I'm not being sarcastic when I say that I love the way, during a Q&A, a person can ask Zizek one question and get a two hour response.

Exactly like 2015 Zizek, but 2 times faster and 3 times neurotic!

Excellent post!

For me, the most important moment of this lecture arrives at 37:00 when Zizek criticises Althusser for his “double denial”: Althusser has rejected the idea that (an indeterminate) guilt is the source of subjectivity.

13:50 "It is becoming fashionable today to interview skinheads at home, demonstrating how in their home environs they are normal people like us-caring members of the family, tender husbands or sons and so on. That's the idea: If they can be so good at home are they really evil then? But I think my point here is that precisely we have to endure this contradiction." "A person can brutally beat immigrants, yet in his home circle he can be the loving husband taking care of his old mother-in-law or whatever. We are dealing here with an exemplary case of Hegelian Coincidence of the Opposites: a brutal skinhead is not the external opposition to (or the other of..) the sentimental family man, but (to use this Hegelian phrasing) _this very sentimental family man in his otherness._ That is to say, he presents the brutal reaction of this same man when his same family haven is threatened." "In other words, the skinhead who gets into a fury and starts to beat up Them (foreigners) and so on, without any deeper rational or ideological motivation, simply because "it makes him feel good", is nothing else than _the narcissistic individual of the so called society of consumption in a different modality._ The line that separates them [typical narcissist from skinhead] is extremely thin, it consists of a purely formal conversion-since we are dealing with one and the same fundamental attitude inscribed either inside or outside the ideological framework of what is socially permissible." "How then is this splitting reflected in the domain of the Law? In so far as Law is by definition impersonal, blind, abstract, cold, ignorant of our particularity. Is there something... (that's now my question) is there something like the _Law at Home?_ The Law which functions as its opposite, the Law which is not abstract but penetrated with particular enjoyment? *I think there is.* " "The psychoanalytic name for such a Law, let us say _the Law at Home,_ is simply: *Superego.* The domain of Law is always split into: the public, abstract, neutral, symbolic Law-the guarantee of Law & Order-and the superego [private, particular, biased Law]. That is to say, *the obscene nightly law* that necessarily redoubles and accompanies as its shadow *the public law.* " [ex: In 'A Few Good Men', there is the _clandestine military law_ of "code red". Publicly unwritten/unacknowledged 'beatings/violence' which occur to maintain community cohesion where the explicit public Law fails to secure it. _Code Red_ is thus the "dark underside" which functions to maintain community stability by way of "violating the explicit rules of community life". This unwritten/unacknowledged ritual demonstrates "the splitting of the field of Law" into: *the ego-ideal* (symbolic order which regulates social life, which maintains social peace) & its obscene *superego obverse* " ...that violence is a necessary tool for maintaining peace.]

Would love a transcript of this, that part about the Stalinist ideology around 34 mins is brutally on point.

looks like zizek is late for train the whole time...

53:00 I propose a strategy of *over identification* (“going through the fantasy”)

Voice without symbolic identity: When a wrong number calls, you are placed in the position of speaking totally freely, unhinged from identity in the position of symbolic voice.

blahblahblahhhhjao