Thank you. Before we continue
I would like to excuse Bostjan Videmsek,
- who is absent for health reasons.
- He didn't go to Libya?
No. I think he had an encounter
with a pothole while skiing.
Now I give the floor to Slavoj Žižek,
who is under the name of Milharcic.
I will be brief. I am a little embarrassed
to be here. Because, what do I really know?
Some improvisation then.
The first interesting thing is
how these events, after Tunis, from
Egypt on, stirred general uneasiness,
and some sort of latent tension.
Here too.
If I may begin, it will be a little obscene,
with an event which happened to me yesterday.
I live between Kotnikova and Metelkova
Street, and in my morning ritual
I wanted to check my e-mail.
But it didn't work. Cable TV also didn't.
I went to the café near my block of flats.
They have a computer. And it too didn't work.
A few customers there said that
it didn't work at their place either.
And then somebody said it.
Is it happening in Lower Carniola too,
and you from the Government decided
to cut off internet access?
How, suddenly,
laughter is covering for implicit tension.
Why did I begin with this?
Because, on a very simplified level,
this is for me the fundamental
paradox in the reception of these events.
Seemingly, and the truth is in
appearances, what happened was
exactly what democratic Europe was
officially dreaming of for decades.
Insurrection which was originally,
never mind who will profit from it,
unburdened with religious fundamentalism,
with anti-Semitism.
For me the most sublime moment was,
you will tell whether I was misled by the media,
when on the Tahrir square there was
even a joint mass with Copts and Muslims,
- who screamed, "We are one!"
- And we communists stood next to them
- with arms crossed and didn't pray.
- Forget "we communists". We will judge were you stand.
My point is this. All this had the characteristics
of a miracle. Something unexpected happened,
exactly what we wanted. This is a nice
argument against multicultural ideology.
Suddenly, no more problems. We knew
what was going on. We all agreed.
The way this was done is exemplary.
Did you notice? I like this very much.
Their motto wasn't, "Kill the enemy!"
The motto was, "Go! Leave us alone!"
Not like Gaddafi. Nobody said,
"Kill the cockroaches."
Something exemplary, what we wanted,
happened. The result is great uneasiness.
Exactly when we got
what we "officially" desired.
I think it is clear from the reactions
that we basically didn't desire this.
As was said before. That the authoritarian
rule suited us, the West, better.
Now about the causes.
This really happened as a miracle.
In what sense do I mean a miracle?
Richard Kaupcinsky, he died recently,
one of my, and perhaps your,
models of journalism,
wrote a brilliant book about Iran,
Shah of Shahs. About the Iranian revolution.
He describes the magical moment ...
Do you know how a regime breaks?
We experienced it here in 1989-90.
Before the regime formally falls, there
is a moment when everyone knows it is over.
We can describe it in several ways.
People aren't scared anymore and so on ...
Suddenly even the rulers no longer believe
in themselves.
By the way, it would be nice to make a review
of 89' from the standpoint of this breaking.
For example, Kapuscinsky found
a splendid anecdote.
Four months before the fall of Shah,
on some demonstration in Tehran
policemen tried to disperse the protesters.
A cop went to one of them and said, "Get lost."
Everybody went away, except for one.
Policeman again screamed. And nothing.
The policeman felt awkward and walked away.
This is the mythical nature of language.
A few hours latter, everyone in
Tehran was talking about it.
All new it is over. Even though
it went on for a while.
This is hope for the oppressed.
A lesson we can take from this is
that those who rule us can only
do so with our silent consent, participation.
Participation can be seemingly
critical, comical. Jokes and so on ...
I was always adherent to the theory
that in Stalinism jokes weren't subversive.
These jokes were a way people
can let off steam. And so on ...
What makes us so uneasy?
Precisely the authenticity of these event.
In what sense? Now I will turn to the left.
Now we'll see if you're really a communist.
First error. Don't confuse
these events with
asininities like Orange revolutions and
pro-democracy movements. This is not it.
This is not an export of
European models.
This was already clear two years ago.
When was Mousavi popular in Iran?
When the West didn't know what to do.
On the one hand, they wanted to support Mousavi,
he stands for democracy against
the bad Ahmadinejad,
on the other hand, they knew he is a part
of the Khomeini revolution.
He was, after all, the prime minister
when they were at war with Iraq, no?
Thus, we didn't know where to put him.
But I say his Green movement in Iran
is living proof that the Khomeini revolution
wasn't simply an Islamic fundamentalist putsch.
If you go back now. It took Islamists more than
a year to take power through extensive cleansing.
I won't go into detail here ...
We arrogant westerners got what we desired,
and now we will pay the price for it. Which is nice.
A second thing that I liked is
how all these events, from Iran on,
took place exactly where they
were least expected.
For example, Tunisia is a country where,
by definition, nothing ever happens.
Tourism and so on ...
Egypt, no one believed.
This must be some kind of structural
error in western thinking.
Even Bahrain is a surprise.
They are rich, who would think it.
Do you remember, this lack of understanding
began with Iran. A few years before the revolution,
what was his name, General John Hackett
wrote a book, The Third World War.
Scenario of a possible world war.
We have an honourable place in it.
I'm not fucking around.
Look it up, it's old now.
The decisive battle between East and West,
where the West wins, is fought at Kostanjevica.
The assumption of the book is that all the Arab
people, and I know Iranians aren't Arabs,
go against the Americans,
Iran remains the most faithful to the West.
This is two years before the
Khomeini revolution.
I am personally affected and involved here.
To brag, I had indirect contacts with Mousavi.
- I was involved in some manifestos.
- Really? - Absolutely.
I gave a statement and wrote a text
which were so sensational
that for two days, and not more,
I was the negative star of the day.
Because I gave them a Leninist advice
in an interview.
They were losing and didn't know what to do now.
Be Leninist, I said. Some network must remain.
Organisational network. Don't become resigned
old men, talking nostalgically of your struggle.
And millions were asking who
is behind all this.
The joke was in that for two days they were
running headlines about me, saying
that I was CIA's middleman
to the Greens.
My cynical idea was to write an open letter to CIA.
"If you are paying me, where is the money?"
Let's go on more seriously.
Our lack of understanding began there.
