On The Cusp of the Volcano

There are few on planet Earth who’ve spilled as much ink over concerns on Western Civilization’s decline as today’s guest Douglas Murray. Nevertheless, he’s betting long on America even though he’s well aware of the onslaught recounted in his latest bestseller, The War on the West. (Order your copy today!) Murray takes us through the complications of finding things to agree on when the past is upended by our foes; how his new home country became the heart of the problem; and the very fine surgical procedure needed to not only fight the good fight but to win it.

The fellas discuss the January 6th Committee–or rather, the diversion masquerading as an investigation. They’re somewhat intrigued by the public fur flying at the Washington Post, and they describe some of their tippy top pet peeves as far as vocabulary and grammar are concerned.

(Got any linguistic peeves? Let’s hear ’em, Ricochetti!)

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Boll & Branch

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 83 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. OwnedByDogs Lincoln
    OwnedByDogs
    @JuliaBlaschke

    The one that gets me is “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less”. Also, on the West Virginia thing, it reminds me of when I was on my honeymoon in Florida back in the 80’s. It was the days when you were asked to write your address on credit card slips and I was a newly arrived foreigner. I wrote my address and put “Virginia” as my state. The young girl shop assistant smiled and wrote a “W” in front of the state and kindly explained to the dumb foreigner: “There is no Virginia, ma’am. Only West Virginia.” 

    • #31
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Try to use “kind of” and “sort of” meaningfully if possible. I know it’s not easy. lol

    • #32
  3. Leslie Watkins Inactive
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    Quintus Sertorius (View Comment):

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

     


    May I ask in what way we’re you disappointed with the Murray interview? I found it lacking somehow but can’t say why.

    Happy Saturday and thanks for the response!!!

    I may need to go back and listen again as I was mowing and working on some equipment so I could well have misunderstood the direction.

    I very much enjoy Douglas Murray and am reading “War on the West” so I was excited to hear his discussion on the issues in the book. I have already listed to several interviews of his about the book (Megan Kelley for example) so was excited to hear Peter, Rob and James’ line of questioning. This was enhanced by my reading of Norman Pot. interview in the print edition of the Claremont Review of Books. However what I heard was a litany of “watch for the right wing whackos” and if the right fights to hard all the crazies will come out like with Charlottesville and January 6th etc etc….I do understand that line of reasoning and don’t disagree; However I can hear that every day on NPR, CNN, Dispatch, et al….I was not expecting this podcast to go that direction…Megan Kelly sure did not in her interview. This made me turn it off as there was nothing new here. Now again…I may have missed something and I most likely missed something of note later on but I am tired of hearing from both the left and the right intellegensia that if the right responds to the left all the crazies will come out and we will be in Hitler 2.0. Well…the crazies from the left are not only out but they are in positions of real power….schools….media….entertainment…Congress….4th Branch of government….we are so worried about Hitler that we have allowed to Stalin/Lenin to not only sneak in the back door but also welcome with open arms. That is my line of thinking…..hope this is a bit more clear….

     

    I get you. I think a lot of Republican conservatives have taken to heart that funny Woody Allen joke, only in reverse: they do not wish to be a member of any group in which they have no say over its membership.

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Wolfsheim (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    To continue: it’s probably best to remember that the ‘ve contraction only removes the “h” sound, but the rest – including/especially the vowel sound – should be said the same as if it were two words.

    So, could-av, rather than could-of, or could-uv. Which each has a different sound, unless maybe you’re from Boston or Brooklyn or something, and have trouble with standard pronunciations.

    On his radio show, Dennis Miller would sometimes talk about how, coming from Philadelphia, if he was going to say “wolf” he had to make a special effort to say “wolf” rather than “woof.”

    And speaker systems typically have at least two components, a woofer and a tweeter. I’ve seen people who say/write “wolfer” instead, maybe because they’re from Philadelphia too so they think when they hear “woofer” maybe it’s someone else from Philadelphia trying to say “wolfer.”

    Dennis Miller isn’t the only one, either.


    My comment: Across languages, -l before a consonant tends to weaken or disappear. In English, one speaks of “the old cheese,” but in Dutch it’s de oude kaas. German “halb” has a clear l, but English “half” has lost it. People who pronounce “calm” with an l are influenced by spelling pronunciation…I have a personal interest in how “wolf” is pronounced and wince when I hear “woof,” but I chalk (!) it up to phonological caprice. How do you pronounce “salve” and “falcon”?

     

    But if wolf and woof are supposed to be the same word/sound identical, why spell them differently?  At the very least, even if you don’t pronounce the l in wolf, it would still be said like “wofe” rather than “woof.”

    • #34
  5. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Wolfsheim (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    To continue: it’s probably best to remember that the ‘ve contraction only removes the “h” sound, but the rest – including/especially the vowel sound – should be said the same as if it were two words.

    So, could-av, rather than could-of, or could-uv. Which each has a different sound, unless maybe you’re from Boston or Brooklyn or something, and have trouble with standard pronunciations.

    On his radio show, Dennis Miller would sometimes talk about how, coming from Philadelphia, if he was going to say “wolf” he had to make a special effort to say “wolf” rather than “woof.”

    And speaker systems typically have at least two components, a woofer and a tweeter. I’ve seen people who say/write “wolfer” instead, maybe because they’re from Philadelphia too so they think when they hear “woofer” maybe it’s someone else from Philadelphia trying to say “wolfer.”

    Dennis Miller isn’t the only one, either.


    My comment: Across languages, -l before a consonant tends to weaken or disappear. In English, one speaks of “the old cheese,” but in Dutch it’s de oude kaas. German “halb” has a clear l, but English “half” has lost it. People who pronounce “calm” with an l are influenced by spelling pronunciation…I have a personal interest in how “wolf” is pronounced and wince when I hear “woof,” but I chalk (!) it up to phonological caprice. How do you pronounce “salve” and “falcon”?

     

    But if wolf and woof are supposed to be the same word/sound identical, why spell them differently? At the very least, even if you don’t pronounce the l in wolf, it would still be said like “wofe” rather than “woof.”

    In managing the orthographic problem created by the difference in pronunciation yesterday and today, there are no solutions, only trade-offs, as Thomas Sowell once said about economics (i.e., about “everything”)

    • orthography can shift, making orthography
      • consistent with the today’s pronunciation but
      • inconsistent with the textbooks, which were written yesterday, or
    • orthography can remain constant, making orthography
      • consistent with the text books but
      • inconsistent with today’s pronunciation

    A bit of critical thinking will quickly answer the question, “which choice will maximize value to teachers of the society’s language?”

     

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Wolfsheim (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    To continue: it’s probably best to remember that the ‘ve contraction only removes the “h” sound, but the rest – including/especially the vowel sound – should be said the same as if it were two words.

    So, could-av, rather than could-of, or could-uv. Which each has a different sound, unless maybe you’re from Boston or Brooklyn or something, and have trouble with standard pronunciations.

    On his radio show, Dennis Miller would sometimes talk about how, coming from Philadelphia, if he was going to say “wolf” he had to make a special effort to say “wolf” rather than “woof.”

    And speaker systems typically have at least two components, a woofer and a tweeter. I’ve seen people who say/write “wolfer” instead, maybe because they’re from Philadelphia too so they think when they hear “woofer” maybe it’s someone else from Philadelphia trying to say “wolfer.”

    Dennis Miller isn’t the only one, either.


    My comment: Across languages, -l before a consonant tends to weaken or disappear. In English, one speaks of “the old cheese,” but in Dutch it’s de oude kaas. German “halb” has a clear l, but English “half” has lost it. People who pronounce “calm” with an l are influenced by spelling pronunciation…I have a personal interest in how “wolf” is pronounced and wince when I hear “woof,” but I chalk (!) it up to phonological caprice. How do you pronounce “salve” and “falcon”?

     

    But if wolf and woof are supposed to be the same word/sound identical, why spell them differently? At the very least, even if you don’t pronounce the l in wolf, it would still be said like “wofe” rather than “woof.”

    In managing the orthographic problem created by the difference in pronunciation yesterday and today, there are no solutions, only trade-offs, as Thomas Sowell once said about economics (i.e., about “everything”)

    • orthography can shift, making orthography
      • consistent with the today’s pronunciation but
      • inconsistent with the textbooks, which were written yesterday, or
    • orthography can remain constant, making orthography
      • consistent with the text books but
      • inconsistent with today’s pronunciation

    A bit of critical thinking will quickly answer the question, “which choice will maximize value to teachers of the society’s language?”

     

    Hmm, not sure I care what makes things easier for teachers, if that’s your point.

    • #36
  7. randallg Member
    randallg
    @randallg

    kedavis (View Comment):

    On his radio show, Dennis Miller would sometimes talk about how, coming from Philadelphia, if he was going to say “wolf” he had to make a special effort to say “wolf” rather than “woof.”

    Pittsburgh!

     

    • #37
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    randallg (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    On his radio show, Dennis Miller would sometimes talk about how, coming from Philadelphia, if he was going to say “wolf” he had to make a special effort to say “wolf” rather than “woof.”

    Pittsburgh!

     

    Oops, you’re right.  He says he speaks Pittsburgh-ese.

    • #38
  9. randallg Member
    randallg
    @randallg

    I’m surprised nobody has mentioned “nucular” vs “nuclear.” A lot of very smart people pronounce this wrong. Perhaps it’s a bit of a speech impediment.

    My other favourites include “loose” when you mean “lose.” At least they are both common words.

    Or “lightening” when you mean “lightning.” They probably don’t know lightening means “a drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.”

    • #39
  10. randallg Member
    randallg
    @randallg

    Speaking of “bemused,” Bruce Cockburn uses both amused and bemused correctly in his song “Birmingham Shadows” from the album “Charity of Night.”

    Stanza:

    “Under velvet trees, towering like the sides of a well
    Before the empty two office blocks
    Which we’re admonished not to enter
    Policeman studies us, finds us confusing
    More amusing than threat
    Moves on, bemused”

    Policeman was both amused and bemused at the same time!

     

    • #40
  11. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    Quintus Sertorius (View Comment):

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):


    May I ask in what way we’re you disappointed with the Murray interview? I found it lacking somehow but can’t say why.

    Happy Saturday and thanks for the response!!!

    I may need to go back and listen again as I was mowing and working on some equipment so I could well have misunderstood the direction.

    I very much enjoy Douglas Murray and am reading “War on the West” so I was excited to hear his discussion on the issues in the book. I have already listed to several interviews of his about the book (Megan Kelley for example) so was excited to hear Peter, Rob and James’ line of questioning. This was enhanced by my reading of Norman Pot. interview in the print edition of the Claremont Review of Books. However what I heard was a litany of “watch for the right wing whackos” and if the right fights to hard all the crazies will come out like with Charlottesville and January 6th etc etc….I do understand that line of reasoning and don’t disagree; However I can hear that every day on NPR, CNN, Dispatch, et al….I was not expecting this podcast to go that direction…Megan Kelly sure did not in her interview. This made me turn it off as there was nothing new here. Now again…I may have missed something and I most likely missed something of note later on but I am tired of hearing from both the left and the right intellegensia that if the right responds to the left all the crazies will come out and we will be in Hitler 2.0. Well…the crazies from the left are not only out but they are in positions of real power….schools….media….entertainment…Congress….4th Branch of government….we are so worried about Hitler that we have allowed to Stalin/Lenin to not only sneak in the back door but also welcome with open arms. That is my line of thinking…..hope this is a bit more clear….

    I get you. I think a lot of Republican conservatives have taken to heart that funny Woody Allen joke, only in reverse: they do not wish to be a member of any group in which they have no say over its membership.

    It’s a funny joke, but it’s not Woody Allen’s.  Yes, he quotes the remark in ANNIE HALL, but he attributes it to Groucho Marx.

    • #41
  12. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    I adore Douglas Murray and consider his new book a must-read, but, like others on here, I wish he had pushed back at Rob‘s rather dubious claim that Woke isn’t as popular as we think it is because — look, everybody! — Maverick and Hamilton both made money!  Q.E.D!

    Sorry, Rob, but that’s nonsense.  Woke is absolutely metastasizing among Americans under age 30.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/patriotism-religion-having-kids-poll-jonathan-morris.amp

    • #42
  13. James Hageman Coolidge
    James Hageman
    @JamesHageman

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: (Got any linguistic peeves? Let’s hear ’em, Ricochetti!)

    At least it’s not atsk.

    • #43
  14. James Hageman Coolidge
    James Hageman
    @JamesHageman

    James Hageman (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: (Got any linguistic peeves? Let’s hear ’em, Ricochetti!)

    At least it’s not atsk.

    Or axe

    • #44
  15. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    James Hageman (View Comment):

    James Hageman (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: (Got any linguistic peeves? Let’s hear ’em, Ricochetti!)

    At least it’s not atsk.

    Or axe

    Well, really axe is fine, as long as safety rules are followed.  Whenever I say, “I’d like to axe you a question,” I always follow it by saying, “Please put on your safety goggles and stand back” and then I strike, always with a freshly sharpened blade. Sharp axes are actually safer then dull ones, studies show.

    • #45
  16. James Hageman Coolidge
    James Hageman
    @JamesHageman

    Happy June 12, @peterrobinson !

    • #46
  17. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    Not used to giving up on the flagship podcast six minutes in. 

    Please leave all the bile for the end in future, gentlemen.

    • #47
  18. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    James Hageman (View Comment):

    James Hageman (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: (Got any linguistic peeves? Let’s hear ’em, Ricochetti!)

    At least it’s not atsk.

    Or axe

    Well, really axe is fine, as long as safety rules are followed. Whenever I say, “I’d like to axe you a question,” I always follow it by saying, “Please put on your safety goggles and stand back” and then I strike, always with a freshly sharpened blade. Sharp axes are actually safer then dull ones, studies show.

    A sharp axe is a polite axe.

    • #48
  19. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    Not used to giving up on the flagship podcast six minutes in.

    Please leave all the bile for the end in future, gentlemen.

    Wow.  “Coterie of Eunuchs.”

    I like Ricochet and I value the rare (increasingly rare) opportunity to speak somewhat freely online.  But I haven’t regularly listened to the podcasts in years.   Sigh.

    • #49
  20. Leslie Watkins Inactive
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    I adore Douglas Murray and consider his new book a must-read, but, like others on here, I wish he had pushed back at Rob‘s rather dubious claim that Woke isn’t as popular as we think it is because — look, everybody! — Maverick and Hamilton both made money! Q.E.D!

    Sorry, Rob, but that’s nonsense. Woke is absolutely metastasizing among Americans under age 30.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/patriotism-religion-having-kids-poll-jonathan-morris.amp

    I share your adoration for Douglas Murray. As for Maverick, I see its popularity more as pushback against woke culture than as a sign that people aren’t that into woke (elicited at least in part by the return of the Taiwanese flag on the back of his flight jacket).

    • #50
  21. JuliaBach Coolidge
    JuliaBach
    @JuliaBach

    Taras (View Comment):

    If Trump withdrew from the race for 2024, then all the time Democratic Congressmen and prosecutors, and their media allies, spend attacking him would be freed up to spend on tearing down the next Republicans in line.

    It would be good for Trump’s reputation, of course, as before long the media would be comparing him positively to the “uniquely and unprecedentedly horrible” Republicans still in the arena.

    Exhibit #1: Mitt Romney

    • #51
  22. JuliaBach Coolidge
    JuliaBach
    @JuliaBach

    The worst offense against the English language, of course, is demanding that biological males be called “she/her” and vice versa.

    • #52
  23. JuliaBach Coolidge
    JuliaBach
    @JuliaBach

    Re: gatekeeping, I wish I could agree with Murray, but what happens when the simplest of gatekeeping cannot be properly performed?  I was forced out of my biotech job (20 year industry veteran) last November because I would not take a COVID vaccine.  This was because until 5 minutes ago, time was an important variable in clinical trials.  (I still think it is, but I’m in the minority now.)  I heard from a trusted colleague that he asked someone in upper management why we were forcing out or firing people for this reason, and she said, “We don’t want people that don’t believe in science working for us.”

    This is a very similar story to the publishing story Murray told, with one important difference.  The scientific world should be even more of a clear meritocracy than the publishing world. You never really know which book is going to sell.  You do know which scientists have the education and background to competently do the work. Yet that “gatekeeper” was willing to ignore all of that for a personal choice that she viewed as crazy.  Thus, I am leery of the idea of gatekeepers, no matter how many Marjorie Taylor Greene’s there might be out there.

    • #53
  24. Wolfsheim Member
    Wolfsheim
    @Wolfsheim

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

     


    My comment: Across languages, -l before a consonant tends to weaken or disappear. In English, one speaks of “the old cheese,” but in Dutch it’s de oude kaas. German “halb” has a clear l, but English “half” has lost it. People who pronounce “calm” with an l are influenced by spelling pronunciation…I have a personal interest in how “wolf” is pronounced and wince when I hear “woof,” but I chalk (!) it up to phonological caprice. How do you pronounce “salve” and “falcon”?

     

    But if wolf and woof are supposed to be the same word/sound identical, why spell them differently? At the very least, even if you don’t pronounce the l in wolf, it would still be said like “wofe” rather than “woof.”

    In managing the orthographic problem created by the difference in pronunciation yesterday and today, there are no solutions, only trade-offs, as Thomas Sowell once said about economics (i.e., about “everything”)

    • orthography can shift, making orthography
      • consistent with the today’s pronunciation but
      • inconsistent with the textbooks, which were written yesterday, or
    • orthography can remain constant, making orthography
      • consistent with the text books but
      • inconsistent with today’s pronunciation

    A bit of critical thinking will quickly answer the question, “which choice will maximize value to teachers of the society’s language?”

     

    A professor of mine for historical linguistics, an Indo-Europeanist and a Sanskrit expert, told us that languages with an alphabetic writing system (I used the term broadly) may start off phonemic but then wind up morphophonemic. (Phonemic does not mean phonetic.) “Breath” and “breathe” were once phonemically regular. No longer. One could revise the spelling, e.g. “breth/breeth”–but then should the latter be breedh, cf. thigh vs. thy? Japanese kana orthography was revised after the war to make it more phonemic, and many Chinese characters are now written in somewhat simplified forms. Older, well-known texts are often converted to conform to the new conventions. Compromises…Literacy and education can lead us to outsmart ourselves. I’m both amused (not bemused!) and irritated when I hear English speakers pronounce “coup de grâce” as though “grâce” were homophonous with the gras of foie gras. The assumption seems to be that if one simply drops the last consonant of any French word, one will sound like a true cosmopolitan.

    • #54
  25. Boethius1261972 Inactive
    Boethius1261972
    @Boethius1261972

    Quintus Sertorius (View Comment):

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

     


    May I ask in what way we’re you disappointed with the Murray interview? I found it lacking somehow but can’t say why.

    Happy Saturday and thanks for the response!!!

    I may need to go back and listen again as I was mowing and working on some equipment so I could well have misunderstood the direction.

    I very much enjoy Douglas Murray and am reading “War on the West” so I was excited to hear his discussion on the issues in the book. I have already listed to several interviews of his about the book (Megan Kelley for example) so was excited to hear Peter, Rob and James’ line of questioning. This was enhanced by my reading of Norman Pot. interview in the print edition of the Claremont Review of Books. However what I heard was a litany of “watch for the right wing whackos” and if the right fights to hard all the crazies will come out like with Charlottesville and January 6th etc etc….I do understand that line of reasoning and don’t disagree; However I can hear that every day on NPR, CNN, Dispatch, et al….I was not expecting this podcast to go that direction…Megan Kelly sure did not in her interview. This made me turn it off as there was nothing new here. Now again…I may have missed something and I most likely missed something of note later on but I am tired of hearing from both the left and the right intellegensia that if the right responds to the left all the crazies will come out and we will be in Hitler 2.0. Well…the crazies from the left are not only out but they are in positions of real power….schools….media….entertainment…Congress….4th Branch of government….we are so worried about Hitler that we have allowed to Stalin/Lenin to not only sneak in the back door but also welcome with open arms. That is my line of thinking…..hope this is a bit more clear….

     

    Murray is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who happens to have a nice sounding accent.  His definition of “right wing whacko” is any conservative who thinks normalizing homosexuality is a bad thing for Western Culture.  Murray is given far too much attention by conservative media, not that Fox is very conservative in any meaningful way anymore, but I digress.

    • #55
  26. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Wolfsheim (View Comment):
    as though “grâce” were homophonous with the gras of foie gras. The assumption seems to be that if one simply drops the last consonant of any French word, one will sound like a true cosmopolitan.

    That’s a bit harsh.  For starters, at least they’re not saying “grace”.  Also, koo d’ grah is how most Americans hear it most of the time.  
    Finally, I am reminded of the admonition not to crap on pronunciation too hard — they may have learned it by reading, which is rare enough.  Something like that was attributed to the usual suspects.  

    • #56
  27. BillJackson Inactive
    BillJackson
    @BillJackson

    I have taken a break after making it to about 55 minutes in, where Douglas Murray has said he’s moving to America to be at the heart of the problem, the source of the rot that is slowly spreading to the innocent, virgin shores of England. 

    First, one admires his sense of self-regard. As if, by his moving to America and listening to the pearls of wisdom that drip from his mouth, we — the unwashed heathens — shall reform our ways and come to righteousness.  The level of arrogance is impressive, to say the least. 

    And as to the idea that America is the source of what’s wrong, culturally, with England, well, that’s a pretty convenient attitude for an Englishman to have, isn’t it?  Rather absolves one of blame or responsibility, doesn’t it?

    I had no idea the British people just mindlessly followed along with what America did. I always gave them more credit than that, owing to the few British people I’ve met.

    And I’d love to ask my great-great uncle and my grandfather what they thought about America being the heart of what’s wrong in England. They’d probably have a pretty interesting perspective, since they both had to get on ships and sail across an ocean to fight  in wars that started in that great unsullied land that is Douglas’ Europe.  

    I love the diverse opinions with have on Ricochet — both the podcasts and the site. But Douglas Murray strains that feeling. 

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BillJackson (View Comment):

    I have taken a break after making it to about 55 minutes in, where Douglas Murray has said he’s moving to America to be at the heart of the problem, the source of the rot that is slowly spreading to the innocent, virgin shores of England.

    First, one admires his sense of self-regard. As if, by his moving to America and listening to the pearls of wisdom that drip from his mouth, we — the unwashed heathens — shall reform our ways and come to righteousness. The level of arrogance is impressive, to say the least.

    And as to the idea that America is the source of what’s wrong, culturally, with England, well, that’s a pretty convenient attitude for an Englishman to have, isn’t it? Rather absolves one of blame or responsibility, doesn’t it?

    I had no idea the British people just mindlessly followed along with what America did. I always gave them more credit than that, owing to the few British people I’ve met.

    And I’d love to ask my great-great uncle and my grandfather what they thought about America being the heart of what’s wrong in England. They’d probably have a pretty interesting perspective, since they both had to get on ships and sail across an ocean to fight in wars that started in that great unsullied land that is Douglas’ Europe.

    I love the diverse opinions with have on Ricochet — both the podcasts and the site. But Douglas Murray strains that feeling.

    Usually I just skip over the interviews with people that I can see are going to be… well, frankly, silly… but I went ahead and listened to Murray.  What a waste of time.

    • #58
  29. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    BillJackson (View Comment):

    I have taken a break after making it to about 55 minutes in, where Douglas Murray has said he’s moving to America to be at the heart of the problem, the source of the rot that is slowly spreading to the innocent, virgin shores of England.

    First, one admires his sense of self-regard. As if, by his moving to America and listening to the pearls of wisdom that drip from his mouth, we — the unwashed heathens — shall reform our ways and come to righteousness. The level of arrogance is impressive, to say the least.

    And as to the idea that America is the source of what’s wrong, culturally, with England, well, that’s a pretty convenient attitude for an Englishman to have, isn’t it? Rather absolves one of blame or responsibility, doesn’t it?

    I had no idea the British people just mindlessly followed along with what America did. I always gave them more credit than that, owing to the few British people I’ve met.

    And I’d love to ask my great-great uncle and my grandfather what they thought about America being the heart of what’s wrong in England. They’d probably have a pretty interesting perspective, since they both had to get on ships and sail across an ocean to fight in wars that started in that great unsullied land that is Douglas’ Europe.

    I love the diverse opinions with have on Ricochet — both the podcasts and the site. But Douglas Murray strains that feeling.

    Usually I just skip over the interviews with people that I can see are going to be… well, frankly, silly… but I went ahead and listened to Murray. What a waste of time.

    Douglas Murray is one of the West’s greatest intellectual champions.

    In The Strange Death of Europe, he braves charges of Islamophobia to tell the truth about Muslim immigration into Europe.

    In The Madness of Crowds, he challenges the vicious mobs of the transgender movement, among other topics.

    And he does it so deftly that liberals find it hard to dismiss him out of hand as a right-wing loonie.

    • #59
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    BillJackson (View Comment):

    I have taken a break after making it to about 55 minutes in, where Douglas Murray has said he’s moving to America to be at the heart of the problem, the source of the rot that is slowly spreading to the innocent, virgin shores of England.

    First, one admires his sense of self-regard. As if, by his moving to America and listening to the pearls of wisdom that drip from his mouth, we — the unwashed heathens — shall reform our ways and come to righteousness. The level of arrogance is impressive, to say the least.

    And as to the idea that America is the source of what’s wrong, culturally, with England, well, that’s a pretty convenient attitude for an Englishman to have, isn’t it? Rather absolves one of blame or responsibility, doesn’t it?

    I had no idea the British people just mindlessly followed along with what America did. I always gave them more credit than that, owing to the few British people I’ve met.

    And I’d love to ask my great-great uncle and my grandfather what they thought about America being the heart of what’s wrong in England. They’d probably have a pretty interesting perspective, since they both had to get on ships and sail across an ocean to fight in wars that started in that great unsullied land that is Douglas’ Europe.

    I love the diverse opinions with have on Ricochet — both the podcasts and the site. But Douglas Murray strains that feeling.

    Usually I just skip over the interviews with people that I can see are going to be… well, frankly, silly… but I went ahead and listened to Murray. What a waste of time.

    Douglas Murray is one of the West’s greatest intellectual champions.

    In The Strange Death of Europe, he braves charges of Islamophobia to tell the truth about Muslim immigration into Europe.

    In The Madness of Crowds, he challenges the vicious mobs of the transgender movement, among other topics.

    And he does it so deftly that liberals find it hard to dismiss him out of hand as a right-wing loonie.

    Yeah, Jonah Goldberg used to write good books and stuff too.  Doesn’t make him right about anything now.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.