"Trump is more Stalinist than Stalin himself" | Slavoj Žižek & Owen Jones (Part 1)
Interview · How To Academy ·
published 2025-07-26 · 0:18:26 · 2,325 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
ideologycapitalismfascism-populismgeopolitics-wartechnology-ai-cyberspace
Žižek analyzes Donald Trump’s political project as a form of 'radicalized liberalism' that paradoxically strengthens state power to facilitate neo-feudal corporate dominance. He contrasts Trump’s ironic, self-caricaturing style with classical fascism’s rigid hierarchy and Stalinist ruthlessness, arguing that Trump’s dismantling of the state actually enables a new 'digital state' controlled by figures like Musk and Bezos. The excerpt concludes by linking this domestic political logic to a 'technocratic vision' of constructing new societies from zero, citing examples from Gaza and Bolivia.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 6
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Žižek’s ironic label for figures like Steve Bannon who adopt the populist, anti-corporate rhetoric of the working class to serve Trump’s agenda, despite their conservative or fascist leanings.
as “radicalized liberalism”
Žižek’s term for Trump’s ideology, which claims to reduce state interference ('get the state off our backs') but actually requires a strong, ruthless state to enforce a specific definition of freedom and eliminate dissent.
A quality of Trump’s persona where he is 'already his own caricature,' making traditional criticism or mockery fail because the obscenity and irony are included in his performance.
as “Stalinist lesson”
The idea that Trump learned from his first term how to penetrate not just state apparatuses but civil society organizations, adopting a Stalinist method of guaranteeing freedom by ruthlessly annihilating those who do not fit its definition.
as “neo-feudalism”
The economic structure emerging from neoliberalism, where the dismantling of the state facilitates the dominance of 'Master' figures like Elon Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg, who act as new feudal lords.
as “digital state”
A theoretical concept describing a form of governance where dictatorial power, supported by technocratic experts, cleanses a territory and constructs a new society from 'zero point,' applicable to both digital platforms and geopolitical zones like Gaza.
Stories he reaches for 2
Žižek highlights Bernie Sanders sitting silently with his famous gloves at Biden's inauguration as a symbolic act that revealed the public's deep dissatisfaction with the political spectacle, showing that ordinary people sensed something was wrong.
“Who stole the show? Bernie Sanders by doing what? Nothing, just sitting there with his famous gloves and so on.”
Varoufakis notes that Goebbels' early speeches start with a valid liberal critique of corporate exploitation of the working class, only to suddenly pivot to antisemitism ('the Jews are exploiting us'), illustrating how fascism can masquerade as liberal populism.
“The first half is a pretty good analysis, like working class is exploited by strong state corporations... And then all of a sudden the tone changes because the Jews are exploiting us”
Works invoked 2
Used as a textual example to demonstrate how fascist rhetoric can initially mimic liberal critiques of corporate power.
Wall Street Journal journal
Cited as an entity threatened by Trump with court procedures for publishing a column skeptical of his tariffs, illustrating Trump's authoritarian control over media.
People invoked 11
Steve Bannon positive
Cited as a 'Left Trumpian' who uses populist rhetoric ('ordinary people exploited by corporations') to serve Trump’s agenda.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Cited as the proponent of 'normal development towards global welfare state democracy,' a view Žižek rejects as ignoring the historical trends behind Trump’s rise.
Donald Trump positive
Žižek views Trump negatively as a destructive force but uses him intellectually to illustrate the contradictions of contemporary liberalism, fascism, and capitalism. He claims he was right to have voted for Trump initially to expose the system.
Jeff Bezos positive
Listed alongside Musk and Zuckerberg as a figure of 'neo-feudal' dominance.
Elon Musk positive
Identified as a 'Master' figure in the new neo-feudal order, representing the technocratic control that replaces the liberal state.
Bernie Sanders positive
Praised for his silent presence at Biden's inauguration, which Žižek interprets as a symbolic revelation of public dissatisfaction with the political spectacle.
Mark Zuckerberg positive
Cited as another 'Master' figure in the neo-feudal corporate dominance, with Žižek mocking his name.
Yanis Varoufakis positive
Žižek cites Varoufakis’s analysis of Goebbels and his concept of 'neo-feudalism' to support his own arguments about the nature of Trump’s regime.
Joseph Goebbels positive
Used as a historical foil to show how fascist rhetoric can begin with a plausible liberal critique of corporate power before pivoting to antisemitism.
Joe Biden negative
Žižek criticizes the Biden administration for failing to understand the historical trends that brought Trump to power, treating Trump as an 'accident' rather than a symptom.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt positive
Used as a historical benchmark to show that even FDR did not intervene as directly or brutally as Trump is currently doing.
Transcript 9 turns
unknown
Hello! Great to see everyone. Great to see you Slavoj. The last time, do you remember? We did an interview. It was a beautiful sunny day. We were by the Thames. Do you remember? You don't remember, do you? I'm panicking. No, I remember. You do remember? He does remember. It's good. Um, a lot has happened since then. That was which is, I would say, if we're going to talk about, you know, the great turmoil which has enveloped the world, I think is a pretty good year. I think that's when the political consequences of the financial crash really started to hit. Now we're here, you've got your book out, of course, Zero Point Against Progress. I wanted to start, actually, with the Big Don, Donald Trump. You called him—I'll just read what you said here. Perhaps the best characterization of Trump is that he's a kind of liberal, namely a liberal fascist, the ultimate iteration of liberalism and fascism coalescing, two sides of the same coin. We're, how many months in? We're three, three months into his second term. How much of the fascism and the liberal aspect of Trump do you think we've seen?
Hello! Great to see everyone. Great to see you Slavoj. The last time, do you remember? We did an interview. It was a beautiful sunny day. We were by the Thames. Do you remember? You don't remember, do you? I'm panicking. No, I remember. You do remember? He does remember. It's good. Um, a lot has happened since then. That was which is, I would say, if we're going to talk about, you know, the great turmoil which has enveloped the world, I think is a pretty good year. I think that's when the political consequences of the financial crash really started to hit. Now we're here, you've got your book out, of course, Zero Point Against Progress. I wanted to start, actually, with the Big Don, Donald Trump. You called him—I'll just read what you said here. Perhaps the best characterization of Trump is that he's a kind of liberal, namely a liberal fascist, the ultimate iteration of liberalism and fascism coalescing, two sides of the same coin. We're, how many months in? We're three, three months into his second term. How much of the fascism and the liberal aspect of Trump do you think we've seen?
Slavoj Žižek
I still persist in this designation because I think that it's an immanent part of Trumpian regime that—okay, I will begin with another story which concerns the same point. Varoufakis, with whom I was on phone a couple of days ago, told me that to refresh his memory—fascism and so on—he read Joseph Goebbels' speeches from '25 till And he said they're very interesting. They're all four pages, printed pages, long. The first half is a pretty good analysis, like working class is exploited by strong state corporations and so on. And then all of a sudden the tone changes because the Jews are exploiting us and so on and so on. So don't underestimate Trump. I think that his basic message is sometimes even more liberal than the usual Democratic Party center-left, wokeish, whatever, liberalism. He always begins—he, but even more some people that I with all the irony call Left Trumpians, Steve Bannon and so on. They always address ordinary people: you're exploited, big corporations, and so on and so on. So their motive is liberal in the sense of they all the time repeat this story: get the state off our backs, returning to some fictitious freedom. Freedom which is defined in the terms of—I think these are the crucial terms from Trump's inauguration, this second one—common sense and sanity. The—but here problems begin. The—then their actual politics, the way they want to guarantee freedom, is a method which I think would make very proud any Stalinist. Because they define freedom in their own way and they are quite ruthless in annihilating, even persecuting, whatever, exiling everybody who doesn't fit their definition of freedom. But that's why I think that first, ideologically, Trump is a radicalized liberalism. Of course, theoretically this is a nonsense because if there is a lesson to be learned from years of capitalism is that precisely in order to maintain market competition, you need a strong state to maintain plurality and competition. Without state control, the spontaneous tendency is towards monopoly. So I think that this is the difference between Trump and old fascists. The old fascists operated in a different way. Their point was always society is a hierarchy, everybody should be at his, her, their own proper place. And then you need a Jew as a guy who from outside disturbs this order. But I think, and another big difference is that classical fascism is authoritarian in the usual sense. The leader is untouchable, all the dignity and so on, forbidden criticism and so on. While as I repeatedly emphasized, the reason that criticisms of Trump or mocking him fail is that in some sense Trump is already his own caricature. Some kind of, I see, ironic distance is—and obscenity and all that stuff is—included into it. So that's why I don't like myself the term liberal fascism, but just it points to this fundamental contradiction which will not ruin Trump. Sorry.
I still persist in this designation because I think that it's an immanent part of Trumpian regime that—okay, I will begin with another story which concerns the same point. Varoufakis, with whom I was on phone a couple of days ago, told me that to refresh his memory—fascism and so on—he read Joseph Goebbels' speeches from '25 till And he said they're very interesting. They're all four pages, printed pages, long. The first half is a pretty good analysis, like working class is exploited by strong state corporations and so on. And then all of a sudden the tone changes because the Jews are exploiting us and so on and so on. So don't underestimate Trump. I think that his basic message is sometimes even more liberal than the usual Democratic Party center-left, wokeish, whatever, liberalism. He always begins—he, but even more some people that I with all the irony call Left Trumpians, Steve Bannon and so on. They always address ordinary people: you're exploited, big corporations, and so on and so on. So their motive is liberal in the sense of they all the time repeat this story: get the state off our backs, returning to some fictitious freedom. Freedom which is defined in the terms of—I think these are the crucial terms from Trump's inauguration, this second one—common sense and sanity. The—but here problems begin. The—then their actual politics, the way they want to guarantee freedom, is a method which I think would make very proud any Stalinist. Because they define freedom in their own way and they are quite ruthless in annihilating, even persecuting, whatever, exiling everybody who doesn't fit their definition of freedom. But that's why I think that first, ideologically, Trump is a radicalized liberalism. Of course, theoretically this is a nonsense because if there is a lesson to be learned from years of capitalism is that precisely in order to maintain market competition, you need a strong state to maintain plurality and competition. Without state control, the spontaneous tendency is towards monopoly. So I think that this is the difference between Trump and old fascists. The old fascists operated in a different way. Their point was always society is a hierarchy, everybody should be at his, her, their own proper place. And then you need a Jew as a guy who from outside disturbs this order. But I think, and another big difference is that classical fascism is authoritarian in the usual sense. The leader is untouchable, all the dignity and so on, forbidden criticism and so on. While as I repeatedly emphasized, the reason that criticisms of Trump or mocking him fail is that in some sense Trump is already his own caricature. Some kind of, I see, ironic distance is—and obscenity and all that stuff is—included into it. So that's why I don't like myself the term liberal fascism, but just it points to this fundamental contradiction which will not ruin Trump. Sorry.
unknown
But I mean, do you think—it's interesting, because in his first term, I think there was a sense of a gap between his rhetoric and his policies. That he's more beholden to the traditional Republican establishment. So it was easier for those on the left who called him a fascist to be accused of being hysterical. But this time round, you know, if you look at Hungary as the playbook where the illiberal democracy, where you find, you know, there's no firing squads or tanks on the streets, you know, but you find pro-Orbán business people buy up newspapers and they say we still have a free press. I mean, two examples. Mark Zuckerberg bending the knee after Donald Trump wrote if he goes against me politically he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. And now of course the deporting of people, or the menace deportation, beginning to deport people who speak out about Palestine. It's a different kettle of fish than what we had first time, isn't it? It is actually genuinely authoritarian. Ay, but
But I mean, do you think—it's interesting, because in his first term, I think there was a sense of a gap between his rhetoric and his policies. That he's more beholden to the traditional Republican establishment. So it was easier for those on the left who called him a fascist to be accused of being hysterical. But this time round, you know, if you look at Hungary as the playbook where the illiberal democracy, where you find, you know, there's no firing squads or tanks on the streets, you know, but you find pro-Orbán business people buy up newspapers and they say we still have a free press. I mean, two examples. Mark Zuckerberg bending the knee after Donald Trump wrote if he goes against me politically he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. And now of course the deporting of people, or the menace deportation, beginning to deport people who speak out about Palestine. It's a different kettle of fish than what we had first time, isn't it? It is actually genuinely authoritarian. Ay, but
Slavoj Žižek
you hit, how do you call it, hit the nail on the head with this question. You know why? Because I think ironically that in the first term Trump didn't yet get the Stalinist lesson. He made his eccentricities and so on, but then in four years out of power Trump learned what to do. How to penetrate not just state apparatus but civil society organizations and so on and so on. This is the reason I still agree that I'm not afraid to admit it. Eight, nine years ago I said vote for Trump and I still claim I was right. What I hoped was that if Trump is there for one, for one term, four years, then people will see who he is and maybe this would be better than Hillary Clinton who would be, I think, still also a nightmare. But what happened is that, sorry if I repeat this old story known to many of you, what happened is that the four years of Biden administration, although some of his measures were relatively progressive, they didn't see the historical trend that brought Trump to power. Their idea was as if we have Fukuyama-like normal development towards global welfare state democracy and Trump is just an accident. We should be a little bit more careful and so on. Here I, sorry if I repeat this metaphor, I like this embodiment when a figure becomes a symbol. For example, I was very glad when Trump—it's not clear what really happened, you know when his ear was almost touched, it's not clear what it was—but it I was so afraid that this and he holding the American flag blah-blah will become the big symbol. No, the only big symbol, and this gives me some hope, is—you remember, of course you do, I repeat it all the time—Biden's inauguration. Who stole the show? Bernie Sanders by doing what? Nothing, just sitting there with his famous gloves and so on. You know what this means? This means even so-called, nothing against them, ordinary people, by this fixation of Bernie Sanders, saw there is something deeply wrong in the spectacle going on. So here my, so that I don't, which I always do, speak for too long, I would say that we should why not learn from Trump. You know what Trump did among other things. The left is babbling for decades, Oh let's get rid of neoliberalism. Sorry, Trump did it. He effectively is now, I claim, imposing a new order which is no longer the old neoliberal order.
you hit, how do you call it, hit the nail on the head with this question. You know why? Because I think ironically that in the first term Trump didn't yet get the Stalinist lesson. He made his eccentricities and so on, but then in four years out of power Trump learned what to do. How to penetrate not just state apparatus but civil society organizations and so on and so on. This is the reason I still agree that I'm not afraid to admit it. Eight, nine years ago I said vote for Trump and I still claim I was right. What I hoped was that if Trump is there for one, for one term, four years, then people will see who he is and maybe this would be better than Hillary Clinton who would be, I think, still also a nightmare. But what happened is that, sorry if I repeat this old story known to many of you, what happened is that the four years of Biden administration, although some of his measures were relatively progressive, they didn't see the historical trend that brought Trump to power. Their idea was as if we have Fukuyama-like normal development towards global welfare state democracy and Trump is just an accident. We should be a little bit more careful and so on. Here I, sorry if I repeat this metaphor, I like this embodiment when a figure becomes a symbol. For example, I was very glad when Trump—it's not clear what really happened, you know when his ear was almost touched, it's not clear what it was—but it I was so afraid that this and he holding the American flag blah-blah will become the big symbol. No, the only big symbol, and this gives me some hope, is—you remember, of course you do, I repeat it all the time—Biden's inauguration. Who stole the show? Bernie Sanders by doing what? Nothing, just sitting there with his famous gloves and so on. You know what this means? This means even so-called, nothing against them, ordinary people, by this fixation of Bernie Sanders, saw there is something deeply wrong in the spectacle going on. So here my, so that I don't, which I always do, speak for too long, I would say that we should why not learn from Trump. You know what Trump did among other things. The left is babbling for decades, Oh let's get rid of neoliberalism. Sorry, Trump did it. He effectively is now, I claim, imposing a new order which is no longer the old neoliberal order.
unknown
But I mean if you, I mean if you think DOGE, which is Elon Musk-led kind of program of mass rollback of government expenditure, I mean isn't that at its essence a classic tenet of neoliberalism, which is roll back the frontiers of the state?
But I mean if you, I mean if you think DOGE, which is Elon Musk-led kind of program of mass rollback of government expenditure, I mean isn't that at its essence a classic tenet of neoliberalism, which is roll back the frontiers of the state?
Slavoj Žižek
Ah, I agree. Yes. But first, so first this is already my answer. You see here are elements of liberalism in Trump. But you know what's so crucial? This paradox I see here is that this reducing of deep state, firing dozens of employees and so on, just strengthens what Varoufakis would have called—I have problems with that term—neo-feudalism. We have now effectively new figures of Master Elon Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, you know, I always like Zuckerberg's name. You know what it means in German? Berg mountain, Zucker sugar. Mountain of sugar. He is throwing us mountain of his bullshit sugar. But what I want to say is that I think that the aim of this neoliberal in appearance dismantling of the state is to facilitate precisely this neo-feudal dominance of big corporations. And second thing, you know what bothered me all the time about a certain form of cancel culture. The official aim of it was to fight for diversity and inclusion. But quite often in practice all they are doing is excluding people who don't fit their notion of diversity and so on. But Trump now is doing the same in a much more tough way. Yes, reducing the state, but at the same time you know, you remember, you probably mentioned it. He even, Trump, he even threatened Wall Street Journal with court procedures. Why? Because they published a column where they were doubtful about how tariffs will work and so on and so on. So we are getting the paradox known to every good old Stalinist which is: you proclaim you are for real actual freedom and on behalf of this you actually destroy freedom. So let me tell a—it's not really dirty so I'm allowed to it—a joke that I once used. I like this nested tragic joke. A husband has his wife operated. Dangerous surgery. But the surgeon is his friend. And after the operation the surgeon comes to him and says everything okay and husband asks really, are things okay? And the surgeon says don't worry. Okay there are some minor problems like you know she cannot control her urine but okay what's this. She cannot control her anal opening, she will shit all the time and so on. He goes on and the husband goes more and more pale. And then surgeon puts his arm on the husband's shoulder and says don't worry I was just joking. Everything is okay, your wife is dead. I think this is what Trump is doing. He says democracy you know and then he said yes but we have to exile these people, fire those, blah blah. And then at the end he will say sorry guys I was just kidding there is no democracy. I mean we are really empirically, I'm not joking, approaching this state. With that's the paradox. In quite a neo-fascist way Trump is directly, brutally, even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not doing this, intervening. Isn't this the paradox? Neoliberalism but sustained by the strongest imaginable constant ideological economic state intervention.
Ah, I agree. Yes. But first, so first this is already my answer. You see here are elements of liberalism in Trump. But you know what's so crucial? This paradox I see here is that this reducing of deep state, firing dozens of employees and so on, just strengthens what Varoufakis would have called—I have problems with that term—neo-feudalism. We have now effectively new figures of Master Elon Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, you know, I always like Zuckerberg's name. You know what it means in German? Berg mountain, Zucker sugar. Mountain of sugar. He is throwing us mountain of his bullshit sugar. But what I want to say is that I think that the aim of this neoliberal in appearance dismantling of the state is to facilitate precisely this neo-feudal dominance of big corporations. And second thing, you know what bothered me all the time about a certain form of cancel culture. The official aim of it was to fight for diversity and inclusion. But quite often in practice all they are doing is excluding people who don't fit their notion of diversity and so on. But Trump now is doing the same in a much more tough way. Yes, reducing the state, but at the same time you know, you remember, you probably mentioned it. He even, Trump, he even threatened Wall Street Journal with court procedures. Why? Because they published a column where they were doubtful about how tariffs will work and so on and so on. So we are getting the paradox known to every good old Stalinist which is: you proclaim you are for real actual freedom and on behalf of this you actually destroy freedom. So let me tell a—it's not really dirty so I'm allowed to it—a joke that I once used. I like this nested tragic joke. A husband has his wife operated. Dangerous surgery. But the surgeon is his friend. And after the operation the surgeon comes to him and says everything okay and husband asks really, are things okay? And the surgeon says don't worry. Okay there are some minor problems like you know she cannot control her urine but okay what's this. She cannot control her anal opening, she will shit all the time and so on. He goes on and the husband goes more and more pale. And then surgeon puts his arm on the husband's shoulder and says don't worry I was just joking. Everything is okay, your wife is dead. I think this is what Trump is doing. He says democracy you know and then he said yes but we have to exile these people, fire those, blah blah. And then at the end he will say sorry guys I was just kidding there is no democracy. I mean we are really empirically, I'm not joking, approaching this state. With that's the paradox. In quite a neo-fascist way Trump is directly, brutally, even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not doing this, intervening. Isn't this the paradox? Neoliberalism but sustained by the strongest imaginable constant ideological economic state intervention.
unknown
Well I mean just I want the kind of contradiction you just talked about because a classic example is JD Vance, the Vice President, doing a speech lecturing Europe about the lack of free speech. He didn't mention valid points like Germany hounding those who speak out about Palestine. But at the same day Trump tweeted saying illegal protests on campus, though didn't define what that meant, they will be arrested, expelled, deported. And Palestine, do you not think, I mean it's interesting because it shows the roles of the—the role of liberals before, they helped demonize those protests, they whipped up hysteria, laid the foundations and now Trump is building on that. But that's the thin end of the wedge isn't it? He's likely to start there with the question of Palestine and expand that authoritarian onslaught. Here again I agree with you, I just like to complicate things. In what—in what sense? Like Palestine and so
Well I mean just I want the kind of contradiction you just talked about because a classic example is JD Vance, the Vice President, doing a speech lecturing Europe about the lack of free speech. He didn't mention valid points like Germany hounding those who speak out about Palestine. But at the same day Trump tweeted saying illegal protests on campus, though didn't define what that meant, they will be arrested, expelled, deported. And Palestine, do you not think, I mean it's interesting because it shows the roles of the—the role of liberals before, they helped demonize those protests, they whipped up hysteria, laid the foundations and now Trump is building on that. But that's the thin end of the wedge isn't it? He's likely to start there with the question of Palestine and expand that authoritarian onslaught. Here again I agree with you, I just like to complicate things. In what—in what sense? Like Palestine and so
Slavoj Žižek
on. I think that as I tried to develop in some of my texts, if you look and it's good that you mention Elon Musk and his madmen and so on. If you look at what Trump is doing, you have on the one hand this, under quotation marks, Left Fascist Trumpians. Take care of the white working class blah-blah. But then what these corporate guys like Elon Musk and so on are doing, their implicit ideological project, not only ideological, is quite the opposite. I think to understand them and even what Trump is doing now with Israeli help in Gaza, it's what some theorists developed as the notion of digital state. You clean a territory and then you establish there through dictatorial power supported by some experts, from the zero point you construct a new society. Again the paradox is there: more Stalinist than Stalin himself. And I think that now you will say I'm exaggerating. I am not. I already see things happening. I think the latest tendencies today is it's not just what that Trump wanted this in Gaza. The idea is to clean the territory and then he even didn't say this will be like Canada, the 52nd or what state, whatever. To construct from zero point a new society. Then I read somewhere that in some part of Bolivia an Indian, not native Americans, India, India fanatical Hindu sect bought a tremendous large amount of land where they want to construct their own society from the zero point and so on. So again on the one hand we have let's protect our way of life and so on and so on. On the other hand you get in quite a literal sense a terrifying technocratic vision. And I don't think unfortunately that Trump will have to decide too soon. He will be able for some time to to play both
on. I think that as I tried to develop in some of my texts, if you look and it's good that you mention Elon Musk and his madmen and so on. If you look at what Trump is doing, you have on the one hand this, under quotation marks, Left Fascist Trumpians. Take care of the white working class blah-blah. But then what these corporate guys like Elon Musk and so on are doing, their implicit ideological project, not only ideological, is quite the opposite. I think to understand them and even what Trump is doing now with Israeli help in Gaza, it's what some theorists developed as the notion of digital state. You clean a territory and then you establish there through dictatorial power supported by some experts, from the zero point you construct a new society. Again the paradox is there: more Stalinist than Stalin himself. And I think that now you will say I'm exaggerating. I am not. I already see things happening. I think the latest tendencies today is it's not just what that Trump wanted this in Gaza. The idea is to clean the territory and then he even didn't say this will be like Canada, the 52nd or what state, whatever. To construct from zero point a new society. Then I read somewhere that in some part of Bolivia an Indian, not native Americans, India, India fanatical Hindu sect bought a tremendous large amount of land where they want to construct their own society from the zero point and so on. So again on the one hand we have let's protect our way of life and so on and so on. On the other hand you get in quite a literal sense a terrifying technocratic vision. And I don't think unfortunately that Trump will have to decide too soon. He will be able for some time to to play both
unknown
cards. Okay.
cards. Okay.