Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Death Of Europe, With Douglas Murray
In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, I’m joined by author and columnist Douglas Murray to discuss his new book The Madness of Crowds: Race, Gender and Identity. Murray examines the most divisive issues today, including sexuality, gender, and technology, and how new culture wars are playing out everywhere in the name of social justice, identity politics, and intersectionality. Is European culture and society in a death spiral caused by immigration and assimilation? We also discuss the roles that Brexit and the rise of populism in European politics play in writing immigration laws across the European Union.
Recorded on June 3, 2019
Published in General
Oh, awesome! I’ve always thought Murray would be a good UK guest. Can’t wait to listen.
Update: So now I’ve watched. Superb interview, Peter. “The adults left the room” is such a beautifully succinct description of how we got here.
The more people who have the courage to express unpopular ideas, the less courage will be necessary to express those ideas.
That works both ways. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
this was fabulous.
Great interview, and great books. I had previously read The Strange Death of Europe, and I finished The Madness of Crowds last Saturday.
Evening Jerry,
What do you think about the intersection of the loss of courage in our adults, the totalitarian drive compelling niceness and our denial of reality when we don’t compare our current blessing with history’s suffering. When Douglas highlights these topics, I think about our conservative thinkers, many who poo pooed the flight 93 election analogy, and who act as if Trump or Brexit are the real threats to our politics and that once we get past those freak accidents, we can get back to a more normal society. Mr. Murray suggests that we are past the point where we can restore our cultures.
I’m contemplating a full post in response to Mr. Murray’s new book.
I think that we ended up with President Trump because, for all of his flaws, he fights. I think that there is a strong core in this country that recognizes, to a greater or lesser degree, the increasing radicalization of our politics. I think that the problem began a long, long time ago, and that the important social policy battles were lost, quite resoundingly, in the 1960s. In addition, the radical Left successfully infiltrated both academia, the media, and even much of the primary and secondary school systems. Christianity was largely driven out of public life, and marginalized.
I am not in despair, but we have quite a difficult battle in front of us.
Our Republican leaders have been a terrible disappointment to me, but I’m not sure if they could have done any better. They were utterly hopeless in responding to the false charges of racism (for almost everything) and the false charge of sexism (for any defense of marriage and the traditional family). Even the second President Bush was terribly weak on the major social issue that arose during his Presidency — the push for same-sex marriage. He opposed it, but his position was to “give them civil unions” (as best I recall), which was essentially to lose the battle but call it a victory.
Perhaps this was inevitable, as the vilification tactics of the Left seem quite effective. It’s like the Force, which Obi-Wan once said “can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.”
President Trump succeeded, in my view, because he was the first politician to fearlessly confront the political correctness of this Orwellian, totalitarian Left that has arisen in our country. He was rude and crude, and genteel folks like David Brooks and David French and Mitt Romney couldn’t stand the idea of a fight in the mud.
[Cont’d]
[Cont’d]
There’s a saying. “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” It’s been attributed to George Bernard Shaw, and others (including Twain and Lincoln), though a “quote investigator” report concludes that it is anonymous.
This saying is wrong, in my estimation.
I was really hoping that the attribution to Shaw was correct, because Shaw was a terrible, horrible, no-good very-bad man. He was an open proponent of eugenics, including euthanizing “useless mouths” (I don’t mean that he used this term; I have seen a video of him advocating a government panel asking every citizen, every five years or so, to justify their existence, and if they weren’t making a contribution, to get rid of them). He was initially a Fabian socialist (which is pretty terrible, though at least gradual), and later was a supporter of both fascist and Communist dictatorships.
But back to the pig thing. What a terrible analogy. Our opponents aren’t actually pigs. They are people, and they are employing deceptive, slanderous, and reprehensible tactics. I’m not a fan of such tactics — but I am a fan of a better adage, “turn-about is fair play.”
Objecting to this represents the same naive idea that lies behind pacifism and opposition to the death penalty. These folks can’t understand the difference between the crime of the instigator, and the justice of retaliation.
President Trump fights for us. He uses the deceptive, trolling, and often obnoxious tactics of the Left against them. If the ref is not going to enforce the Marquis of Queensbury rules, then I do not feel obliged to abide by those rules. I will remain civilized, as long as the other side does. If they want to take the gloves off, so will I.
I really like this about President Trump, for all his faults.
He is also brilliant in trolling the radical Left into revealing just how hateful and insane their ideology truly is.
I have one follow-up about what I called the “strong core” in our country.
I think that the principal “strong core” are the Christian conservatives. This has been the central, and probably largest, element of the Republican coalition going back to President Reagan.
The other portion of the “strong core” is the white working class. This group was traditionally Democrat from FDR through the 1960s, but did not fit well in the Democratic Party after the radicalization of the 1960s. It was difficult for them to transition to the Republican Party, due to family and personal loyalty, even though they were made less and less welcome by the Democrats.
Reagan picked up a significant part of the white working class, and this group was aptly labeled the “Reagan Democrats.” President Clinton appealed to this group with some success, but I think that President Obama severely alienated them from the Democrats.
However, the white working class has different interests than the business and Libertarian(ish) factions in the Republican Party. This has been a significant conflict within the Republican coalition. While the Tea Party started as a rant by a business guy, I think that it’s main support was among the sensible, patriotic “strong core” — the Christian conservatives and the white working class.
The Tea Party was viciously and slanderously attacked as racist. Mainstream Republicans did little or nothing to counter this venom, and some cynically used the Tea Party to promote their semi-corporatist agenda.
What a mess.
I think that the conservative Christians have the correct views (obviously, as I am one of them, and if I thought otherwise then I would be in a different group).
My sense is that the white working class does not, generally, have a very coherent or systematic world view. But they have good instincts, and they love this country. They seem to have a strong sense that the country is slipping away from us, and while they may not be able to say exactly why, they instinctively know that it is a bad thing.
This actually isn’t too hard, when the other side is burning the flag and demanding that we tear down statues of George Washington. When they are screaming about systemic racism against blacks, while every institution is twisting itself into knots to offer special privileges and advantages to blacks. When they tell you that it is a human rights violation to use the wrong pronoun to refer to the bizarre Tranny wierdo (think Twisted Sister) who wants to go into the girl’s bathroom at the park with your 7-year-old daughter.
It seems to take a certain amount of collegiate indoctrination to drive the common sense out of people who are reasonably bright (but not nearly as bright as they think they are).
Uncommon Knowledge has tremendously enriched my bookshelf in the short time I’ve been on Ricochet. I will definitely pickup both of Murray’s books.
This is a fascinating interview. As soon as my husband calms down about all the money I’ve spent recently, I’m getting this book, The Madness Of Crowds.
What I’d like to do is get copies of it for Christmas for all the young parents in my family. I’d include with it a letter that calls attention to this interview and explains why I think it’s crucial that they read this book. In the case of two sets of parents in my family, I’d want to send the book to the parents’ pastors as well.
Agree with everyone on a great interview (again) with a interesting person (again). Uncommon Knowledge is a treasure. I don’t know whether I can add Mr. Murray’s books to my never-to-be-completed reading list but I certainly learned a lot from this interview. I will keep in mind gratitude when I am downhearted about some latest wacko, crazy, adults out of the room situation.
How can you listen to Douglas Murray then when he is a out homosexual then?