Douglas Murray on denunciations and Lawrence Fox

[BovaryX]

Douglas Murray takes aim at the cancel culture and denunciation tactics at the heart of # no debate. Those who try to control and police what people think and say have dominated public discourse to its detriment. Many are aware of the existential threat to freedom of speech this faction represents.

Nothing that Fox said on Question Time was at all controversial. He suggested that the Labour party leader might be selected on merit and he suggested that Britain is not a racist country. Both these sentiments are held by the majority of the public. Yet so dominant have the minority-opinion pushers become that many people are persuaded that it would not just be career-damaging but socially fatal to say anything to the contrary. Even when that thing is the truth

Isn't libertarianism right wing? The biggest advocates I've seen of it also tend to be pro-gun, anti-government, anti-"socialism" as they'd call it.

Needmoresleep I read that article today and it is spot on. The problem is not just SF either.

We toured California last year and found the cities really intimidating. I could spend hours talking about everything we saw. San Francisco was terrible, but Santa Cruz was just as bad. New York City in 2000 was a far nicer city to walk around in than Santa Cruz in 2019.

Liberalism and libertarianism are closely related, though we don't always think of them that way.

So much of the discussion seems to be clouded and obscured by the American usage of words and contexts. Indeed even the concepts themselves.....

Noticed an article in the Guardian today where in which white' liberal' women hold dinner parties, the purpose of which is that they are to confronted with their own racist assumptions and instincts.....Turns out these are are American women holding dinner parties in the U.S..........

And apparently, White women, on the other hand, are uniquely placed to challenge racism because of their proximity to power and wealth, Jackson says. “If they don’t hold these positions themselves, the white men in power are often their family, friends and partners

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women

Here is the link to the article mentioned above.

MoltenLasagna, not necessarily. Gender stuff, sex worker 'freedom', drug law liberalisation and the rest can also be ascribed to libertarianism.

So culture wars is not left-wing/right wing but those who see societal values and norms as important and those who feel they should be done away with.

Hence why a site for mothers ends up in the forefront. A natural and primary concern is to protect your children.

White women, on the other hand, are uniquely placed to challenge racism because of their proximity to power and wealth, Jackson says. “If they don’t hold these positions themselves, the white men in power are often their family, friends and partners.”

First rule of misogyny: women are responsible for what men do.

And...oh god, that article. People use the phrase "peak Guardian" a lot, but that really is peak Guardian. What a load of self-lacerating hogwash. The writer, Poppy Noor, has also done some very wokey pieces on pronouns.

And...oh god, that article.

My thoughts exactly.

I just can’t even begin to put my thoughts about that article into words. Well, I could, but it would be totally inappropriate.

I have a bit of an insight into SF/Cali tech culture. An old friend of mine works in a key industry player over there and is part of the whole environment.

I've noticed over the years that he echoes what we might see as a liberal left, anti-Trump mentality, but I've known him long enough to know he is as far from the realm of left-leaning pro-humanity as Albert Speer.

What he is, and from what I gather a lot of his colleagues also are, is an utter techhead. Everything is seen through the revolutionary prism of technology: society, race, religion etc. What is important is technology, rather than people. And there is a significant strain within that subculture that tacitly supports the vision of a technological distopia: a kind of neo-Soviet system of control where reality is governed by, and filtered through, electronic data.

In many ways, there isn't that much difference between these techheads and the hyper-capitalist finance subculture; it's just that one wants to make tech for tech's sake and the other wants to make money for money's sake. They think everyone else is pretty much subhuman and standing in the way of a "brave new world."

So when I look at the situation in SF, it makes sense with these attitudes in mind. People like my old friend don't see or give a shit about the homeless because they aren't "tech." Those homeless people, to them, belong to an old world that is about to be swept away and it's their own fault for not being "visionaries", and "this is what happens to buggy whip manufacturers".

Interestingly, my old friend also has a long-standing (about twenty-five years) obsession with the "man-machine interface", which, I suspect, plays into his ideas about transhumanism, which, in turn, influences ideas about trans-"anything".

Thanks, Packing, that's very interesting.

I will say, that DM article doesn't especially resonate with me, but I think the idea that when minor laws aren'r enforced, or there seem to be no social barriers around behaviour, it creates a very negative community and society. There is a need for social structure and expectations. Sometimes it doesn't even matter so much what many of them are so long as they provide a way to regulate social behaviour. Kind of like it doesn't matter if cars drive on the left or right side of the road, so long as everyone is doing it the same way.

There is a need for social structure and expectations.

I agree that beyond the ‘legal systems’ level, there also needs to be cultural norms, expectations, respect and manners that cohere a modern civilised society. This unwritten and unsaid level of social fabric seems little recognised in any of the writings from journalists or academics. However, these social structure and expectations are EXACTLY what all that QUEER and critical theory stuff is railing against, and lets face it, some ‘feminists’, which will eventually lead to regression and anarchy. I really think western civilisation and thought has reached a peak and the only way is down. Just my opinion.

I would put our acceptance of the full face veil in UK society as an example here. Being openly able to communicate and to see who you are communicating with is a key part of our social fabric. Wearing clothes which, as a side effect of hiding your physical body and face, also hide your identity and close you off from those around you is not in keeping with the way British society works or has worked. It’s something we are not really allowed to say because ‘multiculturalism’ but it is a problem. A very live issue where I live btw in case this seems a bit niche. And yes - choicy choice libfems defend it as wardrobe freedom when what it is is personhood erasure and restriction on social interaction.

I agree that beyond the ‘legal systems’ level, there also needs to be cultural norms, expectations, respect and manners that cohere a modern civilised society. This unwritten and unsaid level of social fabric seems little recognised in any of the writings from journalists or academics. However, these social structure and expectations are EXACTLY what all that QUEER and critical theory stuff is railing against, and lets face it, some ‘feminists’, which will eventually lead to regression and anarchy. I really think western civilisation and thought has reached a peak and the only way is down. Just my opinion.

Yes. I sometimes feel like many university educated progressives have a vision that we can live in a sort of perfectly free and rational society. I suppose those may be the left-overs of the Enlightenment. I also think some feminists are a little naive about this when they talk about overcoming gender as an ideal, as if they expect we will all begin to think of our sexed selves in an almost mechanistic, or in a bloodless sort of way.

Yesterday I read quite an interesting article a friend of mine sent me, by Peter Hitchens, talking about the coronation ceremony, and what the next one might look like. Toward the end one of the things he talks about is that it is the only ancient ceremony of it's kind left in Europe. He characterises it as being a link to the past in a way that is almost primal and earthy - he suggests that it is on the one had too Christian for today and also too pagan - and he also says that he thinks that in some way it evidences all the really deep and unknowable things that really o on in human leadership and how we acknowledge authority.

The article, and also this tendency to try and live perfectly rational state with a perfectly rational culture, both make me think of the Eumenidies, where you have the Furies, the dark earthy gods, arguing against the rational Athenian gods, over the fate of Orestes for the blood crime of murdering his mother which he claims was justified as she had murdered his father. Essentially it's about whether we can escape the call of flesh and blood, and the result is a sort of recognition or reconciliation of both, with reason on top but acknowledging the other part as well.

Anyway, maybe it's taking my musings too far, but I consistently feel these days that there is a kind of attempt to live in an intellectually constructed reality without paying much attention to or acknowledging the passions and flesh underneath. Which does not have the result of making those things go away. On the contrary it seems to amplify them in unexpected and often dangerous ways.

That's an insightful post, Goosefoot.

It is human to feel wary and unsettled when cultural landscapes shift quickly. It is not inherently 'racist' to question immigration or wonder if and how it might affect a population. Such feelings can definitely be exploited for political gain, but that's because of the refusal of lefties / liberals / elites to engage in conversation about it.

Everything in this world has its pros and cons. We are always told about the pros of immigration. We should be able to have honest and open conversations about any downsides.

These feelings and worries are not unique to 'white, western people'. Every population and ethnic group experiences this under the right conditions (or wrong conditions, depending on which way you look at it).

I would go as far as to say that those who blindly pro-immigration, because it is always a good thing (another #NoDebate) are actually advocates of a new form of colonialism. They are just too wrapped up in self-righteousness to realise that they are neo-colonialists.
The most important resource of any country is its people. When smart, well qualified and young people emigrate, they are no longer contributing to productive economic activity in their own country. This 'economic and intellectual wealth' has been captured by the new country. It's what is called the 'brain drain' in many developing countries. Nations may have broken free from the overt control of the British empire, but it still exerts economic control by hoovering up and enticing immigrants to its shores. Other nations cannot hope to improve and prosper when their valuable workforce is draining away.
Expecting a steady stream of immigrants to contribute to and prop up your own economy is about as colonialist as you can get. Let's see the SJWs self-combust trying to square that one.

Great post, Goosefoot.

Do you have a link/headline to the Peter Hitchens article? I rather like him; he tends to come at issues from interesting angles.

I’m going to say this in a quiet voice just in case I get into trouble...

I’ve just got tickets to go and see an interview with Titania McGrath followed by an interview with Andrew Doyle.

I can’t wait....

I've got tickets to see Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle in Glasgow. I'd be banished from most of my social circles for selling my soul to the devil lol.

Interestingly, my old friend also has a long-standing (about twenty-five years) obsession with the "man-machine interface", which, I suspect, plays into his ideas about transhumanism, which, in turn, influences ideas about trans-"anything"

Interesting points and observations. And this one above is something i would definitely concur with. To me the 'brave new world' of tech and transgenderism are inextricably linked. both seek to transcend the seeming limitations of flawed and confining nature......and to break out into a liberating future world where science fiction becomes fact, and where vision, imagination and possibility is everything.

Virtual reality; personalised and individualised worlds; create your own reality; find your own truth....... a utopian/dystopian 'age of Aquarius' - depending on your perspective.

Personally find this vision of the world incredibly alienating....and also in direct contradiction to where we as a planetary system need to be heading. As I see it we need to be moving closer to the natural rhythms and cycles of nature and other life forms; to become once more sensitive to them...not further away from them in some kind of transubstantiated new world.

I also think some feminists are a little naive about this when they talk about overcoming gender as an ideal, as if they expect we will all begin to think of our sexed selves in an almost mechanistic, or in a bloodless sort of way

Well put!

He characterises it as being a link to the past in a way that is almost primal and earthy - he suggests that it is on the one had too Christian for today and also too pagan - and he also says that he thinks that in some way it evidences all the really deep and unknowable things that really o on in human leadership and how we acknowledge authority

Absolutely.... The deep human need for structure and authority which all societies attempt to create. Often those societies that have rid themselves of monarchy end up reproducing yet another type of monarchical hierarchy -in a different form.

Anyway, maybe it's taking my musings too far, but I consistently feel these days that there is a kind of attempt to live in an intellectually constructed reality without paying much attention to or acknowledging the passions and flesh underneath. Which does not have the result of making those things go away. On the contrary it seems to amplify them in unexpected and often dangerous ways

Precisely...and which is where we now find ourselves.......nature can be modified, but not transcended without great damage.

Reality bites. Reality will always bite. Regarding the realities of human nature and biology, whether or not we know about them, are in denial about them, or understand them or acknowledge them, words cannot wish them or dismiss them away with seeming logic and rational thinking which end up being logical fallacies. This detachment of thinking and writing away from reality, blame it mostly on academics ( who depends on generating this stuff for a living... which is really another form of corruption) . When they started collapsing sex and gender, biology and social construct, it was a pivotal point where departure from reality happened, all thinking based on this Since (queer theory, gender studies) has contributed to where we are today.
And how ‘intersectionalism’ has been bastardised to being a model of reality of systems of oppression, which a lot of the SJW use as a lazy academic model to justify their bullying, does not Actually represent social reality.

Just my ramblings on a Tuesday morning as I am off sick in my bed....

One of the things that often stuns me with the lack of self awareness is how academics with progressive and left leaning ideologies can sit there and complain about the exploitation of anyone when they are often sat there with jobs they can’t lose funded in part by the state, and thus the taxpayer and the very people they claim to not want to see exploited.

I often believe virtue signalling often exists to obfuscate where the individual signalling is actually an exploiter.