Everyone Knows that 20th Century French Philosophy has Utterly No Value Whatsoever Except as a Scheme to Pick Up Chicks, So Why is Pope Francis So Into It?

Tweet

Michel de Certeau, S.J.

I'm referring to a recent interview Pope Francis gave to a leftist French newspaper where he name drops not one, not two but five 20th century French philosophers.

The Pope also said that the "Arab invasion" (his term) of Europe is a good thing, and France should become more secular in order to be more attuned to the transcendent. Or this and that or some such.

But I digress. 

Despite the post title, this is not a criticism of France or the French or even 20th century France or the French.

20th century Analytical Philosophy (mainly English) was about applying logical techniques to analyze words or concepts in order to clarify their meanings.

20th century Continental Philosophy (largely French but also German) was about talking or writing pretentious bull in order to pick up chicks.

Okay, scruples on sexual morality aside, it's pretty obvious to me that one of those two above is clearly superior in, you know, a practical sense. See, I'm not being critical of the French.

Now some guys don't have to talk or write pretentious bull to pick up chicks. But if you look like John Paul Sartre, then you do what you can...

I'm not judging.

What is truly moronic, however, is taking that pretentious bull seriously as anything other than a scheme to pick up chicks. I assume that Pope Francis is not at this point interested in picking up chicks. Therefore, Pope Francis is...well, you know.

Here are some of the names the Pope cited in that interview:

Emmanuel Lévinas
Emmanuel Mounier
Henri de Lubac (Yeah, I know Ignatius published him. They were wrong.)

Paul Ricœur

Michel de Certeau

Plato (not French, but a proto-20th century bullsh*tter if there ever was one)

And here are some of their most renowned works:

From Existence to Existents
Time and the Other
Alterity and Transcendence
The Personalist and Communitarian Revolution
The Awakening of Black Africa (okay, that's not strictly philosophy but still)
Time and Narrative
Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning
Aspects of Buddhism, Vol. 2 (Vol. 1 was a bust)
Teilhard de Chardin: the Man and His Meaning
Culture in the Plural
Heterologies: Discourse on the Other

Man, it's enough to make you want to drink a six-pack of Pabst and vote for Donald Trump.

Almost.

Hannah Arendt coined the term "banality of evil." And it so richly fits. It wasn't just about mediocre clerk types who became Nazis. It was also about 1960's Jesuit intellectuals. Or so it seems to me. And Arendt currently isn't in any position to disagree. But I hope she went to Heaven solely for that definition.

Would you like to come upstairs and see my Hannah Arendt collection?

How Low Can You Go? French Ambassador to U.S. Puts Jews in the Same Category as Journalists

Tweet

The ambassador posing with Tintin, Snowy and Captain Haddock*

Apparently, neither Jews nor journalists are "ordinary" French citizens. One might be inclined to give the ambassador pass--oh, you know what he meant; don't be so uncharitable--except that this is not the first time these sorts of statements have been made. Also, he's a diplomat for goodness sake.

Also, what is the charitable interpretation?

Read down to the fourth paragraph where Ambassador Araud declares that the "ordinary citizens" murdered on 11/13 had "committed no crime" (except wanting to enjoy the Paris nightlife). In mid-January, Muslim terrorists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, murdering eleven, and then stormed a Jewish deli, murdering four patrons (all of whom were Jewish). So, we know what "crime" the Charlie employees were responsible for--they had drawn funny pictures of Muhammad, among other things.

What crime had the Jews committed?

From Ruthie Blum in the Algeimener, 25 November via Jihad Watch: 

Last week, French citizens residing in America received a letter from Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador to the US, responding to the tragic event in Paris on November 13. 

The letter expressed horror in the face of the coordinated ISIS attacks on innocent people, without mentioning the name of the terrorist organization, and an appeal for unity and solidarity during these trying times. 

A debate on social media among French Jews ensued, due to a particular passage in the missive. 

After expressing solidarity with the people of France and praising the United States and President Obama for “being on our side in the fight against extremism and terrorism,” Araud wrote: “These are the foundations of our model of society that the terrorists seek to destroy: Yesterday journalists and Jews; now ordinary citizens whose only crime was to enjoy life on a Friday night in Paris.” 

One Jewish ex-pat, Ron Agam, a French-born Israeli artist and activist living in New York, posted his outrage on Facebook. 

“Tonight French people in the US received a letter from the French Ambassador about the events in Paris. To my surprise I learned that I — the Jew that I am — was not a regular French citizen, I was a Jew.” 

Another French Jew, Schlomoh Brodowicz, an academic who immigrated to Israel, explained to The Algemeiner this week why the ambassador’s statement was so vexing. 

“This man [Araud], is supposed to represent France in a major country which hosts the third-largest Jewish community in the world,” he said. “And his message clearly sets the Jews apart from other French citizens. When one recalls the slaughter committed by Islamists on January 9, 2015 in the HyperCasher kosher grocery store — where four Jews doing their shopping for Shabbat were killed – this message sounds like: ‘Those who were killed while they enjoyed entertainment on Friday night were ordinary citizens, while those who were shopping for Shabbat on Friday afternoon were not ordinary citizens; they were merely Jews.’” 

This, said Brodowicz, “is reminiscent of a similar remark made by then-Prime Minister Raymond Barre after the bombing of a Paris synagogue in 1980: ‘This heinous attack was aimed at Israelites who go to synagogue, but struck innocent French people crossing the street.’”…

*This is piling on, I know, but much of Captain Haddock's pseudo-foul-mouthed argot was allegedly cribbed from one of Céline's notoriously anti-semitic pre-war pamphlets Bagatelles pour un massacre. My point is not to bash Tintin, but to give an example of how French culture is arguably infused with anti-semitic silliness, petty and otherwise.

Yeah, but Can I Bribe the Eunuchs to Give Me the Key: Islamic "Sisters Only Funday" at British Water Park

Tweet

At Jim Bakker's water park the women had to dress like Tammy Faye

Frankly, I think the original Sunday Express (by way of Jihad Watch) headline was a bit misleading:

A BRITISH waterpark has sparked fury by banning bikinis and ordering visitors to cover up in "Islamically appropriate" clothing.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the "banning" was only for a one-time, two-hour, women-only event at the park, specifically for Muslim women and their young children.

WaterWorld in Stoke-on-Trent plans to black out windows and provide a prayer room during a women-only night aimed at Muslims. 

Only female lifeguards will patrol the park during the event, which has triggered a flood of complaints. 

Staff will also "guard" the front entrance to "make sure that no males enter the facility". 

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said: ‘I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if the boot was on the other foot and swimmers were told they had to dress appropriately in respect of Christians. I don’t see how this is different." 

One invitation to the "Sisters Only Funday" advises attendees to cover their "awrah" (nudity) by wearing full-length jogging bottoms and a dark-coloured t-shirt. 

Protesters are now planning to demonstrate outside the event. 

WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry said: "I'm astonished that we have been targeted. We feel we've been victimised for offering something that we feel there is a demand for." 

A WaterWorld spokesman said: "We pride ourselves in having the adaptability and diversity to cater to demands of our guests. 

"This is a female-only event and is not specific to any ethnic or religious group."

Here is what I have on this one:

1. Personally, I don't have a problem per se with an entertainment park setting aside two hours to cater to, and as result, change the rules a bit for, a particular group--whether it be ethnic, religious, sex-based or what have you. And I suspect this position is shared by most of my Islamophobic friends. I would have no problem with Sikh Male Night or Estonian Woman's Day, for example (indeed, I have to admit that I like contemplating Estonian Woman's Day). But of course, if one doesn't like the group in question, then it is perhaps natural to get annoyed. How about two hours set aside for Neo-Nazi skinheads or pedophiles or whatever? And this is especially true if one feels the group in question is currently "on the march", so to speak, making special demands, threats and so on that impact the rest of us. Since, as many of you know, I think Islam is morally equivalent to Nazism and the founder of Islam was a pedophile, I'm annoyed.
2. In our hyper-politically correct times it's unclear how one is supposed to feel about something like this. I think the probable PC view is that this sort of thing is generally wrong--it's discriminatory or whatever--though if it is for Muslims, it's super duper. (The PC tenet is that anything done for Muslims is super duper.)
3. I never knew the Arabic (?) word for nudity is "awrah", as in "cover your awrah." Does that mean that Muslim nudists are called "awrites"?
4. Okay, that was lame.
5. Most religions and cultures have dress recommendations, if not specific dress requirements, that often seem silly to others. Sikh males must wear a turban and carry a small ceremonial dagger. Buddhists like frumpy sandals. French women are prohibited from shaving under their arms*, etc. Even secularized western culture has its own codes and imposes somewhat different dress requirements and prohibitions on men and women. For example, full public nudity is generally frowned upon, and going shirtless is often okay for men but rarely okay for women, unless you're breast-feeding, in which case it's a) disgusting or b) super duper depending on what county you're in.
6. Traditionalist Catholics must emphasize their sex but not look sexy.
7. Nevertheless, Islamic requirements are particularly freaky and oppressive. Males are encouraged to grow beards so they can look like the founding pedophile. Women must be completely covered in public. Even in semi-private environments away from males--where the area is patrolled by female guards--they still have to wear long pants or whatever. In a water park.
8. It's not diversity. It's not modesty. It's oppression. Wearing a head-to-toe burka, or a niqab leaving only an eye slit, or wearing long pants even among other women and young children in a freaking water park is a sign of enslavement, or to put it more neutrally, submission, which is what "Islam" actually means, after all. It's like putting your hands together like they're cuffed when Big Brother's face comes on the giant telescreen. Islam is like Ingsoc, except you never see Big Brother's face, or if someone draws it, you have to kill them. 
9. But what's really wrong with people wearing what they want to wear? Isn't all of this voluntary? Don't those Muslim sisters want to dress that way? Sure they do. And I would too if the alternative were having acid thrown in my face.

*That's a stereotype.