Zizek on “God is dead”:
Being abandoned by God is the most God can give us. … The bad news is that we are abandoned by God; the good news is that we are abandoned by God and left with our freedom. 

(excerpted from “Less Than Nothing”, 2012)

Zizek on not giving way on one’s desire:

In pure love I freely consent to my own damnation or disappearance, I ecstatically assume it, while in tragedy, I (also) accept my Fate, but I accept it as an external force without consenting to it – the tragic hero rejects it absolutely, protesting against it to the end (Oedipus of Colonous). There is no love in the tragic hero’s acceptance of his damnation by Fate. Therein resides the tragic hero’s uncompromising fidelity to his desire: not in the acceptance of Fate, but in holding on to his desire against Fate, in a situation where everything is lost.

(from his upcoming book “Less Than Nothing”) 

Zizek on the pervert’s illusion about avoiding symbolic castration:

Perversion enacts the disavowal of castration: the pervert’s fundamental illusion is that he possesses a (symbolic) knowledge which enables him to regulate his access to jouissance, i.e., put in more contemporary terms, the pervert’s dream is to transform sexual activity into an instrumental, purpose-oriented activity which can be projected and executed according to a well-defined plan. 

(art by Hiroshi Furuyoshi)

Zizek on fundamentalism:
A fundamentalist does not believe, he knows it directly. Both liberal-sceptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision that installs all authentic beliefs, a decision that cannot be based on a chain of reasoning, on positive knowledge. … At its most fundamental, authentic belief does not concern facts, but gives expression to an unconditional ethical commitment. For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while sceptical cynics mock them. … For religious fundamentalists, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge. The occurrence of the term ‘science’ in the very name of some of the fundamentalist sects (Christian Science, Scientology) is not just an obscene joke, but signals this reduction of belief to positive knowledge.

Zizek on perversion:
Perversion resides in the formal structure of how the pervert relates to truth and speech. The pervert claims direct access to some figure of the big Other, so that, dispelling all the amabiguity of language, he is able to act directly as the instrument of the big Other’s will. In this sense, both Osama bin Laden and President Bush share the structures of a pervert. They both act upon the presupposition that their acts are directly ordered and guided by divine will.

Zizek on why we choose to not send those letters, that tell the truth:

Let us begin with one of the archetypal melodramatic scenes, that of a woman writing a letter explaining things to her lover, and then, after oscillation, tearing it apart, throwing it away, and (usually) going herself to him, that is, offering herself, in flesh, in her love, instead of the letter. The content of this letter is strictly codified: as a rule, it explains to the beloved why the woman he fell in love with is not the one he thinks she is, and, consequently, why precisely because she loves him, she must drop him in order not to deceive him. The tearing-up of the letter then serves as a retreat: the woman cannot go to the end and tell the truth, she prefers to go on with her deception. The presence is offered as the false screen of love destined to repress the traumatic truth that was to be articulated in the letter – as in psychoanalytic treatment where the patient offers herself to the analyst as the ultimate measure of defense, in order to block the emergence of truth. That is to say, love emerges when the analysis comes too close to the unconscious traumatic truth: at this point, the analysand offers herself to the analyst as the object of love, instead of the authentic letter to the analyst that would articulate the traumatic truth. In transferential love, I offer myself as object instead of knowledge: “here you have me (so that you will no longer probe into me).” (In this sense, love is the “interpretation of the other’s desire”: by way of offering myself to the other, I interpret his desire as the desire for myself and thereby obfuscate the enigma of the other’s desire.)