinking here. I'm so sad we don't have enough time, we have to play these stupid democratic games people there asking questions but who is this devil? Who is giving us signals here? It's comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin, yeah. No, no, seriously. You know what makes me a pessimist today? I develop this in this book. He really doesn't like it, does he? It's the Q&A, it's bugging him. Yeah, no, seriously very briefly. Already Peter Sloterdijk, who is very complex person, I learn many things from him, developed in his book which is now almost years even more old, his first mega bestseller "Critique of Cynical Reason". He wonderfully turns around Marx saying that it's not as Marx says "They don't know it but they are doing it," he says today's formula is "We know what we are doing but nonetheless we are doing it." That today we live in such cynical times that it's not only that no matter what you say the dominant capitalist system
unknown
reproduces itself, it's that as it were it needs permanent self-critique to reproduce itself. What do I mean
reproduces itself, it's that as it were it needs permanent self-critique to reproduce itself. What do I mean
Slavoj Žižek
by this? A marginal example that I mention there. I hate, if I were to be a comrade Stalin dictator, the first thing I would have done is to prohibit these big biennales: Venice, Kassel and so on. If you look at their
by this? A marginal example that I mention there. I hate, if I were to be a comrade Stalin dictator, the first thing I would have done is to prohibit these big biennales: Venice, Kassel and so on. If you look at their
unknown
programmatic notes, it's
programmatic notes, it's
Slavoj Žižek
always "We are manipulated by big capital, Africa, Asia resist" and so on. But precisely as such they fit perfectly the financial machinery of global market. You know, the very radical critique of commercialization of art and so on is part of it. So that's I think the problem today. How to it's not so much the truth, or the British example that I like that is to say hate, I like how I hate it. You remember three years ago when in Glasgow there was the big against global... COP I think. Even... No I'm talking about the summit. Climate. Climate, yeah. And your at that point still Prince now King Charles was there doing everything "All that matters five minutes to twelve, we have to do," and absolutely practically nothing came out of it. And I'm here even more a pessimist. You heard what I'm not just saying no matter what you say it the catastrophe will happen, I'm saying the way we criticize the system is part of the system itself. And I don't know here clearly what to do. I have just a couple of ideas, provocative trigger warning or how they say now. One would be this one: My God, I'm tired and the left should maybe learn a little bit about from this. Isn't it clear that today with the way the new populist right is functioning, the this idea of you know hundreds of thousands of people on the street penetrating the seat of power is appropriated by the new right? Postmodern cynicism, cynical distance, they do it! So my idea, don't kill me, is this one. That's why I don't know where he is now, I like pretty much a person like Bernie Sanders. Because the shortest way to describe him to confront Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: If there ever was a postmodern president precisely in this caricatural right-wing way, the guy who is cynical, doesn't have any Christian values and so on, Donald Trump is a pure postmodern relativist, no? And if there ever was a person who, don't laugh please, who embodies a silent majority with its simple ordinary people moral decency and so on, it's Bernie Sanders. There is nothing cheaply subversive about him, he doesn't play these games. And this I think is why a certain discourse of resistance, public violence and so on fits perfectly the system today. Maybe the left should turn out turn around the story and say "Law and order? Yes please, because sorry, you new populists, you are the ones who are the threat the true threat to law and order" and so on and so on I mean. That was my point there. Pretty good point. Right, we're going to move to Q&A and I have a kickoff, How To Academy ran an online competition
always "We are manipulated by big capital, Africa, Asia resist" and so on. But precisely as such they fit perfectly the financial machinery of global market. You know, the very radical critique of commercialization of art and so on is part of it. So that's I think the problem today. How to it's not so much the truth, or the British example that I like that is to say hate, I like how I hate it. You remember three years ago when in Glasgow there was the big against global... COP I think. Even... No I'm talking about the summit. Climate. Climate, yeah. And your at that point still Prince now King Charles was there doing everything "All that matters five minutes to twelve, we have to do," and absolutely practically nothing came out of it. And I'm here even more a pessimist. You heard what I'm not just saying no matter what you say it the catastrophe will happen, I'm saying the way we criticize the system is part of the system itself. And I don't know here clearly what to do. I have just a couple of ideas, provocative trigger warning or how they say now. One would be this one: My God, I'm tired and the left should maybe learn a little bit about from this. Isn't it clear that today with the way the new populist right is functioning, the this idea of you know hundreds of thousands of people on the street penetrating the seat of power is appropriated by the new right? Postmodern cynicism, cynical distance, they do it! So my idea, don't kill me, is this one. That's why I don't know where he is now, I like pretty much a person like Bernie Sanders. Because the shortest way to describe him to confront Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: If there ever was a postmodern president precisely in this caricatural right-wing way, the guy who is cynical, doesn't have any Christian values and so on, Donald Trump is a pure postmodern relativist, no? And if there ever was a person who, don't laugh please, who embodies a silent majority with its simple ordinary people moral decency and so on, it's Bernie Sanders. There is nothing cheaply subversive about him, he doesn't play these games. And this I think is why a certain discourse of resistance, public violence and so on fits perfectly the system today. Maybe the left should turn out turn around the story and say "Law and order? Yes please, because sorry, you new populists, you are the ones who are the threat the true threat to law and order" and so on and so on I mean. That was my point there. Pretty good point. Right, we're going to move to Q&A and I have a kickoff, How To Academy ran an online competition
unknown
to ask the first question. How much did you got paid? Did the winner pay you? Not enough. And the question is: "What are your thoughts on the current situation in Israel and Gaza?" Okay, okay, I've said and wrote enough about it and it got me in trouble with all sides, you know. Because you know in Frankfurt first why I do in contrast to many leftists, you can then attack me if
to ask the first question. How much did you got paid? Did the winner pay you? Not enough. And the question is: "What are your thoughts on the current situation in Israel and Gaza?" Okay, okay, I've said and wrote enough about it and it got me in trouble with all sides, you know. Because you know in Frankfurt first why I do in contrast to many leftists, you can then attack me if
Slavoj Žižek
you want, what why I do unconditionally condemn... is this a
you want, what why I do unconditionally condemn... is this a
unknown
question
question
Slavoj Žižek
or...? No, no, sorry just strange semiotics. Why I do and why I do unconditionally condemn Hamas is that, you know, this maybe a surprising detail for you but I don't know directly people who were massacred there in the south in that kibbutz race party, but I know people who knew them. You know that this was the most open part of the Israelis? They were in constant contact with Gaza helping them. So the message to put it like this of the Hamas attack was not simply kill Israelis but was a war whose aim was to eternalize war. To kill, to kill the very thought, the very possibility of long-term peace. And especially another moment here: Do you remember what went on in Israel a couple of months ago? This tremendous social movement... Yes. Yes! for a secular Israeli state against religious fundamentalists and so on. Now not quite, there are already signs of resistance but that is over, so this brought the wrath of some Zionists on me. Because without I never said they are all the same, what I simply said is this. Hamas is a horrible thing. And their guy Haniyeh said something horrible at the beginning of this war, first second day. He said "My message to Jews is all that land is ours, F three points off, go out, no place for you." But then you know you have statements from this ongoing Israeli government which in a slightly more polite way is saying the similar thing. It's not the same but it says "Israel is exclusively the state of the Jews, we have all that land is ours" and so on and so on. What I'm afraid is that on both sides this logic will prevail. So I am not and my true horror here, and I'm afraid that Jews will pay the price, is for example, I always mention this, just Google him, how can a country like Israel have a minister for social security whatever who is Itamar Ben-Gvir, a guy who was years ago condemned by the Israeli court itself as a potential terrorist and racist. This guy is now running security. So I'm not establishing, I'm not crazy, any parallel and so on. I said "Destroy Hamas," I never said that "Destroy Israel." You said destroy Hamas often actually in that speech. Yeah, yeah, but nonetheless you know what shocked me a little bit? The more I say this the more I'm accused of I don't know how from some deep hermeneutician that my true message is nonetheless that I'm pro-Hamas, you know. Am I am I not crazy my God, I mean we try to organize also apart from Benjamin a conference in Jenin with my Jewish friends and that big Jewish-Palestinian actor and cultural Juliano Mer-Khamis. Conference on movies. It was the Palestinian hardliners who shot him there on the street. It was too much this cultural collaboration and so on. What I'm just saying, I hope this is not too much, is that people claim I'm relativizing what Hamas did in the south of Israel. No! Contextualizing something doesn't mean to relativize it. It means to see the ground out of which a thing like this was possible to emerge. I give you another example maybe you read it in some of my texts, recent reactions. Of course Hitler has to be contextualized. But this doesn't redeem him in any way. It's clear that Nazi anti-Semitism could have emerged in a very specific situation after World War One, the so experienced humiliation of Germany, Versailles peace, economic crisis and so on and so on. This in no way means Hitler was partially justified. It just means analyze the ground out of which... Explanation is not excuse. Absolutely not, it is still absolute evil what Hitler did. And all I'm saying is that in the long term the only way to a lasting peace in the Middle East is, and I'm quoting here Yuval Harari, my God, he said nicely that in the land which is their homeland, he admits this Harari, he means the land which is now controlled by Israel, we should allow Palestinians to live in peace to lead a free dignified life. With I agree with him all these guarantees against threats and so on and so on. And it was a little bit of a bad mistake bad feeling for me surprise that I was attacked from both sides. One side people probably close to Hamas, don't you see that Hamas is really a anti-colonial movement? And then on the other hand Zionists that I'm relativizing it, no! Again, contextualization is not a relativization. It is still absolute evil if I may use this term, no? But absolute evil emerges at precise points of history. That's all I'm saying. My true fear here is that this war will trigger a new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe which will then put a gentle
or...? No, no, sorry just strange semiotics. Why I do and why I do unconditionally condemn Hamas is that, you know, this maybe a surprising detail for you but I don't know directly people who were massacred there in the south in that kibbutz race party, but I know people who knew them. You know that this was the most open part of the Israelis? They were in constant contact with Gaza helping them. So the message to put it like this of the Hamas attack was not simply kill Israelis but was a war whose aim was to eternalize war. To kill, to kill the very thought, the very possibility of long-term peace. And especially another moment here: Do you remember what went on in Israel a couple of months ago? This tremendous social movement... Yes. Yes! for a secular Israeli state against religious fundamentalists and so on. Now not quite, there are already signs of resistance but that is over, so this brought the wrath of some Zionists on me. Because without I never said they are all the same, what I simply said is this. Hamas is a horrible thing. And their guy Haniyeh said something horrible at the beginning of this war, first second day. He said "My message to Jews is all that land is ours, F three points off, go out, no place for you." But then you know you have statements from this ongoing Israeli government which in a slightly more polite way is saying the similar thing. It's not the same but it says "Israel is exclusively the state of the Jews, we have all that land is ours" and so on and so on. What I'm afraid is that on both sides this logic will prevail. So I am not and my true horror here, and I'm afraid that Jews will pay the price, is for example, I always mention this, just Google him, how can a country like Israel have a minister for social security whatever who is Itamar Ben-Gvir, a guy who was years ago condemned by the Israeli court itself as a potential terrorist and racist. This guy is now running security. So I'm not establishing, I'm not crazy, any parallel and so on. I said "Destroy Hamas," I never said that "Destroy Israel." You said destroy Hamas often actually in that speech. Yeah, yeah, but nonetheless you know what shocked me a little bit? The more I say this the more I'm accused of I don't know how from some deep hermeneutician that my true message is nonetheless that I'm pro-Hamas, you know. Am I am I not crazy my God, I mean we try to organize also apart from Benjamin a conference in Jenin with my Jewish friends and that big Jewish-Palestinian actor and cultural Juliano Mer-Khamis. Conference on movies. It was the Palestinian hardliners who shot him there on the street. It was too much this cultural collaboration and so on. What I'm just saying, I hope this is not too much, is that people claim I'm relativizing what Hamas did in the south of Israel. No! Contextualizing something doesn't mean to relativize it. It means to see the ground out of which a thing like this was possible to emerge. I give you another example maybe you read it in some of my texts, recent reactions. Of course Hitler has to be contextualized. But this doesn't redeem him in any way. It's clear that Nazi anti-Semitism could have emerged in a very specific situation after World War One, the so experienced humiliation of Germany, Versailles peace, economic crisis and so on and so on. This in no way means Hitler was partially justified. It just means analyze the ground out of which... Explanation is not excuse. Absolutely not, it is still absolute evil what Hitler did. And all I'm saying is that in the long term the only way to a lasting peace in the Middle East is, and I'm quoting here Yuval Harari, my God, he said nicely that in the land which is their homeland, he admits this Harari, he means the land which is now controlled by Israel, we should allow Palestinians to live in peace to lead a free dignified life. With I agree with him all these guarantees against threats and so on and so on. And it was a little bit of a bad mistake bad feeling for me surprise that I was attacked from both sides. One side people probably close to Hamas, don't you see that Hamas is really a anti-colonial movement? And then on the other hand Zionists that I'm relativizing it, no! Again, contextualization is not a relativization. It is still absolute evil if I may use this term, no? But absolute evil emerges at precise points of history. That's all I'm saying. My true fear here is that this war will trigger a new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe which will then put a gentle
unknown
pressure on Jews to move if Israel will win but I'm not sure there. And I remember the reaction some years or five ago maybe you know better Netanyahu
pressure on Jews to move if Israel will win but I'm not sure there. And I remember the reaction some years or five ago maybe you know better Netanyahu
Slavoj Žižek
called invited French Jews because there were some
called invited French Jews because there were some
unknown
anti-Semitic, "Please come to Israel." The immediate reaction of the French right was
anti-Semitic, "Please come to Israel." The immediate reaction of the French right was
Slavoj Žižek
"Yeah, yeah, follow Netanyahu, just go there!" No! I think with all my sympathy for Palestinians that there would have been no European enlightenment without Jews because enlightenment means you think beyond your ethnic identity, you are open to some kind of relativization but this time in a good sense. You know where enlightenment begins? When Descartes, good guy, I don't buy this bullshit about Descartes male chauvinist, do you know that Descartes triggered among rich ladies, there was no other public there, a great feminist movement? Not just Queen Christina from Scotland, many others, they said "Cogito has no sex, we are finally equal with men." And this is a wonderful moment when in I don't know which one, Discourse of Method or the other book, Descartes says that first as a young kid when he met people from other cultures, he found their habits strange. Then he asked himself "My God, but what if in their eyes our own customs are also strange and weird?" That's where it all begins. And this wouldn't have taken place without Jews. So what I'm saying is please remain here! The the anti-Semitic strategy today tends to be Zionist, which means "We love Jews, but if you are there, don't be here." No! Jews are the ones who kind you know it's like salt pepper or what who who bring diversity a dissonant voice without which there is no progress. I mean so this is where things made me a pessimist. Maybe, maybe there is a hope that out of this carnage there are already voices in Israel and also I'm a great friend of Palestinians, don't underestimate them. Did you read a small note in the newspapers that when Mahmoud Abbas the chief of PLO said about a month and a half ago some very stupid thing which was "Yeah, Jews they deserved Holocaust because they were dealing too much with finances, profiting." Well, F U I would say. Yes they were! Why? Because they were prohibited to own land and so on. Exactly. Yeah, and so but immediately over Palestinian intellectuals, philosophers, Palestinian from the West Bank and Israel to United States, immediately published a letter condemning Abbas claiming "Sorry, this is not our struggle, we are not anti-Semites" and so on. On the other hand, there is hope that more and more Israelis will see this basic thing that Yuval Harari said. As long as the I don't like the term Palestinian question because it's patronizing in the same it's for the same reason that many feminists don't like the term woman's question, you know, as if oh yeah it can wait after the revolution we will then solve the woman's question, you know. That's why I like to praise a Muslim country, Iran, not the elite. You know what they did a couple of months ago or even more now with that women demonstrating. This is what we need in the West, against that Kurdish girl... A mega all-national movement and in the focus of it was woman's struggle. But they caught all, Muslims, men and so on, that's what we need and they did it. So I'm always waiting for miracles, not divine miracles, but miracles in the sense that who knows maybe out of all this mega bullshit people with at some point say "Sorry, are we getting crazy, this doesn't lead anywhere, let's get what I quoted at the beginning a different avenir." A different avenir, excellent. Now, in the interest of making what remains of our avenir... sorry can I ask you something? For your own good. You as a Jew... yeah I'm anti-Semitic I know know... no, no, no! how how would you answer to this? Where do you see the solution? I would I'm very open here. I'm not just Middle East. I'm I'm what trolls call "Sephardi trash" which is lovingly, which is that my family many generations ago were Jewish and then they converted in the 15th century. So I haven't been Jewish for quite a while. But I'm I'm that said I'm a philosemite so um I like what I hear from you. You know, because you know what I will tell you, I always repeat this also another crucial story. The main tragedy of European modernity, I repeat this all the time, is that till French Revolution the problem with Jews for anti-Semites was the one of conversion. "They converted, but should we believe them, do they still secretly...?" but with the 19th century when Napoleon whatever bad things you think about him I do gave Jews the full civil rights and so on, you know anti-anti-Semitism turned much darker potentially violent. The problem was not any longer to convert the Jews, they were a priori condemned as if their degeneration is in their very genes nature. So openly you find this in Wagner and others, although in Wagner it was in a much more noble way. They detected a secret longing for suicide in the Jewish soul and they claimed like annihilation. Although a noble annihilation and so on, you know. And I think that this is the dark paradox, that at the very point after the French Revolution when it looked that anti-Semitism is at least at the formal state level over, it re-emerged in a much darker way. By this I mean no way out to Jews. Even if you convert we will not trust you, it's it's in your blood. So I am don't even dare to think what will happen. I know many hundreds of Palestinians. I can tell you something. If there is part of the Arab world which is definitely not in its majority anti-Semitic, it's Palestine. Go to Ramallah. I found there, I didn't enter it I'm normal heterosexual bad joke, but I found there a gay club, I found there constant debates between Jews Palestinians. If I were to move to Israel I would move to Haifa. Haifa is the most open city with clubs where Palestinian, I mean Palestinian Israelis and Jews meet. So it is possible miracles are possible. What makes me afraid is that not only Israel, other Arab countries are playing dirty games by on purpose keeping alive or like keeping Palestinians in a state so anti-Semitism is from then a way to avoid their own inconsistencies and so on. And here I'm so critical and people think I'm against immigrants. No, on the contrary! For example, Saudi Arabia, a wealthy country, Kuwait, Dubai and so on. I'm not talking now only about Palestinians but refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, whenever. Why don't these rich countries not accept any immigrants? It's strictly controlled, they only accept workers on a very limited basis. Did you read that was the true scandal? Did you read two-three months ago how they discovered that on the border with Yemen, Saudi Arabia have special helicopter units, guns, bombs, they simply kill all the refugees from Ethiopia, from Africa, Muslim refugees who try to enter Saudi Arabia. So for the Arabs I also think that they use in a different way but nonetheless structurally similar to the European way, they play the card of Palestinians and Jews to cover up their own antagonisms and so on. They are all playing very dirty games there. To give you the last proof... I need to bring some of the questions... Yeah, yeah, sorry. Okay. Um, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take four questions. Two... there's a person there. Hold on, wait for the microphone. Um, and and we'll take four. So as we all know that Karl Marx was born in a Jewish family and he wrote a few articles on the Jewish people. So do you have any comments or concerns on Karl Marx's Jewish identity and background? Okay, wait, and then just here. Just here. And other questions up... up on the balcony. Yes, just there. Afterwards. Yes please. Hello. Um, you mentioned that The Prestige is your favorite film by Nolan. Yeah. I noticed that David Bowie who plays Nikola Tesla in it, and you mentioned... David Bowie plays Tesla! Yeah, and you haven't spoken much about the Balkans yet and I would say that that's somewhere I would argue that really needs to think about how it radically rethinks its past to move forward. So how does it do it? Okay and then there's there. Thank you, dobro veče, thank you Slavoj. Ah, dobro veče i vama! Although you know we because practically all people here just this dirty joke this is always allowed don't understand our language, you know, I'm sorry you're not closer to me physically because what I like to do is if I have somebody who speaks some language that they don't we... Ja pričam odavde, sa balkona. Okay, sorry, I stop. Okay. Evo samo... Thank you. So I'm from Siberia, offspring of Gulag people, survived ones. Good! And I was talking to my mom today because trying to refresh the philosophy of 20th century thinking, "Okay, we do really sit on the trauma and process trauma a lot in the 20th century philosophy." And in 21st century, I guess we do need some heroism and some personal heroism. And what that would be? What do you think? Who is the contemporary hero of today? Okay, and one more from up the balcony. Is there one there? Okay, and one from down here then. Yes, just there. Just there. Lady with the white polo neck. Hi hello. I have a question. So as an individual, so as you guys just said, maybe as government they we they still have some options to deal with today's emergency or something, but as individuals, should we still insist our passions towards some disciplines towards the
"Yeah, yeah, follow Netanyahu, just go there!" No! I think with all my sympathy for Palestinians that there would have been no European enlightenment without Jews because enlightenment means you think beyond your ethnic identity, you are open to some kind of relativization but this time in a good sense. You know where enlightenment begins? When Descartes, good guy, I don't buy this bullshit about Descartes male chauvinist, do you know that Descartes triggered among rich ladies, there was no other public there, a great feminist movement? Not just Queen Christina from Scotland, many others, they said "Cogito has no sex, we are finally equal with men." And this is a wonderful moment when in I don't know which one, Discourse of Method or the other book, Descartes says that first as a young kid when he met people from other cultures, he found their habits strange. Then he asked himself "My God, but what if in their eyes our own customs are also strange and weird?" That's where it all begins. And this wouldn't have taken place without Jews. So what I'm saying is please remain here! The the anti-Semitic strategy today tends to be Zionist, which means "We love Jews, but if you are there, don't be here." No! Jews are the ones who kind you know it's like salt pepper or what who who bring diversity a dissonant voice without which there is no progress. I mean so this is where things made me a pessimist. Maybe, maybe there is a hope that out of this carnage there are already voices in Israel and also I'm a great friend of Palestinians, don't underestimate them. Did you read a small note in the newspapers that when Mahmoud Abbas the chief of PLO said about a month and a half ago some very stupid thing which was "Yeah, Jews they deserved Holocaust because they were dealing too much with finances, profiting." Well, F U I would say. Yes they were! Why? Because they were prohibited to own land and so on. Exactly. Yeah, and so but immediately over Palestinian intellectuals, philosophers, Palestinian from the West Bank and Israel to United States, immediately published a letter condemning Abbas claiming "Sorry, this is not our struggle, we are not anti-Semites" and so on. On the other hand, there is hope that more and more Israelis will see this basic thing that Yuval Harari said. As long as the I don't like the term Palestinian question because it's patronizing in the same it's for the same reason that many feminists don't like the term woman's question, you know, as if oh yeah it can wait after the revolution we will then solve the woman's question, you know. That's why I like to praise a Muslim country, Iran, not the elite. You know what they did a couple of months ago or even more now with that women demonstrating. This is what we need in the West, against that Kurdish girl... A mega all-national movement and in the focus of it was woman's struggle. But they caught all, Muslims, men and so on, that's what we need and they did it. So I'm always waiting for miracles, not divine miracles, but miracles in the sense that who knows maybe out of all this mega bullshit people with at some point say "Sorry, are we getting crazy, this doesn't lead anywhere, let's get what I quoted at the beginning a different avenir." A different avenir, excellent. Now, in the interest of making what remains of our avenir... sorry can I ask you something? For your own good. You as a Jew... yeah I'm anti-Semitic I know know... no, no, no! how how would you answer to this? Where do you see the solution? I would I'm very open here. I'm not just Middle East. I'm I'm what trolls call "Sephardi trash" which is lovingly, which is that my family many generations ago were Jewish and then they converted in the 15th century. So I haven't been Jewish for quite a while. But I'm I'm that said I'm a philosemite so um I like what I hear from you. You know, because you know what I will tell you, I always repeat this also another crucial story. The main tragedy of European modernity, I repeat this all the time, is that till French Revolution the problem with Jews for anti-Semites was the one of conversion. "They converted, but should we believe them, do they still secretly...?" but with the 19th century when Napoleon whatever bad things you think about him I do gave Jews the full civil rights and so on, you know anti-anti-Semitism turned much darker potentially violent. The problem was not any longer to convert the Jews, they were a priori condemned as if their degeneration is in their very genes nature. So openly you find this in Wagner and others, although in Wagner it was in a much more noble way. They detected a secret longing for suicide in the Jewish soul and they claimed like annihilation. Although a noble annihilation and so on, you know. And I think that this is the dark paradox, that at the very point after the French Revolution when it looked that anti-Semitism is at least at the formal state level over, it re-emerged in a much darker way. By this I mean no way out to Jews. Even if you convert we will not trust you, it's it's in your blood. So I am don't even dare to think what will happen. I know many hundreds of Palestinians. I can tell you something. If there is part of the Arab world which is definitely not in its majority anti-Semitic, it's Palestine. Go to Ramallah. I found there, I didn't enter it I'm normal heterosexual bad joke, but I found there a gay club, I found there constant debates between Jews Palestinians. If I were to move to Israel I would move to Haifa. Haifa is the most open city with clubs where Palestinian, I mean Palestinian Israelis and Jews meet. So it is possible miracles are possible. What makes me afraid is that not only Israel, other Arab countries are playing dirty games by on purpose keeping alive or like keeping Palestinians in a state so anti-Semitism is from then a way to avoid their own inconsistencies and so on. And here I'm so critical and people think I'm against immigrants. No, on the contrary! For example, Saudi Arabia, a wealthy country, Kuwait, Dubai and so on. I'm not talking now only about Palestinians but refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, whenever. Why don't these rich countries not accept any immigrants? It's strictly controlled, they only accept workers on a very limited basis. Did you read that was the true scandal? Did you read two-three months ago how they discovered that on the border with Yemen, Saudi Arabia have special helicopter units, guns, bombs, they simply kill all the refugees from Ethiopia, from Africa, Muslim refugees who try to enter Saudi Arabia. So for the Arabs I also think that they use in a different way but nonetheless structurally similar to the European way, they play the card of Palestinians and Jews to cover up their own antagonisms and so on. They are all playing very dirty games there. To give you the last proof... I need to bring some of the questions... Yeah, yeah, sorry. Okay. Um, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take four questions. Two... there's a person there. Hold on, wait for the microphone. Um, and and we'll take four. So as we all know that Karl Marx was born in a Jewish family and he wrote a few articles on the Jewish people. So do you have any comments or concerns on Karl Marx's Jewish identity and background? Okay, wait, and then just here. Just here. And other questions up... up on the balcony. Yes, just there. Afterwards. Yes please. Hello. Um, you mentioned that The Prestige is your favorite film by Nolan. Yeah. I noticed that David Bowie who plays Nikola Tesla in it, and you mentioned... David Bowie plays Tesla! Yeah, and you haven't spoken much about the Balkans yet and I would say that that's somewhere I would argue that really needs to think about how it radically rethinks its past to move forward. So how does it do it? Okay and then there's there. Thank you, dobro veče, thank you Slavoj. Ah, dobro veče i vama! Although you know we because practically all people here just this dirty joke this is always allowed don't understand our language, you know, I'm sorry you're not closer to me physically because what I like to do is if I have somebody who speaks some language that they don't we... Ja pričam odavde, sa balkona. Okay, sorry, I stop. Okay. Evo samo... Thank you. So I'm from Siberia, offspring of Gulag people, survived ones. Good! And I was talking to my mom today because trying to refresh the philosophy of 20th century thinking, "Okay, we do really sit on the trauma and process trauma a lot in the 20th century philosophy." And in 21st century, I guess we do need some heroism and some personal heroism. And what that would be? What do you think? Who is the contemporary hero of today? Okay, and one more from up the balcony. Is there one there? Okay, and one from down here then. Yes, just there. Just there. Lady with the white polo neck. Hi hello. I have a question. So as an individual, so as you guys just said, maybe as government they we they still have some options to deal with today's emergency or something, but as individuals, should we still insist our passions towards some disciplines towards the
unknown
disciplines of humanities
disciplines of humanities
Slavoj Žižek
like philosophy, art and also like some other disciplines? And also another question is, still as individual, when we saw this so many overwhelmed realities, should we like sometimes it's kind of like a conflict?
like philosophy, art and also like some other disciplines? And also another question is, still as individual, when we saw this so many overwhelmed realities, should we like sometimes it's kind of like a conflict?
unknown
Like we will feel painful, we will have sympathies towards those another people who suffered from war or something, but we can do nothing about that. So do you have any opinions about that? Sorry, I didn't get the... I think if I understood you correctly your point was that we need interdisciplinary approaches
Like we will feel painful, we will have sympathies towards those another people who suffered from war or something, but we can do nothing about that. So do you have any opinions about that? Sorry, I didn't get the... I think if I understood you correctly your point was that we need interdisciplinary approaches
Slavoj Žižek
and also that it's very hard to understand and empathize with other people in contemporary contexts. Is that correct? Would that be a fair summation? Oh do you mean the first question? Well both, but... Oh sorry for that, I'm a little... Could you put it treat me please, I don't mean it with irony as an idiot. Could you put it in very clear simple way because I missed the point. Okay, okay, I will make it brief. So so as individuals today we cannot we have very less power to change anything actually the reality, so can we should we still insist our some original passion towards some disciplines like philosophy and art and how this discipline can still have some effect towards our reality right now? Okay I get it now, thank you very much. Okay, so rattling through Marx and Jewishness, the Balkans, 21st century heroes and whether individuals can use their access to philosophy and other disciplines to maximize their power. Go! Okay, okay. That's what I like. Now you're true comrade Stalin. Sorry, no, first Marx. Now my answer may surprise you. I was still when I was young under socialism trained in Marxism, we had a very good professor who knew Hegel and Marx very well and already at that point, I don't think this is Marx at his best, his early text on the Jewish question. His idea is simply that Jews with as Marx describes them in almost anti-Semitic cliché terms, that Jews are obsessed by rituals, even I think this is Marx's example, how they eat, how they shit, everything should be regulated and so on, that they are the pure embodiment of the capitalist logic, so the only way to solve the Jewish question is to abolish capitalism. And what is not clear with Marx is again, I hope you know the text this early one on the Jewish question I think "Zur Judenfrage". When he is describing Jews like this, it's not clear is he consciously describing a cliché or does he mean Jews are really like that? I I have problems with that Marx. Or to go even a step further, when I was young the big passion was the young Marx. Alienation and all that. On the contrary, I think this is the worst Marx. If you look at the roots for Stalinism it's in the young Marx. I think there are two great Marxist corpus texts. One is his analysis of Revolution, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and so on, and the other is the entire complex of critique of political economy. The crucial moment for Marx was the failure of the Revolution and then he did what all decent later Marxists do: what Lenin did after outbreak of World War One, you go to Switzerland and you start to reading Hegel. Marx did precisely this in early fifties and all good things I think came from that. What I on the other hand don't accept is this right-wing idea which I find disgusting that communism is from the very beginning anti-Semitic. Are they crazy? Look at the early Soviet Union first years under Lenin. Not what democracy it wasn't but look at the guys, eight ten guys Politburo who really run things. The majority of them were Jews. Look now I will say something very provocative but I like it. Look at you know KGB was first called Cheka, the early you know that there were percent of Jews in first generation Cheka, percent of Lithuanian Latvian Baltic nations and a minority of Russians. I don't
and also that it's very hard to understand and empathize with other people in contemporary contexts. Is that correct? Would that be a fair summation? Oh do you mean the first question? Well both, but... Oh sorry for that, I'm a little... Could you put it treat me please, I don't mean it with irony as an idiot. Could you put it in very clear simple way because I missed the point. Okay, okay, I will make it brief. So so as individuals today we cannot we have very less power to change anything actually the reality, so can we should we still insist our some original passion towards some disciplines like philosophy and art and how this discipline can still have some effect towards our reality right now? Okay I get it now, thank you very much. Okay, so rattling through Marx and Jewishness, the Balkans, 21st century heroes and whether individuals can use their access to philosophy and other disciplines to maximize their power. Go! Okay, okay. That's what I like. Now you're true comrade Stalin. Sorry, no, first Marx. Now my answer may surprise you. I was still when I was young under socialism trained in Marxism, we had a very good professor who knew Hegel and Marx very well and already at that point, I don't think this is Marx at his best, his early text on the Jewish question. His idea is simply that Jews with as Marx describes them in almost anti-Semitic cliché terms, that Jews are obsessed by rituals, even I think this is Marx's example, how they eat, how they shit, everything should be regulated and so on, that they are the pure embodiment of the capitalist logic, so the only way to solve the Jewish question is to abolish capitalism. And what is not clear with Marx is again, I hope you know the text this early one on the Jewish question I think "Zur Judenfrage". When he is describing Jews like this, it's not clear is he consciously describing a cliché or does he mean Jews are really like that? I I have problems with that Marx. Or to go even a step further, when I was young the big passion was the young Marx. Alienation and all that. On the contrary, I think this is the worst Marx. If you look at the roots for Stalinism it's in the young Marx. I think there are two great Marxist corpus texts. One is his analysis of Revolution, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and so on, and the other is the entire complex of critique of political economy. The crucial moment for Marx was the failure of the Revolution and then he did what all decent later Marxists do: what Lenin did after outbreak of World War One, you go to Switzerland and you start to reading Hegel. Marx did precisely this in early fifties and all good things I think came from that. What I on the other hand don't accept is this right-wing idea which I find disgusting that communism is from the very beginning anti-Semitic. Are they crazy? Look at the early Soviet Union first years under Lenin. Not what democracy it wasn't but look at the guys, eight ten guys Politburo who really run things. The majority of them were Jews. Look now I will say something very provocative but I like it. Look at you know KGB was first called Cheka, the early you know that there were percent of Jews in first generation Cheka, percent of Lithuanian Latvian Baltic nations and a minority of Russians. I don't
unknown
mean this as a criticism. I mean that that you can precisely locate at the level of anti-Semitism when comrade Stalin who is turning on and off lights entered
mean this as a criticism. I mean that that you can precisely locate at the level of anti-Semitism when comrade Stalin who is turning on and off lights entered
unknown
the game. The left became anti-Semitic more and more explicitly with Stalinism. That's why I don't accept the claim that that there is anti-Semitic left. Of course there are leftists who are obviously at least in a half-covered way anti-Semitic but I think we should
the game. The left became anti-Semitic more and more explicitly with Stalinism. That's why I don't accept the claim that that there is anti-Semitic left. Of course there are leftists who are obviously at least in a half-covered way anti-Semitic but I think we should
unknown
read this absolutely as a symptom of the fact that there is something deeply wrong with that left.
read this absolutely as a symptom of the fact that there is something deeply wrong with that left.
unknown
Look at Hugo Chavez. He made when things started to go wrong in Venezuela
Look at Hugo Chavez. He made when things started to go wrong in Venezuela
Slavoj Žižek
towards the
towards the
unknown
end a couple of more or less openly anti-Semitic statements and
end a couple of more or less openly anti-Semitic statements and
Slavoj Žižek
none other than Fidel
none other than Fidel
unknown
Castro corrected him publicly he said "Don't talk about this you shouldn't" and so on. So again anti-Semitism is always a sign
Castro corrected him publicly he said "Don't talk about this you shouldn't" and so on. So again anti-Semitism is always a sign
unknown
that the
that the
unknown
leftist
leftist
Slavoj Žižek
project turned wrong. Now Balkan. It's so okay I will not repeat it here because it's everywhere on YouTube I think my old joke but I will briefly condense it. You know what's me coming from there is incredible how difficult it is to even locate where is the dividing line. For us in Slovenia it's clear: we are still Central Europe with
project turned wrong. Now Balkan. It's so okay I will not repeat it here because it's everywhere on YouTube I think my old joke but I will briefly condense it. You know what's me coming from there is incredible how difficult it is to even locate where is the dividing line. For us in Slovenia it's clear: we are still Central Europe with
unknown
Croatia
Croatia
Slavoj Žižek
Balkan begins. You talk to a Croat who
Balkan begins. You talk to a Croat who
unknown
will say "We are Europe, Catholics, with Serbia Balkan begins." Many Serbs are telling me "We are still civilization, Albanians down there are the true Balkan." But it goes in the other direction. For Austrians we are Balkan because we are Slavs. For Germans, Austrians are already Balkan, Austro-Hungarian empire and so on. For the French, German with their dark barbarian past
will say "We are Europe, Catholics, with Serbia Balkan begins." Many Serbs are telling me "We are still civilization, Albanians down there are the true Balkan." But it goes in the other direction. For Austrians we are Balkan because we are Slavs. For Germans, Austrians are already Balkan, Austro-Hungarian empire and so on. For the French, German with their dark barbarian past
unknown
are, and for you British, I like this, all of continental Europe is Balkan and and Brussels is the new Constantinople, you know. So what my problem and
are, and for you British, I like this, all of continental Europe is Balkan and and Brussels is the new Constantinople, you know. So what my problem and
Cathy Newman
this brought me great problems is a certain fake folklore of Balkan as a crazy part of the world where people just have sex, dance, drink, shoot at each other. I think this is the Western cliché of Balkan. And my problem with very good director in his movies, Emir Kusturica, his Underground and so on, is not that he is too Balkanesque but that he tried to make his career on giving to the West what it wants to see in Balkan, a crazy land where people are irrational, kill each other and so on and so on. So my I I think that the danger is not just this Central European one where we project or Western Europe our traumas into Balkan. My good
this brought me great problems is a certain fake folklore of Balkan as a crazy part of the world where people just have sex, dance, drink, shoot at each other. I think this is the Western cliché of Balkan. And my problem with very good director in his movies, Emir Kusturica, his Underground and so on, is not that he is too Balkanesque but that he tried to make his career on giving to the West what it wants to see in Balkan, a crazy land where people are irrational, kill each other and so on and so on. So my I I think that the danger is not just this Central European one where we project or Western Europe our traumas into Balkan. My good
Slavoj Žižek
friend Mladen Dolar, a
friend Mladen Dolar, a
unknown
philosopher, paraphrased Lacan: unconscious is structured like language. His formula was European unconscious is structured like Balkan, you know, that Europe projects all its repressed dark ideological aspect
philosopher, paraphrased Lacan: unconscious is structured like language. His formula was European unconscious is structured like Balkan, you know, that Europe projects all its repressed dark ideological aspect
Cathy Newman
onto Balkan. This is why when there was a civil war in Yugoslavia,
onto Balkan. This is why when there was a civil war in Yugoslavia,
Slavoj Žižek
Yugoslavia falling apart, I hated Western enlightened people who asked me "You come from there, give us a psychoanalysis what is going on in Balkan." My answer was always the same.
Yugoslavia falling apart, I hated Western enlightened people who asked me "You come from there, give us a psychoanalysis what is going on in Balkan." My answer was always the same.
Cathy Newman
Sorry, we from Balkan are quite normal people, the only idiots who don't have it is you in the Western Europe. You need psychoanalysis, not us! And for me this is the tragedy, for example, of Serbia. They did horrible thing under Milosevic but at the same time, my God, Serbia I'm the first to admit was had the greatest democratic tradition of all
Sorry, we from Balkan are quite normal people, the only idiots who don't have it is you in the Western Europe. You need psychoanalysis, not us! And for me this is the tragedy, for example, of Serbia. They did horrible thing under Milosevic but at the same time, my God, Serbia I'm the first to admit was had the greatest democratic tradition of all
unknown
ex-Yugoslav nations. Already when they overthrew the previous dynasty Obrenović and and this Karadjordjević took over, they had very strong social democratic party, they had
ex-Yugoslav nations. Already when they overthrew the previous dynasty Obrenović and and this Karadjordjević took over, they had very strong social democratic party, they had
Slavoj Žižek
progressive constitution and so on and so on. So I'm totally opposed to this myth which was alive in early nineties while the war went on: "You know, Balkan is a complex area to understand it you have to know or years of history." No! Absolutely not! The explosion of nationalisms could be explained, not totally but to a good part in a much simpler way. The big problem, and here is what Milosevic got it right but others were doing already is socialism was disintegrating, the ruling not bureaucracy nomenclature let's call it, knew its approaching its end. And the problem was how to reinvent itself to survive the fall of socialism. The answer was nationalism, to transform itself into advocates of national interests and so on and so on. Let me not lose too much time, let me go on to heroes today. 21st century heroes. Sorry? Yeah. I agree with you first on one maybe paradoxical point. I believe in the necessity of heroes, even heroes even leaders. Because I'm not an optimist about, sorry to use this term, human nature. I think precisely when we think that we are free in our consumerist stupid daily life, we're just lazy, we follow our desires, we're not ready to sacrifice ourselves and so on, and there is something like an emancipatory leader. Okay to use the usual example of course he has his limits, Mandela. Mandela was not the message of Mandela was not the Stalinist one, "I know better than you what is really good for you," it was a simple, Obama used the same term but he misused it, "Yes you can." The message of a leader is "No, you are not screwed up limited to your stupid particular destiny, you can reach beyond it." So I think that this type of emancipatory leader, the leader whose message is "Yes you can, reinvent yourself" and so on, are needed today more than ever. Let me finish with two names. He's a modest guy but I need to mention him again and again. All these stupid wars, Ukraine, Israel, you know that Assange is still there, miles from here, hours per day alone, he is allowed one walk, only with guard, not meeting with others. There is still no accusation formally against him, it's a nightmare. And you know when he got married, he wasn't even allowed to meet physically Stella Moris, it was glass wall between them. You know what happened? I was told because I wasn't able to attend it. In the next room some serial killer, a well-known mobster, was celebrating birthday with people invited! All mingling there and that's with Assange. What I like about Assange is not it's not it's much more refined, I've written about it. It's not simply they he made us see something, we all knew that, the dirty things, but he prevented us from ignoring it. We cannot pretend that we didn't know it, because many liberals that I know had this hypocritical logic: "Yeah, yeah, the state has to do some torture here, dirty thing there, but let's gently ignore it, criticize it a little bit publicly but" and so on. And this is the role of Assange. The second role, even more important I think, is his book about Google, where he shows up how deeply connected these new digital mega companies, Google and so on, are with are with American secret services and so on and so on, that it's the same informational complex. So it's not just abstract artificial intelligence, look at it concretely how, for example, Google is connected with American secret services and so on and so on. How we already are controlled. So he would be one hero. The other hero that I mentioned in my speech, if I were to choose one absolute hero of the 20th century, I'm sorry if you already know this name it's please Google him, Marek Edelman, a Polish Jew who, it's incredible story. First he was a Bundist, more socialist Jew, he was a key figure, second in command of the Ghetto uprising. Then he survived it, he was one of the leading persons in Warsaw uprising. He survived it, he stayed in Poland with a beautiful metaphysical justification when anti-Semitism was reinvented by communists. He said "I don't have anything great to say, I feel like a stone in Auschwitz. I'm just there, somebody has to be here saying nothing just to be there." Then he played a crucial role in Solidarność negotiations and when when there was the first intifada, he wrote an open letter to my Palestinian friends where he says, my God this Stalin is a strange guy... He's having a difficult night. He's having a difficult one, yeah. Who and there he says "I support your struggle if it remains non-violent, but I am with you." A very moderate beautiful stance. These people are my heroes and I don't think don't I don't believe too much this idea everything is manipulated, we don't control everything. No! The the those in power are still afraid of people saying too much, you know. Otherwise people like Assange they wouldn't be effectively so terrorized. So no, we are not simply powerless. The last thing about that discipline and so on. What can individuals do? Because that was the question. What can individuals who feel powerless do? Should they go to discipline, should they take refuge in discipline? You know what's the problem today, I will point at this paradox. You know that on the one hand we perceive our situation as powerless, totally manipulated, you don't control anything, but at the same time the ruling the hegemonic ideology today is elevating us into free individuals in the sense of, for example, the most disgusting ideology today for me is the ideology which sustains precarious work. It's very nice message between the lines: "Precarous workers are really like small capitalists, we are all capitalists, you have a little bit of money and you can freely decide, do you go to a holiday, do you invest in your health, or you buy a car and are Uber driver or whatever." So did you notice that's the paradox how at the same time with this idea system dominates us is the idea that everything everything that we are ultimately radically responsible for ourselves? We have this attitude of "you know make an effort, individually do it, you can do it." So the thing I would have done here is to precisely turn this around, in the sense of: yes, we are most enslaved to the system precisely when we perceive ourselves as free consumerist individuals. You know, you buy a cake, whatever you want, you go here, you go there. This apparent freedom... and don't be afraid I'm not comrade Stalin, I'm not opposing formal freedom to real freedom. Freedom must always be formal, Marx knew it. But what I want to say is that this type of freedom which is based on the model of you know as if big life decisions are decisions like you go to a pastry and is it strawberry cake or cheesecake? No! There are much more radical decisions. The true decisions are where with all pathetics where you choose yourself, what you are. You don't just choose objects or even other persons, you choose your own identity. And here a true change has to begin. And that's why I think that the first step out of this predominance domination of the anonymous system is to see how fake your individual freedom is. Not in the sense of "I'm totally manipulated" but in a much more radical sense that you're totally manipulated precisely when you think you are free, like what is more free than just searching on the web, you go from this pornographic site to another site or whatever, at that point you are completely enslaved. And I accept this paradox to the end. I will now sound totalitarian, I know, there is no freedom without strong self-discipline. Freedom is not relaxation for me. Freedom is duty. Kant saw this, the philosopher not the dirty word, haha, old philosophical joke, sorry. I love it. Sorry, can we end on a dirty word? I love that so much. Um, ladies and gentlemen, we've overrun. Thank you for for staying. I'm sorry I didn't get to more of you but I I think you'll agree that it was every word that Slavoj said was fascinating. No, I'm grateful to you and I'm just... And he will be signing copies of his brilliant book so you can go and and and meet him and get him to sign and I hope you feel a little bit less powerless tonight, I certainly do. I've cleared up the issue about my Jewish origins, it's a... Ah you got my point! Really in the in my depth I'm a dirty anti-Semite, no? And and so it's a win for me, I hope it's been a win for you. Thank our great speaker. Have a great evening. Let me just one word conclude when you said philosophy and so on. Yes, we need it more than ever today even in our daily lives because you know the tragedy of our era is that we are confronting new problems where old
progressive constitution and so on and so on. So I'm totally opposed to this myth which was alive in early nineties while the war went on: "You know, Balkan is a complex area to understand it you have to know or years of history." No! Absolutely not! The explosion of nationalisms could be explained, not totally but to a good part in a much simpler way. The big problem, and here is what Milosevic got it right but others were doing already is socialism was disintegrating, the ruling not bureaucracy nomenclature let's call it, knew its approaching its end. And the problem was how to reinvent itself to survive the fall of socialism. The answer was nationalism, to transform itself into advocates of national interests and so on and so on. Let me not lose too much time, let me go on to heroes today. 21st century heroes. Sorry? Yeah. I agree with you first on one maybe paradoxical point. I believe in the necessity of heroes, even heroes even leaders. Because I'm not an optimist about, sorry to use this term, human nature. I think precisely when we think that we are free in our consumerist stupid daily life, we're just lazy, we follow our desires, we're not ready to sacrifice ourselves and so on, and there is something like an emancipatory leader. Okay to use the usual example of course he has his limits, Mandela. Mandela was not the message of Mandela was not the Stalinist one, "I know better than you what is really good for you," it was a simple, Obama used the same term but he misused it, "Yes you can." The message of a leader is "No, you are not screwed up limited to your stupid particular destiny, you can reach beyond it." So I think that this type of emancipatory leader, the leader whose message is "Yes you can, reinvent yourself" and so on, are needed today more than ever. Let me finish with two names. He's a modest guy but I need to mention him again and again. All these stupid wars, Ukraine, Israel, you know that Assange is still there, miles from here, hours per day alone, he is allowed one walk, only with guard, not meeting with others. There is still no accusation formally against him, it's a nightmare. And you know when he got married, he wasn't even allowed to meet physically Stella Moris, it was glass wall between them. You know what happened? I was told because I wasn't able to attend it. In the next room some serial killer, a well-known mobster, was celebrating birthday with people invited! All mingling there and that's with Assange. What I like about Assange is not it's not it's much more refined, I've written about it. It's not simply they he made us see something, we all knew that, the dirty things, but he prevented us from ignoring it. We cannot pretend that we didn't know it, because many liberals that I know had this hypocritical logic: "Yeah, yeah, the state has to do some torture here, dirty thing there, but let's gently ignore it, criticize it a little bit publicly but" and so on. And this is the role of Assange. The second role, even more important I think, is his book about Google, where he shows up how deeply connected these new digital mega companies, Google and so on, are with are with American secret services and so on and so on, that it's the same informational complex. So it's not just abstract artificial intelligence, look at it concretely how, for example, Google is connected with American secret services and so on and so on. How we already are controlled. So he would be one hero. The other hero that I mentioned in my speech, if I were to choose one absolute hero of the 20th century, I'm sorry if you already know this name it's please Google him, Marek Edelman, a Polish Jew who, it's incredible story. First he was a Bundist, more socialist Jew, he was a key figure, second in command of the Ghetto uprising. Then he survived it, he was one of the leading persons in Warsaw uprising. He survived it, he stayed in Poland with a beautiful metaphysical justification when anti-Semitism was reinvented by communists. He said "I don't have anything great to say, I feel like a stone in Auschwitz. I'm just there, somebody has to be here saying nothing just to be there." Then he played a crucial role in Solidarność negotiations and when when there was the first intifada, he wrote an open letter to my Palestinian friends where he says, my God this Stalin is a strange guy... He's having a difficult night. He's having a difficult one, yeah. Who and there he says "I support your struggle if it remains non-violent, but I am with you." A very moderate beautiful stance. These people are my heroes and I don't think don't I don't believe too much this idea everything is manipulated, we don't control everything. No! The the those in power are still afraid of people saying too much, you know. Otherwise people like Assange they wouldn't be effectively so terrorized. So no, we are not simply powerless. The last thing about that discipline and so on. What can individuals do? Because that was the question. What can individuals who feel powerless do? Should they go to discipline, should they take refuge in discipline? You know what's the problem today, I will point at this paradox. You know that on the one hand we perceive our situation as powerless, totally manipulated, you don't control anything, but at the same time the ruling the hegemonic ideology today is elevating us into free individuals in the sense of, for example, the most disgusting ideology today for me is the ideology which sustains precarious work. It's very nice message between the lines: "Precarous workers are really like small capitalists, we are all capitalists, you have a little bit of money and you can freely decide, do you go to a holiday, do you invest in your health, or you buy a car and are Uber driver or whatever." So did you notice that's the paradox how at the same time with this idea system dominates us is the idea that everything everything that we are ultimately radically responsible for ourselves? We have this attitude of "you know make an effort, individually do it, you can do it." So the thing I would have done here is to precisely turn this around, in the sense of: yes, we are most enslaved to the system precisely when we perceive ourselves as free consumerist individuals. You know, you buy a cake, whatever you want, you go here, you go there. This apparent freedom... and don't be afraid I'm not comrade Stalin, I'm not opposing formal freedom to real freedom. Freedom must always be formal, Marx knew it. But what I want to say is that this type of freedom which is based on the model of you know as if big life decisions are decisions like you go to a pastry and is it strawberry cake or cheesecake? No! There are much more radical decisions. The true decisions are where with all pathetics where you choose yourself, what you are. You don't just choose objects or even other persons, you choose your own identity. And here a true change has to begin. And that's why I think that the first step out of this predominance domination of the anonymous system is to see how fake your individual freedom is. Not in the sense of "I'm totally manipulated" but in a much more radical sense that you're totally manipulated precisely when you think you are free, like what is more free than just searching on the web, you go from this pornographic site to another site or whatever, at that point you are completely enslaved. And I accept this paradox to the end. I will now sound totalitarian, I know, there is no freedom without strong self-discipline. Freedom is not relaxation for me. Freedom is duty. Kant saw this, the philosopher not the dirty word, haha, old philosophical joke, sorry. I love it. Sorry, can we end on a dirty word? I love that so much. Um, ladies and gentlemen, we've overrun. Thank you for for staying. I'm sorry I didn't get to more of you but I I think you'll agree that it was every word that Slavoj said was fascinating. No, I'm grateful to you and I'm just... And he will be signing copies of his brilliant book so you can go and and and meet him and get him to sign and I hope you feel a little bit less powerless tonight, I certainly do. I've cleared up the issue about my Jewish origins, it's a... Ah you got my point! Really in the in my depth I'm a dirty anti-Semite, no? And and so it's a win for me, I hope it's been a win for you. Thank our great speaker. Have a great evening. Let me just one word conclude when you said philosophy and so on. Yes, we need it more than ever today even in our daily lives because you know the tragedy of our era is that we are confronting new problems where old
unknown
religious other traditional wisdoms no longer work.
religious other traditional wisdoms no longer work.
Slavoj Žižek
Look at the problem of abortion. You have this side about thing when does the fetus become human being which there is no answer to this in the ancient wisdom or ecology or and so on. So in some sense philosophy was never more important than today. You need to or what is freedom, for example, the problem with artificial intelligence and so on and so on. So yes, philosophy is needed more than ever. And let me conclude just with reflexive for example to understand anti-Semitism a minimum of philosophical reflection is needed. In what sense? You should not approach it in the sense but "Are Jews really like that?", you know, the way they are described by anti-Semites. The moment you do this you are lost. Because the true question is not imagine my old example, I already repeated here today and years ago in London even, imagine I'm in in Germany debating an anti-Semite and he tells me, but some things may be even true, he tells me "Why is there such a great number of Jews in art criticism? They dominate it." Well, up to a point it was probably true. He tells me "But Jews are seducing German girls." Well, I hope they do and the other way around, that's all I have to say. You know what I want to say? The problem is not are Jews really like that? The problem is why did the Nazis to sustain their sense identity need a figure like a Jew? There is the problem. They need, if you take out of Nazi edifice
Look at the problem of abortion. You have this side about thing when does the fetus become human being which there is no answer to this in the ancient wisdom or ecology or and so on. So in some sense philosophy was never more important than today. You need to or what is freedom, for example, the problem with artificial intelligence and so on and so on. So yes, philosophy is needed more than ever. And let me conclude just with reflexive for example to understand anti-Semitism a minimum of philosophical reflection is needed. In what sense? You should not approach it in the sense but "Are Jews really like that?", you know, the way they are described by anti-Semites. The moment you do this you are lost. Because the true question is not imagine my old example, I already repeated here today and years ago in London even, imagine I'm in in Germany debating an anti-Semite and he tells me, but some things may be even true, he tells me "Why is there such a great number of Jews in art criticism? They dominate it." Well, up to a point it was probably true. He tells me "But Jews are seducing German girls." Well, I hope they do and the other way around, that's all I have to say. You know what I want to say? The problem is not are Jews really like that? The problem is why did the Nazis to sustain their sense identity need a figure like a Jew? There is the problem. They need, if you take out of Nazi edifice
unknown
the figure of the Jew, what remains is something horrible: social antagonism. To sustain their vision of society
the figure of the Jew, what remains is something horrible: social antagonism. To sustain their vision of society
Slavoj Žižek
as an organic
as an organic
unknown
whole,
whole,
Slavoj Žižek
where do antagonisms come from? From the outside, from the Jew. This is the beginning of philosophical reflection. You just simply you don't simply accept a question, you radicalize the question itself. Thanks very much I'm just sorry that I'm repeating... That was the encore by the way. Yes, thank you!
where do antagonisms come from? From the outside, from the Jew. This is the beginning of philosophical reflection. You just simply you don't simply accept a question, you radicalize the question itself. Thanks very much I'm just sorry that I'm repeating... That was the encore by the way. Yes, thank you!