Wikileaks Interview
Interview · zizekpodcast.com ·
2018-06-02 · 1:04:51 · 8,515 words
ideologytechnology-ai-cyberspacedemocracyliberalism-political-correctnessgeopolitics-warrevolution-violencefascism-populismcapitalism
Žižek gives a wide-ranging defense of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, arguing they represent a necessary third form of emancipatory struggle alongside mass protest and party organization, the battle to control the digital infrastructure of surveillance and information. He situates Assange's persecution within a broader critique of liberal-left failure, the collapse of social-democratic parties, and dangerous structural parallels to the pre-WWI era. The talk covers digital surveillance, the ideology of freedom-as-control, critique of political correctness, and the need for a new left rooted in Bernie Sanders-style politics rather than performative radicalism.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 11
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Beyond mass popular protest and party organization, a third emancipatory level: the technical-informational battle over who controls digital media and surveillance infrastructure.
Žižek identifies it as the second level of the campaign against Assange: attacking his personal character (authoritarian, paranoid, unhygienic) to delegitimize political critique.
The condition of internet/digital users who feel utterly free while being maximally surveilled and controlled, the most dangerous form of unfreedom.
as “pseudo-radicalism”
A performative extremism (demanding bombing of the US, waiting for global revolution) that makes no real demands on power and therefore is tolerated, the perfect alibi for inaction.
Not a superstructural edifice in books but the fabric of daily life, how ordinary people experience and make sense of their conditions, including blaming immigrants for job losses.
as “historical WikiLeaks”
A proposed form of inquiry that would penetrate official myths about historical events (e.g. Watergate) the way WikiLeaks exposes contemporary state secrets.
A general map of how things stand and where they are moving, which Žižek (citing Fredric Jameson) says we currently lack in these confused times.
as “brain-digital interface”
Direct connection between human brain and digital network, which Žižek sees as dissolving the basic distinction between inner mental freedom and external reality.
Brain-science subfield that attempts to detect religious experience neurologically, which Žižek uses as a reductio-ad-absurdum of state control of thought (e.g. enforcing belief in Egypt).
Žižek's characterization of WikiLeaks: not a grassroots democratic movement but a secretive counter-intelligence operation working in the public interest.
Implicitly operative in his argument that the lived experience of digital freedom is a real abstraction masking total control.
Stories he reaches for 5
Žižek's Native American academic friends prefer to be called 'Indians' because 'Native Americans' is patronizingly racist (assimilating them to 'nature'), while 'Indians' at least records white man's geographical stupidity.
“'We prefer to be called Indians, at least our name is a sign of white man's stupidity, who thought when they discovered America they are in India.'”
Before his death, Hawking's brain was wired directly to his wheelchair so that thinking 'Forward' moved it, used as the 'stupid' (Žižek's word) but illustrative example of the brain-digital interface erasing the mind/world distinction.
“Stephen Hawking no longer needed his finger, his brain was directly wired... Stephen Hawking thought 'Forward,' his wheelchair moved forward.”
Žižek and Assange share a deep distrust of The Handmaid's Tale: while officially a critique of Christian fundamentalist patriarchy, the show seduces viewers into enjoying the details of female subjugation, functioning as pseudo-critique.
“The majority of my friends secretly enjoy watching that universe. It's a pseudo-critique... the message is, 'Enjoy it and you can feel safe because officially it's against the oppression of women.'”
An English professor in China, flirting with a woman using the Elizabethan sense of 'protest' ('I protest my love for you'), had his message blocked by automated Tiananmen censorship, while explicit sexual language would have passed.
“He wrote to her using a phrase in Shakespeare... 'I protest my love for you.' His message was blocked. If he were to say, 'I want to screw the brain out of you'... it would have been okay.”
A Native American academic in Missoula showed Žižek a text proving that Native Americans destroyed more forests and killed more buffalos than all white people combined, to expose the 'angelic other' stereotype as refined racism.
“'We Native Americans ruined, burned more forests and killed more buffalos than all white people combined.' He wanted to say how to paint the other as angelic... is a refined version of racism.”
Works invoked 5
Žižek and Assange share 'deep distrust' of it: officially a feminist critique of patriarchy but functions as pseudo-critique that seduces viewers into enjoying the subjugation it depicts.
The Guardian journal
Žižek expresses his 'greatest moral disappointment' that the Guardian, supposedly a left-establishment voice, joined the campaign against Assange and attacked Susan Sarandon.
Žižek describes having a 'great debate' about it with Assange, who gave him 'wonderful insights'; also identifies it as based on a Philip K. Dick classic.
Assange's book on Google, which Žižek describes as 'in some sense his greatest achievement' and 'his intellectual achievement', the first to detect the dark potential of new media.
Enlightenment Now book
Stephen Pinker's argument that global poverty is declining and obesity now exceeds hunger; Žižek uses it as the foil for his counter-argument about structural dangers and WWI-era parallels.
People invoked 22
Alfonso Cuarón positive
Cited as a 'nice surprise', a filmmaker who allowed his name to be used in public support of Assange.
Laura Poitras negative
Žižek dismisses her documentary on Assange as character assassination ('he is authoritarian, he is paranoiac'), part of the campaign to discredit him.
Richard Nixon positive
Identified provocatively as the most left-wing American president by policy metrics (healthcare, poverty, détente with China); used to expose the narrowing of the Overton window.
George Soros negative
Žižek says he 'generally supports' Soros's fight against European anti-immigrant right, but criticizes his announcement of planning to move a million refugees to Europe as an alarming example of elite unilateralism bypassing democratic decision.
Susan Sarandon positive
Žižek defends Sarandon against ferocious Guardian attack accusing her of working for Trump because she supported Jill Stein.
Edward Snowden positive
Defends Snowden against allegations he chose Russia, Žižek insists Snowden and Assange desperately tried every Western country first and were refused; Snowden expresses dissatisfaction with Russia from time to time.
Used as a concrete example of the brain-digital interface: his brain was directly wired to his wheelchair before his death.
Roger Waters positive
Named alongside Cuarón as supporters of Assange, though Žižek classes them as 'usual suspects' whose support was expected.
Steven Pinker negative
Grouped with Sam Harris as 'naive' optimists citing progress data (Enlightenment Now) while ignoring structural dangers and tendencies toward catastrophe.
Sebastian Kurz negative
Described as the 'more civilized new right' in Austria, adopts anti-immigrant premises but in a more palatable way, representing the future if the left fails.
Donald Trump negative
Used sarcastically as a 'model of civility' compared to the smear campaign against Assange; also analyzed as benefiting from liberal mockery and as likely to win re-election absent a major catastrophe.
Sam Harris negative
Grouped with Pinker as naively optimistic about human progress while missing the systemic dangers of digital control.
Chelsea Manning positive
Mentioned in connection with BBC Newsnight appearance where WikiLeaks data on CIA spying on Brazilian oil executives was cited as evidence of overreach beyond genuine defense needs.
Fredric Jameson positive
Cited as 'my friend' and invoked for the concept of 'cognitive mapping', which Žižek says we currently lack.
Bernie Sanders positive
Žižek argues Sanders is not a socialist but a moderate social democrat by historical standards, and that a Sanders-style new American left is the only way to beat Trump.
Julian Assange positive
Žižek has personal friendship with Assange, spent hours talking with him, defends him against character assassination, describes him as 'quite a normal guy', and sees WikiLeaks as his greatest intellectual achievement (the book on Google).
Identified (without naming her) as 'that Myanmar lady' who got the Nobel Prize after years of house arrest, then made peace with military powers and refused to respond when Assange asked for solidarity.
Viktor Orbán negative
Used as an example of a right-wing populist who wins genuine popular support because the liberal left fails to address ordinary people's concerns about immigration and economic anxiety.
Mao Zedong positive
Invoked as self-identified 'old Maoist'; quotes Mao's 'Let a hundred flowers blossom' to advocate for proliferating WikiLeaks-type organizations globally.
Hillary Clinton negative
Žižek blames Clinton's brutal sidelining of the Sanders left as the real cause of her 2016 defeat, and criticizes 'Clinton liberals' for attacking Assange instead of asking self-critical questions.
Pippa Malmgren positive
British drone company owner cited as the source for the claim that flat-screen TVs monitor viewers' emotional reactions via facial recognition cameras.
Named as one of 'the usual suspects' who reliably sign public proclamations supporting Assange, Žižek expected broader support.
What it argues
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as symbol of emancipatory struggledigital surveillance as the new unfreedom experienced as freedomfailure of the liberal-left and social-democratic partiespseudo-radicalism as complicity with powerparallels between pre-WWI world order and todaypolitical correctness as patronizing and counterproductivethe battle to control digital infrastructure
Dialectical moves 7
“The most dangerous non-freedom is precisely the one which is experienced as even the most radical freedom.”
Digital participation feels like pure freedom but is the deepest form of unfreedom, because the illusion prevents resistance.
“Far from being a hero of free information, Assange is portrayed as the threat — while the real threat is those who control the digital grid.”
The inversion: the one exposing surveillance is criminalized while actual total surveillance is normalized.
“A slave who doesn't even know that he or she is a slave, who still thinks he is a free being — that is the truly dangerous slave.”
Open authoritarian control (China) is less dangerous than invisible control that is experienced as freedom (the West).
“Pseudo-radicalism which makes big threats but because we all know that these big threats are inoperative, you will be left alone.”
True radicalism is concrete and actionable (WikiLeaks); extreme rhetoric that changes nothing is perfectly safe for the system.
“You know who was the most leftist American president? Richard Nixon.”
The reversal of conventional left/right political history: the man associated with reaction enacted more left-wing policy than liberal presidents.
“Today's censorship works not by prohibiting but by overflow of information — the Chinese are stupid for still prohibiting.”
The most effective censorship produces not silence but noise; drowning people in data is more efficient than blocking it.
“When this limit falls, I gain extraordinary powers — almost like God: I think about something, it happens in reality. But it also goes the other way: my brain can be directly controlled.”
The dialectic of the brain-computer interface: the very power it grants is simultaneously the channel through which you are controlled.
Claims 16
asserts
WikiLeaks represents a necessary third level of emancipatory struggle — beyond mass protest and party organization — focused on who controls the digital grid.WikiLeaks / emancipatory politics
asserts
The most dangerous unfreedom is one experienced as total freedom — digital surveillance capitalism creates exactly this condition.digital surveillance / ideology
asserts
The #MeToo movement failed politically by allowing itself to be instrumentalized against Assange without protesting the obvious political manipulation.#MeToo movement / Assange
asserts
Hillary Clinton lost to Trump primarily because she brutally sidelined the left wing of her own party (Sanders supporters), not because of Russian interference or third-party voters.2016 US election / Clinton defeat
asserts
Measured by actual policy on healthcare and poverty, Richard Nixon was the most left-wing American president.US political history / Nixon
reframes
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist by any meaningful standard — he is a moderate social democrat by the standards of European welfare states of fifty years ago.Bernie Sanders / left political spectrum
asserts
Ordinary people's concerns are not automatically progressive or correct — ideology operates at the level of daily life, and ordinary people in Hungary genuinely support Orbán.populism / ideology / Podemos strategy
asserts
Politically correct left protectionism toward minorities is a refined form of racism that patronizes rather than respects them.political correctness / racism
rejects
The Cambridge Analytica affair shows that election manipulation was homegrown in the West, not imported from Russia via Putin.Russiagate / election interference narrative
asserts
The current global situation parallels the pre-WWI moment: a declining hegemon (US replacing Britain), emerging rival powers, and no shared rules for the new multipolar order.geopolitics / risk of great-power war
asserts
Jon Stewart / John Oliver–style liberal mockery of Trump ultimately works in Trump's favor by highlighting the vulgar populist authenticity his base loves.liberal media strategy / Trump
asserts
Pseudo-radical groups demanding total revolution serve those in power perfectly, because grandiose but inoperative threats are tolerated while concrete information exposure is crushed.pseudo-radicalism / WikiLeaks
reframes
Authoritarian censorship through information overflow is more effective than direct prohibition, because it leaves people no illusions about being controlled in the Chinese style.censorship / digital control
asserts
The brain-digital interface dissolves the foundational human distinction between inner mental freedom and external reality, enabling direct brain control.technology / human subjectivity
rejects
Wategate should be re-examined: the official story — two journalists brought down a corrupt president — is ideology at its purest, concealing establishment forces that actually removed Nixon.Watergate myth / American ideology
asserts
Even in the West, those in power are prepared to shut down digital infrastructure during periods of unrest, just as they did in Egypt — controlling the digital grid is therefore a life-or-death political question.digital infrastructure / state power
Quotes 10
“The most dangerous non-freedom is precisely the one which is experienced as even the most radical freedom.”Slavoj Žižek · digital surveillance as ideological freedom
“A slave who doesn't even know that he or she is a slave, who still thinks he is a free being — that is the dangerous slave.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology / unconscious unfreedom
“You know who was the most leftist American president? Richard Nixon.”Slavoj Žižek · inversion of US political history
“Let a hundred WikiLeaks blossom. We need WikiLeaks for China, WikiLeaks for Russia and so on.”Slavoj Žižek · WikiLeaks as universal emancipatory model
“Pseudo-radicalism which make big threats — because we all know that these big threats are inoperative — you will be left alone. You do what Julian did, you just render public a little bit of data — you are a threat.”Slavoj Žižek · pseudo-radicalism vs. concrete information politics
“Today's censorship: you don't do it by simply prohibiting. No, you do it by overflow of information.”Slavoj Žižek · censorship through information overflow
“WikiLeaks was never, never caught even at a tiny point of spreading fake news... It proved to be the only reliable one.”Slavoj Žižek · WikiLeaks reliability vs. mainstream media
“Ideology is not some edifice up there in complex books. Ideology is our daily life, how we experience our daily lives.”Slavoj Žižek · ideology as lived experience
“This is what Julian triggered. It's a people's secret service.”Slavoj Žižek · WikiLeaks as counter-intelligence for the people
“Personal freedom is deceiving. We are controlled more than ever. That this freedom — personal freedom — is deceiving. That's the message.”Slavoj Žižek · digital freedom as illusion
Transcript 37 turns
unknown
Welcome Slavoj. Thank you for coming.
Welcome Slavoj. Thank you for coming.
Slavoj Žižek
I'm proud to be here. Thanks.
I'm proud to be here. Thanks.
unknown
Why do you support WikiLeaks?
Why do you support WikiLeaks?
Slavoj Žižek
It's not just my personal sympathy for Assange, it's—well, we don't have time to go, if not into philosophy, into general social theory. But I think that WikiLeaks, for me, is a symbol of a crucial struggle for emancipation today. Our old idea of emancipatory movement is either you have mass popular protests, like Podemos, Occupy Wall Street, or you have political organizations and so on. But there is a third level of the struggle. If you just read our popular media, you can easily see from different news stories to what extent our lives are already registered, controlled by what Julian Assange describes so perfectly as this combination of big private corporations like Facebook, Google, and state security agencies. I mean, what they know, what they can do, it's breathtaking. What we do, what we shop, our—when we shop, our emotional reactions and so on and so on. Everything is registered. I'm not paranoiac about this. I'm just saying that it's absolutely crucial that we become aware of it and that we learn to strike back. And we shouldn't be soft or gentle here. This is a big struggle, and we should strike back through hackers, our own technicians, well-trained people and so on. This is also a large technical operation. Now, my friends tell me, "But are you aware to what extent our daily lives are run through digital machinery, electricity, food distribution? Do you want to destroy this all?" I'm saying no. My fear is that those in power are getting ready to interrupt this, to put at a standstill this digital universe if it will fit them in a time of unrest and so on and so on. I don't trust them. It's absolutely crucial that people become aware of two things. First, how our daily lives are controlled and regulated through immense, vast digital machinery. And point two: who controls, regulates, limits this machinery? It's typical that most of the news that we hear about this are usually, "Oh, do you know what they are doing in China? They are already introducing some grading of all citizens, your patriotic status," and so on and so on. Yes, but the same thing in a more soft, invisible way is happening here with us. So again, I repeat it, we are usually caught in this duality: either we do it Podemos style, just we follow popular unrest of the people, or we do it the old-fashioned way, we need a political organization who elaborates programs. These two levels are not enough. A third level is necessary, and this is what Julian triggered. So as an old Maoist, even if they—but they shouldn't—finish off somehow with him, you know, Mao Zedong said in that great moment of opening in, I think, '56, "Let a hundred flowers blossom," you know. Our answer should be, let a hundred WikiLeaks blossom. We need WikiLeaks for China, WikiLeaks for Russia and so on. Otherwise, are we aware—this is what shocked me, now I go more personal towards Julian—I was so shocked at the low level of the campaign. Like Trump, Donald Trump is almost a kind and polite guy if you compare the level of the campaign against Julian. You know, it began with pure political considerations, like, "Didn't they endanger lives of our agents?" and so on. "For whom are they working? Is Julian on the payroll of Putin?" whatever you want. Then it was one level lower, this personal accusations, the unfortunate documentary of—what's the girl's name?—Laura Poitras or whatever, you know, "He is authoritarian, he is paranoiac." Well, all I can say to that if that—sorry, but if at that point the boss of the CIA says that my arrest is his top priority, I would be a little bit conspiratorial and paranoiac also. It's ridiculous. And all that stuff about—you remember the first years were the Swedish accusations against him. Here, I think I have a great criticism here of the #MeToo movement. Not that I don't know—I wasn't there—that a priori Julian is blameless, but what I'm saying is that, my god, some of this new feminist movement, couldn't they say, "Sorry, we are fighting a great fight for women's liberation, new voice of women, and we will not allow our struggle to be so blatantly manipulated, put in service of a frantic activity of those in power to destroy Julian"? Why didn't they—they—I'm not expecting from them to defend him totally, but at least to say, "Sorry, it's a clear-cut case of political manipulation." So second was character assassination, and the lowest—it disappeared, it was just maybe you remember for a couple of days in the media—do you remember that a couple of days, all of a sudden there was news that the real reason Ecuadorians in the embassy want to get rid of Julian is that he doesn't wash regularly and that he smells bad? I mean, here they went even lower than Trump. Trump is a model of civility and politeness. Sorry. And what really shocked me, you know, is how—how people are—sometimes I get the impression that all this continuous propaganda, this little doubts, "Was he connected with Putin?" and so on and so on. Listen, the story here is much more complex. First, what one has to repeat again and again: with all this story about fake news, cheating, and so on, as far as I know, WikiLeaks was never, never caught even at a tiny point of spreading fake news and so on. It proved to be the only reliable one. Point two: Putin and so on. Are—and usually then people mention Snowden, you know. But I know, I was in contact with Julian, I know that—you remember when Snowden was caught in Hong Kong? Their first choice was not Russia, one has to repeat it. When people say, "Oh, but Snowden chose Russia, now he gave them all the secret information," sorry, Snowden didn't want to go to Russia. They were desperately trying in those ten days, whatever window of time they had, anywhere in the West to put him. They tried Denmark, they tried all—Netherlands, Sweden, all those countries, Norway, who pride themselves for being radically democratic—none wanted them. And Snowden even now from time to time gives a voice of dissatisfaction. So let's not—and also, what we learned from the affair of Cambridge Analytica is that, no, you don't need Putin. It was the Putin—if by Putin we mean some secret agent who twisted, influenced the American election—sorry, it wasn't Putin, it was Cambridge Analytica, well-rooted in the West, nothing to do with Putin, and it was Hillary Clinton. And here, if you allow me, just the last point what horrifies me is how this—the saddest example for me is now a newspaper like Guardian, which professed itself to be the voice still within the establishment but of the left as much as you can go. But I was so surprised now a couple of days ago, yesterday the day before, I read a ferocious attack on Susan Sarandon, claiming her practically to work for Donald Trump. Why? Because—this is my big reproach to Clinton liberals. They attack Trump all the time and so on and so on, but they never ask the critical question: Hillary Clinton had practically the victory in her pocket, why did she lose? The true—the name of the trouble was here Bernie Sanders. And I think what cost Hillary the election was the brutal way she liquidated the left-wing in her own party. I know literally hundreds of people who told me, "I wanted to vote for Bernie, I would be ready to switch to Hillary, but when I saw how brutally they outmaneuvered him, sorry, I will not vote for Hillary." So you see, that's the saddest thing. This—the way, let's call it liberal-left center, turned against Julian and made him even a secret tool of Trump, of Putin, whatever. We shouldn't fall into this trap. This is the most dangerous aspect of the big campaign against Julian. But I talk too much, please, you are my interrogator here. No, I kind of see my—my job here is basically like a drummer, you know, the less you notice me, the better. You're the talent here. But a drummer sets the rhythm nonetheless. The drummer sets the rhythm, you know. The drummer is the secret boss. I like your rhythm. Your rhythm is—your rhythm is good. You know, but nonetheless, in our so-called post-authoritarian times, no, it's no longer fashionable to call a boss a boss. We like more neutral names. One popular name is coordinator, you know. I'm not the boss, I just coordinate. You have all the power of the boss but it sounds more polite. So be my coordinator, okay. Well, I like what you're saying. I mean, yeah, the—they smeared Susan Sarandon for advocating Jill Stein. I was all aboard the Jill Stein train when that was all going down. I don't know a single Jill Stein voter, not one, who would have voted for Hillary Clinton had Jill Stein not been an option. They—there—there just—those—that side of the political spectrum was completely disgusted with the neoconservative, warmongering, oligarchic-coddling nature of the Democratic Party, and there's no way they would have ever gone with Clinton. Yes, but you see here it's for me what I always repeat and people even accuse me of being—of working for some kind of a weird coalition between, let's say, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon or whatever. No, I claim that the old right is very intelligently
It's not just my personal sympathy for Assange, it's—well, we don't have time to go, if not into philosophy, into general social theory. But I think that WikiLeaks, for me, is a symbol of a crucial struggle for emancipation today. Our old idea of emancipatory movement is either you have mass popular protests, like Podemos, Occupy Wall Street, or you have political organizations and so on. But there is a third level of the struggle. If you just read our popular media, you can easily see from different news stories to what extent our lives are already registered, controlled by what Julian Assange describes so perfectly as this combination of big private corporations like Facebook, Google, and state security agencies. I mean, what they know, what they can do, it's breathtaking. What we do, what we shop, our—when we shop, our emotional reactions and so on and so on. Everything is registered. I'm not paranoiac about this. I'm just saying that it's absolutely crucial that we become aware of it and that we learn to strike back. And we shouldn't be soft or gentle here. This is a big struggle, and we should strike back through hackers, our own technicians, well-trained people and so on. This is also a large technical operation. Now, my friends tell me, "But are you aware to what extent our daily lives are run through digital machinery, electricity, food distribution? Do you want to destroy this all?" I'm saying no. My fear is that those in power are getting ready to interrupt this, to put at a standstill this digital universe if it will fit them in a time of unrest and so on and so on. I don't trust them. It's absolutely crucial that people become aware of two things. First, how our daily lives are controlled and regulated through immense, vast digital machinery. And point two: who controls, regulates, limits this machinery? It's typical that most of the news that we hear about this are usually, "Oh, do you know what they are doing in China? They are already introducing some grading of all citizens, your patriotic status," and so on and so on. Yes, but the same thing in a more soft, invisible way is happening here with us. So again, I repeat it, we are usually caught in this duality: either we do it Podemos style, just we follow popular unrest of the people, or we do it the old-fashioned way, we need a political organization who elaborates programs. These two levels are not enough. A third level is necessary, and this is what Julian triggered. So as an old Maoist, even if they—but they shouldn't—finish off somehow with him, you know, Mao Zedong said in that great moment of opening in, I think, '56, "Let a hundred flowers blossom," you know. Our answer should be, let a hundred WikiLeaks blossom. We need WikiLeaks for China, WikiLeaks for Russia and so on. Otherwise, are we aware—this is what shocked me, now I go more personal towards Julian—I was so shocked at the low level of the campaign. Like Trump, Donald Trump is almost a kind and polite guy if you compare the level of the campaign against Julian. You know, it began with pure political considerations, like, "Didn't they endanger lives of our agents?" and so on. "For whom are they working? Is Julian on the payroll of Putin?" whatever you want. Then it was one level lower, this personal accusations, the unfortunate documentary of—what's the girl's name?—Laura Poitras or whatever, you know, "He is authoritarian, he is paranoiac." Well, all I can say to that if that—sorry, but if at that point the boss of the CIA says that my arrest is his top priority, I would be a little bit conspiratorial and paranoiac also. It's ridiculous. And all that stuff about—you remember the first years were the Swedish accusations against him. Here, I think I have a great criticism here of the #MeToo movement. Not that I don't know—I wasn't there—that a priori Julian is blameless, but what I'm saying is that, my god, some of this new feminist movement, couldn't they say, "Sorry, we are fighting a great fight for women's liberation, new voice of women, and we will not allow our struggle to be so blatantly manipulated, put in service of a frantic activity of those in power to destroy Julian"? Why didn't they—they—I'm not expecting from them to defend him totally, but at least to say, "Sorry, it's a clear-cut case of political manipulation." So second was character assassination, and the lowest—it disappeared, it was just maybe you remember for a couple of days in the media—do you remember that a couple of days, all of a sudden there was news that the real reason Ecuadorians in the embassy want to get rid of Julian is that he doesn't wash regularly and that he smells bad? I mean, here they went even lower than Trump. Trump is a model of civility and politeness. Sorry. And what really shocked me, you know, is how—how people are—sometimes I get the impression that all this continuous propaganda, this little doubts, "Was he connected with Putin?" and so on and so on. Listen, the story here is much more complex. First, what one has to repeat again and again: with all this story about fake news, cheating, and so on, as far as I know, WikiLeaks was never, never caught even at a tiny point of spreading fake news and so on. It proved to be the only reliable one. Point two: Putin and so on. Are—and usually then people mention Snowden, you know. But I know, I was in contact with Julian, I know that—you remember when Snowden was caught in Hong Kong? Their first choice was not Russia, one has to repeat it. When people say, "Oh, but Snowden chose Russia, now he gave them all the secret information," sorry, Snowden didn't want to go to Russia. They were desperately trying in those ten days, whatever window of time they had, anywhere in the West to put him. They tried Denmark, they tried all—Netherlands, Sweden, all those countries, Norway, who pride themselves for being radically democratic—none wanted them. And Snowden even now from time to time gives a voice of dissatisfaction. So let's not—and also, what we learned from the affair of Cambridge Analytica is that, no, you don't need Putin. It was the Putin—if by Putin we mean some secret agent who twisted, influenced the American election—sorry, it wasn't Putin, it was Cambridge Analytica, well-rooted in the West, nothing to do with Putin, and it was Hillary Clinton. And here, if you allow me, just the last point what horrifies me is how this—the saddest example for me is now a newspaper like Guardian, which professed itself to be the voice still within the establishment but of the left as much as you can go. But I was so surprised now a couple of days ago, yesterday the day before, I read a ferocious attack on Susan Sarandon, claiming her practically to work for Donald Trump. Why? Because—this is my big reproach to Clinton liberals. They attack Trump all the time and so on and so on, but they never ask the critical question: Hillary Clinton had practically the victory in her pocket, why did she lose? The true—the name of the trouble was here Bernie Sanders. And I think what cost Hillary the election was the brutal way she liquidated the left-wing in her own party. I know literally hundreds of people who told me, "I wanted to vote for Bernie, I would be ready to switch to Hillary, but when I saw how brutally they outmaneuvered him, sorry, I will not vote for Hillary." So you see, that's the saddest thing. This—the way, let's call it liberal-left center, turned against Julian and made him even a secret tool of Trump, of Putin, whatever. We shouldn't fall into this trap. This is the most dangerous aspect of the big campaign against Julian. But I talk too much, please, you are my interrogator here. No, I kind of see my—my job here is basically like a drummer, you know, the less you notice me, the better. You're the talent here. But a drummer sets the rhythm nonetheless. The drummer sets the rhythm, you know. The drummer is the secret boss. I like your rhythm. Your rhythm is—your rhythm is good. You know, but nonetheless, in our so-called post-authoritarian times, no, it's no longer fashionable to call a boss a boss. We like more neutral names. One popular name is coordinator, you know. I'm not the boss, I just coordinate. You have all the power of the boss but it sounds more polite. So be my coordinator, okay. Well, I like what you're saying. I mean, yeah, the—they smeared Susan Sarandon for advocating Jill Stein. I was all aboard the Jill Stein train when that was all going down. I don't know a single Jill Stein voter, not one, who would have voted for Hillary Clinton had Jill Stein not been an option. They—there—there just—those—that side of the political spectrum was completely disgusted with the neoconservative, warmongering, oligarchic-coddling nature of the Democratic Party, and there's no way they would have ever gone with Clinton. Yes, but you see here it's for me what I always repeat and people even accuse me of being—of working for some kind of a weird coalition between, let's say, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon or whatever. No, I claim that the old right is very intelligently
unknown
using, exploiting the failure of the mainstream democratic left to address, we all know what's the story, ordinary people's
using, exploiting the failure of the mainstream democratic left to address, we all know what's the story, ordinary people's
Slavoj Žižek
concerns and so on and so on. It's not only in the United States, it's the same in France, it's the same in Germany, it's the same in
concerns and so on and so on. It's not only in the United States, it's the same in France, it's the same in Germany, it's the same in
unknown
Italy. And the result is what? The result is simply the
Italy. And the result is what? The result is simply the
Slavoj Žižek
gradual disappearance of the moderate social-democratic left. In Germany it's practically out, in France Socialist Party is practically out, in Italy it's practically out. Even in Spain, Podemos was a heroic attempt, but now they somehow lost momentum and for a very precise reason which makes me sad. Podemos was a consciously leftist-populist party. You know, their motto was, "Forget about big ideological programs, listen to the ordinary people,
gradual disappearance of the moderate social-democratic left. In Germany it's practically out, in France Socialist Party is practically out, in Italy it's practically out. Even in Spain, Podemos was a heroic attempt, but now they somehow lost momentum and for a very precise reason which makes me sad. Podemos was a consciously leftist-populist party. You know, their motto was, "Forget about big ideological programs, listen to the ordinary people,
unknown
to their real concerns and demands." Now I will say something horrible: I don't trust ordinary people. Not because they are bad, but because their daily lives are caught in ideology. Sorry, but if you go to a country like Hungary, it's easy to attack Orbán as a dirty manipulator. But probably the majority is authentically behind Orbán. The concerns of everyday people there is "We have too many immigrants,
to their real concerns and demands." Now I will say something horrible: I don't trust ordinary people. Not because they are bad, but because their daily lives are caught in ideology. Sorry, but if you go to a country like Hungary, it's easy to attack Orbán as a dirty manipulator. But probably the majority is authentically behind Orbán. The concerns of everyday people there is "We have too many immigrants,
unknown
they—they pose a threat to our—to our way of life," and so on and so on. So it's not automatically that ordinary people with their concerns are right. Ideology is not some edifice up there in—in complex books and so on. Ideology is our
they—they pose a threat to our—to our way of life," and so on and so on. So it's not automatically that ordinary people with their concerns are right. Ideology is not some edifice up there in—in complex books and so on. Ideology is our
Slavoj Žižek
daily life, how we experience our daily lives. Imagine an ordinary worker, he loses his job, and he is told it's because of the outsourcing, immigrants—sorry—immigrants can do the work cheaper than you and so on and so on. And of course he perceives immigrants as a potential threat. I mean, this is why, the next thing, I don't trust this politically correct moderate left is—now it will be very problematic, I warn you what I will say now. You know, it is this concern with "We shouldn't publish anything critical about immigrants because it will be exploited by the anti-immigrant enemies." And then there was this scandal in Rotherham scandal, two-three years ago in the United Kingdom. I think that precisely immigrants—they don't need this patronizing protection. "We will not mention anything bad about you, we want to protect you." We are treating them like children and we leave to the anti-immigrant alt-right the entire space. The problem is to confront—the task is to confront all these problems, to confront real problems. There are differences in our and some of the immigrants, at least way of life. We need here an open debate, not this paranoiac protectionism. I know many people from Arab countries, black from United States, Native Americans. Incidentally, this may amuse you: my Native American friends much prefer to be called Indians. You know why? They say "Native Americans," it's so patronizingly racist, you know, like native nature—ah, we are nature, you are culture. So they told me, "We prefer to be called Indians, at least our name is a sign of white man's stupidity, who thought when they discovered America they are in India." What I want to say is that we shouldn't be—we shouldn't patronize them. All my friends hate so much this patronizing attitude. You know like with some white liberals, when you mention Native Americans, they say, "Oh, they have a holistic attitude, they don't exploit nature, we are white imperialists who just brutally—brutally—brutally intervene into nature," and so on and so on. I had a wonderful meeting in Missoula, Montana years ago with a Native American who showed me a text he wrote, he was an academic, where he demonstrated—he said, "But we Native Americans ruined, burned more forests and killed more buffalos than all white people combined," you know. He wasn't a masochist. He just wanted to say—he detected in a very nice way how to paint the other as kind of angelic, you know, "They cannot be evil," and so on. It's a refined version of racism also. Why do I mention this apropos Julian? Because I think that this politically correct distrust of him—"But maybe he was that violent, he is a male chauvinist," blah blah—this is maybe one of the main factors why many people unfortunately in principle they support him but with a proviso, you know, like, "Oh my god but nonetheless what if he is an—what if he is an unpleasant person?" No, I can tell them, I spent hours talking with him. He is quite a normal guy, you know. We don't talk with him all—I with him—all the time politics. We talk about TV series. We had a long debate on *The Man in the High Castle*, you know, that old Philip K. Dick classic which is now a new series, no. And he gave me some wonderful insights about all this and so on. I had a great debate about *Handmaid's Tale* with him, where we all—both of us expressed a deep distrust of *Handmaid's Tale*. You know why? Because it's very refined and perverted. I hope most of our listeners know *Handmaid's Tale*, I will not lose time going into that. But what's so horrible is that although, of course, it's a terrifying portrait of the United States occupied by some Christian fundamentalists and so on, but forget about the official message. Me and all my friends, even women, are fascinated by the details of the organization, you know, how they terrorize women, "They shouldn't do this, they control them like that." And in a more subtle way, you are seduced by it. You are not really horrified, I claim. The majority of my friends secretly enjoy watching that universe. It's a pseudo-critique. Of course, it's consciously meant as a critique. But you know, the way it is a convincing portrait, it cheats. It cheats in the sense that the message is, "Enjoy it and you can feel safe because officially it's against the oppression of women and so on and so on and so on." The other thing where I agree with Julian is the impotence of American liberal left. Look, Trump is occupying the space. The way it looks now, if there will not be some big economic or military catastrophe, he will win re-election even and so on. And what do we get now? We get what I call Jon Stewart, John Oliver and so on, this—we just laugh all the time, we catch him at his meaningless vulgarities and so on and so on. But all this in the long term works for him, I claim. The more we catch him with his vulgar jokes and so on, we think, "Oh my god, you see now people will see." No, his supporters know this, and this vulgar human side, this is what they like about Trump and so on. I think that as Julian wrote—it was already a year ago—a very good text where he simply said if you want to beat Trump, a new in the Bernie Sanders style American left should re-emerge. That's the only way to beat Julian—Trump, okay, Donald Trump. What I'm saying is that this is not only the United States, this is Europe and so on. If things go on like this, then the choice will be between vulgar old right and a more civilized new right, like in Austria, the new Chancellor now already for half a year Sebastian Kurz, which adopted all the anti-immigrant premises but does it in a much more civilized way and so on and so on. I mean, I really worry. And out of this global worry comes my support for Julian Assange. It's not just a humanitarian question, "Look there is a guy in the Ecuadorian embassy and—and we should help him." Of course we should, but it's not just humanitarian—a humanitarian problem is, my god, it's the fate of us all there, literally, I mean. So where do you see—with all the notes about Julian, how his book, which is I think in some sense his greatest achievement, his book on Google. That's his intellectual achievement. He was the first to detect the dark potential of this new media, you know why? Because—and this is ideology at its most dangerous—because when we are manipulated or using, simply—okay, I don't want to be accused of moralism—when we participate in Google, Facebook and so on, we experience ourselves as utterly free. I just do whatever I want, I flow freely, I do pick up this, pick up that. But this is the most dangerous non-freedom, which is experienced as even the most radical freedom. And this is my answer to those who claim, "But why does Julian focus so much on United States and Western Europe? What about Putin, the Russia? What about China?" I have one very simple answer here: I'm no friend of Putin, my god, I was engaged ferociously, you remember two years ago, the Pussy Riot scandal. I was engaged there, my books are now heavily censored, some publishers already chickened out in China and so on. But you know what's the point? In those countries, people know that they are not free. Nobody has the illusion in China that internet is free. All the time things are censored. And sometimes, since Julian likes new humor, good humor, good jokes, maybe I can tell our viewer this: that they do it sometimes too automatically, like around Tiananmen date at an—when they celebrate anniversary, the Chinese censors simply prohibited, blocked on the web the use of the word "protest," assuming that most of it would refer to Tiananmen. And then an English professor had a wonderful misadventure. He was in China, flirting with a lady in England. And since they were both—both literary theorists, well-educated in Shakespeare, he wrote to her using a phrase in Shakespeare, because in Elizabethan England, even now you have traces of it, the word "protest" meant—meant also "I publicly declare." Like you say to a lady, "I protest my love for you." He did this and his message was blocked, you know. So the laughter was that if he were to say, "I want to screw the brain out of you" or whatever vulgar thing, it would have been okay. If you go Shakespeare as a love declaration—but you know, on the other hand, as I already hinted, I'm afraid of this eternal reference to China, how they control and so on. The good thing is that they are doing it in a much more open way, it doesn't leave you any illusions. The dangerous thing is a slave who doesn't even know that he or she or it, whatever, is a slave, who still think that he, she, it is a free being. That your very freedom—you buy books on Amazon and so on, you watch TV—I was now told, not by a fanatical leftist, but by a lady who owns a big company, Pippa Malmgren in England, a drone company. How do you know that most of the big flat-screen TVs that you buy now have a camera which doesn't only register the obvious thing, what program do you watch, how much, but also—it has this basic face recognition of expressions, intensity, what emotions you experience. We are so totally controlled and this is the new—this is what is going on now. People don't even notice. It's a new—it's a new arms race. Mostly it's digitalization. All big powers now are—are—are building supercomputers, like with unthinkable power. And of course as usual we know here only a story from China. We are probably doing the same. You know that in China they boast about it: they knew that a certain stadium with people there is a mass murderer, where he escaped after his last murder. They put a satellite above the stadium, and the satellite was able to identify all people, and the satellite was also measuring—able to measure the intensity of their psychic state. And they correctly presumed that the murderer will be still overexcited, and they caught him. This is how they caught him. So—it's incredible what they already can do. We are in the middle of this new race for total control. Then better not to think what is going on in the military use of biogenetics: controlling our mind, they—making different experiments with different gases and so on to whatever, to immobilize you and so on. Things are happening and the way WikiLeaks enter here—in a way, Julian was right, although it was a little bit false, that he said, "I don't do politics directly. You, the people, should do politics. My job is just to bring you—to bring out to you all the necessary data so that you can decide." I mean, with all the overflow of data about basic things, we know less and less. For example, did you know—I didn't till I heard it now—from whom? From an editor of *Economist*, not from some crazy leftist, that all the big powers are now spending immensely on arms? The Arctic area is turned into a mega place for building, I don't know, fortresses, digital networking there and so on, so that—this is a good advice if you have, I don't have them, some millions to invest or what: do it fast, because big powers have silently decided to risk inflation. They are spending for rearmament and digitalization of the army such incredible amounts of money, and you—they cannot do it any longer with new debt, taxation and so on. You can do it the standard way: you print money. And they are consciously risking inflation. So crazy things, crazy things are happening. We should simply know about it. For example, did you notice, Trump said it, it was noticed a little bit, it disappeared, a key data. You know that even in the worst years of Cold War, they had an agreement: space, outer space, should remain out of armed forces. Prohibited to everyone. Okay, you have planes still but above outer space, you don't militarize it. Now Trump, it was in the media, but just a notice, small item of news which disappeared, that Trump ordered the constitution of the, after infantry, navy, and air force, of the fourth unit of the US army, Space Force, and so on. So many things are happening and it's—you know, the genius of today's censorship is that you don't do it—Chinese are stupid, they are still doing it too much by simply prohibiting. No, you do it by—by overflow of information, you know. They know very well that the large majority of people, who has time—you find everything on the web but who has time to go into it and so on? And the luck of WikiLeaks was that they were enough in the public eye that if they put it out, people noticed it, you know. So again, even independently of what will happen of WikiLeaks, I claim I cannot imagine a further struggle for emancipation without consciously organizing this battle for who controls the digital media. And here is what WikiLeaks did, I think. That's why—that's how I explain this absolute incredible revenge, spirit of revenge, like, "We will catch him whatever it takes," and so on and so on. And the saddest thing again, my greatest moral disappointment—okay, you expect this from right-wingers and so on—is newspapers like *Guardian* and so on which now again joined the campaign. You remember when they cut him off, there was a big comment in *Guardian*—I don't know the name who it was—who said basically Assange is to blame himself for what is happening to him and so on and so on, you know this. Yeah, it was like—it was the only thing keeping him there is pride, I think was the headline. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, are we aware of the obscenity of this? Like what fucking pride? The guy is there fighting now probably literally for his life. He is fighting for his sanity and so on and so on. And it's so obscene—just you remember that British member of the court lady who rejected his complaint? This incredible cynicism. Didn't she say once, "How can he say that—that he doesn't have enough fresh air and sun, but I saw him on the balcony, he can go to the balcony and get some sun"? He can do that once a year, yeah. Yeah, it's—and now it really worries me this isolation, how they even literally—what kept him alive was the voice, the link, you know. And now they cut him off, and I think it's—okay, it's good maybe that I am not a terrorist. I underline three times what I will say now: that I don't support what I will say now. But you know, in my fantasy world, I sometimes fantasize, couldn't they simply kidnap some American diplomats or British and say—I must say I am against it, this is the usual way you say, I am against it—but I would understand it if it happened, you know. Because it's so incredibly brutal. And in the previous conversation, the lady said how the American—the United States Department of Justice, how they are doing it, you know. That's their game. And people should know this. Like many people even—many people thought that Julian was accused of rape. No, he wasn't. There were—they couldn't even move to this level. Then—and it's again and again this false story that is coming out, this basically misinformation. And it's very difficult to fight in this way when you have media against yourself and so on and so on. So when somebody told me, "But nonetheless Julian collaborated with Russia Today," no, I told him, "Okay, give him one hour a week on CNN, and I'm sure he would gladly exchange Russia Today for CNN." You know, we have to look the reality—the reality of the situation. It's pretty—it's pretty depressing, you know. I'm not a big optimist here. This action against Assange was a very dirty action combining psychological pressure, character assassination, vulgar rumors, and so on and so on. It's—people should become aware of this. Yeah, but it also makes perfect sense that they're doing it. I mean, this is all of—their whole thing that they're doing to him is controlling the narrative. They're manipulating the narrative against him, they're stacking the narrative because he threatens— Although even here I think that—sorry, even here I think that maybe their fury blurs them. Because once I played—I always like to play, I'm evil in this sense that I like to play devil's advocate. And I asked myself, let's say I'm a representative of American secret organizations—not secret, but dealing with information—NSA and so on, you know. I would have tried to do it in the opposite way. Portray Julian as a confused guy who means well but was tragically misused, all the sympathy for him and so on. I would easily guarantee him no arrest—I—I think it would have worked much better, don't you think? In a subtle way to try to demobilize him without any direct pressure and then do brutal things more discreetly, you know. I mean, I don't think we've seen the worst now. I—I know this is dangerous what I'm saying, I'm playing devil's advocate now, you know. But you know what really made me—well, I mean, it's too late now, they're already doing the draconian thing, so— Yes, but you know what—you know what is one of the saddest things that Julian told me? All other heroes of freedom of movement, speech, how when he became, Julian, too hot, dangerous, softly withdrew. For
daily life, how we experience our daily lives. Imagine an ordinary worker, he loses his job, and he is told it's because of the outsourcing, immigrants—sorry—immigrants can do the work cheaper than you and so on and so on. And of course he perceives immigrants as a potential threat. I mean, this is why, the next thing, I don't trust this politically correct moderate left is—now it will be very problematic, I warn you what I will say now. You know, it is this concern with "We shouldn't publish anything critical about immigrants because it will be exploited by the anti-immigrant enemies." And then there was this scandal in Rotherham scandal, two-three years ago in the United Kingdom. I think that precisely immigrants—they don't need this patronizing protection. "We will not mention anything bad about you, we want to protect you." We are treating them like children and we leave to the anti-immigrant alt-right the entire space. The problem is to confront—the task is to confront all these problems, to confront real problems. There are differences in our and some of the immigrants, at least way of life. We need here an open debate, not this paranoiac protectionism. I know many people from Arab countries, black from United States, Native Americans. Incidentally, this may amuse you: my Native American friends much prefer to be called Indians. You know why? They say "Native Americans," it's so patronizingly racist, you know, like native nature—ah, we are nature, you are culture. So they told me, "We prefer to be called Indians, at least our name is a sign of white man's stupidity, who thought when they discovered America they are in India." What I want to say is that we shouldn't be—we shouldn't patronize them. All my friends hate so much this patronizing attitude. You know like with some white liberals, when you mention Native Americans, they say, "Oh, they have a holistic attitude, they don't exploit nature, we are white imperialists who just brutally—brutally—brutally intervene into nature," and so on and so on. I had a wonderful meeting in Missoula, Montana years ago with a Native American who showed me a text he wrote, he was an academic, where he demonstrated—he said, "But we Native Americans ruined, burned more forests and killed more buffalos than all white people combined," you know. He wasn't a masochist. He just wanted to say—he detected in a very nice way how to paint the other as kind of angelic, you know, "They cannot be evil," and so on. It's a refined version of racism also. Why do I mention this apropos Julian? Because I think that this politically correct distrust of him—"But maybe he was that violent, he is a male chauvinist," blah blah—this is maybe one of the main factors why many people unfortunately in principle they support him but with a proviso, you know, like, "Oh my god but nonetheless what if he is an—what if he is an unpleasant person?" No, I can tell them, I spent hours talking with him. He is quite a normal guy, you know. We don't talk with him all—I with him—all the time politics. We talk about TV series. We had a long debate on *The Man in the High Castle*, you know, that old Philip K. Dick classic which is now a new series, no. And he gave me some wonderful insights about all this and so on. I had a great debate about *Handmaid's Tale* with him, where we all—both of us expressed a deep distrust of *Handmaid's Tale*. You know why? Because it's very refined and perverted. I hope most of our listeners know *Handmaid's Tale*, I will not lose time going into that. But what's so horrible is that although, of course, it's a terrifying portrait of the United States occupied by some Christian fundamentalists and so on, but forget about the official message. Me and all my friends, even women, are fascinated by the details of the organization, you know, how they terrorize women, "They shouldn't do this, they control them like that." And in a more subtle way, you are seduced by it. You are not really horrified, I claim. The majority of my friends secretly enjoy watching that universe. It's a pseudo-critique. Of course, it's consciously meant as a critique. But you know, the way it is a convincing portrait, it cheats. It cheats in the sense that the message is, "Enjoy it and you can feel safe because officially it's against the oppression of women and so on and so on and so on." The other thing where I agree with Julian is the impotence of American liberal left. Look, Trump is occupying the space. The way it looks now, if there will not be some big economic or military catastrophe, he will win re-election even and so on. And what do we get now? We get what I call Jon Stewart, John Oliver and so on, this—we just laugh all the time, we catch him at his meaningless vulgarities and so on and so on. But all this in the long term works for him, I claim. The more we catch him with his vulgar jokes and so on, we think, "Oh my god, you see now people will see." No, his supporters know this, and this vulgar human side, this is what they like about Trump and so on. I think that as Julian wrote—it was already a year ago—a very good text where he simply said if you want to beat Trump, a new in the Bernie Sanders style American left should re-emerge. That's the only way to beat Julian—Trump, okay, Donald Trump. What I'm saying is that this is not only the United States, this is Europe and so on. If things go on like this, then the choice will be between vulgar old right and a more civilized new right, like in Austria, the new Chancellor now already for half a year Sebastian Kurz, which adopted all the anti-immigrant premises but does it in a much more civilized way and so on and so on. I mean, I really worry. And out of this global worry comes my support for Julian Assange. It's not just a humanitarian question, "Look there is a guy in the Ecuadorian embassy and—and we should help him." Of course we should, but it's not just humanitarian—a humanitarian problem is, my god, it's the fate of us all there, literally, I mean. So where do you see—with all the notes about Julian, how his book, which is I think in some sense his greatest achievement, his book on Google. That's his intellectual achievement. He was the first to detect the dark potential of this new media, you know why? Because—and this is ideology at its most dangerous—because when we are manipulated or using, simply—okay, I don't want to be accused of moralism—when we participate in Google, Facebook and so on, we experience ourselves as utterly free. I just do whatever I want, I flow freely, I do pick up this, pick up that. But this is the most dangerous non-freedom, which is experienced as even the most radical freedom. And this is my answer to those who claim, "But why does Julian focus so much on United States and Western Europe? What about Putin, the Russia? What about China?" I have one very simple answer here: I'm no friend of Putin, my god, I was engaged ferociously, you remember two years ago, the Pussy Riot scandal. I was engaged there, my books are now heavily censored, some publishers already chickened out in China and so on. But you know what's the point? In those countries, people know that they are not free. Nobody has the illusion in China that internet is free. All the time things are censored. And sometimes, since Julian likes new humor, good humor, good jokes, maybe I can tell our viewer this: that they do it sometimes too automatically, like around Tiananmen date at an—when they celebrate anniversary, the Chinese censors simply prohibited, blocked on the web the use of the word "protest," assuming that most of it would refer to Tiananmen. And then an English professor had a wonderful misadventure. He was in China, flirting with a lady in England. And since they were both—both literary theorists, well-educated in Shakespeare, he wrote to her using a phrase in Shakespeare, because in Elizabethan England, even now you have traces of it, the word "protest" meant—meant also "I publicly declare." Like you say to a lady, "I protest my love for you." He did this and his message was blocked, you know. So the laughter was that if he were to say, "I want to screw the brain out of you" or whatever vulgar thing, it would have been okay. If you go Shakespeare as a love declaration—but you know, on the other hand, as I already hinted, I'm afraid of this eternal reference to China, how they control and so on. The good thing is that they are doing it in a much more open way, it doesn't leave you any illusions. The dangerous thing is a slave who doesn't even know that he or she or it, whatever, is a slave, who still think that he, she, it is a free being. That your very freedom—you buy books on Amazon and so on, you watch TV—I was now told, not by a fanatical leftist, but by a lady who owns a big company, Pippa Malmgren in England, a drone company. How do you know that most of the big flat-screen TVs that you buy now have a camera which doesn't only register the obvious thing, what program do you watch, how much, but also—it has this basic face recognition of expressions, intensity, what emotions you experience. We are so totally controlled and this is the new—this is what is going on now. People don't even notice. It's a new—it's a new arms race. Mostly it's digitalization. All big powers now are—are—are building supercomputers, like with unthinkable power. And of course as usual we know here only a story from China. We are probably doing the same. You know that in China they boast about it: they knew that a certain stadium with people there is a mass murderer, where he escaped after his last murder. They put a satellite above the stadium, and the satellite was able to identify all people, and the satellite was also measuring—able to measure the intensity of their psychic state. And they correctly presumed that the murderer will be still overexcited, and they caught him. This is how they caught him. So—it's incredible what they already can do. We are in the middle of this new race for total control. Then better not to think what is going on in the military use of biogenetics: controlling our mind, they—making different experiments with different gases and so on to whatever, to immobilize you and so on. Things are happening and the way WikiLeaks enter here—in a way, Julian was right, although it was a little bit false, that he said, "I don't do politics directly. You, the people, should do politics. My job is just to bring you—to bring out to you all the necessary data so that you can decide." I mean, with all the overflow of data about basic things, we know less and less. For example, did you know—I didn't till I heard it now—from whom? From an editor of *Economist*, not from some crazy leftist, that all the big powers are now spending immensely on arms? The Arctic area is turned into a mega place for building, I don't know, fortresses, digital networking there and so on, so that—this is a good advice if you have, I don't have them, some millions to invest or what: do it fast, because big powers have silently decided to risk inflation. They are spending for rearmament and digitalization of the army such incredible amounts of money, and you—they cannot do it any longer with new debt, taxation and so on. You can do it the standard way: you print money. And they are consciously risking inflation. So crazy things, crazy things are happening. We should simply know about it. For example, did you notice, Trump said it, it was noticed a little bit, it disappeared, a key data. You know that even in the worst years of Cold War, they had an agreement: space, outer space, should remain out of armed forces. Prohibited to everyone. Okay, you have planes still but above outer space, you don't militarize it. Now Trump, it was in the media, but just a notice, small item of news which disappeared, that Trump ordered the constitution of the, after infantry, navy, and air force, of the fourth unit of the US army, Space Force, and so on. So many things are happening and it's—you know, the genius of today's censorship is that you don't do it—Chinese are stupid, they are still doing it too much by simply prohibiting. No, you do it by—by overflow of information, you know. They know very well that the large majority of people, who has time—you find everything on the web but who has time to go into it and so on? And the luck of WikiLeaks was that they were enough in the public eye that if they put it out, people noticed it, you know. So again, even independently of what will happen of WikiLeaks, I claim I cannot imagine a further struggle for emancipation without consciously organizing this battle for who controls the digital media. And here is what WikiLeaks did, I think. That's why—that's how I explain this absolute incredible revenge, spirit of revenge, like, "We will catch him whatever it takes," and so on and so on. And the saddest thing again, my greatest moral disappointment—okay, you expect this from right-wingers and so on—is newspapers like *Guardian* and so on which now again joined the campaign. You remember when they cut him off, there was a big comment in *Guardian*—I don't know the name who it was—who said basically Assange is to blame himself for what is happening to him and so on and so on, you know this. Yeah, it was like—it was the only thing keeping him there is pride, I think was the headline. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, are we aware of the obscenity of this? Like what fucking pride? The guy is there fighting now probably literally for his life. He is fighting for his sanity and so on and so on. And it's so obscene—just you remember that British member of the court lady who rejected his complaint? This incredible cynicism. Didn't she say once, "How can he say that—that he doesn't have enough fresh air and sun, but I saw him on the balcony, he can go to the balcony and get some sun"? He can do that once a year, yeah. Yeah, it's—and now it really worries me this isolation, how they even literally—what kept him alive was the voice, the link, you know. And now they cut him off, and I think it's—okay, it's good maybe that I am not a terrorist. I underline three times what I will say now: that I don't support what I will say now. But you know, in my fantasy world, I sometimes fantasize, couldn't they simply kidnap some American diplomats or British and say—I must say I am against it, this is the usual way you say, I am against it—but I would understand it if it happened, you know. Because it's so incredibly brutal. And in the previous conversation, the lady said how the American—the United States Department of Justice, how they are doing it, you know. That's their game. And people should know this. Like many people even—many people thought that Julian was accused of rape. No, he wasn't. There were—they couldn't even move to this level. Then—and it's again and again this false story that is coming out, this basically misinformation. And it's very difficult to fight in this way when you have media against yourself and so on and so on. So when somebody told me, "But nonetheless Julian collaborated with Russia Today," no, I told him, "Okay, give him one hour a week on CNN, and I'm sure he would gladly exchange Russia Today for CNN." You know, we have to look the reality—the reality of the situation. It's pretty—it's pretty depressing, you know. I'm not a big optimist here. This action against Assange was a very dirty action combining psychological pressure, character assassination, vulgar rumors, and so on and so on. It's—people should become aware of this. Yeah, but it also makes perfect sense that they're doing it. I mean, this is all of—their whole thing that they're doing to him is controlling the narrative. They're manipulating the narrative against him, they're stacking the narrative because he threatens— Although even here I think that—sorry, even here I think that maybe their fury blurs them. Because once I played—I always like to play, I'm evil in this sense that I like to play devil's advocate. And I asked myself, let's say I'm a representative of American secret organizations—not secret, but dealing with information—NSA and so on, you know. I would have tried to do it in the opposite way. Portray Julian as a confused guy who means well but was tragically misused, all the sympathy for him and so on. I would easily guarantee him no arrest—I—I think it would have worked much better, don't you think? In a subtle way to try to demobilize him without any direct pressure and then do brutal things more discreetly, you know. I mean, I don't think we've seen the worst now. I—I know this is dangerous what I'm saying, I'm playing devil's advocate now, you know. But you know what really made me—well, I mean, it's too late now, they're already doing the draconian thing, so— Yes, but you know what—you know what is one of the saddest things that Julian told me? All other heroes of freedom of movement, speech, how when he became, Julian, too hot, dangerous, softly withdrew. For
unknown
example, Julian told me—and sorry, it's not meant in a racist way, but I
example, Julian told me—and sorry, it's not meant in a racist way, but I
Slavoj Žižek
don't know that Myanmar lady who is now back in the power, you know who was ten years in house prison, got Nobel Prize, but then she made peace with military powers. You know who I'm talking about now, Myanmar, Burma. Yeah, I know who you're talking about, it's just the name's not coming to me. Yeah, I just don't know, I'm very sorry, I apologize sincerely. That Julian told me he contacted her if he can get—as another person who was in house prison for a long time—no, no answer. She didn't want to get
don't know that Myanmar lady who is now back in the power, you know who was ten years in house prison, got Nobel Prize, but then she made peace with military powers. You know who I'm talking about now, Myanmar, Burma. Yeah, I know who you're talking about, it's just the name's not coming to me. Yeah, I just don't know, I'm very sorry, I apologize sincerely. That Julian told me he contacted her if he can get—as another person who was in house prison for a long time—no, no answer. She didn't want to get
unknown
involved in it in any way, you
involved in it in any way, you
Slavoj Žižek
know. This is people whom I really don't like. Like once they made their own private pact with authority and re-entered the scene, they prefer to obliterate, to forget. So—so but you know where—I think we should also be, what do you think, a little bit self-critical here? Like did we make a mistake anywhere? I silently, I hoped for or expected more—more mass resistance, more famous big, so-called, but we should ruthlessly use them here, big names. But the sad thing is that whenever there is some public proclamation from Julian, you get the same bunch, you get Chomsky, this, that, whatever, you know. The only nice surprise for me was that Alfonso Cuarón, you know, the movie director, he—he allowed his name to be used in support of Julian. Roger Waters too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But these are as they say in Casablanca, the usual suspects, you know, you expect them. I expected a little bit more, you know, a little bit more. But you know what I will tell you, I will not name names, but I met some people, British actors and so on, you know. And privately they confessed to me they are afraid, like this can affect badly their status on the American market and so on, whatever and so on. So it's not just—it's not as innocent as this may appear. Yeah, well, I mean, they—these people are all to some extent need to ingratiate themselves to the establishment that WikiLeaks threatens in order to guarantee their continued success. Yes, and WikiLeaks really threatens the establishment. You know who is my other enemy here? There are some kind of new Maoist or Trotskyist groups who claim, "No, Assange is just an old-fashioned libertarian, that's not a true revolutionary theory," and so on and so on. What they're doing is they're building an elite, which means a couple of dozen, maybe members,
know. This is people whom I really don't like. Like once they made their own private pact with authority and re-entered the scene, they prefer to obliterate, to forget. So—so but you know where—I think we should also be, what do you think, a little bit self-critical here? Like did we make a mistake anywhere? I silently, I hoped for or expected more—more mass resistance, more famous big, so-called, but we should ruthlessly use them here, big names. But the sad thing is that whenever there is some public proclamation from Julian, you get the same bunch, you get Chomsky, this, that, whatever, you know. The only nice surprise for me was that Alfonso Cuarón, you know, the movie director, he—he allowed his name to be used in support of Julian. Roger Waters too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But these are as they say in Casablanca, the usual suspects, you know, you expect them. I expected a little bit more, you know, a little bit more. But you know what I will tell you, I will not name names, but I met some people, British actors and so on, you know. And privately they confessed to me they are afraid, like this can affect badly their status on the American market and so on, whatever and so on. So it's not just—it's not as innocent as this may appear. Yeah, well, I mean, they—these people are all to some extent need to ingratiate themselves to the establishment that WikiLeaks threatens in order to guarantee their continued success. Yes, and WikiLeaks really threatens the establishment. You know who is my other enemy here? There are some kind of new Maoist or Trotskyist groups who claim, "No, Assange is just an old-fashioned libertarian, that's not a true revolutionary theory," and so on and so on. What they're doing is they're building an elite, which means a couple of dozen, maybe members,
unknown
and living a very comfortable life, like waiting for the big revolution. And they know very well that till that revolution happens, and of course it never will, you can calmly pursue your academic life.
and living a very comfortable life, like waiting for the big revolution. And they know very well that till that revolution happens, and of course it never will, you can calmly pursue your academic life.
Slavoj Žižek
That's why I think there is a pseudo-radicalism which serves perfectly those in power. Like you can—like you can demand bombing of the United States and a global revolution. Perfect, nothing happens, you will be left alone. You do what Julian did, you just render public a little bit of a data—you are a threat, you know. Beware of this pseudo-radicalism which make big threat but because we all know that this big threats are inoperative, you know. The other thing that we should learn from Julian and general political situation now is how sadly our political space has changed, for example, in the last half century. When people ask me, "But is Bernie Sanders not too crazy?" I told them, "But he is not in any sense even a socialist. He is, measured by standards of half a century ago, when at least in Europe social-democratic welfare state more or less worked, he is a very moderate social democrat in that sense." And you know a test that I made with my friends: every honest leftist in the United States will tell you that
That's why I think there is a pseudo-radicalism which serves perfectly those in power. Like you can—like you can demand bombing of the United States and a global revolution. Perfect, nothing happens, you will be left alone. You do what Julian did, you just render public a little bit of a data—you are a threat, you know. Beware of this pseudo-radicalism which make big threat but because we all know that this big threats are inoperative, you know. The other thing that we should learn from Julian and general political situation now is how sadly our political space has changed, for example, in the last half century. When people ask me, "But is Bernie Sanders not too crazy?" I told them, "But he is not in any sense even a socialist. He is, measured by standards of half a century ago, when at least in Europe social-democratic welfare state more or less worked, he is a very moderate social democrat in that sense." And you know a test that I made with my friends: every honest leftist in the United States will tell you that
unknown
if you measure being left in a simple quantified way, like how much under your presidency was given to healthcare, support of the poor students
if you measure being left in a simple quantified way, like how much under your presidency was given to healthcare, support of the poor students
Slavoj Žižek
and so on. Now it will be a shock. You know who was the most leftist American president? Richard Nixon. Because there was—Nixon! He did a lot, plus he made peace with China and so on. I totally believe, you know, the popular conspiracy theory is Kennedy, no. Was he murdered and so on. I think maybe it's time to look, and here some Assange kind of new data, it would be wonderful to have them, is Watergate really as innocent as it may appear? It was
and so on. Now it will be a shock. You know who was the most leftist American president? Richard Nixon. Because there was—Nixon! He did a lot, plus he made peace with China and so on. I totally believe, you know, the popular conspiracy theory is Kennedy, no. Was he murdered and so on. I think maybe it's time to look, and here some Assange kind of new data, it would be wonderful to have them, is Watergate really as innocent as it may appear? It was
unknown
so clear that established establishment, especially
so clear that established establishment, especially
Slavoj Žižek
the way he did it with China and so on, were not satisfied by Nixon. It's not as simple as that. I don't believe—this is American ideology at its purest. It appears very critical: "My god, the president was corrupted." And then the ideology is, "Look what a great democracy we are: two ordinary journalists can overthrow the mightiest man in the world." Can they? I would like to get the real story of what went behind there. So we also need something what I call historical WikiLeaks, you know, that it looks into these myths like Watergate myth and so on, you know. Sorry, let you bomb me with questions. Right, yeah, you have to wonder what Watergate would have looked like going down had WikiLeaks been around and had people had the same degree of access to information sharing and networking and whatnot. Yeah, yeah, precisely, yes. I think that one has also—don't blame only the democratic—don't—sorry—don't fall into this trap of just
the way he did it with China and so on, were not satisfied by Nixon. It's not as simple as that. I don't believe—this is American ideology at its purest. It appears very critical: "My god, the president was corrupted." And then the ideology is, "Look what a great democracy we are: two ordinary journalists can overthrow the mightiest man in the world." Can they? I would like to get the real story of what went behind there. So we also need something what I call historical WikiLeaks, you know, that it looks into these myths like Watergate myth and so on, you know. Sorry, let you bomb me with questions. Right, yeah, you have to wonder what Watergate would have looked like going down had WikiLeaks been around and had people had the same degree of access to information sharing and networking and whatnot. Yeah, yeah, precisely, yes. I think that one has also—don't blame only the democratic—don't—sorry—don't fall into this trap of just
unknown
praising the Democratic
praising the Democratic
Slavoj Žižek
Party in the United States. Democratic Party was always historically more interventionist than Republican Party. Most of the military operations and so on were done by Democratic Party, many of them and so on. So you know, there is a dark side of the Democratic Party. And it's as part of this demystification of Democratic Party that I support what Julian was doing. Yeah, and that's why they hate him so much, is the raw truth rips off
Party in the United States. Democratic Party was always historically more interventionist than Republican Party. Most of the military operations and so on were done by Democratic Party, many of them and so on. So you know, there is a dark side of the Democratic Party. And it's as part of this demystification of Democratic Party that I support what Julian was doing. Yeah, and that's why they hate him so much, is the raw truth rips off
unknown
that smiley face that they put on the same kind of oppressive government that you describe in Russia and
that smiley face that they put on the same kind of oppressive government that you describe in Russia and
Slavoj Žižek
China, but in Russia and China, as you said, it's less threatening because they know that they are oppressed. People here don't know that they are oppressed, and WikiLeaks causes that to happen. I would say it would be better for us to have a Chinese regime. No, I wouldn't like to live there. Let's be serious. If I were to choose, I would—one of these three countries, my choice would still have been United States, you know. Because the good thing about United States is that it's still relatively decentralized. They have so many civic life institutions and so on and so on, so Trump cannot simply behave like Hitler and centralize the government or whatever, you know. But he is doing the best, and that's I think the tragedy of Republican presidents: their official ideology is often populist, you know, populist in the sense of more power to local states against Washington and so on. But they always end up strengthening the hold of Washington, precisely of centralized agencies and so on and so on. We live in very confused times, you know. We really lack what my friend Fredric Jameson called cognitive mapping, like just a general idea how things stand, where things are moving and so on and so on. And again, this makes it all the more important to have people like Assange. He is a great help to what I hope it will be a new left, precisely because he doesn't do direct political analysis or program and so on and so on. He provides the basis and shows as I already said at the beginning one of the ways, which is to rip off, to prevent the establishment to control our digital grid. Because you know, we see this clearly. I'm sure that also in our democratic West those in power are prepared—you know what happened, you remember, from Egypt to anywhere. When there is some dissatisfaction, chaotic, the first thing those in power do is they cut off—first they cut off internet, cell phones, and so on and so on. This is who will control all this is crucial. One of my favorite Assange clips of all time was actually one you were in as well, that MIA event, and he was talking about the future of artificial intelligence and the way that it will—you know, we already—we've had for many years AI that can outsmart a grand chess master. So, you know, these systems are just going to get better and better at manipulating us, and really the only weapon that we have against that is truth, raw fact. Yes, yes, but I remember, oh that the whole story to be told, because we were there I think with Mia, but in that relatively small room, you know. Because it was a big pressure to move us to some small, they wanted even smaller room, all of a sudden there was a problem with space. Then they claimed the organizers that maybe there will not be enough interest, it's
China, but in Russia and China, as you said, it's less threatening because they know that they are oppressed. People here don't know that they are oppressed, and WikiLeaks causes that to happen. I would say it would be better for us to have a Chinese regime. No, I wouldn't like to live there. Let's be serious. If I were to choose, I would—one of these three countries, my choice would still have been United States, you know. Because the good thing about United States is that it's still relatively decentralized. They have so many civic life institutions and so on and so on, so Trump cannot simply behave like Hitler and centralize the government or whatever, you know. But he is doing the best, and that's I think the tragedy of Republican presidents: their official ideology is often populist, you know, populist in the sense of more power to local states against Washington and so on. But they always end up strengthening the hold of Washington, precisely of centralized agencies and so on and so on. We live in very confused times, you know. We really lack what my friend Fredric Jameson called cognitive mapping, like just a general idea how things stand, where things are moving and so on and so on. And again, this makes it all the more important to have people like Assange. He is a great help to what I hope it will be a new left, precisely because he doesn't do direct political analysis or program and so on and so on. He provides the basis and shows as I already said at the beginning one of the ways, which is to rip off, to prevent the establishment to control our digital grid. Because you know, we see this clearly. I'm sure that also in our democratic West those in power are prepared—you know what happened, you remember, from Egypt to anywhere. When there is some dissatisfaction, chaotic, the first thing those in power do is they cut off—first they cut off internet, cell phones, and so on and so on. This is who will control all this is crucial. One of my favorite Assange clips of all time was actually one you were in as well, that MIA event, and he was talking about the future of artificial intelligence and the way that it will—you know, we already—we've had for many years AI that can outsmart a grand chess master. So, you know, these systems are just going to get better and better at manipulating us, and really the only weapon that we have against that is truth, raw fact. Yes, yes, but I remember, oh that the whole story to be told, because we were there I think with Mia, but in that relatively small room, you know. Because it was a big pressure to move us to some small, they wanted even smaller room, all of a sudden there was a problem with space. Then they claimed the organizers that maybe there will not be enough interest, it's
unknown
better that we put you into a small room. It was quite comical. But I think we touched there in the debate, yes, one crucial problem which everybody is doing now—it's not just, I mean by everybody I mean all
better that we put you into a small room. It was quite comical. But I think we touched there in the debate, yes, one crucial problem which everybody is doing now—it's not just, I mean by everybody I mean all
Slavoj Žižek
secret services and so on—it's not just digital control in the sense of whatever you do is traced, registered somewhere, you are manipulated. What worries me maybe even more—and I always return to this point—is this direct digitalization in the sense of direct connection, interface between our brain and digital network.
secret services and so on—it's not just digital control in the sense of whatever you do is traced, registered somewhere, you are manipulated. What worries me maybe even more—and I always return to this point—is this direct digitalization in the sense of direct connection, interface between our brain and digital network.
unknown
Like you know how, for example, the stupid example I always use: before his death, Stephen Hawking no longer needed his finger, his brain was directly wired. They already can connect your brain to machines which, okay still very primitive, but they can discern some basic orders. So Stephen Hawking thought "Forward," his wheelchair moved
Like you know how, for example, the stupid example I always use: before his death, Stephen Hawking no longer needed his finger, his brain was directly wired. They already can connect your brain to machines which, okay still very primitive, but they can discern some basic orders. So Stephen Hawking thought "Forward," his wheelchair moved
Slavoj Žižek
forward and so on. But this changes the whole definition of a human being. Our basic human identity is, "I'm here in my mind free, reality is out there." When this limit falls, on the one hand yes, I gain extraordinary powers, it's almost like God: I think about something, it happens in reality. But you know, it goes also the other way around: my brain can be directly controlled and so on and so on. Just like the internet, in exactly the same way the internet happened, we gain all these powers but there's this tradeoff. Yeah, you will be literally part of internet and as such controlled and so on. And this opens up breathtaking perspectives. Maybe I wrote a comment of—you know in Egypt, but it's again easy to take these third world countries because then we can laugh at them. But I see this as ominous signs. You know that in Egypt for half a year their parliament is debating a new law that would prohibit, make it a big criminal offense to be an atheist. Now listen what I said: not it's prohibited already now to publicly declare or explain, propagate your atheist views. Now as it says in the law, it's not only about what you speak in public, it's what about you think. They want seriously, it's not a joke, to prohibit being an atheist. Now of course the big question is, how would you measure this? And I made a cynical proposal: neuro-theology, you know, this new subsection of brain sciences, when they are already pretty far—again it's primitive, but in some raw sense it works—I put measuring apparatus on your—close to your brain, and I can determine safely when you have—now here problems enter, how precise is this, what kind of—but when you have some kind of a religious experience, religious trans-mystical experience and so on and so on. So it would be wonderful to
forward and so on. But this changes the whole definition of a human being. Our basic human identity is, "I'm here in my mind free, reality is out there." When this limit falls, on the one hand yes, I gain extraordinary powers, it's almost like God: I think about something, it happens in reality. But you know, it goes also the other way around: my brain can be directly controlled and so on and so on. Just like the internet, in exactly the same way the internet happened, we gain all these powers but there's this tradeoff. Yeah, you will be literally part of internet and as such controlled and so on. And this opens up breathtaking perspectives. Maybe I wrote a comment of—you know in Egypt, but it's again easy to take these third world countries because then we can laugh at them. But I see this as ominous signs. You know that in Egypt for half a year their parliament is debating a new law that would prohibit, make it a big criminal offense to be an atheist. Now listen what I said: not it's prohibited already now to publicly declare or explain, propagate your atheist views. Now as it says in the law, it's not only about what you speak in public, it's what about you think. They want seriously, it's not a joke, to prohibit being an atheist. Now of course the big question is, how would you measure this? And I made a cynical proposal: neuro-theology, you know, this new subsection of brain sciences, when they are already pretty far—again it's primitive, but in some raw sense it works—I put measuring apparatus on your—close to your brain, and I can determine safely when you have—now here problems enter, how precise is this, what kind of—but when you have some kind of a religious experience, religious trans-mystical experience and so on and so on. So it would be wonderful to
unknown
have one—wonderful in a terrifying sense—to live in a state where atheism is prohibited and you would have to go once a month to some state agency where they measure your brain, like, "Did you have a religious experience or not?" whatever and so on and so on. It's a joke of course, but you know where it's not a joke. This is one of the worst surprises for me of those naive people like Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, who try to be
have one—wonderful in a terrifying sense—to live in a state where atheism is prohibited and you would have to go once a month to some state agency where they measure your brain, like, "Did you have a religious experience or not?" whatever and so on and so on. It's a joke of course, but you know where it's not a joke. This is one of the worst surprises for me of those naive people like Sam Harris, Stephen Pinker, who try to be
Slavoj Žižek
basically optimistic, you know, like freedom is nonetheless progressive, less and less people go hungry, whatever you want. You know, in what sense, what are the options here? I mean, what can develop with this subtle forms of control and so on and so on? It's exploding. So again, I am unfortunately not such an optimist. You know what's their story, and here we partisans of Assange should reply. You know their story, it may appear convincing, is: but look, look at the numbers. This is I think Stephen Pinker in his last book, *Enlightenment Now*, whatever. Look at the numbers, even in the poorest African country, poverty is slowly diminishing. For the first time in the history of humanity, obesity is a greater problem than hunger, and so on and so on, all those data. Yeah, but you know we should go further than this and look at potential dangers and tendencies. My first answer is: move years back to Exactly the same point could have been made. Look, Europe in and United States. Look, you could say, for half a century we had worldwide progress, no—okay, some colonial wars but no big wars—extraordinary progress of democracy, welfare and so on and so on. What could go wrong? Yes, then you had World War I which was a mega shock. And I see some ominous parallels between pre-World War I situation and our situation today. Exactly in that time, the problem was that the British world empire, its descent, its disintegration began. You had new colonial powers—new powers like Germany mostly, also non-clear status of Russia. And of course First World War was about this new distribution of power in a multicentric
basically optimistic, you know, like freedom is nonetheless progressive, less and less people go hungry, whatever you want. You know, in what sense, what are the options here? I mean, what can develop with this subtle forms of control and so on and so on? It's exploding. So again, I am unfortunately not such an optimist. You know what's their story, and here we partisans of Assange should reply. You know their story, it may appear convincing, is: but look, look at the numbers. This is I think Stephen Pinker in his last book, *Enlightenment Now*, whatever. Look at the numbers, even in the poorest African country, poverty is slowly diminishing. For the first time in the history of humanity, obesity is a greater problem than hunger, and so on and so on, all those data. Yeah, but you know we should go further than this and look at potential dangers and tendencies. My first answer is: move years back to Exactly the same point could have been made. Look, Europe in and United States. Look, you could say, for half a century we had worldwide progress, no—okay, some colonial wars but no big wars—extraordinary progress of democracy, welfare and so on and so on. What could go wrong? Yes, then you had World War I which was a mega shock. And I see some ominous parallels between pre-World War I situation and our situation today. Exactly in that time, the problem was that the British world empire, its descent, its disintegration began. You had new colonial powers—new powers like Germany mostly, also non-clear status of Russia. And of course First World War was about this new distribution of power in a multicentric
unknown
world. Are we not today in exactly the same situation? The American century is over. We have—okay, economically not
world. Are we not today in exactly the same situation? The American century is over. We have—okay, economically not
Slavoj Žižek
so much Russia, more politically, but China and so on, India. And we live in dangerous times because I think we don't have new—my god, how should I call this?—new unwritten rules of how you deal. You know, in Cold War there were clear rules: you don't intervene there militarily and so on, and it worked. Today we don't have these rules. And I really think that we live in a dangerous time. Of course we don't believe there could be a war, but nobody really believed it also in the case of the World War I while everybody was getting ready for it, in the same way as today, my god, we are getting ready for it. So that's why again we desperately need things like WikiLeaks to tell us things, the new arms race and all that, you know. Yeah, the more god-like powers that these organizations get—you know, we've got new plutocrats just emerging out of Silicon Valley and stuff, just out of the blue who never even existed before. That's also an ominous—now I will tell you something that many leftists will not like. I generally support George Soros, his fight against this new European anti-immigrant right. But nonetheless I saw a year ago an interview with him where he claimed that how it would be good for Europe if one million more people move from Middle East, refugees, no. And I said, okay, he is doing a great work in fighting racism and so on. But my god, is this normal, that a big wealthy guy is planning moving million people here, there, and so on and so on? Where are the local people to decide about this? And then we wonder that Orbán is winning in Hungary and so on, you know. That's my big worry about this politically correct left. It's so elitist. I really worry about it. I think we live again internationally, nationally, in a very dangerous moment. And again, we need WikiLeaks to give us the data. And all the best for Julian, all the best for Julian. I just wish him, I hope at least he has TV. If I were to be him, I would try to enjoy life—but another thing speaking about enjoying life that I should tell you, people should know this. You know how desperate was it for him—he told me once this, when he still at least had normal communications, it was possible for friends to visit him and so on. You know that there is no kitchen in the embassy, no? So somebody has to bring food to him, no? So friends were bringing him regularly some meals from I don't know local there Chinese, whatever restaurant. But then he got hints from his friends that—is it—that's his daily—that was when he was happier his daily life. You know that friends hinted at him that British Secret Service is observing that, and their plan is to poison food a little bit in the restaurant, not to kill him, just to make him go to the hospital where—bam! they catch him, you know. That's his daily life. And I don't even imagine, you know I'm a very material concrete person, like now that only lawyers can visit him, not every day, what does he eat? How does he organize his daily bread? I mean, this is—because I repeat there is no kitchen there, you know. And who brings him food and so on? There must be some solution but here I think we should also ruthlessly, why not—we are right here—manipulate at this level, raise sympathy for him. You know how many people even didn't know what embassy is there? They thought it must be a nice villa with a nice garden. No, it's on the same floor one of the two apartments. It's not what you associate usually with embassy, you know. People should know this concrete details. People identify, sympathize with all this, no. Are we already over?
so much Russia, more politically, but China and so on, India. And we live in dangerous times because I think we don't have new—my god, how should I call this?—new unwritten rules of how you deal. You know, in Cold War there were clear rules: you don't intervene there militarily and so on, and it worked. Today we don't have these rules. And I really think that we live in a dangerous time. Of course we don't believe there could be a war, but nobody really believed it also in the case of the World War I while everybody was getting ready for it, in the same way as today, my god, we are getting ready for it. So that's why again we desperately need things like WikiLeaks to tell us things, the new arms race and all that, you know. Yeah, the more god-like powers that these organizations get—you know, we've got new plutocrats just emerging out of Silicon Valley and stuff, just out of the blue who never even existed before. That's also an ominous—now I will tell you something that many leftists will not like. I generally support George Soros, his fight against this new European anti-immigrant right. But nonetheless I saw a year ago an interview with him where he claimed that how it would be good for Europe if one million more people move from Middle East, refugees, no. And I said, okay, he is doing a great work in fighting racism and so on. But my god, is this normal, that a big wealthy guy is planning moving million people here, there, and so on and so on? Where are the local people to decide about this? And then we wonder that Orbán is winning in Hungary and so on, you know. That's my big worry about this politically correct left. It's so elitist. I really worry about it. I think we live again internationally, nationally, in a very dangerous moment. And again, we need WikiLeaks to give us the data. And all the best for Julian, all the best for Julian. I just wish him, I hope at least he has TV. If I were to be him, I would try to enjoy life—but another thing speaking about enjoying life that I should tell you, people should know this. You know how desperate was it for him—he told me once this, when he still at least had normal communications, it was possible for friends to visit him and so on. You know that there is no kitchen in the embassy, no? So somebody has to bring food to him, no? So friends were bringing him regularly some meals from I don't know local there Chinese, whatever restaurant. But then he got hints from his friends that—is it—that's his daily—that was when he was happier his daily life. You know that friends hinted at him that British Secret Service is observing that, and their plan is to poison food a little bit in the restaurant, not to kill him, just to make him go to the hospital where—bam! they catch him, you know. That's his daily life. And I don't even imagine, you know I'm a very material concrete person, like now that only lawyers can visit him, not every day, what does he eat? How does he organize his daily bread? I mean, this is—because I repeat there is no kitchen there, you know. And who brings him food and so on? There must be some solution but here I think we should also ruthlessly, why not—we are right here—manipulate at this level, raise sympathy for him. You know how many people even didn't know what embassy is there? They thought it must be a nice villa with a nice garden. No, it's on the same floor one of the two apartments. It's not what you associate usually with embassy, you know. People should know this concrete details. People identify, sympathize with all this, no. Are we already over?
unknown
What's the hour now? No, our next guest is running late, so if you have more thoughts that you would like to share about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, if you have time, we would be delighted to have you keep going. No, I'm sorry, I have some
What's the hour now? No, our next guest is running late, so if you have more thoughts that you would like to share about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, if you have time, we would be delighted to have you keep going. No, I'm sorry, I have some
Slavoj Žižek
obligation but I will try to say something, yes, that the key thing is I think to maintain in your view both opposite. On the one hand this personal sympathy for Julian there—and again always be aware when you read some bad news about him. Always be aware of what a gigantic psychological warfare, information, intelligence activity is behind this. So nothing is innocent here. Even this neutral data like he behaves a little bit in a rough way and so on and so on, which didn't strike me at any point, incidentally. And when people say he is authoritarian, I wouldn't say authoritarian, but wait a minute, running WikiLeaks is not a grassroots democratic movement, you know. There are so many things which has to remain secret and so on and so on. It is a people's secret service, no. That's one thing. But also my message: bear in mind the general consequences, implications and so on and so on. This is not just a case of a crazy guy who wanted people to know more about secret services. This is about all of us, what lives we will live in. Will we—I think that I'm not a utopian here. In the crazy world that it is today, we need spy services, protection against violent attacks and so on and so on. But unfortunately we cannot fully trust those in power. So we need just a minimal transparency also of those in power, what they're doing. We cannot trust them. I remember I was at some round table on BBC Newsnight when somebody was just saying but this is normal spy operation and then a friend of Julian or was it Chelsea Manning, I don't know, simply said: but look, the data show what information CIA was gathering in Brazil. It was not some defense information. It was about private lives of the executives of Brazilian oil company, probably to blackmail them
obligation but I will try to say something, yes, that the key thing is I think to maintain in your view both opposite. On the one hand this personal sympathy for Julian there—and again always be aware when you read some bad news about him. Always be aware of what a gigantic psychological warfare, information, intelligence activity is behind this. So nothing is innocent here. Even this neutral data like he behaves a little bit in a rough way and so on and so on, which didn't strike me at any point, incidentally. And when people say he is authoritarian, I wouldn't say authoritarian, but wait a minute, running WikiLeaks is not a grassroots democratic movement, you know. There are so many things which has to remain secret and so on and so on. It is a people's secret service, no. That's one thing. But also my message: bear in mind the general consequences, implications and so on and so on. This is not just a case of a crazy guy who wanted people to know more about secret services. This is about all of us, what lives we will live in. Will we—I think that I'm not a utopian here. In the crazy world that it is today, we need spy services, protection against violent attacks and so on and so on. But unfortunately we cannot fully trust those in power. So we need just a minimal transparency also of those in power, what they're doing. We cannot trust them. I remember I was at some round table on BBC Newsnight when somebody was just saying but this is normal spy operation and then a friend of Julian or was it Chelsea Manning, I don't know, simply said: but look, the data show what information CIA was gathering in Brazil. It was not some defense information. It was about private lives of the executives of Brazilian oil company, probably to blackmail them
unknown
and so on and so on. You know, we should just—we should get to know all this. So many things are happening, we don't know it. And that's even the
and so on and so on. You know, we should just—we should get to know all this. So many things are happening, we don't know it. And that's even the
Slavoj Žižek
philosophical lesson of this, how precisely when people today feel free, free in the sense of "Okay, there is a crisis, maybe I don't get a job but I'm free to do this, to do that," and so on and so on. We are controlled more than ever. That this freedom—personal freedom is deceiving. That's the message. Without this, we are lost. Slavoj Žižek, thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much and hope it's not the—incidentally, my dirty inquisitorial spy, where are you? I am in Australia, but I'm from America. Ah, you're in Australia, so you should curse me, I rather—ah, it's not too bad, it's—it's early evening there or what? It's p.m. here. p.m. Yeah, it's fine. Have a good night and please thanks. You too Slavoj, thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye.
philosophical lesson of this, how precisely when people today feel free, free in the sense of "Okay, there is a crisis, maybe I don't get a job but I'm free to do this, to do that," and so on and so on. We are controlled more than ever. That this freedom—personal freedom is deceiving. That's the message. Without this, we are lost. Slavoj Žižek, thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much and hope it's not the—incidentally, my dirty inquisitorial spy, where are you? I am in Australia, but I'm from America. Ah, you're in Australia, so you should curse me, I rather—ah, it's not too bad, it's—it's early evening there or what? It's p.m. here. p.m. Yeah, it's fine. Have a good night and please thanks. You too Slavoj, thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye.