Slavoj Zizek: Identity Politics, Ideology and the Real of History | Video Lecture Series (3/3)
Lecture · Philosofried ·
published 2020-02-29 · 0:19:04 · 2,412 words
the date above is when the video was uploaded, no recording date was found
ideologypsychoanalysiscapitalismfascism-populismliberalism-political-correctnesssubjectivity
Žižek critiques multicultural 'politics of pure difference' by contrasting it with the antagonistic logic of class struggle, arguing that true universality emerges only from a partial, engaged standpoint. He introduces the concept of the 'chocolate laxative' to describe a modern superegoic ethics where harmful substances are pre-decaffeinated, allowing for limitless consumption without danger. This logic extends to social phenomena like tolerance (as distance/harassment avoidance), humanitarian militarism, and the figure of George Soros, culminating in the claim that modern psychoanalysis must shift from enabling enjoyment to granting the permission 'not to enjoy'.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 11
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The multiculturalist horizon of politics which seeks to recognize and tolerate differences without antagonism, which Žižek rejects as insufficient.
The notion that universal truth is accessible only through a specific, partial, and engaged subjective position in struggle, rather than by abstracting from particular interests.
A contemporary mode of social identification driven by an obscene superego injunction to enjoy, contrasting with the ethics of moderation.
as “decaf coffee / decaf opium”
Metaphors for modern commodities or experiences that provide the effect (pleasure, high) while being deprived of their potentially dangerous or risky substance.
A paradoxical structure where a product contains its own remedy or counter-effect (e.g., decaf coffee, sugar-free sugar), allowing for limitless consumption because the dangerous substance is already removed.
as “humanitarian militarism”
A term coined by Ulrich Beck describing modern wars declared as interventions to bring peace and help people, where the war operation itself resembles humanitarian aid.
as “pitiless censor of yourself”
Alain Badiou's formulation for the modern role of psychoanalysis: not to enable enjoyment, but to help one become a strict censor of oneself.
The fundamental message of psychoanalysis today: granting the subject the permission to refrain from the superegoic injunction to enjoy.
as “permissivity ends up in its opposite”
The paradox that the modern injunction to enjoy results in total regulation and prohibitions (fitness, diet, no smoking) rather than freedom.
Lacan's reversal of Dostoevsky's motto, describing the hedonistic chaos where the absence of divine law leads to excessive regulation and prohibition.
as “if god exists, then everything is permitted”
The paradoxical lesson that fundamentalism allows total freedom of action (terrorism, war) if one justifies it as the instrument of divine will.
Stories he reaches for 1
Modern products that provide the effect (taste, buzz) but are deprived of the dangerous substance (caffeine, alcohol), illustrating the 'chocolate laxative' logic.
“the object in itself is already deprived of its dangerous substance... decaf coffee, beer without alcohol, sugar without sugar”
People invoked 8
George Soros negative
Used as an 'exemplary figure' of the 'chocolate laxative' structure: ruthless exploitation mixed with humanitarian aid, representing the hypocrisy of modern wealth.
Osama bin Laden negative
Grouped with Bush as figures who 'hear directly from up there,' illustrating the paradox that divine justification permits everything.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited for his famous reversal of Dostoevsky's motto ('if god doesn't exist, everything is prohibited') and his analysis of fundamentalism.
George H. W. Bush negative
Grouped with Bin Laden as figures who 'hear directly from up there,' illustrating the paradox that divine justification permits everything.
Alain Badiou positive
Cited for the 'wonderful terms' describing the modern role of psychoanalysis: becoming a 'pitiless censor of yourself.'
Giorgio Agamben positive
Cited for the claim that the concentration camp is the exemplary case of a 20th-century collective.
Ulrich Beck positive
Cited as 'well justified' in inventing the term 'humanitarian militarism.'
Fyodor Dostoyevsky positive
Cited for his original motto ('if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted'), which Lacan reverses.
Transcript 28 turns
·
so what would then
so what would then
Slavoj Žižek
a politics of pure difference b. it would definitely not be what emerges today more and more as the ultimate horizon of the political, the so-called identity politics.
a politics of pure difference b. it would definitely not be what emerges today more and more as the ultimate horizon of the political, the so-called identity politics.
·
we all agree. the black lives matter
we all agree. the black lives matter
Slavoj Žižek
the politics of recognizing the differences, of tolerating differences. what? is for me problematic in this multiculturalist tolerant politics and so on. it's not just the vulgar fact that they effectively, even if they deny it, neglect. economic struggle? it's the very logic of the struggle.
the politics of recognizing the differences, of tolerating differences. what? is for me problematic in this multiculturalist tolerant politics and so on. it's not just the vulgar fact that they effectively, even if they deny it, neglect. economic struggle? it's the very logic of the struggle.
·
learn what mansplaining is, and then stop doing it.
learn what mansplaining is, and then stop doing it.
·
you know, i don't look at my pension. it's not as big as yours.
you know, i don't look at my pension. it's not as big as yours.
Slavoj Žižek
but one day.
but one day.
·
yeah.
yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
this nation will rise up. the logic of multicultural struggle, of anti-racist struggle, of sexist struggle. struggle against sexism. again, the logic of recognizing differences. for example, in anti-sexist struggle. the goal of course is not even for radical feminists, i don't know, to kill, to annihilate men. it's to establish an open field within which both sexes all different sexual positions, sexual identities, cultural identities inclusive
this nation will rise up. the logic of multicultural struggle, of anti-racist struggle, of sexist struggle. struggle against sexism. again, the logic of recognizing differences. for example, in anti-sexist struggle. the goal of course is not even for radical feminists, i don't know, to kill, to annihilate men. it's to establish an open field within which both sexes all different sexual positions, sexual identities, cultural identities inclusive
·
will
will
Slavoj Žižek
be to thrive freely so that one will not articulate itself at the expense of others. again, in the anti-racist struggle, the ultimate horizon is that of opening up the space for differences. each ethnic group, religious group, cultural group, way of life group should have the freedom to freely deploy, articulate its potentials, its position. but... this conceptual field. the field of. openness towards the other of tolerating, allowing for differences is the ultimate ethical horizon. this, i claim. should not cannot be our ultimate horizon because we can immediately see that to simplified example. class struggle. my god, the ultimate goal of the class struggle is not for proletarians to allow the bourgeois and bourgeois to allow proletarians to freely deploy their own potentials and so on and so on. it's an antagonistic struggle. the goal is not to let the... the multitude b, the goal is to annihilate the enemy. and it's a totally different logic. it's the logic of animosity is the logic of antagonistic struggle, which also involves a totally different notion of universality. the notion of universality here is no longer universality as the encompassing medium, container of the plurality of positions, sexual positions, cultural positions, whatever. no, universality is here. the universality of struggle itself. there is also a central paradox to this struggling position. the position struggle does not mean uh... the position of a particular identity and the abandonment of the universal notion of truth. the abandonment of universal notion of truth goes very well with multiculturalist politics, where you can say everybody has the right to narrate its own version of truth. there is no global truth. no, our position should be there is universal truth. there always is one universal truth of a certain situation but this truth is accessible only from a specific partial engaged engaging in the struggle. standpoint. so it's not that we arrive at the universal truth by abstracting from our particular engagement, from our particular interests. the idea being each of us has its own interests, positions, but the truth of a situation emerges when we can step, as it were outside ourselves and look at the situation more objectively, the way it really is. no, on the contrary, we should fully assume the paradox of universal truth being accessible only through a partial engaged position. this i think is more precious than ever to maintain today. and this is the reason why at the social level i think we should cling to the notion of collective as it was still now practiced in three forms. messianic religious collectives. revolutionary parties and psychanalytic communities. they both share, sorry, all three of them, they share precisely this same notion of universality accessible only through an engaged, struggling subjective position. this politics of pure. difference is opposed today. by another, i would call it politics of the real, but the real of the superego, in precisely the sense i already. talked about, that is to say superego injunction the obscene virtual superego injunction to enjoy so how does this super ego injunction function today. in the hegemonic mode of of social identification. to put it in extremely simplified terms, the old functioning of ethics was that of moderation. the ultimate task of ethics was to moderate it, like do it but not excessively.
be to thrive freely so that one will not articulate itself at the expense of others. again, in the anti-racist struggle, the ultimate horizon is that of opening up the space for differences. each ethnic group, religious group, cultural group, way of life group should have the freedom to freely deploy, articulate its potentials, its position. but... this conceptual field. the field of. openness towards the other of tolerating, allowing for differences is the ultimate ethical horizon. this, i claim. should not cannot be our ultimate horizon because we can immediately see that to simplified example. class struggle. my god, the ultimate goal of the class struggle is not for proletarians to allow the bourgeois and bourgeois to allow proletarians to freely deploy their own potentials and so on and so on. it's an antagonistic struggle. the goal is not to let the... the multitude b, the goal is to annihilate the enemy. and it's a totally different logic. it's the logic of animosity is the logic of antagonistic struggle, which also involves a totally different notion of universality. the notion of universality here is no longer universality as the encompassing medium, container of the plurality of positions, sexual positions, cultural positions, whatever. no, universality is here. the universality of struggle itself. there is also a central paradox to this struggling position. the position struggle does not mean uh... the position of a particular identity and the abandonment of the universal notion of truth. the abandonment of universal notion of truth goes very well with multiculturalist politics, where you can say everybody has the right to narrate its own version of truth. there is no global truth. no, our position should be there is universal truth. there always is one universal truth of a certain situation but this truth is accessible only from a specific partial engaged engaging in the struggle. standpoint. so it's not that we arrive at the universal truth by abstracting from our particular engagement, from our particular interests. the idea being each of us has its own interests, positions, but the truth of a situation emerges when we can step, as it were outside ourselves and look at the situation more objectively, the way it really is. no, on the contrary, we should fully assume the paradox of universal truth being accessible only through a partial engaged position. this i think is more precious than ever to maintain today. and this is the reason why at the social level i think we should cling to the notion of collective as it was still now practiced in three forms. messianic religious collectives. revolutionary parties and psychanalytic communities. they both share, sorry, all three of them, they share precisely this same notion of universality accessible only through an engaged, struggling subjective position. this politics of pure. difference is opposed today. by another, i would call it politics of the real, but the real of the superego, in precisely the sense i already. talked about, that is to say superego injunction the obscene virtual superego injunction to enjoy so how does this super ego injunction function today. in the hegemonic mode of of social identification. to put it in extremely simplified terms, the old functioning of ethics was that of moderation. the ultimate task of ethics was to moderate it, like do it but not excessively.
·
eat
eat
Slavoj Žižek
drink not too much. sex, not too much. it was the ethics of the proper measure. today, i claim a different kind of ethics is emerging. an ethics which on the one hand allows you limitless consumption, no moderation, go to the end, but why? because the object in itself is already deprived of its dangerous substance, as it were. the whole series of... products that we find today on the market decaf coffee, beer without alcohol, sugar without sugar and so on and so on. that is to say the product where you get the effect but deprived of its potentially dangerous substance. so that today the injunction is no longer drink coffee, but moderately it is. have as much coffee as you want because coffee is already in itself decaffeinated coffee. maybe the best, slightly tasteless, but what the hell why not, the best metaphor for this product is something that i saw. two, three years ago in los angeles.
drink not too much. sex, not too much. it was the ethics of the proper measure. today, i claim a different kind of ethics is emerging. an ethics which on the one hand allows you limitless consumption, no moderation, go to the end, but why? because the object in itself is already deprived of its dangerous substance, as it were. the whole series of... products that we find today on the market decaf coffee, beer without alcohol, sugar without sugar and so on and so on. that is to say the product where you get the effect but deprived of its potentially dangerous substance. so that today the injunction is no longer drink coffee, but moderately it is. have as much coffee as you want because coffee is already in itself decaffeinated coffee. maybe the best, slightly tasteless, but what the hell why not, the best metaphor for this product is something that i saw. two, three years ago in los angeles.
·
how hard i try, sometimes i have a problem. constipation.
how hard i try, sometimes i have a problem. constipation.
Slavoj Žižek
the paradox of a chocolate laxative, of course, chocolate being that which gives you constipation with the publicity i remember it still constipated not a problem eat more of our chocolate
the paradox of a chocolate laxative, of course, chocolate being that which gives you constipation with the publicity i remember it still constipated not a problem eat more of our chocolate
·
doctors and pharmacists have been recommending it for years, and they should know.
doctors and pharmacists have been recommending it for years, and they should know.
Slavoj Žižek
so that's the paradox that the chocolate. is already its own remedy in a kind of almost hegelian direct coincidence of the oppos. so why is this interesting? precisely because i claim it's not limited only to phenomena of commodities. what interests me is how we can locate the same logic, also the same paradoxical logic of an. a product being its own counter effect. already and also at within the social field. for example. let's take the big topic of tolerance. what does it mean? i claim it has precisely the structure of chocolate laxative. that is to say, tolerance is a mode of appearance of its own opposite, of intolerance. because what does it mean tolerance today? it means tolerate the differences, which again means don't harass me.
so that's the paradox that the chocolate. is already its own remedy in a kind of almost hegelian direct coincidence of the oppos. so why is this interesting? precisely because i claim it's not limited only to phenomena of commodities. what interests me is how we can locate the same logic, also the same paradoxical logic of an. a product being its own counter effect. already and also at within the social field. for example. let's take the big topic of tolerance. what does it mean? i claim it has precisely the structure of chocolate laxative. that is to say, tolerance is a mode of appearance of its own opposite, of intolerance. because what does it mean tolerance today? it means tolerate the differences, which again means don't harass me.
·
the benefit of having african americans means a more diverse. thank you, sir. don't be.
the benefit of having african americans means a more diverse. thank you, sir. don't be.
·
he saying there's black people in kingman that aren't welcome there either, but we tolerate them.
he saying there's black people in kingman that aren't welcome there either, but we tolerate them.
Slavoj Žižek
what does it mean don't harass me? it means precisely don't come too close to me. if you come too close to me with your excessive enjoyment, you disturb me, you harass me. so we have then this idea that practically everything can be a form of harassment. i look at you, it's potential sexual harassment. i speak too loudly, it's verbal harassment, whatever. everything, every over proximity of another human being can be potentially a form of harassment.
what does it mean don't harass me? it means precisely don't come too close to me. if you come too close to me with your excessive enjoyment, you disturb me, you harass me. so we have then this idea that practically everything can be a form of harassment. i look at you, it's potential sexual harassment. i speak too loudly, it's verbal harassment, whatever. everything, every over proximity of another human being can be potentially a form of harassment.
·
no, we're talking about sexual harassment here, and i don't have to take it.
no, we're talking about sexual harassment here, and i don't have to take it.
Slavoj Žižek
and i think that this fear of harassment is precisely fundamental form of intolerance today. and so again, i claim that when we talk about tolerance today, it means precisely tolerance as avoiding harassment which means intolerance it means let's tolerate each other again which means let's keep at a proper distance from each other. yet another! chocolate. n. phenomenon. isn't it the way? we deal with wealth today. the exemplary figure today for me here is somebody like george soros. half the day he engages in the most ruthless financial exploitations ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions. the other half, he just gives part of it back. so the morning is chocolate, the afternoon is laxative, like you know, involving in all these human aid programs and so on, political democratization and so on and so on. so again, instead of simply not engage in ruthless speculation he does it but then includes counteraction. and even more radically, is it not exactly the same with war today? i think that ulrich beck, the german sociologist, was well justified in inventing the term humanitarian militarism for what goes on today where all the wars are declared as wars for peace. it's not only that their ultimate goal is defined as to bring peace into iraq, to remove the threat of war and so on and so on. it's even more radical. it is that the war operation itself resembles more and more a kind of humanitarian intervention to help the people there. if you read, for example, the recent justification of attack on iraq, it's not so much that iraq was attacked in order to remove the threat to the western nation of saddam. it was in order to help the iraqi people and so on and so on.
and i think that this fear of harassment is precisely fundamental form of intolerance today. and so again, i claim that when we talk about tolerance today, it means precisely tolerance as avoiding harassment which means intolerance it means let's tolerate each other again which means let's keep at a proper distance from each other. yet another! chocolate. n. phenomenon. isn't it the way? we deal with wealth today. the exemplary figure today for me here is somebody like george soros. half the day he engages in the most ruthless financial exploitations ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions. the other half, he just gives part of it back. so the morning is chocolate, the afternoon is laxative, like you know, involving in all these human aid programs and so on, political democratization and so on and so on. so again, instead of simply not engage in ruthless speculation he does it but then includes counteraction. and even more radically, is it not exactly the same with war today? i think that ulrich beck, the german sociologist, was well justified in inventing the term humanitarian militarism for what goes on today where all the wars are declared as wars for peace. it's not only that their ultimate goal is defined as to bring peace into iraq, to remove the threat of war and so on and so on. it's even more radical. it is that the war operation itself resembles more and more a kind of humanitarian intervention to help the people there. if you read, for example, the recent justification of attack on iraq, it's not so much that iraq was attacked in order to remove the threat to the western nation of saddam. it was in order to help the iraqi people and so on and so on.
·
we will bring freedom to others. and we will prevail.
we will bring freedom to others. and we will prevail.
Slavoj Žižek
no wonder then that the ultimate social collective, the concentration camps, as giorgio agamben claims, the typical exemplary case of a 20th century collective, has precisely these both aspects, again, chocolate laxative structure, the aspect of isolating the enemy, guantanamo or whatever, and the aspect of concentrating people for in order to provide them with humanitarian aid. what this means? are two things. first, i don't think that. it is justified to talk today about consumption. in a society of consumption and so on. on the contrary, i claim, we consume less than ever, if consuming means taking the risk, really opening yourself. which is why incidentally we are so afraid of smoking. i claim, it's not simply medical results and so on. what is so terrifying in smoking is somebody really consuming the smoke with all the dangers this involves. i think that the true consumers today are drug addicts, chain smokers and so on. and they are the figures of horror.
no wonder then that the ultimate social collective, the concentration camps, as giorgio agamben claims, the typical exemplary case of a 20th century collective, has precisely these both aspects, again, chocolate laxative structure, the aspect of isolating the enemy, guantanamo or whatever, and the aspect of concentrating people for in order to provide them with humanitarian aid. what this means? are two things. first, i don't think that. it is justified to talk today about consumption. in a society of consumption and so on. on the contrary, i claim, we consume less than ever, if consuming means taking the risk, really opening yourself. which is why incidentally we are so afraid of smoking. i claim, it's not simply medical results and so on. what is so terrifying in smoking is somebody really consuming the smoke with all the dangers this involves. i think that the true consumers today are drug addicts, chain smokers and so on. and they are the figures of horror.
·
today, if anything.
today, if anything.
Slavoj Žižek
again, the structure is that of chocolate laxative which is fine we are all looking even at this level for products which would be already a kind of decaf coffee. which is why i think marijuana is so popular, because it's kind of decaffe opium, def fact, opium without opium. you can have it, but... deprived of its a dangerous substance. to conclude. this brief reflection. i would say that today the fundamental, as it were, ethical injunction, the injunction society bombards us with is no longer the injunction to control yourself, to repress your strivings or whatever. it's on the contrary, the injunction to enjoy to go to the end. this is what we feel guilty about today. and this, i think, also changes fundamentally the role of psychoanalysis. in the good old days, or so it appeared, now it's clear that it never was simply like that, the idea was the following one. let's say you are sexually frustrated because you internalized some paternal or other prohibitions, you cannot enjoy sex and the function of psychoanalysis is to. to... relieve you, release you of the pressure of this. internalize prohibition so you can let yourself go, you can enjoy. and in other words, you feel guilty if you. transgressed social prohibitions in order to enjoy. today it's almost the opposite. you feel guilty if you cannot make it, if you cannot enjoy and we shouldn't take here enjoyment just in the immediate sense of sex, sexual pleasure of drinking, whatever. it can be enjoyment of power, social success, professional success. it can be even spiritual enjoyment in the new age sense, gnostic sense of realizing your ego and so on and so on. what we are getting to is that you feel guilty if in this sense you cannot enjoy your sex. so this brings us, i claim, to a double function of psychoanalysis today. a. its message is not relax, get rid of prohibitions.
again, the structure is that of chocolate laxative which is fine we are all looking even at this level for products which would be already a kind of decaf coffee. which is why i think marijuana is so popular, because it's kind of decaffe opium, def fact, opium without opium. you can have it, but... deprived of its a dangerous substance. to conclude. this brief reflection. i would say that today the fundamental, as it were, ethical injunction, the injunction society bombards us with is no longer the injunction to control yourself, to repress your strivings or whatever. it's on the contrary, the injunction to enjoy to go to the end. this is what we feel guilty about today. and this, i think, also changes fundamentally the role of psychoanalysis. in the good old days, or so it appeared, now it's clear that it never was simply like that, the idea was the following one. let's say you are sexually frustrated because you internalized some paternal or other prohibitions, you cannot enjoy sex and the function of psychoanalysis is to. to... relieve you, release you of the pressure of this. internalize prohibition so you can let yourself go, you can enjoy. and in other words, you feel guilty if you. transgressed social prohibitions in order to enjoy. today it's almost the opposite. you feel guilty if you cannot make it, if you cannot enjoy and we shouldn't take here enjoyment just in the immediate sense of sex, sexual pleasure of drinking, whatever. it can be enjoyment of power, social success, professional success. it can be even spiritual enjoyment in the new age sense, gnostic sense of realizing your ego and so on and so on. what we are getting to is that you feel guilty if in this sense you cannot enjoy your sex. so this brings us, i claim, to a double function of psychoanalysis today. a. its message is not relax, get rid of prohibitions.
·
ich mer ich...
ich mer ich...
Slavoj Žižek
yes, as alain badiou put it in wonderful terms. you should learn to become uh. pitiless censor of yourself. the role of psych today is not to enable you to enjoy. but. to open up a space in which you are allowed not to enjoy. that's the fundamental message of psychoanalysis today. you are not obliged to enjoy. you are allowed not to enjoy, which of course, it is not the same as saying you are prohibited to enjoy. just you are allowed not to enjoy. this confronts us furthermore with the paradoxes of today's superego, which is how? on the one hand. permissivity ends up in its opposite. today, the injunction is enjoy, the result is more prohibitions, regulations than ever. you can enjoy yourself, but in order to enjoy yourself properly, you are ordered to what? not to eat too much, to engage in jogging, to take care of your fitness, not to smoke, and so on and so on. dr. look around and i think there is nothing more miserable today than those. younger couples or people who organize their life in order to. enjoy themselves. the regulation is total. on the other hand, we have the opposite paradox, which is that the so-called newly emerging fundamentalism is not here in order to introduce some new stability to give you firm ethical foundation in today's world where there are no firm stable values and so on but on the contrary i claim it is here to open up as a kind of a false space of freedom. i'm referring here, of course, implicitly to lacan's famous reversal of the dostoevsky motto. according to lacan, it is not that if god doesn't exist, everything is permitted, but if god doesn't exist, everything is prohibited. this is the lesson of the hedonistic chaos. and the opposite lesson, no less crucial, if god exists, then everything is permitted. which means if you can justify your role as that of being the instrument of the divine will. in other words, you hear voices, you have the contact with the guy up there, either george bush or osama bin laden. as many people notice, this is what they have in common. they both hear directly from up there. then you can do whatever you want. you can do terrorist acts, bomb countries, and so on and so on.
yes, as alain badiou put it in wonderful terms. you should learn to become uh. pitiless censor of yourself. the role of psych today is not to enable you to enjoy. but. to open up a space in which you are allowed not to enjoy. that's the fundamental message of psychoanalysis today. you are not obliged to enjoy. you are allowed not to enjoy, which of course, it is not the same as saying you are prohibited to enjoy. just you are allowed not to enjoy. this confronts us furthermore with the paradoxes of today's superego, which is how? on the one hand. permissivity ends up in its opposite. today, the injunction is enjoy, the result is more prohibitions, regulations than ever. you can enjoy yourself, but in order to enjoy yourself properly, you are ordered to what? not to eat too much, to engage in jogging, to take care of your fitness, not to smoke, and so on and so on. dr. look around and i think there is nothing more miserable today than those. younger couples or people who organize their life in order to. enjoy themselves. the regulation is total. on the other hand, we have the opposite paradox, which is that the so-called newly emerging fundamentalism is not here in order to introduce some new stability to give you firm ethical foundation in today's world where there are no firm stable values and so on but on the contrary i claim it is here to open up as a kind of a false space of freedom. i'm referring here, of course, implicitly to lacan's famous reversal of the dostoevsky motto. according to lacan, it is not that if god doesn't exist, everything is permitted, but if god doesn't exist, everything is prohibited. this is the lesson of the hedonistic chaos. and the opposite lesson, no less crucial, if god exists, then everything is permitted. which means if you can justify your role as that of being the instrument of the divine will. in other words, you hear voices, you have the contact with the guy up there, either george bush or osama bin laden. as many people notice, this is what they have in common. they both hear directly from up there. then you can do whatever you want. you can do terrorist acts, bomb countries, and so on and so on.