Friday Ephemera (813)

I have heard that it’s not uncommon for progressive Scandinavians to now claim that there is no such thing as Swedish culture, Danish culture, Norwegian culture…

Less embarrassing than admitting they f—-d up by welcoming barbarians into their midst.

Or its just another facet of the oikophobia behind that whole mess.
As has been noted many times, leftists hate their own people.

“the police don’t class it as an emergency situation”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the SPLC:

“I was placed on an SPLC blacklist in October 2016. The document was called “A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” My name appeared beside Maajid Nawaz, a reformed radical who ran a counter-extremism organization, and an array of figures also dedicated to combating Islamism and antisemitism, such as David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. The list handed journalists a ready-made roster of 15 people whose views were to be seen as toxic.”

“…there is no reason to assume the deception stopped at the SPLC’s doors. Every major civic institution that traded its founding mission for the prestige of enforcing multiculturalist orthodoxy deserves the same scrutiny, the same audit and, when warranted, the same indictment.”

(via EBL) Kurt Vonnegut was not just not an online guy:

“I once told my wife I was going out to buy an envelope: ‘Oh,’ she said, ‘well, you’re not a poor man…why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet?’ And so I pretended not to hear her and went out to get an envelope because I have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And see some great looking babies. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And I’ll ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don’t know. The moral of the story is…we’re here on Earth to fart around. Of course, the computers will do us out of that. But what the computer people don’t realise, or they don’t care, is we’re dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And it’s like we’re not supposed to dance at all anymore.”—Kurt Vonnegut

I believe I have mentioned Paul de Man before.

That’s Nazi-collaborator and postmodern theorist Paul de Man.
A few excerpts from the linked book review:

To defend his integrity, de Man’s friends at Yale and elsewhere were obliged to account for his actions. Particularly they had to explain his curious silence about his wartime past during the American years. Furthermore, the academic community found itself inflamed over a second question—whether there is an intellectual relationship between de Man’s Fascist sympathies and the development of deconstructionism as a critical method.

How could there not be a relationship between peddling an obscurantist theory and peddling an evil, subversive ideology?

In a remarkable act of absolution, the de Man admirer Shoshana Felman explained that “History as Holocaust is mutely omnipresent in the theoretical endeavor of de Man’s mature work.” But if de Man was mute about the Holocaust, how can it be claimed to be omnipresent in his work? Only by insisting that an absence is a presence. But Felman appears to go further: if the meaning of the sign, to a deconstructionist, is always ambiguous, the absence of the sign would appear to be crystal clear. De Man’s silence, she goes on, should be read “not (as some would have it) as a cover-up or a dissimulation of the past, but as an ongoing active transformation of the very act of bearing witness” But how could someone mute about his Fascist past bear witness to it?

And thus both the evidence of his guilt and the absence of expressions of remorse are taken by deconstructionists to absolve him.

Of course it was left to Jacques Derrida, the Founder of Deconstructionism, to prove that his disciple de Man was not the Fascist anti-Semite suggested by these Le Soir and Het Vlaamsche Land articles. Derrida’s first line of attack was to claim that “The concept of making a charge itself belongs to the structure of phallogocentrism.” And thereupon he accused de Man’s accusers of Nazilike behavior…

Derrida’s convoluted, reason-murdering work has been described as Derridadaism.

In Allegories of Reading de Man observes, apropos of Rousseau’s Confessions, that “It is always possible to face up to any experience (to excuse any guilt), because the experience always exists simultaneously as fictional discourse and as empirical event and it is never possible to decide which one of the two possibilities is the right one. The indecision makes it possible to excuse the bleakest of crimes because, as a fiction, it escapes from the constraints of guilt and innocence.”

Only an intellectual could utter such bullshit and only academia would allow him to get away with it. Ordinary people will not tolerate such grossly immoral lies and will apply suitable behavior modification techniques to stop them.