"Kad Frēdriksons rītausmā nomainīja mani pie stū­res, es, kā garāmejot, ieminējos par Juksara apbrīno­jamo un pilnīgo intereses trūkumu par apkārtni.
— Hm, — teica Frēdriksons. — Varbūt viņam, tieši otrādi, viss rūp? Drusku mierīgi un ar mēru. Mēs raizējamies par vienu vienīgu lietu. Tu gribi par kaut ko tapt. Es gribu darīt. Mans brāļa bērns grib dabūt. Bet Juksars tikai dzīvo."
/Mumintēta memuāri/
----------------------------
— Viņa atkal sāks ar audzinošām rotaļām, — Juk­sars pareģoja. — Varbūt viņa pat aizkavēs tevi iet migā, kad pienāks ziema, un piespiedīs braukt ar slēpēm.
— Kas tas ir? — Bumbulītes meita jautāja.
— Sļūkšana pa nokrišņiem, — Frēdriksons skaid­roja.

/Mumintēta memuāri/

:D

"Ļaudīm bija slieksme pēc krēsliem un gal­diem, un ļaunākā gadījumā pat pēc servje­tēm.

Viņš bija dzirdējis par kādu murmuli, kurš pirms pusdienām pat pārģērbjoties, bet tās droši vien bija tenkas."

"Someone else’s success does not rob you of anything."

"Dažreiz es diskutēju ar māksliniekiem. Man saka: es tā gleznoju, jo tā es izpaužu savu zemapziņu, tā es izjūtu to, kas manī ir. Es atbildu: tad parādi savus darbus psihoterapeitam, viņš noteiks tev diagnozi. Neizgāz savu slimo zemapziņu uz citiem cilvēkiem. Pasaulē ir gana daudz haosa un disharmonijas, nevajag to vairot.
(..)
Taču īstenībā tolerances nemaz nav. Ir ideoloģija, kas propagandē toleranci, bet tā pati nav toleranta pret citu, alternatīvu vērtību sistēmu. Neviena reliģija un neviena ideoloģija nav toleranta, jo katra ideoloģiskā sistēma pretendē uz patiesību. Tā var tolerēt, t. i., pieciest tikai tās lietas, kas nav pretrunā ar tās būtību.
(..)
Bet mīlēt cilvēku nenozīmē atzīt par pareizu visu, ko viņš saka un dara. Tolerances dogma ved tieši uz to, lai šķietama humānisma aizsegā mēs pieņemtu arī visu slikto un to tolerētu. Tas ir viltīgs triks, kas aizstāj jēdzienus. Un tas ir aplam! Ir jāmīl visi cilvēki, pret visiem jāizturas ar cieņu, bet nav jāakceptē viss, ko tie saka vai dara. Ir jābūt skaidrai vērtību sistēmai ar plusa un mīnusa zīmēm."

http://www.la.lv/ka-atgut-valsti-un-nepazaudet-sevi/

"We’ve seen that this includes an intense sensitivity to language on the level of the word and a feeling that what the speaker means is less important than how it is received, no matter how radical the interpretation. Shared humanity and individuality are essentially illusions and people are propagators or victims of discourses depending on their social position; a position which is dependent on identity far more than their individual engagement with society. Morality is culturally relative, as is reality itself. Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them. Far more important is the lived experience, narratives and beliefs of “marginalized” groups all of which are equally “true” but must now be privileged over Enlightenment values to reverse an oppressive, unjust and entirely arbitrary social construction of reality, morality and knowledge.

The desire to “smash” the status quo, challenge widely held values and institutions and champion the marginalized is absolutely liberal in ethos. Opposing it is resolutely conservative. This is the historical reality, but we are at a unique point in history where the status quo is fairly consistently liberal, with a liberalism that upholds the values of freedom, equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of gender, race and sexuality. The result is confusion in which life-long liberals wishing to conserve this kind of liberal status quo find themselves considered conservative and those wishing to avoid conservatism at all costs find themselves defending irrationalism and illiberalism. Whilst the first postmodernists mostly challenged discourse with discourse, the activists motivated by their ideas are becoming more authoritarian and following those ideas to their logical conclusion. Freedom of speech is under threat because speech is now dangerous. So dangerous that people considering themselves liberal can now justify responding to it with violence. The need to argue a case persuasively using reasoned argument is now often replaced with references to identity and pure rage."
https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/