Douglas Murray letting rip about Starbucks is an absolute joy

The only reason that a lot of the outspoken stuff comes from the far right / alt right is because there is currency for them in being the controversial voice and / or hate figure. They don’t give any kind of a shit about women’s rights.

If you think people on the right don't care about women's rights, you are very much mistaken. About half of women are right wing. A common beef they have with left wing feminists is that the latter dismiss their voices while claiming to be the only real representatives of women's interests.

They don't always have the same views on women's rights. But it's easier for the left if they simply pretend they don't care about it at all. Lazy politics.

Great. That's my free time tonight spoken for!

'Sexy' power!

Love Douglas Murray, he always tells the truth as he sees it. His anger on this is just beautiful to hear and I so wish more people shared it.
I disagree about his view of women's sex you power over men. It wouldn't work with him for a start, would it.

His comments about multinationals using Pride as an ostentatious way to get cheap marketing done so that the public forget about the other things they've done - such as not paying their taxes, causing a financial crash, bad behavious by employees etc is bang on the money.

Most major companies now have a diversity officer on a huge salary. Their job is to attend Stonewall-esque conferences, as part of a PR drive for their companies.

Although this doesn't explain why the police also do this

It makes me uncomfortable because when it comes to trans issues my views are seemingly at odds with most people around me. I have friends at work beginning to announce their pronouns in emails and arranging training sessions with Gendered Intelligence. Coming across things like this makes me wonder, god, is it me?! I know what you mean. But it isn't you! You just haven't submerged yourself in the current social more of subliminating your entire essence in order to please others - unless you are a man who wants to wear woman face!

Be uncomfortable. Just as the enemies of your enemies are you friend, such men as Murray have a voice that will be heard.

You don't agree with everything everyone you know and love thinks do you?

*in

The book was an education for me because I thought our government was alone is being so bonkers.

I also think the Strange Death of Europe was a very brave book.

I thought The Strange Death of Europe was an incredibly brave book. I can’t say more because I’d risk getting banned from MN I think.

Islamophobic

Not pogo is

I think that, by modern standards, Douglas Murrary is far right, or approaching the far right on the particular issue of Islam. Or anyway, he is at the critical end of conservatism which is likely to be accused of Islamophobia.

but it's more complex than that, because what he is saying is that many of our core values in a liberal society, eg equality between the sexes and enlightened attitudes to sexuality, are not in alignment with the values of Islam. Yet to pout this out verges on racism and Islam pogo is. So to what extent do you tolerate intolerance?? This is something I have grappled with for a while.

He makes similar points re the left eating itself when it comes to feminism vs trans and gay vs trans

“ It is narrated by Douglas which really adds something to it.”

Oh I’ve heard about this - look at her butt, etc in a Douglas Murray voice.

Probably quite funny.

But yes, his views on women.....he’s bright enough to rethink those, I hope.

I think it's Murray's section on motherhood misses the point most spectacularly and really chaps my ass.

"If it is assumed that the primary purpose in life is to make as much mohney as possible, then it is indeed possible that having a child will constitue a 'penalty' for a woman and thereby prevent her from having a larger sum of money in her bank account when she dies. On the other hand, if she chooses to pay that 'penalty' she might be fortunate enough to engage in the most important and fulfilling role that a human being can have."

And: "Is this not a better way to think about motherhood and life? In a spirit of love and forgiveness rather than the endless register of resentment and greed?"

The fact that men can more easily achieve the joys of fatherhood without the same lifetime financial penalty isn't even mentioned even though it's the whole bloody point. We just need to be more grateful for the superior chance nature gave us to be poorer and more economically vulnerable through the joys of childrearing apparently.

DH listened to Murray discussing the Madness of Crowds on the radio. He thought of me and I received a surprise copy for Christmas.
I’m only up to chapter 1, my foggy peri-menopausal brain won’t let me read. I might get the audio book instead.

The Madness of Crowds is excellent.

The Madness of Crowds audiobook is even better. It is narrated by Douglas which really adds something to it.

I’ve never listened to a book before and wanted to both laugh and cry at the same time.

Listened to the Mermaids bit, it was excellent. Madness of Crowds now on the reading list

The Madness of Crowds is excellent. Murray discusses Butler et al and the incoherence at the centre of the identity politics paradigm. His analysis of what is happening in the US in academia is a grim insight into the fanaticism at the heart of #no debate. He is an erudite writer with an interesting perspective.

@7Days 'Otherwise we risk falling into ideological traps.
Problem is, that takes a lot of work and frankly intelligence'

The problem is that Murray et al know that you gain an intelligent perspective and develop your intelligence by engaging with those texts and as he is calls it, the 'core' of a subject then you apply that intelligence to real life problems. Those books are muscle building exercises for the brain and intellect.

I cannot understand why more people don't realise this.

It's easier to have an a la carte ideology, I guess and demonise independent thinkers.

Going back to the actual interview, what he said about brands rainbow-washing themselves to direct attention away from bad corporate behavior is an echo of what started happening at least a decade ago with brands placing a lot of emphasis on how green they were but, when you looked beyond the ad campaign, often their supply chain was full of very un-green elements and they were also trying to cover up worker exploitation and so on. These are similar branding strategies in that they distract from what the brands don't want you looking at and make the customers feel good about themselves. In order to achieve that they don't actually have to do good in any material sense, they just have to appeal to the customer's ego and a very superficial sense of what their "values" are. And when the gender stuff goes out of fashion they'll shift their emphasis to whatever the next look what a good consumer I am symbol is, while still being absolutely horrible on all kinds of levels. It's sleigh of hand.

Listened to the Mermaids bit, it was excellent. Madness of Crowds now on the reading list.

It's a good thing LiterallyProblematic. Otherwise we risk falling into ideological traps.
Problem is, that takes a lot of work and frankly intelligence. Which I'm not sure I personally have enough of, to be Frank. I can totally see the appeal of ideological nests, and think for a lot of people it's pure random which one you tumble into first.

This is where journalism has failed, imo. I dont mean news reporters as such, but journalists should be the ones who analyse facts and viewpoints and concisely set them before people. They have allowed this situation to develop. Where thoughtful engaged people are afraid to peep over the wall at the other tribe. Its ridiculous and dangerous.

Obviously it's not easy with SM and falling revenue, and the rise of infotainment. But pandering to polarisation is a dereliction of duty.

21:09

The point they make that they were expected to read the texts and not the critics is something that has been on my mind frequently.

Murray's point on 'construct' as well.

I am amazed at people who discuss books and the ideas in them without having read the book. It must come from an idea on meta analysis?

He is also very clear on how abhorrent medicating and mutilating children in the name of trans is. He believes future generations will look back at us and say "they did what??"

I absolutely agree. The Manichean certainties of those promoting witch hunts, and denunciations? The bankrupt paradigm of #no debate? Putting children on hormones which can cause infertility and a host of serious life changing medical problems? And bankrolling this through cookies? History's judgement will not be kind.

His core claim was that young, attractive women are the most powerful members of society because they can make men do whatever they want

This isn't just misogyny, it's jealousy, and it's a blind spot a lot of men have. I'm not saying it's OK that he has that blind spot, I'm just saying that it may not be very useful to dismiss what he says about an entirely different topic because of it.