Slavoj Žižek (Nov 15, 2017) - 'Islam and Multiculturalism' YouTube
Talk · Slavoj žižek ·
2017-11-15 · 0:33:21 · 4,536 words
race-antisemitismfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessgeopolitics-warreligion-theologysexuality-genderethicseconomicscapitalismideology
A long, provocative talk on the European refugee crisis and the politics of multiculturalism. Žižek accepts that Western, Chinese and Russian economic neo-colonialism caused the refugee flow and that Europe has a duty to receive refugees, but he rejects left-liberal 'sentimental' open-border multiculturalism as politically false and structurally impossible. He argues instead for organized reception camps, a rehabilitated 'Leitkultur' of minimal rules regulating how cultures relate, 'progressive dogmatism' over Habermasian rationalism, and a ruthlessly even-handed critique of every culture, including Islam. He ends by reading the new fashionability of anti-Eurocentrism as a symptom of the dark times capitalism is producing.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 12
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “European masochist self-flagellation”
the left-liberal position of infinite European self-guilt that simply opens borders without organization; he opposes it as politically false and hypocritical.
as “economic neo-colonialism”
the main cause of refugee flows: Western intervention and resource extraction, but also Chinese and Russian neo-colonialism in Africa and Asia, not only European.
functions on the total registration of every individual; the refugees' dream of an unregistered Norwegian welfare life is therefore formally impossible.
drawing on Jameson's 'An American Utopia', he proposes organized reception camps on the Syrian/Lebanese/Turkish coast and a quasi-military coordination of refugee movement as the only solution.
the liberal reflex of 'where is our empathy, where is our humanity?' which he and Habermas reject in favor of duty and full ethical responsibility without love.
his thesis that the refugees want cultural identity AND full participation in a European welfare state, which is structurally impossible, so one must 'move further'.
never just about 'ourselves'; it always involves how you relate to others, and every culture carries inherent antagonisms and conflicts that multiculturalism ignores.
as “multiculturalism”
the liberal legalistic idea that each community maintains its own way of life while the state only guarantees peaceful coexistence; he argues this cannot work because every cultural identity involves relations to others and carries inherent antagonisms.
every culture has unmentionable points (Europe: the Holocaust; Islam: Mohammed); tolerance is always already bounded by dogma, and that is not in itself a bad thing.
as “progressive dogmatism”
his coinage: certain ethical prohibitions (e.g. against rape) should be accepted as self-evident dogma rather than submitted to Habermasian rational argumentation; for him this is a sign of progress.
he declares himself 'moderately Eurocentric', insisting that anti-Eurocentrism's new acceptability is a symptom of dark times rather than a sign of anti-colonial victory.
as “Leitkultur (leading culture)”
he rehabilitates the German term for 'leading culture', not as Christian supremacy but as the imposition of minimal rules regulating how different cultures relate to each other.
Stories he reaches for 4
A Roma girl fled an arranged marriage and feminists supported her, but the same feminists were the official protectors of multiculturalism; a Roma leader said on Slovene TV that arranged marriage is a crucial mechanism of their society's reproduction, and removing it reduces them to a tourist spectacle.
“arranged marriages are one of the absolutely crucial mechanisms of the reproduction of our society”
After the gay community in Germany made Islamophobic (not homophobic) statements following Muslim attacks on gays, Judith Butler heroically refused to accept a big prize offered to her there.
“she rejected, refused to accept a big prize offered by her there.”
At Columbia, Ahmadinejad's reply on homosexuals was translated as 'there are no homosexuals in Iran'; Iranian friends told Žižek he actually said they deal with it discreetly, not talking about it, the Old Testament logic of 'not in front of me'.
“we deal with this in a totally different way than you. We don't talk about it and allow you to do it discreetly.”
Via Alain Badiou and Le Figaro: the 'ethnic' Christian/Muslim violence in the Central African Republic was triggered by oil discovered in the Muslim northeast and a clash of Chinese vs French neo-colonial interests, not primordial ethnic passion.
“it was strictly triggered by the conflict of economic neo-colonial interests between China and France.”
Works invoked 6
An American Utopia essay
Jameson's 'mad text' (forthcoming from Verso) claiming the only American chance for radical communism is militarization; Žižek adopts it as the template for organized refugee reception camps.
Quran book
cited for the 'virgins'/'white grape raisins' mistranslation that grounds the Palestinian martyr joke.
Charlie Hebdo journal
the Charlie Hebdo affair is used to expose the inconsistency of European tolerance: you can mock Mohammed but not the Holocaust.
Le Figaro journal
the right-wing French daily that, per Badiou, ran the small item revealing the oil-based neo-colonial background of the Central African Republic conflict.
Old Testament book
the Second Commandment ('no other gods in front of me') is read as the model of discreet tolerance, do it, but out of God's sight, paralleling Ahmadinejad on homosexuality.
the relatively social-democratic German channel whose report on honor killings in the Muslim community he cites as evidence the phenomenon is not marginal.
People invoked 14
Udi Aloni positive
good friend, 'sometimes even more crazy than you or me'; source of the Palestinian rapper at UCLA story.
Marine Le Pen negative
her coming to power in France would be 'the end of Europe'; a representative of the anti-immigrant Christian-identity right he opposes.
Judith Butler positive
praised for the 'heroic thing' of refusing a big prize from the gay community after it made Islamophobic statements.
one of the 'liberal centrist atheists' he hates; yet he strategically agrees with their critique that the radical left shields Islam from mockery.
Alain Badiou positive
friend who drew his attention to the Central African Republic oil war (via Le Figaro); they have a small conflict over whether the state should remain neutral in cultural conflicts like clitoridectomy.
met privately in Zagreb; told Žižek he had no illusions about Putin, and recounted the Russians' brutal Grexit offer (buy state companies + a Greek island base).
his Columbia 'no homosexuals in Iran' reply was, per Iranian friends, a mistranslation of a more refined answer about discreet tolerance; used to illustrate cultural difference in regulating the unmentionable.
Fredric Jameson positive
cites his 'mad text' An American Utopia (Verso) and its claim that the only American chance for radical communism is militarization, which Žižek adopts as the model for organized refugee reception.
mentioned as not yet being a minister at the time of the Zagreb Subversive Festival.
named alongside Sam Harris as a fashionable liberal atheist he dislikes, while strategically crediting their critique of the left's Islam exception.
Jürgen Habermas positive
agrees with Habermas that Europe is deeply responsible for the crisis and is 'sick and tired' of false sentimentalization; but counterposes 'progressive dogmatism' to Habermasian rational argumentation.
Vladimir Putin negative
the Russian delegation's offer to Tsipras (buying state companies + a military base on a Greek island) is cited as proof there should be 'no illusions about Putin'.
Karl Marx positive
develops the analysis of neo-colonialism 'in a very traditional Marxist way'.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
defends himself 'as a Hegelian' against accusations of fascism, anti-Semitism, etc.; the dialectical reversals throughout (taboos, ethical responsibility) are explicitly Hegelian.
What it argues
the European refugee crisis and who is responsible for itcritique of liberal multiculturalism and left self-flagellationIslamophobia, the limits of critique, and cultural taboosLeitkultur and the minimum rules for coexistenceethics without sentimentality: duty over empathyprogressive dogmatism against Habermasian rationalismanti-Eurocentrism as a symptom of dark times
Dialectical moves 8
“The problem is not to love them. The problem is simple full ethical responsibility.”
love and empathy are displaced by duty as the true ethical relation to the refugee.
“All dreams of emancipation are inconsistent and you have to move further.”
emancipation is already its own contradiction, the refugee dream is structurally inconsistent and must be pushed past itself.
“It's not the girl wants to wear it, the state prohibits it. But what if the girl doesn't want to wear it and her family threatens her?”
the prohibition is reversed: the real coercion is within the community, not the state, so the liberal defense of the veil hides the opposite violence.
“Every culture has its taboos. Don't have any illusions here.”
tolerance is always already dogma; the liberal self-image of universal mockability is false.
“In Europe you can make fun of Mohammed. But can you make fun of Holocaust?”
the tolerant society has its own unmentionable; tolerance is inconsistent and bounded by its own taboo.
“We deal with this in a totally different way than you. We don't talk about it and allow you to do it discreetly.”
Ahmadinejad's denial of homosexuality is reframed as a form of discreet tolerance, not absence, the Second Commandment logic of 'not in front of me'.
“Anti-Eurocentrism... it's one of the signs of the dark times we are approaching when, as I always emphasize, capitalism...”
anti-Eurocentrism is not a victory of anti-colonial struggle but a symptom of the very capitalism it pretends to oppose.
“I strategically agree with them when they criticize some type of radical left for you are allowed to mock everyone except Islam.”
agreement with the New Atheists is the reversal of his dislike of them, the enemy of his enemy is not his friend but the reversal exposes a real inconsistency on the left.
Claims 16
asserts
Economic neo-colonialism — Western, but also Chinese and Russian — is the main cause of the refugee flow; not only Europe is responsible.causes of the refugee crisis
asserts
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the Emirates received zero refugees despite cultural and religious proximity and complicity in the Syrian war, which is disgusting.Gulf states' refusal of refugees
asserts
Multiculturalism cannot work because every cultural identity involves relations to others and every culture has inherent antagonisms.multiculturalism
asserts
The refugees' dream of maintaining cultural identity while fully participating in a European welfare state is formally impossible.refugee aspiration
reframes
The problem is not whether to love the refugees but to assume full ethical responsibility without sentimentality.ethical response to refugees
asserts
Every culture has its taboos and unmentionable points; Europe can mock Mohammed but not the Holocaust.cultural tolerance and its limits
asserts
To prohibit some things ethically is not in itself bad but a sign of progress — this is progressive dogmatism.limits of toleration
asserts
We should be ruthless toward Islam, but also toward everyone — not single Islam out for protected critique.critique of religion
asserts
Open the borders, but in an organized way, through reception camps on the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Turkey.refugee policy
asserts
A minimal Leitkultur — rules regulating how cultures relate — must be imposed; you cannot escape this choice.Leitkultur / integration
rejects
The left-liberal position of infinite European self-flagellation and open borders is politically false and hypocritical.left-liberal multiculturalism
rejects
The anti-immigrant right's claim that immigrants threaten Christian identity is wrong, but Le Pen or UKIP in power would be the real end of Europe.the European anti-immigrant right
reframes
The burqa question is not 'the girl wants to wear it, the state prohibits it' but 'what if the girl doesn't want to wear it and her family threatens her?'burqa/hijab prohibition
asserts
Honor killings and forced marriage in Muslim communities in Germany are not marginal; the claim that they are marginal is Western propaganda denial.honor violence in Muslim communities
reframes
Anti-Eurocentrism's new acceptability is not a sign of anti-colonial victory but a symptom of the dark times capitalism is producing.anti-Eurocentrism
asserts
The US is not automatically the guilty party in every world crisis — we live in a multicentric world with Chinese and Russian neo-colonialism.geopolitics of blame
Quotes 11
“I don't blame them for that. But the tragedy is that they don't get it that their dream is for strictly formal reasons impossible.”Slavoj Žižek · refugee dream's formal impossibility
“The problem is not to love them. The problem is simple full ethical responsibility.”Slavoj Žižek · ethics without sentimentality
“I hate people other in my apartment, I even don't like to have my own family in my apartment.”Slavoj Žižek · anti-sentimental honesty
“I'm for progressive dogmatism.”Slavoj Žižek · progressive dogmatism
“Would you really like to live in a society where you would have to argue like Habermasians, rational argumentation, why women should not be raped?”Slavoj Žižek · limits of rationalist ethics
“every culture has its taboos. Don't have any illusions here.”Slavoj Žižek · cultural taboos
“All dreams of emancipation are inconsistent and you have to move further.”Slavoj Žižek · emancipation's inconsistency
“I strategically agree with them when they criticize some type of radical left for you are allowed to mock everyone except Islam.”Slavoj Žižek · critique of the liberal exception for Islam
“it's one of the signs of the dark times we are approaching when, as I always emphasize, capitalism...”Slavoj Žižek · anti-Eurocentrism as symptom
“But fuck you, you want this freedom and then you want to go to Norway.”Slavoj Žižek · refugee contradiction
“I tried to rehabilitate the notion of Leitkultur, leading culture.”Slavoj Žižek · rehabilitation of Leitkultur
Transcript 1 turns
Slavoj Žižek
The biggest problems with racism that we have today and so on. You know that we have today and this brought me into a lot of trouble when I check the internet. I don't do it regularly but from time to time my friends draw my attention to the fact how oh you are again attacked as now in late time. Once I was attacked as antisemite, then I was attacked as justifying Arab terrorism, then I was attacked, I loved this, for the same book of the most perfidious Zionist propaganda. Now the last attacks are that that I am a fascist, European nationalist, anti-immigrant and so on and so on. Maybe it's true, but I am tempted to defend myself here as a Hegelian. Why? Let me go into it. You know, it's in Europe now we have, and I developed this in that article in this Times, we have this on the one hand, of course, anti-immigrants who claim all these immigrants are a threat to European Christian identity, blah blah, and all those paranoiac theories. It's not an spontaneous event, it's all planned by enemies of Europe and so on and so on. Well, frankly, even in this there is a moment of truth, I claim. Don't kill me. I'm not now a European... You know in what sense? Isn't there something strange happening with these refugees? Look. We have poor Middle East countries, relatively poor. Egypt, Turkey, Iran. Each of them received one to two million immigrants. We have Europe which is definitely more wealthy and it's so-so relatively open. Then we have the really rich countries. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Emirates. You know how many refugees they received? Zero. Zero. And it's absolutely disgusting, I claim, because first they are culturally much closer. You know, like Saudi Arabia even cannot claim oh it's a civil war there, we want to remain a conservative country or whatever. First Saudi Arabia is not a conservative country. Maybe they play this game theologically, but socially it's a kind of a big capital mafia, gangster family. It's all about American money, oil, reinvesting it. It's the most speculative capital modern country in this sense. So they or all those rich countries, their official politics is not even one, although not only most of the refugees are Sunnis more than Shias, so religiously they are the same. Even worse, at least in Syria, it's clear that, it's not even a secret that Saudi Arabia together with Turkey is supporting the rebels and so on. So you cannot say sorry, this wasn't our problem, why should we take the refugees? No, they play a key role in creating the crisis in Syria. But my point is not so much this, my point is, and this brought me all the trouble, opposed to those whom of course I oppose, those European cultural jerks, you know, like oh threat to Christian identity and so on and so on. The formula to which I stick all the time here for decades is, of course, I am for European values, but they are really threatened by those anti-immigrant... Like imagine Europe where Marine Le Pen is in power, in England where I don't know who, UKIP in... sorry, in France, UKIP in England and so on. That would have been really the end of Europe, I think, no? But there is another point here. Then we get these left liberals and those I oppose, because I think it's a politically false, hypocritical position. Their attitude is first, they accept this infinite self-flagellation, how do you call it? European masochist criticism. We are guilty, totally. So we should totally open our borders and so on and so on. I claim that yes, I developed this in a very traditional Marxist way. Not Europe, but let's say today's economic, mostly economic neo-colonialism is clearly the main cause of this great flow of refugees because, again, without American intervention in Iraq, no ISIS, because ISIS is a reaction to, you know, one of the beautiful things that United States did in Iraq. Is the result of their intervention was that the pro-Iranian Shias are now the predominating force. So another big success of American politics. Why don't we give as a present to our Iranian friends Iraq, another country, no? But... and incidentally I don't have time to go into it but I'm so unsure what is this ISIS. I don't want to be... Usually I try to avoid this stupid paranoia, you know, like September 11th was really an... you know, this total racism, antisemitism in the sense of, you know, this stupid, oh all the Jews got a message two days before, don't go on 11th of September to Twin Towers and so on, all the bullshit. But with ISIS things are, the least one can say, extremely obscure. I'm not sure who, what is behind it. But what I want to say is this. Yes, I totally accept this argumentation. Either it's this warfare interventions there in Libya, or it's simply economic neo-colonialism. Like what's going on, for example, in Central African Republic. Alain Badiou drew my attention to it. The official story is this one. Another ethnic warfare between the Christian majority and on northeast of the country, Muslim minority. And again, wild locals, we Europeans should we intervene or not? Ha ha ha. We know the story now, but it's totally ignored in our media. But I believe the story for the simple reason Alain Badiou told me this and showed me the clips. You know, he learned the story from Le Figaro, which is the right-wing daily, but just they report a small item. Unfortunately they discovered oil in the Muslim northeast of the country. The whole of country was being gradually colonized by the Chinese. So this explosion of old ethnic passions, fuck you, it was simply... it was strictly triggered by the conflict of economic neo-colonial interests between China and France. Even you, United States, I don't always blame you. You know, we really live in multicentric world today, which is as much as this is difficult to accept for some leftists, but when there is some horrible thing going on in the world, you are not automatically the guilty part. You know what, like I wish all the best to the Chinese, but unfortunately I must tell you what Chinese are doing in many African countries, or in Myanmar, ex-Burma and so on. Well, if the term economic colonialism has any meaning, this is what they are doing there. Even I remember, I don't know if I repeat myself, I was at some Subversive Festival in Zagreb, capital of Croatia, a couple of years ago. Two years ago, just before Varoufakis wasn't yet a minister, and there was some crazy guy, leftist sociologist, who claimed that European poor countries who are now screwed by Germany, they should delink from Europe and open up to... like he advised this to Greeks. If Syriza win, step out of European Union, open up yourself to Russia and China. Yeah, good luck. Yeah, yeah. Because they said... he said, okay, they are not maybe democratic, but at least they will not force upon you their ideology, which means basically they like local dictators with whom it's... But then there were some Greeks in the hall who just started to laugh like crazy. And then why? Because then they told me, you know that Chinese tried to buy the port of Piraeus? And they did something there that no Western colonialist imperialist dares to do it today. They did it so brutally. They fired half of the people, they find some legal loophole to prevent any trade union. So just don't mention to Syriza progressive Chinese. As to the Russians, yes, Tsipras did play this game a little bit. But again, privately when I met him in Zagreb, he told me no illusions about Putin. He told me, Russians did send a delegation, no? And they told him okay if you do Grexit we can give you tens of billions to survive but, and but was a pretty brutal but. First, you should allow us to buy all those remaining state companies like Telecom which still somehow work. And B, a big nice juicy Greek island for years as our military base and so on. You know, so no illusions here. So again, let's make this first point clear. I am not claiming we Europeans are clean here. We are absolutely... but not only us. We, Chinese, United States, are absolutely responsible for this wave of refugees. The problem is... no, there is no problem, this simply is a fact. The problem is this one: how to react to it? When I was so attacked as a racist when I noticed that and in Slovenia I met them, the refugees. And I respect this, I don't blame them for this, but it's almost tragic how they are possessed with a certain vision, how should I put it? For example, we Slovenes are not a rich country, but also not terribly poor. Like our per capita is now around Well, this is not ultra poverty, no? And you know, dozens of refugees interviewed by our TV cameras said we don't like this country, it's too poor. Norway, Norway, we want Norway. And at the same time all of them repeated the same formula, like we, I know what I want. Norway government will give me a big apartment, they will provide university education for my children. I know one of my sons should become a surgeon, the other one should become whatever and so on and so on. Well, my silly answer was three quarters of Slovenes would like the same, no? But I don't blame them for that. But the tragedy is that they don't get it that their dream is for strictly formal reasons impossible. Impossible in this sense. At the same time, yeah, that's the irony, whenever authorities in Slovenia, Croatia, whenever try to... often they do it in a brutal way, and I protested against it. But often they just said, okay, we allow you to enter, just please to organize provisions, food, medical help, my God, we have to register you, no? And then they shout usually no, we are not cattle, we are humans, we want freedom. But fuck you, you want this freedom and then you want to go to Norway. I don't think there is a country in the world, because I'm sorry to tell you but that's how modern, if it still works, welfare state functions. Everyone is totally registered with all your problems and so on because that's how the state takes care of you. So to go back to this, what am I saying? Should we not allow them to enter? No, my problem is... my solution is along the lines of Fred Jameson's wonderful text, this mad text, now it's already being in the process, it will appear soon by Verso, a volume of Fred Jameson replies to him and then his short reply, An American Utopia. Where he claims that the only American chance of... it's madness, of radical change, communism, is militarization. And I claim, maybe this would be a solution, to the shock of my leftist friends I claim, a military solution would have worked. Not in this bad sense, you know, you... but the only way to resolve the crisis is to establish some refugee, how do we would we call them? Reception camps in the places where you still can do it. On the coast of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and so on. And then to somehow organize the movement, no? I mean, I don't see any... First, I don't see Europe should fully admit its duty. I pose no doubt here. I just emphasize, and here I agree with Habermas, who said that he is sick and tired with this false, how should I call it, sentimentalization. Where is our humanity? Where is our empathy? No. To provoke things, one TV station, they stopped me on the street, I had a boycott them in Slovenia, they asked me would you accept a refugee family into your apartment? I told them no, I hate people other in my apartment, I even don't like to have my own family in my apartment. But I said I know we are... The problem is not to love them. The problem is simple full ethical responsibility. If you take half of my money that I earn, and I don't earn as much as maybe it appear, and I immediately accept that. Don't sentimentalize it. And Habermas was right when he says this Europe is deeply responsible for this. This is why it's Europe's duty, but to do it, but I think without this bullshit, you know, open the borders and so on. Yes, open the borders, but in an organized way. There are... now comes the really evil part. The problem is this one which they embody it, the refugees. Again, they want... and it's a legitimate dream, but that's the problem. All dreams of emancipation are inconsistent and you have to move further. First step: they want to maintain their cultural identity and fully participate in a European welfare state. I claim for theoretical reasons this doesn't work. That's where I don't believe in multiculturalism. Not in the sense because our culture is higher and so on. My problem is this one, and for this I'm now proclaimed I don't know, secret fascist right-winger. You know, the problem with multiculturalism is that it relies on a certain liberal legalistic dream which simply doesn't work. The idea is: each community can maintain if it wants, of course it can also mix with others, its own way of life. The state just has to guarantee the, how should I call it, peaceful coexistence without violence and so on. I claim this absolutely doesn't and cannot work. For the simple reason that every cultural identity is never just about yourself, of ourselves. It involves the notion of how you relate to others, plus there is another mega problem. Every culture has its own inherent antagonisms, conflicts and so on. For example, my good friend Udi Aloni, who is sometimes even more crazy than you or me, which is quite an achievement, them... he told me a wonderful story. There is a Palestinian rapper, I forgot his name, I'm sorry, who recently visited United States and about a year ago I think he gave a concert at UCLA. And you know what happened there? After the... and one of his songs was against honor killings. He also protests, of course, Zionist oppression, blah blah, but he... and he was immediately attacked there by some fanatical anti-Zionist, but wrong ones I think. That why do you mention this? Don't you know that this serves the... serves the purposes of Zionism and so on. Basically they accused him of being Zionist spy slave or whatever. And he gave a wonderful dignified answer to this, of course, wealthy student and he said the difference between you and me is that you study in one of the richest universities in the world and you talk in this way to guarantee your career, to become popular with your wealthy, wealthy pseudo-radical professors in English, while I in my country sing in Hebrew and Arab to help women who really suffer there. And so you see this hypocrisy. In... instead of being glad we don't have to patronize the Palestinians, we just have to join their own struggle. And they are not so marginal. There... it's a whole, still minority, but a very strong movement on the West Bank which says okay, okay, anti-Zionist struggle, but at the same time, my God, we have many problems of our own, like honor killings and so on. And to give you an example, they even have wonderful sense of humor. They absolutely don't fit this ridiculous idea of, you know, fanatical Palestinians. Like I'm sorry if you know this story, it's not a dirty one. It's a wonderful one. It's based on that mistranslation every good, so I was told, scientist, historian of Quran knows that you know that stupid idea: if you are a martyr and go to heaven, you get virgins and so on. Everybody knows that this is a translation mistake. The term used in Quran designates the top quality white grape raisins. And the expression you will get it's not virgins. This was at that time, 6th, 7th century, the standard phrase for hospitality. It means I give you a whole fist of raisins, it means you are a welcome guest. And Palestinians told me this wonderful joke. There is an ugly Palestinian guy who wants to screw girls, he's ugly, no girl wants him. So he says my God, I will become a martyr, I kill myself, I go up and I will get it there. Okay, he does it, he awakens in paradise and gets the raisins. And then he says sorry, mistranslation mistake, translation, can I go back please? It was all a linguistic misunderstanding. Or I mean, so you know what I'm saying here? This is the uni... like you... I hate all those liberal centrist atheists which are now fashionable in the United States. Let's name them: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on. You know why? First, they are not really neutral. I strategically agree with them when they criticize some type of radical left for you are allowed to mock everyone except Islam. Like we should be tender there, you are immediately accused of Islamophobia. I agree with this. I absolutely think we should be ruthless also towards Islam. But the problem I have is that then let's be ruthless towards everyone. You know my problem with you remember that Charlie Hebdo murders? You know, I always explode when I hear the story oh my God, how open we are in Europe, you see it's our spirit that you can make fun of everything. Those stupid Arabs thinks some topics, Muslims, are out, unmentionable. But it's not like this, and I think it's even good that it's not like this. Every culture has its, how should I call it, unmentionable points. Like, okay, in Europe you can make fun of Mohammed. But can you make fun of Holocaust? Try to do this and you will see how you will also be immediately excommunicated. Now, wait a minute. My point is not so let's allow this also. My point is simply that to prohibit some things ethically is not in itself a bad thing. Now to provoke you I will say it's even a sign of progress. I'm for progressive dogmatism. Maybe you know the story, I will repeat it. Would you really like to live in a society where you would have to argue like Habermasians, rational argumentation, why women should not be raped, you know? No, I would like to live in a society where this is in a good sense simply accepted as a self-evidence. So when some guy starts to deploy this tasteless line, you know oh, but don't you think she secretly enjoyed it and so on, you don't have to argue. The guy simply immediately appears as an idiot. You know, in this sense I claim the first thing to accept is that, of course, it's not the same. I'm not saying our taboos are the same as their taboos. I'm just saying the first clear point: every culture has its taboos. Don't have any illusions here. At certain level we are more tolerant but things are much more ambiguous. Let me tell you a story, this time I think I don't repeat myself, at least not here. I used this yesterday in Brown, Providence, but not here. You remember when some three, four years ago when he was still president Ahmadinejad while he was at UN visited Columbia and there was a big public debate there. Now, I don't know if this is true, but I spoke with two Iranian friends of mine who told me something very interesting. What? They were there and they told me, and again they were not friends, no friends of Ahmadinejad, my God, they were emigrants escaping Islamic revolution. But they said that the translation was totally misleading. Namely, as you could have expected, some guy provocatively asked Ahmadinejad how about homosexuals? How do you deal with them in Iran? And Ahmadinejad's reply was translated as we don't have this problems, there are no homosexuals in Iran. Then of course everyone laughed and so on. Eh, but my friend told me no, he gave effectively a much more refined answer. Something like we deal with this in a totally different way than you. We don't talk about it and allow you to do it discreetly. And my friend told me that that basically the implicit reference, because Ahmadinejad wasn't an idiot but he knew, you know for them it's also the sacred book the Old Testament. You know, is it sorry, now comes my barbarism, is it the first or the second... No, fuck off Christ. It's the first of the second commandment: you should celebrate no other gods. But you know that... Second. But you know how it says completely: In front of me. You shouldn't do it in front of me. It doesn't mean... In front of me of course God is boss. So the idea is: do it discreetly, but out of my sight. You have it even there. And you see here we encounter all this ambiguities of the notion of sorry, of neighbor, how to regulate it and so on. This is why... but I already talked about this in my classes, I don't to take... No, you know what? I've spoken already way too long. So let me nonetheless conclude. So my idea is this one. And whenever I hear this people who claim oh, Islamophobia, you shouldn't criticize the refugees, I say tell them first I absolutely admit European responsibility. We should even give, I don't know, like percent of our budget, my God, fully open. But there is a but. My but is this one. For example, I recently saw, you can copy it on, I mean look it on YouTube, the ZDF and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen remember is the relatively social-democratic leftist one. A report on honor killings and this in Muslim community in West Germany. And it's terrifying what you learn there. It's not a marginal phenomenon. You know, because people usually always name this example, it's easy to agree with them. Isn't it horrible that in France the state prohibited wearing the burqa, how do you call it here, the veil, whatever? I agree with it. But the problem is not this one. The problem is not the girl wants to wear it, the state prohibits it. Here I agree. But what if the girl doesn't want to wear it and her family threatens her? Now my anti-Islamophobic friends tell me oh, you are victim of Zionist Western propaganda, these are just marginal cases. No. to per year in Germany. Such strong cases that the girls have to escape. And then they have already around, how do you call it? Exile, asylum home where these girls are treated like, how do you call them? Protected victims, you know, given anonymity, new identity and so on and so on. And then Islam community says, and in a way they are right: but you are here privileging your ethics, which your ethical substance which gives greater accent to individual freedom to our where community, collaboration, mutual help has greater predominance. So here I'm brutal. I wonder, I'm trying really to provoke you now, although hopefully you will say and then I will love you again Avital that... that there is no time for debate or whatever. No, but seriously. No, I always ask my friends who accuse me of Eurocentrism and so on. Okay, what about a thing that happened two years ago in Slovenia? Gypsy, Roma girl, escaped from her family, seek refuge in police, because her father when she was already married her, arranged marriage to blah blah and she didn't want to. And then of course all the feminists supported her. But the irony was that these same feminists who supported her were at the same time officially the greatest protectors of multiculturalism, you know like blah blah. And then one of the leaders of Roma community appeared on Slovene TV and said something which was obviously true. He says are you aware that arranged marriages are one of the absolutely crucial mechanisms of the reproduction of our society? You take this from us and then we will survive but a kind of a tourist spectacle people, you know. You come to listen to our songs, our food, but effectively as a society we will disappear. So what's my lesson here? The... it's not that I'm offering any easy solution. But the first thing is to establish that you have to make a choice here. You cannot say... even with Alain Badiou I had a small conflict here. Because he said no, state should be... should remain above all this. Okay, but I told him, let's say a girl comes to the police, or a more extreme example, and they are more rare here, there is definitely a lot of Western propaganda. But nonetheless, girl comes and says okay, I want to avoid clitoridectomy. So what will you say? No, it's their cultural problem, let's not do it and so on and so on. I am claiming that, you know, this is why, just to shock and provoke my friends, I tried to rehabilitate the notion of Leitkultur, leading culture. Not in the sense of our Christianity. But what I think we should not be ashamed to impose is certain rules which regulate how different cultures relate to each other. For example, this is not a marginal problem, my friends told me from Malmö, Berlin, and Amsterdam that gay communities were first well disposed towards Muslims. But then Muslims start to attack gays publicly. Okay, Judith Butler, I admire her for this, did the heroic thing. Because as a reaction to this gay community made some Islamophobic, not homophobic, that would be too much, statements, she rejected, refused to accept a big prize offered by her there. But nonetheless, you see what I mean? There is no easy way out. At a certain level you have to impose some rules. You cannot escape it. And this is for me Leitkultur. And I'm here moderately Eurocentric. And I will tell you why. Because it's so suspicious for me today why is it all of a sudden so acceptable to be anti-Eurocentric. I think this is not a good sign of victory of anti-colonial struggle. On the contrary, it's one of the signs of the dark times we are approaching when, as I always emphasize, capitalism...
The biggest problems with racism that we have today and so on. You know that we have today and this brought me into a lot of trouble when I check the internet. I don't do it regularly but from time to time my friends draw my attention to the fact how oh you are again attacked as now in late time. Once I was attacked as antisemite, then I was attacked as justifying Arab terrorism, then I was attacked, I loved this, for the same book of the most perfidious Zionist propaganda. Now the last attacks are that that I am a fascist, European nationalist, anti-immigrant and so on and so on. Maybe it's true, but I am tempted to defend myself here as a Hegelian. Why? Let me go into it. You know, it's in Europe now we have, and I developed this in that article in this Times, we have this on the one hand, of course, anti-immigrants who claim all these immigrants are a threat to European Christian identity, blah blah, and all those paranoiac theories. It's not an spontaneous event, it's all planned by enemies of Europe and so on and so on. Well, frankly, even in this there is a moment of truth, I claim. Don't kill me. I'm not now a European... You know in what sense? Isn't there something strange happening with these refugees? Look. We have poor Middle East countries, relatively poor. Egypt, Turkey, Iran. Each of them received one to two million immigrants. We have Europe which is definitely more wealthy and it's so-so relatively open. Then we have the really rich countries. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Emirates. You know how many refugees they received? Zero. Zero. And it's absolutely disgusting, I claim, because first they are culturally much closer. You know, like Saudi Arabia even cannot claim oh it's a civil war there, we want to remain a conservative country or whatever. First Saudi Arabia is not a conservative country. Maybe they play this game theologically, but socially it's a kind of a big capital mafia, gangster family. It's all about American money, oil, reinvesting it. It's the most speculative capital modern country in this sense. So they or all those rich countries, their official politics is not even one, although not only most of the refugees are Sunnis more than Shias, so religiously they are the same. Even worse, at least in Syria, it's clear that, it's not even a secret that Saudi Arabia together with Turkey is supporting the rebels and so on. So you cannot say sorry, this wasn't our problem, why should we take the refugees? No, they play a key role in creating the crisis in Syria. But my point is not so much this, my point is, and this brought me all the trouble, opposed to those whom of course I oppose, those European cultural jerks, you know, like oh threat to Christian identity and so on and so on. The formula to which I stick all the time here for decades is, of course, I am for European values, but they are really threatened by those anti-immigrant... Like imagine Europe where Marine Le Pen is in power, in England where I don't know who, UKIP in... sorry, in France, UKIP in England and so on. That would have been really the end of Europe, I think, no? But there is another point here. Then we get these left liberals and those I oppose, because I think it's a politically false, hypocritical position. Their attitude is first, they accept this infinite self-flagellation, how do you call it? European masochist criticism. We are guilty, totally. So we should totally open our borders and so on and so on. I claim that yes, I developed this in a very traditional Marxist way. Not Europe, but let's say today's economic, mostly economic neo-colonialism is clearly the main cause of this great flow of refugees because, again, without American intervention in Iraq, no ISIS, because ISIS is a reaction to, you know, one of the beautiful things that United States did in Iraq. Is the result of their intervention was that the pro-Iranian Shias are now the predominating force. So another big success of American politics. Why don't we give as a present to our Iranian friends Iraq, another country, no? But... and incidentally I don't have time to go into it but I'm so unsure what is this ISIS. I don't want to be... Usually I try to avoid this stupid paranoia, you know, like September 11th was really an... you know, this total racism, antisemitism in the sense of, you know, this stupid, oh all the Jews got a message two days before, don't go on 11th of September to Twin Towers and so on, all the bullshit. But with ISIS things are, the least one can say, extremely obscure. I'm not sure who, what is behind it. But what I want to say is this. Yes, I totally accept this argumentation. Either it's this warfare interventions there in Libya, or it's simply economic neo-colonialism. Like what's going on, for example, in Central African Republic. Alain Badiou drew my attention to it. The official story is this one. Another ethnic warfare between the Christian majority and on northeast of the country, Muslim minority. And again, wild locals, we Europeans should we intervene or not? Ha ha ha. We know the story now, but it's totally ignored in our media. But I believe the story for the simple reason Alain Badiou told me this and showed me the clips. You know, he learned the story from Le Figaro, which is the right-wing daily, but just they report a small item. Unfortunately they discovered oil in the Muslim northeast of the country. The whole of country was being gradually colonized by the Chinese. So this explosion of old ethnic passions, fuck you, it was simply... it was strictly triggered by the conflict of economic neo-colonial interests between China and France. Even you, United States, I don't always blame you. You know, we really live in multicentric world today, which is as much as this is difficult to accept for some leftists, but when there is some horrible thing going on in the world, you are not automatically the guilty part. You know what, like I wish all the best to the Chinese, but unfortunately I must tell you what Chinese are doing in many African countries, or in Myanmar, ex-Burma and so on. Well, if the term economic colonialism has any meaning, this is what they are doing there. Even I remember, I don't know if I repeat myself, I was at some Subversive Festival in Zagreb, capital of Croatia, a couple of years ago. Two years ago, just before Varoufakis wasn't yet a minister, and there was some crazy guy, leftist sociologist, who claimed that European poor countries who are now screwed by Germany, they should delink from Europe and open up to... like he advised this to Greeks. If Syriza win, step out of European Union, open up yourself to Russia and China. Yeah, good luck. Yeah, yeah. Because they said... he said, okay, they are not maybe democratic, but at least they will not force upon you their ideology, which means basically they like local dictators with whom it's... But then there were some Greeks in the hall who just started to laugh like crazy. And then why? Because then they told me, you know that Chinese tried to buy the port of Piraeus? And they did something there that no Western colonialist imperialist dares to do it today. They did it so brutally. They fired half of the people, they find some legal loophole to prevent any trade union. So just don't mention to Syriza progressive Chinese. As to the Russians, yes, Tsipras did play this game a little bit. But again, privately when I met him in Zagreb, he told me no illusions about Putin. He told me, Russians did send a delegation, no? And they told him okay if you do Grexit we can give you tens of billions to survive but, and but was a pretty brutal but. First, you should allow us to buy all those remaining state companies like Telecom which still somehow work. And B, a big nice juicy Greek island for years as our military base and so on. You know, so no illusions here. So again, let's make this first point clear. I am not claiming we Europeans are clean here. We are absolutely... but not only us. We, Chinese, United States, are absolutely responsible for this wave of refugees. The problem is... no, there is no problem, this simply is a fact. The problem is this one: how to react to it? When I was so attacked as a racist when I noticed that and in Slovenia I met them, the refugees. And I respect this, I don't blame them for this, but it's almost tragic how they are possessed with a certain vision, how should I put it? For example, we Slovenes are not a rich country, but also not terribly poor. Like our per capita is now around Well, this is not ultra poverty, no? And you know, dozens of refugees interviewed by our TV cameras said we don't like this country, it's too poor. Norway, Norway, we want Norway. And at the same time all of them repeated the same formula, like we, I know what I want. Norway government will give me a big apartment, they will provide university education for my children. I know one of my sons should become a surgeon, the other one should become whatever and so on and so on. Well, my silly answer was three quarters of Slovenes would like the same, no? But I don't blame them for that. But the tragedy is that they don't get it that their dream is for strictly formal reasons impossible. Impossible in this sense. At the same time, yeah, that's the irony, whenever authorities in Slovenia, Croatia, whenever try to... often they do it in a brutal way, and I protested against it. But often they just said, okay, we allow you to enter, just please to organize provisions, food, medical help, my God, we have to register you, no? And then they shout usually no, we are not cattle, we are humans, we want freedom. But fuck you, you want this freedom and then you want to go to Norway. I don't think there is a country in the world, because I'm sorry to tell you but that's how modern, if it still works, welfare state functions. Everyone is totally registered with all your problems and so on because that's how the state takes care of you. So to go back to this, what am I saying? Should we not allow them to enter? No, my problem is... my solution is along the lines of Fred Jameson's wonderful text, this mad text, now it's already being in the process, it will appear soon by Verso, a volume of Fred Jameson replies to him and then his short reply, An American Utopia. Where he claims that the only American chance of... it's madness, of radical change, communism, is militarization. And I claim, maybe this would be a solution, to the shock of my leftist friends I claim, a military solution would have worked. Not in this bad sense, you know, you... but the only way to resolve the crisis is to establish some refugee, how do we would we call them? Reception camps in the places where you still can do it. On the coast of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and so on. And then to somehow organize the movement, no? I mean, I don't see any... First, I don't see Europe should fully admit its duty. I pose no doubt here. I just emphasize, and here I agree with Habermas, who said that he is sick and tired with this false, how should I call it, sentimentalization. Where is our humanity? Where is our empathy? No. To provoke things, one TV station, they stopped me on the street, I had a boycott them in Slovenia, they asked me would you accept a refugee family into your apartment? I told them no, I hate people other in my apartment, I even don't like to have my own family in my apartment. But I said I know we are... The problem is not to love them. The problem is simple full ethical responsibility. If you take half of my money that I earn, and I don't earn as much as maybe it appear, and I immediately accept that. Don't sentimentalize it. And Habermas was right when he says this Europe is deeply responsible for this. This is why it's Europe's duty, but to do it, but I think without this bullshit, you know, open the borders and so on. Yes, open the borders, but in an organized way. There are... now comes the really evil part. The problem is this one which they embody it, the refugees. Again, they want... and it's a legitimate dream, but that's the problem. All dreams of emancipation are inconsistent and you have to move further. First step: they want to maintain their cultural identity and fully participate in a European welfare state. I claim for theoretical reasons this doesn't work. That's where I don't believe in multiculturalism. Not in the sense because our culture is higher and so on. My problem is this one, and for this I'm now proclaimed I don't know, secret fascist right-winger. You know, the problem with multiculturalism is that it relies on a certain liberal legalistic dream which simply doesn't work. The idea is: each community can maintain if it wants, of course it can also mix with others, its own way of life. The state just has to guarantee the, how should I call it, peaceful coexistence without violence and so on. I claim this absolutely doesn't and cannot work. For the simple reason that every cultural identity is never just about yourself, of ourselves. It involves the notion of how you relate to others, plus there is another mega problem. Every culture has its own inherent antagonisms, conflicts and so on. For example, my good friend Udi Aloni, who is sometimes even more crazy than you or me, which is quite an achievement, them... he told me a wonderful story. There is a Palestinian rapper, I forgot his name, I'm sorry, who recently visited United States and about a year ago I think he gave a concert at UCLA. And you know what happened there? After the... and one of his songs was against honor killings. He also protests, of course, Zionist oppression, blah blah, but he... and he was immediately attacked there by some fanatical anti-Zionist, but wrong ones I think. That why do you mention this? Don't you know that this serves the... serves the purposes of Zionism and so on. Basically they accused him of being Zionist spy slave or whatever. And he gave a wonderful dignified answer to this, of course, wealthy student and he said the difference between you and me is that you study in one of the richest universities in the world and you talk in this way to guarantee your career, to become popular with your wealthy, wealthy pseudo-radical professors in English, while I in my country sing in Hebrew and Arab to help women who really suffer there. And so you see this hypocrisy. In... instead of being glad we don't have to patronize the Palestinians, we just have to join their own struggle. And they are not so marginal. There... it's a whole, still minority, but a very strong movement on the West Bank which says okay, okay, anti-Zionist struggle, but at the same time, my God, we have many problems of our own, like honor killings and so on. And to give you an example, they even have wonderful sense of humor. They absolutely don't fit this ridiculous idea of, you know, fanatical Palestinians. Like I'm sorry if you know this story, it's not a dirty one. It's a wonderful one. It's based on that mistranslation every good, so I was told, scientist, historian of Quran knows that you know that stupid idea: if you are a martyr and go to heaven, you get virgins and so on. Everybody knows that this is a translation mistake. The term used in Quran designates the top quality white grape raisins. And the expression you will get it's not virgins. This was at that time, 6th, 7th century, the standard phrase for hospitality. It means I give you a whole fist of raisins, it means you are a welcome guest. And Palestinians told me this wonderful joke. There is an ugly Palestinian guy who wants to screw girls, he's ugly, no girl wants him. So he says my God, I will become a martyr, I kill myself, I go up and I will get it there. Okay, he does it, he awakens in paradise and gets the raisins. And then he says sorry, mistranslation mistake, translation, can I go back please? It was all a linguistic misunderstanding. Or I mean, so you know what I'm saying here? This is the uni... like you... I hate all those liberal centrist atheists which are now fashionable in the United States. Let's name them: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on. You know why? First, they are not really neutral. I strategically agree with them when they criticize some type of radical left for you are allowed to mock everyone except Islam. Like we should be tender there, you are immediately accused of Islamophobia. I agree with this. I absolutely think we should be ruthless also towards Islam. But the problem I have is that then let's be ruthless towards everyone. You know my problem with you remember that Charlie Hebdo murders? You know, I always explode when I hear the story oh my God, how open we are in Europe, you see it's our spirit that you can make fun of everything. Those stupid Arabs thinks some topics, Muslims, are out, unmentionable. But it's not like this, and I think it's even good that it's not like this. Every culture has its, how should I call it, unmentionable points. Like, okay, in Europe you can make fun of Mohammed. But can you make fun of Holocaust? Try to do this and you will see how you will also be immediately excommunicated. Now, wait a minute. My point is not so let's allow this also. My point is simply that to prohibit some things ethically is not in itself a bad thing. Now to provoke you I will say it's even a sign of progress. I'm for progressive dogmatism. Maybe you know the story, I will repeat it. Would you really like to live in a society where you would have to argue like Habermasians, rational argumentation, why women should not be raped, you know? No, I would like to live in a society where this is in a good sense simply accepted as a self-evidence. So when some guy starts to deploy this tasteless line, you know oh, but don't you think she secretly enjoyed it and so on, you don't have to argue. The guy simply immediately appears as an idiot. You know, in this sense I claim the first thing to accept is that, of course, it's not the same. I'm not saying our taboos are the same as their taboos. I'm just saying the first clear point: every culture has its taboos. Don't have any illusions here. At certain level we are more tolerant but things are much more ambiguous. Let me tell you a story, this time I think I don't repeat myself, at least not here. I used this yesterday in Brown, Providence, but not here. You remember when some three, four years ago when he was still president Ahmadinejad while he was at UN visited Columbia and there was a big public debate there. Now, I don't know if this is true, but I spoke with two Iranian friends of mine who told me something very interesting. What? They were there and they told me, and again they were not friends, no friends of Ahmadinejad, my God, they were emigrants escaping Islamic revolution. But they said that the translation was totally misleading. Namely, as you could have expected, some guy provocatively asked Ahmadinejad how about homosexuals? How do you deal with them in Iran? And Ahmadinejad's reply was translated as we don't have this problems, there are no homosexuals in Iran. Then of course everyone laughed and so on. Eh, but my friend told me no, he gave effectively a much more refined answer. Something like we deal with this in a totally different way than you. We don't talk about it and allow you to do it discreetly. And my friend told me that that basically the implicit reference, because Ahmadinejad wasn't an idiot but he knew, you know for them it's also the sacred book the Old Testament. You know, is it sorry, now comes my barbarism, is it the first or the second... No, fuck off Christ. It's the first of the second commandment: you should celebrate no other gods. But you know that... Second. But you know how it says completely: In front of me. You shouldn't do it in front of me. It doesn't mean... In front of me of course God is boss. So the idea is: do it discreetly, but out of my sight. You have it even there. And you see here we encounter all this ambiguities of the notion of sorry, of neighbor, how to regulate it and so on. This is why... but I already talked about this in my classes, I don't to take... No, you know what? I've spoken already way too long. So let me nonetheless conclude. So my idea is this one. And whenever I hear this people who claim oh, Islamophobia, you shouldn't criticize the refugees, I say tell them first I absolutely admit European responsibility. We should even give, I don't know, like percent of our budget, my God, fully open. But there is a but. My but is this one. For example, I recently saw, you can copy it on, I mean look it on YouTube, the ZDF and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen remember is the relatively social-democratic leftist one. A report on honor killings and this in Muslim community in West Germany. And it's terrifying what you learn there. It's not a marginal phenomenon. You know, because people usually always name this example, it's easy to agree with them. Isn't it horrible that in France the state prohibited wearing the burqa, how do you call it here, the veil, whatever? I agree with it. But the problem is not this one. The problem is not the girl wants to wear it, the state prohibits it. Here I agree. But what if the girl doesn't want to wear it and her family threatens her? Now my anti-Islamophobic friends tell me oh, you are victim of Zionist Western propaganda, these are just marginal cases. No. to per year in Germany. Such strong cases that the girls have to escape. And then they have already around, how do you call it? Exile, asylum home where these girls are treated like, how do you call them? Protected victims, you know, given anonymity, new identity and so on and so on. And then Islam community says, and in a way they are right: but you are here privileging your ethics, which your ethical substance which gives greater accent to individual freedom to our where community, collaboration, mutual help has greater predominance. So here I'm brutal. I wonder, I'm trying really to provoke you now, although hopefully you will say and then I will love you again Avital that... that there is no time for debate or whatever. No, but seriously. No, I always ask my friends who accuse me of Eurocentrism and so on. Okay, what about a thing that happened two years ago in Slovenia? Gypsy, Roma girl, escaped from her family, seek refuge in police, because her father when she was already married her, arranged marriage to blah blah and she didn't want to. And then of course all the feminists supported her. But the irony was that these same feminists who supported her were at the same time officially the greatest protectors of multiculturalism, you know like blah blah. And then one of the leaders of Roma community appeared on Slovene TV and said something which was obviously true. He says are you aware that arranged marriages are one of the absolutely crucial mechanisms of the reproduction of our society? You take this from us and then we will survive but a kind of a tourist spectacle people, you know. You come to listen to our songs, our food, but effectively as a society we will disappear. So what's my lesson here? The... it's not that I'm offering any easy solution. But the first thing is to establish that you have to make a choice here. You cannot say... even with Alain Badiou I had a small conflict here. Because he said no, state should be... should remain above all this. Okay, but I told him, let's say a girl comes to the police, or a more extreme example, and they are more rare here, there is definitely a lot of Western propaganda. But nonetheless, girl comes and says okay, I want to avoid clitoridectomy. So what will you say? No, it's their cultural problem, let's not do it and so on and so on. I am claiming that, you know, this is why, just to shock and provoke my friends, I tried to rehabilitate the notion of Leitkultur, leading culture. Not in the sense of our Christianity. But what I think we should not be ashamed to impose is certain rules which regulate how different cultures relate to each other. For example, this is not a marginal problem, my friends told me from Malmö, Berlin, and Amsterdam that gay communities were first well disposed towards Muslims. But then Muslims start to attack gays publicly. Okay, Judith Butler, I admire her for this, did the heroic thing. Because as a reaction to this gay community made some Islamophobic, not homophobic, that would be too much, statements, she rejected, refused to accept a big prize offered by her there. But nonetheless, you see what I mean? There is no easy way out. At a certain level you have to impose some rules. You cannot escape it. And this is for me Leitkultur. And I'm here moderately Eurocentric. And I will tell you why. Because it's so suspicious for me today why is it all of a sudden so acceptable to be anti-Eurocentric. I think this is not a good sign of victory of anti-colonial struggle. On the contrary, it's one of the signs of the dark times we are approaching when, as I always emphasize, capitalism...