Slavoj Žižek: Trump is a liberal fetish
Interview · UnHerd ·
2025-04-09 · 1:17:37 · 10,476 words
ideologypsychoanalysishegel-dialecticsfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnessrevolution-violencecinema-art-culturecapitalismecology-climatedemocracytechnology-ai-cyberspacegeopolitics-warsubjectivitycommunism-socialismphilosophy-generaleveryday-life
Žižek analyzes contemporary right-wing populist figures like Trump, Vance, and Musk as 'primordial fathers' and the unintended outcome of the 1968 revolution's perverted appropriation by capitalism. He argues that these figures embody a shameless, obscene freedom that the left must counter by reclaiming 'decency' and 'shame,' contrasting the vulgar 'SA' energy of Trump with the robotic coldness of JD Vance. The excerpt concludes with a dialectical analysis of political necessity, using Hegel’s examples of Caesar and Napoleon to explain how contingency becomes historical law through repetition. Žižek argues that Trump is not an aberration but a symptom of the failure of the liberal democratic welfare state, functioning as a 'liberal fascist' who uses chaos and lies to assert authenticity. He analyzes Trump’s political strategy through Lacanian concepts of the subject of enunciation and the fetish, while drawing parallels to Milei in Argentina and the 'techno-feudalism' of figures like Musk. The talk concludes with an ecological critique, arguing that nature itself is chaotic ('a dirty bitch'), necessitating a radical, almost Stalinist-level reorganization of society to address the Anthropocene. Žižek addresses audience questions regarding cultural differences in toilet design, the nature of Trump’s obscenity versus Putin’s discretion, and his own political evolution regarding Trump and the Democratic Party. He argues for the value of 'alienation' and bureaucratic distance over intimate community, critiques historicism in favor of the eternal reinvention of classics like Shakespeare, and praises Kurosawa’s Yojimbo and Dostoevsky’s The Idiot as examples of external understanding.
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
as “primordial father”
A Lacanian/Freudian figure who functions through pure, unmediated obscenity and terror, rather than symbolic authority, exemplified by Trump and Kim Jong Un.
The slogan 'enjoy without obstacles' associated with 1968; Žižek uses Lacan to argue that this pursuit of pure freedom leads to a new, worse master rather than liberation.
The defining trait of the new populist right; the loss of the sense of shame, which Žižek argues is not subversive but a symptom of a new master's power, contrasting with the left's false 'subversiveness'.
A provocative proposal for a progressive authoritarian figure who bypasses democratic procedure to enact a progressive agenda, citing FDR as a historical precedent.
as “carnival revolution”
A description of the January 6 Capitol riots not as a serious coup but as a 'carnival' where right-wingers appropriated the leftist dream of occupying the seat of power.
as “SA vs SS”
A distinction drawn from Hannah Arendt between the vulgar, brutal 'SA' (Trump) and the cold, efficient, robotic 'SS' (Vance), suggesting the latter is more terrifying.
as “necessity through repetition”
A Hegelian concept where an event initially seen as contingent (Caesar, Napoleon) becomes a historical necessity only after being repeated, establishing a new order (Augustus, Empire).
as “proto-Trump”
Žižek's label for Javier Milei of Argentina, who represents the early, successful iteration of the Trumpian model of using chaos and economic shock therapy to consolidate power.
as “subject of the enunciated vs. subject of the enunciation”
A Lacanian distinction applied to populism: the 'enunciated' is the factual content (often lies), while the 'enunciation' is the subjective position of authenticity and despair expressed by the act of speaking.
as “fetish for the liberal left”
The idea that Trump functions as a Freudian fetish for liberals, allowing them to avoid confronting deeper social antagonisms and class struggles by focusing exclusively on his person.
A Robespierre quote used by Žižek to illustrate the paradoxical exclusion inherent in radical political projects, including modern cancel culture.
A concept from Yanis Varoufakis, which Žižek references with sympathy but notes he has problems with, describing the current economic structure dominated by platform capitalists.
as “liberal fascist”
Žižek's term for Trump, describing the paradox of a figure who claims to liberate people from state pressure while simultaneously enforcing extreme censorship and authoritarian control.
as “sanity common sense”
Trump's inaugural slogan, which Žižek deconstructs as a cover for the terrifying 'denaturalization' and algorithmic reconstruction of society.
as “digital state”
The concept, associated with Elon Musk and Trump, of clearing a corrupted territory to construct a new society through algorithms and experts from zero, bypassing traditional democratic processes.
as “dirty bitch of a mother”
Žižek's provocative description of nature, arguing that nature is not a harmonious, gentle background but a source of inherent chaos and threat, refuting humanist notions of ecological balance.
Žižek’s triad of toilet designs (German: shelf/examination, French: black hole, British: middle way) used to illustrate cultural attitudes toward shame and the body.
The paradox that Trump’s open obscenity requires a counterpart (Putin) who maintains a leader’s image while harboring discrete obscenities.
as “Stalinist Leninism”
Žižek’s ironic characterization of Biden’s administrative takeover of local institutions (school boards) as a 'Leninist' or 'Stalinist' cadre-building strategy.
as “War communism / Emergency state communism”
Žižek’s definition of communism not as a utopia, but as the necessary, crisis-driven suspension of market logic (e.g., during COVID) where the state directs production.
as “Pre-representative communal democracy”
The leftist dream of local, direct democracy which Žižek rejects as a 'nightmare' in favor of efficient, impersonal bureaucracy.
as “In Praise of Alienation”
Žižek’s endorsement of McGowan’s thesis that alienation (distance, impersonal institutions) is liberating and preferable to forced intimacy.
Žižek’s ideal of selective distance in social relations, preferring the anonymity of large buildings to the pressure of close-knit communities.
A work’s greatness lies in its capacity to be reinvented by each epoch, rather than being fixed to its historical origin.
as “Historicism”
The method of contextualizing art within its era, which Žižek rejects in favor of reading classics to understand the era retroactively.
The idea that one understands another culture better through its external representation (e.g., Dickens/Austen for India) than through internal experience.
Stories he reaches for 5
Žižek uses Lacan's example of a pathologically jealous husband: even if the wife is actually cheating, the jealousy is pathological because it is needed to sustain the husband's subjectivity; he would collapse without it.
“even if all his suspicions are true, his jealousy is still pathological... The point is why does he need jealousy to sustain his subjectivity?”
Žižek argues that nature is not a harmonious, gentle background but a source of inherent chaos and threat, citing coal and oil as evidence of past catastrophes, calling nature 'a dirty bitch of a mother.'
“if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother. You know? We cannot rely on whatever happens...”
Žižek imagines a debate with a hard-line Nazi in 1937 Germany. He admits the Nazi's facts (e.g., Jews were a majority of bankers/critics) might be true, but argues the real issue is why the Nazi subject needs the Jew to maintain his identity and avoid the collapse of his 'corporate feudal capitalism.'
“I wonder if it will be too much for you... The true question is another one. It is: why does a Nazi subject need the figure of a Jew to maintain his identity?”
Žižek argues cancel culture works like the Jacobins/Robespierre: it claims to be for diversity and freedom, but effectively excludes those who don't agree, enforcing 'no freedom for the enemies of the freedom.'
“Cancel culture works like this... You are for diversity but then... excluding those who don't agree... no freedom for the enemies of the freedom.”
Žižek notes that Steve Bannon, a key Trump figure, was dismissed for wanting to raise taxes on the top 2%, a demand no Democrat makes, showing Trump addresses real economic wrongs in the liberal vision.
“Steve Bannon... He said the first thing we should do is to raise maximum taxes for to percent.”
Works invoked 9
The German Ideology book
Described as Marx's 'worst work,' but cited for its theory of communism where one freely jumps between activities, which Žižek ironically applies to Musk.
The Idiot (novel) book
Cited via Rowan Williams’ reading; the novel portrays Myshkin’s 'wrong kind of goodness' which brings disaster.
Mein Kampf book
Described as 'boring' and 'terrifying'; read to understand Hitler’s story, countering the idea that one should ignore the enemy.
Totem and Taboo book
Freud's text cited for the mythic history of the primordial father (Urvater) and the killing of the father.
No Other Land film
A documentary cited for its footage of a Palestinian co-director being beaten, illustrating 'open shamelessness.'
Book by Slav McGowan; cited to support the view that alienation (distance, impersonal institutions) is liberating.
Uber other
Used as an example of a capitalist company that ideologically frames workers as 'small capitalists' to neutralize the concept of exploitation.
Yojimbo film
Misidentified by Žižek as a 'Hamlet' adaptation titled Only Bad People Sleep Well; praised as the best version of Hamlet, set in modern Japan.
The Idiot (film) film
Claimed to be 'much better than Idiot itself, the original novel'; illustrates the 'wrong kind of goodness' of Myshkin.
People invoked 43
Julius Caesar positive
Hegel's example of a deviation that became a necessity (a title) through the repetition of Augustus.
Kamala Harris negative
Used as a foil to Trump; described as 'well trained by experts' who says 'practically nothing' and offers 'total platitudes,' lacking the 'authenticity' of Trump's mistakes.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Friend and intellectual ally; Žižek cites her work on alienation (via McGowan) to support his view that distance is preferable to intimacy.
Todd McGowan positive
American Lacanian thinker; Žižek cites his book For Alienation or In Praise of Alienation as a key influence on his current thinking.
Mohammad Mosaddegh positive
Mentioned as the Iranian president overthrown by the Shah in 1953 via a 'pure carnival' strategy involving circus artists.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited for his theory of imperialism; Žižek contrasts Lenin/Mao with Marx’s idea of capitalism’s constant self-revolutionizing.
Theodor W. Adorno positive
Cited for his late 30s text arguing that figures like Hitler are not paternal figures but function differently.
Steve Bannon positive
Described as 'as close as you can come to... a left Trumpian' because he advocated for raising taxes on the top 2%, a demand no Democrat makes.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited for his reinterpretation of the primordial father, his critique of '68 ('jouir sans entraves'), and his lesson that losing the sense of shame is not subversive.
Referenced in the context of 'building a new man' and 'zero beginning,' which Žižek says Trump is now practicing in a terrifying way.
Mentioned as doing some measures beyond the market during COVID, though not as radically as Trump.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Žižek cites Fukuyama's endorsement of Bernie Sanders to show even he saw the liberal system wasn't working, but Žižek disagrees with Fukuyama's broader liberal framework.
Friend and colleague; mentioned in the context of humanities departments being attacked in the US and UK.
Donald Trump positive
Analyzed as a 'primordial father' and 'obscene comedian'; Žižek uses him to illustrate shamelessness and the perverted outcome of '68, while noting his 'authenticity' compared to trained politicians.
JD Vance positive
Described as a 'robot' or 'alien' with 'terrifying coldness,' representing the 'SS' (efficiency) rather than Trump's 'SA' (vulgarity), making him potentially worse.
Elon Musk positive
Used as an example of the 'primordial father' and the 'last outcome of '68'; his chaotic work/sex life is compared to Marx's communist vision in a 'perverted form'.
Bertrand Russell negative
Referenced as a critic of liars' paradox who sees it as self-contradictory, whereas Lacan sees a truth in it.
Adolf Hitler positive
Read Mein Kampf not to identify with him, but to understand his story; finds it 'terrifying' and 'boring', arguing against the wisdom of ignoring the enemy's story.
Bernie Sanders positive
Used as a positive counter-example to Trump; described as a 'modest guy' and 'very decent normal guy' whom the left should emulate to reclaim 'decency' and 'shame.'
Volodymyr Zelenskyy positive
Mentioned in the context of Trump's 'pleasure in humiliating' him and Vance's 'terrifying coldness' during their interaction.
Friend with whom Žižek has great disagreements; Žižek cites him as a sympathetic figure but disagrees with his belief that people will eventually 'awaken' from ideology.
Mentioned as a target of Trump's 'Pocahontas' nickname, which Žižek ironically finds had 'some minimal spirit' compared to current vulgarity.
Maximilien Robespierre positive
Cited for the phrase 'no freedom for the enemies of the freedom,' which Žižek likes to illustrate the paradox of cancel culture and Jacobin logic.
Salman Rushdie positive
Cited for his answer about using Dickens and Austen to understand India; illustrates the concept of 'multiculturalism of externality'.
Rowan Williams positive
Friend and theologian; Žižek cites his book on Dostoevsky’s The Idiot to support the interpretation of Myshkin as a monster.
Napoleon positive
Hegel's example of someone who had to lose twice for his rule to become a historical necessity.
Javier Milei positive
Described as 'proto-Trump'; his success in Argentina serves as a warning that the Trump model is not just a passing clown act.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Cited alongside Bernie Sanders as part of the strengthened left of the Democratic Party.
Joschka Fischer negative
Žižek cites Fischer's view of Trump as an 'abnormality' to refute it, arguing Trump is a symptom of the system.
Associated with the SA, the 'brutal early Nazis' who were 'ruining the streets,' contrasted with the SS.
Hannah Arendt positive
Cited for her late 30s text distinguishing between the brutal SA and the cold, efficient SS.
Joe Biden positive
Described ironically as a 'Stalinist' who effectively took over local institutions (school boards) to build cadre power, unlike the 'blind' Democrats.
Hillary Clinton positive
Žižek admits he thought Hillary would have been a 'catastrophe' and that her election might have allowed Trump to return, a mistake in his earlier assessment.
William Shakespeare positive
Used as the 'eternal example' of a masterpiece that is reinvented by each epoch; reading Shakespeare helps understand the Elizabethan era.
Margaret Thatcher positive
Cited for her 'Marxist anti-alienation argument' against personalized charity, which Žižek uses to support the value of impersonal state bureaucracy.
Vladimir Putin positive
Used as a foil to Trump; Žižek analyzes Putin’s 'discrete obscenities' (castration joke) as a necessary counterpart to Trump’s open vulgarity.
Akira Kurosawa positive
Praised for Yojimbo (as a Hamlet adaptation) and The Idiot; Žižek claims these films offer better external understanding than the originals.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt positive
Used as an example of a 'soft dictator' who effectively ruled without caring about electoral appearances, supporting Žižek's provocative proposal.
Karl Marx positive
Žižek identifies as a 'traditional Marxist' and notes even Marx had a humanist notion of nature that he now rejects.
Abraham Lincoln positive
Cited for the quote about cheating people, which Žižek subverts to argue that modern ideology allows deceiving all people all the time.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for 'Totem and Taboo' (primordial father myth) and the idea that 'nowhere is the unconscious more inaccessible than in a perversion.'
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Cited for his theory that 'something becomes a necessity only through repetition,' using Caesar and Napoleon as examples.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky positive
Cited via Rowan Williams’ reading of The Idiot; Žižek agrees that Myshkin represents a 'wrong kind of goodness' that brings disaster.
Transcript 41 turns
unknown
Slavoj, I want to start by wishing you a happy liberation day. Today marks the moment that Donald Trump imposed tariffs on almost every country in the world except—did you read it? Russia and North Korea? Literally. It's literally, it's incredible. A left-leaning optimist might say this marks the end of an age of craven free trade. Are you such an optimist? Do you feel liberated? No, for
Slavoj, I want to start by wishing you a happy liberation day. Today marks the moment that Donald Trump imposed tariffs on almost every country in the world except—did you read it? Russia and North Korea? Literally. It's literally, it's incredible. A left-leaning optimist might say this marks the end of an age of craven free trade. Are you such an optimist? Do you feel liberated? No, for
Slavoj Žižek
for now I will begin with a rather simple cheap joke, but it’s very realistic. In times which are today, it’s suicidal to be an optimist, because you are just all the time disappointed. If you are a pessimist, then from time to time something small happens here and there, you know, which gives you some hope. But I really think that here I sympathize with my friend, although we had disagreements, Yanis Varoufakis. We have great disagreements, but nonetheless, everything has to be rethought when people like Trump, Vance, Elon Musk, this in the United States, become those who rule. Because what are they? They are no longer traditional—but by traditional I not mean 17th century, I mean even a couple of decades ago—figures of authority. The first thing is that obscenity, even making jokes about himself, is part of their image. That’s why I found something terribly wrong with all those left-liberal comedians like Jon Stewart, who just repeat this regular jokes making fun of Trump. Sorry, Trump is already a caricature of himself in some sense. The kind of first
for now I will begin with a rather simple cheap joke, but it’s very realistic. In times which are today, it’s suicidal to be an optimist, because you are just all the time disappointed. If you are a pessimist, then from time to time something small happens here and there, you know, which gives you some hope. But I really think that here I sympathize with my friend, although we had disagreements, Yanis Varoufakis. We have great disagreements, but nonetheless, everything has to be rethought when people like Trump, Vance, Elon Musk, this in the United States, become those who rule. Because what are they? They are no longer traditional—but by traditional I not mean 17th century, I mean even a couple of decades ago—figures of authority. The first thing is that obscenity, even making jokes about himself, is part of their image. That’s why I found something terribly wrong with all those left-liberal comedians like Jon Stewart, who just repeat this regular jokes making fun of Trump. Sorry, Trump is already a caricature of himself in some sense. The kind of first
unknown
as tragedy then as farce. Yeah, and everything has to be,
as tragedy then as farce. Yeah, and everything has to be,
Slavoj Žižek
so that I don’t lose time, sorry, rethought here, especially, I’m saying this without any trace of irony, very seriously, with a standard feminist attitude which tries to blame somehow, find a way, it’s a patriarchy and so on. Probably it is, but not in the usual traditional sense. I here refer to the best of critical theory, already in the late 30s, Adorno, the great one, wrote a wonderful text where he emphasized that figures like Hitler, they are not paternal figures. They function in a totally different way. Now there are debates how do they function. One nice Freudian theory is that, you know in his *Totem and Taboo*, Freud has this mythic history of there was Urvater, primordial father, who terrorized all the family, raped, had sex with all women, and then sons gather, kill the father, the father returns as a ghost, as symbolic authority, that’s how we get normal symbolic power. Lacan gave a proper interpretation of this. He said Freud got it wrong. First comes the symbolic father and today with figures like Kim Jong Un, Trump and so on, these are figures of primordial father, in all their obscenity. But are they even—I think things get so perverted—are they even paternal figures, no matter how perverted? Look, I was thinking about, not too much, but nonetheless, Elon Musk as a figure, you know. And you know what he reminded me of? Marx in, I think his worst work, in manuscript *German Ideology*, he gives there a theory of how communism will look. And he says you will change your do different thing, in the morning you will work on a field, in the afternoon you will write books, in the evening you will get drunk and so on. Isn't this how Musk works? For two hours he makes plan how to fly to Mars, then what to do with Tesla, then how to fire more federal employees and so on. With him you get this absolute madness of, you know, jumping from here to there and it's the same with his sex relations. The last time I read is that he has or children, each of them of course with a different woman. And it's something so perverted. You know that I learned from friends in LA that for his daughters he constructed—it's not just homeschooling that teachers came—but he constructed a small high school just for a couple of his children where they were taught the way he wanted, which meant no humanities, no music, no foreign languages, no. Just other things. Isn’t in this almost something, I would say in a naive way, communist? In the sense of free, it’s a false form of freedom, you know. In the sense of as if freedom is you jump here, there and so on and so on. So my conclusion, so that I don’t lose myself, isn't a figure like Musk the last outcome, unexpected, of '68? When we were dreaming about how to avoid alienated language or wonder—I think the only way to understand this new right-wing populist politicians is to see them as the final outcome of '68. '68 was a very ambiguous event. It—it is a big, the biggest model of how the system appropriated what it was perceived to be a subversive movement. There were three main goals. They said against factories for more creative work. They said sexual liberation and—they said against alienated universities, studying must be more individual creative. That's what we are getting today in a perverted form. Instead of this being just one of the numbers putting together a car, you get—you get precarious work, which is I think the most horrible thing you can imagine. Because you know why it's ingenious? Look, for me a typical capitalist company today is something like Uber. They claim we have nothing to do with capitalism, we are poor neutral mediators, we have people who offer something, cars, I mean drives, and people who need them. We just bring them together and the idea beneath it—it works so well ideologically—is that you who think you are exploited, you are all small capitalists. They claim look at the precarious worker, if you are Uber driver or work with artificial—on a computer, you own your means of production. So Marxist exploitation. How can you be a victim if you are a perpetrator? Yes. Yes. So this is how this lesson of against alienated factory work was appropriated. Then education, well, you see this realized not only in United States but now in England how precisely these higher-class humanities departments, now I know what happened with my friend Frank Ruda in Dundee, at Kingston here and so on. They claim precisely this is abstract university not connected with real life and so on and sexuality it goes by itself. What you—you get this so-called free sexuality and so on which is very commodified. It's not so—my just to finish, my I think that I was there, I'm old enough in '68, like I was I was not participating but observing it and my impression was that something bothered me already at that point. This hidden anti-feminist aspect, which was hysteria was perceived as a bad term, hysterics just provoke but they really need, want a new master. Perversion was supposed to be good. The big lesson, and Freud already said this, it's wonderful. Freud says nowhere is the unconscious more inaccessible than in a perversion. Because who would have thought it's the opposite, you know. Isn't the pervert one who brings out all the dirty stuff, does all the disgusting things? No, Lacan also returns to Freud here and says that every power structure need at its hidden obscene underground perverts to do it. Lacan's critique of '68 is very interesting. He opposes himself to this formula which was popular if you speak a little bit French, "jouir sans entraves," enjoy without obstacles. You know, my first suggestion is yes, Elon Musk, you know. Pure sexual freedom. Yeah, yeah. And actually dissociated because he uses IVF I think. Lacan says something very interesting. He says you revolutionaries want to get rid of the master, but you will get a new master which will be even worse. And I think Lacan was way ahead—not that he was a genius, he was lucky—ahead of his time. These guys, Elon Musk, Trump, are the new masters that wouldn't have been possible without the '68 revolution. In what precise sense? Here Lacan says something wonderful. He says, "My lesson, what I'm trying to teach you protesting students is: don't lose the sense of shame." There is nothing subversive in losing sense of shame. And I think this is so important today, okay it’s usually to take but not just there how Israelis doing in Gaza and I'm not simply saying Hamas is innocent and so on. Things get much more complex there. The latest data prove, do you follow news, that Israel was financing Hamas? It's a very dark game. My God, it is why they arrested now a billionaire friend of Netanyahu—but let's drop this. What I’m saying is that where do I see shamelessness? It's a minor example, I forgot his name, you know that co-director of *No Other Land*, the Palestinian guy? You know what shocks me? Not the fact that he was beaten and so on. I—I don’t think Israel is necessarily much worse than others here. I think all of them torture, beat and so on. But what shocked me is that you saw the scene, it's all recorded. Settlers come, provoke him, they beat him, then the police or army—arrest him, take him claiming for health reasons, he is just chained to whatever for hours, set free, no explanation. It's—we are more and more approaching this open shamelessness, you know. The good old times where at least you
so that I don’t lose time, sorry, rethought here, especially, I’m saying this without any trace of irony, very seriously, with a standard feminist attitude which tries to blame somehow, find a way, it’s a patriarchy and so on. Probably it is, but not in the usual traditional sense. I here refer to the best of critical theory, already in the late 30s, Adorno, the great one, wrote a wonderful text where he emphasized that figures like Hitler, they are not paternal figures. They function in a totally different way. Now there are debates how do they function. One nice Freudian theory is that, you know in his *Totem and Taboo*, Freud has this mythic history of there was Urvater, primordial father, who terrorized all the family, raped, had sex with all women, and then sons gather, kill the father, the father returns as a ghost, as symbolic authority, that’s how we get normal symbolic power. Lacan gave a proper interpretation of this. He said Freud got it wrong. First comes the symbolic father and today with figures like Kim Jong Un, Trump and so on, these are figures of primordial father, in all their obscenity. But are they even—I think things get so perverted—are they even paternal figures, no matter how perverted? Look, I was thinking about, not too much, but nonetheless, Elon Musk as a figure, you know. And you know what he reminded me of? Marx in, I think his worst work, in manuscript *German Ideology*, he gives there a theory of how communism will look. And he says you will change your do different thing, in the morning you will work on a field, in the afternoon you will write books, in the evening you will get drunk and so on. Isn't this how Musk works? For two hours he makes plan how to fly to Mars, then what to do with Tesla, then how to fire more federal employees and so on. With him you get this absolute madness of, you know, jumping from here to there and it's the same with his sex relations. The last time I read is that he has or children, each of them of course with a different woman. And it's something so perverted. You know that I learned from friends in LA that for his daughters he constructed—it's not just homeschooling that teachers came—but he constructed a small high school just for a couple of his children where they were taught the way he wanted, which meant no humanities, no music, no foreign languages, no. Just other things. Isn’t in this almost something, I would say in a naive way, communist? In the sense of free, it’s a false form of freedom, you know. In the sense of as if freedom is you jump here, there and so on and so on. So my conclusion, so that I don’t lose myself, isn't a figure like Musk the last outcome, unexpected, of '68? When we were dreaming about how to avoid alienated language or wonder—I think the only way to understand this new right-wing populist politicians is to see them as the final outcome of '68. '68 was a very ambiguous event. It—it is a big, the biggest model of how the system appropriated what it was perceived to be a subversive movement. There were three main goals. They said against factories for more creative work. They said sexual liberation and—they said against alienated universities, studying must be more individual creative. That's what we are getting today in a perverted form. Instead of this being just one of the numbers putting together a car, you get—you get precarious work, which is I think the most horrible thing you can imagine. Because you know why it's ingenious? Look, for me a typical capitalist company today is something like Uber. They claim we have nothing to do with capitalism, we are poor neutral mediators, we have people who offer something, cars, I mean drives, and people who need them. We just bring them together and the idea beneath it—it works so well ideologically—is that you who think you are exploited, you are all small capitalists. They claim look at the precarious worker, if you are Uber driver or work with artificial—on a computer, you own your means of production. So Marxist exploitation. How can you be a victim if you are a perpetrator? Yes. Yes. So this is how this lesson of against alienated factory work was appropriated. Then education, well, you see this realized not only in United States but now in England how precisely these higher-class humanities departments, now I know what happened with my friend Frank Ruda in Dundee, at Kingston here and so on. They claim precisely this is abstract university not connected with real life and so on and sexuality it goes by itself. What you—you get this so-called free sexuality and so on which is very commodified. It's not so—my just to finish, my I think that I was there, I'm old enough in '68, like I was I was not participating but observing it and my impression was that something bothered me already at that point. This hidden anti-feminist aspect, which was hysteria was perceived as a bad term, hysterics just provoke but they really need, want a new master. Perversion was supposed to be good. The big lesson, and Freud already said this, it's wonderful. Freud says nowhere is the unconscious more inaccessible than in a perversion. Because who would have thought it's the opposite, you know. Isn't the pervert one who brings out all the dirty stuff, does all the disgusting things? No, Lacan also returns to Freud here and says that every power structure need at its hidden obscene underground perverts to do it. Lacan's critique of '68 is very interesting. He opposes himself to this formula which was popular if you speak a little bit French, "jouir sans entraves," enjoy without obstacles. You know, my first suggestion is yes, Elon Musk, you know. Pure sexual freedom. Yeah, yeah. And actually dissociated because he uses IVF I think. Lacan says something very interesting. He says you revolutionaries want to get rid of the master, but you will get a new master which will be even worse. And I think Lacan was way ahead—not that he was a genius, he was lucky—ahead of his time. These guys, Elon Musk, Trump, are the new masters that wouldn't have been possible without the '68 revolution. In what precise sense? Here Lacan says something wonderful. He says, "My lesson, what I'm trying to teach you protesting students is: don't lose the sense of shame." There is nothing subversive in losing sense of shame. And I think this is so important today, okay it’s usually to take but not just there how Israelis doing in Gaza and I'm not simply saying Hamas is innocent and so on. Things get much more complex there. The latest data prove, do you follow news, that Israel was financing Hamas? It's a very dark game. My God, it is why they arrested now a billionaire friend of Netanyahu—but let's drop this. What I’m saying is that where do I see shamelessness? It's a minor example, I forgot his name, you know that co-director of *No Other Land*, the Palestinian guy? You know what shocks me? Not the fact that he was beaten and so on. I—I don’t think Israel is necessarily much worse than others here. I think all of them torture, beat and so on. But what shocked me is that you saw the scene, it's all recorded. Settlers come, provoke him, they beat him, then the police or army—arrest him, take him claiming for health reasons, he is just chained to whatever for hours, set free, no explanation. It's—we are more and more approaching this open shamelessness, you know. The good old times where at least you
unknown
felt the need to somehow give, provide a false version and so on. Okay, let’s speak about Trump then.
felt the need to somehow give, provide a false version and so on. Okay, let’s speak about Trump then.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah. Because this is an example of the shamelessness you speak about. In some ways he's, in many ways he's the embodiment, the spirit of shamelessness. Yeah. You say here, the large majority of Trump voters are everyday decent people—risky thing to say—who otherwise behave in rational ways. It is as if they externalize their madness and obscenity onto/into Trump. Can you just explain? I will, but in a more confused way. I will draw attention to something else. I think it's not yet in this book. A week or two after elections, maybe you know the story but it's crucial I think to understand the efficiency of Trump. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—I will say something politically incorrect, the attractive beautiful one, you know—she noticed, I even preferred not to know how through some informants or what, that he was re-elected in her, I think it's Brooklyn or where, district? Yeah. For as a congresswoman. But she discovered that many of her voters on in presidential elections voted for Trump. So she contacted many of them, wrote to them like, "Why did you do this?" And the answer is extremely interesting for me. The answer is, "Because you nonetheless have something in common with Trump. Look at Kamala Harris. She was so well trained by experts that at the end she was saying practically nothing when she was—do you remember, I remember a couple of days before the election she was asked what you would have done with with Gaza there. And you could almost see click click how her mind is working, how she was afraid to either say something too much against Israel or something too much against Palestinian and she came up with a total platitude like: this is horrible, people are dying there, it should be stopped, of course they like this, you know." While people were in a strange way even correct when they said that Trump and Ocasio-Cortez, although it’s a strange authenticity, but they—they perceived the way
Yeah. Because this is an example of the shamelessness you speak about. In some ways he's, in many ways he's the embodiment, the spirit of shamelessness. Yeah. You say here, the large majority of Trump voters are everyday decent people—risky thing to say—who otherwise behave in rational ways. It is as if they externalize their madness and obscenity onto/into Trump. Can you just explain? I will, but in a more confused way. I will draw attention to something else. I think it's not yet in this book. A week or two after elections, maybe you know the story but it's crucial I think to understand the efficiency of Trump. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—I will say something politically incorrect, the attractive beautiful one, you know—she noticed, I even preferred not to know how through some informants or what, that he was re-elected in her, I think it's Brooklyn or where, district? Yeah. For as a congresswoman. But she discovered that many of her voters on in presidential elections voted for Trump. So she contacted many of them, wrote to them like, "Why did you do this?" And the answer is extremely interesting for me. The answer is, "Because you nonetheless have something in common with Trump. Look at Kamala Harris. She was so well trained by experts that at the end she was saying practically nothing when she was—do you remember, I remember a couple of days before the election she was asked what you would have done with with Gaza there. And you could almost see click click how her mind is working, how she was afraid to either say something too much against Israel or something too much against Palestinian and she came up with a total platitude like: this is horrible, people are dying there, it should be stopped, of course they like this, you know." While people were in a strange way even correct when they said that Trump and Ocasio-Cortez, although it’s a strange authenticity, but they—they perceived the way
unknown
they speak as not totally trained by coaches, by experts, but some authentic openness. But this has nonetheless tragic consequences because I read another analysis, an American friend sent it to me, where she analyzed why do people who otherwise would have or did vote for Trump, why does Trump not only not lose voice, votes, but even get new votes when he is caught lying? You know, this is the usual sport of liberal journalists,
they speak as not totally trained by coaches, by experts, but some authentic openness. But this has nonetheless tragic consequences because I read another analysis, an American friend sent it to me, where she analyzed why do people who otherwise would have or did vote for Trump, why does Trump not only not lose voice, votes, but even get new votes when he is caught lying? You know, this is the usual sport of liberal journalists,
Slavoj Žižek
you know, "Oh all his mistakes, blah blah." Because isn't it a sad answer? For them this mistake means: "You see, Trump is like us, not totally trained, there is authenticity in him" and so on and so on. So I find this very sad. But now I will provoke you, sorry, nonetheless to answer it myself. You know what on the other hand, you know what I—it's obscene to say—like about Trump? But I am not ready to condemn his so-called dictatorial approach like, "Fuck the Congress, I have a majority there, let me decide." I think something like this should be done today, the point is what is he doing with this power. And some friends who agree with me gave me a mega example, it's difficult to disagree. The greatest maybe moment in 20th history American politics, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He effectively worked like that. He didn't care even in the last elections already '40 and then '44. He totally even ignored no no no electoral appearances or whatever. He re- and I think that because of the confusing corruption and so on one of the options that I am seriously tempted by is not to say we need more authentic democracy, but maybe we need a soft dictator. By soft I mean he doesn't go around killing people but effectively runs things with a more progressive agenda. Because to provoke you to the end, this is in the book, you know this Lincoln statement which of course as all great statements was not really Lincoln's, he took it from others: you can cheat some people all the time, all the people some time, you cannot cheat or deceive all the people all the time. Well, I think maybe you can. You know what I mean? I—I think that we are so corrupted, so—not corrupted in the sense of money but so deep in our everyday ideology that we need a figure of a master to awaken us, to push out. It will never come this moment—here I disagree with my friend Varoufakis, I’m saying this to provoke you—who still with all his criticism, blah blah, his dream is still, I asked him "Why are you doing this?", "There will be a moment when people will awaken." What if they will not awaken? You—you say that January 6th, the riots that happened around the Capitol, was not a coup, it was a carnival. Is that part of this kind of emergent productive chaos in some way? Yeah. And you know why? Because again, I said this, you know it, no? I don't like people who really read my stuff then I cannot surprise you. Many of my friends, leftists, I wrote about this, were crying. They said what is happening, something which is the ultimate leftist dream. Group of people penetrate occupy the seat of power, Congress. Right-wingers took even this from us. We don't even have the revolution. But it was clear that it was as you said a carnival revolution. And this should make us go back and see how whenever a power structure, conservative, was in crisis, how often this strategy was already used. For example, I was one year old at that point so I'm not claiming I was there but I read books. You remember was it when did Shah of Iran when was he installed in '51 or whatever and Mossadegh the president who just wanted to nationalize some oil a little bit more was overthrown. But you know how they did it? Pure carnival. It was not even military. They hired circus artists, clowns and so on, it was a type of public event. My lesson from this, it’s again a shameless one. We shouldn’t be afraid to address our voters as under quotation marks "normal decent people." We should stop with these obscenities, you know. I remember I was part '68 and afterwards we thought those in power are dignified and so on and we consider it subversive if you use the F-word, you make signs like this and so on and—no, sorry. The right-wingers took this from us. You know who is my model here? I always emphasize this. Just compare Trump and Bernie Sanders. Forget about Trump's ideology, how he acts. He's a kind of an obscene comedian, histrionics, he changes his position all the time, he is the one for whom there is the—the death of truth, you know. Changing position all the time, acts as a clown and so on. That's why I entitled my text on that infamous debate where Vance and Trump attacked Zelensky as using Trump's own words. Basically, Trump grabbed Zelensky by his pussy, you know that? To use his own word to remember, no? So what I’m saying is that so beneath, that's the paradox, beneath all his protect the family, sanity, return to normality and so on, he is just a dirty pervert. While what I like about as a person, what I like about Bernie Sanders is that in
you know, "Oh all his mistakes, blah blah." Because isn't it a sad answer? For them this mistake means: "You see, Trump is like us, not totally trained, there is authenticity in him" and so on and so on. So I find this very sad. But now I will provoke you, sorry, nonetheless to answer it myself. You know what on the other hand, you know what I—it's obscene to say—like about Trump? But I am not ready to condemn his so-called dictatorial approach like, "Fuck the Congress, I have a majority there, let me decide." I think something like this should be done today, the point is what is he doing with this power. And some friends who agree with me gave me a mega example, it's difficult to disagree. The greatest maybe moment in 20th history American politics, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He effectively worked like that. He didn't care even in the last elections already '40 and then '44. He totally even ignored no no no electoral appearances or whatever. He re- and I think that because of the confusing corruption and so on one of the options that I am seriously tempted by is not to say we need more authentic democracy, but maybe we need a soft dictator. By soft I mean he doesn't go around killing people but effectively runs things with a more progressive agenda. Because to provoke you to the end, this is in the book, you know this Lincoln statement which of course as all great statements was not really Lincoln's, he took it from others: you can cheat some people all the time, all the people some time, you cannot cheat or deceive all the people all the time. Well, I think maybe you can. You know what I mean? I—I think that we are so corrupted, so—not corrupted in the sense of money but so deep in our everyday ideology that we need a figure of a master to awaken us, to push out. It will never come this moment—here I disagree with my friend Varoufakis, I’m saying this to provoke you—who still with all his criticism, blah blah, his dream is still, I asked him "Why are you doing this?", "There will be a moment when people will awaken." What if they will not awaken? You—you say that January 6th, the riots that happened around the Capitol, was not a coup, it was a carnival. Is that part of this kind of emergent productive chaos in some way? Yeah. And you know why? Because again, I said this, you know it, no? I don't like people who really read my stuff then I cannot surprise you. Many of my friends, leftists, I wrote about this, were crying. They said what is happening, something which is the ultimate leftist dream. Group of people penetrate occupy the seat of power, Congress. Right-wingers took even this from us. We don't even have the revolution. But it was clear that it was as you said a carnival revolution. And this should make us go back and see how whenever a power structure, conservative, was in crisis, how often this strategy was already used. For example, I was one year old at that point so I'm not claiming I was there but I read books. You remember was it when did Shah of Iran when was he installed in '51 or whatever and Mossadegh the president who just wanted to nationalize some oil a little bit more was overthrown. But you know how they did it? Pure carnival. It was not even military. They hired circus artists, clowns and so on, it was a type of public event. My lesson from this, it’s again a shameless one. We shouldn’t be afraid to address our voters as under quotation marks "normal decent people." We should stop with these obscenities, you know. I remember I was part '68 and afterwards we thought those in power are dignified and so on and we consider it subversive if you use the F-word, you make signs like this and so on and—no, sorry. The right-wingers took this from us. You know who is my model here? I always emphasize this. Just compare Trump and Bernie Sanders. Forget about Trump's ideology, how he acts. He's a kind of an obscene comedian, histrionics, he changes his position all the time, he is the one for whom there is the—the death of truth, you know. Changing position all the time, acts as a clown and so on. That's why I entitled my text on that infamous debate where Vance and Trump attacked Zelensky as using Trump's own words. Basically, Trump grabbed Zelensky by his pussy, you know that? To use his own word to remember, no? So what I’m saying is that so beneath, that's the paradox, beneath all his protect the family, sanity, return to normality and so on, he is just a dirty pervert. While what I like about as a person, what I like about Bernie Sanders is that in
unknown
spite of his radical agenda and so on, I met him once just on the street through—in you can see him walking in what's the capital of Vermont, Burlington I think, no? Yeah, Burlington. That, you know, he is really a nice
spite of his radical agenda and so on, I met him once just on the street through—in you can see him walking in what's the capital of Vermont, Burlington I think, no? Yeah, Burlington. That, you know, he is really a nice
Slavoj Žižek
modest guy, you would expect him to be a neo-conservative, very decent normal guy. I think we should finally assert what it's obviously true. Sorry right-wing guys, we speak for moral majority, for decency, for shame and so on. Let's not be afraid to take this path, this path. Let's get rid of this false subversiveness. Has perversion crept into the left do you feel? Not so much. What the left and the right another phenomenon are doing now. In marginal groups yes, but the left, what is the left today? My standard joke you must have heard it is that if you look at UK today you have one big moderate right party, you call it Labour Party, no? And then you have more crazy right which does what one would expect from the left. The other perversion is that if you want crazy right in power, then you get blacks, Indians and black women and so on. If you want moderate right you get white men, of course you know. And this I’m not just joking. Something serious is going on here. So but what I wanted to say is that my next text will probably entitled "I pray that Trump will survive the next couple of years." Why? I am more afraid if Trump dies if Vance takes over with—you know I remembered Hannah Arendt wrote a wonderful text in late 30s already about the gap between SA, those Ernst Röhm brutal early Nazis who were ruining the streets, beating people and SS who were cold efficient. I think that Trump is more SA guy, you know this vulgar brutal, while Vance—it’s crazy, I know it’s not true but if I ever had a doubt that somebody around Trump is not really human but a robot or alien, Vance would be my choice. There is, you remember that Zelensky speech, how with Trump there was nonetheless some obvious pleasure in humiliating Zelensky, blah blah. With Vance it's terrifying coldness and so on. He is a robot. He—he would have been much worse if you ask me. Do you think Trump was saved by God in the assassination attempt? No, but there was one good thing about it. I was afraid that—you know that famous image, Trump and raising or American flag—"Fight, fight, fight." Yeah, I was afraid that this means the game is over. But it wasn't really, I think Democrats were making mistakes. But what really gave me some small hope is that this—I don't think I'm wrong, I was recently in the United States, I asked all my friends—Trump hoped that this will become the big image, you know, that's him. No it didn't, the big image is still the correct one. For me *the* image. You remember Biden's inauguration? Who stole the show? Bernie Sanders sitting there alone with his gloves on and so on. And it's incredible how this became—because this means, even the people were not aware, his—him sitting there alone meant we somehow feel that this spectacle of Biden's inauguration is a fake. A fake in what sense? Permit me to even mention Hegel now. Hegel has a wonderful theory that something becomes a necessity only through repetition. First you think it's a contingency. Hegel gives two examples. Julius Caesar, no, where those Senate members, Brutus and so on who slaughtered him thought oh Caesar is just a deviation let's return to old republic. No, it's a wonderful example of dialectic—dialectical process embodied. What did Augustus do? With him, Caesar was no longer a personal name but became a title. This means there was a necessity. The other example of Hegel is the obvious one, Napoleon. When Napoleon lost the first time he thought oh I made some tactical mistakes, something may be wrong. He had to lose two times, no? And it was
modest guy, you would expect him to be a neo-conservative, very decent normal guy. I think we should finally assert what it's obviously true. Sorry right-wing guys, we speak for moral majority, for decency, for shame and so on. Let's not be afraid to take this path, this path. Let's get rid of this false subversiveness. Has perversion crept into the left do you feel? Not so much. What the left and the right another phenomenon are doing now. In marginal groups yes, but the left, what is the left today? My standard joke you must have heard it is that if you look at UK today you have one big moderate right party, you call it Labour Party, no? And then you have more crazy right which does what one would expect from the left. The other perversion is that if you want crazy right in power, then you get blacks, Indians and black women and so on. If you want moderate right you get white men, of course you know. And this I’m not just joking. Something serious is going on here. So but what I wanted to say is that my next text will probably entitled "I pray that Trump will survive the next couple of years." Why? I am more afraid if Trump dies if Vance takes over with—you know I remembered Hannah Arendt wrote a wonderful text in late 30s already about the gap between SA, those Ernst Röhm brutal early Nazis who were ruining the streets, beating people and SS who were cold efficient. I think that Trump is more SA guy, you know this vulgar brutal, while Vance—it’s crazy, I know it’s not true but if I ever had a doubt that somebody around Trump is not really human but a robot or alien, Vance would be my choice. There is, you remember that Zelensky speech, how with Trump there was nonetheless some obvious pleasure in humiliating Zelensky, blah blah. With Vance it's terrifying coldness and so on. He is a robot. He—he would have been much worse if you ask me. Do you think Trump was saved by God in the assassination attempt? No, but there was one good thing about it. I was afraid that—you know that famous image, Trump and raising or American flag—"Fight, fight, fight." Yeah, I was afraid that this means the game is over. But it wasn't really, I think Democrats were making mistakes. But what really gave me some small hope is that this—I don't think I'm wrong, I was recently in the United States, I asked all my friends—Trump hoped that this will become the big image, you know, that's him. No it didn't, the big image is still the correct one. For me *the* image. You remember Biden's inauguration? Who stole the show? Bernie Sanders sitting there alone with his gloves on and so on. And it's incredible how this became—because this means, even the people were not aware, his—him sitting there alone meant we somehow feel that this spectacle of Biden's inauguration is a fake. A fake in what sense? Permit me to even mention Hegel now. Hegel has a wonderful theory that something becomes a necessity only through repetition. First you think it's a contingency. Hegel gives two examples. Julius Caesar, no, where those Senate members, Brutus and so on who slaughtered him thought oh Caesar is just a deviation let's return to old republic. No, it's a wonderful example of dialectic—dialectical process embodied. What did Augustus do? With him, Caesar was no longer a personal name but became a title. This means there was a necessity. The other example of Hegel is the obvious one, Napoleon. When Napoleon lost the first time he thought oh I made some tactical mistakes, something may be wrong. He had to lose two times, no? And it was
unknown
the same with Democrats. When Trump won the first time I remember
the same with Democrats. When Trump won the first time I remember
Slavoj Žižek
they thought oh it was the guy whom I otherwise appreciated in Europe, Joschka Fischer, the Green minister years ago of foreign affairs, said "this is an abnormality, it is as if Trump fell from the moon." No, Trump, we should always remember this, Trump with all his horrors is a symptom effect of the failure of this mainstream liberal democratic welfare state. Here I'm a pessimist, the time of that is over. And I think that the mistake of the Democrats was that till the end they treated Trump as just an abomination. Aberration, yes. Yeah, yeah. But there was also I think maybe like you say about the comedy, that there was a sense that he could be joked out of seriousness in the minds of the American people or in some way... That was the mega mistake, which is why I'm allergic to this how easy it is to—my only hope is something different, now I will be really evil. You know Trump, "Sleepy Joe" and so on making all the time this aggressive remark about Biden. Sorry but did you notice, I don’t listen to him a lot but enough, and I notice like he is slowly moving in the direction of the "Sleepy Joe." Not so funny, getting lost. I—I think he was much more funny even, I'm not afraid to say, eight years ago. You know all the jokes that he made against that feminist a little bit Democrat Elizabeth Warren? "Pocahontas." Yeah and all that stuff. Sorry, there was some minimal spirit in that. Now it's just vulgarity, he gets lost. But nonetheless, and again Varoufakis convinced me this, don't underestimate how he acts now. Many leftists think, "Oh it's chaotic and so on." No, Varoufakis convinced me that in all this chaos of tariffs and so on which they tell a lot—did you notice no that even some island in Arctic where there are only penguins is now tariffs?
they thought oh it was the guy whom I otherwise appreciated in Europe, Joschka Fischer, the Green minister years ago of foreign affairs, said "this is an abnormality, it is as if Trump fell from the moon." No, Trump, we should always remember this, Trump with all his horrors is a symptom effect of the failure of this mainstream liberal democratic welfare state. Here I'm a pessimist, the time of that is over. And I think that the mistake of the Democrats was that till the end they treated Trump as just an abomination. Aberration, yes. Yeah, yeah. But there was also I think maybe like you say about the comedy, that there was a sense that he could be joked out of seriousness in the minds of the American people or in some way... That was the mega mistake, which is why I'm allergic to this how easy it is to—my only hope is something different, now I will be really evil. You know Trump, "Sleepy Joe" and so on making all the time this aggressive remark about Biden. Sorry but did you notice, I don’t listen to him a lot but enough, and I notice like he is slowly moving in the direction of the "Sleepy Joe." Not so funny, getting lost. I—I think he was much more funny even, I'm not afraid to say, eight years ago. You know all the jokes that he made against that feminist a little bit Democrat Elizabeth Warren? "Pocahontas." Yeah and all that stuff. Sorry, there was some minimal spirit in that. Now it's just vulgarity, he gets lost. But nonetheless, and again Varoufakis convinced me this, don't underestimate how he acts now. Many leftists think, "Oh it's chaotic and so on." No, Varoufakis convinced me that in all this chaos of tariffs and so on which they tell a lot—did you notice no that even some island in Arctic where there are only penguins is now tariffs?
unknown
But not Russia, as already said no? So that's another story.
But not Russia, as already said no? So that's another story.
Slavoj Žižek
What I wanted to say is that this effect of chaos is obviously well planned. This is how this is standard Trump strategy. Announce with big pomp something that triggers chaos and then you use chaos to negotiate. To realign. Yeah, to realign and I've heard, you know like I have my own private KGB or whatever you call it and I know people who know people who know people who know White House now. Like this. And there are even rumors that reached me quite serious that when we say oh my god but this may trigger protests, massive protests, well what if Trump wants this? Because he already said then he will be able to cancel elections, use National Guard and so on. Don't underestimate him. Don't think, you know he is just doing some crazy things and in a year or two everything will collapse. What if it will not collapse? The first bad news I have for you here is that the proto-Trump, Milei, you know in Argentina. I know all my Argentinian friends were telling me, "He is a clown, it will be over." No. Economy is picking up a little bit now and his popularity is now even a little bit higher than at the moment when he was elected. You know? So again don't underestimate the true force of attraction of Trump. He knew, you know what he learned? How to use lies themselves as an instrument to assert yourself as authentic. You know, I often use this example from Lacan of the gap—and I think you cannot understand today's populist politics without this—the gap between, sorry for complex terms, what Lacan calls "subject of the enunciated," which simply means the content, what you are saying, and "subject of the enunciation," which means let's cut the trap, the subjective position implied by what you are saying. For example, if we are dealing here with liars so-called analyzed by Russell and others, you know liars' paradox. If I say "everything I'm saying is a lie," it’s self-contradictory. Because then is this a lie? If this is a lie then everything is not a lie. But Lacan's proposal is that there can be a truth in this. It's not necessarily a contradiction. If you apply this distinction, for example, if you are in a real life crisis, desperate, no, and suddenly realize I was bullshitting losing time. If you say, in such a desperate state, "all my life everything I did was fake, a lie," it's not contradictory. It simply can be an authentic expression of your despair. But the other way around also functions here, which is that you can lie in the guise of truth.
What I wanted to say is that this effect of chaos is obviously well planned. This is how this is standard Trump strategy. Announce with big pomp something that triggers chaos and then you use chaos to negotiate. To realign. Yeah, to realign and I've heard, you know like I have my own private KGB or whatever you call it and I know people who know people who know people who know White House now. Like this. And there are even rumors that reached me quite serious that when we say oh my god but this may trigger protests, massive protests, well what if Trump wants this? Because he already said then he will be able to cancel elections, use National Guard and so on. Don't underestimate him. Don't think, you know he is just doing some crazy things and in a year or two everything will collapse. What if it will not collapse? The first bad news I have for you here is that the proto-Trump, Milei, you know in Argentina. I know all my Argentinian friends were telling me, "He is a clown, it will be over." No. Economy is picking up a little bit now and his popularity is now even a little bit higher than at the moment when he was elected. You know? So again don't underestimate the true force of attraction of Trump. He knew, you know what he learned? How to use lies themselves as an instrument to assert yourself as authentic. You know, I often use this example from Lacan of the gap—and I think you cannot understand today's populist politics without this—the gap between, sorry for complex terms, what Lacan calls "subject of the enunciated," which simply means the content, what you are saying, and "subject of the enunciation," which means let's cut the trap, the subjective position implied by what you are saying. For example, if we are dealing here with liars so-called analyzed by Russell and others, you know liars' paradox. If I say "everything I'm saying is a lie," it’s self-contradictory. Because then is this a lie? If this is a lie then everything is not a lie. But Lacan's proposal is that there can be a truth in this. It's not necessarily a contradiction. If you apply this distinction, for example, if you are in a real life crisis, desperate, no, and suddenly realize I was bullshitting losing time. If you say, in such a desperate state, "all my life everything I did was fake, a lie," it's not contradictory. It simply can be an authentic expression of your despair. But the other way around also functions here, which is that you can lie in the guise of truth.
unknown
Both the left and the right like to do this. You everything you say it’s true is true as a particular statement but it’s presented in such a way that it serves
Both the left and the right like to do this. You everything you say it’s true is true as a particular statement but it’s presented in such a way that it serves
Slavoj Žižek
the general lie. So I think that it's not as simple as some critics of that how was called that lady who worked for Trump who used that expression "alternate facts." Of course the way she meant it was stupid, not true. But there are alternate facts, not in the sense Holocaust happened or maybe it didn't, it's all a discursive construct, I'm not saying this. I'm just saying that reality is a big chaos and when you pick something up as your line it's always biased. And to arrive—here I remain a traditional Marxist—if you want to arrive at the truth, it's not neutrality. Simply you are above. There is a certain position of the victim and so on, which is a biased position, you only arrive as a truth. My eternal example maybe some of you know it, let me see, let me imagine that I and I will be a good guy here for an exception, I'm in '36 in Germany, '37, before they got after Crystal Night and so on and I debate with hard-line Nazi the role of the Jews. And I can imagine a Nazi providing a consistent story. I checked with my Jewish friends, it's all true. percent of lawyers in Berlin and around were Jewish. A large majority of art critics were Jewish. A majority of bankers were Jewish. That's my point, I wonder if it will be too much for you. When you criticize the Nazis, it's not enough to accept the debate at the level of facts. Because the result then will always be somewhere in between. "Okay the Jews are," a Nazi will say, "maybe not as bad as I thought but nonetheless they are doing many." No, the—the true question is another one. It is: why does a Nazi subject need the figure of a Jew to maintain his identity? Because if you take the Jew away, then the whole Nazi edifice collapses. It's obvious, I will not go into it, standard explanation that the Nazi problem is how to return to a non-antagonistic society. Their vision is a kind of a corporate feudal capitalism, capitalist dynamic but within a harmonious state. So to explain why antagonisms, you need a figure like a Jew, in their view, who introduces dissent from outside, you know. So they structurally need the Jew. So again, the true question is why, why are they so fixated? Why do they need a Jew to assert their own political identity? That’s the point. I here refer that’s where my idea came to me some you may know it, in a—from a wonderful passage from Lacan, when he says let’s say a husband is pathologically jealous claiming that his wife is cheating, suspecting it. Lacan says something wonderful. He says, "even if all his suspicions are true, his jealousy is still pathological." Because you know, it’s not driven by the fact "is the wife sleeping with other men or not." The point is why does he need jealousy to sustain his subjectivity? He would have collapsed without it. I speak too much, go on. No the antagonism of Trump though, you speak in the book about how Trump voters kind of live vicariously through him in some way. But I think also maybe the opposite is true, that Trump haters live vicariously through him also. Absolutely, I even—no, no, no. I have here a nice theory, I even forgot where, I write too much, I developed it, that Trump is the result of the crisis of the standard liberal democratic welfare state. You know he even admits this. He was not such a totally bad guy as some people thought, Fukuyama. He in the last elections he said vote for Bernie Sanders. He saw it clearly it didn't work. But what I want to say is that you know this Freudian theory, it's a little bit naive but it's another story to explain it. Where Freud says that fetish is the last thing you see before you see sexual difference, that the woman has not a penis, blah blah all that stuff, it sounds ridiculous today that's another topic. I think that in this sense Trump is a fetish for much of today's liberal left. It's the last thing they see before admitting social antagonisms, class struggle and so on. You focus on Trump, you don't have to analyze what really is wrong in our societies, you know. Like many Trumpians begin well. For example, you know whom I, I wouldn’t say it’s too obscene, I like. But sometimes he begins well. It’s horrible, I apologize. Steve Bannon. Yeah. He is as close as you can come to, don't laugh, a left Trumpian. Do you know that in Trump's first period four years, he was dismissed from the White House because he wanted something that no Democrat today, maybe Bernie, even dared to demand. He said the first thing we should do is to raise maximum taxes for to percent. So Trump *does* address something that obviously is wrong in this standard liberal democratic vision. And this is also my problem, I'm so often misunderstood here in my critique of whatever you call it—I know it's a very differentiated field—political correctness, cancel culture, wokism and so on and so on. Quite often I of course, not quite often, almost always agree with their goals. But I think the way they practice their struggle subverts their goals. My classic example which I use when explaining Hegel. Cancel culture works like this. We are for diversity and inclusion. But if you look at what they are effectively doing is precisely just excluding those who don't agree with their notion of diversity. You know this is a beautiful paradox. You are for diversity but then—I mean we learned this although I admire them from Jacobins, you know. We are for human freedom and right but every concrete individual is potentially a traitor. Or as Robespierre said and I like the term, "no freedom for the enemies of the freedom," no? And who is the enemy of the freedom, well anybody you want. So again the left has so much work here to do. There is, would you agree with this, I really conclude. That’s why I sympathize although he didn’t provide the answer with Varoufakis, his idea of techno-feudalism. I have problems with it. But he suspected this that when we designate Trump and his guys as fascists, there is for me a remainder of what I cannot but call old leftist laziness, intellectual laziness. You see something bad, obviously Trump and so on. Then you say, what's really bad? Fascism! Oh he must be a fascist, you know. No he is not simply a fascist. He is, I don’t have a good term, I now am playing with the term in my new book "liberal fascist." Because the paradox of Trump is a beautiful paradox of his notion of freedom. You know Musk is saying, we want to get rid of the pressure of the state, get the state off our backs and so on and so on. And you know where they are ending now? Incredible censorship that even politically correct left at its worst didn’t engage in. You know what is Trump saying? You remember a couple of months ago, he said he didn't do it, he wanted to prosecute Wall Street Journal for expressing some doubts about his politics on tariffs and so on. And it's going on, we are really getting caught in this paradox. Another and this I will conclude, this will be in my new book. I already have a new one, you know. Brilliant, pumping them out at the moment. I know this is suicidal. I'm here too much a Trumpian, you know what I mean by that. I say it... They’ll turn you into AI one
the general lie. So I think that it's not as simple as some critics of that how was called that lady who worked for Trump who used that expression "alternate facts." Of course the way she meant it was stupid, not true. But there are alternate facts, not in the sense Holocaust happened or maybe it didn't, it's all a discursive construct, I'm not saying this. I'm just saying that reality is a big chaos and when you pick something up as your line it's always biased. And to arrive—here I remain a traditional Marxist—if you want to arrive at the truth, it's not neutrality. Simply you are above. There is a certain position of the victim and so on, which is a biased position, you only arrive as a truth. My eternal example maybe some of you know it, let me see, let me imagine that I and I will be a good guy here for an exception, I'm in '36 in Germany, '37, before they got after Crystal Night and so on and I debate with hard-line Nazi the role of the Jews. And I can imagine a Nazi providing a consistent story. I checked with my Jewish friends, it's all true. percent of lawyers in Berlin and around were Jewish. A large majority of art critics were Jewish. A majority of bankers were Jewish. That's my point, I wonder if it will be too much for you. When you criticize the Nazis, it's not enough to accept the debate at the level of facts. Because the result then will always be somewhere in between. "Okay the Jews are," a Nazi will say, "maybe not as bad as I thought but nonetheless they are doing many." No, the—the true question is another one. It is: why does a Nazi subject need the figure of a Jew to maintain his identity? Because if you take the Jew away, then the whole Nazi edifice collapses. It's obvious, I will not go into it, standard explanation that the Nazi problem is how to return to a non-antagonistic society. Their vision is a kind of a corporate feudal capitalism, capitalist dynamic but within a harmonious state. So to explain why antagonisms, you need a figure like a Jew, in their view, who introduces dissent from outside, you know. So they structurally need the Jew. So again, the true question is why, why are they so fixated? Why do they need a Jew to assert their own political identity? That’s the point. I here refer that’s where my idea came to me some you may know it, in a—from a wonderful passage from Lacan, when he says let’s say a husband is pathologically jealous claiming that his wife is cheating, suspecting it. Lacan says something wonderful. He says, "even if all his suspicions are true, his jealousy is still pathological." Because you know, it’s not driven by the fact "is the wife sleeping with other men or not." The point is why does he need jealousy to sustain his subjectivity? He would have collapsed without it. I speak too much, go on. No the antagonism of Trump though, you speak in the book about how Trump voters kind of live vicariously through him in some way. But I think also maybe the opposite is true, that Trump haters live vicariously through him also. Absolutely, I even—no, no, no. I have here a nice theory, I even forgot where, I write too much, I developed it, that Trump is the result of the crisis of the standard liberal democratic welfare state. You know he even admits this. He was not such a totally bad guy as some people thought, Fukuyama. He in the last elections he said vote for Bernie Sanders. He saw it clearly it didn't work. But what I want to say is that you know this Freudian theory, it's a little bit naive but it's another story to explain it. Where Freud says that fetish is the last thing you see before you see sexual difference, that the woman has not a penis, blah blah all that stuff, it sounds ridiculous today that's another topic. I think that in this sense Trump is a fetish for much of today's liberal left. It's the last thing they see before admitting social antagonisms, class struggle and so on. You focus on Trump, you don't have to analyze what really is wrong in our societies, you know. Like many Trumpians begin well. For example, you know whom I, I wouldn’t say it’s too obscene, I like. But sometimes he begins well. It’s horrible, I apologize. Steve Bannon. Yeah. He is as close as you can come to, don't laugh, a left Trumpian. Do you know that in Trump's first period four years, he was dismissed from the White House because he wanted something that no Democrat today, maybe Bernie, even dared to demand. He said the first thing we should do is to raise maximum taxes for to percent. So Trump *does* address something that obviously is wrong in this standard liberal democratic vision. And this is also my problem, I'm so often misunderstood here in my critique of whatever you call it—I know it's a very differentiated field—political correctness, cancel culture, wokism and so on and so on. Quite often I of course, not quite often, almost always agree with their goals. But I think the way they practice their struggle subverts their goals. My classic example which I use when explaining Hegel. Cancel culture works like this. We are for diversity and inclusion. But if you look at what they are effectively doing is precisely just excluding those who don't agree with their notion of diversity. You know this is a beautiful paradox. You are for diversity but then—I mean we learned this although I admire them from Jacobins, you know. We are for human freedom and right but every concrete individual is potentially a traitor. Or as Robespierre said and I like the term, "no freedom for the enemies of the freedom," no? And who is the enemy of the freedom, well anybody you want. So again the left has so much work here to do. There is, would you agree with this, I really conclude. That’s why I sympathize although he didn’t provide the answer with Varoufakis, his idea of techno-feudalism. I have problems with it. But he suspected this that when we designate Trump and his guys as fascists, there is for me a remainder of what I cannot but call old leftist laziness, intellectual laziness. You see something bad, obviously Trump and so on. Then you say, what's really bad? Fascism! Oh he must be a fascist, you know. No he is not simply a fascist. He is, I don’t have a good term, I now am playing with the term in my new book "liberal fascist." Because the paradox of Trump is a beautiful paradox of his notion of freedom. You know Musk is saying, we want to get rid of the pressure of the state, get the state off our backs and so on and so on. And you know where they are ending now? Incredible censorship that even politically correct left at its worst didn’t engage in. You know what is Trump saying? You remember a couple of months ago, he said he didn't do it, he wanted to prosecute Wall Street Journal for expressing some doubts about his politics on tariffs and so on. And it's going on, we are really getting caught in this paradox. Another and this I will conclude, this will be in my new book. I already have a new one, you know. Brilliant, pumping them out at the moment. I know this is suicidal. I'm here too much a Trumpian, you know what I mean by that. I say it... They’ll turn you into AI one
unknown
day and then they’ll just... Yeah, yeah. Trump made a big mistake everybody knows. Before he was president he invested too much in Atlantic City, buying all the casinos there and he was then caught competing with himself. You know entirely too many books. Yeah,
day and then they’ll just... Yeah, yeah. Trump made a big mistake everybody knows. Before he was president he invested too much in Atlantic City, buying all the casinos there and he was then caught competing with himself. You know entirely too many books. Yeah,
Slavoj Žižek
yeah. But the fundamental antagonism I see is that on the one hand, you know that his inaugural address speech, the main slogan was sanity common sense, you know. Like all this LGBT madness and so on and then let’s return to common sense, which is normal people who know there are men and women, whatever you want and so on. But at the same time look what Trumpians are doing. Here my model are guys like Elon Musk but especially other interesting theorists. The crucial notion here is what they call digital state. The idea is this one—and that's behind Trump's Gaza idea—that the situation today is so corrupted that we have to clear a territory and construct a new society through algorithms, experts from zero. Trump's lie is that he refers to ordinary people, their needs against intellectual corruption and so on, corruption of intellectuals. But what he is doing is something terrifying. The era of common sense has passed. The problems we are facing today, ecological crisis, it means we should drop our standard notion of nature. What is our spontaneous notion of nature? Even in Marx you find it. It's that we, men, humanity, may have our hubris destroy blah blah, but there is endless nature with its harmonious circulation and whatever happens nature will win in the long term. I no longer think it is like this. I think, I believe in the notion of Anthropocene in the sense that double sense. Not only did we disturb, if something like this exists the normal self-reproduction of nature, but was nature itself ever natural? I always mention I'm sorry if you know this example. What are still our big sources of energy? Coal and oil. Can you even imagine what catastrophes must have happened on our earth before even humanity was here to have oil reserves and so on? So my standard line here is, if nature is our—sorry if you know this line—if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother. You know? We cannot rely on whatever happens, you know this wisdom nature is there. No, the true material—a true materialist ecologist today has to begin with: there is a potential threat, chaos in nature itself. Don't fall for this typically humanocentric, humanist notion of nature is just a gentle background which is always there and we can return to it. No, we basically don't have anywhere to return. So back to that point, isn't this zero beginning? This is what Trump tried to practice in Gaza. That was his dream. It was not so much anti-Palestinian. His dream is finally we have a chance to clear a territory totally, everything is destroyed, and to build a society from zero there. So my point here is what? Is that in the sense Trump brings out this idea usually associated with the most hard-line Stalinists of building a new man. He literally wants to do it. And that's what I think is his contradiction, if you want to put it in this way. On the one hand referring to ordinary people against experts, corporations, I speak for you. At the same time the most radical de—how should I put it—denaturalization that he is triggering. And I think this is maybe the true catastrophe. Trump simply denies ecology, oh it's pseudo-problem imagined by I don't know whom leftists and so on. And all the problems are for him dismissed like this. I'm simply afraid. And that's why to conclude with my mega provocation. That's why when people ask me why are you a communist, in what sense? It's very—no deep Marxist analysis. Look seriously at the problems we are facing today. Ecology, artificial intelligence, social conflicts. All I'm saying—and forget about communist party central committee and so on—is that isn't it for me absolutely obvious that we will be able to confront these problems only through some kind of more global cooperation and organization? That's why I still like the COVID pandemic. Not only it was a golden time for me, I loved it. Can you imagine anything better than you don't
yeah. But the fundamental antagonism I see is that on the one hand, you know that his inaugural address speech, the main slogan was sanity common sense, you know. Like all this LGBT madness and so on and then let’s return to common sense, which is normal people who know there are men and women, whatever you want and so on. But at the same time look what Trumpians are doing. Here my model are guys like Elon Musk but especially other interesting theorists. The crucial notion here is what they call digital state. The idea is this one—and that's behind Trump's Gaza idea—that the situation today is so corrupted that we have to clear a territory and construct a new society through algorithms, experts from zero. Trump's lie is that he refers to ordinary people, their needs against intellectual corruption and so on, corruption of intellectuals. But what he is doing is something terrifying. The era of common sense has passed. The problems we are facing today, ecological crisis, it means we should drop our standard notion of nature. What is our spontaneous notion of nature? Even in Marx you find it. It's that we, men, humanity, may have our hubris destroy blah blah, but there is endless nature with its harmonious circulation and whatever happens nature will win in the long term. I no longer think it is like this. I think, I believe in the notion of Anthropocene in the sense that double sense. Not only did we disturb, if something like this exists the normal self-reproduction of nature, but was nature itself ever natural? I always mention I'm sorry if you know this example. What are still our big sources of energy? Coal and oil. Can you even imagine what catastrophes must have happened on our earth before even humanity was here to have oil reserves and so on? So my standard line here is, if nature is our—sorry if you know this line—if nature is our mother, it's a dirty bitch of a mother. You know? We cannot rely on whatever happens, you know this wisdom nature is there. No, the true material—a true materialist ecologist today has to begin with: there is a potential threat, chaos in nature itself. Don't fall for this typically humanocentric, humanist notion of nature is just a gentle background which is always there and we can return to it. No, we basically don't have anywhere to return. So back to that point, isn't this zero beginning? This is what Trump tried to practice in Gaza. That was his dream. It was not so much anti-Palestinian. His dream is finally we have a chance to clear a territory totally, everything is destroyed, and to build a society from zero there. So my point here is what? Is that in the sense Trump brings out this idea usually associated with the most hard-line Stalinists of building a new man. He literally wants to do it. And that's what I think is his contradiction, if you want to put it in this way. On the one hand referring to ordinary people against experts, corporations, I speak for you. At the same time the most radical de—how should I put it—denaturalization that he is triggering. And I think this is maybe the true catastrophe. Trump simply denies ecology, oh it's pseudo-problem imagined by I don't know whom leftists and so on. And all the problems are for him dismissed like this. I'm simply afraid. And that's why to conclude with my mega provocation. That's why when people ask me why are you a communist, in what sense? It's very—no deep Marxist analysis. Look seriously at the problems we are facing today. Ecology, artificial intelligence, social conflicts. All I'm saying—and forget about communist party central committee and so on—is that isn't it for me absolutely obvious that we will be able to confront these problems only through some kind of more global cooperation and organization? That's why I still like the COVID pandemic. Not only it was a golden time for me, I loved it. Can you imagine anything better than you don't
unknown
have to meet friends and so on? I even pretended
have to meet friends and so on? I even pretended
Slavoj Žižek
that Zoom is too complicated for me. Yeah, I remember you trying to do that last time we
that Zoom is too complicated for me. Yeah, I remember you trying to do that last time we
unknown
did an interview actually.
did an interview actually.
Slavoj Žižek
Mr. Žižek, what are you racist question? I suspect you are not British. Uh, I'm not, I'm Latvian. Latvia, wonderful, I—all right, sorry, let's go on. Yes. But you know my Nazi instinct told me you are not what you are. Sorry, let's go on. Please. Mr. Žižek, you made a fascinating observation about the toilets and a cultural political sentiment. That triad only. German, yeah, blah blah. German toilets with with a shelf for the for the thing, French toilet with black hole and British toilet as as a middle way. Have you find any other examples? You mentioned lots of people live vicariously through Trump, who does Trump vicariously live through and is it Putin? Okay, I will begin with you. I had attempts from Latin America, especially from China, Japan and so on, no, to approach this and I wasn't able to find a clear answer how to expand the system. The only thing I discovered is that for example in Japan the sense of shame of, sorry for implicit vulgarity even I have, but when you are defecating, shit, there can be some sounds and so on and this is I was told maybe wrong the ultimate horror in Japan. You know how I discovered it? I entered a public toilet once there and the moment I locked myself music, not even so silent. Then I said I don't like this music. There would be no, the function is that eventual sounds are not heard, you know. So in other words I focus too much on shit. If you take other then there are countries like Tibet I learned, traditional Tibet, where defecating, shitting, was not a problem, do it in public. We walk on a street, okay on a country road. I, I, how do you call it? Not stand but not sit down but just on my squat. Squat and shit and that's it. In public, I mean it's simply not, not a problem, you know. So what I'm just saying is that I'm still at the level of collecting, collecting facts. You’re doing your market research stage still. Yeah, yeah, but not too systematically but I would like as a almost caricature Hegelian to build immediately a system of triads, whatever and so on, you know. I am not yet there. Sorry, it's not a satisfactory answer, I know. Are you do you have any differences here? You have there a triad no? Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. Do you perceive yourselves as the same or are there hidden racism? I grew up with a German type of toilet so it was all put in the display and examined before flushed away. Although we are more under German influence in Slovenia, but for me personally I'm more on the French side here. Like, you know that there was really an old German obsession from the beginning that the first ritual in the morning is: you go to shit and then it's a ritual. You look at your shit, you smell it, it's meant to be not what it is, perverted pleasure, but medical, you know. You learn how to detect if there is some illness and so on. My attitude maybe this is one another way to displace it onto others for me is, I hate this American approach of doctors where because they're afraid you will prosecute them, after examining you they tell you, "Okay we discovered this, maybe a problem here, maybe there." I tell them, "Listen, you are my doctor. It's your duty to know this. Keep it in your books. I don't want to know about me. All I want is to tell me when I go home, should I already take a detour through cemetery like look at the price or can I simply go home." I—I find something liberating in this. I don't want—another fear that I have. For example what shocked me in the United States, you know, is their sense of shame. I as a not too oppressed I hope European was surprised how professors whom I met the first time as it were had no shame in explaining to me, "Oh yesterday I had an adventure but I finished too early, the woman was not such..." This stupid openness that I found embarrassing. But then you ask them, "How much do you earn?" And at least at the academia it's as if I ask the most intimate possible question and they look around embarrassed as if, you know. It's to use our old beloved old communist language, it's the big task in constructing socialism, but it will come only in the second stage of building socialism, not yet now. Okay. Who does Trump live vicariously through? You know in what sense it is possible that it's Putin because Trump precisely because he is openly obscene, he had to have this other through whom he lives precariously who already has makes moves in this direction, but nonetheless pretends to maintain some image of a leader, is not openly obscene. So I think that that’s the paradox. We look of obscenity in Trump, Trump doesn’t
Mr. Žižek, what are you racist question? I suspect you are not British. Uh, I'm not, I'm Latvian. Latvia, wonderful, I—all right, sorry, let's go on. Yes. But you know my Nazi instinct told me you are not what you are. Sorry, let's go on. Please. Mr. Žižek, you made a fascinating observation about the toilets and a cultural political sentiment. That triad only. German, yeah, blah blah. German toilets with with a shelf for the for the thing, French toilet with black hole and British toilet as as a middle way. Have you find any other examples? You mentioned lots of people live vicariously through Trump, who does Trump vicariously live through and is it Putin? Okay, I will begin with you. I had attempts from Latin America, especially from China, Japan and so on, no, to approach this and I wasn't able to find a clear answer how to expand the system. The only thing I discovered is that for example in Japan the sense of shame of, sorry for implicit vulgarity even I have, but when you are defecating, shit, there can be some sounds and so on and this is I was told maybe wrong the ultimate horror in Japan. You know how I discovered it? I entered a public toilet once there and the moment I locked myself music, not even so silent. Then I said I don't like this music. There would be no, the function is that eventual sounds are not heard, you know. So in other words I focus too much on shit. If you take other then there are countries like Tibet I learned, traditional Tibet, where defecating, shitting, was not a problem, do it in public. We walk on a street, okay on a country road. I, I, how do you call it? Not stand but not sit down but just on my squat. Squat and shit and that's it. In public, I mean it's simply not, not a problem, you know. So what I'm just saying is that I'm still at the level of collecting, collecting facts. You’re doing your market research stage still. Yeah, yeah, but not too systematically but I would like as a almost caricature Hegelian to build immediately a system of triads, whatever and so on, you know. I am not yet there. Sorry, it's not a satisfactory answer, I know. Are you do you have any differences here? You have there a triad no? Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. Do you perceive yourselves as the same or are there hidden racism? I grew up with a German type of toilet so it was all put in the display and examined before flushed away. Although we are more under German influence in Slovenia, but for me personally I'm more on the French side here. Like, you know that there was really an old German obsession from the beginning that the first ritual in the morning is: you go to shit and then it's a ritual. You look at your shit, you smell it, it's meant to be not what it is, perverted pleasure, but medical, you know. You learn how to detect if there is some illness and so on. My attitude maybe this is one another way to displace it onto others for me is, I hate this American approach of doctors where because they're afraid you will prosecute them, after examining you they tell you, "Okay we discovered this, maybe a problem here, maybe there." I tell them, "Listen, you are my doctor. It's your duty to know this. Keep it in your books. I don't want to know about me. All I want is to tell me when I go home, should I already take a detour through cemetery like look at the price or can I simply go home." I—I find something liberating in this. I don't want—another fear that I have. For example what shocked me in the United States, you know, is their sense of shame. I as a not too oppressed I hope European was surprised how professors whom I met the first time as it were had no shame in explaining to me, "Oh yesterday I had an adventure but I finished too early, the woman was not such..." This stupid openness that I found embarrassing. But then you ask them, "How much do you earn?" And at least at the academia it's as if I ask the most intimate possible question and they look around embarrassed as if, you know. It's to use our old beloved old communist language, it's the big task in constructing socialism, but it will come only in the second stage of building socialism, not yet now. Okay. Who does Trump live vicariously through? You know in what sense it is possible that it's Putin because Trump precisely because he is openly obscene, he had to have this other through whom he lives precariously who already has makes moves in this direction, but nonetheless pretends to maintain some image of a leader, is not openly obscene. So I think that that’s the paradox. We look of obscenity in Trump, Trump doesn’t
unknown
want everybody to be obscene, he wants somebody who is precisely not openly obscene,
want everybody to be obscene, he wants somebody who is precisely not openly obscene,
Slavoj Žižek
although I quoted this in my books I do it all the time. You find discretely many obscenities in Putin. Like for example when a Western journalist years ago asked him a question his answer was direct reference to castration. His answer was, "the way you ask question I will
although I quoted this in my books I do it all the time. You find discretely many obscenities in Putin. Like for example when a Western journalist years ago asked him a question his answer was direct reference to castration. His answer was, "the way you ask question I will
unknown
give you an advice, we have here good surgeons who can cut off your basically penis." He had many even in—in his reply to Ukraine after Minsk
give you an advice, we have here good surgeons who can cut off your basically penis." He had many even in—in his reply to Ukraine after Minsk
Slavoj Žižek
agreements, Trump quoted a certain popular Russian punk
agreements, Trump quoted a certain popular Russian punk
unknown
song which basically celebrates raping a dead woman and so on. So in a and I again I don't know to what extent to trust them but at some point I knew people who were ex-advisors to Trump. And I love this, maybe this is the difference
song which basically celebrates raping a dead woman and so on. So in a and I again I don't know to what extent to trust them but at some point I knew people who were ex-advisors to Trump. And I love this, maybe this is the difference
Slavoj Žižek
between the two of them. What I learned, I cannot guarantee it's true but it's simply is that when Trump makes as if these vulgar statements from time to time, it's not that his spontaneous nature emerges. No, he is very traditional boring person privately like, "This will be bad news for you, Russia. You know he likes the Beatles and his favorite song is 'Yesterday'." So he is very—but that his lapses into vulgarity are well planned. And this is almost what I like. This idea, "I don't want to be a guy who publicly appears as decent and so on but then screw her private obscenities." My idea is to be and up to a point I think I am, maybe you will not agree, a guy who, you know how conservative I am privately? I listen I'm sorry to tell you to Mozart, Wagner operas and so on. I like... You refuse a drink when I offer you a drink. That's my private madness. I don't drink, I don't smoke, never in my life did I try any even soft drugs and so on. But I wanted to say my ideal is this and I had a friend whom I’m imitating here who was a mega brutal artist, like he had spectacles, he hired a prostitute and displayed her vagina touching her and so on. And then I loved it so much then once I met him when he was on a the way to do such a performance and he told me, "It's so horrible, I am so ashamed but again I have to do that horrible thing, you know." So that the obscenity becomes a pure duty and you act as a good conservative
between the two of them. What I learned, I cannot guarantee it's true but it's simply is that when Trump makes as if these vulgar statements from time to time, it's not that his spontaneous nature emerges. No, he is very traditional boring person privately like, "This will be bad news for you, Russia. You know he likes the Beatles and his favorite song is 'Yesterday'." So he is very—but that his lapses into vulgarity are well planned. And this is almost what I like. This idea, "I don't want to be a guy who publicly appears as decent and so on but then screw her private obscenities." My idea is to be and up to a point I think I am, maybe you will not agree, a guy who, you know how conservative I am privately? I listen I'm sorry to tell you to Mozart, Wagner operas and so on. I like... You refuse a drink when I offer you a drink. That's my private madness. I don't drink, I don't smoke, never in my life did I try any even soft drugs and so on. But I wanted to say my ideal is this and I had a friend whom I’m imitating here who was a mega brutal artist, like he had spectacles, he hired a prostitute and displayed her vagina touching her and so on. And then I loved it so much then once I met him when he was on a the way to do such a performance and he told me, "It's so horrible, I am so ashamed but again I have to do that horrible thing, you know." So that the obscenity becomes a pure duty and you act as a good conservative
unknown
guy who unfortunately has to—Your job is obscene unfortunately. Yeah, yeah,
guy who unfortunately has to—Your job is obscene unfortunately. Yeah, yeah,
Slavoj Žižek
that’s what I admire. Do you—do you feel kinship with Trump in that sense? No because he is the opposite. He I think that he does something quite miraculous that he is so deeply embedded in these obscenities that my impression maybe I'm projecting too much that even when he tries to regain some dignity it sounds maybe even more obscene. But it was authentic what I said that my idea is to be—you know sorry you know whom with whom I was very friendly years ago along the same lines? With some true sado-mazo lesbian ladies. And I became friendly with them, we talked, they were very decent normal and one of them told me, maybe she faked it but I love it, she said, "I have all these dirty desire up to sitting eating shit. But isn’t it nice that you externalize it all so now I’m free I have a normal decent life, you know." I love this idea. Sorry let's go on, yeah. Do you think that you had any presumptions about Trump when he came in that you changed your mind about? Or thought maybe you were wrong and what were they? Simple question, are these revolutionary times? Did you have any assumptions about Trump that you have changed your mind about since? Ah I probably and you are right. You are gently hinting at my ironic support of Trump eight years ago. It was a mistake but I think a correct mistake. First I think when I said Trump is a liberal I still think he is not simply a fascist. He is that that point of reversal, well, bringing liberalism to its most radical, no state into blah blah, turns into its opposite. But I—I had no illusions in my book forgot which one years ago, you know how I begin the chapter of Trump? I compare Trump to a person who I said there is a group of dignified people standing in a circle talking and then one of
that’s what I admire. Do you—do you feel kinship with Trump in that sense? No because he is the opposite. He I think that he does something quite miraculous that he is so deeply embedded in these obscenities that my impression maybe I'm projecting too much that even when he tries to regain some dignity it sounds maybe even more obscene. But it was authentic what I said that my idea is to be—you know sorry you know whom with whom I was very friendly years ago along the same lines? With some true sado-mazo lesbian ladies. And I became friendly with them, we talked, they were very decent normal and one of them told me, maybe she faked it but I love it, she said, "I have all these dirty desire up to sitting eating shit. But isn’t it nice that you externalize it all so now I’m free I have a normal decent life, you know." I love this idea. Sorry let's go on, yeah. Do you think that you had any presumptions about Trump when he came in that you changed your mind about? Or thought maybe you were wrong and what were they? Simple question, are these revolutionary times? Did you have any assumptions about Trump that you have changed your mind about since? Ah I probably and you are right. You are gently hinting at my ironic support of Trump eight years ago. It was a mistake but I think a correct mistake. First I think when I said Trump is a liberal I still think he is not simply a fascist. He is that that point of reversal, well, bringing liberalism to its most radical, no state into blah blah, turns into its opposite. But I—I had no illusions in my book forgot which one years ago, you know how I begin the chapter of Trump? I compare Trump to a person who I said there is a group of dignified people standing in a circle talking and then one of
unknown
them pulls his trousers
them pulls his trousers
Slavoj Žižek
down and starts to shit there, you know. Like no illusions. My idea was just this one and I was mistaken. I thought that first Hillary was a big problem. I really think Hillary would have been a catastrophe, maybe even allowing Trump for the first time after her election to return—that’s another point. What I wanted to say is that my idea was this one. Trumpism is potentially something serious. Wouldn’t it be better to have him now before he is truly organized in a Leninist sense for a couple of years in power so that people will learn the lesson? But people, at least Democratic Party, that was my mistake, didn't learn the lesson. And Trump took the Leninist lesson. In four years of Biden, I always followed it, it was fascinating what he did. As a true Leninist, he built—or rather Stalinist because Stalin's focus was on cadre nominating people—you know what he did at local levels, how many school boards were there prohibiting books he took over, how many—he made the exact plan of what to do. And Democrats, I don’t know what happened, were totally blind. So to reinterpret myself in an ironic self-critical way, it's the Democrats not Trump who disappointed me. It was clear that you cannot compare the first four years of Trump, what he calls the deep state, simply he didn't dominate it. He was just doing his crazy stuff many things but I even think, and in United States many people agreed with me, in some sense if Hillary were to win I doubt if the left of the American Democratic Party, people like Bernie Sanders, AOC and so on, would have turned up so relatively strong. Because nonetheless one of the results for me of the Trump history is that for the first time after long decades you can be a socialist—okay you have to add a democratic socialist, whatever—you can be a socialist without being automatically excluded, you know. So I think again the big guilty entity is this weird inertia of the Democratic Party. They were even lucky Democrats. I'm well aware that up to a point Trump was also ruined by COVID, you know. Better not to imagine what would have happened without COVID. And still I like COVID not just for the reason that I mentioned, work in peace, but you know when I wrote and people laughed at me, "Oh COVID good elements of communism." Literally true. Even conservative leaders like Trump, you know that they had to do many things which were unimaginable before. Like Trump did measures which went well beyond the market. Every American family or even I forgot got check for He—he directed industry what to produce and so on. Boris Johnson even here did, not as radically as Trump, something. So what I'm saying is that I think that what we have to learn is, when I say communism I mean war communism, emergency state communism. I take it as a dogmatic presumption that there will be a crisis, mega crisis. At different... Can we use this I suppose to segue into an answer to our half-Welsh friend, that: Are we living in revolutionary times? Is there potential for this revolution? Ah I—I would answer like this, very good question. It depends on what you mean revolution. If you mean by revolution simply a radical change, then my answer is yes but the right wing is doing the revolution, unfortunately. I think that again what they are doing, especially in the United States, it's not simply just a new phase of capitalism as we knew it. It is again I already said this here, it's really
down and starts to shit there, you know. Like no illusions. My idea was just this one and I was mistaken. I thought that first Hillary was a big problem. I really think Hillary would have been a catastrophe, maybe even allowing Trump for the first time after her election to return—that’s another point. What I wanted to say is that my idea was this one. Trumpism is potentially something serious. Wouldn’t it be better to have him now before he is truly organized in a Leninist sense for a couple of years in power so that people will learn the lesson? But people, at least Democratic Party, that was my mistake, didn't learn the lesson. And Trump took the Leninist lesson. In four years of Biden, I always followed it, it was fascinating what he did. As a true Leninist, he built—or rather Stalinist because Stalin's focus was on cadre nominating people—you know what he did at local levels, how many school boards were there prohibiting books he took over, how many—he made the exact plan of what to do. And Democrats, I don’t know what happened, were totally blind. So to reinterpret myself in an ironic self-critical way, it's the Democrats not Trump who disappointed me. It was clear that you cannot compare the first four years of Trump, what he calls the deep state, simply he didn't dominate it. He was just doing his crazy stuff many things but I even think, and in United States many people agreed with me, in some sense if Hillary were to win I doubt if the left of the American Democratic Party, people like Bernie Sanders, AOC and so on, would have turned up so relatively strong. Because nonetheless one of the results for me of the Trump history is that for the first time after long decades you can be a socialist—okay you have to add a democratic socialist, whatever—you can be a socialist without being automatically excluded, you know. So I think again the big guilty entity is this weird inertia of the Democratic Party. They were even lucky Democrats. I'm well aware that up to a point Trump was also ruined by COVID, you know. Better not to imagine what would have happened without COVID. And still I like COVID not just for the reason that I mentioned, work in peace, but you know when I wrote and people laughed at me, "Oh COVID good elements of communism." Literally true. Even conservative leaders like Trump, you know that they had to do many things which were unimaginable before. Like Trump did measures which went well beyond the market. Every American family or even I forgot got check for He—he directed industry what to produce and so on. Boris Johnson even here did, not as radically as Trump, something. So what I'm saying is that I think that what we have to learn is, when I say communism I mean war communism, emergency state communism. I take it as a dogmatic presumption that there will be a crisis, mega crisis. At different... Can we use this I suppose to segue into an answer to our half-Welsh friend, that: Are we living in revolutionary times? Is there potential for this revolution? Ah I—I would answer like this, very good question. It depends on what you mean revolution. If you mean by revolution simply a radical change, then my answer is yes but the right wing is doing the revolution, unfortunately. I think that again what they are doing, especially in the United States, it's not simply just a new phase of capitalism as we knew it. It is again I already said this here, it's really
unknown
something more radical new. I want to avoid this Marxist formula, you know what's the problem of Marxists? They
something more radical new. I want to avoid this Marxist formula, you know what's the problem of Marxists? They
unknown
were awaiting all the time a revolution and then
were awaiting all the time a revolution and then
unknown
the
the
Slavoj Žižek
revolution didn't happen and then they went off and off. Lenin said imperialism is the late stage of capitalism. Then Mao said colonialism is the late stage of the late stage and so on, you know. What they didn't get is a dialectic otherwise described nicely by Marx, where he said that the unique thing about capitalism is that it survives only through constant self-revolutionizing, no? But I think that again we are really observing something new here and the left is still in the majority living in old dreams. One my as already hinted at beginning big problem is that now that nobody believes in the old social democracy or of course nobody in Stalinist people's whatever you call it, one thing that is still remaining as a point of fixation is this dream of a local pre-representative communal democracy. To provoke them I openly say where I stand. I think that yes we do need and during COVID wonderful things happened at the level of local self-organization. But nonetheless I think the big problem today is more rational whatever you call it, even transnational global coordination. I also maybe I'm perverted here, I'm really a right-winger but you know when people told me with admiration, "There is some city small, I like Brazil, Brazilian town where they have true this pre-representative cooperation, all citizens meet decide how to school, how to organize food distribution, this that," you know? And I said, "Sorry, that’s nightmare for me. I want a good efficient bureaucracy to take care of that. I want to have my life to listen to my Wagner, Mozart and others' music, to read and write and so on." I precisely would like an institution to take care of that. And I will give you the ultimate proof taken from my good friend Alenka Zupančič. For Alenka Zupančič she develops how Margaret Thatcher used almost a Marxist anti-alienation argument against helping the poor. He said, "State is just taking money from you and giving this. So when you are—see poor people there they ask you for help, always remember: *you* will pay the bill even if the state does it." No, here I think that this precisely is what I like about state support for the unemployed and so on. That it's not personalized. I don't want to go out and meet the poor and then oh but I'm really of your on your side give you money. No, I want in a distance that some institution takes care of that. So in other words to begin, I this is why I go to the end here. My friend, although I don't totally agree with him, American Lacanian thought McGowan wrote now a book the title is something like *For Alienation* or *In Praise of Alienation*. And I more and more believe in it. My dream is not to live in a society where we are all friends, we know each other, that’s nightmare. I mean I like distance, I want to be selective. That’s what I said in a statement for which I paid dearly that percent people are idiots. But then I added for other people I am, I include myself. Because I'm going to the end here. I even don't want to know too well myself. I may theorize about psychoanalysis but thanks, I am totally convinced that if you look deep into yourself, well you will find a lot of shit of course. And I believe in alienation in the sense that find a vocation, find something out of yourself with what you identify, and stop this game of let me look deep into yourself and so on. Let the others remain a mystery because—so for me it's
revolution didn't happen and then they went off and off. Lenin said imperialism is the late stage of capitalism. Then Mao said colonialism is the late stage of the late stage and so on, you know. What they didn't get is a dialectic otherwise described nicely by Marx, where he said that the unique thing about capitalism is that it survives only through constant self-revolutionizing, no? But I think that again we are really observing something new here and the left is still in the majority living in old dreams. One my as already hinted at beginning big problem is that now that nobody believes in the old social democracy or of course nobody in Stalinist people's whatever you call it, one thing that is still remaining as a point of fixation is this dream of a local pre-representative communal democracy. To provoke them I openly say where I stand. I think that yes we do need and during COVID wonderful things happened at the level of local self-organization. But nonetheless I think the big problem today is more rational whatever you call it, even transnational global coordination. I also maybe I'm perverted here, I'm really a right-winger but you know when people told me with admiration, "There is some city small, I like Brazil, Brazilian town where they have true this pre-representative cooperation, all citizens meet decide how to school, how to organize food distribution, this that," you know? And I said, "Sorry, that’s nightmare for me. I want a good efficient bureaucracy to take care of that. I want to have my life to listen to my Wagner, Mozart and others' music, to read and write and so on." I precisely would like an institution to take care of that. And I will give you the ultimate proof taken from my good friend Alenka Zupančič. For Alenka Zupančič she develops how Margaret Thatcher used almost a Marxist anti-alienation argument against helping the poor. He said, "State is just taking money from you and giving this. So when you are—see poor people there they ask you for help, always remember: *you* will pay the bill even if the state does it." No, here I think that this precisely is what I like about state support for the unemployed and so on. That it's not personalized. I don't want to go out and meet the poor and then oh but I'm really of your on your side give you money. No, I want in a distance that some institution takes care of that. So in other words to begin, I this is why I go to the end here. My friend, although I don't totally agree with him, American Lacanian thought McGowan wrote now a book the title is something like *For Alienation* or *In Praise of Alienation*. And I more and more believe in it. My dream is not to live in a society where we are all friends, we know each other, that’s nightmare. I mean I like distance, I want to be selective. That’s what I said in a statement for which I paid dearly that percent people are idiots. But then I added for other people I am, I include myself. Because I'm going to the end here. I even don't want to know too well myself. I may theorize about psychoanalysis but thanks, I am totally convinced that if you look deep into yourself, well you will find a lot of shit of course. And I believe in alienation in the sense that find a vocation, find something out of yourself with what you identify, and stop this game of let me look deep into yourself and so on. Let the others remain a mystery because—so for me it's
unknown
horrible this politically correct or multiculturalist... like the most
horrible this politically correct or multiculturalist... like the most
Slavoj Žižek
would you agree with this old line then I will stop. The most stupid in my tyranny where I am the lord they would get not worse than gulag, instant death penalty, is this wisdom, you know: "An enemy is somebody whose story you were not ready to hear." Ah thanks so Hitler was our enemy because—no, I'm sorry to tell you I read *Mein Kampf*. It's not only a boring book, it's a terrifying book. When I learned Hitler's story it was even worse. And it's the same although I'm not crazy, I'm not identifying Putin with Hitler but like I in high school, this was the worst conformism of me. You had English obligatory language and you had a second language. I took was this was Cold War, the peak, I took Russian because my idea was whoever will win I want to speak to winner's language. But even now you know I follow Russian media. The more I read it the less I like it to put it like this. So I—I believe in this soft interpersonal alienation. Don't be too open. You have to be open but I want to be very selective. Like my ideal place where I would like to live is if it's New York around Washington Square if you go a little bit up Fifth Avenue are this high-rise buildings like floors. And then on the ground floor you have all possible stores, everything is taken care of. If something is wrong with your plumbing people are there ready, you have washing machines in the basement and so on. But because it's such a big building you don't have to become friendly with anybody. Maybe, maybe not, you just greet them in a friendly way. Isn't this nice? Can you even imagine living in this kind of closed society where you are under this big pressure? My answer to this is, how could I understand the others when it's obvious they even don't understand themselves? It's typical that proof history of cinema, I'm jumping a little bit but look at Hollywood. All those movies that we praise as in the 40s, 50s discovering the true horrors but also nice aspects of small-town American life were mostly made by Germans or Hungarian or whatever again you know. I think that from outside you can understand much better things that people than people on the inside see it. That's why I am against historicism. Take Shakespeare, my eternal example. I think that it's totally wrong to say "but we have to contextualize Shakespeare, you cannot understand it without knowing all the debates." No, my position is exactly the opposite one. Not you have to study Elizabethan era to understand Shakespeare is that to understand Elizabethan era read Shakespeare and you will understand it better. And the true greatness of Shakespeare is that—for me the definition of a true masterpiece under quotation marks "eternal"—how each epoch reinvents it. Do you know that Shakespeare with French classicism, Racine, Corneille, Shakespeare was more or less forgotten for almost years, you know? Then he was with romanticism rediscovered. No wonder, that's my favorite example. Today the best version of *Hamlet* I know was made in '62 by Kurosawa. Set in modern Japan, Hamlet is a student in America returns to Japan, big corporation, his uncle murdered his father, with the wonderful title *Only Bad People Sleep Well*. It's totally correct. If you are bothered by guilt when you killed somebody you are already not totally bad. Bad people is, I strangle you and I have a nice sleep, you know. So what I want to say is that you often find for Kurosawa I like him especially here, you know he did Japanese version of *Idiot* in '46, '47, which I seriously claim is much better than *Idiot* itself, the original novel. Which I think I agree here with my good friend I'm proud to say this, Rowan Williams, that we misread Dostoevsky's *Idiot*. Maybe Dostoevsky himself was not aware. But it’s not about portrayal of a really sincere good man. It's a portrayal of an absolute monster. Myshkin is undoubtedly good as a person. But what he he has the wrong kind of goodness. There are people who are good but the effect of their goodness is that they bring disaster to all people around them. And Rowan Williams reads like this in his book on Dostoevsky *Idiot*, you know. So I again I believe in multiculturalism but only in this form of externality. Not we should understand each other but I can understand you better than you and you probably can understand me better than I. You know what's for me Salman Rushdie is not my guy, too liberal and so on. But once he gave a wonderful answer, I was there when I think it was in Bilbao I was with him and he was asked the usual stupid question, you know: "Didn't you the way you live in England comfortably didn't you betray your Indian roots?" And he gave a perfect answer, I'm sorry if you know it. His answer was: "No, my biggest source are still two great Indian writers: Charles Dickens and Jane Austen." And he said that only through Jane Austen can you read properly the in impoverished middle classes in India around Mumbai, Bombay, how they are struggling to marry their daughters, blah blah and Charles Dickens he says the poverty there it's only through Dickens. You know what this is what fascinates me, how parallels with another later culture can allow you to understand retroactively much better the original than the original was understood maybe even by Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare often didn't know what he really meant. It's up to us to discover it. Sorry I got lost. With that I'm afraid we have no more time here. But... I wanted this I expected... Just as he planned, but unfortunately for Slavoj there is a whole tray of books outside and if you buy one then he has kindly agreed that he will sign it so I would heartily recommend that you do and then in fact after buying it and having it signed read it because it's a wonderful book and enlightening in many ways. No, but I will say something else. Why don't you discover that that book is not so good and buy then another book of mine after to make up for it. Yeah and the one after that and the one after
would you agree with this old line then I will stop. The most stupid in my tyranny where I am the lord they would get not worse than gulag, instant death penalty, is this wisdom, you know: "An enemy is somebody whose story you were not ready to hear." Ah thanks so Hitler was our enemy because—no, I'm sorry to tell you I read *Mein Kampf*. It's not only a boring book, it's a terrifying book. When I learned Hitler's story it was even worse. And it's the same although I'm not crazy, I'm not identifying Putin with Hitler but like I in high school, this was the worst conformism of me. You had English obligatory language and you had a second language. I took was this was Cold War, the peak, I took Russian because my idea was whoever will win I want to speak to winner's language. But even now you know I follow Russian media. The more I read it the less I like it to put it like this. So I—I believe in this soft interpersonal alienation. Don't be too open. You have to be open but I want to be very selective. Like my ideal place where I would like to live is if it's New York around Washington Square if you go a little bit up Fifth Avenue are this high-rise buildings like floors. And then on the ground floor you have all possible stores, everything is taken care of. If something is wrong with your plumbing people are there ready, you have washing machines in the basement and so on. But because it's such a big building you don't have to become friendly with anybody. Maybe, maybe not, you just greet them in a friendly way. Isn't this nice? Can you even imagine living in this kind of closed society where you are under this big pressure? My answer to this is, how could I understand the others when it's obvious they even don't understand themselves? It's typical that proof history of cinema, I'm jumping a little bit but look at Hollywood. All those movies that we praise as in the 40s, 50s discovering the true horrors but also nice aspects of small-town American life were mostly made by Germans or Hungarian or whatever again you know. I think that from outside you can understand much better things that people than people on the inside see it. That's why I am against historicism. Take Shakespeare, my eternal example. I think that it's totally wrong to say "but we have to contextualize Shakespeare, you cannot understand it without knowing all the debates." No, my position is exactly the opposite one. Not you have to study Elizabethan era to understand Shakespeare is that to understand Elizabethan era read Shakespeare and you will understand it better. And the true greatness of Shakespeare is that—for me the definition of a true masterpiece under quotation marks "eternal"—how each epoch reinvents it. Do you know that Shakespeare with French classicism, Racine, Corneille, Shakespeare was more or less forgotten for almost years, you know? Then he was with romanticism rediscovered. No wonder, that's my favorite example. Today the best version of *Hamlet* I know was made in '62 by Kurosawa. Set in modern Japan, Hamlet is a student in America returns to Japan, big corporation, his uncle murdered his father, with the wonderful title *Only Bad People Sleep Well*. It's totally correct. If you are bothered by guilt when you killed somebody you are already not totally bad. Bad people is, I strangle you and I have a nice sleep, you know. So what I want to say is that you often find for Kurosawa I like him especially here, you know he did Japanese version of *Idiot* in '46, '47, which I seriously claim is much better than *Idiot* itself, the original novel. Which I think I agree here with my good friend I'm proud to say this, Rowan Williams, that we misread Dostoevsky's *Idiot*. Maybe Dostoevsky himself was not aware. But it’s not about portrayal of a really sincere good man. It's a portrayal of an absolute monster. Myshkin is undoubtedly good as a person. But what he he has the wrong kind of goodness. There are people who are good but the effect of their goodness is that they bring disaster to all people around them. And Rowan Williams reads like this in his book on Dostoevsky *Idiot*, you know. So I again I believe in multiculturalism but only in this form of externality. Not we should understand each other but I can understand you better than you and you probably can understand me better than I. You know what's for me Salman Rushdie is not my guy, too liberal and so on. But once he gave a wonderful answer, I was there when I think it was in Bilbao I was with him and he was asked the usual stupid question, you know: "Didn't you the way you live in England comfortably didn't you betray your Indian roots?" And he gave a perfect answer, I'm sorry if you know it. His answer was: "No, my biggest source are still two great Indian writers: Charles Dickens and Jane Austen." And he said that only through Jane Austen can you read properly the in impoverished middle classes in India around Mumbai, Bombay, how they are struggling to marry their daughters, blah blah and Charles Dickens he says the poverty there it's only through Dickens. You know what this is what fascinates me, how parallels with another later culture can allow you to understand retroactively much better the original than the original was understood maybe even by Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare often didn't know what he really meant. It's up to us to discover it. Sorry I got lost. With that I'm afraid we have no more time here. But... I wanted this I expected... Just as he planned, but unfortunately for Slavoj there is a whole tray of books outside and if you buy one then he has kindly agreed that he will sign it so I would heartily recommend that you do and then in fact after buying it and having it signed read it because it's a wonderful book and enlightening in many ways. No, but I will say something else. Why don't you discover that that book is not so good and buy then another book of mine after to make up for it. Yeah and the one after that and the one after
unknown
that forever until infinity. Thank you everybody,
that forever until infinity. Thank you everybody,
Slavoj Žižek
Slavoj Žižek. Thank you very
Slavoj Žižek. Thank you very
unknown
much.
much.