Slavoj Zizek - Israel, Palestine & the Future
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2023
- The 'most dangerous philosopher in the West' diagnoses our current geopolitical nightmare and offer an urgent and radical call to action.
We hear all the time that we're moments from doomsday. Around us, crises interlock and escalate, threatening our collective survival. Protestors and politicians repeatedly call for action, but still we continue to drift towards disaster. We need to do something. But what if the only way for us to prevent catastrophe is to accept that we're already five minutes past zero hour?
![ตรงที่เดิม - ฝน พรสุดา [ต้นฉบับ :เบส ขวางหวัน]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c5YnbGEztI8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Supernova - aespa エスパ 에스파 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240517](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bepqfR-pxY0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Gulag for life!" - Slavoj Zizek
I need a poster of this.
_...and you will get one!_
@@torquemaddertorquemadder2080 omnius joke, but is the accuracy what made it funny
Contextualizing something doesn't mean relativizing it!!!! That is brilliantly said. ❤❤❤
All his work is brilliant. Just read his books. That is crucial.
"Precisely.....and so on and so on"....... Legend 😂
....unfortunately....
Thank you for bringing up Assange. We must demand his freedom.
Bradley Manning was the hero who went to jail, straight up like a man for what he did. Assange was a hacker and he, not Wikileaks, took all the cred. Journos love journo heroes these days. Julian was no Seymour Hersch, who never divulged his sources, even if he is blacklisted in the west now.
Slavoj Žižek explains why we need the philosophy (as an art of radical questioning) today.
"Keep?" is my new slogan.
of course!
We live in a time where collective people have had enough, but are still unable to dream reaching for the most reactive and simplest of solutions to having enough. This is a dangerous combination.
What are the most reactive and simple solutions to "having enough"? And also, like, wtf are "collective people"?
Profound thoughts between sniffles. Thank you Zizek, love ya!
Just started the video, but it becomes undeniable, that Zizek will be a future reference for soberness.
Because you need somebody else to blame for your problems and he satisfies the narcissistic lack of accountability that is and constitutes the far left and far right.
By Zeus, you are right Socrates!
Only vegans are sober in the most ethical way
If he’s sober I’m definitely high on this weed I’m smoking up.
@@skidoglebChecks out.
There is no freedom without self discipline. That sums it all up for me.
There is no freedom without understanding the scientific fact that 'free will' does not exist.
Really missing the point my friend. You can have the choice of a million dishes to eat, if you have no ability to cook then you are utterly dependant on someone who can. You describe exploitation, not freedom.
@@keycuzjust different perspectives I suppose because you're both right. I mean if you are an enslaved person but are self disciplined, you aren't materially free at all even if in some psycho/spiritual way you ARE "free". Both things matter. We are enslaved by our material conditions but everyone should have more equitable material conditions anyway
I suppose that's the essential difference between left and right. Freedom for all or freedom for whoever has the biggest stick.
Even if you can cook you're still dependent on a chain of people (supplier, supermarkets, producers..etc and so on and so on - I believe the commenter above means both negative freedoms and positive freedoms @@keycuz
😂😂😂😂 when you fall in love you retrospectively create the reasons. Absolute genius
The core of manifestation
Somehow I didn't know but I knew / when I fell for you
It's completely true! It's why dating apps are so unsuccessful. You don't set out what you need in advance, you fall in love and then realise WHY you fell in love.
This speech by Zizek reminded me of a curious episode that happened to me that I like to reflect on, but that I hadn't told anyone about yet.
Around the end of the pandemic, I decided to stop by a shopping mall before returning home. I wanted to do something special: have my favorite coffee at a Coffee Shop I used to go to.
Sitting in front of the cash register, I was enjoying my coffee when a man approached with his 3 year old daughter. He stood in line to order something at the Coffee Shop, the little girl turned to me and smiled.
The little girl was holding two huge colorful lollipops, one in each hand. Then she did something unimaginable that caught my attention. Instead of licking the lollipops, she started trying to fit the handle of one inside the handle of the other.
Because of the pandemic slaughter promoted by the Bolsonaro government and the bad economic effects that the pandemic had on my life, I was a little depressed. Watching the girl, an unpleasant thought occurred to me. "This girl will manage to drop one or both lollipops on the floor and start crying. When she does, her father will be angry. This little family tragedy will ruin the coffee moment that I'm enjoying."
Seconds after I had this sad thought, after several failed attempts and some adorable faces of frustration, the little girl finally managed to fit the handle of one lollipop inside the handle of the other. As she did so, she gave such a captivating smile of happiness that I immediately felt ashamed for having been so pessimistic.
She then undid what she had done, just before her father grabbed her arm and took her to one of the tables in the Coffee Shop. He didn't see anything that happened. That little feat turned into the secret I share with that little girl I don't know and will probably never meet again.
Here are the reflections that that episode has suggested to me to this day. The little girl's motivation for acting that way was probably natural curiosity "Can I do that?" She obviously wasn't worried about the outcome her experience would have on me.
The lesson she learned and celebrated with a smile was "Yes, I can do this!" The lesson she gave me was "Wow... My primary mistake in imagining a different outcome was projecting onto that little girl unpleasant feelings that I felt myself and that had nothing to do with what was really happening."
The radiant happiness expressed by the girl in accomplishing something she wanted to do (something incidentally very different from what we imagine a child should do with lollipops) is something that makes me think. We may well consider that everything in the world is lost and that the tragic future is inevitable, but small incidents like the one I witnessed and narrated here irrefutably prove that perhaps things can happen differently. It doesn't really matter how we imagine things are or will be, the space for hope for new happy experiences arises whenever children enter this world.
Perhaps the thoughtful and pessimistic Zizek needs to witness something like what I witnessed. The question is: When something unexpected occurs, will Zizek be able to look up and openly observe and appreciate what is happening in front of his eyes here and now instead of continuing to project into the future things from the distant past that already occurred in a different place?
this is so nice, thank you, I needed it. appreciated =)
Thank you, sir, for taking some of your time to reflex on and share this real life experience of yours with us!
Kharma😂 belief in what we can do and not be trapped by identity with the past.00⁰😊,
"the pandemic slaughter promoted by the Bolsonaro government" - really? Because he wouldn't force Brazilians to be injected with experimental "vaccines"?
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!!!!! 🥹💗🙏🏽🇵🇸
49:35 *contextualization is not relativization* “People claim I’m relativizing what Hamas did in the south of Israel. No. Contextualizing something doesn’t mean to relativize it-it means to see the ground out of which a thing like this was possible to emerge.”
The problem is not him, the problem is lazy people who generalise. When UN chief says that things didn't happen in a vacuum he is definitely relativizing and not contextualising. Than there are people who generalise Zizek with a big group of people who are like UN chief.
@@alonskiiwell most of the global leaders are not taking a stance against the genocide. So mentioning the non-vaccum doesn't seem to agree with hamas. If most of the world wanted to support terrorism, then yes, it would sound like a justification.
@@robinsterne3926 please rephrase. I didn't understand
@@alonskiiyou dont understand what hes saying. Check youre definitions.
I disagree what your doing isn't adding context your saying it's justified and so on and so on that's relativism like when someone says "trans lives matter" okay but does that mean they can box in the ring with other biological woman "trans lives matters" your not adding context your adding relativism
wow, what a person! truly a great one of our time
I just love this dude so much
He is a true homie
Same, can’t get enough of his speeches and interviews. He’s so likable, captivating, hilarious and pure genius. Would love to have a few beers with him.
@@vaughncollins1386 take a bib and a towel
@@vaughncollins1386 Wodka
@@elingrome5853 Left it at your mom’s house.
The answers to his lightning round questions are some of his best, he really works really well when given strict time constraints
ZiZek should have a dialogue with Norman Finkelstein about Palestine and Isreal.
I love your comment even if writing “IsReal” is not a Freudian slip.
Norman Finkelstein is not interesting nor smart enough
@@makevet6531luckily we have besserwissers such as yourself to explain it to us. 😅
@@michstockholm1164😂😂😂
Glad Norman is always around to invent an alternative history of every event and rely on his fans not looking at even 1 point of fact he give "your listening to the establishment or the government I'm the only source of information with any integrity" Norman is not honest what his motives are I don't know but it's clear by the facts he chosens that he knows he's being dishonest
This is a key point, because it allows any kind of manipulation: Define "terrorist" if you are sincere and truthfull. Using double standards when the term is used is a proof of dishonesty and hypocrisy...
easy: Israel, a colonial settler occupier state, is a terrorist.
This NCR has declared you a terrorist
Recognise: The man does not care about whether it's recorded or not, whether it's over time limit or not.
Still truly underappreciated, even with all the glowing introductions.
God bless u all love you blessing give us
Truthful insight wisdom lets live our life
Freedom as self-discipline goes back to Pythagoras
We are all but footnotes to the Greeks.
Basic anarchist paradigm - 'self management and mutual aid' - freedom can only be 'self discipline' but with the second clause that recognises the fact of our social species.
My god, we need Slavoj in discussion with a comedian. He's begging to for some unserious seriousness
Thanks!
I feel like people make the colonial argument because it is driven in our head that the holocaust is the only singular crime while negating the evils and details of colonialism in American education. It’s a reaction.
I just need to say hi to all of you, the insights are telling of the people listening. Salut 👋
Just Brilliant !
Brilliant last words!
I liked how Zizek did not go along with the interviewer in mocking Jordan Peterson. That was gentlemanly. I'm not a JP fan. That's the point; we should be civil. I wanted to hear more about that conversation after the debate, but the interviewer wanted to get his jokes out. He did the same with his dumb "autocorrect" line right after Zizek made a profound point, and it didn't even fit what Z said.
Yeah that’s what made Zizek and Peterson’s “debate” such a beautiful thing-there was desire for bloodshed, but Zizek treated him like a friend for the most part. As a result many Peterson fans migrated to Zizek’s camp.
@@nightoftheworldi loved it when Zizek said he was just making a joke, trying to see if JP would laugh, or something like that. The general all embracing humanity of the man - JP was not able to match, at least not unscripted. I found it unfortunately telling.
The interviewer was peurile at times .
Too casual.
What? “Autocorrect” is a good way to boil down Z’s point. He said “the more they are shitting on Europe, the more I like Europe” (paraphrase). He said there is no comparison in the rest of the world to the enlightenment principles that allow the European experiment to… you guessed it. Autocorrect.
I don’t want to assume, but it’s precisely the kind of person who would comment about J. Peterson in this context who is most likely to not be listening to the content at all, but rather be hypersensitive to the boxing match element of these videos.
Check yourself.
@@Readabookfoofoo OK, I see what you mean about autocorrect. I was thinking of a slightly different meaning. That makes sense. Thanks.
Mainly, I didn't like the way the interviewer stepped on the end of what Slavoj was saying, without letting it land. It felt like like he was waiting for SZ to stop talking so he could deliver his clever joke and get a laugh.
It also bothered me that the interviewer seemed more interested in mocking Jordan Peterson than in listening to what Slavoj had to say about him and their conversation. He kept cutting in with snide jabs about JP.
JP had a difficult time in his life around then, what with his wife's illness and everything around that, and Slavoj spoke about it with compassion.
Note that I didn't say anything bad about Jordan Peterson. I simply added the context that I'm not one of his fans, to make it clear that I wasn't objecting to the interviewer's rudeness because of any bias I have towards his ideas.
"The only way to open a path to a different future is to rewrite the past differently"
Something that Stalin would say.
Genius. I have read all his books, and I am still studying his thought.
This philosopher is so correct as I changed my brain by myself because I knew the past would be failure if the people do not change how they think and organize our entire society but only a few see many centuries in the future because the failures that already occurred the soul must strive for only life not death. I never feared death only humans that had lost their humanity for the "other".
please drink plenty of water and get good sleep.
I was given to the future and totally ignored the present for the past.
That changing was really profound
"God is how you deal with others."
Beautiful. Lots of opinions from examples.
Zizek in top form. Hope to have him on the pod one day
Better get an umbrella when this guy speaks, I don't even know if he understands what himself saying.
After so many decades, so many acts, what is there left to say ?
Change.
@@HumanEye61 Then change, what's to say.
Thank you for speaking out 🍉
I think it finally clicked for me is when Zizek states that the way we criticize the system is a part of the system. It's what the Matrix actually represents if anything
It’s the ultimate postmodernist late capitalist co-option of the avant-garde, to absorb and commodity any and all critique of its institutions, the more ‘radical’ the better. Anything outside of the institutional frame only serves to make that frame wider and thus dominant. However this is an uneasy symbiosis wherein those that critique the institutions of late capitalist society rely on the very institutions they purport to criticise, much like Zizek’s ‘host’ here directs the audience to leave via the gift shop and pick up a copy of his latest book!
It’s an easy problem to locate, but a very difficult one to escape!
Did you mean "apart" (having independent or unique qualities, features, or characteristics; separate, as in separate from the system) or "a part" (a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent: as in part of the system) ?
Not sure which system you were referring to either.
Critiquing the system from the fascist right is not built in to the system. Everything else is, from the centre right through to the far left. Fascist speakers do not get platformed by any western institution. Wether or not that shines a positive light onto fascism is another question.
@@matchoftheday3u haven't listened to Israeli minister of justice then
@@matchoftheday3 we have fascists in CONTROL of western institutions, let alone being platformed by them.
From 1:16:30 onwards are the most beautiful things I heard anyone say about Serbia. Thank you Slavoj Zizek.
Especially the part when he mentioned awful stuff done under Milosevic.
You have to be consistent in the Slavoj's circle to be welcomed.
Otherwise, yes.
But also not.
Nationalism isn't the thing on Balkans, but Neo Fascism, with a weaker military note, but trying to fake it for a public eye.
1:13:02 Truth! Always.
As for Serbia, let's remember that a dozen cities threw out Milošević's allies and installed resistance leaders into power. NATO bombed them with depleted uranium anyway.
Zizek put peterson in rehab lol
Brilliant
Love this observation
I think my favored term for all of this is The Polycrisis. Entering the medieval modern period, or the counter enlightenment?
Techno Feudalism
It's 20 years at least that there is no more future.
Very insightful man. Though I remain strongly opposed to the naïve endorsement for additional globalization, it was a great listen and interesting perspective
FANTASTIC !!!!!!!!!! A UNIQUE PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!! VERY; VERY IMPORTANT, MORE THAN IMPORTANT, CRUCIAL !
@16:22 it's the Golden Rule, he's 100% right, in social justice people have different causes. And when we meet I've come to realize that if you don't give a sh1t about other peoples causes, they won't give a sh1t about yours
I think you can leave out the word 'causes' and still be consistent.
If one is living in the future now & looking @ the present now what are the possibilities of observing past suffering as already happened in another time? It sure is being discussed.
Brilliant , truth, blatant honestly!
Blatant dishonesty of a communist.
@@sergiyavorski9977
Breath and try learning to look at things from different angles.
i am in awe witnessing this profound human.
good that you are speaking much - stay sharp and on the subject
ps.: #juhu #selfcritique
I loved the talk and listening zizek is adding an awesome unpredictable point of view to so many themes. The only part I’m worried is in his celebration that we’re prepared for “new regulations” so if his ideas win, they are the only truth. That’s quite arrogant and dangerous.
Yes, global regulations as a way to end the global catastrophe. Like UN declarations post WW2. If Zizek is right and this will be our way out, then yes, I hope ideas to this end win. Don't you?
@@Yulenka- are you slow? are y'all neo-libs/cons or fking MARXISTS? jfc
No, Zizek is not arrogant. Read his books, please. It takes a lot of years, but it is one of the most important things to do.
I know him personally.
@@vitoroliveirajorge368
You do? Wow, how would you describe him as a person, my guess is, not much different than he is on stage, open honest and easy going.
How elegant is the letter Ž. Also Š and Č.
In Czech weve got even more : ě š č ř ž ý á í é ó ů ú ť ď
“Gulag! Gulag for life!” lmaoooooo
Thank you Slavoj.
Can someone clarify? Who was the first hero? I went back 4 times but could never get it. Thanks.
Julian Assange
what did the siberian audience member say to him at 1:05:01 in some language that stopped Zizek in his tracks? sounded very abrupt
She greeted him "good evening" which he got excited about.. but then she interrupted him to say "I am speaking from here, from the balkans" which confused him (and me) because it was a bit out of place. Then, in English, she says she is from Siberia and asks her question. The part in Yugoslavian was sort of out of place
ah thanks so much for explaining; I was so confused @@adnanhasic5253
Word on the street is, there is no future.
Good Lord 💔
Zizek on point as always, could do without the hosts interjections
I was at a party in the 1980's and they needed more booze. So me (still sober cos i was late) and one of the hosts drove to the offee to get some. On the way back he said he had read an academic paper titled: the influence of T. S. Eliot on Shakespeare. At the time I figured he had started partying some hours before I had got there. i came across a similar view in a documentary on cosmology on TV that the direction of causation in epistemology was from the present to the past. its theme in lots of time travel movies, but their it generates a kind of contradiction or paradox. Which to me suggests some kind of transcendental argument as a limit to what the present can do to the past. there is a reading of Kant's so called transcendental argument in the Refutation of Idealism part of the Critique of Pure Reason. According to Johnathan Bennett in his "Kant's Analytic"(1966ish) the argument means that reflection and knowledge of even one own inner mental states presupposes, as a "condition of its possibility" that facts in the past are "given" and cannot be made contingent, or otherwise, or denied, because it would mean we would not even have knowledge of the present and our first person inner mental states. Thus Kant is saying that even the idealists and sceptics about the external world: solipsists like Descartes and Berkley, begin their argument by accepting as given at least the reality of their present inner mental states, and so Kant is just pointing out "to them" that they unknowingly must assume, or better, are assuming, unknowingly, a realism about external fixity the facts of the past. That is facts that are immune to reinterpretation and revision. Back in the day i tried to use this sort of argument against Foucault's "historical a priori" such that what is politically possible in the present is not complete freedom, but limited by historical facts in the past, that make policy possible in the present. This goes against interpreters and praxiteers of Foucault, who consider that from the present all pasty event can be seen as contingent and changeable now. Thus, for example, contemporary post Colonial work, around justice and reparations for events in the past imagine that justice can happen now as a compensation for say bad laws and structures and policy in the past. One argument from Derrida i think claims that the foundations of justice are brutal facts say of who won a war and formed a State and legal system. that origins of justice are just historical chance events that could have been otherwise. this is now used to delegitimise the legal system now, on the basis of the past fact not being jsut but rather the outcomes of forces. The idea is then that we can help our selves to moves within our framework of justice to question the past and compensate now, but of course they simultaneously need the schema of justice now to make that move , but the move in fact denies, or seeks to change the very origin of justice in fact which the present schema of justice rests on. Derrida might also be claiming that since past events of justice have no ground in justice so then revolution now is no different than the brutal determining justice schema set up in the past.
one point is that there is a confusion between cause or material cause from past to future and the Space of reasons now as Wilfred Sellers put it in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. indeed Sellars claimed this to be an Hegelian position of his. We cannot materially cause now and justifiable change in the law as changes in the laws are imbedded in a space of laws and material cause in in the different Space of laws of nature from legal revision in the Space of reasons. The transcendental argument turns on categories or symmetries necessities continuity of laws over time, and the kind of radical breaks that compensatory justice requires disrupt the symmetry and continuity conditions of possible policy now. That is it generates the problem of the non recognition of general whole legitimacy eg justice is now split, since the continuity condition is broken. Schmitt seems to have seen this as a paradox that the sovereign is outside the law can act beyond the laws space a kind of theology of sovereignty where the sovereign like a transcendent God is outside of the world but can see and act in the world like a miracle but not against the laws of nature but the moral order its self. At the opposite end account is just that have and custom before the law preserves the continuity ie no necessity or symmetry or categories are required only empirical facts pertaining to models like hysteresis in physical and material sciences. Kant of course with his transcendental argument is neither proposing a transcendent sovereign or a world only of contingent and free habit and custom.
I too more recently have turned to view that i have now found in Cybernetics and systems theory from Habermas notions of legitimacy crisis. eg you might be unwittingly sawing off the branch you are sitting on. you will know because not everybody will recognise the new notion of justice and legitimacy.
Can you hit enter a couple more times? I cannot read this.
You could have expressed whatever you are trying to express in one paragraph.
@@call_in_sick you are so judgmental you make me sick. shame on you for the lack of respect and the unneeded aggressiveness.
Can u writeabitmore - response is too short😊
TLDR
Always positive Zizek. Haha!
Definition of right side of history
Like Zizek I don't fully understand why Chomsky dislikes him either. It conjures up that classic rivalry and clash of the styles between continental and anal philosophers
If there was no Slavoj Zizek the corporate media would create one. He is the perfect derailment of the left: "But you can look at this problem like, I'm not saying... do you remember the movie?". Can you sum up what is his main idea, what he thinks people should do to make world better? There is no goal in his words and that seems to be precisely the goal - to turn every leftist into an armchair revolutionary, to make him do nothing. He is a human shaped version of feminism, lgbtq, political correctness, a way to occupy a leftist so that he does anything but actively rebell against the ruling class. To paraphrase Mark Twain: "If Zizek would make any difference they wouldn't let him speak". If there was anything worthwhile in his words he would be banned. Instead he is published by New York Times, The Guardian and so on, and so on.
i love his boots
What a pleasure to listen to Slavoj!
41:59 This part summarizes the entire talk
The linguistic difference outlined here seems to work as well in Spanish; FUTURO versus PORVENIR.
thats simple, for France and Spain are not that far way from each other. he could have drawn larger dichotomies with other languages that are entirely non Europeans, such as mandaring. no wonder he must spend most of his time only reading Europeans thought for colonialism eliminated other possibilities by quiet literarily burning all those books that challenge so. is such logic saving me or damning me?
meandering is not a language, mate...but this lunatic sure does his fair share ( come on , dude, you gotta like my creative use of yer typo...@@nsxkkxlnmiyo8722
He seems like he's doing better in terms of his OCD. Good for him. What did he do? It's a big improvement. A little jelly.
Queen Kristina from Sweden ! :)
A future is not
The truth to our future
@43:57 honestly would have to disagree with with bernie sanders representing a "silent majority" especially after his response to the israel genocide of palestinan children
Jean-Pierre Dupuy.
Kohei Saito.
David Graeber.
Walter Benjamin.
When is from?
I am 90s kid. Similar to my generation and my parents remembering the Woodstock geneariton as lovely, peaceful our children and grandchildren will remember this era as the era of conflicts, crisis and wars. And it only looks worse from what I understood from Zizek and other futurists.
That's just a symptom of you choosing to wallow in ignorance, rather than investigate whether these all-encompassing (but false) facades you've constructed in your head are in fact true. They're NOT. It's a FACT that the "Woodstock generation" were far more bloody, and far less "peaceful" than your revisionist history mis-informs you they were (since to further bias your rose-coloured view, you ONLY use the Western "generation" rather than their global cohort as your sample group, even while you play the trick of expanding your present "era" not to the same limited group, but to encompass the entire world (do you start to see how many blinders you've packed into our silly analogy yet?) And in FACT, the present world situation is amongst the MOST PEACEFUL times in world history, in spite of you being led by the nose by a press that wants you to ONLY focus on their Conflict Du Jours. Yet far fewer people are dying from "conflict, crisis and wars" now than in the 90s, or 80s, or almost any other time in the 20th Century! Let's put down the Pipe and actually investigate REALITY beyond your empty-headed "gut sense", huh? Educate yourself of FACTS, not woo-woo pig-headed FEELINGS. Do it for us, if not for yourself (we don't need even MORE ignorance being spouted about by unthinking "90s kids".)
"futurist" lol a retro ass proto-fash ideology, really?
Which works of Marx is he talking about at 1:10:15? The analysis about 48 revolution?
More important question to ask...."Where is Balkan?"
Johnny Rotten said it first.
A brilliant mind, slightly losing it now and then, but always feast to the brain to listen to. I wonder why he never talks about Lula, though, and disagree with his disdain for anarchism. But his analysis of the Israel-Hamas conflict and the silliness of antisemitism is perfect.
when did Slavoj Zizek become Winston Churchill
I'd be afraid to meet Zizek because I would do nothing but embarrass myself.
I thought the same. He’s so genuine and funny and goes out of his way for fans. He’ll play the fool to put you at ease. Wonderful man.
@@nealg3546Nicely said. He means no harm. And has a greater sense of brutality than most of us. “I didn’t see nothing sir, I was just getting home late”. As Cohen sings.
He has so much to say and he want to tell what he knows.
He is an indispensable person.
Did Zizek just arrive at bolo'bolo??? 32:09
heroes of the 21st century - Drug Slavoj!!!
To me this is bordering into bad faith by Slavoj, I mean to presuppose that all of a sudden people are conflating the liberation of the colonized with the dismissal of past genocides because of the ongoing struggle for decolonization is totally baseless and paints people as only being dichotomous and not having an ounce of nuance in their bodies. Unless he's just projecting how he himself thinks which... WOW
“…the trains to gulag will be full.”
Zizek braucht immer länger, um zur Aussage zu kommen. Gegen den Schluss wird er wieder stark: Freedom is Beauty!
he asks for us not to compare the horror of holocaust with the horror of gaza massacre, then he describes the n4zis doing in detail what israel is doing now in plain sight.
You've got to be a committed member of the proletariat to endure all that slobber spit and the rest
"I will not get lost in examples... For example" Rick james vibes Legend
I was playing cards with my girlfriend listening to this and lost. Because it is so interesting to follow.
The sound is weak.
Queen Christina of Sweden****
28:16 thank you Zizek 🙏 ♥️ 🕊️ 🇹🇷 🇹🇷 🇹🇷
Slavoj is like the Canary of the Ideologic coalmine! Keeping facism in it's place - out in the open, where we can see the vulgar impulse for what it is and have a laugh about it while we keep it nicely fenced in. I fear the days where his sniffling mad ramblings about the abject will no longer keep us humble about our existence anymore. Thank f 3 points off for the internet and YT, if I couldn't listen to these things, I would never have got the info, because I don't have the stamina for the books.
the only problem is netanjahu, he support and finances hamas to have excuse to destroy gaza
1:06:51 Comrade Stalin moment
I am an Indian 🇮🇳 and i completely agree about his words about bhagwad gita.
thought-forms how ever formulated have an impermanence ~ the reliance on micro-macro axioms are done, no?
1:03:00 Zizek is wrong here. He is repeating Right Wing tropes. Saudi Arabia has taken by some estimates close to half a million Syrian refugees. Saudi Govt itself says 2.5 million though. This trope is regularly repeated, but numbers say a different thing when accounted for. This is not to say that these countries do not have troublesome immigration and citizenship policies that only wish to keep their societies homogeneous unlike more open democratic states in Europe.
Legend ! This is fact :
"In 2022, 335 persons with refugee status and 13,483 asylum seekers were registered in Saudi Arabia. They mainly came from Syria (57.91%), Eritrea (10.75%), Iraq (9.55%), and Somalia (4.78%), and most of them were fleeing war and violence."
Actually the right wingers would love Saudi-Arabia if they weren't muslim, they are very reactionary.
True leftists need to keep leftist ideals up everywhere in the world, not only in the west.
They should've given the zionists Wyoming instead of an already heavily populated area
“Gulag, gulag for life” 😅🤣🤣
Sorry. I cant do it...
Yes, we shall finally be free from the curse of old by relying upon the ongoing translations of our work from Hanzi, to cuneiform, simply by requiring the use of keyboards.