The Future of Surveillance
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2014-05-17 · 1:20:50 · 11,450 words
with Paul Holdengräber, Werner Herzog (film clip)
technology-ai-cyberspacedemocracyideologyscience-physicsliberalism-political-correctnessecology-climatefascism-populismphilosophy-generalrace-antisemitismcinema-art-culturecapitalismpsychoanalysis
A wide-ranging public conversation between Žižek and Paul Holdengräber in Copenhagen, touching on quantum physics and ontological incompleteness, the significance of WikiLeaks, Snowden, and Assange, the erosion of public space and the role of the intellectual, European politics and the rise of right-wing populism, and the problem of surveillance and control. Žižek argues that the universe is ontologically unfinished (a lesson he draws from quantum mechanics and Werner Herzog), that whistleblowers defend the 'commons' of public reason, and that liberal tolerance is complicit with the very populism it claims to oppose. The conversation also touches on Denmark, von Trier, Niels Bohr, Kierkegaard, and Srebrenica jokes as a mode of coping with trauma.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 15
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek argues the universe itself is not fully determined or 'finished' at the ontological level, drawing the lesson from quantum physics that reality has genuine gaps rather than merely epistemic limits.
as “the wave function collapse field as what God doesn't control”
Žižek reads quantum indeterminacy theologically: the interval of quantum virtuality before a state is registered is precisely the zone the omniscient God (big Other) cannot survey.
as “unfreedom you don't experience as such”
The most dangerous form of unfreedom, exemplified by the US: a population that feels entirely free while being thoroughly monitored and regulated, making the first step of liberation, recognizing oppression, impossible.
Implicitly invoked via the figure of NSA/God as an omniscient watcher: Žižek notes that despite massive data collection, 'they don't know what they know', the machinery lacks the interpretive subject.
The true problem with surveillance is not privacy loss but the collapse of the public sphere into a 'socialized private sphere,' where politicians confess and audiences are invited into intimacy rather than argument.
Against confessional politics and authenticity culture, Žižek defends a certain alienation, the gap between private person and public statement, as the condition for genuine public discourse.
Borrowed from Erving Goffman: the performance of genuine selfhood that is in fact constructed; Žižek claims all authenticity today tends to be staged, so a persona honestly signaling its artificiality is more authentic.
Invoked as the omniscient gaze that watches everything; Žižek uses NSA/God equivalence to ask what it means that quantum indeterminacy marks a field the big Other cannot control.
Žižek invokes Kant's distinction: public use of reason is unconstrained rational debate, while institutional speech (parliament, law, theology) is 'private' use, and this public use is what Bologna reforms and surveillance attack.
as “deep ecology / mother earth”
Žižek rejects the deep-ecology ideology of a balanced Mother Earth offended by capitalism as ideological mystification; he insists nature itself is catastrophic and the universe is not in balance.
Žižek uses this phrase (which he notes is ironic, echoing how Chinese officials deploy it) to name a new form of capitalism that is dynamically productive yet no longer requires liberal democracy.
Žižek's characterization of Assange's self-description: unlike a traitor who merely switches sides within the espionage game, a 'spy for the people' dismantles the entire field of secrecy itself.
Žižek distinguishes between a paranoia grounded in actual structural facts (e.g., that banks orchestrated the 2008 crisis) and a false paranoia like antisemitism, whose pathology lies not in falsity but in the psychic structure it serves.
as “WikiLeaks as communism in practice”
Žižek calls WikiLeaks 'communism in practice' because it defends the intellectual and informational commons against enclosure, making public what power keeps secret.
Drawn partly from Negri: nature, intellectual property, biogenetic heritage, and shared public information are 'the commons' that global capitalism is enclosing, and what whistleblowers defend.
Stories he reaches for 5
Brain-computer interfaces allow paralyzed patients to move wheelchairs by thought alone, presented as humanitarian achievement, but the circuit goes both ways: if thoughts can control machines, machines can also read thoughts, undermining the inside/outside distinction of selfhood.
“you think something, it happens in the reality. the problem is that what goes out goes in also.”
Afghanistan before Soviet and US intervention had a pro-Western monarch, a strong communist party, religious tolerance, and even Buddhist-Muslim interfaith prayer traditions. It became fundamentalist as a result of being sucked into global geopolitics, illustrating that fundamentalism is a product of capitalist modernity, not its opposite.
“it is as the result of this, of precisely becoming part of global politics that afghanistan became a fundamentalist country.”
Survivors of Srebrenica tell jokes about the massacre, including one where a returnee asks about land prices and is told 'it depends, do you want it with bones or without bones?' Žižek cites this to argue that obscene humor is the only honest way to cope with extreme horror, and that sentimental identification ('we are all in Srebrenica') is the real vulgarity.
“do you want it with bones or without bones...this joke is at the same time a recognition that it's too horrible to do it directly.”
Thomas Frank's 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' describes how Kansas, historically the most progressive American state (John Brown, anti-slavery), became in the last 30 years the most fundamentalist, illustrating right-wing populism as a product of global capitalism.
“over the rainbow, one of the states which 30, 40 years ago was historically the most progressive american state...in the last 30 years it became particularly the most fundamentalist.”
Žižek notes that all good art about concentration camps and the Holocaust is comedy, not tragedy; a tragic treatment would give the Nazis too much dignity by staging a heroic confrontation of victim and perpetrator.
“all good feelings about concentration camps, holocaust are comedy. because to do a tragedy would be to concede to the nazis already too much.”
Works invoked 11
Less Than Nothing book
Žižek's own 1050-page book on Hegel; notes it sells better than his shorter political books, which he takes as evidence that people are not stupid.
Melancholia film
Žižek calls it 'a profoundly satisfying, happy movie', life is shit, but the ending feels like a resolution; used to illustrate his own pessimistic ontology.
Blue Velvet film
Cited to illustrate the movement from kitschy suburban surface to the crawling, disgusting underside of reality; the camera-into-grass scene is a key example of ontological depth beneath appearance.
Called a 'wonderful, simple but wonderful book'; used as key evidence that right-wing populism is a product of global capitalism, not backward tradition.
Left Behind book
Žižek reads LaHaye's rapture fiction not for enjoyment but as a revelation of the American Christian fundamentalist political unconscious; 20 million copies sold; uses 'Europa Conspiracy' to expose anti-EU paranoia.
The Idiots film
Žižek hates it; says it's 'the film for the people who are mentioned in the title.'
Europa film
Von Trier's first famous film; Žižek calls it 'tremendous.'
Twin Peaks tv
Mentioned for the technique of showing an abstract image that slowly pulls back to reveal it is a TV screen, related to Lynch's exploration of the gap between surface and depth.
Borgen tv
Briefly mentioned as one of the things Žižek loves about Denmark.
Nymphomaniac film
Žižek finds von Trier 'wants to be too bright for his own good' with all the philosophical content; not entirely dismissed but held at arm's length.
Žižek says he liked the novel, but laments that Høeg was a one-hit wonder.
People invoked 33
Bob Geldof negative
Grouped with Richard Gere as the liberal human rights celebrity 'gang' Žižek does not want associated with real political struggle.
Thomas Frank positive
Žižek praises 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' as a 'wonderful, simple but wonderful book' illustrating how global capitalism generates right-wing populism.
Alenka Zupančič positive
Third member of the Slovenian Lacanian 'troika'; relayed the story about the Srebrenica linguist and jokes.
Lars von Trier positive
Žižek admires most of von Trier's work, especially 'Europa' and 'Melancholia'; hates 'The Idiots'; finds 'Nymphomaniac' too clever for its own good.
Edward Snowden positive
Žižek supports Snowden's actions as a defense of public space; notes he made a 'compromise' by going to Russia but does not blame him, understanding it as a lack of alternatives.
Jacques Lacan positive
Called 'my father, my theoretical father'; invoked for his claim that jealousy is pathological even when factually justified, used to analyze antisemitism's structure.
Cited as an example of popular science filling the metaphysical vacuum left by philosophy's retreat into historicism; people read him for the big questions, not the scientific content.
Cited via an anecdote about him refusing to sign state liquidation orders, illustrating politicians' desire for deniability in 'dirty work.'
David Lynch positive
Cited as exemplifying the movement from kitschy suburban surface to the crawling excess beneath it (Blue Velvet); Žižek has loved his work from the beginning.
Nadya Tolokonnikova positive
One of the Pussy Riot members Žižek sympathizes with most; she and Alyokhina were excluded by the Pussy Riot group for being too soft, but Žižek's heart is with them.
Paul Claudel positive
Described as Žižek's 'favorite Catholic writer'; cited for the quip that when accused of intolerance he replied 'but for tolerance we have houses,' weaponized against liberal tolerance ideology.
Chelsea Manning positive
Cited as an example of why WikiLeaks cannot be reduced to anti-Americanism, Manning's act would have been impossible in Russia or China; Žižek is critical of Manning's later partial forgetting by the public.
Peter Mandelson negative
Called 'his dark prince or whatever'; cited as explicitly saying 'in economy we are all Thatcherites.'
Antonio Negri negative
Žižek is 'very much opposed' to Negri's 'multitude' framework as a model for the future, but agrees with him that the fate of 'the commons' is the central political problem today.
Erving Goffman positive
Cited for the concept of 'staged authenticity,' which Žižek deploys to argue that authenticity today is always performed.
Peter Høeg positive
Žižek liked 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' but laments he was a 'one-hit wonder' who never produced another comparable work.
Fredric Jameson positive
Mentioned as someone Žižek visited at Duke; implicitly an intellectual ally.
Julian Assange positive
Žižek met Assange personally; regards him as a 'spy for the people' who undermines the field of secrecy itself rather than merely switching sides within the espionage game; defends him from charges of irresponsibility.
Werner Heisenberg negative
Žižek contrasts Heisenberg unfavorably with Bohr: Heisenberg thought the uncertainty principle only meant we can't measure both position and velocity, not that they are genuinely undetermined.
Mladen Dolar positive
Identified as one of the 'communist party troika of the Slovene Lacanian School,' alongside Žižek and Zupančič.
Evo Morales negative
Žižek admires the Bolivian government but mocks Morales' letter to world leaders invoking 'Mother Earth', 'capitalism killed mother earth'; his reaction: 'there was at least one good thing capitalism has done.'
Michel Foucault negative
Cited as exemplar of radical historicism and the 'episteme' approach that reduces philosophy to describing the historically specific field within which questions can be raised, leaving out the big metaphysical questions.
Richard Gere negative
Mentioned alongside Bob Geldof as part of the human rights celebrity establishment that Žižek sees as appropriating and domesticating figures like Pussy Riot.
Tim LaHaye negative
Called 'the most disgusting person you can imagine'; his 'Left Behind' series and 'Europa Conspiracy' novel reveal the American Christian fundamentalist political unconscious, where the EU is the main enemy and Arab terrorism is secondary.
Søren Kierkegaard positive
Briefly discussed as exemplifying the value of personas: Kierkegaard was aware that authenticity requires a persona that signals its own artifice; broadly admired.
Maria Alyokhina positive
Cited alongside Tolokonnikova as the Pussy Riot members Žižek is most sympathetic to.
Niels Bohr positive
Žižek sides firmly with Bohr over Einstein: Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation implies genuine ontological indeterminacy, not merely epistemic limits; also the subject of the horseshoe joke.
Mentioned as being 'in a panic' over biogenetics and the possibility that cognitive enhancement through drugs alters the premises of education and human nature.
Vladimir Putin negative
Žižek is 'no friend of Putin'; describes Putin's staged press conference with Snowden as 'obviously staged'; critical of Snowden for being instrumentalized by Putin.
Immanuel Kant positive
Invoked for the distinction between public and private use of reason; Žižek uses Kant's framework to argue that institutional speech (parliament, law) is 'private' while free philosophical debate is 'public.'
Albert Einstein negative
Cited for 'God doesn't play dice', a position Žižek treats as wrong; Heisenberg-like in refusing to draw the radical ontological consequences of quantum physics.
Werner Herzog positive
Žižek shows a Herzog film clip about the harmony of 'overwhelming and collective murder' in nature; totally agrees, calling it 'my ontology'; extends Herzog's vision by adding the quantum indeterminacy dimension.
Tony Blair negative
Cited as the purest exemplar of depoliticized liberal centrism: accept Thatcherite economics, only contest culture and healthcare.
What it argues
ontological incompleteness of the universe and quantum physicsWikiLeaks, Snowden, and the defense of public spacesurveillance, big data, and the stupidity of total controlthe disappearance of the public sphere and the privatization of politicsliberal tolerance as complicit with right-wing populismjokes and obscenity as the only honest response to catastrophethe intellectual's task: questioning how problems are framed
Dialectical moves 10
“The most dangerous unfreedom is the unfreedom you don't even experience as such.”
The inversion reveals that apparent freedom (USA vs. China) can be a deeper form of control precisely because it forecloses the recognition that is the first step toward liberation.
“They know everything at the level of data, but they don't know what this data means—they don't know what they know.”
The omniscient surveillance state is simultaneously all-seeing and completely blind: data without interpretation is not knowledge, turning the panopticon into a comedy of confusion.
“It's not that God is cheating; we can cheat God—or rather, cheat reality.”
The standard Einstein/Bohr debate is inverted: quantum physics does not show that God plays dice but that we, not God, can exploit the indeterminate virtual interval to act outside strict natural law.
“The true question about whistleblowers is not privacy but the disappearance of public space—the public sphere is being replaced by a socialized private sphere.”
Žižek inverts the standard framing: surveillance is not primarily a threat to private life but to public life, the arena of impersonal rational discourse.
“Anti-semitism is pathological even if all its factual claims were true—what makes it pathological is not factual error but psychic structure.”
The pathology of paranoid ideology cannot be refuted by correcting its facts; its disease lies in the role the fantasy of the enemy plays in the subject's psychic economy.
“Far from being a sign of backward countries, right-wing fundamentalism and populism are products of global capitalism itself—Afghanistan was more tolerant before it was integrated into global politics.”
The inversion attacks civilizational progressivism: modernity and global capitalism generate the very fundamentalism attributed to pre-modern backwardness.
“The only way to be authentic today is to have a persona that signals 'I am not that.'”
Authenticity in a world of staged authenticity requires the distance of persona rather than the drop of the mask; genuine selfhood is achieved through artifice, not sincerity.
“God underestimated us—he only programmed reality down to the atomic level, expecting we'd never go deeper, but we surprised him.”
A playful inversion of creationist teleology: quantum indeterminacy is not divine mystery but divine miscalculation, and human science has outwitted the creator.
“To understand a country, you don't study its history first—you read its literature and films, and through them you understand the country.”
Inverts the historicist hermeneutic: cultural works are not expressions of historical context but the lens through which historical reality becomes legible.
“People don't want governments to stop doing dirty things—they want them done discreetly so they can maintain the appearance of not knowing.”
Inverts democratic idealism: the public demand is not transparency but deniability, a consensual 'don't tell me' that is the real social contract of liberal governance.
Claims 18
asserts
The most dangerous form of unfreedom is unfreedom you do not experience as such, as in the US where people feel free while being thoroughly regulated.surveillance and the illusion of freedom
reframes
WikiLeaks and Snowden did not reveal anything factually new; their significance is that the publicly known-but-ignored surveillance became impossible to ignore.WikiLeaks and Snowden
asserts
Surveillance systems collect vast data but are fundamentally stupid—they don't know what their data means—so total paranoia about control is not warranted.NSA-style mass surveillance
reframes
The true problem of surveillance is not the loss of privacy but the collapse of genuine public space, which is being replaced by a privatized confessional sphere.whistleblowers and privacy
asserts
Whistleblowers like Assange and Snowden are justified because they defend the intellectual and informational commons, not merely because of anti-American sentiment.WikiLeaks and whistleblowing
asserts
Capitalism with Asian values is a new form of capitalism that is dynamic but no longer requires liberal democracy, threatening the historical coupling of capitalism and democracy.capitalism and democracy
asserts
Right-wing populism and anti-immigrant nationalism are not merely survivals of the past but products of global capitalism itself, complicit with liberal tolerance.populism and global capitalism
asserts
The liberal centrist strategy of uniting against right-wingers while leaving capitalist structures intact is insufficient—only the left can address the root cause of populism.anti-fascist liberal strategy
reframes
Anti-semitism is pathological not because its factual claims are necessarily false but because of the psychic structure that absolutely requires the figure of the Jew.antisemitism and paranoia
asserts
The ontological lesson of quantum physics is not merely epistemic uncertainty (Heisenberg) but genuine indeterminacy in reality itself (Bohr): the universe is ontologically unfinished.quantum physics and ontology
asserts
The task of materialism today is to think the unfinished, open character of the universe without recourse to God.materialism and quantum physics
rejects
Nature is not a balanced 'Mother Earth' that capitalism disturbs; it is itself catastrophic and unbalanced, making deep ecology ideologically misleading.deep ecology and the ideology of natural balance
asserts
People in democracies do not actually want their governments to stop doing 'dirty' things; they want them done discretely, without being forced to confront them.democratic public opinion and state violence
asserts
A genuine intellectual does not provide expert answers to problems already framed by power, but questions the very way problems are described.the role of the intellectual
asserts
The Bologna reform is fundamentally an attack on the public use of reason, eliminating useless humanistic education in favor of marketable expertise.university education and Bologna reform
asserts
All really useful ideas have historically come as byproducts of useless debates—we need public spaces for unconstrained inquiry.public space and knowledge
rejects
Radical historicism (Foucault's episteme approach) leaves out the big metaphysical questions, which then return violently in popular science.Foucauldian historicism and philosophy
asserts
The financial crisis of 2008 was not mere capitalist chaos but a deliberately planned operation by major banks.the 2008 financial crisis
Quotes 16
“The most dangerous unfreedom is unfreedom which you don't even experience as such.”Slavoj Žižek · invisible unfreedom
“They know maybe at the level of data, but they don't know what this data means.”Slavoj Žižek · stupidity of surveillance
“The true problem today is rather the opposite one—the public sphere proper is disappearing; it is more and more structured as a socialized private sphere.”Slavoj Žižek · collapse of public sphere
“All good feelings about concentration camps, holocaust are comedy. Because to do a tragedy would be to concede to the Nazis already too much.”Slavoj Žižek · comedy as the only honest form for atrocity
“The only way to be authentic is to have a persona, but of course signal I am not that.”Slavoj Žižek · authenticity through persona
“Let the big other watch me. Maybe he will learn something and be less stupid, you know.”Slavoj Žižek · defiance of surveillance
“A true intellectual doesn't provide answers to problems formulated by others. He questions the very way a problem is described.”Slavoj Žižek · the intellectual's role
“Mother earth is a bitch. It's a nightmare. Look at it.”Slavoj Žižek · nature is not in balance
“What you think something, it happens in the reality. The problem is that what goes out goes in also.”Slavoj Žižek · brain-computer interface and the end of inner freedom
“Secrecy became public. We can no longer pretend that we can ignore it. We are forced to accept it.”Slavoj Žižek · WikiLeaks: not new information but forced acknowledgment
“People don't want to decide. People want the appearance to decide, but they want someone to clearly tell them how to choose.”Slavoj Žižek · democracy as desire for guided choice
“I don't believe in it, but fuck it, maybe it will work, you know. This would be my idea of Europe.”Slavoj Žižek · cynical belief in Europe
“All really, even in the long term useful ideas came as a byproduct of useless debates. We need this type of public space where everything can be questioned.”Slavoj Žižek · useless debate as source of knowledge
“WikiLeaks, snowden, pussy riot—aspects of the same struggle, which is struggle for public space precisely, emancipation of public space.”Slavoj Žižek · whistleblowers as struggle for commons
“The task of materialism today is to think this unfinished character of the universe without God.”Slavoj Žižek · materialist ontology and quantum physics
“In China at least there is one thing—no one has the illusion that they are free. They know very well the party determines what you can and cannot do.”Slavoj Žižek · transparent vs. invisible oppression
Transcript 143 turns
Paul Holdengräber
thank you so much for that introduction, that warm introduction. let me thank the president erland kolding nielsen, bette thomas and mathias ollander, and of course, most warmly lise bach hansen for inviting me back to copenhagen, a city that i've learned to love. and last year we spoke about kierkegaard and this year we'll speak about kierkegaard as well. with sl. right this is a surprise to you, but i figured we would do that. now slavoj. first of all, i don't know if you can see there on the screen, we have what is called the helix nebula. the eye of god. it's a planetary nebula formed at the end of star' evolution. and the people here thought that this would be an interesting image to have up while we were speaking.
thank you so much for that introduction, that warm introduction. let me thank the president erland kolding nielsen, bette thomas and mathias ollander, and of course, most warmly lise bach hansen for inviting me back to copenhagen, a city that i've learned to love. and last year we spoke about kierkegaard and this year we'll speak about kierkegaard as well. with sl. right this is a surprise to you, but i figured we would do that. now slavoj. first of all, i don't know if you can see there on the screen, we have what is called the helix nebula. the eye of god. it's a planetary nebula formed at the end of star' evolution. and the people here thought that this would be an interesting image to have up while we were speaking.
Slavoj Žižek
right. i don't know. das.
right. i don't know. das.
Paul Holdengräber
the eye of god is interesting to me. sorry, the eye of god. interesting.
the eye of god is interesting to me. sorry, the eye of god. interesting.
Slavoj Žižek
hmm.
hmm.
Paul Holdengräber
okay.
okay.
Slavoj Žižek
now, but we can connect this directly later with our topic because i think that for me, don't be afraid, i will not talk for half an hour as i usually do, but no, no, no.
now, but we can connect this directly later with our topic because i think that for me, don't be afraid, i will not talk for half an hour as i usually do, but no, no, no.
Paul Holdengräber
i'm not
i'm not
Slavoj Žižek
no, no, what i'm saying is that... first, i am extremely honored to be here. denmark is a great country and not only because of borgen, the tv series and so on. but but look
no, no, what i'm saying is that... first, i am extremely honored to be here. denmark is a great country and not only because of borgen, the tv series and so on. but but look
Paul Holdengräber
but also very much salute yeah.
but also very much salute yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
but look, there are so many things i love about denmark. let's forget about the obvious hits like lego, kirkegaard and so on. but then you, sometimes i even had to remind my danish friends that i think that already late 20s and then 30s, denmark was a superpower in cinema. it was one of the, it has a big driving in cinematography. it was only so that's what i like. and although this may be almost embarrassing for you because he is your big name, i do like von trier, although not all of von trier. i hate idiots. i think it's the film for the people who are mentioned in the title. but for example, his first film, his first film, or maybe the first famous one, europa. i think it's... tremendous. and one of the last ones, melancholia, i think, and i don't mean this as a bad taste joke. it. i'm not kidding. in a way, a profoundly satisfying, happy movie. i feel like this. life is shit, dirt and so on. happy ending. i really love tremendously that movie. with nymphomaniac, you know, as you americans say about intellectuals, sometimes it seems to me von trier wants to be too bright for his own good. you know i mean like all that philosophical, but i like this and i like, of course, everybody likes, copenhagen theory, niels bohr and so on, who i think won against einstein and so on up to i'm so sad he was a one-hit wonder your writer peter høeg, smilla's sense of snow. i like the novel. where is he now? he didn't do it. so back to the point later if you want. when you mention this god and so on. i think the lessons of quantum physics about what god see, what god doesn't see. you know, that famous remark of einstein against quantum physics, god doesn't cheat, god doesn't play dice and so on. and you probably know that niels bohr gave einstein a wonderful answer, which was, don't tell god what to do and so on, you know. it immediately touches on our topic. what does it ontologically mean? so i'm glad that i'm here in denmark. oh. but of course, i didn't mention your greatest, maybe contribution, now you get my usual obscene joke, of danish cinema to world culture. when i was very young, before hardcore pornography was popular, maybe some of you are old enough to remember in the 60s, there were these stupid sexual comedies, softcore, you know. i remember one like mazurka in the bed, you know. it was so popular. a guy gets all the women and then they inquire why? because boom he does it in the rhythm of mazurka and so on. it's embarrassing but that's my fond memory of denmark also.
but look, there are so many things i love about denmark. let's forget about the obvious hits like lego, kirkegaard and so on. but then you, sometimes i even had to remind my danish friends that i think that already late 20s and then 30s, denmark was a superpower in cinema. it was one of the, it has a big driving in cinematography. it was only so that's what i like. and although this may be almost embarrassing for you because he is your big name, i do like von trier, although not all of von trier. i hate idiots. i think it's the film for the people who are mentioned in the title. but for example, his first film, his first film, or maybe the first famous one, europa. i think it's... tremendous. and one of the last ones, melancholia, i think, and i don't mean this as a bad taste joke. it. i'm not kidding. in a way, a profoundly satisfying, happy movie. i feel like this. life is shit, dirt and so on. happy ending. i really love tremendously that movie. with nymphomaniac, you know, as you americans say about intellectuals, sometimes it seems to me von trier wants to be too bright for his own good. you know i mean like all that philosophical, but i like this and i like, of course, everybody likes, copenhagen theory, niels bohr and so on, who i think won against einstein and so on up to i'm so sad he was a one-hit wonder your writer peter høeg, smilla's sense of snow. i like the novel. where is he now? he didn't do it. so back to the point later if you want. when you mention this god and so on. i think the lessons of quantum physics about what god see, what god doesn't see. you know, that famous remark of einstein against quantum physics, god doesn't cheat, god doesn't play dice and so on. and you probably know that niels bohr gave einstein a wonderful answer, which was, don't tell god what to do and so on, you know. it immediately touches on our topic. what does it ontologically mean? so i'm glad that i'm here in denmark. oh. but of course, i didn't mention your greatest, maybe contribution, now you get my usual obscene joke, of danish cinema to world culture. when i was very young, before hardcore pornography was popular, maybe some of you are old enough to remember in the 60s, there were these stupid sexual comedies, softcore, you know. i remember one like mazurka in the bed, you know. it was so popular. a guy gets all the women and then they inquire why? because boom he does it in the rhythm of mazurka and so on. it's embarrassing but that's my fond memory of denmark also.
Paul Holdengräber
denmark is a country of many differences. so now, what do i mean by this total platitude? what i i'd like to show you now is something that came to my mind before we get to our topic, but might take us back into the stars. you have said that you didn't see any harmony. in this world. and you said, i don't think there's any natural order, natural orders. are catastrophic. so let's look at clip number one.
denmark is a country of many differences. so now, what do i mean by this total platitude? what i i'd like to show you now is something that came to my mind before we get to our topic, but might take us back into the stars. you have said that you didn't see any harmony. in this world. and you said, i don't think there's any natural order, natural orders. are catastrophic. so let's look at clip number one.
Werner Herzog (film clip)
it's an unfinished country. it's still pre-historical. the only thing that is lacking is the dinosaurs here. it's like a curse weighing on an entire landscape. and whoever goes too deep into this has his share of that curse. so we are cursed with what we are doing here. it's a land that god, if he exists, has created in anger. it's the only land where where creation is unfinished yet. taking a close look at what's around us, there is some sort of harmony this. the harmony of... overwhelming and collective murder. and we in comparison to the articulate vileness and baseness and obscenity. of all this chunking. we in comparison to that enormous articulation we only sound and look like. badly pronounced and half-finished sentences out of a stupid suburban novel, a cheap novel. and we have to become humble. in front of this overwhelming misery and overwhelming fornication. overwhelming growth. and overwhelming lack of order. even the stars up here in the sky look like a mess. there is no harmony in the universe. we have to get acquainted to this idea that there is no real harmony as we... have conceived it but when i say this, i say this all full of admiration for the jungle. it is not that i hate it. i love it. i love it very much. but i love it against my better judgment.
it's an unfinished country. it's still pre-historical. the only thing that is lacking is the dinosaurs here. it's like a curse weighing on an entire landscape. and whoever goes too deep into this has his share of that curse. so we are cursed with what we are doing here. it's a land that god, if he exists, has created in anger. it's the only land where where creation is unfinished yet. taking a close look at what's around us, there is some sort of harmony this. the harmony of... overwhelming and collective murder. and we in comparison to the articulate vileness and baseness and obscenity. of all this chunking. we in comparison to that enormous articulation we only sound and look like. badly pronounced and half-finished sentences out of a stupid suburban novel, a cheap novel. and we have to become humble. in front of this overwhelming misery and overwhelming fornication. overwhelming growth. and overwhelming lack of order. even the stars up here in the sky look like a mess. there is no harmony in the universe. we have to get acquainted to this idea that there is no real harmony as we... have conceived it but when i say this, i say this all full of admiration for the jungle. it is not that i hate it. i love it. i love it very much. but i love it against my better judgment.
Slavoj Žižek
what can i say? i totally agree. this is my ontology. and since one of your famous interviews was also with david lynch. what i immensely liked from the very beginning in david lynch's world how he usually begins a film, a short, a scene with sometimes even kitschy beautiful image like blue velvet you know our average middle class notion of paradise the american suburbia upper middle class villas then you remember that wonderful scene in beginning after a father's heart attack or whatever camera just approaches grass gets too close to it and then you see all this dimension that werner herzog is mentioning, this crawling access of life and so on and so on. and i think also i also like the expression, very precise one that god didn't finish the creation of the world. now i have here so many things to say.
what can i say? i totally agree. this is my ontology. and since one of your famous interviews was also with david lynch. what i immensely liked from the very beginning in david lynch's world how he usually begins a film, a short, a scene with sometimes even kitschy beautiful image like blue velvet you know our average middle class notion of paradise the american suburbia upper middle class villas then you remember that wonderful scene in beginning after a father's heart attack or whatever camera just approaches grass gets too close to it and then you see all this dimension that werner herzog is mentioning, this crawling access of life and so on and so on. and i think also i also like the expression, very precise one that god didn't finish the creation of the world. now i have here so many things to say.
Paul Holdengräber
i.
i.
Slavoj Žižek
of the definition of madmen, you know, they always have, that i would love to develop here very briefly. maybe you know this line, maybe, but why this is so important. i think that this brings us to in some sense to quantum physics. even now scientists struggle with what are the so-called ontological consequences? of quantum physics because the copenhagen interpretation simply basically says who cares. the important thing is that the mathematic words don't ask the ontological questions. but i think we can tell something more. in an introduction to philosophy, i even forgot who is the author, popular book, i found this wonderful metaphor. it says that, you know, this idea of ontological indeterminacy, the point is not as here your guy, niels bohr was much brighter than heisenberg. heisenberg thought that uncertainty principle means simply we cannot measure.
of the definition of madmen, you know, they always have, that i would love to develop here very briefly. maybe you know this line, maybe, but why this is so important. i think that this brings us to in some sense to quantum physics. even now scientists struggle with what are the so-called ontological consequences? of quantum physics because the copenhagen interpretation simply basically says who cares. the important thing is that the mathematic words don't ask the ontological questions. but i think we can tell something more. in an introduction to philosophy, i even forgot who is the author, popular book, i found this wonderful metaphor. it says that, you know, this idea of ontological indeterminacy, the point is not as here your guy, niels bohr was much brighter than heisenberg. heisenberg thought that uncertainty principle means simply we cannot measure.
Paul Holdengräber
both, no, position and velocity, whatever.
both, no, position and velocity, whatever.
Slavoj Žižek
but heisenberg still oscillated didn't want to draw the radical consequence. it's not only that we cannot measure it, it's that in itself it's not determined. in other words, it's as if we can do even something more. that would be my correction of werner herzog. you get close, too close to reality, you see all this disgusting, crawling, excessive life, and then you get even closer and you simply see holes, you know. like world world is not fully created, but also the world is not in balance. yeah, of course, but why? it's not imbalance? not in a pseudo-orientalist way, not because there is eternal struggle of yin-y yang, masculine-femin principle, but precisely because it's not ontologically complete. let me tell you the metaphor. you will like it. you remember if you are civilized like me and play is computer games. you know how the games are programmed. let's say you do the usual stuff killing, driving, whatever racing, and there is a house or a tree, a forest in the background. that forest is not fully programmed. why? because it's not part of the game that you can go there, you know. so it's just vaguely, just outlines. you cannot go there. now... the idea is that. something similar is the lesson of quantum physics. that... to put it just a wonderful joking interpretation that god underestimated us. when god created the world, he programmed the world and he thought, okay, people are too stupid to reach beyond the atoms. so i will just perfectly program it to the atom. then i will leave it undetermined there. finished. but we did it, no? we moved we as it were god with his bench down. so we surprised god. we surprised but now comes comes the point, the true difficulty. the true task of materialism today is to think this unfinished character of the universe without god. that you know, in itself, it's unfinished, open. and this brings us to the image you saw. before because you know this debate einstein niels bhr, can you... like does god cheat and so on? i think the answer of quantum physics here is clear. no, it's not that god is cheating. we can cheat god. reality. you know, because the idea is this one. you have the collapse of wave functions and so on and so on, but if you know a little bit, and i know it in a very amateurish way. quantum phys. its basic lesson is that in this tiny temporal interval when something happens as a virtuality, but before it's registered, fully constituted, something can emerge and do its job. even violate natural laws and then it disappears again before it's known that in this way you can, as it were, ontologically cheat. what this means, insofar as god is the big other who watches us all, is that what quantum physics calls the field of quantum oscillation virtualities, it's precisely a field which god doesn't control.
but heisenberg still oscillated didn't want to draw the radical consequence. it's not only that we cannot measure it, it's that in itself it's not determined. in other words, it's as if we can do even something more. that would be my correction of werner herzog. you get close, too close to reality, you see all this disgusting, crawling, excessive life, and then you get even closer and you simply see holes, you know. like world world is not fully created, but also the world is not in balance. yeah, of course, but why? it's not imbalance? not in a pseudo-orientalist way, not because there is eternal struggle of yin-y yang, masculine-femin principle, but precisely because it's not ontologically complete. let me tell you the metaphor. you will like it. you remember if you are civilized like me and play is computer games. you know how the games are programmed. let's say you do the usual stuff killing, driving, whatever racing, and there is a house or a tree, a forest in the background. that forest is not fully programmed. why? because it's not part of the game that you can go there, you know. so it's just vaguely, just outlines. you cannot go there. now... the idea is that. something similar is the lesson of quantum physics. that... to put it just a wonderful joking interpretation that god underestimated us. when god created the world, he programmed the world and he thought, okay, people are too stupid to reach beyond the atoms. so i will just perfectly program it to the atom. then i will leave it undetermined there. finished. but we did it, no? we moved we as it were god with his bench down. so we surprised god. we surprised but now comes comes the point, the true difficulty. the true task of materialism today is to think this unfinished character of the universe without god. that you know, in itself, it's unfinished, open. and this brings us to the image you saw. before because you know this debate einstein niels bhr, can you... like does god cheat and so on? i think the answer of quantum physics here is clear. no, it's not that god is cheating. we can cheat god. reality. you know, because the idea is this one. you have the collapse of wave functions and so on and so on, but if you know a little bit, and i know it in a very amateurish way. quantum phys. its basic lesson is that in this tiny temporal interval when something happens as a virtuality, but before it's registered, fully constituted, something can emerge and do its job. even violate natural laws and then it disappears again before it's known that in this way you can, as it were, ontologically cheat. what this means, insofar as god is the big other who watches us all, is that what quantum physics calls the field of quantum oscillation virtualities, it's precisely a field which god doesn't control.
Paul Holdengräber
now, to come to our topic somewhat, there. we are already there. but you know,
now, to come to our topic somewhat, there. we are already there. but you know,
Slavoj Žižek
i'm disappointed by you. .
i'm disappointed by you. .
Paul Holdengräber
so quickly.
so quickly.
Slavoj Žižek
it's hope. now it can move only upwards.
it's hope. now it can move only upwards.
Paul Holdengräber
okay, you know, you were mentioning lynch. it was interesting to talk to him about that very beginning of blue velvet, but also with some other movies.
okay, you know, you were mentioning lynch. it was interesting to talk to him about that very beginning of blue velvet, but also with some other movies.
Slavoj Žižek
you know,osh know. i. down, down, down and sees the crawling. once even on the tv screen in one of the, i think, is it one of twin peaks where you know you see a nice effect in the other. you see some totally abstract stains and then camera goes slowly back and you see simply the tv screen.
you know,osh know. i. down, down, down and sees the crawling. once even on the tv screen in one of the, i think, is it one of twin peaks where you know you see a nice effect in the other. you see some totally abstract stains and then camera goes slowly back and you see simply the tv screen.
Paul Holdengräber
you're know. but, you know, it was interesting to ask him, when did he start to see? under the grass, all these crawling monsters and all these crawling beasts. and his answer was extraordinary. he said to me, i had a happy childhood.
you're know. but, you know, it was interesting to ask him, when did he start to see? under the grass, all these crawling monsters and all these crawling beasts. and his answer was extraordinary. he said to me, i had a happy childhood.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, because i tend to agree with this because you know what happens when we enter this obscene area at the beginning of blue velvet? father has a heart attack. that's conditional.
yeah, because i tend to agree with this because you know what happens when we enter this obscene area at the beginning of blue velvet? father has a heart attack. that's conditional.
Paul Holdengräber
happy.
happy.
Slavoj Žižek
be.
be.
Paul Holdengräber
yeah, i thought you might say that. now, very quickly. i'd like to ask you a succession of questions.
yeah, i thought you might say that. now, very quickly. i'd like to ask you a succession of questions.
Slavoj Žižek
now comes what they call in police jargon the third, you will give me a third degree, no? yes, exactly..
now comes what they call in police jargon the third, you will give me a third degree, no? yes, exactly..
Paul Holdengräber
you believe that philosophy rather than solving problems should enable us to ask the right questions. and given tonight's topic, let me fire off a few questions to you and have you react. what questions should we be asking? real questions. should we be asking about whistleblowers? and privacy. is government surveillance. really? a problem. what? way it's the right way. to formulate the problem. and how did we arrive? at this mess.
you believe that philosophy rather than solving problems should enable us to ask the right questions. and given tonight's topic, let me fire off a few questions to you and have you react. what questions should we be asking? real questions. should we be asking about whistleblowers? and privacy. is government surveillance. really? a problem. what? way it's the right way. to formulate the problem. and how did we arrive? at this mess.
Slavoj Žižek
at this juncture. oh my god, you are evil, you know, because now to answer this properly, it would take today's and tomorrow's session but we have time, go ahead. okay, first let me begin with maybe a more philosophical note, which i hope you will find stimulating. i hate this word. but, you know, today it's fashionable to say like no longer big metaphysical questions we need to ask, like, no, do we have a right to philosophize when children are starving in somalia, you know, this type of questioning. i claim no. if there is a lesson of what goes on in human sciences, social sciences, natural sciences, that precisely we have to return to so-called big shamelessly. metaphysical questions. in the last decades, and this, if anything, postmodernism means, the predominant orientation was so-called discursive by this i mean simply discourse. logic of different discourses. historism. like if you spoke with any of like from in a much more complex way, even heidegger philosophers, and you ask him, what is this? is this really a glass of water? he would have said. it depends from what discursive context are you raising this question, you know. and as least all that we can say is, and michel foucault did this in a more radical way with his notion of episteme and so on. the highest we can reach in our reflection is to describe. the historically specific discursive field within which questions can be raised. and then it doesn't even matter how you answer them. like if you ask me, does man have an immortal soul? if i were to be a foucauldian, i would say, wait a minute, within which discourse field it's even possible to answer this question, sorry, to ask, to raise this question. but i think this radical historicicism eh. leave something out, which is why what was left out from philosophy returned violently in popular science, stephen hawking, brain sciences and so on. i think people look, there, why do people read stephen hawking? not for pure scientific value of his works. most of his readers don't even know what he's talking about. but precisely to find questions to find answers or hints of answers to these big metaphysical questions that were left out by philosophy. is the universe finite or infinite or why do we read dennet and so on? do we have a free or not and so on and so on. and i think i don't like this duality. on the one hand this purely discursive analysis. i can just describe the field of meaning within which your question has. can function. this brutal naturalism. here philosophy, here we need return to philosophy. what you mentioned there, it's a very good question because
at this juncture. oh my god, you are evil, you know, because now to answer this properly, it would take today's and tomorrow's session but we have time, go ahead. okay, first let me begin with maybe a more philosophical note, which i hope you will find stimulating. i hate this word. but, you know, today it's fashionable to say like no longer big metaphysical questions we need to ask, like, no, do we have a right to philosophize when children are starving in somalia, you know, this type of questioning. i claim no. if there is a lesson of what goes on in human sciences, social sciences, natural sciences, that precisely we have to return to so-called big shamelessly. metaphysical questions. in the last decades, and this, if anything, postmodernism means, the predominant orientation was so-called discursive by this i mean simply discourse. logic of different discourses. historism. like if you spoke with any of like from in a much more complex way, even heidegger philosophers, and you ask him, what is this? is this really a glass of water? he would have said. it depends from what discursive context are you raising this question, you know. and as least all that we can say is, and michel foucault did this in a more radical way with his notion of episteme and so on. the highest we can reach in our reflection is to describe. the historically specific discursive field within which questions can be raised. and then it doesn't even matter how you answer them. like if you ask me, does man have an immortal soul? if i were to be a foucauldian, i would say, wait a minute, within which discourse field it's even possible to answer this question, sorry, to ask, to raise this question. but i think this radical historicicism eh. leave something out, which is why what was left out from philosophy returned violently in popular science, stephen hawking, brain sciences and so on. i think people look, there, why do people read stephen hawking? not for pure scientific value of his works. most of his readers don't even know what he's talking about. but precisely to find questions to find answers or hints of answers to these big metaphysical questions that were left out by philosophy. is the universe finite or infinite or why do we read dennet and so on? do we have a free or not and so on and so on. and i think i don't like this duality. on the one hand this purely discursive analysis. i can just describe the field of meaning within which your question has. can function. this brutal naturalism. here philosophy, here we need return to philosophy. what you mentioned there, it's a very good question because
Paul Holdengräber
snow. i relieved sorry i feel relieved that i've asked you but you have not saved i already
snow. i relieved sorry i feel relieved that i've asked you but you have not saved i already
Slavoj Žižek
told you when i or people take over you still go to gulag that's true from my moscow office i will call them so that because you are my friend yeah every sunday you know what did they get in gulak the disgusting cabbage soup with some rotten fishes you will get a double portion of that thank you you can count on my
told you when i or people take over you still go to gulag that's true from my moscow office i will call them so that because you are my friend yeah every sunday you know what did they get in gulak the disgusting cabbage soup with some rotten fishes you will get a double portion of that thank you you can count on my
Paul Holdengräber
no, no, you're a very good friend. now, answer question.
no, no, you're a very good friend. now, answer question.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, go. okay, okay, now, with me, i am kgb here. sorry, let's go on. no, more seriously. precisely what you mentioned, whistleblowers, assange and so on, no? i claim that. the reason i support them, assange and all his colleagues, is not because of a simple anti-americanism, know i think it's extremely important that we don't. reduce this wikileaks phenomenon to anti-americanism. so it's not american bashing. no, no, no, no. if anything. listen, let's be fair. you know, the first reaction of an honest critic should be always to give to the devil conceit what belongs to the devil. that is to say, do you remember, unfortunately now he's half-forgotten manning, chelsea manning now. can you even imagine someone like manning in russia or in china? we wouldn't even hear about him. probably he'd be killed immediately. he and his family and his second uncles, whatever would all disappear. but why then it's nonetheless important to follow what snowden, assange are doing? so what does it mean? when you say you support them. i support them. i mean, what they are doing is something extremely important. why let ethical. ethical. absolutely. but i'll tell you why. i mean you'll coming to the point. because listen, in china, of course, china is incredibly more oppressive. of course, if i were to choose where would you prefer to leave china or united states, i would prefer united states. maybe not some small village in the bible belt, but new york and so on. but you know what? in china, at least there is one thing. no one has the illusion that they are free. they know very well the party there determines you can, you cannot and so on. so. but the horror of horror, okay, the danger of united states, and this is what we learned from wikileaks, from snowden especially, is that you can have a country where people basically experience themselves as totally free, basically at least. you know, you do whatever you want. and nonetheless, you can be pretty much totally regulated, controlled, and so on and so on. the most dangerous unfreedom is unfedom. which which you don't even experience as such. if some of you are feminists, and even if i engage regularly in bad taste anti-feminist jokes, i am a feminist. every good feminist will tell you that the first step of woman's liberation is just to realize your situation of oppression. you know. the first step of feminine liberation is when you say, no, my role that i play is not something natural, it's the result of oppression and so on and so on. so we need something similar here. that's the first point. the second point. as you... indicate that. i'm a little bit scept about this paranoia, o, we are totally controlled and so on and so on. i think that we shouldn't take these too seriously. and this doesn't make the situation any easier.
yeah, go. okay, okay, now, with me, i am kgb here. sorry, let's go on. no, more seriously. precisely what you mentioned, whistleblowers, assange and so on, no? i claim that. the reason i support them, assange and all his colleagues, is not because of a simple anti-americanism, know i think it's extremely important that we don't. reduce this wikileaks phenomenon to anti-americanism. so it's not american bashing. no, no, no, no. if anything. listen, let's be fair. you know, the first reaction of an honest critic should be always to give to the devil conceit what belongs to the devil. that is to say, do you remember, unfortunately now he's half-forgotten manning, chelsea manning now. can you even imagine someone like manning in russia or in china? we wouldn't even hear about him. probably he'd be killed immediately. he and his family and his second uncles, whatever would all disappear. but why then it's nonetheless important to follow what snowden, assange are doing? so what does it mean? when you say you support them. i support them. i mean, what they are doing is something extremely important. why let ethical. ethical. absolutely. but i'll tell you why. i mean you'll coming to the point. because listen, in china, of course, china is incredibly more oppressive. of course, if i were to choose where would you prefer to leave china or united states, i would prefer united states. maybe not some small village in the bible belt, but new york and so on. but you know what? in china, at least there is one thing. no one has the illusion that they are free. they know very well the party there determines you can, you cannot and so on. so. but the horror of horror, okay, the danger of united states, and this is what we learned from wikileaks, from snowden especially, is that you can have a country where people basically experience themselves as totally free, basically at least. you know, you do whatever you want. and nonetheless, you can be pretty much totally regulated, controlled, and so on and so on. the most dangerous unfreedom is unfedom. which which you don't even experience as such. if some of you are feminists, and even if i engage regularly in bad taste anti-feminist jokes, i am a feminist. every good feminist will tell you that the first step of woman's liberation is just to realize your situation of oppression. you know. the first step of feminine liberation is when you say, no, my role that i play is not something natural, it's the result of oppression and so on and so on. so we need something similar here. that's the first point. the second point. as you... indicate that. i'm a little bit scept about this paranoia, o, we are totally controlled and so on and so on. i think that we shouldn't take these too seriously. and this doesn't make the situation any easier.
Paul Holdengräber
if anything, it makes the situation even more... so you're saying that the paranoia is not justified? it is justified, but
if anything, it makes the situation even more... so you're saying that the paranoia is not justified? it is justified, but
Slavoj Žižek
be be aware that if again we go into theological meta debt. paranoia, yes, a divine like nsa, the big eye, knows everything. but at the same time, this mega machinery is extremely stupid. they don't know what they know.
be be aware that if again we go into theological meta debt. paranoia, yes, a divine like nsa, the big eye, knows everything. but at the same time, this mega machinery is extremely stupid. they don't know what they know.
Paul Holdengräber
this makes it even more dangerous. a mega machine being.
this makes it even more dangerous. a mega machine being.
Slavoj Žižek
i mean, all these ultracomputers of big data. yeah, yeah. they don't know what... do you remember, this is a very superficial anecdote, but it's indicative. do you remember what happened? i think a couple of months ago to a guy from la, it was reported in all the media. he was searching on, he was googling the ways to kill your wife, something like that. a couple of days afterwards, fbi... brutally entered his house, arrested him blah blah blah. why? because google who collaborates with google reported thisno to fbi fbi but you know what was the result? this guy was one of the you know all the sh cisis police investigation. he was simply writing a scenario and wanted to check, you know. and you have this again and again or from china they told me a wonderful example of this stupidity. a guy just before 10 anniversary. a guy was professor english in beijing was flirting with a lady in london. and since they were both educated, he used a wonderful quote from shakespeare. because you know in elizabethan england, the verb protest meant also, even principally, i publicly declare. and he quoted to her, i protest my love to you. the conversation was cut short because the verb protest was prohibited associations with yen and mien. what i find so ridiculous is that if the guy were to be extremely vulgar and told the lady something like, i will fuck your brain out, whatever, everything would be okay. you quote shakespeare, you know, and this is a real.
i mean, all these ultracomputers of big data. yeah, yeah. they don't know what... do you remember, this is a very superficial anecdote, but it's indicative. do you remember what happened? i think a couple of months ago to a guy from la, it was reported in all the media. he was searching on, he was googling the ways to kill your wife, something like that. a couple of days afterwards, fbi... brutally entered his house, arrested him blah blah blah. why? because google who collaborates with google reported thisno to fbi fbi but you know what was the result? this guy was one of the you know all the sh cisis police investigation. he was simply writing a scenario and wanted to check, you know. and you have this again and again or from china they told me a wonderful example of this stupidity. a guy just before 10 anniversary. a guy was professor english in beijing was flirting with a lady in london. and since they were both educated, he used a wonderful quote from shakespeare. because you know in elizabethan england, the verb protest meant also, even principally, i publicly declare. and he quoted to her, i protest my love to you. the conversation was cut short because the verb protest was prohibited associations with yen and mien. what i find so ridiculous is that if the guy were to be extremely vulgar and told the lady something like, i will fuck your brain out, whatever, everything would be okay. you quote shakespeare, you know, and this is a real.
Paul Holdengräber
i spoke with the true problem here is education. yeah, but of those who control.
i spoke with the true problem here is education. yeah, but of those who control.
Slavoj Žižek
us mean, you know the computers just give you immense amount of data and you can play with it. i think this may render such let me give you an example. when i was younger i was a half dissident half i was not a hero. i just couldn't get a job, but i was not arrested, tortured. okay we had some meetings and we did something which afterwards we realized friends told us who knew some secret policemen. slovenia is a small country. everyone knew everyone it it worked. we knew our meetings were controlled by i mean taped wired. listened to by police no? so we didn't hide anything just at the end of every conversation we did a short imitation of ridiculously clichliche, secret coded speech. you know all this. like at the end i said, mother baked a good apple pie. you know, this ridiculous coach. and afterwards we learned that this got them totally paranoiac, what this means and so on. so don't be too afraid. even if they listen to anything, they are stupid. those in power. i don't fear this.
us mean, you know the computers just give you immense amount of data and you can play with it. i think this may render such let me give you an example. when i was younger i was a half dissident half i was not a hero. i just couldn't get a job, but i was not arrested, tortured. okay we had some meetings and we did something which afterwards we realized friends told us who knew some secret policemen. slovenia is a small country. everyone knew everyone it it worked. we knew our meetings were controlled by i mean taped wired. listened to by police no? so we didn't hide anything just at the end of every conversation we did a short imitation of ridiculously clichliche, secret coded speech. you know all this. like at the end i said, mother baked a good apple pie. you know, this ridiculous coach. and afterwards we learned that this got them totally paranoiac, what this means and so on. so don't be too afraid. even if they listen to anything, they are stupid. those in power. i don't fear this.
Paul Holdengräber
so what are the right questions to ask about whistleblowers? i mean, because we haven't gotten.
so what are the right questions to ask about whistleblowers? i mean, because we haven't gotten.
Slavoj Žižek
okay.
okay.
Paul Holdengräber
no, but first, no, no, let me.
no, but first, no, no, let me.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, one instead of, this would be the first correction, instead of just this paranoia in the sense of, oh my god, they know everything, because they don't. they know maybe at the level of data, but they don't know what this data means.
okay, one instead of, this would be the first correction, instead of just this paranoia in the sense of, oh my god, they know everything, because they don't. they know maybe at the level of data, but they don't know what this data means.
Paul Holdengräber
so they don't know.
so they don't know.
Slavoj Žižek
to do. but on the other hand, this is not just good news. this can also mean that you are a totally innocent citizen, innocent even by their standards, but nonetheless you are classified as a potential terrorist and so on and so on. it's a much more kafkaes-esque situation you know. so this is the first thing to do. the second thing to we already talked about it. the second way we should correct the usual perception is that usually we take all this whistleblower stuff as protecting our privacy. oh my god, all our private secrets are public. there is no privacy. i think, and from what i know you also, and many intelligent people know this. the true problem today is rather the opposite one. that the public sphere proper is disappearing the public sphere is more and more structured or functions like. a socialized private sphere. you know, even politicians, they talk like making confession
to do. but on the other hand, this is not just good news. this can also mean that you are a totally innocent citizen, innocent even by their standards, but nonetheless you are classified as a potential terrorist and so on and so on. it's a much more kafkaes-esque situation you know. so this is the first thing to do. the second thing to we already talked about it. the second way we should correct the usual perception is that usually we take all this whistleblower stuff as protecting our privacy. oh my god, all our private secrets are public. there is no privacy. i think, and from what i know you also, and many intelligent people know this. the true problem today is rather the opposite one. that the public sphere proper is disappearing the public sphere is more and more structured or functions like. a socialized private sphere. you know, even politicians, they talk like making confession
Paul Holdengräber
me.
me.
Slavoj Žižek
spr.
spr.
Paul Holdengräber
i do believe that, but say something about what you mean when you say the public sphere is contested.
i do believe that, but say something about what you mean when you say the public sphere is contested.
Slavoj Žižek
what do you?, first, i think that although some naive leftists, even anarchists, would have criticized me here, i think that a certain level of alienation is a good thing. by alienation i mean now we let's say talk obscenely and so on, but then when if we have to have a serious statement and so on, you know that you speak for the record. and you speak in a way where it doesn't matter. and it's simply irrelevant that you privately think that you are making love to a lady or whatever. you know, it's irrelevant all this. what matters is what you say publicly. and this gap is disappearing, i think. even politics is becoming more and more a sphere of confessions and so on. and now i will give you... a very touching example. and sorry, i'm not always a bad taste cynic. now i'm very sincere. sometimes even vulgar humor can work as marking this distance. let me tell you a story, very short one. don't be afraid. i was told by the one who is unfortunately not here, one of the communist party troika of slovene lakian school, me, mladen dolar, alenka zupančič, she was recently in sarajevo and she told me that there is a linguist there, historic linguist, studying actual functioning of language, who discovered shockingly that in srebrenica, you know, srebrenica, serp massacre, maybe the most horrible crime of post-yugoslav war, all men in the town of srebrenica killed, that there is a whole series of jokes about srebrenica. made the jokes by the survivors themselves. like. of course, i cannot resist telling you one. what you should know is that when we were young, people were still actually actually doing soup. you know you bought beef. and some bones if you want that so that the beef consommé soup is better. no? so when you said i want to have one pound of beef, usually the books are asked you with or without bones like okay. okay. so the point is one citizen of srebrenica returns from germany and said, oh my god, now it's again free, it's ours, bosnian, i would like to build a house there. do you know what's the price of land there? and the guy tells him, it depends of the quality of the land. do you want it with bones or without bones and so on, you know. now i want to tell you something. you think this is vulgar. no, this is the only way that people can cope with it. what i consider really vulgar is for us who don't have an idea how horrible it was there to say, you know, these disgusting platitudes, we are all in srebrenica. we feel how cook something like that. you know, this pathetic speech of identification. opening your mouth. no is through obscenity. and this joke, the message of these joke is precisely, sorry, it's too serious to make pathetic statements. you have to, you know, this joke is at the same time a recognition that it's too horrible to do it directly. and as i often repeat, this is why i think, do you notice another strange fact? all good feelings about concentration camps, holocaust are comedy. because to do a tragedy would be to concede to the nazis already too much. you know, when that tragedy happened, when you have this tragic confrontation, tragedy would have been you, sorry, you are a nazi officer and i'm the heroic jew. kill me, but you will never kill my spirit. that's ridiculous. in auschwitz, the situation was too horrible for me to retain that level of dignity. to do an auschwitz tragedy, you give too much to the nazis, you know. in this sense, okay, i with what you said, privatization, that if there is something we need is more public space, not to turn everything into our expression or whatever you want and so on and so on. we need more alienation in this sense that, okay, i say something. okay, it may be true. there are my personal traumas, my political interests. but my god, can't we erase that and take it as a public statement? you know this is which great is why even in the domain of art story, i don't buy this historicizing bullshit, you know, to know a writer. means to know his private life, his traumas. no, on the contrary, even with countries, i don't think that, even with countries, i don't think that in order to understand hans christian andersen, kierkegaard, name them, i have to know all the danish history from prehistoric vikings, whatever. it's on the contrary. if i just come here and know the country, i will probably understand nothing. i, on the contrary, need to know... your literature films to understand the country. i'm a.
what do you?, first, i think that although some naive leftists, even anarchists, would have criticized me here, i think that a certain level of alienation is a good thing. by alienation i mean now we let's say talk obscenely and so on, but then when if we have to have a serious statement and so on, you know that you speak for the record. and you speak in a way where it doesn't matter. and it's simply irrelevant that you privately think that you are making love to a lady or whatever. you know, it's irrelevant all this. what matters is what you say publicly. and this gap is disappearing, i think. even politics is becoming more and more a sphere of confessions and so on. and now i will give you... a very touching example. and sorry, i'm not always a bad taste cynic. now i'm very sincere. sometimes even vulgar humor can work as marking this distance. let me tell you a story, very short one. don't be afraid. i was told by the one who is unfortunately not here, one of the communist party troika of slovene lakian school, me, mladen dolar, alenka zupančič, she was recently in sarajevo and she told me that there is a linguist there, historic linguist, studying actual functioning of language, who discovered shockingly that in srebrenica, you know, srebrenica, serp massacre, maybe the most horrible crime of post-yugoslav war, all men in the town of srebrenica killed, that there is a whole series of jokes about srebrenica. made the jokes by the survivors themselves. like. of course, i cannot resist telling you one. what you should know is that when we were young, people were still actually actually doing soup. you know you bought beef. and some bones if you want that so that the beef consommé soup is better. no? so when you said i want to have one pound of beef, usually the books are asked you with or without bones like okay. okay. so the point is one citizen of srebrenica returns from germany and said, oh my god, now it's again free, it's ours, bosnian, i would like to build a house there. do you know what's the price of land there? and the guy tells him, it depends of the quality of the land. do you want it with bones or without bones and so on, you know. now i want to tell you something. you think this is vulgar. no, this is the only way that people can cope with it. what i consider really vulgar is for us who don't have an idea how horrible it was there to say, you know, these disgusting platitudes, we are all in srebrenica. we feel how cook something like that. you know, this pathetic speech of identification. opening your mouth. no is through obscenity. and this joke, the message of these joke is precisely, sorry, it's too serious to make pathetic statements. you have to, you know, this joke is at the same time a recognition that it's too horrible to do it directly. and as i often repeat, this is why i think, do you notice another strange fact? all good feelings about concentration camps, holocaust are comedy. because to do a tragedy would be to concede to the nazis already too much. you know, when that tragedy happened, when you have this tragic confrontation, tragedy would have been you, sorry, you are a nazi officer and i'm the heroic jew. kill me, but you will never kill my spirit. that's ridiculous. in auschwitz, the situation was too horrible for me to retain that level of dignity. to do an auschwitz tragedy, you give too much to the nazis, you know. in this sense, okay, i with what you said, privatization, that if there is something we need is more public space, not to turn everything into our expression or whatever you want and so on and so on. we need more alienation in this sense that, okay, i say something. okay, it may be true. there are my personal traumas, my political interests. but my god, can't we erase that and take it as a public statement? you know this is which great is why even in the domain of art story, i don't buy this historicizing bullshit, you know, to know a writer. means to know his private life, his traumas. no, on the contrary, even with countries, i don't think that, even with countries, i don't think that in order to understand hans christian andersen, kierkegaard, name them, i have to know all the danish history from prehistoric vikings, whatever. it's on the contrary. if i just come here and know the country, i will probably understand nothing. i, on the contrary, need to know... your literature films to understand the country. i'm a.
Paul Holdengräber
histor historicism here. and in the case of, since you mentioned kir, in the case of kiriergaard, what interests you in particular, at least one aspect, is the fact that he was so able to have... personas.
histor historicism here. and in the case of, since you mentioned kir, in the case of kiriergaard, what interests you in particular, at least one aspect, is the fact that he was so able to have... personas.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, he was well aware that precisely look, i always distrust people who want what sociologists already long ago, i think erving goffman and so on, called staged authenticity, which is a fantastic term. yeah, but... i claim almost that all authenticity today tends to be staged. so the only way to be authentic is to have a persona, but of course signal i am not that.
yeah, he was well aware that precisely look, i always distrust people who want what sociologists already long ago, i think erving goffman and so on, called staged authenticity, which is a fantastic term. yeah, but... i claim almost that all authenticity today tends to be staged. so the only way to be authentic is to have a persona, but of course signal i am not that.
Paul Holdengräber
you know in this particular instance, we're being watched. gbert, i don't care.
you know in this particular instance, we're being watched. gbert, i don't care.
Slavoj Žižek
if you are watched. you know what i mean? here i preach arrogance. so what? let the big other watch me. maybe he will learn something and be less stupid, you know. this is not my problem, you know. like, you know, when we were those half dissidents,, and a guy, when we had some committee for human rights, blah, blah, a guy but did it change your behavior being watched? no, no, no, no, no, no. you know i learned through french. that some secret policemen were really mad at me because i told the horrible story then. it's one of. i told them, and it's true, you know, i read. history of united states in 19th century where i was told that racism was so strong in the old south, anti-black racism, that when you have in new orleans before civil war brothels, whorehouses, prostitution houses, the white customer was making love to a white prostitute and if a black guy entered the room bringing drinks, whatever, they didn't stop making love. it was like they didn't consider a black person entering a human gaze which puts you to shame. it's like a dog, a bird, you don't care. you go on making love. and i told them, this was horrible what they did, the way they treated blacks there, but we should.
if you are watched. you know what i mean? here i preach arrogance. so what? let the big other watch me. maybe he will learn something and be less stupid, you know. this is not my problem, you know. like, you know, when we were those half dissidents,, and a guy, when we had some committee for human rights, blah, blah, a guy but did it change your behavior being watched? no, no, no, no, no, no. you know i learned through french. that some secret policemen were really mad at me because i told the horrible story then. it's one of. i told them, and it's true, you know, i read. history of united states in 19th century where i was told that racism was so strong in the old south, anti-black racism, that when you have in new orleans before civil war brothels, whorehouses, prostitution houses, the white customer was making love to a white prostitute and if a black guy entered the room bringing drinks, whatever, they didn't stop making love. it was like they didn't consider a black person entering a human gaze which puts you to shame. it's like a dog, a bird, you don't care. you go on making love. and i told them, this was horrible what they did, the way they treated blacks there, but we should.
Paul Holdengräber
three secret policemen.
three secret policemen.
Slavoj Žižek
pol policemen should be treated like black servants, you know, you don't care. this is where they feel most horrified, you know, when they learn that you don't care being observed. yeah.
pol policemen should be treated like black servants, you know, you don't care. this is where they feel most horrified, you know, when they learn that you don't care being observed. yeah.
Paul Holdengräber
connection or not connection between pussy riots and snowden? very good question because here i got into trouble almost.
connection or not connection between pussy riots and snowden? very good question because here i got into trouble almost.
Slavoj Žižek
with both of them. i think that obviously snowden made a big compromise. i'm no friend of putin. and
with both of them. i think that obviously snowden made a big compromise. i'm no friend of putin. and
Paul Holdengräber
no from.
no from.
Slavoj Žižek
made made a compromise.
made made a compromise.
Paul Holdengräber
yes.
yes.
Slavoj Žižek
by immigrating, by going to russia, of course,. and i know from assange that simply russia was the only one ready to accept it, you know. it was complex negotiation and so on. where should he go? now, i don't know how it is his situation is in russia. i just felt then, what it shown here? putin gave one of his press conferences around a month ago, and then, you know, it was obviously all staged. snowden asked the the question, is it that in russia you always... also listen to all people like nsa and of course putin said no.
by immigrating, by going to russia, of course,. and i know from assange that simply russia was the only one ready to accept it, you know. it was complex negotiation and so on. where should he go? now, i don't know how it is his situation is in russia. i just felt then, what it shown here? putin gave one of his press conferences around a month ago, and then, you know, it was obviously all staged. snowden asked the the question, is it that in russia you always... also listen to all people like nsa and of course putin said no.
Paul Holdengräber
no,.
no,.
Slavoj Žižek
country of law, blah blah blah. now, i thought that maybe, but maybe he was forced to do it, that maybe he went a step too far there, you know. like, i don't blame him for going to russia. what could he have done? because on the other hand, with pussy riot, i was a little bit mad at them. you know when they were the two of them, which are now, my heart is with hartline pussy riot, you know, tolokonnikova and alyokhina, those two were now excluded by pussy riot group. it's too soft, you know. they went to united states, okay, they did suffer in the prison. they deserve their fame. the way they let themselves to be taken over, appropriate, manipulated by the human rights people, richard gere and all that gang, bob geldof and so on. hey, these are not my guys, sorry. you know, like they should have at least hinted, you know, gave a hint that again. what of what? i think everything hinges on this. wikileaks, snowden, uliot, aspects of the same struggle, which is struggle for public space precisely, emancipation public space. why? i will give you another example. even in are you no, you are part of the european union, you just use your own money, which is nice. but what i wanted to say is that are your universities also affected by this horror called bologna reform. and okay, it's much more complex, but the basic lesson of bologna, the basic idea of bologna reform is precisely to. get rid of what already immanuel kant called public use of reason, which is very interesting philosophically, you know for kant, public use of reason is not when you speak publicly, public use of reason is when you. reason in a way which is not constrained by what kant calls private goals, but for kant, state is in this sense a private institution. for kant, theology, law faculty, this is private use of reason. because you know, you have a certain frame determined in advance. for kant, philosophy and pure sciences are public use of reason. so it's a wonderful idea. if a couple of us meet in a restaurant and debate freely, it's public use of reason. if you talk in the parliament, it's private use of reason. and the idea of bologna school
country of law, blah blah blah. now, i thought that maybe, but maybe he was forced to do it, that maybe he went a step too far there, you know. like, i don't blame him for going to russia. what could he have done? because on the other hand, with pussy riot, i was a little bit mad at them. you know when they were the two of them, which are now, my heart is with hartline pussy riot, you know, tolokonnikova and alyokhina, those two were now excluded by pussy riot group. it's too soft, you know. they went to united states, okay, they did suffer in the prison. they deserve their fame. the way they let themselves to be taken over, appropriate, manipulated by the human rights people, richard gere and all that gang, bob geldof and so on. hey, these are not my guys, sorry. you know, like they should have at least hinted, you know, gave a hint that again. what of what? i think everything hinges on this. wikileaks, snowden, uliot, aspects of the same struggle, which is struggle for public space precisely, emancipation public space. why? i will give you another example. even in are you no, you are part of the european union, you just use your own money, which is nice. but what i wanted to say is that are your universities also affected by this horror called bologna reform. and okay, it's much more complex, but the basic lesson of bologna, the basic idea of bologna reform is precisely to. get rid of what already immanuel kant called public use of reason, which is very interesting philosophically, you know for kant, public use of reason is not when you speak publicly, public use of reason is when you. reason in a way which is not constrained by what kant calls private goals, but for kant, state is in this sense a private institution. for kant, theology, law faculty, this is private use of reason. because you know, you have a certain frame determined in advance. for kant, philosophy and pure sciences are public use of reason. so it's a wonderful idea. if a couple of us meet in a restaurant and debate freely, it's public use of reason. if you talk in the parliament, it's private use of reason. and the idea of bologna school
Paul Holdengräber
the idea is that we don't have those public spaces in which to debate.
the idea is that we don't have those public spaces in which to debate.
Slavoj Žižek
yes. yeah, and direct.
yes. yeah, and direct.
Paul Holdengräber
ex
ex
Slavoj Žižek
the bologna reform, which is going on now in all of european union is, i claim basically, i simplified but basically it's true because i follow it in slovenia, in united kingdom and so on. it's one big attack on public use of reason. they openly say, enough of these humanity studies which serve nothing. we need experts. and what you would say to that is we need useless education. we need use especially why? because now we come to your first point because intellectuals today about how to ask the right questions. the first thing to do today is don't allow them in power. they're not always bad, but they are in power. don't allow them to describe to formulate the problem. you know the way they want us is, i was in a debate in france where some state bureaucrat gave me a perfect example. he said, this is why we need universities. this years ago we remember three, four years ago when there were cars burning in the he told me cars are burning in the suburbs of paris. now we need educated psychologists who will tell us how to control the crowd. we need urban planners who will tell us how to build the city easy to control. no i think these are experts. but a true intellectual is not in this sense an expert.'t he doesn't provide answers to problems. questions formulated by others. no, he questions the very way a problem is described. and we need this more than ever today. for example, just think about ecology, for example. i think at least a great part of problems with ecology, i think so, is that of course, it is a very real problem, ecology. but at the same time, there is so much ideology invested in it. on the one hand, you have this so-called holistic, deep, deep, deep ecology and so on, all this idea, some kind of primordial mother religion, you know, we offended mother earth, mother earth will take revenge. this may amuse you, brought me into deep trouble. when i was in bolivia, i admired bolivian government. they are much better than in venezuela, chavez and his successors.
the bologna reform, which is going on now in all of european union is, i claim basically, i simplified but basically it's true because i follow it in slovenia, in united kingdom and so on. it's one big attack on public use of reason. they openly say, enough of these humanity studies which serve nothing. we need experts. and what you would say to that is we need useless education. we need use especially why? because now we come to your first point because intellectuals today about how to ask the right questions. the first thing to do today is don't allow them in power. they're not always bad, but they are in power. don't allow them to describe to formulate the problem. you know the way they want us is, i was in a debate in france where some state bureaucrat gave me a perfect example. he said, this is why we need universities. this years ago we remember three, four years ago when there were cars burning in the he told me cars are burning in the suburbs of paris. now we need educated psychologists who will tell us how to control the crowd. we need urban planners who will tell us how to build the city easy to control. no i think these are experts. but a true intellectual is not in this sense an expert.'t he doesn't provide answers to problems. questions formulated by others. no, he questions the very way a problem is described. and we need this more than ever today. for example, just think about ecology, for example. i think at least a great part of problems with ecology, i think so, is that of course, it is a very real problem, ecology. but at the same time, there is so much ideology invested in it. on the one hand, you have this so-called holistic, deep, deep, deep ecology and so on, all this idea, some kind of primordial mother religion, you know, we offended mother earth, mother earth will take revenge. this may amuse you, brought me into deep trouble. when i was in bolivia, i admired bolivian government. they are much better than in venezuela, chavez and his successors.
Paul Holdengräber
but.
but.
Slavoj Žižek
morales sent some two, three years ago a big letter to all international leaders against capitalism for ecology where he said, capitalism killed mother earth. my reaction, there was at least one good thing that capitalism has done. no, but i really think, and this comes back to...
morales sent some two, three years ago a big letter to all international leaders against capitalism for ecology where he said, capitalism killed mother earth. my reaction, there was at least one good thing that capitalism has done. no, but i really think, and this comes back to...
Paul Holdengräber
back to the better. to the head.
back to the better. to the head.
Slavoj Žižek
the abc of ecology today is there is no mother earth whose balance we disturb to whom or which we can return. mother earth is a bitch. it's a nightmare. look at it. mother earth is a bitch. absolutely. no, let me give you an example. just think this an example i always use. just think about oil reserves. can you imagine what mega-ecological catastrophe? must have happened on earth before humanity for us to have oil reserves and so on. no, this doesn't mean, oh, it doesn't matter, we are not so guilty humans. no, it means the situation is even more.
the abc of ecology today is there is no mother earth whose balance we disturb to whom or which we can return. mother earth is a bitch. it's a nightmare. look at it. mother earth is a bitch. absolutely. no, let me give you an example. just think this an example i always use. just think about oil reserves. can you imagine what mega-ecological catastrophe? must have happened on earth before humanity for us to have oil reserves and so on. no, this doesn't mean, oh, it doesn't matter, we are not so guilty humans. no, it means the situation is even more.
Paul Holdengräber
so come back for a moment to whistleblowers, i want to ask you a couple of.
so come back for a moment to whistleblowers, i want to ask you a couple of.
Slavoj Žižek
i feel brutally. now i know what is to be palestinian of the west bank. okay sorry. i got you, okay. we love each other, you notice this,?
i feel brutally. now i know what is to be palestinian of the west bank. okay sorry. i got you, okay. we love each other, you notice this,?
Paul Holdengräber
we did love each other. no anyway. things could be worse, right? you speak about capitalism with asian values. you say... and my question to you would be. what would happen to civil rights, to the kinds of questions posed by snowden and assange in a world of capitalism with asian?
we did love each other. no anyway. things could be worse, right? you speak about capitalism with asian values. you say... and my question to you would be. what would happen to civil rights, to the kinds of questions posed by snowden and assange in a world of capitalism with asian?
Slavoj Žižek
much worse than now. no secret here. much worse than now. because and often i was accused for racism here, eurocentrism. my answer is always double here. first, of course, i use ironically the term asian values because they use it. like when i was in china, they told me we need to reinvent democracy with asian values and so on. but basically, i simply think, okay. my god, i repeat this all the time. i hope you haven't heard this too often, but my basic idea is simply that one always have to give the devil what belongs, he already said to the devil. well, let's be frank. what happened in western europe? for 40, 50 years after world war ii. i don't think that ever in the history of humanity was such a relatively large group of people, most of the population. was able to live in relative peace, prosperity, freedom, safety and so on. what i see on the horizon is the dish. space is getting narrower and narrower. in other words, till now one has to admit it. communism and democracy, at least the way we understand it, did go together. whenever you have a capitalism, yes, it did need from time to time a little bit of fascism or dictatorship, chile, south korea. but then when things start to move again, it always generated a demand for democracy. i only doubt if this still... still. h. today. i claim that what is emerging now in china and so on it's not. it's a new capitalism which is much more even dynamic than ours, but it no longer needs democracy. is wikileaks a real event? absolutely yes. you know why? because it changed the whole assange himself to an interview he gave to my wife himself. julian assange himself.
much worse than now. no secret here. much worse than now. because and often i was accused for racism here, eurocentrism. my answer is always double here. first, of course, i use ironically the term asian values because they use it. like when i was in china, they told me we need to reinvent democracy with asian values and so on. but basically, i simply think, okay. my god, i repeat this all the time. i hope you haven't heard this too often, but my basic idea is simply that one always have to give the devil what belongs, he already said to the devil. well, let's be frank. what happened in western europe? for 40, 50 years after world war ii. i don't think that ever in the history of humanity was such a relatively large group of people, most of the population. was able to live in relative peace, prosperity, freedom, safety and so on. what i see on the horizon is the dish. space is getting narrower and narrower. in other words, till now one has to admit it. communism and democracy, at least the way we understand it, did go together. whenever you have a capitalism, yes, it did need from time to time a little bit of fascism or dictatorship, chile, south korea. but then when things start to move again, it always generated a demand for democracy. i only doubt if this still... still. h. today. i claim that what is emerging now in china and so on it's not. it's a new capitalism which is much more even dynamic than ours, but it no longer needs democracy. is wikileaks a real event? absolutely yes. you know why? because it changed the whole assange himself to an interview he gave to my wife himself. julian assange himself.
Paul Holdengräber
she said herself. really, yeah, it was interesting. anyway, to gender confusion yeah. yeah.
she said herself. really, yeah, it was interesting. anyway, to gender confusion yeah. yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, he said that i am...
okay, he said that i am...
Paul Holdengräber
spy for the people. what i was going to ask you, what does that mean? i think the way i read it, it's of course that...
spy for the people. what i was going to ask you, what does that mean? i think the way i read it, it's of course that...
Slavoj Žižek
you! by being a spy in this way, you do something much more radical than being a simple traitor. let's say i spy for united states in russia. but then i become a double agent or i betray and this is still the elementary cheating which is in a way part of the game. but what assange is doing is in a way undermining the whole field of secrecy. it's something beautiful. it's something that has to be done..
you! by being a spy in this way, you do something much more radical than being a simple traitor. let's say i spy for united states in russia. but then i become a double agent or i betray and this is still the elementary cheating which is in a way part of the game. but what assange is doing is in a way undermining the whole field of secrecy. it's something beautiful. it's something that has to be done..
Paul Holdengräber
is there a way of being a responsible whistleblower? sorry? is there a way of being a responsible whistleblower? yeah, i know this is the usual.
is there a way of being a responsible whistleblower? sorry? is there a way of being a responsible whistleblower? yeah, i know this is the usual.
Slavoj Žižek
if you are hinting at this, this is the usual reproach to him. what about all the victims you got? well, here i have two answers. first, listen, what about 10,000 of victims victimization and so on that they disclosed? point two, it's simply not true. they are extremely careful. you know, they don't mention whenever possible names and so on. it's simply absolutely not true that irrespective of victims, they are just making documents public and so on and so on. and let me be very clear here. i am not a naive idealist in the sense, oh, everything should be rendered public and so on and so on. you don't believe that.
if you are hinting at this, this is the usual reproach to him. what about all the victims you got? well, here i have two answers. first, listen, what about 10,000 of victims victimization and so on that they disclosed? point two, it's simply not true. they are extremely careful. you know, they don't mention whenever possible names and so on. it's simply absolutely not true that irrespective of victims, they are just making documents public and so on and so on. and let me be very clear here. i am not a naive idealist in the sense, oh, everything should be rendered public and so on and so on. you don't believe that.
Paul Holdengräber
no.
no.
Slavoj Žižek
i'm an old totalitarian, leninist, know. no, i'm only saying that in a situation like this, precisely with the new possibilities of, and it's not only digital technology. it's also, for example, biogenetics. horrors, i am in contact with some of them and am i told, really, this is a fascinating topic. what is happening today in biogenetics and all that stuff? you know what? i really think that in a way human nature itself is changing in the sense that things that we took as simply part of our nature becomes something you can change through technological inventions like for example, no wonder jürgen habermas is in a panic because already today, you can enhance your productivity, your attention span through some drugs. aware how this changes the entire notion of education, of learning. like let's say i'm a lazy guy, you are a hardworking guy. you study for days, i take some appropriate pills, i study only two evenings and i do much better than you and so on. so, you know, what happens with education? or if we can even manipulate, control our psychic properties and governments are doing this. i quote in some of my books, it's wonderful. when i was in beijing, i met a guy from the top of their institute of biogenetics academy of sciences, and he gave me a wonderful paper, which was something like the goals programmatic paper, the goals of development of biogenetics in people's republic of china. and the first sentence is, in people's republic of china, the goal of biogenetics is to regulate biological and psychic properties of the chinese people. and don't blame china here. they are all doing it like crazy. another thing that is happening, which fascinates me is... our elementary change of identity. is based on this gap between inside and outside. things are outside here, inside, i can think, i am free to think whatever i want and so on and so on. but what is happening now, i follow this closely. these are wonderful things, terrifyingly wonderful. they already can establish a direct connection, you must have heard something about this, so that your brain is directly wired connect. for example, they always when something horrible is happening, they always first try to present it to you as a great humanitarian achievement. now, for example, i've seen in london, i was there, you have a wheelchair for crippled people, no? what is the politically correct movement challenged people or what where you don't no longer need even that proverbial stephen hawking's finger, you know you think forward, it moves forward. you think left, it turns left. now, the problem is what? this is wonderful. you are like god. you think something, it happens in the reality. the problem is that what goes out goes in also..
i'm an old totalitarian, leninist, know. no, i'm only saying that in a situation like this, precisely with the new possibilities of, and it's not only digital technology. it's also, for example, biogenetics. horrors, i am in contact with some of them and am i told, really, this is a fascinating topic. what is happening today in biogenetics and all that stuff? you know what? i really think that in a way human nature itself is changing in the sense that things that we took as simply part of our nature becomes something you can change through technological inventions like for example, no wonder jürgen habermas is in a panic because already today, you can enhance your productivity, your attention span through some drugs. aware how this changes the entire notion of education, of learning. like let's say i'm a lazy guy, you are a hardworking guy. you study for days, i take some appropriate pills, i study only two evenings and i do much better than you and so on. so, you know, what happens with education? or if we can even manipulate, control our psychic properties and governments are doing this. i quote in some of my books, it's wonderful. when i was in beijing, i met a guy from the top of their institute of biogenetics academy of sciences, and he gave me a wonderful paper, which was something like the goals programmatic paper, the goals of development of biogenetics in people's republic of china. and the first sentence is, in people's republic of china, the goal of biogenetics is to regulate biological and psychic properties of the chinese people. and don't blame china here. they are all doing it like crazy. another thing that is happening, which fascinates me is... our elementary change of identity. is based on this gap between inside and outside. things are outside here, inside, i can think, i am free to think whatever i want and so on and so on. but what is happening now, i follow this closely. these are wonderful things, terrifyingly wonderful. they already can establish a direct connection, you must have heard something about this, so that your brain is directly wired connect. for example, they always when something horrible is happening, they always first try to present it to you as a great humanitarian achievement. now, for example, i've seen in london, i was there, you have a wheelchair for crippled people, no? what is the politically correct movement challenged people or what where you don't no longer need even that proverbial stephen hawking's finger, you know you think forward, it moves forward. you think left, it turns left. now, the problem is what? this is wonderful. you are like god. you think something, it happens in the reality. the problem is that what goes out goes in also..
Paul Holdengräber
i mean, so in that particular sense, surveillance is total. yeah, but even here i
i mean, so in that particular sense, surveillance is total. yeah, but even here i
Slavoj Žižek
skept. i had a debate with some of my friends there at duke, where it's also university. i went there to visit fredric jameson, but they have an excellent biogenetic and cognitive science. you're skeptical about what? about if this really controls us. because you know, what immediately make one would complicate. well what would be more the freudian hypothesis. let's say i claim i can read your mind in this primitive sense. what are your true emotions? but what if you are in a freudian sense a divided self which what will my apparatus measure in you and so on? well, you're right. everything gets complicated and they admit it, you know.
skept. i had a debate with some of my friends there at duke, where it's also university. i went there to visit fredric jameson, but they have an excellent biogenetic and cognitive science. you're skeptical about what? about if this really controls us. because you know, what immediately make one would complicate. well what would be more the freudian hypothesis. let's say i claim i can read your mind in this primitive sense. what are your true emotions? but what if you are in a freudian sense a divided self which what will my apparatus measure in you and so on? well, you're right. everything gets complicated and they admit it, you know.
Paul Holdengräber
what have we learned from wikileaks? and have we really learned a very good question. i'm glad. are i.
what have we learned from wikileaks? and have we really learned a very good question. i'm glad. are i.
Slavoj Žižek
not the
not the
Paul Holdengräber
complete idiot. no,. i. no, no, no, no, no.
complete idiot. no,. i. no, no, no, no, no.
Slavoj Žižek
i didn't mean this as a joke.
i didn't mean this as a joke.
Paul Holdengräber
no, i didn't.
no, i didn't.
Slavoj Žižek
there only two types of people.
there only two types of people.
Paul Holdengräber
no,...
no,...
Slavoj Žižek
i't table who are complete idiots and people who are not complete idiots. i didn't take it... there is no third. i didn't take it as a joke, but please continue. eh. that's so interesting let's be frank i don't think we really learned. anything new. i thought you would say that. yeah, because it's not that oh my god, i thought nobody controlled us and now no. what happened is that this became public. we can no longer pretend that we can ignore it. we are forced to accept it. so secrecy became public.
i't table who are complete idiots and people who are not complete idiots. i didn't take it... there is no third. i didn't take it as a joke, but please continue. eh. that's so interesting let's be frank i don't think we really learned. anything new. i thought you would say that. yeah, because it's not that oh my god, i thought nobody controlled us and now no. what happened is that this became public. we can no longer pretend that we can ignore it. we are forced to accept it. so secrecy became public.
Paul Holdengräber
yeah, yeah. and you know why i mean, but you know, i've always been interested. you probably know the origin of the word secret. it literally means toilet. no. no.
yeah, yeah. and you know why i mean, but you know, i've always been interested. you probably know the origin of the word secret. it literally means toilet. no. no.
Slavoj Žižek
because in my country, se means toilet. no. well, but it is. it means to secrete., of course. yeah, of course.
because in my country, se means toilet. no. well, but it is. it means to secrete., of course. yeah, of course.
Paul Holdengräber
yeah. it means something that already can't maintain itself. you know, the old thomas jefferson line that for two people to keep a secret, one has to be dead. i mean, so is would also kill the first one. yeah that's another story, okay? no, what i wanted to tell you is this.
yeah. it means something that already can't maintain itself. you know, the old thomas jefferson line that for two people to keep a secret, one has to be dead. i mean, so is would also kill the first one. yeah that's another story, okay? no, what i wanted to tell you is this.
Slavoj Žižek
because let's be here very frank, so we haven't learned anything. but this is not so important because i know it's the same as, for example let me make it clear what i mean by this. i read somewhere that when americans liberated one of the camps, the few of them there were in western part of germany in 45. they... they immediately sent the army to. collect, to bring together all the leading local people there, the mayor of the town, blah, blah, and force them to see the camp. the corpse is there and so on. and then many, the mayor of that city, i forgot which one, killed himself and so on. i think this was a deep act of hypocrisy. because with this suicide he wanted to impair, to get the message, oh my god, i didn't know it, now i know what horrors were happening in front of my door., they knew it. they just were not able to ignore it. and i think it's the same here. here i'm a little bit of anti-democratic pessimist. in the change that. if you really ask people, like, cut the bullshit. what do you really want from government? i don't think people really want that government should not torture people and so on. the is you, do it, but do it discreetly. i don't want to know it. and do it in order for what? to help us to save, people generally accept this basic right-wing wisdom, somebody has to do the dirty job, you know. people accept this, you know. they just don't want, do it, do it. you know, i knew a guy in france. forgot whom who knew the private secretary of françois mitterrand. and you know, in france, when the state, when secret police wants to liquidate someone, like to give a plastic example, if i were the the secret police, if it's not just murder in battle, but like clear liquidation. no? the president has to sign the order. en mitteron ! he really represented shit. he always said, but can't you just do it? no, i don't want. just do it, do it, don't bother me with signatures and so on. this is what people want, i claim. they want to, even a more pessimist here, and i think that what is democracy today? people don't want to decide. people want the appearance to decide, but they want someone to clearly tell. people want to maintain the appearance. that they decide in elections, but they want to. somebody to clearly tell him how to choose. they want the appearance of a freedom of choice.
because let's be here very frank, so we haven't learned anything. but this is not so important because i know it's the same as, for example let me make it clear what i mean by this. i read somewhere that when americans liberated one of the camps, the few of them there were in western part of germany in 45. they... they immediately sent the army to. collect, to bring together all the leading local people there, the mayor of the town, blah, blah, and force them to see the camp. the corpse is there and so on. and then many, the mayor of that city, i forgot which one, killed himself and so on. i think this was a deep act of hypocrisy. because with this suicide he wanted to impair, to get the message, oh my god, i didn't know it, now i know what horrors were happening in front of my door., they knew it. they just were not able to ignore it. and i think it's the same here. here i'm a little bit of anti-democratic pessimist. in the change that. if you really ask people, like, cut the bullshit. what do you really want from government? i don't think people really want that government should not torture people and so on. the is you, do it, but do it discreetly. i don't want to know it. and do it in order for what? to help us to save, people generally accept this basic right-wing wisdom, somebody has to do the dirty job, you know. people accept this, you know. they just don't want, do it, do it. you know, i knew a guy in france. forgot whom who knew the private secretary of françois mitterrand. and you know, in france, when the state, when secret police wants to liquidate someone, like to give a plastic example, if i were the the secret police, if it's not just murder in battle, but like clear liquidation. no? the president has to sign the order. en mitteron ! he really represented shit. he always said, but can't you just do it? no, i don't want. just do it, do it, don't bother me with signatures and so on. this is what people want, i claim. they want to, even a more pessimist here, and i think that what is democracy today? people don't want to decide. people want the appearance to decide, but they want someone to clearly tell. people want to maintain the appearance. that they decide in elections, but they want to. somebody to clearly tell him how to choose. they want the appearance of a freedom of choice.
Paul Holdengräber
and people, are you following the european elections?
and people, are you following the european elections?
Slavoj Žižek
no, because i think that europe is in for obvious reasons in a real crisis. i even published a short book in french called this german title from freud. you know, what does europe want? a paraphrase of whatud what does a woman want? was will das weib? and what is your verdict?, it doesn't know,. women, i think know very well, usually, at least the women i know. but no, isn't it obvious that europe is simply oscillating between a couple of models? one is this neutral technocratic model. we should just be efficient, modernize, become part of the global market, blah blah.
no, because i think that europe is in for obvious reasons in a real crisis. i even published a short book in french called this german title from freud. you know, what does europe want? a paraphrase of whatud what does a woman want? was will das weib? and what is your verdict?, it doesn't know,. women, i think know very well, usually, at least the women i know. but no, isn't it obvious that europe is simply oscillating between a couple of models? one is this neutral technocratic model. we should just be efficient, modernize, become part of the global market, blah blah.
Paul Holdengräber
sure surely you must be worried by an emergence of right wing yes, but here
sure surely you must be worried by an emergence of right wing yes, but here
Slavoj Žižek
i think it's too easy. to just blame the right wingers in what sense? usually centrist libertarian liberals, those who nonetheless care about human rights against racism and so on, they tell us who are a little bit more radical leftists, now listen, okay, maybe we sympathize with it, but listen, now we have those right-wingers, anti-immigrants, shouldn't we all join forces and blah, blah? i don't think this is enough. because i think that the true question to be, i am a little bit more of a pessimist here. i think that this depoliticized liberal center no, the typical politics of today, in politics you are neoliberal, although that's another question. does neoliberalism exist at all? i don't think it does. i think in all states which are successful, state is intervening.
i think it's too easy. to just blame the right wingers in what sense? usually centrist libertarian liberals, those who nonetheless care about human rights against racism and so on, they tell us who are a little bit more radical leftists, now listen, okay, maybe we sympathize with it, but listen, now we have those right-wingers, anti-immigrants, shouldn't we all join forces and blah, blah? i don't think this is enough. because i think that the true question to be, i am a little bit more of a pessimist here. i think that this depoliticized liberal center no, the typical politics of today, in politics you are neoliberal, although that's another question. does neoliberalism exist at all? i don't think it does. i think in all states which are successful, state is intervening.
Paul Holdengräber
more than ever. but it's another point. but it is a point that is something that is worrisome. or not. no what is this we have this liberal center we have this.
more than ever. but it's another point. but it is a point that is something that is worrisome. or not. no what is this we have this liberal center we have this.
Slavoj Žižek
in politics, this would be tony blair at its purest. peter mandelson, his dark prints or whatever, says clearly in economy we are all thatcherites. we can only do a real difference in cultural politics, health and so on and so on. now, is this enough? i am much more of a pessimist here. i claim that that anti-immigrant or rev colleagues, populist anti-immigrant nationalism and neoliberal tolerance. built to donc... oai. of the same coin as it were the true question is, what is it in today's global capitalism that generates so much? anti-immigrant and so on populism. are we aware that we cannot dismiss this populism as a reminder of the old time? is it translated in your language? wonderful, very simple, but wonderful book by thomas frank you interviewed everyone, you must get him what what happened in kansas? it's a wonderful description of kansas, you know, over the rainbow, one of the states which 30, 40 years ago was his historically, the most progressive american state, john brown anti-slavery movement, everything in the last 30 years it became. particularly the most fundamentalist. state and then i take another example afghanistan but this is not a backward country i am unfortunately even older than you old enough to remember when i was young. afghanistan was, i'm not kidding, maybe the single most tolerant of this middle east, mostly muslim countries. they had a monarch who was a pro-western technocrat. they had a very strong local communist party, religious tolerance and so on in the second or third cities after kandahar, herat or what. they had the long tradition of buddists, muslims and which still there. doing prayers together and so on. and then what happened then? you know what? communist made revolution, coup d'etat, then soviet union intervened, america intervened through their allies, osama bin laden and so on, financing them. and it is as the result of this, of precisely becoming part of global politics that afghanistan became a fundamentalist country. it's true. they were much more progressive when they were left to them alone. so again, in america it's the same. you must know better than me. according to fbi. fbi is observing more or less, this are official data, around 2 million people as potential right-wing fundamentalists. sorry, but the percentage is the same as united states sorry as in arab countries, you know. so, and i'm not again blaming united states, but i'm saying the true question is what in today's global capitalism, what inner dynamics is generating? populism i think that we should first admit the complicity of liberal tolerant tolerant capitalism. you cannot simply play the liberal game. we should fight it. no and i think that the answer is the disappearance of secular left. like in arab countries this is clear and so on. i think only the left can save us.
in politics, this would be tony blair at its purest. peter mandelson, his dark prints or whatever, says clearly in economy we are all thatcherites. we can only do a real difference in cultural politics, health and so on and so on. now, is this enough? i am much more of a pessimist here. i claim that that anti-immigrant or rev colleagues, populist anti-immigrant nationalism and neoliberal tolerance. built to donc... oai. of the same coin as it were the true question is, what is it in today's global capitalism that generates so much? anti-immigrant and so on populism. are we aware that we cannot dismiss this populism as a reminder of the old time? is it translated in your language? wonderful, very simple, but wonderful book by thomas frank you interviewed everyone, you must get him what what happened in kansas? it's a wonderful description of kansas, you know, over the rainbow, one of the states which 30, 40 years ago was his historically, the most progressive american state, john brown anti-slavery movement, everything in the last 30 years it became. particularly the most fundamentalist. state and then i take another example afghanistan but this is not a backward country i am unfortunately even older than you old enough to remember when i was young. afghanistan was, i'm not kidding, maybe the single most tolerant of this middle east, mostly muslim countries. they had a monarch who was a pro-western technocrat. they had a very strong local communist party, religious tolerance and so on in the second or third cities after kandahar, herat or what. they had the long tradition of buddists, muslims and which still there. doing prayers together and so on. and then what happened then? you know what? communist made revolution, coup d'etat, then soviet union intervened, america intervened through their allies, osama bin laden and so on, financing them. and it is as the result of this, of precisely becoming part of global politics that afghanistan became a fundamentalist country. it's true. they were much more progressive when they were left to them alone. so again, in america it's the same. you must know better than me. according to fbi. fbi is observing more or less, this are official data, around 2 million people as potential right-wing fundamentalists. sorry, but the percentage is the same as united states sorry as in arab countries, you know. so, and i'm not again blaming united states, but i'm saying the true question is what in today's global capitalism, what inner dynamics is generating? populism i think that we should first admit the complicity of liberal tolerant tolerant capitalism. you cannot simply play the liberal game. we should fight it. no and i think that the answer is the disappearance of secular left. like in arab countries this is clear and so on. i think only the left can save us.
Paul Holdengräber
the word tolerant when you use it
the word tolerant when you use it
Slavoj Žižek
that i'm already skept i'm also, and i learned the nic thing from you. you know, the french have a wonderful expression, you know, in french, you know what is one of the local colloquial, i learned this from you, you remember when we debated, i think salman rushdie with him in bilbao, that the french one of the french old words for prostitution house is la maison de tolérance, the house of tolerance. and this, my favorite catholic writer, one of paul claudel was
that i'm already skept i'm also, and i learned the nic thing from you. you know, the french have a wonderful expression, you know, in french, you know what is one of the local colloquial, i learned this from you, you remember when we debated, i think salman rushdie with him in bilbao, that the french one of the french old words for prostitution house is la maison de tolérance, the house of tolerance. and this, my favorite catholic writer, one of paul claudel was
Paul Holdengräber
oui...
oui...
Slavoj Žižek
il y a des maisons...
il y a des maisons...
Paul Holdengräber
yes.
yes.
Slavoj Žižek
of being intolerant and he answered, but for tolerance we have houses you know.
of being intolerant and he answered, but for tolerance we have houses you know.
Paul Holdengräber
i would like that, you would like that. but to end on denmark as we began. snowden. should he be... do you think offered us asylum here in denmark. if you aren't.
i would like that, you would like that. but to end on denmark as we began. snowden. should he be... do you think offered us asylum here in denmark. if you aren't.
Slavoj Žižek
courageous enough yes, and i'm here, i'm not here the usual stupid, totally politically correct leftist. for example, when you had that problem with those jyllands-posten or whatever. allah caricatures, mohammed or whatever. no, i was not simply against you. i even hated those leftists, you know, who just, you know, whatever you say against islam, you are immediately accused of islamophobia and so on and so on. but no, my only problem is that, of course, it's wonderful if you do it. but in the long term... the solution is not just that. nope. this of course we should ruthlessly exploit this, like to play. to use one state against the other, you know. and here, united states, here i am critical of united states. i would imagine. not so much of explicit politics, but you know, if you want to see the darkest, most obscure, as it were, political unconscious, you should read books. which i am reading and for which i am boycotted by many of my friends. this american christian fundamentalist fiction, it's horror, writers like tim lahaye did, you love them. this left behind a series on rapture, all good people disappear, antichrist is coming. and this guy, lahaye, the most disgusting person you can imagine, wrote a book. europa conspiracy. and the idea is this is the right-wing american dream. the only good axis in the world is united states-israel. arab terrorism is a secondary phenomenon manipulated by western europe. the evil is european union because european union cancels nation-state authority and it's the first model of the new world order. so the basic conflict is forget china. with china we can make a deal. forget arab. no problem, western europe. and now you will say this is a freakish dream of some marginal types. 20 million. million copies sold. yeah, this is after gone with the wind whatever, which is another ku klux klan book as you probably know. no, but but what i want to say is that, but look, i was so shocked. i don't know if you remember when different countries voted against european constitution for or against. i think you were the one who voted against, no? but you know, i also called in france, i signed i signed a public call to vote against. but for practical reasons, what i want to say is that i was so shocked when people discovered in ireland, do you know this, that there the campaign anti-europe, against european constitution, was financed by cia directly. this is quite shocking. i think that this is why i still marginally, although it's impotent, ridiculous, believe in europe. there is a dream in european union. it can be many things. it can be the worst racism. it can be just. but there is an idea of some larger than nation-state authority guaranteeing minimal healthcare, security and so on. i still think, but you still believe in europe in some way. like know when they say like, okay, now to conclude with denmark, if you forgive me to quote a joke that i probably in denmark alone... used it already some five times. my favorite joke about your great guy nils bhr. you know that story? i apologize in advance to repeat it when the idea is he had a country house outside copenhagen and a friend visited him there, saw a horseshoe above the entrance and told him, but you have this, you know, superstition. horseshoe prevents evil spirits entering the house and friend tells him, scientist, but you are a scientist, why do you have that superstitious item there? you know what niels bhr answered? of course, i'm not stupid. i'm a scientist. i don't believe in it. but i have it there because i was told that it works, even if you don't believe in it. you know. this would be my idea of europe. i don't believe in it, but fuck it, maybe it will work, you know. um... in... i hope you applauded to first part of my statement, fuck it, not to believe..
courageous enough yes, and i'm here, i'm not here the usual stupid, totally politically correct leftist. for example, when you had that problem with those jyllands-posten or whatever. allah caricatures, mohammed or whatever. no, i was not simply against you. i even hated those leftists, you know, who just, you know, whatever you say against islam, you are immediately accused of islamophobia and so on and so on. but no, my only problem is that, of course, it's wonderful if you do it. but in the long term... the solution is not just that. nope. this of course we should ruthlessly exploit this, like to play. to use one state against the other, you know. and here, united states, here i am critical of united states. i would imagine. not so much of explicit politics, but you know, if you want to see the darkest, most obscure, as it were, political unconscious, you should read books. which i am reading and for which i am boycotted by many of my friends. this american christian fundamentalist fiction, it's horror, writers like tim lahaye did, you love them. this left behind a series on rapture, all good people disappear, antichrist is coming. and this guy, lahaye, the most disgusting person you can imagine, wrote a book. europa conspiracy. and the idea is this is the right-wing american dream. the only good axis in the world is united states-israel. arab terrorism is a secondary phenomenon manipulated by western europe. the evil is european union because european union cancels nation-state authority and it's the first model of the new world order. so the basic conflict is forget china. with china we can make a deal. forget arab. no problem, western europe. and now you will say this is a freakish dream of some marginal types. 20 million. million copies sold. yeah, this is after gone with the wind whatever, which is another ku klux klan book as you probably know. no, but but what i want to say is that, but look, i was so shocked. i don't know if you remember when different countries voted against european constitution for or against. i think you were the one who voted against, no? but you know, i also called in france, i signed i signed a public call to vote against. but for practical reasons, what i want to say is that i was so shocked when people discovered in ireland, do you know this, that there the campaign anti-europe, against european constitution, was financed by cia directly. this is quite shocking. i think that this is why i still marginally, although it's impotent, ridiculous, believe in europe. there is a dream in european union. it can be many things. it can be the worst racism. it can be just. but there is an idea of some larger than nation-state authority guaranteeing minimal healthcare, security and so on. i still think, but you still believe in europe in some way. like know when they say like, okay, now to conclude with denmark, if you forgive me to quote a joke that i probably in denmark alone... used it already some five times. my favorite joke about your great guy nils bhr. you know that story? i apologize in advance to repeat it when the idea is he had a country house outside copenhagen and a friend visited him there, saw a horseshoe above the entrance and told him, but you have this, you know, superstition. horseshoe prevents evil spirits entering the house and friend tells him, scientist, but you are a scientist, why do you have that superstitious item there? you know what niels bhr answered? of course, i'm not stupid. i'm a scientist. i don't believe in it. but i have it there because i was told that it works, even if you don't believe in it. you know. this would be my idea of europe. i don't believe in it, but fuck it, maybe it will work, you know. um... in... i hope you applauded to first part of my statement, fuck it, not to believe..
Paul Holdengräber
i'm aware of this only very recently, the scandal in denmark. i. reporters of the gossip magazine se og hør, forgive my pronunciation used credit card information from an it company informant to it. no but do you know about this? no. snowden commented on it and said, big things are happening in denmark. this week we've heard that
i'm aware of this only very recently, the scandal in denmark. i. reporters of the gossip magazine se og hør, forgive my pronunciation used credit card information from an it company informant to it. no but do you know about this? no. snowden commented on it and said, big things are happening in denmark. this week we've heard that
Slavoj Žižek
what's go.
what's go.
Paul Holdengräber
we've heard that the danish weekly se and hö paid for access to the highly confidential private records of politicians and celebrities. anybody who writes an email in aarhus uses a credit card in odense or. their mother in copenhagen will have their private records incept, analyzed and stored, not just by an accountable state security bureau, but even private companies and newspapers. i'm not too much impressed by this.
we've heard that the danish weekly se and hö paid for access to the highly confidential private records of politicians and celebrities. anybody who writes an email in aarhus uses a credit card in odense or. their mother in copenhagen will have their private records incept, analyzed and stored, not just by an accountable state security bureau, but even private companies and newspapers. i'm not too much impressed by this.
Slavoj Žižek
first, what will they find? i don't care, you don't care. no, if somebody were to read all my emails with all the theoretical texts i'm sending, my reaction would be fine, read it. maybe you will learn something, you know. and what do i care with my, i'm not poor, but with my, okay, for me, a big deal is 5,000 euros i send them there. what do i care, you know? so what's the big deal here? the second point, he said, you don't care. no, because not where i am. i have my intimate dreams and so on. even there, i basically don't care. why are you afraid? people are stupid out there.
first, what will they find? i don't care, you don't care. no, if somebody were to read all my emails with all the theoretical texts i'm sending, my reaction would be fine, read it. maybe you will learn something, you know. and what do i care with my, i'm not poor, but with my, okay, for me, a big deal is 5,000 euros i send them there. what do i care, you know? so what's the big deal here? the second point, he said, you don't care. no, because not where i am. i have my intimate dreams and so on. even there, i basically don't care. why are you afraid? people are stupid out there.
Paul Holdengräber
no.
no.
Slavoj Žižek
don don't care being observed. no. no! what do i care? people are stupid. they don't threaten me. it's like showing a newspaper hegel's logic to a cow. probably he will really turn around. because when he says there who experts are, but wait a minute, if you take seriously what snowden implies there, experts are analyzing it. no, it's stupid computer program. if experts were to analyze it, then 90% of danish people would have to be employed to analyze all the time what the 10% are doing. i think that all this state control can end only in a big confusion. confusion, you know, they think, they know, and they base measures on that which introduce an even greater confusion and so on and so on. i simply don't believe in efficiency of this total control or whatever. it's big computers and then, you know who told me even this? this was one nice joke by assange. he told me that some of the, they still have inside people from cia who help them, who anonymously send them data. and they discovered that cia have some programs of decoding blah blah blah and their wikileaks messages. and at some point when wikileaks didn't have enough money, assange told me that jokingly of course, they considered the possibility of contacting cia and tell them, but let's make a direct deal like we will tell you data, send you, sell you our data and it will be cheaper than all the programs that you used to, you know. so no, i think this is where we should be paranoid, yes. aproppos of what is happening to us and at a certain level it is like for example, did you see which movie? was it? not insight? drop or whatever, one of those documentaries about 9-11, which you see how censorship silently works. it got oscar for the best documentary. it it's unknown, you know somehow they succeeded in hashing it down, how you call it. and there you learn, of course, that, for example, the 2008 or when financial crackdown? no, this was not just chaos of capitalism. it was a well-planned operation of some of the big banks. at this level, yes, we have to be paranoiac.
don don't care being observed. no. no! what do i care? people are stupid. they don't threaten me. it's like showing a newspaper hegel's logic to a cow. probably he will really turn around. because when he says there who experts are, but wait a minute, if you take seriously what snowden implies there, experts are analyzing it. no, it's stupid computer program. if experts were to analyze it, then 90% of danish people would have to be employed to analyze all the time what the 10% are doing. i think that all this state control can end only in a big confusion. confusion, you know, they think, they know, and they base measures on that which introduce an even greater confusion and so on and so on. i simply don't believe in efficiency of this total control or whatever. it's big computers and then, you know who told me even this? this was one nice joke by assange. he told me that some of the, they still have inside people from cia who help them, who anonymously send them data. and they discovered that cia have some programs of decoding blah blah blah and their wikileaks messages. and at some point when wikileaks didn't have enough money, assange told me that jokingly of course, they considered the possibility of contacting cia and tell them, but let's make a direct deal like we will tell you data, send you, sell you our data and it will be cheaper than all the programs that you used to, you know. so no, i think this is where we should be paranoid, yes. aproppos of what is happening to us and at a certain level it is like for example, did you see which movie? was it? not insight? drop or whatever, one of those documentaries about 9-11, which you see how censorship silently works. it got oscar for the best documentary. it it's unknown, you know somehow they succeeded in hashing it down, how you call it. and there you learn, of course, that, for example, the 2008 or when financial crackdown? no, this was not just chaos of capitalism. it was a well-planned operation of some of the big banks. at this level, yes, we have to be paranoiac.
Paul Holdengräber
but you know. like... it... how should i put it?
but you know. like... it... how should i put it?
Slavoj Žižek
we should strictly distinguish this, can i call it naively just paranoia. no. realist paranoia from the false paranoia whose model is, for example, anti-semitism. antiemitism is also paranoia but it's clearly.
we should strictly distinguish this, can i call it naively just paranoia. no. realist paranoia from the false paranoia whose model is, for example, anti-semitism. antiemitism is also paranoia but it's clearly.
Paul Holdengräber
okay
okay
Slavoj Žižek
sorry? really? les don't... don't provoke me here because with my best jewish friend, you have some good jewish friends. i know. some of your best
sorry? really? les don't... don't provoke me here because with my best jewish friend, you have some good jewish friends. i know. some of your best
Paul Holdengräber
no, no.
no, no.
Slavoj Žižek
so i know the answer for this. to prove that i'm not anti-semitic, i usually say some of my worst enemies are jews, you know, and this settles the problem. but we had the idea of publishing a new edition of the protocols of zion, claiming how it's all true, basically. because what they proclaim, jews will control the world, no? but hollywood did this afterwards and so on. so, okay. what i'm saying is that look at anti-seemitism. it's clearly pathological, but why? and now maybe you will not agree with this, it will shock you, but i insist. what jacques lacan, my father psychoanalyst, i mean, theoretical father, said about he
so i know the answer for this. to prove that i'm not anti-semitic, i usually say some of my worst enemies are jews, you know, and this settles the problem. but we had the idea of publishing a new edition of the protocols of zion, claiming how it's all true, basically. because what they proclaim, jews will control the world, no? but hollywood did this afterwards and so on. so, okay. what i'm saying is that look at anti-seemitism. it's clearly pathological, but why? and now maybe you will not agree with this, it will shock you, but i insist. what jacques lacan, my father psychoanalyst, i mean, theoretical father, said about he
Paul Holdengräber
i thought we could have a whole hour and a half without you mentioning jacques lacan.
i thought we could have a whole hour and a half without you mentioning jacques lacan.
Slavoj Žižek
what's wrong? you are guilty because... just very briefly, he says somewhere that, let's say, i'm sorry for the male chauvinist twist of this remark. i think it the same should hold for women. he says, if a husband is pathologic, is strongly jealous of his wife that she is just sleeping around, then he says something very beautiful. he says, even if all this, his fantasies are true, the wife is sleeping all the time with other men, his jealousy is still pathological. why? because what makes it pathological is not is it true or not true, but his private psychic structure where in order to retain his normality, he needs this kind of fantasy. and i think it's the same with dr, with anti-semitism. let's imagine me debating with a friend in germany in 19336. the jews. and let's say my friend who is a nazi reporter chest. okay, jews are controlling cast, seducing our girls and so on. the moment you accept the debate at the level of fact. you already sold devil, your soul to the devil. of course it's always partially true. jews are seducing german girls. well, i hope they did. and i hope also some germans were seducing. what's the problem? jews are exploiting cast. no. some of the jews were rich. and in the technical sense, of course they were. you know what i mean? which part was supposed to shock me? no, this part that even if some of what the nazis are claiming is true, this in no way justified anti-semitism. because what makes nazi anti-semitism pathological is. the way... why do they absolutely need a figure of the jew for their social vision and so on and all that, all that? i think that if again, you shouldn't accept the debate at the level of fact.
what's wrong? you are guilty because... just very briefly, he says somewhere that, let's say, i'm sorry for the male chauvinist twist of this remark. i think it the same should hold for women. he says, if a husband is pathologic, is strongly jealous of his wife that she is just sleeping around, then he says something very beautiful. he says, even if all this, his fantasies are true, the wife is sleeping all the time with other men, his jealousy is still pathological. why? because what makes it pathological is not is it true or not true, but his private psychic structure where in order to retain his normality, he needs this kind of fantasy. and i think it's the same with dr, with anti-semitism. let's imagine me debating with a friend in germany in 19336. the jews. and let's say my friend who is a nazi reporter chest. okay, jews are controlling cast, seducing our girls and so on. the moment you accept the debate at the level of fact. you already sold devil, your soul to the devil. of course it's always partially true. jews are seducing german girls. well, i hope they did. and i hope also some germans were seducing. what's the problem? jews are exploiting cast. no. some of the jews were rich. and in the technical sense, of course they were. you know what i mean? which part was supposed to shock me? no, this part that even if some of what the nazis are claiming is true, this in no way justified anti-semitism. because what makes nazi anti-semitism pathological is. the way... why do they absolutely need a figure of the jew for their social vision and so on and all that, all that? i think that if again, you shouldn't accept the debate at the level of fact.
Paul Holdengräber
what justifies whistleblowers?
what justifies whistleblowers?
Slavoj Žižek
but
but
Paul Holdengräber
what justifies whistling?
what justifies whistling?
Slavoj Žižek
publicowers. public, public, public, public space. they are communism in practice, as i wrote recently. in what sense? communism, although i'm very much opposed generally to tony negri, i think all this multitude stuff is not an option for the future, really. but where i do agree with him is that the problem today is the fate of the commons in the sense of something which is threatened but should be the common. background of our being. what is the problem of ecology? nature is our commons, our shared natural background. intellectual property, it's the same. intellectual substance of our being, even biogenetics and so on. end... here, they are, as it were, saving our commons.
publicowers. public, public, public, public space. they are communism in practice, as i wrote recently. in what sense? communism, although i'm very much opposed generally to tony negri, i think all this multitude stuff is not an option for the future, really. but where i do agree with him is that the problem today is the fate of the commons in the sense of something which is threatened but should be the common. background of our being. what is the problem of ecology? nature is our commons, our shared natural background. intellectual property, it's the same. intellectual substance of our being, even biogenetics and so on. end... here, they are, as it were, saving our commons.
Paul Holdengräber
and our commons, here we are in a library. a library is part of the commons. absolutely. this is why i like libraries.
and our commons, here we are in a library. a library is part of the commons. absolutely. this is why i like libraries.
Slavoj Žižek
precisely because, you know, this is what is disappearing today. we have here, okay, what kind of is another question and this is mean self-critically, but we have here some kind of a public debate and this is not to solve questions subordinated to any immediate goals. we just do a useless debate and i claim all really, even in the long term useful ideas came as as a byproduct of useless debates. we need this type of public space where everything can be questioned. and the problem is precisely that. i don't know how it is with you in denmark. from what i know. your universities are great, like most of my friends from denmark are from aarhus. you have their so-called speculative idealist circle, a group of
precisely because, you know, this is what is disappearing today. we have here, okay, what kind of is another question and this is mean self-critically, but we have here some kind of a public debate and this is not to solve questions subordinated to any immediate goals. we just do a useless debate and i claim all really, even in the long term useful ideas came as as a byproduct of useless debates. we need this type of public space where everything can be questioned. and the problem is precisely that. i don't know how it is with you in denmark. from what i know. your universities are great, like most of my friends from denmark are from aarhus. you have their so-called speculative idealist circle, a group of
Paul Holdengräber
really good philosophers, i must tell you.
really good philosophers, i must tell you.
Slavoj Žižek
so...
so...
Paul Holdengräber
i against you. so continue.
i against you. so continue.
Slavoj Žižek
yet nothing. who are you today? no, no, i mean. nothing against a university yours, but what i'm telling is that unfortunately
yet nothing. who are you today? no, no, i mean. nothing against a university yours, but what i'm telling is that unfortunately
Paul Holdengräber
continue to
continue to
Slavoj Žižek
investigate in that way yeah that more and more this type of public space is disappearing from.
investigate in that way yeah that more and more this type of public space is disappearing from.
Paul Holdengräber
universal.
universal.
Slavoj Žižek
has has to be done on the fringes of intellect.
has has to be done on the fringes of intellect.
Paul Holdengräber
it's disappearing, but it came out tonight to hear you.
it's disappearing, but it came out tonight to hear you.
Slavoj Žižek
it is hope here. and i'm here a moderate optimist. you know what is my proof? how stupid are my publishers, verso and so on. whenever i propose them a big fat book on hegel and so on, they always say, who will read that? why don't you write a short book on st stupid? now they want me to do a book on wikileaks, on big brother tv. and then we always had the same paradox. my big fat theoretical books like less than nothing, which certainly doesn't weight less than nothing. it's 1050 pages. is selling better than the year of dreaming dangerously, the political book. isn't this a wonderful data? nonetheless, all people are not stupid. you can still write a big fat book on hegel it i think. i think on the notion that all people are not stupid, i should say thank you very much. but where are you here? thank you. thank you. we did it. did it. where are we? oh my god, thank you.
it is hope here. and i'm here a moderate optimist. you know what is my proof? how stupid are my publishers, verso and so on. whenever i propose them a big fat book on hegel and so on, they always say, who will read that? why don't you write a short book on st stupid? now they want me to do a book on wikileaks, on big brother tv. and then we always had the same paradox. my big fat theoretical books like less than nothing, which certainly doesn't weight less than nothing. it's 1050 pages. is selling better than the year of dreaming dangerously, the political book. isn't this a wonderful data? nonetheless, all people are not stupid. you can still write a big fat book on hegel it i think. i think on the notion that all people are not stupid, i should say thank you very much. but where are you here? thank you. thank you. we did it. did it. where are we? oh my god, thank you.