The previous section was about the impossibility of applying for a lecturing exemption. This section is about the fact that one cannot ensure lecturing exemption by referring to the relevant authorities.
3) Why Not Reference?
The ultimate destination of any reference is an authority: it’s either an authority that already exists, or an agent that shall obtain authority by virtue of your reference. The conclusiveness of a reference relies on the ability of an authority to assume it.
However, neither can one find an authority to assume Lecturing Exemption References, nor can anyone be authorized on this matter. Lecturing exemption is not secured by a reference.
We will look at three incidents from a familiar figure. American president Donald J. Trump’s (i) lecturing exemption against Britain, (ii) lecturing exemption against Canada, and (iii) lecturing exemption against Sweden.
Donald J. Trump vs. Britain Lecturing Exemption
In order to secure his lecturing exemption against Britain, did the American president refer to Prince Charles? No. What did he do?
He made a warning: It was said that the American president wouldn’t “put up with” a potential lecturing for the protection of the Earth, that this would be “counterproductive” because the president would “erupt if pushed”.
Donald J. Trump vs. Canada Lecturing Exemption
In order to secure his lecturing exemption against Canada, did the American president refer to the Canadian president Justin Trudeau? No. What did he do?
He made a handshaking move. He arranged to take photos of him with his daughter together at the table. In Justin Trudeau’s own words, an “approach” was exhibited against Canada.
Donald J. Trump vs. Sweden Lecturing Exemption
In order to secure his lecturing exemption against Sweden, did the American president refer to the Swedish authorities? No. What did he do?
He referred to an incident that never took place by speaking like “Did you hear what happened last night in Sweden oh my god we didn’t expect this!”. So did this reference reach a conclusion? No. What happened?
Following the example of the #BowlingGreenMassacre that never happened, people made fun of the #SwedenIncident that never happened, for several days.
On the other hand, a real event erupted during those same days: It was reported that a riot erupted in Stockholm’s Rinkeby neighborhood and that immigrants were burning cars on the road and looting the shops on the street.
The press and the media interpreted this event in various ways. Some journalists claimed that it presented a sufficient justification for the initial reference, even that it vindicated the initial deception, so that Trump was “therefore in fact right”.
Yet it is perfectly known that the #SwedenIncident that was referred to like “oh my god look what happened last night” did indeed never happen. How could an explicit lie brought to the point of “see that in fact the man was right”?
Annette Smith, who I contacted via our Žižek media on Facebook, designated the event in Rinkeby as an “identification with projection”, so that the image of an aggressive immigrant that Trump projected by lying as if a #SwedenIncident had happened, by triggering an identification, had encouraged the immigrants in Rinkeby to aggressivity. I instead called it a “self-fulfilling curse”, modifying the term “self-fulfilling prophecy”.
In summary, Trump couldn’t have “been right” and the perception that formed on the media was incorrect. One wouldn’t be able to make right an explicit lie. Therefore, even if there was a reference to an incident, it was unmet and inconclusive as a reference. The reference had lost its quality of being a reference and had turned into something else: It either had become a projection to trigger an identification, or it had become a curse that then fulfilled itself.
In all three cases, the American president is seen to manage to secure his “lecturing exemption” against the foreign country. But the president never resorted to “a reference to necessary authorities”. He resorted to other ways. He secured his lecturing exemption by improvised behaviors. And this is the greatest weakness of the new president. He doesn’t follow any procedure or policy, thus he can only undermine procedures and policies. So these are unprincipled behaviors. They’re conjunctural opportunist maneuvres.
The next section will discuss the difference between a Procedure and a Policy, as the principled ways to secure lecturing exemption.
Lecturing Exemption Demand Procedure and Policy
1) Why Demand?