Slavoj Zizek - What are network states?
Lecture · John Hillman ·
2025-04 · 2:12:08 · 14,774 words
with Cathy Newman
philosophy-generalfascism-populismideologytechnology-ai-cyberspacegeopolitics-warcapitalismcommunism-socialismhistorycinema-art-culturepsychoanalysissexuality-genderreligion-theologyrace-antisemitism
The excerpt consists of a single introductory sentence where Slavoj Žižek states his intention to speak very little. No substantive concepts, motifs, or references are present in this fragment. Žižek opens with a satirical skit about political etiquette before analyzing the normalization of fascism, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the rise of 'Liberal Fascism' under Trump. He critiques Elon Musk as the embodiment of 'perverted communism' derived from Marx's German Ideology, argues that the Mossad and Hamas are complicit in keeping Palestinians divided, and defines the current era as a techno-feudal project where 'common sense' is abolished by AI and ecological crisis. Žižek argues that contemporary love is viewed with suspicion and critiques the 'naive' subversive love advocated by Orwell, using her 1984 to analyze current geopolitical fragmentation. He defends China’s trade model against environmental disasters in Zambia and contrasts it with US encirclement, while praising 'authentic' religious fundamentalists like the Old Believers and Canudos community for their lack of resentment. Finally, he applies Lacan’s distinction between enunciated content and enunciation to analyze political lying, contrasting Trump’s 'human' inconsistency with JD Vance’s robotic fascism, and invoking Hannah Arendt’s SA/SS distinction. Žižek analyzes the dialectic between truth and lie, arguing that a statement can be factually true yet function as a lie through its framing, or factually false yet express an authentic political truth. He illustrates this with historical examples from the French and October Revolutions, where false rumors mobilized people for just causes, and contemporary examples like the framing of Brussels suburbs. He concludes with a personal anecdote about his own psychoanalysis, where he used excessive factual speech to evade traumatic insight, paralleling the concept of 'alternate facts' where true data serves a deceptive ideological purpose. Žižek argues for a necessary partiality in truth, using the Holocaust and Gaza to illustrate that neutrality is always secretly partisan. He expands the Marxist concept of exploitation to include unpaid domestic labor, environmental destruction, and permanent unemployment, citing Fred Jameson. He analyzes the paradox of apology, the geopolitical potential of a China-Europe alliance against Trump/Putin, and the ideological mechanism of 'isolierung' (isolation) in Chinese politics. Finally, he discusses the paradox of enjoying one's own critique (Visconti, The Handmaid's Tale) and the 'death of truth' as the collapse of the Big Other, concluding with anecdotes about Belgian politics and Chinese jokes. Žižek engages in a Q&A discussing the political dynamics of Brussels, the legacy of Tito’s Yugoslavia, and the post-apartheid reality in South Africa, arguing that the post-colonial promise has failed to deliver justice. He then pivots to a complex analysis of Chinese political strategy, introducing the concept of 'takeoverism' (derived from Lu Xun) and interpreting contemporary Chinese leadership through a lens of 'conservative modernization' or 'neo-fascism' that seeks to harness Western dynamic productivity while rejecting its social disintegration.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 32
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek's ironic description of Elon Musk's lifestyle and private schooling, which mirrors Marx's naive communist ideal of doing whatever one pleases (gardening, critical theory) without alienated labor.
A concept from Balaji Srinivasan that Žižek uses to describe the technocratic goal of creating a new state from scratch via emergency powers, supported by AI and enlightened monarchs.
Žižek's term for the current political formation where liberalism is brought to its extreme, combining populist neo-fascism with a radical technocratic reconstruction of society from zero.
A term from Yanis Varoufakis that Žižek references to describe the new oligarchic order, though he prefers 'Liberal Fascism' to capture the populist element.
as “open contradiction / antagonism”
The ideological tension between populist neo-fascism (workers' rights, roots) and techno-feudalism (oligarchs, technocracy) which Žižek argues Trump can thrive on rather than be ruined by.
as “neo-fascism”
Not merely reactionary, but a dynamic force that retains collective spirit and modernizing potential, which Žižek applies to figures like Wang Huning to describe a state that harnesses capitalist efficiency without liberal social disintegration.
The paradoxical justification used by Trump: fighting 'insanity' (LGBT+, environmentalism) to restore 'common sense,' while actually ushering in a world where common sense (nature, biology) is abolished.
Žižek's ironic theory that nature will recuperate itself from ecological crisis, but 'maybe without us,' meaning there will be no place for humans in it.
Žižek’s ironic term for the traditional heterosexual couple, used to critique the political correctness that views such binaries as suspicious and not dynamic enough.
The old Frankfurt School motto Žižek endorses: acknowledging the desperate nature of the situation (theory) while pushing for maximum active engagement (practice) to avoid false moderate/violent choices.
as “logic of resentment”
A distinction Žižek makes between fundamentalist groups (Amish, Tibetans) who lack resentment/envy of others, and state-sanctioned pseudo-fundamentalists who are defined by envy and hatred of the 'other'.
Žižek’s ironic term for the transition from the 'human' obscenity of the SA (street fighters) to the inhuman, robotic, cold executioner style of the SS, which he associates with JD Vance.
as “enunciated content vs. subjective stance of enunciation”
Lacanian distinction used by Žižek to analyze lying: the literal content of a statement versus the implied subjective position or stance of the speaker, which may contradict the content.
as “hysteria vs. obsessional compulsive neurosis”
Žižek references these psychoanalytic structures to distinguish between two complementary forms of lying, suggesting his own analysis follows this Lacanian framework.
as “truth in the guise of a lie”
A formulation where the content is literally false, but the falsehood expresses an authentic social or political complaint/mobilization.
Reinterpreted not as denial of reality, but as the strategic presentation of true facts to produce a false/deceptive effect.
as “Marxist point”
The assertion that 'data are never simply data,' implying that facts are always embedded in ideological frameworks and social relations.
as “partiality of truth”
The thesis that universal truth is only accessible by adopting the standpoint of the victim or exploited, rejecting 'neutral' relativism as a fake compromise that favors the status quo.
as “environmental exploitation”
A redefinition of Marxist exploitation to include the brutal ruining of a local environment (as in Chinese mining in Zambia), even without direct employment of locals.
as “unemployable”
A category of people permanently excluded from the labor market due to automation/industry changes, whom Jameson argues should be considered a form of exploitation.
as “inter-passivity”
A mode of ideological functioning where one makes the Other passive for oneself; appearing hyper-active (e.g., complaining about ecology) to ensure nothing actually changes.
An apology used aggressively to shut down criticism ('I'm sorry, shut up'), or the paradoxical acceptance of an apology that refuses the apology, thereby neutralizing the guilt.
A term Žižek claims to have abandoned (or which was used in his books) to describe the Chinese political system, noting its translation is blocked in China.
Freud's concept of 'isolation,' used here to describe how China formally admits Mao's faults (e.g., '85% good, 15% bad') but isolates them from their context so they have no effect on the subjective position.
as “death of truth”
The contemporary condition where all truth is historicized and trust is lost; Žižek argues this is not a catastrophe but the necessary collapse of the 'Big Other' (traditional consistent lies) allowing for new, less false ideologies.
as “white racism”
Defined not by the claim to a specific way of life, but by the secret universalization of that way of life, measuring all others against it.
The ironic association of Belgian national identity with pedophilia and chocolate, where the chocolate is linked to the exploitation of Congo, revealing the colonial underpinning of the 'neutral' national identity.
A progressive, supra-national identity constructed by Tito to override ethnic nationalism (Croat/Serb), which ultimately failed to resolve the underlying crisis, leading to violent collapse.
The post-apartheid South African approach, which Žižek suggests has failed to address the deep structural inequalities and corruption, leaving the country as one of the most unequal in the world.
A strategy attributed to Lu Xun and contemporary China to actively seize and re-stage Western progressive elements (technology, state capacity) while discarding their destructive social consequences, distinct from passive assimilation.
A purported historical manuscript where Sun Yat-sen and Mao debated 'takeoverism,' viewing fascism not as evil but as a potential vehicle for collective action and dynamic modernization against liberal capitalism.
Stories he reaches for 7
Dying Lenin sent friends to offer electricity to a group of Old Believers (Russian Orthodox schismatics) who resisted centralized imperial power, showing Bolsheviks initially valued their resistance to the state.
“Lenin was so interested in them that he sent one of his friends there offering them and they took it electricity.”
Žižek cites Jewish friends who told him there were jokes in Auschwitz and a Bosnian friend who said there were jokes in Srebrenica, arguing that stupid jokes are necessary to survive horror without total depression.
“To survive not to be in total depression all time or numbness you needed stupid jokes.”
Žižek admits he and his friends secretly enjoyed the detailed imagination of the torture and restrictions in The Handmaid's Tale, despite knowing it was horrible, illustrating how ideology penetrates jouissance.
“I caught myself in fully enjoying the detailed imagination how the women are tortured... you can enjoy it because you can say but wait a minute I'm fully aware it's horrible.”
Žižek recounts making a vulgar remark to Judith Butler about her 'unnatural bitch' lesbian friends, then sincerely apologizing; Butler accepted it by saying no apology was needed, illustrating the paradox of true vs. false apology.
“I used some term... is she also unnatural bitch like you... I use a term like sorry sorry my nature God created me like this totally.”
A thought experiment where a Nazi cites statistically true data (e.g., percentage of Jewish literary critics or bankers) to serve a racist lie, demonstrating that data is never neutral.
“let's say I debate with a Nazi in in Germany the problem of the Jews and what he says all the data can be true.”
Using Arendt’s analysis, Žižek contrasts the 'human' obscenity and empirical evil of the SA (street fighters) with the 'inhuman' cold executioner style of the SS, arguing the latter (Vance) is more terrifying.
“SA were these violent brutal street fighters... SS were this you know in nice uniforms cold executioners no passion in them.”
Žižek recounts a story (via his friend Alex) that Sun Yat-sen and Mao debated fascism, seeing in it a 'dynamic' collective action potential superior to liberal capitalism, not because they were fascists, but because they wanted the modernizing force.
“their idea was because this was already the time when Mussolini was in power... they saw in fascism a certain potential of collective action.”
Works invoked 11
Less Than Nothing book
A book of Žižek's that is half-prohibited in China; its translation is finished but blocked by Beijing from printing.
Used as an example of how audiences secretly enjoy the detailed imagination of torture/restriction, illustrating the split between explicit ideology and jouissance.
The German Ideology book
Critiqued by Žižek as 'vulgar Marx' but used to describe the 'perverted communism' of Elon Musk's lifestyle.
No Other Land film
A documentary about the West Bank that Žižek defends against radical pro-Palestinian critics, using it to illustrate the normalization of Israeli obscenity.
Wang Huning's book, which Žižek reads as analyzing the destructive elements of American dynamics while being fascinated by them.
Network State book
A text by Balaji Srinivasan that Žiženg uses to explain the technocratic project of creating a new state from zero.
The 18th Brumaire book
Praised by Žižek as a text where Marx becomes a serious theoretician.
Canudos other
Referenced as a historical event (city in Brazil) where fundamentalism created a thriving community of outcasts outside state law, which Žižek praises.
Amish other
Cited as fundamentalist groups who 'don't have resentment and envy' and 'live their way', though Žižek acknowledges dark aspects like incest.
Old Believers other
A Russian Orthodox group that resisted centralized imperial state power; Žižek praises their resistance and lack of resentment compared to state-sanctioned fundamentalism.
Tibetans other
Cited as fundamentalist groups who 'don't have resentment and envy', living their truthful way without judging whites.
People invoked 48
Conselheiro positive
The leader of the city of Canudos, who maintained peace and was incredibly successful until the army destroyed the city.
Hamdan Ballal positive
An Israeli-Palestinian film director and co-director of No Other Land who was arrested and beaten, used to illustrate the normalization of obscenity.
Yuval Kremnitzer positive
A Lacanian and 'progressive' Israeli journalist who is scared of losing his job and is a distant relative of Ami Ayalon.
Groucho Marx positive
Žižek paraphrases Groucho’s 'This guy looks like an idiot... but this shouldn't deceive you this guy is an idiot' to argue that admitting one is a 'piece of shit' is itself a lie.
Kamala Harris negative
Mocked for her 'fear' and 'flat and void' answer on Gaza, representing the calculated caution of centrists that loses votes.
Žižek satirically scolds her for not mentioning his title or saying thank you, using her as a prop for his opening joke.
Marine Le Pen negative
Cited as a figure condemned for the anti-Semitic roots of the Front National.
Referenced in the anecdote about the journalist being shown opponents hanging by their testicles.
Luchino Visconti positive
Used as an example of a Communist Party member whose movies expressed nostalgia for the decadence of the old wealthy, illustrating the split between explicit ideology and jouissance.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Cited for his interest in Old Believers, sending friends to offer them electricity, showing Bolsheviks saw them as resisting centralized imperial state power.
Referenced as the current leader who, according to Žižek, has recently shifted rhetoric towards 'return to Chinese tradition Confucianism' rather than pure modernization.
Steve Bannon positive
Described ironically as the 'leftist Trumpian' who supported trade unions and taxes on the wealthy, representing the populist side of Trump's coalition.
Cited for the formula 'Mao was 85% good, 15% bad,' which serves as an ideological mechanism of isolation.
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced as the source of 'us Lacanians,' with Yuval Kremnitzer described as 'one of us Lacanians.'
Used in an anecdote to illustrate the paradox of apology; Žižek made a vulgar remark to her and she accepted it by refusing the apology.
Donald Trump negative
Analyzed as the figure who unites populist neo-fascism and techno-feudalism, using 'common sense' to abolish common sense and usher in a world where nature and biology are irrelevant.
Lu Xun positive
Identified as the source of 'takeoverism,' a strategy against assimilation that Žižek finds politically significant for understanding China.
Cited in the context of the Sun/Mao debate, where fascism was seen as having 'potential of collective action.'
JD Vance negative
Described as a 'totally manufactured robot' created by Peter Thiel, representing a 'high level fascist' transition from SA to SS, which Žižek fears more than Trump.
Alain Badiou negative
Described as 'still my friend'; Žižek critiques Badiou for dismissing events like Syriza or Bolivia as 'not yet the real thing' from the comfort of academia.
Elon Musk negative
Described as the 'new right-wing version of '68 revolutionaries' and the result of '68 ideology,' embodying 'perverted communism' through his private school and lifestyle.
George Orwell negative
Žižek states he does not like Orwell's image of future totalitarianism, calling it flawed and old-fashioned.
Bart De Wever negative
Described as a 'neo-fascist Prime Minister' and a Flemish nationalist who rejects the Belgian identity, representing a specific regional rejection rather than a universal one.
Bertrand Russell negative
Cited as trying to solve the Liar's Paradox with 'way too simple way of simply distinguishing levels' (meta-language), which Žižek finds boring.
Fredric Jameson positive
Cited for expanding the notion of exploitation to include unpaid domestic work, environmental ruin, and the 'unemployable'.
Cited in the context of the Sun/Mao debate, where fascism was seen as having 'potential of collective action.'
Bernie Sanders positive
Cited alongside AOC as people who 'appear to say what they really mean' to ordinary voters, unlike centrists.
Mentioned in the context of Trump calling him a dictator and then being 'pissed at Putin' for saying so.
Jordan Bardella negative
Identified as the next leader of Le Front National, representing the extreme right's pact with Israel.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
A friend and intellectual interlocutor; Žižek accepts his idea of 'Techno-feudalism' and his view that Trump and Putin speak the same language.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Described as organizing a conference on anti-Semitism while his government's actions constitute it; accused of transferring money to Hamas.
Ami Ayalon positive
Ex-boss of Shin Bet, cited for progressive statements that the source of trouble is Palestinian lack of political subjectivity.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Cited as an example of a leftist politician who discovered data on Trump voters; her personal letter to them illustrates the paradox of political alignment.
Mao Zedong negative
Formally admitted in China as '85% good, 15% bad,' but his Cultural Revolution and Leap Forward are unmentionable/criticized.
Hannah Arendt positive
Cited as a signatory to the New York Times ad warning about Nazi-like tendencies in Palestine.
Kellyanne Conway positive
Referenced as 'that crazy lady' (transcript error for Kellyanne Conway, Trump advisor) whose phrase 'alternate facts' is used to illustrate the concept of true data serving a false effect.
Wang Huning positive
Described as 'almost a model neo-fascist' and the 'third strongest person' in China, author of 'America against America,' who seeks to harness American dynamic without its destructive social elements.
Alex positive
A Korean friend who provided the manuscript story about Sun Yat-sen and Mao; his name is unpronounceable for Žižek.
Peter Thiel negative
The 'mega billionaire' who controls Vance’s career from the beginning, creating him as a political robot.
Jean-Marie Le Pen negative
Described as an open Holocaust denier and the founding father of Le Front National.
Vladimir Putin negative
Described as speaking the same language as Trump regarding imperial interests in Africa and Greenland.
Cited as the figure whose vision of rights-based reconciliation is now being questioned by the reality of inequality.
Referenced in a manuscript debate with Mao regarding 'takeoverism' and the potential of fascism for collective action.
Balaji Srinivasan positive
The developer of the 'Network State' concept, which Žižek uses to explain the technocratic reconstruction of society.
Karl Marx positive
Cited for the thesis that universal truth is accessible only through the partial standpoint of the exploited proletariat.
Josip Broz Tito positive
Praised for the 'crazy move' of creating a Yugoslav identity to override ethnic nationalism during WWII, though its ultimate failure is noted.
Sigmund Freud positive
Cited for the concept of 'isolierung' (isolation), used to explain how China admits Mao's faults but isolates them from subjective position.
Albert Einstein positive
Cited as a signatory to a New York Times ad warning that tendencies in Palestine resembled Nazism.
Transcript 82 turns
unknown
I'm
I'm
Cathy Newman
very pleased to introduce Slavoj Žižek, International Director for the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities. My name's Esther Leslie and I co-direct the institute with Professor Jacqueline Rose.
very pleased to introduce Slavoj Žižek, International Director for the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities. My name's Esther Leslie and I co-direct the institute with Professor Jacqueline Rose.
Slavoj Žižek
So, I'll say very little
So, I'll say very little
Cathy Newman
as I know you are here in person and there are people online come to hear Slavoj Žižek and he is very well known. He remains as ever intellectually prolific. I think the most recent English language publication I noticed came out a few days ago, is that Zero Point? Yeah, came out on the 20th dealing with the question of political defeat and disaster and how to begin again and again. So, the sessions with us come under the heading What is Liberal Fascism? A term that he himself says may or may not be adequate, but is at least striking. And I think a lot of us are reeling as we contemplate the epoch we appear to be in, questioning just how unprecedented is the dimension of this relationship between free market capitalist economics and what we've come to know as political democracy, and what is the quality of shamelessness in public discourse and have we seen it before anywhere. So, we're hoping for some orientation, specifically through the themes of today which are today's theme What are Network States and tomorrow A Global World of Local Traditions. And Slavoj didn't answer when I said how many minutes will he speak for and will there be questions? Although you did just say you liked the authoritarian aspect of the virtual people not being able to ask questions, but hopefully there will be time for questions from the floor and if not, just start shouting rebel at a certain point. But let's
as I know you are here in person and there are people online come to hear Slavoj Žižek and he is very well known. He remains as ever intellectually prolific. I think the most recent English language publication I noticed came out a few days ago, is that Zero Point? Yeah, came out on the 20th dealing with the question of political defeat and disaster and how to begin again and again. So, the sessions with us come under the heading What is Liberal Fascism? A term that he himself says may or may not be adequate, but is at least striking. And I think a lot of us are reeling as we contemplate the epoch we appear to be in, questioning just how unprecedented is the dimension of this relationship between free market capitalist economics and what we've come to know as political democracy, and what is the quality of shamelessness in public discourse and have we seen it before anywhere. So, we're hoping for some orientation, specifically through the themes of today which are today's theme What are Network States and tomorrow A Global World of Local Traditions. And Slavoj didn't answer when I said how many minutes will he speak for and will there be questions? Although you did just say you liked the authoritarian aspect of the virtual people not being able to ask questions, but hopefully there will be time for questions from the floor and if not, just start shouting rebel at a certain point. But let's
Slavoj Žižek
let's go. Thank you very much. Although I must begin with as they are used to talk now in the United States, their highest representative, listen Esther, I'm really pissed at you because A, you treated me disrespectfully. You know what I'm referring to, like you didn't even care to mention Prof Slavoj Žižek. No, I'm Doctor, Doctor, Doctor, Senator. Okay, what senator I am, I have frequent flyer senator card, but it doesn't matter, I have that title. That's first. Then second, you didn't say thank you. Notice. So third, obviously you don't want peace within us. Now I break off with you when you are ready for peace come back here. Thank you very much. I mean it's in my nature, you know, like if I don't begin with something slightly tasteless then what meaning has life. Although on the other hand, I'm starting to change my mind because you know the our social reality is more and more so vulgar and tasteless. Things totally unimaginable are happening so that I wonder if this is the right way we cannot move beyond the vulgarities the vulgarities that we have there. Why? Let me just before I begin properly give you a couple of things which it's no longer a joke or I think one should use jokes for the same reason that I know I made use of this motive here already for the same reason that I learn from my old Jewish friends that there were jokes in Auschwitz and after Auschwitz because the situation was so horrible that to survive not to be in total depression all the time or numbness you needed stupid jokes. I know from a Bosnian friend that there are jokes in Srebrenica in Bosnia about their own situation. That's the only thing I can say because let me just give you in an improvised way a couple of things which really made me depressed. You know what is happening, did you notice this how we were claiming for years oh this is like fascism authoritarianism but we were always conscious that this was some kind of rhetorical exaggeration that will shock our opponents. No, now it's literally true. For example, I claimed at the Frankfurt Book Fair a year and a half ago I drawn attention to this link between a certain type of Zionism and fascism. And again at the origin of this is as you probably know a very honest act a letter published in in New York Times a whole page paid advertisement signed among others by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and so on where they warned that there are tendencies there in Palestine among the Jews who resemble Nazism. But now this is becoming reality. If you ask me it was a minor event then people say bah unimportant marginal. I like these small notes. Did you read in the newspaper I don't know how much it was reported even many Jews were embarrassed that last week in Jerusalem there was a conference even some members of the government boycotted it, conference organized by Netanyahu and his right-wing partisans on anti-Semitism. How to fight anti-Semitism today. Among the people there people were shocked. You know who is I hope I will pronounce the name correctly who is the second guy who will now probably take over since Marine Le Pen was condemned Jordan Bardella. Did I? Okay, but you know Le Front National has roots in anti-Semitism. The founding father Jean-Marie Le Pen was an open Holocaust denier or at least in this Ahmadinejad style, you know, maybe it happens maybe not we did more we need more research and so on. Now and there were some other people from this extreme right. What this is what is happening now that it's literally coming to a pact between Western European extreme right and at least some trend in Israel and it's clear why because they both have the same racist agenda. For both of them Palestinians or Arabs are a threat and so on and so on. But what really worries me is if this is not a horror then I don't know what horror is. Did you notice with the last incident in Gaza and on the West Bank, we are entering a new period of no deniability when IDF is caught doing something they didn't don't bother to properly deny it or justify they just make some vague statement. I'm not talking so much about this horror a week or two ago you know killing of some medical Palestinian person and so on that's another but what shocked me although it's much less you know who is Hamdan Ballal that movie director who together with an Israeli director I think there were four did *No Other Land* that movie. What shocked me so much is you can find it on YouTube everything is recorded. Settlers are coming protected by soldiers police they beat Palestinians. The guy co-director just goes out he is beaten by settlers and by police or IDF whoever and then who is arrested at the end? Him and another or two Palestinians, him. Okay, okay, it happens. I am very cynical here. I know so many details about what they are doing in different countries like I don't know if I've already told you this story a Slovene journalist of mine of mine was in towards the end of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq and a guy wanted to warn him don't inquire too much so he took him to a place he says this guy it's so horrible that even if you tell it around nobody will believe you. And he saw opponents of Saddam still alive hanging from from down only by their by how to call they were hanging on their balls. Their balls were linked to some rope to the and so on. It's and then he said okay I hope you got the message. So all things happen. But you know what depressed me? Usually it's horrible what I will say but I hope you will get the point one would at least expect from the Israeli side to say something like this movie director was there I don't know throwing stones or I don't know what. No, they just said because they couldn't accuse him of anything they said that he was detained for health reasons like he being wounded. And then what happened was that his lawyer called the prison they said we don't know anything about him he was chained to the floor for hours and then he was released. Absolutely no explanation. We are really entering this new stage when again obscenity is becoming open it's more and more fully normalized. Here I remain the point that I often made here a traditional European hypocrite. It's nonetheless better to be hypocritical because then at least you minimally expose yourself to to to criticism. It's interesting this movie *No Other Land* because I got caught in some polemics with more radical pro-Palestinians in New York when I was there a month ago and again a strange thing happened. They opposed the movie. They claim that yes it's a truthful picture of what happens on the West Bank but that in its form it remains racist because first it proposes sustains enacts the idea that above all the confusion there still can be friendship between an Israeli Jew and a Palestinian. To this it was easy for me to reply that no they are not friends in general it would be I agree obscene if the idea was yes they are killing Palestinians there maybe some Jew at another place but let's just be friends and wander around. No, they collaborate the two precisely to show what is happening to Palestinians on the West Bank so it's not a neutral humanitarian friendship. But second approach which appears more up to the point is that you know there is an unwritten rule and I noticed it that even if you are part of let's call it liberal Zionism and admit there are injustices happening to Palestinians and so on, if you do a movie on it it's never just Palestinian subjectivity. There has to be a good Jew supporting them you know not directly just Palestinians. Well I disagreed with the guy. I said yes you make the point but look about what happened this arrest of Ballal. It happened because of that movie and because the movie got Oscar and so on. You know what I mean. I think we are in such desperate times that maybe while we stick each of us to our point apropos specific problems project we have to practice I will use this old fashioned term from 1930s popular front. If somebody is ready to really fight for human rights there you don't go into this you know but how far does he go? Does he admit that Hamas is like for some most radicals they say the only thing that matters is that you admit Hamas as the only true resistance group. I don't buy this for a simple reason. You know what happens now and it's again the shamelessness. You know my old idea the only guys whom you trust are ex-secret police bosses Shin Bet or Mossad. I'm more and more convinced of this. Did you read the news that Netanyahu fired a week or two ago fired the Mossad boss and I looked into what was behind. The official version was they didn't prepare Israel enough for September attack. No no no they did even warn the government. The point is that this boss of Mossad made nonetheless a much more honest report. The point was if we don't open some space for Palestinians for their political sovereignty autonomy we are lost it's eternal warfare and so on. That was behind plus another thing my god this gets nice Mossad was beginning to investigate the financial dealings of some rich Israelis with Qatar. And now it came out did you read? Now it's not just a rumor we have the whole chain. One of the best friends of Netanyahu I forgot his name a billionaire was transferring his money to Qatar and you know where the money went? To Hamas. It's not a joke. Israel was the main financial source supporter of Hamas because they judged in a very brutal way that this is the only way to keep Palestinians apart West Bank and so on and so on. So again this just goes on it doesn't even surprise us too much and so on and so on. What on the other hand yes so that's why I will tell you before you will read some idiots to attack me I still have some links among progressive Jews and one of them the guy who maybe at some point you should invite him here he is very progressive and today in Israel you can define in a very precise empirical way what progressive is. He is afraid scared like shit that he will lose his job. It's all around Yuval Kremnitzer. He is of course one of us Lacanians haha what can I say we are the wild guys today. But he is you know I mentioned a couple of times here Ami Ayalon the ex-boss of Shin Bet I think who also is now totally excluded because he made incredibly it didn't quite satisfy us but progressive statements claiming the source of the troubles there is not Palestinian terror but the fact that Palestinians don't have even a choice a vision of how to achieve some kind of political subjectivity and then the problem is this. And Yuval told me when he visited us in Ljubljana for some talk that he is a distant relative of Ami Ayalon. My god I don't know if it's safe because now you know Israel is like United States you can be simply arrested no? But I'm tempted to go and visit him. You know why? Because for me much more interesting than this than this comfortable not for Palestinians external critique is to meet the guys who were inside and become desperate no? So what do we get on the other side and with this I will stop this introduction I hope this will amuse you. When I read some texts about the lifestyle of Elon Musk my first association was my god he is the new right-wing version of '68 revolutionaries. Literally. He is only possible as the final result consequence of the '68 ideology. You know what is for me the worst text of Marx? *German Ideology*. It's pretty vulgar Marx becomes serious theoretician after that with his mega quality reactions to '48 revolution, *18th Brumaire* and so on and of course texts on political economy. But in *German Ideology* Marx describes in a slightly too naive way a communist individual like free in the sense of Marx ironically says in the morning you do something in your garden in the afternoon you practice critical theory in the evening I don't isn't this Elon Musk? In the morning he maybe has some plans on the rocket on the rocket to Mars or Tesla or whatever in the afternoon you if it's a modest day you fire one or two thousand people from government job in the evenings I don't know but I know ah you know what I do later oh my god this is pure almost perverted communism. You know that Musk didn't trust already years ago state schools. So for his two three children in somewhere there I don't know where in California he organized a private high school. Professors well-paid but just for his three four children and he made his own how do you call it curriculum so that there was especially there were I love this no foreign languages and no music. What's wrong with music here? You know I almost am tempted to answer him like a right-winger what about patriotic songs like where will they learn this? I mean then of course there are his children now each with a different woman of course you know isn't there something in a perverted way communist in this? I do this I do that and so on you know. So I that was the point of my text now I will don't protest too quickly I hint at this in one of the texts mentioned kindly by Esther the on the Network State. And here I come to a suicidal mistake that I made. I did something very stupid. I sent you three texts which perfectly my god how stupid I am perfectly cover the central line of argumentation of what I wanted to do here. Network States the first one and then tomorrow that one about local culture global blah blah whatever and also the other one which already appeared some time ago about the madness of this Musk sorry no Trump's reference to to common sense and so on and so on. I hope if you didn't you all got these texts. I propose that we leave if you want I will have things ready that we leave that we do it like this. We leave this topic at its general level for tomorrow and maybe we even begin with you if you didn't already read them you ask me precise question questions. The basic topic is clear of course I try to make a little bit more clear as Esther said I I mean why Liberal Fascism? No, I'm not as sure as Yanis Varoufakis for example Techno-feudalism. There are so many things different you know. What we are getting today that's why I opted for the term Liberal Fascism it's not although now we are getting it it's not the standard authoritarianism. At some level at a false level it's liberalism brought to extreme. And that's the tension but I developed this more in my text. So the the main ideological contradiction but unfortunately this will not ruin Trump. I think if he will properly manipulate it he can thrive on it is this open contradiction or rather antagonism. On the one hand this conservative neo-conservative populist return to roots you know represented by I call him ironically the the how's his name my god the Steve Bannon the let's call him ironically the leftist Trumpian. And he is in some sense we have to admit this so that we understand why people vote for Trump. You know that Bannon was fired after two years from the White House during Trump's first four years of presidency because he went pretty far in his demand for more workers' rights. He is not known he supported trade unions he wanted taxes to be raised for the wealthy to percent not even Bernie Sanders does that. So on the other hand on the other hand we get this what Varoufakis calls Techno- Techno-feudalism whatever new oligarchs and why did I emphasize so much then? Because I claim that their idea which is rarely put open is simply incompatible with this populist neo-fascism. It's an idea of such a radical new technocracy that it's even too much for the most Stalinist communist. The idea is as you find in the name text that Network State which means don't try to change gradually society either through a new dictator and some of these guys already predicted what Trump did. They said the only chance is that in United States that when a president a good one our guy for them Trump is democratically elected he proclaims state of emergency and does it and does what? Totally reconstruct the entire society from the zero point following this new pseudo-liberal but at the same time extremely authoritarian measures what Trump is doing now and what I found fascinating is that there was a guy called Srinivasan something you find references in my text who developed this idea. He said we can create new music new bank new product why not create new state. And he developed very nicely this idea that you get from a state in whatever way occupation contract part of the territory where you build a society through some kind of enlightened monarch supported by good artificial intelligence technocrats. And I think this is the key because people then stop me at this point and say but you are dreaming. No, this is what Trump tried already to do in Gaza. You empty the terrain and then you get this Gaza Trump from the zero point you construct a society. Now some of my leftist friends think this is an antagonism that will ruin Trump. I'm more of a pessimist. I I'm not so sure. But let's not lose time by this. My point is just the old one maybe already made it here my basic point that while Trump in his inaugural speech justified his measures by two key terms: common sense and insanity. Common sense tells you that in nature there are two sexes and all the other stuff it's insanity LGBT+ and all this stuff. That my point is I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself that it's not simply that this is an illusion in the sense of we cannot go back to what was common sense until now. It's a very sad depressing paradox that Trumpian actual politics decisions imposed on behalf of fight against insanity and common sense and fight for common sense are politics which will usher us in a world where all our old rules of common sense will be abolished. Look for environment Trump is simply denying it. What will happen I don't know. Sexual liberation or whatever we call it Trump return but and what really worries me is this vision of artificial intelligence technocracy. Here Trump is fully aware of the importance of it and here things get complex but again my point is that while Trump is publicly advocating common sense fight against insanity he is ushering us into a world where precisely common sense will disappear because in a way this is true. Look at ecological crisis. If what does our common sense what does common sense tell us apropos environmental threats? Yeah but nonetheless nature is much bigger don't be too nervous look out there is sun there are flowers blooming and so on. Nature will somehow recuperate itself. My cynical supplement theory of course it will but maybe without us then be no place for us in it. Or with artificial intelligence and so on. I think that all these things confront us with something which surpasses cannot be even properly confronted or analyzed by the means of our common sense. Because our common sense tells us we humans are active nature is an inexhaustible background of our activity. It's no longer true. And so on and so on. And here I had a meeting with Yanis Varoufakis I even forgot where was it a couple of months ago where I didn't want to confront him too much but later we had a friendly like conflict where maybe you read my text unfortunately it was payable I don't know why I'm ready to send them all to you on Substack. You know I accept basically the idea of Yanis which is that Trump and Putin even when they appear to be in conflict they basically speak the same language. Did you noticed how how Putin immediately showed understanding for Trump's Greenland idea claiming but we also have interests in Africa because it's crucial what is happening now. Soviet soldiers sorry Russian soldiers in the middle of Africa and so on. So they speak the same language which is I've written about it but to amuse you I will repeat my it's not even a joke. I don't like Orwell's I think it's a flawed wrong image of future totalitarianism because first this ridiculous old-fashioned idea that to have a sexual link with a woman is subversive. Not in today's universe of perversion. No, I am very romantic here I think that today no sex but if anything love is love is considered suspicious because it's not dynamic enough it and I consciously with all my evil sense use this term love couples binary as some politically correct guy told me no. So if we talk about multiplicity non-binary logic why not also in sex? So what I again what I think is that here Orwell sounds very naive when she advocates this idea of an love relationship as something subversive and so on and so on. No, but what I is practically almost true today, admit it, you know what's the situation on earth according to Orwell in There are three mega states: Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia I think. Each of them composed of a big state which controls the land around itself as its own territory. Aren't we gradually approaching this? United States has its own territory, Russia also wanted to have it, interests to the south to the west not just Ukraine properly, China a little bit of that although with China it's more complex. And the problem of Europe is of course that it doesn't fit into this scheme. Like who will get Europe? I think it's maybe even serious to consider that Trump and Putin will somehow try to divide. So now I will tell you something you will get here my real realpolitik worst sense. I think that in spite of all problematic things about China and recently I've written a text about that because Varoufakis still thinks China is different. Yes it's capitalist and so on but within some measure. Did you notice if this were to happen in the developed world this would be headlines. What happened about a month or two ago in Zambia? We see we don't get crucial it's mega news. Zambia has one big river, the main one artery, Kafue River something whatever, which is the central vein. Well they water their fields they get fishes from there they drink water from there. On the top of this river there is a big copper mine owned by China, some Chinese companies. Copper mines have a tremendous amount of extremely poisonous residual fluid residual. They were protected by a wall so they didn't spill over into the river. This wall broke down and it's unimaginable. In one day already more than kilometers of the river down was not metaphorically totally dead. You cannot drink it all the fishes died and so on and so on. So that's what the Chinese did there. And when the Zambian government protested the Chinese didn't give a clear answer yeah yeah so accident but then there is another story about how they exploit workers there. But in spite of this I think that nonetheless China is more interested in open trade, less expansionist because you know this old leftist argument still convinced me when they say but China is occupying islands around its shore. Okay but look just at the at the on the map at where America United States has has has has its army its army obviously all around they are practically encircling China. So they have a right to what they are doing at least at this level. So what I'm saying is that that's my idea so that you will not think that I'm some crazy academic leftist waiting for a big authentic that's my approach to Badiou who is still my friend. You know whenever something happened Syriza or what was Moralista now it's all screwed up in Bolivia and so on here oh it's not yet the real thing. Yeah it's very comfortable you sit there write your big academic books and just dismiss everything that happens. I think that we should follow today more than ever the old Frankfurt school motto pessimism in theory optimism in practice. That is to say although you know that the situation is pretty desperate this should push you to be even more active and avoid false choices like should we be moderate should we be more violent. No, analyze the situation just do everything possible. So along these lines by doing everything possible in one of my texts which is my favorite but will probably annoy you, the text on that global blah blah and local communities or whatever. I do something I'm really proud of. Why? Because I got many negative reactions. That's the only proof that I'm on the right way. I try to show how even what appears to us religious fundamentalism is often not to be dismissed. And I begin with Russia with this long tradition of of of they staro- they call themselves Old Believers who from the time of Peter the Great opposed themselves to the official Orthodox church. Now you will say these are reactionaries crazy ah ah ah. You know when it was their only time when they were allowed to freely flourish? The first years after October Revolution. Bolsheviks immediately saw in them something that simply resisted centralized imperial state power and it's incredible to see how many ministers in the first Lenin's government were very close to Old Believers. It's wonderful to see how Lenin himself when he was slowly dying in his dacha outside Moscow he learned that there is an Old Believers group toiling land there. And Lenin was so interested in them that he sent one of his friends there offering them and they took it electricity do you need anything more and followed how they are doing. So you know you see what's my point here? My biggest example if some of you are from Latin America or some people on the web my big example you must know it I've written about it comes from Canudos. It's an incredible thing that happened in Brazil around a little bit later. There was a new liberal progressive government quickly capitalizing the country and some old Orthodox Catholic resisted it and they did a miracle. Inside Bahia miles into they built from nowhere a city which at its peak had I think around people. You know who was there? Thieves, criminals, prostitutes, single mother women. And it's incredible it was thriving. First the authorities thought okay give them one year they will kill each other. They didn't. They have a had a very intelligent so-called counselor Conselheiro leader who maintained peace it was incredibly successful. So the army sent three expeditions against them. They were so strong that they not the army the people there they defeated the first two and just check Canudos with C it begins in Wikipedia and the third one only enabled the army to occupy the city and of course the politics was kill them all. Kill them all and and but what was so shocking was that we got there Catholic fundamentalism at its best. They didn't care even what religion you are of. They just wanted to organize their community outside the legal framework of state which was pushing for brutal capitalism. And again it was almost this dream coming true how all the poor all the poor homeless people prostitutes and so on and nobody bothered them there was no moral pressure on them. They just kept peace my god it's nice to hear that things like this happened. So what I'm saying here that sometimes even what appears as religious conservative fanatics can be of use. Why? In what sense? In my old books I draw this distinction. For example what I like in spite of all their horrors about Amish or Tibetans is that it's so fundamental and nice. They don't have resentment and envy. I spoke in India with some Tibetans and they don't think like oh you whites are doing horrible things fornicating blah blah. No they said you live your way we live our way we think we discovered the truthful way it's your problem. If you leave us alone we might collaborate and so on and it's the same with Amish people. I don't idealize them you know like among the dark things they had the highest rate of how do you call this fathers screwing his daughter intra family incest. But nonetheless they don't have this logic of resentment. While the moment you are dealing with this state sanctioned pseudo-fundamentalism you get resentment. You always envy the others. Like the primordial American fear of new fundamentalists who are fake. What are all these gay people and LGBT you know your dirty imagination immediately explodes you know. So you see my point let's be faithful to our principles but at the same time absolutely pragmatic opportunist. Whoever comes and agrees with our basic orientation should be welcome. Okay after all of this now my god how fuckingly time is running. Where are we now? Oh it's there. My god. Okay I will nonetheless go on a little bit because it's very interesting and although I will use some part of the old stuff it's not haha you don't have it. So from the zero point since we live in this horrible times I will try quickly to go through in today's time through the problem of Truth and Lie. This is a central problem today whom do we trust is there objective truth and so on and what you can discover soon is how the fake cancel culture left and political right they're both historicist relativist in a bad sense. Okay, so my topic will be if you allow me let's say half an hour and then we go on will be the so-called Liar's Paradox you must know it from philosophy statements like "Everything I am saying is false." Now if this statement is true then it's false because at least this statement claims something that cannot be true if this statement is true no everything I'm saying is false. No this statement is not false if you say it. We know how for example Bertrand Russell tried to solve this problem with I think way too simple way of simply distinguishing levels then a statement about a set of things cannot be itself part of this thing you know. A statement of something is at a different meta level then you avoid the contradiction. But I will not go into this stuff it's boring logical problems. I think and this is very useful today politically we should turn here to Lacan, Jacques Lacan who offers a couple of times in his text here and there a unique easy and clear solution by way of distinguishing between the enunciated content of what you are saying simply the content what you are saying and the and the subjective stance implied by this enunciation. Like you are saying something but the way you are saying it can and as a rule does imply another stance which contradicts the content. The moment I think the moment we introduce this distinction we immediately see that a statement like "Everything I say is false" can itself be true or false. If you are these are naive terms but here we should not be afraid and use them. If you are honestly in despair if you discover all my life I was so opaque as shit. So in if you say everything I'm saying is false it can be an authentic statement of despair. My god I screwed up my life. But it can also be the opposite things are very refined here. If you say I know I am a piece of shit it can also be the highest lie at the level of enunciation. Why? Because if you say I know I am a piece of shit you imply that by saying this there is nonetheless an honest part in you. Like you know I say this so you see I know who I am so I'm not totally piece of shit I am at least honest about myself. Our reply to this false version should be I think a paraphrase of the well-known Groucho Marx saying you know his famous "This guy looks like an idiot, talks like an idiot but this shouldn't deceive you this guy is an idiot." We should say you act like a piece of shit and you admit you are a piece of shit but this will not deceive us you are a piece of shit. No I know I years ago I developed this mentioned this in what sense that this happened to me he is dead forgotten I will not tell his name. We had half a century ago when I was studying philosophy a professor who was professor of analytical philosophy and probably was informing secret police these were more harsh communist times about what the students are saying. And once he was drunk and she even admitted to me, you know I know I'm a piece of shit but so what I survive and so on. I didn't but I was tempted to tell him, yes you are piece of shit so why are you saying it then my god you know. It was true his you know it's the same with it's the same with sorry am I here yeah it's the same with it's the same with sorry it's the same with we find or okay similar paradoxes in our rightist populism. I think we cannot even imagine the functioning of today's rightist populism without these paradoxes. Let me give you an example which fascinated me. No I didn't mention it here if I did correctly. After Trump was re-elected in when was it October, September, I don't know November sorry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who resigned her seat in Congress through some analysis I don't know how she got this data discovered that many of the people who voted for her at the local level voted for Trump at the federal level. So don't ask me how she got names of many of these people but she wrote a letter to them a personal one asking them how can you do this? Aren't our politics totally opposite? And it's interesting what the answer she got. It's that and in a way they were right. It's that the impression of ordinary people: you and maybe Bernie Sanders on the left and some Trumpians or the right are the only people who appear to say what they really mean. While all the centrist Democrats are extremely calculated cautious not to disturb anyone and which is true. I remember the unfortunate now it's easy to make fun of her Kamala Harris just before elections she was asked I don't know on which network like the usual question what would you do Gaza blah blah blah and it was immediately visible on her face a trace of fear like my god I'm afraid to say something wrong. So neither should I appear pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. So she said something incredibly flat and void to a concrete answer: what would you do as a president with regard to Gaza? Her answer was something like it's very sad when people are killing each other and I will try to stop it you know. That's why she was losing votes while both Trump and Kamala avoided this. But the paradox on the other side and here we are again at the distinction between enunciated content and enunciation is that what people misperceive as Trump's authenticity brought him new votes even or precisely because when he was caught lying. Because again I read other studies where they show how the reaction of his partisans when he was caught st- often even within the same speech with some inconsistencies, their reaction was: you see he is a normal human being like us. He is not a robot just disciplined by some advisor you know. First I will say something more horrible. I up to a point accept this. Up to what point? Listen. Listening to this latest especially Greenland appearances of JD Vance I'm saying please if you are religious I am not but nonetheless je sais bien mais quand même, I'm tempted to say I will nonetheless pray that Trump will survive because if Trump dies we will get Vance and Vance is much worse. Trump is an opportunist change you can negotiate with him. Vance is a totally manufactured robot. Let's listen to him he he doesn't even make the appearance to actively think. He identifies with a certain stance which is totally determined by those who trained him. He was you know literally created by Peter Thiel, that mega billionaire who controls his career from the very beginning. He is a much worse horror I think than Trump. But what I'm saying is that Trump again consciously allows himself to be inconsistent. You remember at some point he said Zelenskyy is a dictator in Ukraine. Then now a week ago or two he said I'm pissed at Putin for saying that Zelenskyy is not and so on. But that's what brings him votes because that's the tragedy. This inconsistency is perceived as a sign of authentic spontaneity at the level of enunciation. In some sense it is. In some sense now I will do something really evil. Maybe I will write it but then goodbye United States. I because you know it's already happened to some of my friends it's no longer a joke you can be rejected refused entry no? Because Hannah Arendt in I forgot which text of her I think it's a text from the late 30s has a pretty good analysis of the difference between do you know a little bit about early years of Nazism the difference between SA and SS. SA were these violent brutal street fighters, the brutal popular side of Nazism. They were beating Jews illegally breaking windows violent obscene dirty while SS were this you know in nice uniforms cold executioners no passion in them. And I think that maybe if Vance takes over it's more like what I call ironically high level fascist from SA to SS no described by so I'm much more afraid of this because as Hannah Arendt says there is almost something human human in their obscenity itself of SA because this dirty opportunism empirical evil is human while again SS were much more inhuman monsters. So by spending so much time on this I wanted to make clear another thing I hope you will agree that when I distinguish between enunciation and enunciated I'm not simply saying the enunciated content is lying and the position of enunciation is authentic. No, the most refined lying is lying at the level of enunciation. What you say can be true but the way you say it the context into which you put it and so on makes it a lie. What do I mean by this? I will here return to my old idea which is very close to me for personal reasons I know I repeated it here a couple of times between two complementary forms of lying which I think follow nicely the distinction between hysteria and obsessional compulsive neurosis. A
let's go. Thank you very much. Although I must begin with as they are used to talk now in the United States, their highest representative, listen Esther, I'm really pissed at you because A, you treated me disrespectfully. You know what I'm referring to, like you didn't even care to mention Prof Slavoj Žižek. No, I'm Doctor, Doctor, Doctor, Senator. Okay, what senator I am, I have frequent flyer senator card, but it doesn't matter, I have that title. That's first. Then second, you didn't say thank you. Notice. So third, obviously you don't want peace within us. Now I break off with you when you are ready for peace come back here. Thank you very much. I mean it's in my nature, you know, like if I don't begin with something slightly tasteless then what meaning has life. Although on the other hand, I'm starting to change my mind because you know the our social reality is more and more so vulgar and tasteless. Things totally unimaginable are happening so that I wonder if this is the right way we cannot move beyond the vulgarities the vulgarities that we have there. Why? Let me just before I begin properly give you a couple of things which it's no longer a joke or I think one should use jokes for the same reason that I know I made use of this motive here already for the same reason that I learn from my old Jewish friends that there were jokes in Auschwitz and after Auschwitz because the situation was so horrible that to survive not to be in total depression all the time or numbness you needed stupid jokes. I know from a Bosnian friend that there are jokes in Srebrenica in Bosnia about their own situation. That's the only thing I can say because let me just give you in an improvised way a couple of things which really made me depressed. You know what is happening, did you notice this how we were claiming for years oh this is like fascism authoritarianism but we were always conscious that this was some kind of rhetorical exaggeration that will shock our opponents. No, now it's literally true. For example, I claimed at the Frankfurt Book Fair a year and a half ago I drawn attention to this link between a certain type of Zionism and fascism. And again at the origin of this is as you probably know a very honest act a letter published in in New York Times a whole page paid advertisement signed among others by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and so on where they warned that there are tendencies there in Palestine among the Jews who resemble Nazism. But now this is becoming reality. If you ask me it was a minor event then people say bah unimportant marginal. I like these small notes. Did you read in the newspaper I don't know how much it was reported even many Jews were embarrassed that last week in Jerusalem there was a conference even some members of the government boycotted it, conference organized by Netanyahu and his right-wing partisans on anti-Semitism. How to fight anti-Semitism today. Among the people there people were shocked. You know who is I hope I will pronounce the name correctly who is the second guy who will now probably take over since Marine Le Pen was condemned Jordan Bardella. Did I? Okay, but you know Le Front National has roots in anti-Semitism. The founding father Jean-Marie Le Pen was an open Holocaust denier or at least in this Ahmadinejad style, you know, maybe it happens maybe not we did more we need more research and so on. Now and there were some other people from this extreme right. What this is what is happening now that it's literally coming to a pact between Western European extreme right and at least some trend in Israel and it's clear why because they both have the same racist agenda. For both of them Palestinians or Arabs are a threat and so on and so on. But what really worries me is if this is not a horror then I don't know what horror is. Did you notice with the last incident in Gaza and on the West Bank, we are entering a new period of no deniability when IDF is caught doing something they didn't don't bother to properly deny it or justify they just make some vague statement. I'm not talking so much about this horror a week or two ago you know killing of some medical Palestinian person and so on that's another but what shocked me although it's much less you know who is Hamdan Ballal that movie director who together with an Israeli director I think there were four did *No Other Land* that movie. What shocked me so much is you can find it on YouTube everything is recorded. Settlers are coming protected by soldiers police they beat Palestinians. The guy co-director just goes out he is beaten by settlers and by police or IDF whoever and then who is arrested at the end? Him and another or two Palestinians, him. Okay, okay, it happens. I am very cynical here. I know so many details about what they are doing in different countries like I don't know if I've already told you this story a Slovene journalist of mine of mine was in towards the end of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq and a guy wanted to warn him don't inquire too much so he took him to a place he says this guy it's so horrible that even if you tell it around nobody will believe you. And he saw opponents of Saddam still alive hanging from from down only by their by how to call they were hanging on their balls. Their balls were linked to some rope to the and so on. It's and then he said okay I hope you got the message. So all things happen. But you know what depressed me? Usually it's horrible what I will say but I hope you will get the point one would at least expect from the Israeli side to say something like this movie director was there I don't know throwing stones or I don't know what. No, they just said because they couldn't accuse him of anything they said that he was detained for health reasons like he being wounded. And then what happened was that his lawyer called the prison they said we don't know anything about him he was chained to the floor for hours and then he was released. Absolutely no explanation. We are really entering this new stage when again obscenity is becoming open it's more and more fully normalized. Here I remain the point that I often made here a traditional European hypocrite. It's nonetheless better to be hypocritical because then at least you minimally expose yourself to to to criticism. It's interesting this movie *No Other Land* because I got caught in some polemics with more radical pro-Palestinians in New York when I was there a month ago and again a strange thing happened. They opposed the movie. They claim that yes it's a truthful picture of what happens on the West Bank but that in its form it remains racist because first it proposes sustains enacts the idea that above all the confusion there still can be friendship between an Israeli Jew and a Palestinian. To this it was easy for me to reply that no they are not friends in general it would be I agree obscene if the idea was yes they are killing Palestinians there maybe some Jew at another place but let's just be friends and wander around. No, they collaborate the two precisely to show what is happening to Palestinians on the West Bank so it's not a neutral humanitarian friendship. But second approach which appears more up to the point is that you know there is an unwritten rule and I noticed it that even if you are part of let's call it liberal Zionism and admit there are injustices happening to Palestinians and so on, if you do a movie on it it's never just Palestinian subjectivity. There has to be a good Jew supporting them you know not directly just Palestinians. Well I disagreed with the guy. I said yes you make the point but look about what happened this arrest of Ballal. It happened because of that movie and because the movie got Oscar and so on. You know what I mean. I think we are in such desperate times that maybe while we stick each of us to our point apropos specific problems project we have to practice I will use this old fashioned term from 1930s popular front. If somebody is ready to really fight for human rights there you don't go into this you know but how far does he go? Does he admit that Hamas is like for some most radicals they say the only thing that matters is that you admit Hamas as the only true resistance group. I don't buy this for a simple reason. You know what happens now and it's again the shamelessness. You know my old idea the only guys whom you trust are ex-secret police bosses Shin Bet or Mossad. I'm more and more convinced of this. Did you read the news that Netanyahu fired a week or two ago fired the Mossad boss and I looked into what was behind. The official version was they didn't prepare Israel enough for September attack. No no no they did even warn the government. The point is that this boss of Mossad made nonetheless a much more honest report. The point was if we don't open some space for Palestinians for their political sovereignty autonomy we are lost it's eternal warfare and so on. That was behind plus another thing my god this gets nice Mossad was beginning to investigate the financial dealings of some rich Israelis with Qatar. And now it came out did you read? Now it's not just a rumor we have the whole chain. One of the best friends of Netanyahu I forgot his name a billionaire was transferring his money to Qatar and you know where the money went? To Hamas. It's not a joke. Israel was the main financial source supporter of Hamas because they judged in a very brutal way that this is the only way to keep Palestinians apart West Bank and so on and so on. So again this just goes on it doesn't even surprise us too much and so on and so on. What on the other hand yes so that's why I will tell you before you will read some idiots to attack me I still have some links among progressive Jews and one of them the guy who maybe at some point you should invite him here he is very progressive and today in Israel you can define in a very precise empirical way what progressive is. He is afraid scared like shit that he will lose his job. It's all around Yuval Kremnitzer. He is of course one of us Lacanians haha what can I say we are the wild guys today. But he is you know I mentioned a couple of times here Ami Ayalon the ex-boss of Shin Bet I think who also is now totally excluded because he made incredibly it didn't quite satisfy us but progressive statements claiming the source of the troubles there is not Palestinian terror but the fact that Palestinians don't have even a choice a vision of how to achieve some kind of political subjectivity and then the problem is this. And Yuval told me when he visited us in Ljubljana for some talk that he is a distant relative of Ami Ayalon. My god I don't know if it's safe because now you know Israel is like United States you can be simply arrested no? But I'm tempted to go and visit him. You know why? Because for me much more interesting than this than this comfortable not for Palestinians external critique is to meet the guys who were inside and become desperate no? So what do we get on the other side and with this I will stop this introduction I hope this will amuse you. When I read some texts about the lifestyle of Elon Musk my first association was my god he is the new right-wing version of '68 revolutionaries. Literally. He is only possible as the final result consequence of the '68 ideology. You know what is for me the worst text of Marx? *German Ideology*. It's pretty vulgar Marx becomes serious theoretician after that with his mega quality reactions to '48 revolution, *18th Brumaire* and so on and of course texts on political economy. But in *German Ideology* Marx describes in a slightly too naive way a communist individual like free in the sense of Marx ironically says in the morning you do something in your garden in the afternoon you practice critical theory in the evening I don't isn't this Elon Musk? In the morning he maybe has some plans on the rocket on the rocket to Mars or Tesla or whatever in the afternoon you if it's a modest day you fire one or two thousand people from government job in the evenings I don't know but I know ah you know what I do later oh my god this is pure almost perverted communism. You know that Musk didn't trust already years ago state schools. So for his two three children in somewhere there I don't know where in California he organized a private high school. Professors well-paid but just for his three four children and he made his own how do you call it curriculum so that there was especially there were I love this no foreign languages and no music. What's wrong with music here? You know I almost am tempted to answer him like a right-winger what about patriotic songs like where will they learn this? I mean then of course there are his children now each with a different woman of course you know isn't there something in a perverted way communist in this? I do this I do that and so on you know. So I that was the point of my text now I will don't protest too quickly I hint at this in one of the texts mentioned kindly by Esther the on the Network State. And here I come to a suicidal mistake that I made. I did something very stupid. I sent you three texts which perfectly my god how stupid I am perfectly cover the central line of argumentation of what I wanted to do here. Network States the first one and then tomorrow that one about local culture global blah blah whatever and also the other one which already appeared some time ago about the madness of this Musk sorry no Trump's reference to to common sense and so on and so on. I hope if you didn't you all got these texts. I propose that we leave if you want I will have things ready that we leave that we do it like this. We leave this topic at its general level for tomorrow and maybe we even begin with you if you didn't already read them you ask me precise question questions. The basic topic is clear of course I try to make a little bit more clear as Esther said I I mean why Liberal Fascism? No, I'm not as sure as Yanis Varoufakis for example Techno-feudalism. There are so many things different you know. What we are getting today that's why I opted for the term Liberal Fascism it's not although now we are getting it it's not the standard authoritarianism. At some level at a false level it's liberalism brought to extreme. And that's the tension but I developed this more in my text. So the the main ideological contradiction but unfortunately this will not ruin Trump. I think if he will properly manipulate it he can thrive on it is this open contradiction or rather antagonism. On the one hand this conservative neo-conservative populist return to roots you know represented by I call him ironically the the how's his name my god the Steve Bannon the let's call him ironically the leftist Trumpian. And he is in some sense we have to admit this so that we understand why people vote for Trump. You know that Bannon was fired after two years from the White House during Trump's first four years of presidency because he went pretty far in his demand for more workers' rights. He is not known he supported trade unions he wanted taxes to be raised for the wealthy to percent not even Bernie Sanders does that. So on the other hand on the other hand we get this what Varoufakis calls Techno- Techno-feudalism whatever new oligarchs and why did I emphasize so much then? Because I claim that their idea which is rarely put open is simply incompatible with this populist neo-fascism. It's an idea of such a radical new technocracy that it's even too much for the most Stalinist communist. The idea is as you find in the name text that Network State which means don't try to change gradually society either through a new dictator and some of these guys already predicted what Trump did. They said the only chance is that in United States that when a president a good one our guy for them Trump is democratically elected he proclaims state of emergency and does it and does what? Totally reconstruct the entire society from the zero point following this new pseudo-liberal but at the same time extremely authoritarian measures what Trump is doing now and what I found fascinating is that there was a guy called Srinivasan something you find references in my text who developed this idea. He said we can create new music new bank new product why not create new state. And he developed very nicely this idea that you get from a state in whatever way occupation contract part of the territory where you build a society through some kind of enlightened monarch supported by good artificial intelligence technocrats. And I think this is the key because people then stop me at this point and say but you are dreaming. No, this is what Trump tried already to do in Gaza. You empty the terrain and then you get this Gaza Trump from the zero point you construct a society. Now some of my leftist friends think this is an antagonism that will ruin Trump. I'm more of a pessimist. I I'm not so sure. But let's not lose time by this. My point is just the old one maybe already made it here my basic point that while Trump in his inaugural speech justified his measures by two key terms: common sense and insanity. Common sense tells you that in nature there are two sexes and all the other stuff it's insanity LGBT+ and all this stuff. That my point is I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself that it's not simply that this is an illusion in the sense of we cannot go back to what was common sense until now. It's a very sad depressing paradox that Trumpian actual politics decisions imposed on behalf of fight against insanity and common sense and fight for common sense are politics which will usher us in a world where all our old rules of common sense will be abolished. Look for environment Trump is simply denying it. What will happen I don't know. Sexual liberation or whatever we call it Trump return but and what really worries me is this vision of artificial intelligence technocracy. Here Trump is fully aware of the importance of it and here things get complex but again my point is that while Trump is publicly advocating common sense fight against insanity he is ushering us into a world where precisely common sense will disappear because in a way this is true. Look at ecological crisis. If what does our common sense what does common sense tell us apropos environmental threats? Yeah but nonetheless nature is much bigger don't be too nervous look out there is sun there are flowers blooming and so on. Nature will somehow recuperate itself. My cynical supplement theory of course it will but maybe without us then be no place for us in it. Or with artificial intelligence and so on. I think that all these things confront us with something which surpasses cannot be even properly confronted or analyzed by the means of our common sense. Because our common sense tells us we humans are active nature is an inexhaustible background of our activity. It's no longer true. And so on and so on. And here I had a meeting with Yanis Varoufakis I even forgot where was it a couple of months ago where I didn't want to confront him too much but later we had a friendly like conflict where maybe you read my text unfortunately it was payable I don't know why I'm ready to send them all to you on Substack. You know I accept basically the idea of Yanis which is that Trump and Putin even when they appear to be in conflict they basically speak the same language. Did you noticed how how Putin immediately showed understanding for Trump's Greenland idea claiming but we also have interests in Africa because it's crucial what is happening now. Soviet soldiers sorry Russian soldiers in the middle of Africa and so on. So they speak the same language which is I've written about it but to amuse you I will repeat my it's not even a joke. I don't like Orwell's I think it's a flawed wrong image of future totalitarianism because first this ridiculous old-fashioned idea that to have a sexual link with a woman is subversive. Not in today's universe of perversion. No, I am very romantic here I think that today no sex but if anything love is love is considered suspicious because it's not dynamic enough it and I consciously with all my evil sense use this term love couples binary as some politically correct guy told me no. So if we talk about multiplicity non-binary logic why not also in sex? So what I again what I think is that here Orwell sounds very naive when she advocates this idea of an love relationship as something subversive and so on and so on. No, but what I is practically almost true today, admit it, you know what's the situation on earth according to Orwell in There are three mega states: Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia I think. Each of them composed of a big state which controls the land around itself as its own territory. Aren't we gradually approaching this? United States has its own territory, Russia also wanted to have it, interests to the south to the west not just Ukraine properly, China a little bit of that although with China it's more complex. And the problem of Europe is of course that it doesn't fit into this scheme. Like who will get Europe? I think it's maybe even serious to consider that Trump and Putin will somehow try to divide. So now I will tell you something you will get here my real realpolitik worst sense. I think that in spite of all problematic things about China and recently I've written a text about that because Varoufakis still thinks China is different. Yes it's capitalist and so on but within some measure. Did you notice if this were to happen in the developed world this would be headlines. What happened about a month or two ago in Zambia? We see we don't get crucial it's mega news. Zambia has one big river, the main one artery, Kafue River something whatever, which is the central vein. Well they water their fields they get fishes from there they drink water from there. On the top of this river there is a big copper mine owned by China, some Chinese companies. Copper mines have a tremendous amount of extremely poisonous residual fluid residual. They were protected by a wall so they didn't spill over into the river. This wall broke down and it's unimaginable. In one day already more than kilometers of the river down was not metaphorically totally dead. You cannot drink it all the fishes died and so on and so on. So that's what the Chinese did there. And when the Zambian government protested the Chinese didn't give a clear answer yeah yeah so accident but then there is another story about how they exploit workers there. But in spite of this I think that nonetheless China is more interested in open trade, less expansionist because you know this old leftist argument still convinced me when they say but China is occupying islands around its shore. Okay but look just at the at the on the map at where America United States has has has has its army its army obviously all around they are practically encircling China. So they have a right to what they are doing at least at this level. So what I'm saying is that that's my idea so that you will not think that I'm some crazy academic leftist waiting for a big authentic that's my approach to Badiou who is still my friend. You know whenever something happened Syriza or what was Moralista now it's all screwed up in Bolivia and so on here oh it's not yet the real thing. Yeah it's very comfortable you sit there write your big academic books and just dismiss everything that happens. I think that we should follow today more than ever the old Frankfurt school motto pessimism in theory optimism in practice. That is to say although you know that the situation is pretty desperate this should push you to be even more active and avoid false choices like should we be moderate should we be more violent. No, analyze the situation just do everything possible. So along these lines by doing everything possible in one of my texts which is my favorite but will probably annoy you, the text on that global blah blah and local communities or whatever. I do something I'm really proud of. Why? Because I got many negative reactions. That's the only proof that I'm on the right way. I try to show how even what appears to us religious fundamentalism is often not to be dismissed. And I begin with Russia with this long tradition of of of they staro- they call themselves Old Believers who from the time of Peter the Great opposed themselves to the official Orthodox church. Now you will say these are reactionaries crazy ah ah ah. You know when it was their only time when they were allowed to freely flourish? The first years after October Revolution. Bolsheviks immediately saw in them something that simply resisted centralized imperial state power and it's incredible to see how many ministers in the first Lenin's government were very close to Old Believers. It's wonderful to see how Lenin himself when he was slowly dying in his dacha outside Moscow he learned that there is an Old Believers group toiling land there. And Lenin was so interested in them that he sent one of his friends there offering them and they took it electricity do you need anything more and followed how they are doing. So you know you see what's my point here? My biggest example if some of you are from Latin America or some people on the web my big example you must know it I've written about it comes from Canudos. It's an incredible thing that happened in Brazil around a little bit later. There was a new liberal progressive government quickly capitalizing the country and some old Orthodox Catholic resisted it and they did a miracle. Inside Bahia miles into they built from nowhere a city which at its peak had I think around people. You know who was there? Thieves, criminals, prostitutes, single mother women. And it's incredible it was thriving. First the authorities thought okay give them one year they will kill each other. They didn't. They have a had a very intelligent so-called counselor Conselheiro leader who maintained peace it was incredibly successful. So the army sent three expeditions against them. They were so strong that they not the army the people there they defeated the first two and just check Canudos with C it begins in Wikipedia and the third one only enabled the army to occupy the city and of course the politics was kill them all. Kill them all and and but what was so shocking was that we got there Catholic fundamentalism at its best. They didn't care even what religion you are of. They just wanted to organize their community outside the legal framework of state which was pushing for brutal capitalism. And again it was almost this dream coming true how all the poor all the poor homeless people prostitutes and so on and nobody bothered them there was no moral pressure on them. They just kept peace my god it's nice to hear that things like this happened. So what I'm saying here that sometimes even what appears as religious conservative fanatics can be of use. Why? In what sense? In my old books I draw this distinction. For example what I like in spite of all their horrors about Amish or Tibetans is that it's so fundamental and nice. They don't have resentment and envy. I spoke in India with some Tibetans and they don't think like oh you whites are doing horrible things fornicating blah blah. No they said you live your way we live our way we think we discovered the truthful way it's your problem. If you leave us alone we might collaborate and so on and it's the same with Amish people. I don't idealize them you know like among the dark things they had the highest rate of how do you call this fathers screwing his daughter intra family incest. But nonetheless they don't have this logic of resentment. While the moment you are dealing with this state sanctioned pseudo-fundamentalism you get resentment. You always envy the others. Like the primordial American fear of new fundamentalists who are fake. What are all these gay people and LGBT you know your dirty imagination immediately explodes you know. So you see my point let's be faithful to our principles but at the same time absolutely pragmatic opportunist. Whoever comes and agrees with our basic orientation should be welcome. Okay after all of this now my god how fuckingly time is running. Where are we now? Oh it's there. My god. Okay I will nonetheless go on a little bit because it's very interesting and although I will use some part of the old stuff it's not haha you don't have it. So from the zero point since we live in this horrible times I will try quickly to go through in today's time through the problem of Truth and Lie. This is a central problem today whom do we trust is there objective truth and so on and what you can discover soon is how the fake cancel culture left and political right they're both historicist relativist in a bad sense. Okay, so my topic will be if you allow me let's say half an hour and then we go on will be the so-called Liar's Paradox you must know it from philosophy statements like "Everything I am saying is false." Now if this statement is true then it's false because at least this statement claims something that cannot be true if this statement is true no everything I'm saying is false. No this statement is not false if you say it. We know how for example Bertrand Russell tried to solve this problem with I think way too simple way of simply distinguishing levels then a statement about a set of things cannot be itself part of this thing you know. A statement of something is at a different meta level then you avoid the contradiction. But I will not go into this stuff it's boring logical problems. I think and this is very useful today politically we should turn here to Lacan, Jacques Lacan who offers a couple of times in his text here and there a unique easy and clear solution by way of distinguishing between the enunciated content of what you are saying simply the content what you are saying and the and the subjective stance implied by this enunciation. Like you are saying something but the way you are saying it can and as a rule does imply another stance which contradicts the content. The moment I think the moment we introduce this distinction we immediately see that a statement like "Everything I say is false" can itself be true or false. If you are these are naive terms but here we should not be afraid and use them. If you are honestly in despair if you discover all my life I was so opaque as shit. So in if you say everything I'm saying is false it can be an authentic statement of despair. My god I screwed up my life. But it can also be the opposite things are very refined here. If you say I know I am a piece of shit it can also be the highest lie at the level of enunciation. Why? Because if you say I know I am a piece of shit you imply that by saying this there is nonetheless an honest part in you. Like you know I say this so you see I know who I am so I'm not totally piece of shit I am at least honest about myself. Our reply to this false version should be I think a paraphrase of the well-known Groucho Marx saying you know his famous "This guy looks like an idiot, talks like an idiot but this shouldn't deceive you this guy is an idiot." We should say you act like a piece of shit and you admit you are a piece of shit but this will not deceive us you are a piece of shit. No I know I years ago I developed this mentioned this in what sense that this happened to me he is dead forgotten I will not tell his name. We had half a century ago when I was studying philosophy a professor who was professor of analytical philosophy and probably was informing secret police these were more harsh communist times about what the students are saying. And once he was drunk and she even admitted to me, you know I know I'm a piece of shit but so what I survive and so on. I didn't but I was tempted to tell him, yes you are piece of shit so why are you saying it then my god you know. It was true his you know it's the same with it's the same with sorry am I here yeah it's the same with it's the same with sorry it's the same with we find or okay similar paradoxes in our rightist populism. I think we cannot even imagine the functioning of today's rightist populism without these paradoxes. Let me give you an example which fascinated me. No I didn't mention it here if I did correctly. After Trump was re-elected in when was it October, September, I don't know November sorry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who resigned her seat in Congress through some analysis I don't know how she got this data discovered that many of the people who voted for her at the local level voted for Trump at the federal level. So don't ask me how she got names of many of these people but she wrote a letter to them a personal one asking them how can you do this? Aren't our politics totally opposite? And it's interesting what the answer she got. It's that and in a way they were right. It's that the impression of ordinary people: you and maybe Bernie Sanders on the left and some Trumpians or the right are the only people who appear to say what they really mean. While all the centrist Democrats are extremely calculated cautious not to disturb anyone and which is true. I remember the unfortunate now it's easy to make fun of her Kamala Harris just before elections she was asked I don't know on which network like the usual question what would you do Gaza blah blah blah and it was immediately visible on her face a trace of fear like my god I'm afraid to say something wrong. So neither should I appear pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. So she said something incredibly flat and void to a concrete answer: what would you do as a president with regard to Gaza? Her answer was something like it's very sad when people are killing each other and I will try to stop it you know. That's why she was losing votes while both Trump and Kamala avoided this. But the paradox on the other side and here we are again at the distinction between enunciated content and enunciation is that what people misperceive as Trump's authenticity brought him new votes even or precisely because when he was caught lying. Because again I read other studies where they show how the reaction of his partisans when he was caught st- often even within the same speech with some inconsistencies, their reaction was: you see he is a normal human being like us. He is not a robot just disciplined by some advisor you know. First I will say something more horrible. I up to a point accept this. Up to what point? Listen. Listening to this latest especially Greenland appearances of JD Vance I'm saying please if you are religious I am not but nonetheless je sais bien mais quand même, I'm tempted to say I will nonetheless pray that Trump will survive because if Trump dies we will get Vance and Vance is much worse. Trump is an opportunist change you can negotiate with him. Vance is a totally manufactured robot. Let's listen to him he he doesn't even make the appearance to actively think. He identifies with a certain stance which is totally determined by those who trained him. He was you know literally created by Peter Thiel, that mega billionaire who controls his career from the very beginning. He is a much worse horror I think than Trump. But what I'm saying is that Trump again consciously allows himself to be inconsistent. You remember at some point he said Zelenskyy is a dictator in Ukraine. Then now a week ago or two he said I'm pissed at Putin for saying that Zelenskyy is not and so on. But that's what brings him votes because that's the tragedy. This inconsistency is perceived as a sign of authentic spontaneity at the level of enunciation. In some sense it is. In some sense now I will do something really evil. Maybe I will write it but then goodbye United States. I because you know it's already happened to some of my friends it's no longer a joke you can be rejected refused entry no? Because Hannah Arendt in I forgot which text of her I think it's a text from the late 30s has a pretty good analysis of the difference between do you know a little bit about early years of Nazism the difference between SA and SS. SA were these violent brutal street fighters, the brutal popular side of Nazism. They were beating Jews illegally breaking windows violent obscene dirty while SS were this you know in nice uniforms cold executioners no passion in them. And I think that maybe if Vance takes over it's more like what I call ironically high level fascist from SA to SS no described by so I'm much more afraid of this because as Hannah Arendt says there is almost something human human in their obscenity itself of SA because this dirty opportunism empirical evil is human while again SS were much more inhuman monsters. So by spending so much time on this I wanted to make clear another thing I hope you will agree that when I distinguish between enunciation and enunciated I'm not simply saying the enunciated content is lying and the position of enunciation is authentic. No, the most refined lying is lying at the level of enunciation. What you say can be true but the way you say it the context into which you put it and so on makes it a lie. What do I mean by this? I will here return to my old idea which is very close to me for personal reasons I know I repeated it here a couple of times between two complementary forms of lying which I think follow nicely the distinction between hysteria and obsessional compulsive neurosis. A
unknown
hysteric tells the
hysteric tells the
Slavoj Žižek
truth in the guise of a lie. What it says can be literally not true but the lie expresses in a false form an authentic complaint. For example I found an example you find numerous examples from French Revolution and in October Revolution. Revolutionaries themselves believed in rumors or were spreading them which were as it is now undoubtedly proven not true. But these lies nonetheless mobilized them for the right cause. In French Revolution it was the idea which is proven false now that it's the idea in the French Revolution that that the rich are organizing a big hunger starvation burning fields and so on to make people starve. It was not true. Or in October Revolution it was similar so you can have the lie but a lying which nonetheless sustains an authentic complaint. Then you have so you have truth lie in the guise of a sorry truth in the in the guise of a lie but you can also have the opposite: what you are saying is all literally true but the way it is formulated it serves a lie. Let me give for for example now this will shock you but I think to really fight racism we have to take this into account. When you hear about part something on M I forgot in Brussels which is suburb Molenbeek whatever which is occupied by Muslims and so on. I know I have friends who were there it is to large extent true to some extent true I will not say large extent. So don't simply say oh this is racist or whoever it's now the symbol right-wing press. But it serves a racist purpose. It gives you a false perspective on on it. Now I come to my personal example which is telling the truth which again it's the same example where do I enter. I know I repeated this many times. When I was in psychoanalysis because of a personal crisis for years ago I was talking all the time there. All was true. But I planned all was true but it was planned and performed in such a way to obfuscate the really traumatic point. I was in an analysis with a Lacanian which meant I knew that I will be given maximum minutes of time. So my problem was how to talk now you will be cynical and say you know how to do it talk all the time that's not a problem for you. Why did you talk did I talk all the time? Not to give the analyst not even a chance to ask me a question which would really hit something in me. You know I was literally talking like crazy to not to achieve something but to prevent something an an effective subjective change to happen. So who was that crazy lady no racism here I just forgot her name Taylor Greene or what yeah yeah when she said there are alternate facts. In some basic sense she was right don't misunderstand me. Not in the sense of oh maybe Holocaust didn't happen or Gulag or whatever. But in the sense that it depends how you present it how you contextualize it so that even if all the facts are true the effect is that of a lie. You must remember this I used here often this example let's say I debate with a Nazi in in Germany the problem of the Jews and what he says all the data can be true. I checked it up from my Jewish friends and they confirmed it. to percent of literary critics were Jews. Jews controlled much of the press. Jews controlled many of the banks and so on and so on. But the way my partner would probably have formulated this would serve a lie. So you know data are never simply data I come here to my Marxist point. There is no this is
truth in the guise of a lie. What it says can be literally not true but the lie expresses in a false form an authentic complaint. For example I found an example you find numerous examples from French Revolution and in October Revolution. Revolutionaries themselves believed in rumors or were spreading them which were as it is now undoubtedly proven not true. But these lies nonetheless mobilized them for the right cause. In French Revolution it was the idea which is proven false now that it's the idea in the French Revolution that that the rich are organizing a big hunger starvation burning fields and so on to make people starve. It was not true. Or in October Revolution it was similar so you can have the lie but a lying which nonetheless sustains an authentic complaint. Then you have so you have truth lie in the guise of a sorry truth in the in the guise of a lie but you can also have the opposite: what you are saying is all literally true but the way it is formulated it serves a lie. Let me give for for example now this will shock you but I think to really fight racism we have to take this into account. When you hear about part something on M I forgot in Brussels which is suburb Molenbeek whatever which is occupied by Muslims and so on. I know I have friends who were there it is to large extent true to some extent true I will not say large extent. So don't simply say oh this is racist or whoever it's now the symbol right-wing press. But it serves a racist purpose. It gives you a false perspective on on it. Now I come to my personal example which is telling the truth which again it's the same example where do I enter. I know I repeated this many times. When I was in psychoanalysis because of a personal crisis for years ago I was talking all the time there. All was true. But I planned all was true but it was planned and performed in such a way to obfuscate the really traumatic point. I was in an analysis with a Lacanian which meant I knew that I will be given maximum minutes of time. So my problem was how to talk now you will be cynical and say you know how to do it talk all the time that's not a problem for you. Why did you talk did I talk all the time? Not to give the analyst not even a chance to ask me a question which would really hit something in me. You know I was literally talking like crazy to not to achieve something but to prevent something an an effective subjective change to happen. So who was that crazy lady no racism here I just forgot her name Taylor Greene or what yeah yeah when she said there are alternate facts. In some basic sense she was right don't misunderstand me. Not in the sense of oh maybe Holocaust didn't happen or Gulag or whatever. But in the sense that it depends how you present it how you contextualize it so that even if all the facts are true the effect is that of a lie. You must remember this I used here often this example let's say I debate with a Nazi in in Germany the problem of the Jews and what he says all the data can be true. I checked it up from my Jewish friends and they confirmed it. to percent of literary critics were Jews. Jews controlled much of the press. Jews controlled many of the banks and so on and so on. But the way my partner would probably have formulated this would serve a lie. So you know data are never simply data I come here to my Marxist point. There is no this is
unknown
difficult to accept but this does not
difficult to accept but this does not
Slavoj Žižek
mean relativism. There is no neutral truth in the sense of here is one side there is another side now let's look at both sides. No, this neutrality is always already secretly partial. In concrete social situations like I will be now very honest against both sides like in the late 30s in Germany to play these games did did the Jews also not do something bad and so on is a fake. The basic fact was the preparations for Holocaust the so you had to tell the story from the standpoint of those who were victims. And it's the same today with Gaza. I'm ready to go very far with how many Palestinians but more other Arab states did unacceptable things and so on. You know that's what even some of my Jewish friends are doing you know you should understand us blah blah blah. But I say okay okay but then look at one of those wonderfully terrifying drone images of Gaza. Literally and sorry you had to take side there. And that's I think the great achievement of the great achievement of Marx that universal value or value not in the sense value but in the sense of universality of factual of the truth of what you are saying and being partial do not exclude each other. You can arrive at a truth that was Marx's thesis today it's more complex. You can arrive at a truth of bourgeois society only through by adopting the stance of for Marx working class exploited proletarians. Today I think it's the same but we have to I hope you will agree to redefine who a proletarian is. For example in Zambia I think what we should do is to follow to analyze what is happening in Zambia what Fred Jameson in one of his late texts developed where he said that today exploitation is not just I work for a capitalist okay then he takes part of the value I produce as a profit blah blah. No today we should expand the notion of exploitation. For example if we are in a country or even in countries where many women work the whole system reproduces itself by the unpaid apparently private work of the women. How can a proletarian family survive with only the husband working? Because the his wife although not employed is in some sense exploited even more. Then you get racist exploitation of course and a new category I think it's deeply true let's call it environmental exploitation. Even if you don't empirically exploit people who live there I don't like the term but I will say natives by ruining their environment you are in some sense brutally exploiting them. And this is what the Chinese did in Zambia. They didn't employ many of them it was even worse. You know the story check it up. Already years ago conditions were so brutal in Chinese-owned copper mines that conditions were so rude that African black workers locals started to strike. Because it was even against the Zambian constitution which says that the minimum wage should be dollars per month. The Chinese fired almost all of them and brought their Chinese slave workers who were ready to work for dollars. So this for me the horror of Zambia. They were exploited at both levels as traditional workers plus their environment was ruined. And what I found most sad that's why you didn't read a lot about this story is that it's not that sometimes they pretend to us but it's not like that Africa Caribbean there the nature is pure and so on we go there to enjoy holidays. No, it can often be even worse there. So we always complain how how we industrialized life countries our nature is ruined. No, we are ruining even more nature out there where it is. So I hope you agree I was making a very common point. I hope you agree with what I'm trying to say that today this invisible exploitation of women it's not formally in the narrow Marxist sense exploitation. An arrogant man can even say haha I work you just stay home yes and do all the dirty work and so on no. Exploitation of women, ruining of environment these should be even it's very nice what Jameson adds that we have today entire strata of people who they had a job and they they don't just lose the job in the sense of okay it's up and down next year I will get it. You all of a sudden pass from employed to unemployable because of the changes in industry automation and so on you are simply permanently excluded. In this sense Jameson proposed even proposed even to talk about to talk about being unemployed as a form of exploitation and so on. So let's not lose time we did and go further into this I was incidentally as some of you may have guessed I was talking about also but you find this in my old books I implied here the notion of the notion of inter-passivity: how I make the other passive for me. I don't make the other work for me I make the other passive for me or the averted form I am hyper-active not really to change things but to make it sure that nothing will change. And the perversity of today's ideology a point I often made here is that even if you appear to argue for the right cause there is a way to do it which makes it sure that nothing will really change. I think that percent at least of all complaints about ecology are like that. The eternal complaint and make us feel good but nothing changes. Let me go on with these paradoxes. I will repeat here an old story I think it's already years the last time I mentioned it here so I hope not with you. What happened to me and I will be the bad guy here. In SASPE, the summer school, I met Judith Butler there and I made once a vulgar remark to her. Vulgar in my style which means vulgar no. I she talked to me about her feminist friend and instead of asking her which would already have been beyond good taste is she also a lesbian like you no I use some term is she also unnatural bitch like you. I use a term like sorry sorry my nature God created me like this totally. So then of course I had a problem with this. So I called her from the hotel room to her room and apologized sincerely. And she answered me correctly she said thanks Slavoj I appreciate it but I wasn't offended I knew you didn't mean it so you owe me no apology. What I'm trying to say this was from her the correct way to accept an apology. That's the beautiful paradox of apology. If somebody apologizes to me and if I say oh fuck you it's time to apologize it means I'm not ready to really accept apology. To really accept an apology is to proclaim it's okay no need to no need to no need to apologize and so on. On the other hand you can also admit guilt in a false way. I know many of my friends who like to tell me when in a quite justified way me or others accuse them of something they set in a formal aggressive already way I already tell you I'm sorry so shut up it's done. Which precisely means you know apology itself can serve as anti-apology. So I think that this is again how politics function now. I will give you another maybe my last example: the Communist Party of China. And I forgot to finish my line of thought before you know in my total despair against this new axis of United States two friends in power Trump Putin. What is nonetheless because if you watch things closely here Varoufakis convinced me. If you watch things closely China is not simply pro-Russian. It always maintains a minimal distance and so on. If I were to be but I'm not some kind of European leader I would say maybe there is a chance in Europe to again against both Putin and Trump. Trump is ultra anti-European. It's not something new why do people act as a surprise. Already in Trump said the main enemy of United States is neither Russia nor China but Europe. Did you notice what Trump said now a couple of months ago? He said that European Union was established to he used the vulgar term to screw or whatever annoy United States. It's absolutely clear. So you know there are good things about China in spite of all the horrors and I'm aware of them. First I nonetheless love this China is now I think a better capitalist in the sense of giving a chance to smaller mid-sized companies than most of the Western countries. Look at these latest results not so much electric cars where they beat Tesla no of course but deep-sea and there is another computer program then there is that something I think with woman's breast cancer or whatever they are doing miracles a more a more efficient medicine tablets pills whatever much cheaper. So so precisely if that's the tragedy with regard to what Trump is doing. If you want to say I'm ashamed to proclaim this word so-called creative capitalism a guy comes with idea China is doing this better. Second thing China is traditionally not so expansive trying to expand not expansive I mean now you will say Taiwan and so on that's another point. but I wonder how Trump with his desire for Canada would have acted there he would probably already immediately occupy Taiwan. So I think I'm very pessimist here that strategically Europe should unite and unfortunately this is why I think my project is a little bit too utopian. Europe is so deeply already infected by the new populist you know that maybe the game is over I don't know what will happen. And there is another good thing about China I will be very cynical that it's far away you know like we are safe we just exchange commodities you know. Because I remember I don't know if I already used it here years ago when I was really young I spoke with a Czech guy in 1970s where he told me that they made there that a joke is running there. Some agencies asking an ordinary Czech guy: "What is your first wish?" He said "That the Chinese should occupy us for half a year." "Then what's your second wish?" "That they should occupy us again." And your third wish again. They asked him "Why?" He said "Each time they will have to move through Russia." In this sense you know it's good that China is there it's much more interested in open trade and so on so that we you will not think that I'm just some kind of a crazy techno- What I would do is at least a very careful careful sorry rapprochement with China. I think that this is maybe maybe I'm utopian you can immediately attack me. And I'm aware every look so that you will not say that I'm bullshitting my books are now half prohibited now in China. Because there they follow everything they learned that I used China as an example of what I now call I now abandon the term soft fascism no so it's a tragedy people spent almost a decade slowly translating my *Less Than Nothing* no? Now the translation is finished and already for years they are waiting the green light the permission from Beijing to print it. It doesn't come. Another book did appear but in spite of all this one has to be a realist. The only thing that can give Europe hope is again a parallel link with with China. So another critical thing. You know how they deal with Mao? That's another lie. They admit it but in a that's another ideological mechanism. They admit it but in a purely formal way. You know they all quote that Deng Xiaoping's formula: Mao was percent good, percent bad. Then with my evil spirit when I was there years ago I said then what if I write for Chinese market a book with a simple title Percent*? No, it's unmentionable. It's not only that like it's not that you can analyze Cultural Revolution or especially Leap Forward and criticize no you just mention it there were mistakes percent and then pass over. You know it's a mechanism this mechanism was called by Freud *Isolierung* in the sense of you formally admit something but you totally isolate it from its context and it has no effect on your subjective no effect on your subjective position. Then if we go further so that and then I will gradually stop. Yeah just two points then I promise I will stop and there will be time for questions. First point I want to make to conclude is that there is another example I like them but they are in a way ideological and we find this in so many pop culture today that in your explicit ideology you can be progressive even communist but all your mode of *jouissance* not just pleasure but your way of life is penetrated by precisely the ideology that you publicly criticize. I don't know he's half forgotten today but Luchino Visconti his movies. Officially do you know that Visconti was to the end member member of the Communist Party, Italian Communist Party. He was very progressive. But all his movies are one big nostalgia sympathy not so much directly from the old pre-capitalist wealthy people but for their decadence. The whole enjoyment is how this pleasurable awareness that your way of life is disappearing and you enjoy in it. Okay you will say who cares about this. I will give you another example that I already mentioned here years ago *Handmaid's Tale*. I don't know if you had the same experience but I had it already when the book not even the movie and then TV series appeared. I caught myself in fully enjoying the detailed imagination how the women are tortured you are not allowed to read not that blah blah this growing restriction quite everyday material practical restrictions. But of course you can enjoy it because you can say but wait a minute I'm fully aware it's horrible this is against but but the whole logic is secretly enjoying that. And I think in the TV series it goes even to the extreme this the whole point all then I thought it's only me I was asking my friends they were all telling me the same story what will they invent they were all waiting we are looking is a no new way to torture women like my friends were so glad when they discovered that they put their lips together just a small hole to drink or whatever so they couldn't even but you know we expected this new modes of so again this is another ideological mechanism. Now I want to end up with in a slightly more optimistic mode. All this mixture that I was describing is of course part of what people describe as the the the the death of truth. Today everything is historicized you don't know whom to trust and so on and so on. What I don't like in this judgment idea is that as if there was a time I don't know when before or before when there was truth. No, the only difference remember the years of Reagan, Nixon, Bush no it was not truth it was simply one more consistent big lie that was ex- you had the socialist lie Soviet Union you had the liberal capitalist lie and so on. So I I am not ready to say that it's a catastrophe what's happening today. No we are just deprived of the traditional form of the big other like the one big ideology. Trump that's the good thing about Trump he effectively is destroying the foundations of what we consider our Western liberal way of life and maybe maybe this will push us into inventing some a new global ideology which will be less a lie. Because you cannot survive without a global ideology. Okay I spoke too much I'm sorry. So I will end for today and I can go on but I would like yes. Thank you. This is this is always dangerous when a woman says let's have some question. Fuck you who asked you this. Sorry it's as I already said blame God or my parents it's not in me. Yeah. So yeah in response to that long and flowing moving piece of thought work, who has some questions? I thought you would say slowly flowing piece of shit. It was this in your mind a little bit a little bit in the background. Please you can also relate to the text. Yes so we've got a couple of mics so we've got one there who? I want to ah yeah. Yeah so this question of enunciation versus yeah the the way that we speak and what it means no I don't know if you're aware in Belgium currently we have a new government and we have this new prime minister who's a Flemish nationalist so it's this whole idea is you know eventually we should split and it should be Flanders separately from the French part no but now he's prime minister of Belgium no. Sorry I will immediately let you ask and just let you know when I'm in Belgium no I like to provoke people and act as a pseudo racist I tell them Belgium is a historical anomaly because of I think the problem was was when Netherlands became independent Belgium is basically the Catholic part of how they wrong so why don't Belgium why don't Netherlands and France simply make a deal Trump Putin deal fuck off split it. The only good answer I was given is that the problem is Brussels because it's too mixed but sorry go on. Yeah yeah I mean yeah so this whole split thing but now so he's prime minister of Belgium so he has to represent Belgium he has to speak in in two languages and one thing that's interesting is that when he goes abroad let's say to Trudeau's in Paris and he goes to talk around Ukraine and things he makes a lot of self-deprecating jokes and he's sort of in the That's good that's what unfortunately good in the horrible sense that's how it works today. Yeah but I think there is a proviso that is quite crucial is that when he makes self-deprecating jokes they are about Belgium and when he's making them about Belgium of course he's a Flemish nationalist so in a way he is attacking the French side by making these jokes he's not being self-deprecating he's actually being totally consistent. Oh my god this is so sad because an intelligent leading politician would in a much more subtle way there is a way how to make fun of yourself which really doesn't hurt you. So that's that makes me sad. Yeah I just wanted to ask you what you think of this. No it's a standard you know where I I don't want to take miracle miracle too much time but I would love to go into this because I would love to hear some of these jokes and so on you know but not now no in ex-Yugoslavia I have a very good memory of when things were falling apart and some even communist politicians started to build a popular base their big problem was they saw the writing on the wall no like how will we survive democracy and to build some kind of a popular base they started to tell jokes about themselves. No no not about the other about themselves. And here if I may amuse you with another joke maybe I used this here years ago hope not with you here I again appreciate the Chinese where even when they have vulgar jokes they have a surprising subtle moment like you know jokes in communist country are not simply jokes of the people against the regime. You have you have also jokes of the top nomenklatura against the stupid ordinary people but it is a more in China you have jokes of upper nomenklatura Beijing mocking the stupidity and vulgarity of a small town local party bureaucrat. But there is something my maybe I used it that a guy goes to a big city local party secretary in a small city and buys himself shining shoes and to impress her his secretary a lady when she comes to bring him tea in the morning after his return she puts his feet like this like and because shoes are how do you call it glittering shine she said ah I know you have red panties underwear today. Then next day the same ah you have blue. And then the third day here comes the subtleness and my Chinese friend confirmed to me it's on purpose next day she she he comes with no and you know what he does? Sorry I consider this not exactly feminist but refined he said "Oh my god new shoes but I already see a crack in them." The idea is that he sees what it is but he has this minimum of respect, okay you will say now strange respect no, that prefers himself to appear an idiot rather than to go into this this here Chinese are the best almost in the world. But are you now comes the then we go on but are you you you now I we go to enunciation from enunciated what are you? So are you are you are you Flemish or I'm from Brussels that yeah so yeah but Brussels is mixed what are you? I don't want to take all the money and like blunder anything no but yeah no no I mean I vote for green party no but but you see you don't answer the question I'm asking you a racist question you are escaping into political bullshit. But what you said also about before you mentioned Brussels and in your talk about Molenbeek like the suburb yeah yeah of course it's like this I'm from this kind of suburbs so so well no don't you agree because I made a little bit more provocative point that the right way is not just to ignore it. It's not good just to say oh this is racist. For example I had and I was shouted at
mean relativism. There is no neutral truth in the sense of here is one side there is another side now let's look at both sides. No, this neutrality is always already secretly partial. In concrete social situations like I will be now very honest against both sides like in the late 30s in Germany to play these games did did the Jews also not do something bad and so on is a fake. The basic fact was the preparations for Holocaust the so you had to tell the story from the standpoint of those who were victims. And it's the same today with Gaza. I'm ready to go very far with how many Palestinians but more other Arab states did unacceptable things and so on. You know that's what even some of my Jewish friends are doing you know you should understand us blah blah blah. But I say okay okay but then look at one of those wonderfully terrifying drone images of Gaza. Literally and sorry you had to take side there. And that's I think the great achievement of the great achievement of Marx that universal value or value not in the sense value but in the sense of universality of factual of the truth of what you are saying and being partial do not exclude each other. You can arrive at a truth that was Marx's thesis today it's more complex. You can arrive at a truth of bourgeois society only through by adopting the stance of for Marx working class exploited proletarians. Today I think it's the same but we have to I hope you will agree to redefine who a proletarian is. For example in Zambia I think what we should do is to follow to analyze what is happening in Zambia what Fred Jameson in one of his late texts developed where he said that today exploitation is not just I work for a capitalist okay then he takes part of the value I produce as a profit blah blah. No today we should expand the notion of exploitation. For example if we are in a country or even in countries where many women work the whole system reproduces itself by the unpaid apparently private work of the women. How can a proletarian family survive with only the husband working? Because the his wife although not employed is in some sense exploited even more. Then you get racist exploitation of course and a new category I think it's deeply true let's call it environmental exploitation. Even if you don't empirically exploit people who live there I don't like the term but I will say natives by ruining their environment you are in some sense brutally exploiting them. And this is what the Chinese did in Zambia. They didn't employ many of them it was even worse. You know the story check it up. Already years ago conditions were so brutal in Chinese-owned copper mines that conditions were so rude that African black workers locals started to strike. Because it was even against the Zambian constitution which says that the minimum wage should be dollars per month. The Chinese fired almost all of them and brought their Chinese slave workers who were ready to work for dollars. So this for me the horror of Zambia. They were exploited at both levels as traditional workers plus their environment was ruined. And what I found most sad that's why you didn't read a lot about this story is that it's not that sometimes they pretend to us but it's not like that Africa Caribbean there the nature is pure and so on we go there to enjoy holidays. No, it can often be even worse there. So we always complain how how we industrialized life countries our nature is ruined. No, we are ruining even more nature out there where it is. So I hope you agree I was making a very common point. I hope you agree with what I'm trying to say that today this invisible exploitation of women it's not formally in the narrow Marxist sense exploitation. An arrogant man can even say haha I work you just stay home yes and do all the dirty work and so on no. Exploitation of women, ruining of environment these should be even it's very nice what Jameson adds that we have today entire strata of people who they had a job and they they don't just lose the job in the sense of okay it's up and down next year I will get it. You all of a sudden pass from employed to unemployable because of the changes in industry automation and so on you are simply permanently excluded. In this sense Jameson proposed even proposed even to talk about to talk about being unemployed as a form of exploitation and so on. So let's not lose time we did and go further into this I was incidentally as some of you may have guessed I was talking about also but you find this in my old books I implied here the notion of the notion of inter-passivity: how I make the other passive for me. I don't make the other work for me I make the other passive for me or the averted form I am hyper-active not really to change things but to make it sure that nothing will change. And the perversity of today's ideology a point I often made here is that even if you appear to argue for the right cause there is a way to do it which makes it sure that nothing will really change. I think that percent at least of all complaints about ecology are like that. The eternal complaint and make us feel good but nothing changes. Let me go on with these paradoxes. I will repeat here an old story I think it's already years the last time I mentioned it here so I hope not with you. What happened to me and I will be the bad guy here. In SASPE, the summer school, I met Judith Butler there and I made once a vulgar remark to her. Vulgar in my style which means vulgar no. I she talked to me about her feminist friend and instead of asking her which would already have been beyond good taste is she also a lesbian like you no I use some term is she also unnatural bitch like you. I use a term like sorry sorry my nature God created me like this totally. So then of course I had a problem with this. So I called her from the hotel room to her room and apologized sincerely. And she answered me correctly she said thanks Slavoj I appreciate it but I wasn't offended I knew you didn't mean it so you owe me no apology. What I'm trying to say this was from her the correct way to accept an apology. That's the beautiful paradox of apology. If somebody apologizes to me and if I say oh fuck you it's time to apologize it means I'm not ready to really accept apology. To really accept an apology is to proclaim it's okay no need to no need to no need to apologize and so on. On the other hand you can also admit guilt in a false way. I know many of my friends who like to tell me when in a quite justified way me or others accuse them of something they set in a formal aggressive already way I already tell you I'm sorry so shut up it's done. Which precisely means you know apology itself can serve as anti-apology. So I think that this is again how politics function now. I will give you another maybe my last example: the Communist Party of China. And I forgot to finish my line of thought before you know in my total despair against this new axis of United States two friends in power Trump Putin. What is nonetheless because if you watch things closely here Varoufakis convinced me. If you watch things closely China is not simply pro-Russian. It always maintains a minimal distance and so on. If I were to be but I'm not some kind of European leader I would say maybe there is a chance in Europe to again against both Putin and Trump. Trump is ultra anti-European. It's not something new why do people act as a surprise. Already in Trump said the main enemy of United States is neither Russia nor China but Europe. Did you notice what Trump said now a couple of months ago? He said that European Union was established to he used the vulgar term to screw or whatever annoy United States. It's absolutely clear. So you know there are good things about China in spite of all the horrors and I'm aware of them. First I nonetheless love this China is now I think a better capitalist in the sense of giving a chance to smaller mid-sized companies than most of the Western countries. Look at these latest results not so much electric cars where they beat Tesla no of course but deep-sea and there is another computer program then there is that something I think with woman's breast cancer or whatever they are doing miracles a more a more efficient medicine tablets pills whatever much cheaper. So so precisely if that's the tragedy with regard to what Trump is doing. If you want to say I'm ashamed to proclaim this word so-called creative capitalism a guy comes with idea China is doing this better. Second thing China is traditionally not so expansive trying to expand not expansive I mean now you will say Taiwan and so on that's another point. but I wonder how Trump with his desire for Canada would have acted there he would probably already immediately occupy Taiwan. So I think I'm very pessimist here that strategically Europe should unite and unfortunately this is why I think my project is a little bit too utopian. Europe is so deeply already infected by the new populist you know that maybe the game is over I don't know what will happen. And there is another good thing about China I will be very cynical that it's far away you know like we are safe we just exchange commodities you know. Because I remember I don't know if I already used it here years ago when I was really young I spoke with a Czech guy in 1970s where he told me that they made there that a joke is running there. Some agencies asking an ordinary Czech guy: "What is your first wish?" He said "That the Chinese should occupy us for half a year." "Then what's your second wish?" "That they should occupy us again." And your third wish again. They asked him "Why?" He said "Each time they will have to move through Russia." In this sense you know it's good that China is there it's much more interested in open trade and so on so that we you will not think that I'm just some kind of a crazy techno- What I would do is at least a very careful careful sorry rapprochement with China. I think that this is maybe maybe I'm utopian you can immediately attack me. And I'm aware every look so that you will not say that I'm bullshitting my books are now half prohibited now in China. Because there they follow everything they learned that I used China as an example of what I now call I now abandon the term soft fascism no so it's a tragedy people spent almost a decade slowly translating my *Less Than Nothing* no? Now the translation is finished and already for years they are waiting the green light the permission from Beijing to print it. It doesn't come. Another book did appear but in spite of all this one has to be a realist. The only thing that can give Europe hope is again a parallel link with with China. So another critical thing. You know how they deal with Mao? That's another lie. They admit it but in a that's another ideological mechanism. They admit it but in a purely formal way. You know they all quote that Deng Xiaoping's formula: Mao was percent good, percent bad. Then with my evil spirit when I was there years ago I said then what if I write for Chinese market a book with a simple title Percent*? No, it's unmentionable. It's not only that like it's not that you can analyze Cultural Revolution or especially Leap Forward and criticize no you just mention it there were mistakes percent and then pass over. You know it's a mechanism this mechanism was called by Freud *Isolierung* in the sense of you formally admit something but you totally isolate it from its context and it has no effect on your subjective no effect on your subjective position. Then if we go further so that and then I will gradually stop. Yeah just two points then I promise I will stop and there will be time for questions. First point I want to make to conclude is that there is another example I like them but they are in a way ideological and we find this in so many pop culture today that in your explicit ideology you can be progressive even communist but all your mode of *jouissance* not just pleasure but your way of life is penetrated by precisely the ideology that you publicly criticize. I don't know he's half forgotten today but Luchino Visconti his movies. Officially do you know that Visconti was to the end member member of the Communist Party, Italian Communist Party. He was very progressive. But all his movies are one big nostalgia sympathy not so much directly from the old pre-capitalist wealthy people but for their decadence. The whole enjoyment is how this pleasurable awareness that your way of life is disappearing and you enjoy in it. Okay you will say who cares about this. I will give you another example that I already mentioned here years ago *Handmaid's Tale*. I don't know if you had the same experience but I had it already when the book not even the movie and then TV series appeared. I caught myself in fully enjoying the detailed imagination how the women are tortured you are not allowed to read not that blah blah this growing restriction quite everyday material practical restrictions. But of course you can enjoy it because you can say but wait a minute I'm fully aware it's horrible this is against but but the whole logic is secretly enjoying that. And I think in the TV series it goes even to the extreme this the whole point all then I thought it's only me I was asking my friends they were all telling me the same story what will they invent they were all waiting we are looking is a no new way to torture women like my friends were so glad when they discovered that they put their lips together just a small hole to drink or whatever so they couldn't even but you know we expected this new modes of so again this is another ideological mechanism. Now I want to end up with in a slightly more optimistic mode. All this mixture that I was describing is of course part of what people describe as the the the the death of truth. Today everything is historicized you don't know whom to trust and so on and so on. What I don't like in this judgment idea is that as if there was a time I don't know when before or before when there was truth. No, the only difference remember the years of Reagan, Nixon, Bush no it was not truth it was simply one more consistent big lie that was ex- you had the socialist lie Soviet Union you had the liberal capitalist lie and so on. So I I am not ready to say that it's a catastrophe what's happening today. No we are just deprived of the traditional form of the big other like the one big ideology. Trump that's the good thing about Trump he effectively is destroying the foundations of what we consider our Western liberal way of life and maybe maybe this will push us into inventing some a new global ideology which will be less a lie. Because you cannot survive without a global ideology. Okay I spoke too much I'm sorry. So I will end for today and I can go on but I would like yes. Thank you. This is this is always dangerous when a woman says let's have some question. Fuck you who asked you this. Sorry it's as I already said blame God or my parents it's not in me. Yeah. So yeah in response to that long and flowing moving piece of thought work, who has some questions? I thought you would say slowly flowing piece of shit. It was this in your mind a little bit a little bit in the background. Please you can also relate to the text. Yes so we've got a couple of mics so we've got one there who? I want to ah yeah. Yeah so this question of enunciation versus yeah the the way that we speak and what it means no I don't know if you're aware in Belgium currently we have a new government and we have this new prime minister who's a Flemish nationalist so it's this whole idea is you know eventually we should split and it should be Flanders separately from the French part no but now he's prime minister of Belgium no. Sorry I will immediately let you ask and just let you know when I'm in Belgium no I like to provoke people and act as a pseudo racist I tell them Belgium is a historical anomaly because of I think the problem was was when Netherlands became independent Belgium is basically the Catholic part of how they wrong so why don't Belgium why don't Netherlands and France simply make a deal Trump Putin deal fuck off split it. The only good answer I was given is that the problem is Brussels because it's too mixed but sorry go on. Yeah yeah I mean yeah so this whole split thing but now so he's prime minister of Belgium so he has to represent Belgium he has to speak in in two languages and one thing that's interesting is that when he goes abroad let's say to Trudeau's in Paris and he goes to talk around Ukraine and things he makes a lot of self-deprecating jokes and he's sort of in the That's good that's what unfortunately good in the horrible sense that's how it works today. Yeah but I think there is a proviso that is quite crucial is that when he makes self-deprecating jokes they are about Belgium and when he's making them about Belgium of course he's a Flemish nationalist so in a way he is attacking the French side by making these jokes he's not being self-deprecating he's actually being totally consistent. Oh my god this is so sad because an intelligent leading politician would in a much more subtle way there is a way how to make fun of yourself which really doesn't hurt you. So that's that makes me sad. Yeah I just wanted to ask you what you think of this. No it's a standard you know where I I don't want to take miracle miracle too much time but I would love to go into this because I would love to hear some of these jokes and so on you know but not now no in ex-Yugoslavia I have a very good memory of when things were falling apart and some even communist politicians started to build a popular base their big problem was they saw the writing on the wall no like how will we survive democracy and to build some kind of a popular base they started to tell jokes about themselves. No no not about the other about themselves. And here if I may amuse you with another joke maybe I used this here years ago hope not with you here I again appreciate the Chinese where even when they have vulgar jokes they have a surprising subtle moment like you know jokes in communist country are not simply jokes of the people against the regime. You have you have also jokes of the top nomenklatura against the stupid ordinary people but it is a more in China you have jokes of upper nomenklatura Beijing mocking the stupidity and vulgarity of a small town local party bureaucrat. But there is something my maybe I used it that a guy goes to a big city local party secretary in a small city and buys himself shining shoes and to impress her his secretary a lady when she comes to bring him tea in the morning after his return she puts his feet like this like and because shoes are how do you call it glittering shine she said ah I know you have red panties underwear today. Then next day the same ah you have blue. And then the third day here comes the subtleness and my Chinese friend confirmed to me it's on purpose next day she she he comes with no and you know what he does? Sorry I consider this not exactly feminist but refined he said "Oh my god new shoes but I already see a crack in them." The idea is that he sees what it is but he has this minimum of respect, okay you will say now strange respect no, that prefers himself to appear an idiot rather than to go into this this here Chinese are the best almost in the world. But are you now comes the then we go on but are you you you now I we go to enunciation from enunciated what are you? So are you are you are you Flemish or I'm from Brussels that yeah so yeah but Brussels is mixed what are you? I don't want to take all the money and like blunder anything no but yeah no no I mean I vote for green party no but but you see you don't answer the question I'm asking you a racist question you are escaping into political bullshit. But what you said also about before you mentioned Brussels and in your talk about Molenbeek like the suburb yeah yeah of course it's like this I'm from this kind of suburbs so so well no don't you agree because I made a little bit more provocative point that the right way is not just to ignore it. It's not good just to say oh this is racist. For example I had and I was shouted at
Cathy Newman
in Slovenia you know we had some problem
in Slovenia you know we had some problem
Slavoj Žižek
with the Roma, Roma is now politically correct for gypsies no a group in Slovenia and some local people
with the Roma, Roma is now politically correct for gypsies no a group in Slovenia and some local people
Cathy Newman
rebelled against them they
rebelled against them they
unknown
didn't attack them. But then but then I knew a lady who came from that village and said it's easy for you liberals in Ljubljana the big city to sympathize with Roma there but you know that daily we hear shooting there stealing things from
didn't attack them. But then but then I knew a lady who came from that village and said it's easy for you liberals in Ljubljana the big city to sympathize with Roma there but you know that daily we hear shooting there stealing things from
Slavoj Žižek
the field they are full of stolen cars and so on. So what I'm saying is that I
the field they are full of stolen cars and so on. So what I'm saying is that I
unknown
believe in openly confronting the problems. If you play here these games it doesn't come out now in Slovenia precisely this because the state is afraid of being accused of racism so they do nothing so things are even getting worse and so on
believe in openly confronting the problems. If you play here these games it doesn't come out now in Slovenia precisely this because the state is afraid of being accused of racism so they do nothing so things are even getting worse and so on
Slavoj Žižek
no. So I think now I will shock you it's in one of my that local cultures text I think that we should not be afraid to say yes each group including the whites have the right to their own way of life. The problem for me with white racism is not "we have our way of life and we feel that it's threatened" it's that how this reference to a way of life functions. Is it secretly racist in the sense that it secretly universalizes itself you know that you measure
no. So I think now I will shock you it's in one of my that local cultures text I think that we should not be afraid to say yes each group including the whites have the right to their own way of life. The problem for me with white racism is not "we have our way of life and we feel that it's threatened" it's that how this reference to a way of life functions. Is it secretly racist in the sense that it secretly universalizes itself you know that you measure
unknown
others by how close they
others by how close they
Slavoj Žižek
are to this and so on. So again I would have I would like white people to become this "we
are to this and so on. So again I would have I would like white people to become this "we
unknown
want our safe local way of life," okay have it but don't impose it secretly as universal you know what I mean. You know sorry I okay ah sorry my worst racist joke I know what are
want our safe local way of life," okay have it but don't impose it secretly as universal you know what I mean. You know sorry I okay ah sorry my worst racist joke I know what are
Slavoj Žižek
you Belgians why what are your two most famous features you know pedophilia and chocolate and even these two are part of the same because
you Belgians why what are your two most famous features you know pedophilia and chocolate and even these two are part of the same because
unknown
chocolate
chocolate
Slavoj Žižek
is to seduce young boys no. Where does the chocolate come from it doesn't come from the Belgian fields outside it comes from Congo so also yeah this you do to support agriculture in Congo that's your okay sorry. I'm sorry I'm going to continue the Belgian theme uh-huh because I also live in Brussels ah and um I just wanted to add that I think that the Bart De Wever who is the the kind of Prime Minister neo-fascist Prime Minister Now? No but how sorry to interrupt but how did he win? Yeah he has a huge following in Flanders and he's constituted a kind of But does he have a base also in French part? Not exactly equivalent no but it's more complicated. He's rejecting the Belgian. He's not rejecting the French I think that there's this idea that the Belgian actually could represent something more universal but because he's coming from this side of Flanders and it's it's more than just rejecting the the French side he's actually rejecting the Belgian which would be the thing that could claim the possibility of of the whole the French and the Okay but I am all I always try to be naively open here so I will ask now you where he avoided where do you stand here? Where you don't have Yeah but you know what's the problem here the whole point of Tito's Yugoslavia after World War II no was to say we are Yugoslav. At some point this was very progressive when during World War II Croat were Ustashe Serbs all nationalism strike this was a crazy move of the Communist Partisans to say fuck off we are Yugoslavs. But then do you really resolve the crisis in this way or is there a crisis because obviously Yugoslavia did not that's why it fell apart in such a violent way. But for example what do French people really desire there? If you would do a referendum in predominantly French part join France or remain in
is to seduce young boys no. Where does the chocolate come from it doesn't come from the Belgian fields outside it comes from Congo so also yeah this you do to support agriculture in Congo that's your okay sorry. I'm sorry I'm going to continue the Belgian theme uh-huh because I also live in Brussels ah and um I just wanted to add that I think that the Bart De Wever who is the the kind of Prime Minister neo-fascist Prime Minister Now? No but how sorry to interrupt but how did he win? Yeah he has a huge following in Flanders and he's constituted a kind of But does he have a base also in French part? Not exactly equivalent no but it's more complicated. He's rejecting the Belgian. He's not rejecting the French I think that there's this idea that the Belgian actually could represent something more universal but because he's coming from this side of Flanders and it's it's more than just rejecting the the French side he's actually rejecting the Belgian which would be the thing that could claim the possibility of of the whole the French and the Okay but I am all I always try to be naively open here so I will ask now you where he avoided where do you stand here? Where you don't have Yeah but you know what's the problem here the whole point of Tito's Yugoslavia after World War II no was to say we are Yugoslav. At some point this was very progressive when during World War II Croat were Ustashe Serbs all nationalism strike this was a crazy move of the Communist Partisans to say fuck off we are Yugoslavs. But then do you really resolve the crisis in this way or is there a crisis because obviously Yugoslavia did not that's why it fell apart in such a violent way. But for example what do French people really desire there? If you would do a referendum in predominantly French part join France or remain in
unknown
Belgium?
Belgium?
Slavoj Žižek
I think the French speaking ones of yes they're also voting more and more to the right
I think the French speaking ones of yes they're also voting more and more to the right
unknown
so they also I guess
so they also I guess
Slavoj Žižek
have a kind of growing nationalist movement it's much smaller than the one in in Flanders. It's quite different in Flanders. Yeah I know I know I know but I think my sorry the last question what about those at the suburb with M with so-called Muslim fundamentalists how do they where do they locate them they don't care all whites are In Brussels you have like the Wallonia and South yeah the French speaking part Brussels in the middle which is bilingual and Flanders in the north which is Flemish speaking and each of them are region and there's a federal government But in some sense I almost say isn't it possible to do some kind of a miracle there and claim it's wonderful to have a Brussels which is a neutral terrain and then it can balance. I mean sorry I'm losing okay let's let's open um I've got two two there I don't know if I'm not catching people on this side but Okay. Thank you. So I wanted to ask a question because I was in South Africa doing research last month and You were there you visit? I was there I was in Cape Town. But did you you live there or you just visited it? Visited it. Visited our human rights and what I was doing was i I conducted research into dis and mis [unintelligible] I was trying to learn how they reconciled themselves through the apartheid era i.e. getting rid of an abhorrent system and using a rights-based system to create a new framework of knowledge. And I interviewed a journalist there who had been tortured and and she had lived in prison. Tortured in apartheid era. Yeah. In the apartheid era and and I asked her well what do you what do you advise in regards to what's happening now in the Western world and her response was that now we're going to really realize what you get when you ask for that reality and that would in itself potentially change the
have a kind of growing nationalist movement it's much smaller than the one in in Flanders. It's quite different in Flanders. Yeah I know I know I know but I think my sorry the last question what about those at the suburb with M with so-called Muslim fundamentalists how do they where do they locate them they don't care all whites are In Brussels you have like the Wallonia and South yeah the French speaking part Brussels in the middle which is bilingual and Flanders in the north which is Flemish speaking and each of them are region and there's a federal government But in some sense I almost say isn't it possible to do some kind of a miracle there and claim it's wonderful to have a Brussels which is a neutral terrain and then it can balance. I mean sorry I'm losing okay let's let's open um I've got two two there I don't know if I'm not catching people on this side but Okay. Thank you. So I wanted to ask a question because I was in South Africa doing research last month and You were there you visit? I was there I was in Cape Town. But did you you live there or you just visited it? Visited it. Visited our human rights and what I was doing was i I conducted research into dis and mis [unintelligible] I was trying to learn how they reconciled themselves through the apartheid era i.e. getting rid of an abhorrent system and using a rights-based system to create a new framework of knowledge. And I interviewed a journalist there who had been tortured and and she had lived in prison. Tortured in apartheid era. Yeah. In the apartheid era and and I asked her well what do you what do you advise in regards to what's happening now in the Western world and her response was that now we're going to really realize what you get when you ask for that reality and that would in itself potentially change the
unknown
dynamic
dynamic
Slavoj Žižek
so she was quite hopeful actually from that
so she was quite hopeful actually from that
unknown
perspective of us
perspective of us
Slavoj Žižek
coming to the realization of
coming to the realization of
unknown
[unintelligible]
[unintelligible]
Slavoj Žižek
these fascist narratives coming
these fascist narratives coming
unknown
to the surface. And I frame
to the surface. And I frame
unknown
that because
that because
unknown
part of the reason I was there was to ask the question really: what is our Saddam's law today? Like what is the law that we should be disobeying? And you used the words network states and in South Africa they were using the words state capture in respect of corporations taking over control taking over influence and taking over influence of knowledge human knowledge through AI through algorithms. Sorry to interrupt you just to let you know in which
part of the reason I was there was to ask the question really: what is our Saddam's law today? Like what is the law that we should be disobeying? And you used the words network states and in South Africa they were using the words state capture in respect of corporations taking over control taking over influence and taking over influence of knowledge human knowledge through AI through algorithms. Sorry to interrupt you just to let you know in which
unknown
direction I would like you
direction I would like you
unknown
to
to
unknown
move.
move.
Slavoj Žižek
Okay but how is this big corporations who capture blah blah to technology are
Okay but how is this big corporations who capture blah blah to technology are
unknown
they black
they black
Slavoj Žižek
controlled, white controlled or neutral or how do they fit racial divide? In terms of South Africa? Yes. [unintelligible] it seemed to me that maybe actually Solomon's law is increasingly even in the Western developed world coming actually challenging the corporation rather than the state and I suppose the question there turns to if we're thinking about algorithms thinking about the mobilization of human knowledge in artificial intelligence what principles and what values should we be reminding ourselves of or making visible in that process? And what's your view in
controlled, white controlled or neutral or how do they fit racial divide? In terms of South Africa? Yes. [unintelligible] it seemed to me that maybe actually Solomon's law is increasingly even in the Western developed world coming actually challenging the corporation rather than the state and I suppose the question there turns to if we're thinking about algorithms thinking about the mobilization of human knowledge in artificial intelligence what principles and what values should we be reminding ourselves of or making visible in that process? And what's your view in
unknown
respect of how do we lay those out or what would you be putting there? I
respect of how do we lay those out or what would you be putting there? I
Slavoj Žižek
unfortunately it would I often bluff but I try not to bluff too much so I cannot give you a precise answer. But nonetheless I remember do you remember was it this room or on the other side where we had some two years ago a general debate that Friday debate I think and there were two old ladies
unfortunately it would I often bluff but I try not to bluff too much so I cannot give you a precise answer. But nonetheless I remember do you remember was it this room or on the other side where we had some two years ago a general debate that Friday debate I think and there were two old ladies
unknown
very dignified black from South
very dignified black from South
Slavoj Žižek
Africa, ANC, high figures and they really depressed me because one of them was very honest was very pessimistic and said that the result of now years of post-apartheid is that Africa South Africa is the country in the world I don't
Africa, ANC, high figures and they really depressed me because one of them was very honest was very pessimistic and said that the result of now years of post-apartheid is that Africa South Africa is the country in the world I don't
unknown
know if it's a little bit of a rhetorical exaggeration or true with the greatest divide
know if it's a little bit of a rhetorical exaggeration or true with the greatest divide
unknown
between rich
between rich
Slavoj Žižek
and poor. And that so she even said I'm afraid to repeat this
and poor. And that so she even said I'm afraid to repeat this
unknown
too much maybe she was too desperate but she said that among quite a lot of poor black people there is almost a kind of nostalgia for apartheid. The standard of living
too much maybe she was too desperate but she said that among quite a lot of poor black people there is almost a kind of nostalgia for apartheid. The standard of living
unknown
was the same they were poor but there was order because it was a police state but that now is much more chaotic and so on so her view was that the only thing that really changed is that the old white ruling class is joined by a new black elements of ruling class but the the poor remain the poor. Now your impression I'm sincerely asking you am I right or am I exaggerating? I think you're shocking me. At the same time I asked our cab driver on the last day what his view was he was from Zimbabwe and I asked him you know how are you feeling about that tension or that
was the same they were poor but there was order because it was a police state but that now is much more chaotic and so on so her view was that the only thing that really changed is that the old white ruling class is joined by a new black elements of ruling class but the the poor remain the poor. Now your impression I'm sincerely asking you am I right or am I exaggerating? I think you're shocking me. At the same time I asked our cab driver on the last day what his view was he was from Zimbabwe and I asked him you know how are you feeling about that tension or that
Slavoj Žižek
anxiety that people want change sooner. And what I learned was how embedded the vision that Mandela left was by his words he he responded and said
anxiety that people want change sooner. And what I learned was how embedded the vision that Mandela left was by his words he he responded and said
unknown
well
well
unknown
Mandela said it's a long walk to freedom so I think there is a patience and an optimism actually within the population if you like. But for me the tragedy is still that as if and I would like love to be proven wrong that it's as if Mandela or Mugabe either you are cautious but then you the disparity in wealth remains
Mandela said it's a long walk to freedom so I think there is a patience and an optimism actually within the population if you like. But for me the tragedy is still that as if and I would like love to be proven wrong that it's as if Mandela or Mugabe either you are cautious but then you the disparity in wealth remains
Slavoj Žižek
or you move fast but you only create new maybe even more narrow ruling class as in Zimbabwe no. We are all looking for this miracle how to restore some basic racial justice I mean we'd be very brutal here without almost ruining the economy. I don't have a good answer here I openly admit it. because it's not just South Africa look to other countries like I have friends it may surprise you in Nigeria and in Angola. It's a nightmare the the corruption in both of these countries is absolutely breathtaking. The irony of Angola is that there the left wing supported by Cuban soldiers won and now again the gap between rich and poor is breathtaking. It makes me so depressed but okay let's did you. Well we we can just go there and then we go to Maria so we take Q1 after another. Yeah but we are privileging the right-wing what about
or you move fast but you only create new maybe even more narrow ruling class as in Zimbabwe no. We are all looking for this miracle how to restore some basic racial justice I mean we'd be very brutal here without almost ruining the economy. I don't have a good answer here I openly admit it. because it's not just South Africa look to other countries like I have friends it may surprise you in Nigeria and in Angola. It's a nightmare the the corruption in both of these countries is absolutely breathtaking. The irony of Angola is that there the left wing supported by Cuban soldiers won and now again the gap between rich and poor is breathtaking. It makes me so depressed but okay let's did you. Well we we can just go there and then we go to Maria so we take Q1 after another. Yeah but we are privileging the right-wing what about
unknown
the left-wing
the left-wing
unknown
here. I was just sticking
here. I was just sticking
unknown
to chronology. Yeah yeah yeah the opportunist say so yeah yeah it just happens to be that the right is there okay please. Maybe even this you know pragmatism topic in China I think my my reading which is very unorthodox is that maybe this secret political agency behind this you
to chronology. Yeah yeah yeah the opportunist say so yeah yeah it just happens to be that the right is there okay please. Maybe even this you know pragmatism topic in China I think my my reading which is very unorthodox is that maybe this secret political agency behind this you
Slavoj Žižek
know on the face pragmatism is what I call a takeoverism. Takeoverism is from Lu Xun which is a very [unintelligible] I know him. L-U-X-U-N, the great writer yeah yeah. He's great. It's a it's a strategy against the assimilationism. Yeah. This this this is a You mean that the China should take over just to qualify progressive things that are to be taken from the west without Okay so let me explain the difference between takeoverism and assimilation. Assimilation is just like blind adoption of everything. Yeah. But takeoverism is take everything over and let's decide what to use what to destroy and what to display
know on the face pragmatism is what I call a takeoverism. Takeoverism is from Lu Xun which is a very [unintelligible] I know him. L-U-X-U-N, the great writer yeah yeah. He's great. It's a it's a strategy against the assimilationism. Yeah. This this this is a You mean that the China should take over just to qualify progressive things that are to be taken from the west without Okay so let me explain the difference between takeoverism and assimilation. Assimilation is just like blind adoption of everything. Yeah. But takeoverism is take everything over and let's decide what to use what to destroy and what to display
Cathy Newman
in the museum as a witness of the
in the museum as a witness of the
Slavoj Žižek
history. Yeah. So I think this this is a part that I
history. Yeah. So I think this this is a part that I
Cathy Newman
authentically
authentically
Slavoj Žižek
have some hope in the political agency in China. And I think to your point
have some hope in the political agency in China. And I think to your point
unknown
on you know But who can do this properly? Yeah yeah that's the question I think I I mean like this is just a silver lining for me. I'm not like absolutely you know optimistic about it but I think you mentioned the point of creative capitalism but I think it's more about like maybe creative socialism in China because it's it's only I mean capitalism doesn't really have this power of you know justifying itself well sorry adjusting itself especially in China so or over the history of its existence. So there must have been some other force to adjust capitalism. And I think
on you know But who can do this properly? Yeah yeah that's the question I think I I mean like this is just a silver lining for me. I'm not like absolutely you know optimistic about it but I think you mentioned the point of creative capitalism but I think it's more about like maybe creative socialism in China because it's it's only I mean capitalism doesn't really have this power of you know justifying itself well sorry adjusting itself especially in China so or over the history of its existence. So there must have been some other force to adjust capitalism. And I think
Slavoj Žižek
maybe well I am my honest answer here would be you know maybe this this is still a justification of our to some extent socialist establishment in China and I I know people who are working hard with you know some very creative methods of you know reforming or you know re-staging what it means by socialism in China and you know incorporating with the agriculture and cities and so on and so on. So it's it's I think my point is is this subtle agency of takeoverism which is still I think only possible in China. What I know and I follow here maybe you don't appreciate him my Korean friend Alex and then it becomes unpronounceable for me Taek-wong whatever no where he claims that even when in Far East Asia China, Korea, Japan, even when they refer to fascism one must be very attentive how we read them. For them when for example did you read about this he Alex told me that they found a manuscript some minutes that just the young just after he took over Mao met the dying old Sun Yat-sen in around when did Sun Yat-sen die I don't know and that they debated precisely this takeoverism what to take over. And their idea was because this was already the time when Mussolini was in power when Hitler made his that fascism would be better than liberal capitalism. But they this didn't mean they were fascist. It meant that they saw and I have no problem with this words mean something in political context that they saw in fascism a certain potential of collective action. That's it they didn't have another name because what I am sorry attracted by this in fascism that it's at the same time dynamic it's not conservative in the sense of let's just keep things the way they are but it retains a collective spirit. I think I quoted in one of the texts or I
maybe well I am my honest answer here would be you know maybe this this is still a justification of our to some extent socialist establishment in China and I I know people who are working hard with you know some very creative methods of you know reforming or you know re-staging what it means by socialism in China and you know incorporating with the agriculture and cities and so on and so on. So it's it's I think my point is is this subtle agency of takeoverism which is still I think only possible in China. What I know and I follow here maybe you don't appreciate him my Korean friend Alex and then it becomes unpronounceable for me Taek-wong whatever no where he claims that even when in Far East Asia China, Korea, Japan, even when they refer to fascism one must be very attentive how we read them. For them when for example did you read about this he Alex told me that they found a manuscript some minutes that just the young just after he took over Mao met the dying old Sun Yat-sen in around when did Sun Yat-sen die I don't know and that they debated precisely this takeoverism what to take over. And their idea was because this was already the time when Mussolini was in power when Hitler made his that fascism would be better than liberal capitalism. But they this didn't mean they were fascist. It meant that they saw and I have no problem with this words mean something in political context that they saw in fascism a certain potential of collective action. That's it they didn't have another name because what I am sorry attracted by this in fascism that it's at the same time dynamic it's not conservative in the sense of let's just keep things the way they are but it retains a collective spirit. I think I quoted in one of the texts or I
unknown
didn't I don't know where for
didn't I don't know where for
unknown
example even let's go to the worst of
example even let's go to the worst of
Slavoj Žižek
the worst. I read recently an article on how banks big banks functioned in Nazi Germany. My god I was in Prague. In this text I found quote which say in ordinary capitalism bank just invest for profit blah blah. What he said now in Germany the primacy should be what ordinary people need for their satisfaction and the state should control and redirect the bank okay it's another thing what this
the worst. I read recently an article on how banks big banks functioned in Nazi Germany. My god I was in Prague. In this text I found quote which say in ordinary capitalism bank just invest for profit blah blah. What he said now in Germany the primacy should be what ordinary people need for their satisfaction and the state should control and redirect the bank okay it's another thing what this
unknown
meant in practice what I just say is that when in Asia somebody proclaims some sympathy for what they perceive as fascism it doesn't necessarily it's horrible what I'm saying automatically mean European fascism. They just detected some potentially destructive in liberalism and their
meant in practice what I just say is that when in Asia somebody proclaims some sympathy for what they perceive as fascism it doesn't necessarily it's horrible what I'm saying automatically mean European fascism. They just detected some potentially destructive in liberalism and their
Slavoj Žižek
point was how to take over the progressive productive dynamic of the West without this social disintegration. I know this is the basis of the fascist project. The fascism the basic definition of fascism for me is conservative modernization no? You trigger modernization which can be even more aggressive than the liberal one but isn't this now I am also referring to you the other Chinese guy sorry sorry that's why I'm so fascinated maybe tomorrow you could tell me more about that my god Wang Huning the ideologist no who for me is almost a model neo-fascist in these terms. He says he even uses for himself the term the term neo-conservative. He wrote that wonderful book I read it *America against America*. He visited years ago America United States and was fascinated by it but also saw the destructive element. And his idea is yes American dynamic without and that's why as I always quote and I would like from both of you tomorrow no to see where I'm wrong what fascinates me is that he was he behind I know how influential Wang Huning he's now the third strongest person if one is to believe these Western sources he is because your
point was how to take over the progressive productive dynamic of the West without this social disintegration. I know this is the basis of the fascist project. The fascism the basic definition of fascism for me is conservative modernization no? You trigger modernization which can be even more aggressive than the liberal one but isn't this now I am also referring to you the other Chinese guy sorry sorry that's why I'm so fascinated maybe tomorrow you could tell me more about that my god Wang Huning the ideologist no who for me is almost a model neo-fascist in these terms. He says he even uses for himself the term the term neo-conservative. He wrote that wonderful book I read it *America against America*. He visited years ago America United States and was fascinated by it but also saw the destructive element. And his idea is yes American dynamic without and that's why as I always quote and I would like from both of you tomorrow no to see where I'm wrong what fascinates me is that he was he behind I know how influential Wang Huning he's now the third strongest person if one is to believe these Western sources he is because your
Cathy Newman
president
president
Slavoj Žižek
how do you pronounce it Xi-Xi I'm always wrong Xi yeah yeah that he gave a speech half a year ago I think
how do you pronounce it Xi-Xi I'm always wrong Xi yeah yeah that he gave a speech half a year ago I think
Cathy Newman
which shocked
which shocked
Slavoj Žižek
me because he she said yeah that people the youth is disoriented and so on you know so we need to
me because he she said yeah that people the youth is disoriented and so on you know so we need to
unknown
remobilize them then
remobilize them then
Slavoj Žižek
when I expected that he will say
when I expected that he will say
unknown
read Mao communism
read Mao communism
Slavoj Žižek
he said return to Chinese tradition Confucianism and so on. So I I find this fascinating
he said return to Chinese tradition Confucianism and so on. So I I find this fascinating
unknown
although again I still believe as a traditional leftist that fascism even if it's what I call ironically a soft fascism in the long term cannot cannot work.
although again I still believe as a traditional leftist that fascism even if it's what I call ironically a soft fascism in the long term cannot cannot work.
Slavoj Žižek
But I would like very much
But I would like very much
unknown
also from you to hear what do you mean by this socialist element because this comes together with what Yanis Varoufakis told me he was in China he told me whatever that there is now a tremendous but it's not public split within the Communist Party between those more pro-capitalist and some socialist wing but who are they and what kind of socialism is this is this simply the old centralized so I don't know enough I'm open to
also from you to hear what do you mean by this socialist element because this comes together with what Yanis Varoufakis told me he was in China he told me whatever that there is now a tremendous but it's not public split within the Communist Party between those more pro-capitalist and some socialist wing but who are they and what kind of socialism is this is this simply the old centralized so I don't know enough I'm open to
unknown
admit
admit
Slavoj Žižek
it. We shall leave these questions for tomorrow and and beyond and I hope lots of you are coming back again online. Thank you for those who've tuned in online and to be evil we should we could leave many of these questions for after tomorrow so that fuck off you debate them when I'm no longer here no. Thank you very much see you tomorrow thank you. I tried to follow it but Yanis as usual Yanis Varoufakis is now in his Chinese phase you know he thinks China in spite of all is something different you know. So see you tomorrow. Maria's going to chair you tomorrow. I know. You go to bath to some nice holiday. No no, probably be in the audience I just didn't want to.
it. We shall leave these questions for tomorrow and and beyond and I hope lots of you are coming back again online. Thank you for those who've tuned in online and to be evil we should we could leave many of these questions for after tomorrow so that fuck off you debate them when I'm no longer here no. Thank you very much see you tomorrow thank you. I tried to follow it but Yanis as usual Yanis Varoufakis is now in his Chinese phase you know he thinks China in spite of all is something different you know. So see you tomorrow. Maria's going to chair you tomorrow. I know. You go to bath to some nice holiday. No no, probably be in the audience I just didn't want to.