Douglas Murray at his best
Probably Douglas Murray’s finest speech delineating the inane moral fetor emanating from Western academicians on the Iranian nuclear crisis (and the hapless Jewish state Europe hates).
Probably Douglas Murray’s finest speech delineating the inane moral fetor emanating from Western academicians on the Iranian nuclear crisis (and the hapless Jewish state Europe hates).
12 comments
1 | CuriousLurker Tue, Feb 21, 2012 9:31:33pm |
Ah, another fan of Bat Ye'or and her Eurabia.
[...] The best indicator of just how much we're losing this war is the creeping increase of dhimmitude - from the general public (who display it occasionally) to our leaders (who now display it routinely). In any circumstances this would be bad, but what makes it so dangerous now, is that in the current war the enemy is, as a demographic and political fact, massed not just on foreign shores, but within the gates of our cities. The collision of forceful Islam with European spinelessness and dhimmitude is fatal for our free societies.
The effects of dhimmitude have been superlatively explained to us by Bat Ye'or and others, but it's worth reminding ourselves of how its modern manifestations work. [...][Link: www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk...]
2 | RoadWarrior Tue, Feb 21, 2012 10:19:49pm |
Douglas Murray is correct in all he says.
Those who disagree do not know Europe.
3 | freetoken Tue, Feb 21, 2012 11:54:45pm |
re: #2 RoadWarrior
Those who disagree do not know Europe.
Uh huh.
No. "Europe" is not some monolithic object.
4 | Bob Levin Wed, Feb 22, 2012 5:33:43am |
re: #3 freetoken
I'm not getting into this labyrinth of an argument, starting from Murray's bibliography. However, Europe is a collective term, implying a collective view of the world. It extends so far as the concept of European history, and even the 'European Sciences.' There is a moment when a group of individuals turn into a collective. That's just the language.
In this particular debate, Murray is right. Europe and it's carefully manicured politicians will not lift a finger to prevent the destruction of Israel. And that speaks to Europe's complete lack of a moral spine. If I need to get specific, the debate took place at Cambridge. That and Oxford form the political and diplomatic voice of England.
5 | CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 22, 2012 9:34:15am |
re: #4 Bob Levin
I'm curious: Is it your contention that as long as someone is correct in a given debate, then his or her bibliography is irrelevant? A simple "yes" or "no" is fine as I'm not going to argue the point, I just want to know for future reference.
6 | Bob Levin Wed, Feb 22, 2012 11:20:18am |
re: #5 CuriousLurker
In this particular instance, he said something that many folks had long been wanting to tell the Oxbridge crowd. That's why the final three minutes matter at all.
I read your link, and there's plenty of material to take issue with. I would question why he insists that desert tyrannies are 'Islamic'. That would imply that to be a good Muslim, you have to live in a desert and be a subject tyranny, or be a tyrant. I would also argue with his contention that there is this glorious European past filled with respect for the values of right and wrong.
The Oxbridge crowd has been told this before, by Jews or Israelis--and the comment is immediately dismissed because we are Jews and Israelis and cannot possibly be as objective and detached as would be a civilized European. But this took place at the Cambridge debating society, or some name like that, and they had to listen, at least for five minutes.
So, there's no scholarly principle here, just that the right thing was said at the right time to the right people. Six minutes later, his words turned to smoke. It says something about European culture that he was the one to get in the door and deliver the message. And what is says is no more flattering than the rest of European history.
7 | Flavia Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:07:50pm |
re: #5 CuriousLurker
I'm curious: Is it your contention that as long as someone is correct in a given debate, then his or her bibliography is irrelevant? A simple "yes" or "no" is fine as I'm not going to argue the point, I just want to know for future reference.
Sometimes "Yes" or "No" can't cut it. My favorite example of a "Yes" answer that is is ridiculously extreme (probably why I like it), is: "If Hitler says, "2 + 2 = 4", we can't automatically discount that just because it's Hitler." I didn't bother to read the link you posted; I will take your word that it's offensive/wrong (Bob Levin's post proved that, anyway, at the very least for parts of it). So, my take on this lecture is that even if he's coming from a bad place, that he's got a nasty ulterior motive in saying what he does, if what he says is factual, you still can't argue with it, but just caution people as to where he (probably?) wants us all to go with it.
8 | CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:26:10pm |
re: #6 Bob Levin
re: #7 Flavia
Okay, I've noted your responses and will keep in mind that the answer is a qualified "yes" and that it should apply across the board.
That said, I'll continue to reserve the right to raise a flag anytime someone posts an article or video by someone who's a fan of Bat Ye'or, Oriana Fallaci, Ayan Hirsi Ali, or anyone else who subscribes to the hateful GoV type view of Muslims.
9 | Bob Levin Wed, Feb 22, 2012 7:15:27pm |
re: #8 CuriousLurker
Not a qualified 'yes'. However, I will say that arguments stand or fall on themselves--and the best strategy is to take them apart or support them on their merits. I wouldn't need to bring up Pat Buchanan's previous essays, as he usually shows the whole ball of dirty wax each time out.
In the Oxbridge world, who gets in? Any good guys, anyone in relentless pursuit of the truth? Is there a yes or no side to take? Not really. Murray said the one thing that everyone in the world knows to be true, everyone in the world except the people in that room--that no one in there would lift a finger to stop a genocide directed against the Jewish people or the State of Israel. And yet, those are the future members of the Quartet. How comforting.
11 | CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 22, 2012 7:27:53pm |
re: #10 Bob Levin
Gates of Vienna, a disgusting hate blog. It's where Fjordman, the guy who so inspired the Norway terrorist Breivik, used to write. Come to think of it, the SPLC said he was writing there again as of late last year.
12 | CuriousLurker Fri, Feb 24, 2012 8:23:51am |
re: #10 Bob Levin