"I don't believe in simple neutrality. For me, truth is a category of subjective engagements. You cannot write a history of the Austwitiz or the Gulag or whatever, without being morally shocked by it. I believe truth hurts and to tell the truth, you cannot be allowed to occupy a neutral position. [Therefore], one needs to be shoked and engaged." Prof. Slavoj Źiźek
One cannot read "Six Million" and not wonder if there is some marketing and b.s. going on? This Zizek is supposed to be a philosopher? He seems more like a diletantt, nah he is not a profound thinker
@@ChungPong2000 you are right, he was never a deep thinker, he is a clown who sometimes has something interesting to say. He got all this wrong but its not as if i expected anything substantial from him.
@ChungPong2000 no we really don't want another philosopher after heidegger and post modernism, then canada has to get one, like an actual one that actually makes sense of all that ontology completely rewrites it makes American version look like wtf?
Žižek was brilliant as always, he's just quotable as hell and always has excelent, thought provoking points. Cudos also to the interviewer, I think he did a phenomenal job.
I go beyond Žižek and call neo liberalism already soft fascism. There's an seemingly friendly elite running everything through wealth, corporations and lobbies, slowly cutting the under class out, with unfair wages. No wonder people, who resent this, vote those attacking it, 'heroes' on the far right, those who shout, we deserve it all, let's take it from those who threaten us, like immigrants. The message is: 'Don't challenge the elites, challenge people you can safely get away with.' It's a tragedy.
@@jAV1984 To be inside *true* philosophical Materialism, the critical analysis, the overview to the actual happenings is not that easy... to find in Media. But with education in this and all the usual economy, right ideology stuff such would be of course better as interviewer.
I don't usually comment but what a refreshing and well structured interview. I've sadly gotten used to journalists interrupting and speaking over the person they're interviewing or trying to trip them out in other ways. Thank you for showing me that respectful journalism is still alive.
why do you think he is Postmodern? from what i learned postmodernists are against modernism. of course they help the conservative world like church to back to the power by denying modernism but they can not be full modern. they hate modernism and they hate meritocracy.
On Truth, Free Speech, and "Woke Culture": ● Žižek criticizes the "cynical indifference" prevalent in many societies, where people are aware of critical issues but fail to act or engage meaningfully. He sees this as a major obstacle to addressing challenges like climate change and political conflicts. ● He laments the decline of critical thinking and the increasing difficulty in discerning fact from fiction in a media landscape dominated by misinformation and manipulation. ● He critiques both the right-wing and the politically correct left for engaging in censorship and expressing distrust in ordinary people's ability to think critically. ● While acknowledging the historical injustices highlighted by "woke culture," Žižek expresses concern about the movement's approach to reinterpreting the past. ● He criticizes the notion that gender identity is solely a matter of personal choice, emphasizing the complex and often traumatic process of identity formation. On Immigration: ● Žižek criticizes both extremes in the immigration debate: the open borders stance of the liberal left and the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right. ● He argues that Western intervention in the Middle East and North Africa has contributed significantly to the current immigration crisis. ● He points out that Western economies rely heavily on immigrant labor and would face severe consequences if they were to expel large numbers of immigrants.
I have a certain respect for the moderator that he kinda contains Zizek sometimes because this guy gets off the rails so quickly. Although I don't think he's completely dodging questions he sure wants to talk through his own framework.
"I don't remember one occupation in which the occupier presented himself as the victim, we are the victims, we are forced to kill their children, po~ Israeli journalist Gideon Levy If Israelis don't want to be accused of being like the Nazis, they simply need to stop behaving like Nazis.." ~ Norman Finkelstein
Gideon Levy was quoting Golda Meier 4th Zionist Prime minister. They constantly use the victim card, all the while they are devoid of humanity interaty and pity. Gaza's population was 50% children. And remember " anti Semitic? its a trick. We always use it" to stifle legitimate criticism of Zionist Israel. by Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli cabinet member. Winner of the 2000 Israel prize.
@@sylviaberman1969 well...after 2 world wars you're mad not to keep a finger on the german pulse after that. Also, at that time stalins russia was looking to keep the ground it had fought for pushing back the Nazi's. Its reasonable.
I am so glad Zizek shared his thoughts. My mind was going the same direction for years but it feels good hearing someone much wiser and smarter than I confirm it and go further than I could take the concept.
@@nono99136Not validation but hearing other people articulate similar theories. It's harder to have these types of moments outside of college environments.
@azalia423 the rest of the world had the same bs religious "wisdom" for thousands of years until the west came and said something different. There's nothing to see over there quite frankly
@@azalia423 Thank you for showing your complete ignorance regarding western philosophers. I won't post a list with western philosophers who worked and incorporated or evolved thinking from places like India and China. The West translated every single piece or text from eastern lands, because they found them to be worthless..Whatever.
Interviewing Žižek is either the hardest or easiest job in the world. You can either let him speak knowing you can not contribute with anything interesting really OR you try to keep on rails and that is incredibly hard because everything this lunatic (I love him) says is so damn interesting and interrupting feels like a crime!
But an interviewer is not supposed to contribute with anything interesting. Their job is to pose questions that allow viewers to learn more about the speaker.
@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 you mean that interview journalism is being phased out by either debates or podcast-type conversations between like-minded people? I'd agree with that.
agree with most of Slavoj's points, but on immigration I would add that most people taking these extreme risks to get to the west but also most of the immigration from the past was not because they were unhappy with the lifestyle or geography or culture from where they flee. The number 1 and 2 reasons come down to economic and political corruption, for which, in large part the western powers helped to foster, because it was expedient post colonialism to maintain economic but also military superiority by mechanisms of subjugation. This is embodied in the very structures of the global commercial system as it works today. If you want to stop immigration, then stop exploiting weaker countries and their politicians, or if you really believe you are not to blame, then not only shut off your borders to immigrants but blockade all goods and materials, or any kind of help from the south and lets see how long you can maintain your standard of living.
exactly 👏 i noticed that there was smth not okay when providing as a solution to the imigration issue, as one event that was needed but it has to happen in a controlled way. I also thought that if the western societies have lower natality rate, and if western societies refuse to work the low maintenance jobs, these issues are their own problem and what's more they seem to be originating from these societies imperialist/capitalist mentality, therefore let them deal with it internally, why suggest resolutions from outside, such as immigration. It did not seem much communist like attitude from the part of Slavoj on this matter.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the racial hierarchies of the world and their inability to create economically prosperous societies. And it has nothing to do with greedy individuals who leave everyone behind to seek a material benefit for themselves in other people's land. Zizek sounded like an Aryan warlord here who implies that migrant labour exists to clean his toilet and wipe his butt and move bricks. You know what would happen if they're not there? More jobs for the working class, higher wages, better working conditions. Oh no! Not power to the people, anything but that! We have to be controlled opposition.
When I was young and naive, I equated your type of comment to nazis. Now I am seeing the truth to those words. Overt bias in western media coverage of Palestine. Politicians either afraid to speak the truth , their voices drowned out by accusations of a/s, or openly attacking free speech on behalf of Israel. Billionaires like Bill Ackerman employing his wealth to silence universities. America is no longer a democracy. It is an oligarchy.
@jchan9761 A couple of professors put together a book, that's it, I'm convinced. But also, just because there's a lobbying group, like many y other lobbies, ot doesn't mean it is so strong, it can demand and do whatever it wants. If you think Israel is getting everything it wants and needs, you are delusional.
In theory socialism, communism, democracy, dictatorship, etc all have great points. The problem is the human aspect. Those in power become greedy, corrupt and drunk on power.
@macgyver37 thank you for your explanation. Yes an idea, not a condition, but, when an idea is far removed from the condition it purports to reflect, express, describe, or create, it becomes a confusion about the condition, or even a fiction, at least , to the extent of the distortion between the content, and meaning of the word, and its spelling, or projection on the ground. I agree that a genuine democracy, or some reasonable substance of it is better, or even good for the local, national, international, and global society, the question is how democratic is our democracy? Are we as people doing what it takes, to keep our democracy alive and effective, not only for the benefit of those who can, and are willing to pay for it, but for all.
As you ask Palestinians to move from a particular building because you need to neutralize a target, Hamas holds citizens close to the target while continuing to fire rockets at the IDF. Who’s the beast?
Why does Riz Khan keep saying Israel vs Hamas? Isn’t it obvious by now it is Israel vs Palestinians? Also I didn’t hear anything in this interview that is radical or controversial!
and when did it ever become israel vs palestinian ? you also clearly show your ignorance if you think it is israel vs palestine. it is colonial imperialism vs indigenous people OF a land. which is why it's been happening wherever there is resourcces but it's been most cruel and longer in palestine.
That depends on the pals .. and the sheee-ites in lebnn.. If they stop their je-nosi.de against the Js, then there won't be.. if they continue their je-nosi.de, there will have to be...
While world leaders believe it to be political suicide to go against AIPAC a greater Israel is likely. I voted Green to help make facilitating jenoside politically suicidal.
It seems the Biden admin. propaganda overseas had been worked at great success so that for how much interested on the outcome of this US election, the overseas people did not know of the RFK Jr. option, and the blank option, in the ballot..
BRICS are war criminals united for economic development. Russia holding summit in 2024 while commiting crimes against humanity at the same time should explain something to you.
yeah ok...it is a Chinese reactionary group which is useless to each member. India has no relation to Brazil and South Africa. China has no use for India because India is not a state that seeks alliances. Russia is a oil state with decent weapons for third world nations.
I believe his point was that fundamentalism is on the rise *in BRICS nations*, not that it is part of the underlying ideology of the economic intergovernmental organization called "BRICS"
Goodness. That lisp is terrible. I can't stand listening to him. And his cross eyes make him look impaired. He' very smart, and also very stupid, simultaneously.
True. Except that Trump only got where he was by being a celebrity first, and, arguably, continuing to be a bigger celebrity than any of his opponents.
@RTWPimpmachine Well, the dems had an endless list of A-list stars pushing their camdidate. It made no difference. I don't think it helped Trump, but it didn't hurt him.
Ummm... Joe Rogan? Elon Musk? Dana White? Trump leveraged the help from so many celebrities I lost count... he turned the Election campaign into something more akin to a UFC tour than a fricken election... Then the cherry on top, Dana gave a shout out to the NELK BOYS during Trump's victory speech 🤣Just when I thought we'd reached peak absurdity... it just ramps up to 11. th-cam.com/video/uMSV4OteqBE/w-d-xo.html
Fair point, however when you have the policy makers constantly having to undermine man at the helm because he's so incompetent, we have a problem. It just tanks the public faith in government and turns politics into a pure shit show.
@@dr.samierasadoonalhassani2669 I truly feel for you. I can't understand fully, because I have never experienced that kind of loss in leadership. But I do sympathise fully. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about the nature of your society, because many middle eastern states seem to restrict freedom of press (Especially places like Saudi Arabia). Would you say the general public want change in the system of governance - Like something akin to a separation between church and state as we do in western countries, with freedom to practice religion (or not), freedom of speech + press, freedom to believe as you wish and protest peacefully... laws and leaders which people have the ability to vote for etc? If so, is it too difficult because it's dangerous to protest and stand up to your leaders? (Apologies because I'm making a lot of assumptions and I don't know exactly what state you live in, I understand different Islamic states apply religious law to different degrees... but in the west, we don't get access to much news from the middle east, so it's hard for us to fully understand the nature of your society when news reporting is generally restricted to some degree - I think more freedom to report news from the middle east would lead to more peace and understanding world wide, this is partially why I'm curious) Thanks in advance if you choose to answer (no pressure, because I understand it's a sensitive topic)... I'm just genuinely curious, because it makes me sad to see abuse of human rights and bad leadership in other parts of the world
Slavoj fell off ngl. His response to the genocide in Palestine, not Gaza, not just North Gaza, not the West Bank but Palestine is ridiculous. So much writing on genocide but he plays softball about one happening. Imo just read Lenin, Lacan, Hegel, and skip his state philosophy.
Zizek's take on Ukraine is contrary to that of Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Douglas McGregor, Scott Ritter, Glenn Greenwald, and many more. Zizek needs to explain why that interpretation is wrong.
If he’s contrary to all those people I’m not interested to hear anything he has to say - on this matter. And frankly I’m astonished because I like Zizek and think he’s often right. But I’m not for bending on this, NATO is in the wrong and Israel is in the wrong.
He gave very precise explanation, he downplays geopolitical realism and as true Hegelian-Idealist he gives weight to ideological war. He opossess Russia only because he sees Russia as conservative "right wing" empyrean state, while Ukraine, Baltic states are leftist liberals (thou they are nazis) Note that those 2 ideologies are in competitor, not opposite thats why they hate so much. He obviously understands it when he explains "soft" fascism. Giovani Gentile, the father of Italian fascism was also Hegelian Idealist was of a same opinion. For him Democracy is fascism "par excellence".
Of course Zizek is not the man to follow if you want to learn what is really behind the Ukraine issue since 2014: the name to follow is, apart from the bright names you mention and some others, Ivan Katchanovsky, canadian-ukranian scholar from Ottawa University who has proven beyond any doubt that Maidan Massacre is a CIA-NATO product.
The idea that Trump is a postmodern figure was first put forward by the Russian artist Alexander Melamid in Time magazine ( May 2017 ), in the essay "Blame the Rise of Trump on the Avant-Garde Movement," by which he means the counterculture and postmodernism.
"I’ve been asking myself for some time now-what happened to Slavoj Žižek? His recent commentary on the situation in Ukraine and global affairs is shockingly off the mark. Just a few days ago, he presented a perspective that feels disturbingly disconnected from reality. I once held a lot of respect for him, but something seems to have changed drastically. Has he been pressured, influenced, or even threatened? Or could there be some health or medical issues affecting his judgment? Knowing him from years past, as someone from the same country and almost the same generation, I can’t help but feel that something just isn’t right."
Is he really wrong about Ukraine, though? I don't really agree with him either. But, on the other hand I highly doubt Putin's plans for Ukraine were to just let the people be. The invasion itself was certanly provoked by NATO, but NATO's intervention after it begun was likely the only thing preventing a swift Russian victory. Saying that NATO should just let Russia win essentially means that Ukrainians don't deserve their own country...
@@JapanDriver Thank you for your question; let me clarify what I find troubling. I’ve known Žižek’s work since the early days, long before he became prominent in Western universities. His recent commentary-particularly in his TH-cam interview with Al Arabia-is unsettling to me, not because of a single argument, but because it reflects a noticeable departure from the core principles of philosophy. Philosophy, as I see it, is meant to analyze events and systems from an impartial standpoint, considering historical, current, and future contexts, and it shouldn’t align with specific political systems or figures. When Žižek initially began to critique communism, I felt that was fair, as no system is beyond critique. But over time, his commentary became so vehemently anti-communist and Western-leaning that it no longer seemed like an objective philosophical analysis; it started to feel one-sided and politically biased. It’s as if his philosophical insights were traded for a position that aligns with mainstream Western narratives. This seems inconsistent with the idea of philosophy, which ideally seeks understanding without allegiance. Žižek’s recent remarks appear to lack logical rigor and objective analysis. They feel disconnected from the nuanced perspectives offered by other respected analysts and thinkers today-figures like Jeffrey Sachs, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, and John Mearsheimer, who maintain a balanced, insightful approach even when addressing complex and divisive global events. Unlike Žižek, these thinkers avoid taking sides and focus instead on the deeper, underlying dynamics at play. I can’t help but wonder whether Žižek’s shift is due to some external pressure or perhaps a desire for greater acceptance and prominence in Western academia. It’s disappointing, especially because I’ve respected his capacity for deep, critical thought. Seeing him now take on what feels like a propagandistic role is disheartening. I’m left wondering if he’s lost his philosophical grounding or compromised it for the sake of visibility or financial gain. Either way, it’s painful to watch someone I once respected drift from what I believe is the true purpose of philosophy: exploring truth without allegiance to any system or side.
Zizek is right about Ukraine. Russia started war, commits war crimes daily - what is the position to take? To blame Nato for the genocide that Putin started? Reminder: 1994 Ukraine gave it's nuclear weapons to Russia, while Russia promised to respect Ukraine in it's 1991 borders. Think about that now. You think he's biased, while your understanding of the war in Ukraine is definetly influenced by russain state propaganda. Whos off the mark again?
@@VoloBonja Look, Volobonja, I don’t know where you got this idea that I’m discussing Ukraine, the war, or placing blame on Putin, Russia, or anyone else. That wasn’t my focus when I assessed this philosopher. For me, he could very well be a political analyst discussing world economic or political issues-that’s not the problem. My issue is that this isn’t philosophy. Philosophy, in its essence, is unbiased. It doesn’t concern itself with aligning to one system or another, whether it’s Russian, Western, NATO, or anything else. Philosophy examines situations and problems without naming or blaming; it’s about diving deeper into the nature of these issues, in a way that is often far beyond what most people even attempt to comprehend. And I don’t say this to insult you, but perhaps if you read my critique without attaching it to any particular side, you’d understand what I’m saying. I may have my personal opinions, but that’s irrelevant here because I’m not sharing them, nor am I trying to push them on anyone. My perspective is purely philosophical, and that’s why I’m questioning this philosopher’s approach-because what he’s doing here isn’t philosophy. It makes me wonder if he’s either lost his philosophical objectivity or is simply saying what he thinks will resonate for some other reason. Something just doesn’t add up, and I wanted to address that. So please, next time, think carefully before you jump to respond.
WONDERFUL! we get older together, BUT we develop,grow until end. prinzipal of the thought might stays,but according to the reality of the situation that we live in, the opinion,the message develops as the variation from the theme,thought itself,i believe. it grows naturally most fit to it. it's like music to me! THANK YOU ALWAYS!!!
Did you see the new footage out of Jabalia? Really stunning stuff right? Sounds like the Gazans are singing a new tune. They totally flipped from chanting death to Jews to death to Hamas. Isn't it a kick?
I now wonder, if the greatest philosophers of our time have zero agreement on good and evil, what hope do the rest of us have? What hope can we have for this world?
@@cupes2231 For the ignorant, such as yourself: You will not understand anything about Jesus until and unless you have studied the "Zionist version" first. Jesus is but a small outgrowith of the Jewish Bible.
Zizek has a very much Nietzschean/Hegelian dialectical approach, combined with dissection and critique, I also heard a hint of Saussurean structural linguistics in there when he needed to invoke it. It's not his job to dictate what is right or wrong, good or evil. He simply deconstructs, criticises, then offers his own unique synthesis (A+ use of Hegelian and Post-Structuralist deconstruction, in a purely good faith manner)... read between the lines, and you will hear plenty of agreements and also disagreements. Plus his own original synthesised opinion based off his ability to use so many effective philosophical techniques all at the same time.
"The most important part of philosophy is to help us unlearn what we think we know" - Wittgenstein Washington, jefferson, Adams, Franklyn all invested considerable wealth in areas that the British were planning to make protected native american territories...
@@salimbenatik5108 Indeed, there should not be any need for approval from people who are envious of you because they cannot match your achievements under very difficult conditions.
Dear mister Zizek, havent we learned that the problem in these kinds of conflicts that are happening thousends of years all around the globe is not who is right and who is wrong( surprisingly each side belive he is moraly, religiously, scienificaly right and the other side is a monster etc.). The problem is this perception it self. This perception of right and wrong is what causing on going conflicts. These are magically solved whenever this perception is changed. I am wondering why does someone like mister Zizek do not mention such a theory. It sounds from your words, Zizek, that you are advocating the rights and wrongs of the universe.
sadly it seems to be very hard to be understood with this point, I have tried it quite some times but failed a lot, especially to make myself understood towards people that don't already have at least a glimpse of this train of thought for their own.
When zooming into a conflict it is always possible to construct one side as victim and other as perpetrator because of the reactivity inherent in every conflict, but when you zoom out you can see a pattern: do you want islam or secular humanis values to win? Do you want to live in syria? Libya? Yemen? Sudan? Where are christian, druz, kurdish minorities prefering to live? Israel or iraq? Where are assylum seekers coming from? Israel or iran?
I really don't see this secular humanism in action. For example I'm almost certain that a majority of Israelis prefers American or Euopean migrant jews over Arab jews. The argument for the Israeli state as a represantitive and protector of local oppressed jewish people just serves as a smoke screen for the disregard that a lot of Israelis hold against Arab jews similar to their view of Arabs in general.
@schadowizationproductions6205 I agree with you about the observation that Ashkenazi Jews are preferred, but when I compare that to the relations of suni and Shia in Arab world I have to admire Israel multi ethnic integration.
Given that Netanyahu isn't much worried about hostages, as muc he is about eliminating Hamas, its not entirely impossible that it was indeed planned to create Greater Israel.
I quite like professor zigzag. He's popular (among western academics) because he deploys 'common sense' logic ensconced by the dominant hegemony (white, West, wealthy, capitalist). And therein lies the flaws in professor zigzag's observations, analysis, indeed, his logic. I like him because his descriptions & explication are "all over the place" - because he is thus difficult to follow. (Frm NZ)
The interviewer did a good job - but the slight time delay meant that it was very funny to see him struggling to get in each question after Zizek gave an infinitely long answer to the previous one.
So sad that Slovoj did not understand the massiv Covid-Propaganda and cencorship totalitarianism. I would have appreciated his critical left voice on the matter.
I got the feeling this "interview" was just to show that EVEN "the most dangerous philosopher in the west" (haha) would have voted Harris. "let the lunaticism continue!!!"
Are you american? If that is totalitarism you need help. Thats not propaganda. That spreading info, trying to prevent something to happen in a terrible scale based on the state of the art of health science. Thank god for my portuguese mindset.
This discution is disappointing, first what motivation anyone has to call kamala neomarxist, you might not know what a marxist is. Sevond this philosopher is disconnected of reality. Ukraine obligation was to respect international treaties where is part on. If not......
I don't see Žižek as a star philosopher. First of all because I live a ten-minute walk from his apartment and I sometimes meet him, and also because I believe that, like me, he can easily find information that can completely destroy his theories. His claim in the fourteenth minute, that Putin's/Russia's intention is the imperial occupation of Ukraine and the annihilation of the Ukrainian nation, and the next claim that Ukraine could not defend itself without the help of the West. Even a dumb person knows that only a few days after the Russian invasion, Zelensky agreed to the neutrality of Ukraine and began negotiations in Turkey, where the final Ukrainian consent to the Minsk agreements was discussed. Ukraine would lose Crimea, where there was a referendum on joining Russia (which the West did not recognize), similar to the one in Kosovo on independence, (which the West recognized) and give some autonomy to areas inhabited mainly by Russians. If Zelensky/Ukraine would agree to it, he would have his own state and nation, albeit neutral (like Austria), without American missiles aimed at Moscow and St. Petersburg. But then Boris Johnson comes to Zelensky and tells him to leave the negotiations and fight until the return of the last inch of former Ukrainian territory. If this information reached me, a completely average resident of Ljubljana, then it also reached Slavoj Žižek's apartment 500 m away: But he decided to ignore it, because he is a philosophical star and must say what his listeners want to hear, with so that he then spices it up a bit with his own spicy kick. Therefore, he realized that his story is just a commodity that he can sell to the Western consumer. Add a good amount of Lacan, a little bit of Marx, a some socialism, add materialism, mention communism and Stalinism, don't forget a pinch of Hitler either, just enough so that those strong words attract attention and keep listeners awake, but never too tough, so that it doesn't become really dangerous, so that it doesn't set up some philosophical platform, which would be feasible and threaten the West and the discreet charm of its slow decline. Now I will continue to watch that interview in which, I assume, he will criticize the large number of dead in Gaza and say a few words about China. Spinoza was excommunicated for his words. Žižek doesn't want that. He is a master of communication who will properly dose his words, so that he continues to be invited to lectures and interviews on TH-cam
Nice meeting you here, my countryman and neighbor. I’m genuinely glad to have come across your post-it’s refreshing to find someone who shares a similar view. As you might have noticed from my post above, I expressed something along the same lines, though not as eloquently as you did. Like you, I have the same question: what happened to this man? I started listening, and I’ll be honest, I didn’t even get to the end. I had heard enough, and I didn’t need to hear any more-it was just nonsense. But that’s the question we’re both left with, isn’t it? What actually happened to him? You explained it well-I said he might have sold out or perhaps lost his way, though I really don’t believe he lost his mind. You hit the mark better than I did, and yet, here I am with this solid question hanging in my mind: what kind of person is he, really? In the past, if someone had asked me whether he would ever sacrifice his dignity for money, I would have confidently said, "Absolutely not. He would never sell his dignity." But now? How wrong I was. Thank you again for your post. I think it would be interesting to have a conversation sometime-seems like we could both learn a lot from each other. Great points, and thanks again. All the best, A fellow Slovenian
anti communism is practically forced onto anyone in media so i can see why he's changed his attitude, materially speaking, you can't do shit if you support loudly and proudly communist praxis in most parts of the world. though nothing will ever justify switching out your anti-capitalist ideals for more "acceptable" west-leaning hogwash. especially if you fallow any school of marxism.
I think he does believe in a liberal West as a less evil political organisation, he always did, and chooses to do some propaganda concerning the ukrainian question. That s what I felt after the first shock, because it had been a while that I hadn t watched his talks, and I just learned his views on ukraine.
Greater Israel? Examination of the universally accepted figures shows Israel existing on 0.02% of land in M.E while Muslim Arab League states rule the other 99.98%. Thats not an opinion but a universally accepted fact.
The professor is cherrypicking history when it comes to Ukraine and Russia. Not one mention of the Minsk agreements, not a mention of the Istanbul agreement that Ukraine first signed - and then retreated from This agreement guaranteed full sovereignty for Ukraine, autonomy but inclusion in Ukraine for Donbass, no refusal of Ukraine joining EU - just a big red line by NATO membership. The comparison with the Baltic nations with Ukraine in relation to Russia is flawed. Russia has its begin in the Kiev Rus, and a deep connection historically and culturally to central, southern and northern Ukraine. These ties are non existent when it comes to the Baltic.
I believe it was not Zizek's point of discussing the specifics of the conflict. He simply clarified that the positions of the two participating counterparts in the conflict, Russia and Ukraine & West, are corrupted.
sir you did not get it, that practice of full equalization and concept reduction that ends up calling China fascist is exactly at the basis of fascism in Europe. Unless there is an hegemony on China based on the legitimization of colonialism, which it does not have, it cant really be called fascist. Fascism as a doctrine is a full legitimization of the history of capitalist violence, both symbolic and material
I have no idea what he might have said after 13:31 - I am out! Zizek from 10 years ago is gone forever, unrecognizable... once a prominent dissident voice exposing the imperial capitalist hypocrites is now in full swing cheering for them, by, ironically shouting "imperialists!" by pointing random directions. Our society "mind" got fogged to no return... and listening to him a marker of the fogginess seems to be how much one listens to the their "baltic firends" PS: Congratulations for the interviewer for his clarity and the lead of the interview.
Five minutes in and Zizek is already calling anti war movements far right in Europe. I guess it's going to be a stretch for him to admit that liberals are fascists not Marxists.
No the 1943 Bengal famine was not desired nor engineered, and neither were the subsequent famines in post independence East Pakistan and later Bangladesh. In 1943 the Muslim League were the government of India, and they won the next election in Bengal in 1945.
no Zizek interview that isn't about the whole world. The most interesting statement was that religious fundamentalism has more passion in it than the action-blocking nihilism of the West. and insofar as countermovement is understandable. I mean, it's clear to everyone that all you have to do is react to Israel. Ethnic cleansing is a clear fact. He doesn't call it genozit but I call it that. Ultimately, however, with Zizek it always boils down to the fact that he is looking for a whole in a conceptual analysis. and want to include every phenomenon. I think we are in an age of de-democratization. This means that only those who have “earned” a position of power of some kind have “deserved” effective action and reason. In this respect, lobbying is the opposite of democratic group dynamics. this is happening less and less. since there can no longer be any upward pressure from sensible, powerless people. For me, democracy is not just the power of the majority. Democracy is the ability of reasonable people to influence group dynamics in a group of people or people in institutions that do not initially think of the established powerful superstructure of the group. The power of the majority is just a strukture of democrathy, but not the energetic depth.
@@WolfgangHuber-t8d as we are close to US elections I’d suggest a well known old Zizek piece titled “Why we all love to hate Jörg Haider”, such a good article you can find it on New Left Review for free.
LOL. Genocide makes population go up. Palestinian population has increased over 100,000 since October 7. Anyone arguing genocide is an ignoramus. The civilian deaths are high because Hamas wants them to be.
Noam Chomsky, critiques Žižek "Theory" in intellectual circles as often being "posturing" with complex language but little substantive content. He is skeptical of Žižek's popularity, questioning whether there’s real intellectual substance behind the work. Chomsky remarks that while Žižek may be a skilled orator who makes ideas sound engaging, he does not perceive any significant content in his work. ( Can you tell me what the work is? I can’t find it. I see a lot of, you know... well, he’s good-he’s a good actor. He makes things sound exciting. But can you find any content? I can’t. )
@karhqo I don’t read anything by such a racist, extremist hack with zero substance… Why don’t you go write a personal note to Noam Chomsky? He’s the one who said what he said about him
thats just chomsky being silly and competing with another leftist for attention . if you got ears and a brain and you listen or read, you know its a ridiculous statement . you can disagree or not with any particular point of zizek´s but claiming there is nothing there is bad faith or ignorance : i think it´s the former in chomsky´s case .
@@jochenkrattenmacher9829well I wouldn’t say he’s trash. I hold them both very dearly. I just think Chomsky has a very different approach in his analyses. He’s very realist in his analyses of politics, social dynamics and so on. Therefore he might not like the more philosophical, let’s say more abstract way to analyse things.
Slavj, as an x-Marxist, you should get busy with the term patriotism or alternatives in self-liberation as in post colonial! it is not always about Stalin and Mao
Slavoj Žižek what about US wars against the world, 800 NATO bases. Israel genocide supported by the west. Its unending list of crimes. Žižek opinion about Russia are very personal because of his experience during Soviet Union.
Nuance, nuance. I'm not a fan of US foreign policy, especially in Middle East, but I reject the black and white thinking here, that is, "if you are against Israel, you have to be against the West in general and side with BRICS". I support both Palestine and Ukraine, because I think they are the wronged sides. I support Iran in standing up to Israel, while also condemning it for selling drones to Russia to be used in Ukraine. And why would you support Russia ? Their mindset is still in 19th century. Their dream is either to annex their neighbours or make them puppet states. The criticism for US wouldn't fit in one book, but I still think it's better. I mean, the Internet and YT itself, which allows us to have this discussion, came from US. Meanwhile, in Russia, if you speak against the goverment, you "accidentally" fall from balcony or some "robbers" shoot you down.
@@Hexanitrobenzene It appears( based on your statement) that you are a “ grate specialist “ in Russian / USSR history in general and in current Russian/ conflict in particular. Share please, where from did you get your so “deep and fundamental “ knowledge ???? You look like to be a typical bullshiter in terms used by respectful professor H. Frankfurt….
All the european countries supporting Israel now were the ones rejecting to give them a home at the end of the war. European states and USA are 100% responsible for this situation.
But as Zizek has pointed out, even Marx at times freaked a bit when real action took place before he'd finished the book that was supposed to underpin it.
An empty bookshelf is a bold statement. Love you Zizek!
He eats his books after he's finished reading them
🤮
@@Samaa-os7hx 🪣
@@chrisjames1924😂😂😂
Good observation!
"I don't believe in simple neutrality. For me, truth is a category of subjective engagements. You cannot write a history of the Austwitiz or the Gulag or whatever, without being morally shocked by it. I believe truth hurts and to tell the truth, you cannot be allowed to occupy a neutral position. [Therefore], one needs to be shoked and engaged." Prof. Slavoj Źiźek
One cannot read "Six Million" and not wonder if there is some marketing and b.s. going on? This Zizek is supposed to be a philosopher? He seems more like a diletantt, nah he is not a profound thinker
@@ChungPong2000 you are right, he was never a deep thinker, he is a clown who sometimes has something interesting to say. He got all this wrong but its not as if i expected anything substantial from him.
@@grigorijefimovic1087who is giving a deep cut on the war "in" Gaza? Pls
@ChungPong2000 no we really don't want another philosopher after heidegger and post modernism, then canada has to get one, like an actual one that actually makes sense of all that ontology completely rewrites it makes American version look like wtf?
it is spelled 'shocked'
Žižek was brilliant as always, he's just quotable as hell and always has excelent, thought provoking points. Cudos also to the interviewer, I think he did a phenomenal job.
yeah, great summary, but man, 43:38 - 43:44 is slavoj at his best ;-)
Questionable about the interviewer
I go beyond Žižek and call neo liberalism already soft fascism. There's an seemingly friendly elite running everything through wealth, corporations and lobbies, slowly cutting the under class out, with unfair wages. No wonder people, who resent this, vote those attacking it, 'heroes' on the far right, those who shout, we deserve it all, let's take it from those who threaten us, like immigrants. The message is: 'Don't challenge the elites, challenge people you can safely get away with.' It's a tragedy.
@@7JeTeL7😂😂
@@jAV1984 To be inside *true* philosophical Materialism, the critical analysis, the overview to the actual happenings is not that easy... to find in Media. But with education in this and all the usual economy, right ideology stuff such would be of course better as interviewer.
Damn, surprisingly good interviewer. Zizek is great, as always.
😂
I don't usually comment but what a refreshing and well structured interview. I've sadly gotten used to journalists interrupting and speaking over the person they're interviewing or trying to trip them out in other ways. Thank you for showing me that respectful journalism is still alive.
Gratified to hear someone else describe Trump as "postmodern". so true, and so (ironically) ironic
Is postmodernism just another word for based?
@@davidk9382 get out if here zoomer
why do you think he is Postmodern? from what i learned postmodernists are against modernism. of course they help the conservative world like church to back to the power by denying modernism but they can not be full modern. they hate modernism and they hate meritocracy.
@@davidk9382What does ‘based’ mean ? It is slang for what ?
@@davidsorensen4400 based in reality
On Truth, Free Speech, and "Woke Culture":
●
Žižek criticizes the "cynical indifference" prevalent in many societies, where people are aware of critical issues but fail to act or engage meaningfully. He sees this as a major obstacle to addressing challenges like climate change and political conflicts.
●
He laments the decline of critical thinking and the increasing difficulty in discerning fact from fiction in a media landscape dominated by misinformation and manipulation.
●
He critiques both the right-wing and the politically correct left for engaging in censorship and expressing distrust in ordinary people's ability to think critically.
●
While acknowledging the historical injustices highlighted by "woke culture," Žižek expresses concern about the movement's approach to reinterpreting the past.
●
He criticizes the notion that gender identity is solely a matter of personal choice, emphasizing the complex and often traumatic process of identity formation.
On Immigration:
●
Žižek criticizes both extremes in the immigration debate: the open borders stance of the liberal left and the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right.
●
He argues that Western intervention in the Middle East and North Africa has contributed significantly to the current immigration crisis.
●
He points out that Western economies rely heavily on immigrant labor and would face severe consequences if they were to expel large numbers of immigrants.
Interesting. Where does he live?
Your list lists stuff that have been known for decades. That's y prof zigzag is nothing new.
But we need reminders ...
@@jjjccc728 All valid points that for some reason are ignored by 'both sides'
Techno feudalism is destroying the social fabric that we need for change.
I have a certain respect for the moderator that he kinda contains Zizek sometimes because this guy gets off the rails so quickly. Although I don't think he's completely dodging questions he sure wants to talk through his own framework.
Well made by Interviewer. Slavoi is always nice to hear his thoughts.
"I don't remember one occupation in which the occupier presented himself as the victim, we are the victims, we are forced to kill their children, po~ Israeli journalist Gideon Levy
If Israelis don't want to be accused of being like the Nazis, they simply need to stop behaving like Nazis.." ~ Norman Finkelstein
American occupation on Germany after the collapse of N5zi germany. Doesn't sounds like the Americans were the oppressors - Mossab Hassan Yousef
Gideon Levy was quoting Golda Meier 4th Zionist Prime minister. They constantly use the victim card, all the while they are devoid of humanity interaty and pity.
Gaza's population was 50% children.
And remember
" anti Semitic? its a trick. We always use it" to stifle legitimate criticism of Zionist Israel.
by Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli cabinet member.
Winner of the 2000 Israel prize.
Thank you!!!
@@sylviaberman1969 well...after 2 world wars you're mad not to keep a finger on the german pulse after that. Also, at that time stalins russia was looking to keep the ground it had fought for pushing back the Nazi's. Its reasonable.
If Finkelsteen doesn't want to be accused of being an insane conspiracy theorist, he simply needs to stop behaving like one.
I am so glad Zizek shared his thoughts. My mind was going the same direction for years but it feels good hearing someone much wiser and smarter than I confirm it and go further than I could take the concept.
@@nono99136Not validation but hearing other people articulate similar theories. It's harder to have these types of moments outside of college environments.
He's not wise, he said it himself, he's just well read. (mostly by garbage authors like Freud, Marx, etc.)
Philosophy is timeless. It's an eye opener, but not a dogma.
Western philosophy tends to forget the rest of the world's great thinking, so its cogitations are in a parochial bubble.
@azalia423 the rest of the world had the same bs religious "wisdom" for thousands of years until the west came and said something different. There's nothing to see over there quite frankly
@@stal5143 Your loss.
@@azalia423 Thank you for showing your complete ignorance regarding western philosophers. I won't post a list with western philosophers who worked and incorporated or evolved thinking from places like India and China. The West translated every single piece or text from eastern lands, because they found them to be worthless..Whatever.
@@azalia423what's the loss? What non Western philosophy do you recommend?
Interviewing Žižek is either the hardest or easiest job in the world. You can either let him speak knowing you can not contribute with anything interesting really OR you try to keep on rails and that is incredibly hard because everything this lunatic (I love him) says is so damn interesting and interrupting feels like a crime!
spot on
He doesn't scratch his nose anymore, which tells us that everything in this world is possible.
But an interviewer is not supposed to contribute with anything interesting. Their job is to pose questions that allow viewers to learn more about the speaker.
@@musicaccount3340 Think that says more about modern journalism than it does about interviewers.
@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 you mean that interview journalism is being phased out by either debates or podcast-type conversations between like-minded people? I'd agree with that.
agree with most of Slavoj's points, but on immigration I would add that most people taking these extreme risks to get to the west but also most of the immigration from the past was not because they were unhappy with the lifestyle or geography or culture from where they flee. The number 1 and 2 reasons come down to economic and political corruption, for which, in large part the western powers helped to foster, because it was expedient post colonialism to maintain economic but also military superiority by mechanisms of subjugation. This is embodied in the very structures of the global commercial system as it works today. If you want to stop immigration, then stop exploiting weaker countries and their politicians, or if you really believe you are not to blame, then not only shut off your borders to immigrants but blockade all goods and materials, or any kind of help from the south and lets see how long you can maintain your standard of living.
exactly 👏
i noticed that there was smth not okay when providing as a solution to the imigration issue, as one event that was needed but it has to happen in a controlled way. I also thought that if the western societies have lower natality rate, and if western societies refuse to work the low maintenance jobs, these issues are their own problem and what's more they seem to be originating from these societies imperialist/capitalist mentality, therefore let them deal with it internally, why suggest resolutions from outside, such as immigration. It did not seem much communist like attitude from the part of Slavoj on this matter.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the racial hierarchies of the world and their inability to create economically prosperous societies.
And it has nothing to do with greedy individuals who leave everyone behind to seek a material benefit for themselves in other people's land.
Zizek sounded like an Aryan warlord here who implies that migrant labour exists to clean his toilet and wipe his butt and move bricks.
You know what would happen if they're not there? More jobs for the working class, higher wages, better working conditions. Oh no! Not power to the people, anything but that! We have to be controlled opposition.
thanks to AIPAC the whole world can only watch
If you think AIPAC is that strong and influential you're already too far gone.
@@alexmost166 not that influential but the christian zionism in the usa is the real power and support
When I was young and naive, I equated your type of comment to nazis. Now I am seeing the truth to those words. Overt bias in western media coverage of Palestine. Politicians either afraid to speak the truth , their voices drowned out by accusations of a/s, or openly attacking free speech on behalf of Israel. Billionaires like Bill Ackerman employing his wealth to silence universities. America is no longer a democracy. It is an oligarchy.
@@alexmost166 “The Israeli Lobby” - co authored by
U Chicago and Harvard professors cuts through the rhetoric and provides facts and figures.
@jchan9761 A couple of professors put together a book, that's it, I'm convinced. But also, just because there's a lobbying group, like many y other lobbies, ot doesn't mean it is so strong, it can demand and do whatever it wants. If you think Israel is getting everything it wants and needs, you are delusional.
Democracy is more of a word, than a reality.
In theory socialism, communism, democracy, dictatorship, etc all have great points. The problem is the human aspect. Those in power become greedy, corrupt and drunk on power.
Plutocracy with democratic characteristics(tm)
Democrazy
@texasray5237 yes, that's a good one
@macgyver37 thank you for your explanation.
Yes an idea, not a condition, but, when an idea is far removed from the condition it purports to reflect, express, describe, or create, it becomes a confusion about the condition, or even a fiction, at least , to the extent of the distortion between the content, and meaning of the word, and its spelling, or projection on the ground. I agree that a genuine democracy, or some reasonable substance of it is better, or even good for the local, national, international, and global society, the question is how democratic is our democracy? Are we as people doing what it takes, to keep our democracy alive and effective, not only for the benefit of those who can, and are willing to pay for it, but for all.
Only a beast can "reason" with such horror as a justification to "defend" itself.
Yeah - but I don't know to which beast on the side you are refering to...
As you ask Palestinians to move from a particular building because you need to neutralize a target, Hamas holds citizens close to the target while continuing to fire rockets at the IDF. Who’s the beast?
@@dirkackermann6787 Israel obviously
@@dirkackermann6787 well whose the one using this it as an excuse as "to defend itself"
Why does Riz Khan keep saying Israel vs Hamas? Isn’t it obvious by now it is Israel vs Palestinians? Also I didn’t hear anything in this interview that is radical or controversial!
You are simply too radical to sense the controversy.
@@PloniAlmoniAnonimi lol
@@PloniAlmoniAnonimiand you’re either too d’umb or being a smart a$$ .
and when did it ever become israel vs palestinian ? you also clearly show your ignorance if you think it is israel vs palestine. it is colonial imperialism vs indigenous people OF a land. which is why it's been happening wherever there is resourcces but it's been most cruel and longer in palestine.
@@ryanforgo3500
Okay smart α$$
there will never be a greater Israel.
That depends on the pals .. and the sheee-ites in lebnn..
If they stop their je-nosi.de against the Js, then there won't be.. if they continue their je-nosi.de, there will have to be...
Hope not
Israel has no interest to. Israel has never taken land not out of defense
While world leaders believe it to be political suicide to go against AIPAC a greater Israel is likely. I voted Green to help make facilitating jenoside politically suicidal.
Won't happen
The World has changed we can travel around the web to listen to news everywhere and like this well known writer is a true treat for me
Slavoj Žižek is lost and locked in an Ikea warehouse.
Democracy is the rule of the people who know nothing ( Plato).
" in an abstract sense for KAmala Harris" ? You lost me there...
He said it because he isn't a US citizen.
It seems the Biden admin. propaganda overseas had been worked at great success so that for how much interested on the outcome of this US election, the overseas people did not know of the RFK Jr. option, and the blank option, in the ballot..
Fundamentalism is not part of the BRICS program. It's more of an economic development respecting the independence of each State.
BRICS are war criminals united for economic development. Russia holding summit in 2024 while commiting crimes against humanity at the same time should explain something to you.
Exactly
@@luiszuluaga4686 but not respecting independence of other countries, invading them. I see only economics here, economics by war criminals
yeah ok...it is a Chinese reactionary group which is useless to each member. India has no relation to Brazil and South Africa. China has no use for India because India is not a state that seeks alliances. Russia is a oil state with decent weapons for third world nations.
I believe his point was that fundamentalism is on the rise *in BRICS nations*, not that it is part of the underlying ideology of the economic intergovernmental organization called "BRICS"
I disagree with Zizek on so many points but I love to hear him talk!
Same here
You're totally wrong about him. I agree with . We're entering Capitalist fascism
I agree with him on so many points but can't stand the way he speaks.
Goodness. That lisp is terrible. I can't stand listening to him. And his cross eyes make him look impaired. He' very smart, and also very stupid, simultaneously.
@@greybushMEproductions Do an analysis, a critic with facts. Or it is just a belief, with that low value...
Thanks for mentioning Georgia Gruzja❤
The interviewer made a point about celebrities palying a big role in elections. In reality, they were irrelevant.
True. Except that Trump only got where he was by being a celebrity first, and, arguably, continuing to be a bigger celebrity than any of his opponents.
Trump himself is a celebrity 😂
Wrong. If that was the case, the GOP wouldn't have had clowns like Kid Rock or Hulk Hogan in their convention, lmao.
@RTWPimpmachine Well, the dems had an endless list of A-list stars pushing their camdidate. It made no difference. I don't think it helped Trump, but it didn't hurt him.
Ummm... Joe Rogan? Elon Musk? Dana White? Trump leveraged the help from so many celebrities I lost count... he turned the Election campaign into something more akin to a UFC tour than a fricken election... Then the cherry on top, Dana gave a shout out to the NELK BOYS during Trump's victory speech 🤣Just when I thought we'd reached peak absurdity... it just ramps up to 11. th-cam.com/video/uMSV4OteqBE/w-d-xo.html
Brilliant interview! Thank you
Amazing interviewer. Cheers.
Who rule doesn’t matter because policy makers are the same in the background.
Fair point, however when you have the policy makers constantly having to undermine man at the helm because he's so incompetent, we have a problem. It just tanks the public faith in government and turns politics into a pure shit show.
@ absolutely since along time we in Middle East do not have any thing with government because we depend on our selves and our tribe community
@@dr.samierasadoonalhassani2669 I truly feel for you. I can't understand fully, because I have never experienced that kind of loss in leadership. But I do sympathise fully.
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about the nature of your society, because many middle eastern states seem to restrict freedom of press (Especially places like Saudi Arabia).
Would you say the general public want change in the system of governance - Like something akin to a separation between church and state as we do in western countries, with freedom to practice religion (or not), freedom of speech + press, freedom to believe as you wish and protest peacefully... laws and leaders which people have the ability to vote for etc?
If so, is it too difficult because it's dangerous to protest and stand up to your leaders?
(Apologies because I'm making a lot of assumptions and I don't know exactly what state you live in, I understand different Islamic states apply religious law to different degrees... but in the west, we don't get access to much news from the middle east, so it's hard for us to fully understand the nature of your society when news reporting is generally restricted to some degree - I think more freedom to report news from the middle east would lead to more peace and understanding world wide, this is partially why I'm curious)
Thanks in advance if you choose to answer (no pressure, because I understand it's a sensitive topic)... I'm just genuinely curious, because it makes me sad to see abuse of human rights and bad leadership in other parts of the world
Zizek getting a dirty joke request by an AI robot. This is my favorite interview of Zizek so far.
With that endorsement at the end, i definitely want to hear more from this interviewer. Really appreciated the content of this conversation!
Slavoj fell off ngl. His response to the genocide in Palestine, not Gaza, not just North Gaza, not the West Bank but Palestine is ridiculous. So much writing on genocide but he plays softball about one happening. Imo just read Lenin, Lacan, Hegel, and skip his state philosophy.
Zizek's take on Ukraine is contrary to that of Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Douglas McGregor, Scott Ritter, Glenn Greenwald, and many more. Zizek needs to explain why that interpretation is wrong.
If he’s contrary to all those people I’m not interested to hear anything he has to say - on this matter. And frankly I’m astonished because I like Zizek and think he’s often right. But I’m not for bending on this, NATO is in the wrong and Israel is in the wrong.
He gave very precise explanation, he downplays geopolitical realism and as true Hegelian-Idealist he gives weight to ideological war. He opossess Russia only because he sees Russia as conservative "right wing" empyrean state, while Ukraine, Baltic states are leftist liberals (thou they are nazis)
Note that those 2 ideologies are in competitor, not opposite thats why they hate so much. He obviously understands it when he explains "soft" fascism.
Giovani Gentile, the father of Italian fascism was also Hegelian Idealist was of a same opinion. For him Democracy is fascism "par excellence".
Ignorant people doesn' t know the great men you mentioned...
Of course Zizek is not the man to follow if you want to learn what is really behind the Ukraine issue since 2014: the name to follow is, apart from the bright names you mention and some others, Ivan Katchanovsky, canadian-ukranian scholar from Ottawa University who has proven beyond any doubt that Maidan Massacre is a CIA-NATO product.
he's been doing thesis/anti-thesis dialectics for so long , he is longer able to create a new synthesis
The idea that Trump is a postmodern figure was first put forward by the Russian artist Alexander Melamid in Time magazine ( May 2017 ), in the essay "Blame the Rise of Trump on the Avant-Garde Movement," by which he means the counterculture and postmodernism.
Like the description of himself "Moderately conservative communist" - such an honest statement. 😘
he almost is defining it as 'Moderate conservative....."
this man has so many friends.
"I’ve been asking myself for some time now-what happened to Slavoj Žižek? His recent commentary on the situation in Ukraine and global affairs is shockingly off the mark. Just a few days ago, he presented a perspective that feels disturbingly disconnected from reality. I once held a lot of respect for him, but something seems to have changed drastically. Has he been pressured, influenced, or even threatened? Or could there be some health or medical issues affecting his judgment? Knowing him from years past, as someone from the same country and almost the same generation, I can’t help but feel that something just isn’t right."
What specifically do you take issue with? I hear very much the usual Zizek here. Reworking old material, while twisting new ideas into it.
Is he really wrong about Ukraine, though? I don't really agree with him either. But, on the other hand I highly doubt Putin's plans for Ukraine were to just let the people be. The invasion itself was certanly provoked by NATO, but NATO's intervention after it begun was likely the only thing preventing a swift Russian victory. Saying that NATO should just let Russia win essentially means that Ukrainians don't deserve their own country...
@@JapanDriver Thank you for your question; let me clarify what I find troubling. I’ve known Žižek’s work since the early days, long before he became prominent in Western universities. His recent commentary-particularly in his TH-cam interview with Al Arabia-is unsettling to me, not because of a single argument, but because it reflects a noticeable departure from the core principles of philosophy. Philosophy, as I see it, is meant to analyze events and systems from an impartial standpoint, considering historical, current, and future contexts, and it shouldn’t align with specific political systems or figures.
When Žižek initially began to critique communism, I felt that was fair, as no system is beyond critique. But over time, his commentary became so vehemently anti-communist and Western-leaning that it no longer seemed like an objective philosophical analysis; it started to feel one-sided and politically biased. It’s as if his philosophical insights were traded for a position that aligns with mainstream Western narratives. This seems inconsistent with the idea of philosophy, which ideally seeks understanding without allegiance.
Žižek’s recent remarks appear to lack logical rigor and objective analysis. They feel disconnected from the nuanced perspectives offered by other respected analysts and thinkers today-figures like Jeffrey Sachs, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, and John Mearsheimer, who maintain a balanced, insightful approach even when addressing complex and divisive global events. Unlike Žižek, these thinkers avoid taking sides and focus instead on the deeper, underlying dynamics at play.
I can’t help but wonder whether Žižek’s shift is due to some external pressure or perhaps a desire for greater acceptance and prominence in Western academia. It’s disappointing, especially because I’ve respected his capacity for deep, critical thought. Seeing him now take on what feels like a propagandistic role is disheartening. I’m left wondering if he’s lost his philosophical grounding or compromised it for the sake of visibility or financial gain. Either way, it’s painful to watch someone I once respected drift from what I believe is the true purpose of philosophy: exploring truth without allegiance to any system or side.
Zizek is right about Ukraine. Russia started war, commits war crimes daily - what is the position to take? To blame Nato for the genocide that Putin started?
Reminder: 1994 Ukraine gave it's nuclear weapons to Russia, while Russia promised to respect Ukraine in it's 1991 borders. Think about that now. You think he's biased, while your understanding of the war in Ukraine is definetly influenced by russain state propaganda. Whos off the mark again?
@@VoloBonja Look, Volobonja, I don’t know where you got this idea that I’m discussing Ukraine, the war, or placing blame on Putin, Russia, or anyone else. That wasn’t my focus when I assessed this philosopher. For me, he could very well be a political analyst discussing world economic or political issues-that’s not the problem. My issue is that this isn’t philosophy. Philosophy, in its essence, is unbiased. It doesn’t concern itself with aligning to one system or another, whether it’s Russian, Western, NATO, or anything else. Philosophy examines situations and problems without naming or blaming; it’s about diving deeper into the nature of these issues, in a way that is often far beyond what most people even attempt to comprehend.
And I don’t say this to insult you, but perhaps if you read my critique without attaching it to any particular side, you’d understand what I’m saying. I may have my personal opinions, but that’s irrelevant here because I’m not sharing them, nor am I trying to push them on anyone. My perspective is purely philosophical, and that’s why I’m questioning this philosopher’s approach-because what he’s doing here isn’t philosophy. It makes me wonder if he’s either lost his philosophical objectivity or is simply saying what he thinks will resonate for some other reason. Something just doesn’t add up, and I wanted to address that.
So please, next time, think carefully before you jump to respond.
Slavoj Zizek only gets more handsome by the day
WONDERFUL! we get older together, BUT we develop,grow until end. prinzipal of the thought might stays,but according to the reality of the situation that we live in, the opinion,the message develops as the variation from the theme,thought itself,i believe. it grows naturally most fit to it. it's like music to me! THANK YOU ALWAYS!!!
About Palestina hvala za genijalno razlago.
Zizek , you remain the light in this dark era.
Many insects mistake this feeble light for a star
Or the exact opposite, the darkness in the light?
@@ThoreKoelemeijer marx's poems basically.
Zizek's thinking is always insightful and sophisticated.
To a point
Money is the new religion, ethics values and virtues . This is the result and many correlation variables.
Money is the golden calf…an ancient religion
It is not at all new, man has been greedy since the first time he laid eyes upon a shiny rock
@@monkeydetonation absolutely
Did you see the new footage out of Jabalia? Really stunning stuff right? Sounds like the Gazans are singing a new tune. They totally flipped from chanting death to Jews to death to Hamas. Isn't it a kick?
@ this is false. The truth will prevail. Lies and crimes against humanity are not allowed.
Another winning interview from the rizzler
Disappointing
Thanks for presentation was an interesting listen with valid evidence to support ZIZEK’s viewpoint
I now wonder, if the greatest philosophers of our time have zero agreement on good and evil, what hope do the rest of us have? What hope can we have for this world?
well, it's kind of their job to disagree.
Read the Bible. Not the zionist version. Jesus spelled it out clearly
@@cupes2231 For the ignorant, such as yourself: You will not understand anything about Jesus until and unless you have studied the "Zionist version" first. Jesus is but a small outgrowith of the Jewish Bible.
Zizek has a very much Nietzschean/Hegelian dialectical approach, combined with dissection and critique, I also heard a hint of Saussurean structural linguistics in there when he needed to invoke it. It's not his job to dictate what is right or wrong, good or evil. He simply deconstructs, criticises, then offers his own unique synthesis (A+ use of Hegelian and Post-Structuralist deconstruction, in a purely good faith manner)... read between the lines, and you will hear plenty of agreements and also disagreements. Plus his own original synthesised opinion based off his ability to use so many effective philosophical techniques all at the same time.
"The most important part of philosophy is to help us unlearn what we think we know"
- Wittgenstein
Washington, jefferson, Adams, Franklyn all invested considerable wealth in areas that the British were planning to make protected native american territories...
When a person says: "My Jewish friends" ...it is all said, nothing else to add.
3000 years of approval addiction and you still look for tolerance 💀
@@salimbenatik5108 Indeed, there should not be any need for approval from people who are envious of you because they cannot match your achievements under very difficult conditions.
To remind you, we already had a Greater Israel in 1967, and returned the lands for a peace agreement. We were naive back then.
Dear mister Zizek, havent we learned that the problem in these kinds of conflicts that are happening thousends of years all around the globe is not who is right and who is wrong( surprisingly each side belive he is moraly, religiously, scienificaly right and the other side is a monster etc.). The problem is this perception it self. This perception of right and wrong is what causing on going conflicts. These are magically solved whenever this perception is changed. I am wondering why does someone like mister Zizek do not mention such a theory. It sounds from your words, Zizek, that you are advocating the rights and wrongs of the universe.
sadly it seems to be very hard to be understood with this point, I have tried it quite some times but failed a lot, especially to make myself understood towards people that don't already have at least a glimpse of this train of thought for their own.
Wow that surpassed my expectations 😅
When zooming into a conflict it is always possible to construct one side as victim and other as perpetrator because of the reactivity inherent in every conflict, but when you zoom out you can see a pattern: do you want islam or secular humanis values to win? Do you want to live in syria? Libya? Yemen? Sudan? Where are christian, druz, kurdish minorities prefering to live? Israel or iraq? Where are assylum seekers coming from? Israel or iran?
this comment depicts the pro-zionist islamophobic view of the world
Your comment is a great example of ad hock paradox
I really don't see this secular humanism in action. For example I'm almost certain that a majority of Israelis prefers American or Euopean migrant jews over Arab jews. The argument for the Israeli state as a represantitive and protector of local oppressed jewish people just serves as a smoke screen for the disregard that a lot of Israelis hold against Arab jews similar to their view of Arabs in general.
@schadowizationproductions6205 I agree with you about the observation that Ashkenazi Jews are preferred, but when I compare that to the relations of suni and Shia in Arab world I have to admire Israel multi ethnic integration.
@ except for Palestinians
Great conversation।।। 👍👍
Only zizek's background will be an empty library.
Yeah seriously
'Soft Fascism" is an underestimation
Slavoj, if I can manage to love and hate will I cease to exist or achieve the transcendent Big Other - great programme
Very intresting questions.
Given that Netanyahu isn't much worried about hostages, as muc he is about eliminating Hamas, its not entirely impossible that it was indeed planned to create Greater Israel.
He was BRILLIANT
He’s right,they’re scared of the people actually having a voice in their political system. The private sector will never allow it
this man is interesting to listen to
Beware of those who tell you that they are telling you the truth. PBUU
Great talk… and I agree With the last comment..😊 and Ill be back for more..🙏🏼🙏🏼
Wow, an interesting man who deserves trust :)
Sarcasm?
I quite like professor zigzag. He's popular (among western academics) because he deploys 'common sense' logic ensconced by the dominant hegemony (white, West, wealthy, capitalist). And therein lies the flaws in professor zigzag's observations, analysis, indeed, his logic. I like him because his descriptions & explication are "all over the place" - because he is thus difficult to follow.
(Frm NZ)
I don't see that at all
The interviewer did a good job - but the slight time delay meant that it was very funny to see him struggling to get in each question after Zizek gave an infinitely long answer to the previous one.
Hamas is the result of an impossible situation! Please professor, there has never been dialogue!
if by there you mean "Palestinians" and Israel there were many dialogs and attempts to peace.
@@IMANOU There has never been meaningful dialogue or attempts at peace from the Israeli side
@@cocolola99 there was plenty. Including land offerings, and much more. Justl look it up.
do more research
Pitiful land exchanges, not offers of true sovereignty or a true sovereign state. Besides, it’s not Iz land to give away anyway. It is stolen. Shame.
What a nice interview, and probably the only time I saw an empty bookshelf as backdrop 😛
So sad that Slovoj did not understand the massiv Covid-Propaganda and cencorship totalitarianism. I would have appreciated his critical left voice on the matter.
I got the feeling this "interview" was just to show that EVEN "the most dangerous philosopher in the west" (haha) would have voted Harris. "let the lunaticism continue!!!"
Are you american? If that is totalitarism you need help. Thats not propaganda. That spreading info, trying to prevent something to happen in a terrible scale based on the state of the art of health science. Thank god for my portuguese mindset.
This discution is disappointing, first what motivation anyone has to call kamala neomarxist, you might not know what a marxist is. Sevond this philosopher is disconnected of reality. Ukraine obligation was to respect international treaties where is part on. If not......
Brilliant
he's so real he has tissues on his shelf not books...
I don't see Žižek as a star philosopher. First of all because I live a ten-minute walk from his apartment and I sometimes meet him, and also because I believe that, like me, he can easily find information that can completely destroy his theories. His claim in the fourteenth minute, that Putin's/Russia's intention is the imperial occupation of Ukraine and the annihilation of the Ukrainian nation, and the next claim that Ukraine could not defend itself without the help of the West. Even a dumb person knows that only a few days after the Russian invasion, Zelensky agreed to the neutrality of Ukraine and began negotiations in Turkey, where the final Ukrainian consent to the Minsk agreements was discussed. Ukraine would lose Crimea, where there was a referendum on joining Russia (which the West did not recognize), similar to the one in Kosovo on independence, (which the West recognized) and give some autonomy to areas inhabited mainly by Russians. If Zelensky/Ukraine would agree to it, he would have his own state and nation, albeit neutral (like Austria), without American missiles aimed at Moscow and St. Petersburg. But then Boris Johnson comes to Zelensky and tells him to leave the negotiations and fight until the return of the last inch of former Ukrainian territory. If this information reached me, a completely average resident of Ljubljana, then it also reached Slavoj Žižek's apartment 500 m away: But he decided to ignore it, because he is a philosophical star and must say what his listeners want to hear, with so that he then spices it up a bit with his own spicy kick.
Therefore, he realized that his story is just a commodity that he can sell to the Western consumer. Add a good amount of Lacan, a little bit of Marx, a some socialism, add materialism, mention communism and Stalinism, don't forget a pinch of Hitler either, just enough so that those strong words attract attention and keep listeners awake, but never too tough, so that it doesn't become really dangerous, so that it doesn't set up some philosophical platform, which would be feasible and threaten the West and the discreet charm of its slow decline.
Now I will continue to watch that interview in which, I assume, he will criticize the large number of dead in Gaza and say a few words about China.
Spinoza was excommunicated for his words. Žižek doesn't want that. He is a master of communication who will properly dose his words, so that he continues to be invited to lectures and interviews on TH-cam
Nice meeting you here, my countryman and neighbor. I’m genuinely glad to have come across your post-it’s refreshing to find someone who shares a similar view. As you might have noticed from my post above, I expressed something along the same lines, though not as eloquently as you did.
Like you, I have the same question: what happened to this man? I started listening, and I’ll be honest, I didn’t even get to the end. I had heard enough, and I didn’t need to hear any more-it was just nonsense. But that’s the question we’re both left with, isn’t it? What actually happened to him? You explained it well-I said he might have sold out or perhaps lost his way, though I really don’t believe he lost his mind. You hit the mark better than I did, and yet, here I am with this solid question hanging in my mind: what kind of person is he, really?
In the past, if someone had asked me whether he would ever sacrifice his dignity for money, I would have confidently said, "Absolutely not. He would never sell his dignity." But now? How wrong I was.
Thank you again for your post. I think it would be interesting to have a conversation sometime-seems like we could both learn a lot from each other. Great points, and thanks again.
All the best,
A fellow Slovenian
anti communism is practically forced onto anyone in media so i can see why he's changed his attitude, materially speaking, you can't do shit if you support loudly and proudly communist praxis in most parts of the world. though nothing will ever justify switching out your anti-capitalist ideals for more "acceptable" west-leaning hogwash. especially if you fallow any school of marxism.
I agree with you guys . This guy lives in a different universe. He says just the right amount between the nonsense to sat relevant. From south africa
I think he does believe in a liberal West as a less evil political organisation, he always did, and chooses to do some propaganda concerning the ukrainian question. That s what I felt after the first shock, because it had been a while that I hadn t watched his talks, and I just learned his views on ukraine.
You two should definitely go for a beer, cheers from greece
Greater Israel? Examination of the universally accepted figures shows Israel existing on 0.02% of land in M.E while Muslim Arab League states rule the other 99.98%. Thats not an opinion but a universally accepted fact.
The professor is cherrypicking history when it comes to Ukraine and Russia. Not one mention of the Minsk agreements, not a mention of the Istanbul agreement that Ukraine first signed - and then retreated from This agreement guaranteed full sovereignty for Ukraine, autonomy but inclusion in Ukraine for Donbass, no refusal of Ukraine joining EU - just a big red line by NATO membership. The comparison with the Baltic nations with Ukraine in relation to Russia is flawed. Russia has its begin in the Kiev Rus, and a deep connection historically and culturally to central, southern and northern Ukraine. These ties are non existent when it comes to the Baltic.
let me guess, you don't have the displeasure of sharing a border with the Russians?
I believe it was not Zizek's point of discussing the specifics of the conflict. He simply clarified that the positions of the two participating counterparts in the conflict, Russia and Ukraine & West, are corrupted.
sir you did not get it, that practice of full equalization and concept reduction that ends up calling China fascist is exactly at the basis of fascism in Europe. Unless there is an hegemony on China based on the legitimization of colonialism, which it does not have, it cant really be called fascist. Fascism as a doctrine is a full legitimization of the history of capitalist violence, both symbolic and material
Love me some Sizek😊❤
Zizek.
And the click bait title, shame on you.
Zizek is the ultimate boss, but the interviewer is very witty and gentle, doesn't interfere slightly.
I have no idea what he might have said after 13:31 - I am out!
Zizek from 10 years ago is gone forever, unrecognizable... once a prominent dissident voice exposing the imperial capitalist hypocrites is now in full swing cheering for them, by, ironically shouting "imperialists!" by pointing random directions.
Our society "mind" got fogged to no return... and listening to him a marker of the fogginess seems to be how much one listens to the their "baltic firends"
PS: Congratulations for the interviewer for his clarity and the lead of the interview.
Wow! He is so out of touch it is ridiculous. It is like listening to the CIA with an accent. It is sad because he use to say interesting things.
Five minutes in and Zizek is already calling anti war movements far right in Europe. I guess it's going to be a stretch for him to admit that liberals are fascists not Marxists.
No the 1943 Bengal famine was not desired nor engineered, and neither were the subsequent famines in post independence East Pakistan and later Bangladesh. In 1943 the Muslim League were the government of India, and they won the next election in Bengal in 1945.
no Zizek interview that isn't about the whole world.
The most interesting statement was that religious fundamentalism has more passion in it than the action-blocking nihilism of the West.
and insofar as countermovement is understandable.
I mean, it's clear to everyone that all you have to do is react to Israel.
Ethnic cleansing is a clear fact.
He doesn't call it genozit but I call it that.
Ultimately, however, with Zizek it always boils down to the fact that he is looking for a whole in a conceptual analysis.
and want to include every phenomenon.
I think we are in an age of de-democratization.
This means that only those who have “earned” a position of power of some kind have “deserved” effective action and reason.
In this respect, lobbying is the opposite of democratic group dynamics.
this is happening less and less. since there can no longer be any upward pressure from sensible, powerless people.
For me, democracy is not just the power of the majority. Democracy is the ability of reasonable people to influence group dynamics in a group of people or people in institutions that do not initially think of the established powerful superstructure of the group.
The power of the majority is just a strukture of democrathy, but not the energetic depth.
Amazing analysis. I enjoyed it.
@@florianalla2353 thank you!
@@WolfgangHuber-t8d as we are close to US elections I’d suggest a well known old Zizek piece titled “Why we all love to hate Jörg Haider”, such a good article you can find it on New Left Review for free.
LOL. Genocide makes population go up. Palestinian population has increased over 100,000 since October 7. Anyone arguing genocide is an ignoramus. The civilian deaths are high because Hamas wants them to be.
You can call anything what you want, Humpty-Dumpty-like, but this doesn't make it so.
Most of the Arabs are reading Žižek everyday...
Finally common sense from Zizek! 👍
What do you mean? Slavoj has always spoken common sense.
What is the alternative for the global south? to continue under the imeperial command of the west?
Noam Chomsky, critiques Žižek "Theory" in intellectual circles as often being "posturing" with complex language but little substantive content. He is skeptical of Žižek's popularity, questioning whether there’s real intellectual substance behind the work.
Chomsky remarks that while Žižek may be a skilled orator who makes ideas sound engaging, he does not perceive any significant content in his work. ( Can you tell me what the work is? I can’t find it. I see a lot of, you know... well, he’s good-he’s a good actor. He makes things sound exciting. But can you find any content? I can’t. )
read the sublime object of ideology
@karhqo I don’t read anything by such a racist, extremist hack with zero substance… Why don’t you go write a personal note to Noam Chomsky? He’s the one who said what he said about him
Newsflash: Chomsky is trash
thats just chomsky being silly and competing with another leftist for attention . if you got ears and a brain and you listen or read, you know its a ridiculous statement . you can disagree or not with any particular point of zizek´s but claiming there is nothing there is bad faith or ignorance : i think it´s the former in chomsky´s case .
@@jochenkrattenmacher9829well I wouldn’t say he’s trash. I hold them both very dearly. I just think Chomsky has a very different approach in his analyses. He’s very realist in his analyses of politics, social dynamics and so on. Therefore he might not like the more philosophical, let’s say more abstract way to analyse things.
Slavj, as an x-Marxist, you should get busy with the term patriotism or alternatives in self-liberation as in post colonial! it is not always about Stalin and Mao
Ridiculous thesis. Utterly insane.
Westbank is being ethnically cleaned like Gaza, what is he saying? No to the premise and if accepting the premise it's still no.
Love Slavoj
Russia needed this war to divert attention from Ukraine
Slavoj Žižek what about US wars against the world, 800 NATO bases. Israel genocide supported by the west. Its unending list of crimes. Žižek opinion about Russia are very personal because of his experience during Soviet Union.
Listen to Gabriel Rockhill.
Nuance, nuance. I'm not a fan of US foreign policy, especially in Middle East, but I reject the black and white thinking here, that is, "if you are against Israel, you have to be against the West in general and side with BRICS". I support both Palestine and Ukraine, because I think they are the wronged sides. I support Iran in standing up to Israel, while also condemning it for selling drones to Russia to be used in Ukraine.
And why would you support Russia ? Their mindset is still in 19th century. Their dream is either to annex their neighbours or make them puppet states. The criticism for US wouldn't fit in one book, but I still think it's better. I mean, the Internet and YT itself, which allows us to have this discussion, came from US. Meanwhile, in Russia, if you speak against the goverment, you "accidentally" fall from balcony or some "robbers" shoot you down.
Probably
@@Hexanitrobenzene
It appears( based on your statement) that you are a “ grate specialist “ in Russian / USSR history in general and in current Russian/ conflict in particular.
Share please, where from did you get your so “deep and fundamental “ knowledge ????
You look like to be a typical bullshiter in terms used by respectful professor H. Frankfurt….
what has zizek to do with SU?
after ww2 there was no other save home for jews BUT exactly this "HOLY" place?
All the european countries supporting Israel now were the ones rejecting to give them a home at the end of the war. European states and USA are 100% responsible for this situation.
bravo professor
Why a "first class" philosopher gives this kind of statements?
The proverbial bottom line is this - "philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it". (Curtsey of mr marx)
But as Zizek has pointed out, even Marx at times freaked a bit when real action took place before he'd finished the book that was supposed to underpin it.
Marx would not really know anything about it, because whatever he was, he was not a philosopher.
@@alexanderkaplan8906 Why do you say that?