[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 299 KB, 1000x784, Book-Review-The-Madness-of-Crowds-article-pic-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14551137 No.14551137 [Reply] [Original]

Alright who is astroturfing Murray into the spotlight? I mean I'm fairly right-leaning; I just finished this book and it reeks of his agent telling him "Look, Haidt and Lukianoff's 'Coddling' and Heather Mac Donald's 'Diversity Delusion' have been out for a few months, they're selling big, why don't you do a book on woke culture?" His writing style is horrid; the book is littered with maddening (heh) sentence fragments and reads like there was little to no editorial oversight. The anecdotes relayed will largely be a rehash to anyone remotely redpilled and unlike Heather Mac Donald's fantastic book the hard data (that might get an undecided person off the fence) just isn't there. His exploration of the root causes of all this is painfully shallow, with references to Marx, Hegel and Foucault throw out so matter-of-factly and with so little elaboration into their ideas you wonder if he's even read them. Murray has very little to say that hasn't been articulated a hundred times more clearly by Haidt, Mac Donald, and Peterson.

A recurring motif seems to be: Murray points out the complexities of X fragment of SJW theory, notes the impossibility of its proper implementation or the infinitude of plausibly correct implementations, and throws his hands up. It's obviously cribbed from Peterson's talks on the topic and there's one essay in particular on JBP's website that explains it with far more clarity.

There is something so frustratingly milquetoast and unoriginal about Murray and the breathless praise where he's lauded as the next Christopher Hitchens (or even more laughably, the next Roger Scruton thanks to his role in last year's New Statesman dustup) just feels forced and hollow. Should I have read Strange Death of Europe instead?

>> No.14552045

bumperino

>> No.14552068

Why does politics lack anyone of intelligence in both the right and the left when it comes to the mainstream? Why is there no one to voice the woes of the common man?

The only person who comes to mind is Zizek, but he is way too deep for the public.Douglas Murray is a fucking brainlet, same as Peterson.

>> No.14552080

>>14551137
Must-read right-wing authors:

Mencius Moldbug
Jacques Ellul
Jouvenel
Foucault
Baudrillard
Marx
Carl Schmitt
James Burnham

>> No.14552113

>>14551137
>Alright who is astroturfing Murray into the spotlight?
youtube algorithm, i started getting him after watching a lot of hitchens. it's been years since i watched any jbp. seems the billionaires and computer robots have chosen their right-wing contender of the moment. the people will pay of course.

>> No.14552123

>>14552068
>Why is there no one to voice the woes of the common man?
Because the common man is easily swayed and flashy bad argument wins over difficult-to-understand subtle reasoning every time.

>> No.14553092

>>14551137
Having read both this and Strange Death I'd recommend the latter by far. He is very milquetoast but he's a conservative trying to make money writing for papers and such so he's just being money smart. In Strange Death the many stories he relays speak for themselves so his milquetoast-ness doesn't interfere with what is a very heavy book.

>> No.14553113

>>14551137
I read it concurrently with Alice Dreger's "Galileo's Middle Finger," which Murray refers to. Dreger's book was far, far better. She did a ton of original research, and had been on both sides of this shit; as a SJW fighting for intersex rights, and a historian rescuing the reputations of academics unfairly cancelled by SJWs.

I agree that Murray's writing was uninspired, and the whole thing was basically just a broad introduction to criticism of the modern left. I agreed with most of what he said, but I didn't learn anything I hadn't already heard.

That said, the more people are introduced to autogynephilia, the better. Watching trans women bend over backwards to attack it is seriously irritating.

>> No.14553124

i saw some smug faggot reading this in a coffee house in vancouver. i could detect how edgy he thought he was being. it was cringe.

>> No.14553797

>>14551137
Why would you read this pandering shit when instead you can read the works of Gustave Le Bon, Walter Lippmann, or Edward Bernays?

>> No.14553809

>>14553124
Noone cares, wokerino. Mind your business in public.

>> No.14553971

How are you doing sweetie?
Have you had your meatballs already?

>> No.14553998

Also thank you for liking my last book ;)

>> No.14554733

>>14551137
I'm not sure why you're expecting think-tank precision from a book clearly intended for the public at large. He's not writing to be informative to you, but to be informative to a more general audience. It's milquetoast to you because you are absorbed in these conversations every day. Most people don't have that kind of time. An assemblage of ideas that are already out there in small circles is precisely what they are looking for. Sure, some might wrongly place some great glory on Murray and think it profoundly insightful, but that is really nothing more than a sincere thanks for giving someone new an insight that already appears common to you. If you want depth, avoid books sold at eye-level. An introduction will only ever be introductory.

>> No.14555029

>I'm fairly right-leaning

Do you read old christian writers?

>> No.14555855

>>14552113
Yep that's how I found him too. Damn

>>14553092
Interesting, others have said the same... gay guys can often be pretty based on Islam, is that the main topic of the book?

>>14553797
Have only heard of Lippmann; he wrote an introduction to a copy of The Will to Power which has been sitting unread on my bookshelf for a while. Recs welcome

>>14555029
Care to name a few?

>> No.14555916

>>14551137
No point in reading any of this alt-lite/mainstream conservative stuff. You already know what they will say.
They're just milking the twitter outrage, but don't dare say anything truly subversive.

>> No.14556807

>>14555916
"The mainstream Western media and institutions have been conquered by an incoherent ideology that bullies everyone into submission" seems fairly subversive. What more do you want?

>> No.14556867

>>14551137
I like Murray's writing style, and I liked "The Strange Death of Europe," but I was disappointed by this book. Too much rehashing points that anyone who would read the book in the first place would already be aware of. Too much complaining about trivial online nonsense. I'll still read his next book, though.

>> No.14556888

>>14551137
>who is astroturfing Murray into the spotlight?
He's a neocon who's trying to turn the rising populist sentiment back into neoconservatism, who do you think is pushing him?

>> No.14556986

>>14556807
This was hardly revelatory in 2019 though. You can spend all day picking apart the incoherence of it and never get around to why certain ideas are being supressed and bullied into submission

>>14556888
Yep... "you're not going to have a democracy in 5 more years thanks to immigrant voting patterns and you will live long enough to see every familiar thing you loved get ripped away; anyway lol what's the deal with cancel culture amirite?"

>> No.14557054

Also it's worth mentioning that at least the Haidt and Mac Donald books mentioned upthread had some kind of original angle on the problem. Coddling gets into it from the angle of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and shows how campus culture is literal institutionalized insanity that teaches kids the exact opposite of a healthy mental outlook. And Mac Donald's book, just like The War On Cops is just wave after wave of unbelievable facts and figures about the extent of college bureaucratic bloat, the amount of money to be made in the diversity bureaucracy etc. She also adopts a certain stridency of tone which I really appreciate; like you're allowed to be fuming mad about all this. It was especially refreshing after Haidt's typical chickenshit centrist "I'm just trying to understand what's going on!" take on things.

>> No.14557077

>>14552068
because the Western intellectual tradition since the 1700s or so was leading up to Communism, but Communism is shit, as we found out the hard way.

>> No.14557093

>>14557077
>the Western intellectual tradition since the 1700s or so was leading up to Communism

Elaborate on this if you would be so kind

>> No.14557095

>>14556986
To be fair, I'm not sure that's what he was trying to do. Neither do most of the answers to the question seem particularly deep or interesting beyond "People need a substitute for religion" and "Transwomen are terrified people will find out about autogynephilia" and "People have realised you can climb the social status ladder by playing along."

>>14557054
I think this is the central point. Dreger's book also had a framing angle based on when science-based advocacy is justified and a good thing, and when it is not. Though I prefer the centrist tone, it's the sign of a good academic to remain open to your work and ideas being wrong.

>> No.14557266

>>14557093
Not that guy but as far as I'm aware the argument is something like this:
Marxism is a fairly natural extension of the ultra-egalitarian liberation philosophy of the Protestant west. When one genuinely believes in equality of soul and the need to liberate the individual from the constraints of natural reality, to make it Caesar's duty and moral obligation to relieve the suffering of those who cannot find liberation themselves is not so far away. What people don't understand about the idea that "religion is opium for the masses" is that opium is fucking rad and Marx knew that.

>> No.14557375

>>14557266
I was going to say that it was an outgrowth of the French Revolution. I've always been suspicious of the Protestantism->Communism genealogy because almost no Protestant countries actually became Communist, if anything, the Communist parties were stronger in the Catholic countries.

>> No.14557551

>>14556888
This. I liked the strange death of europe but Murray is a gatekeeper of the worst sort.

>> No.14557642

>>14552080
based

>> No.14557846

>>14555855
Have you read Aquinas and Augustys?

>> No.14557914

>>14557375
I think the thing that often gets confused is the actual economic/government system of communism with the moral paradigm. I don't really know how strong the connections between the actual tangible governmental/economic manifestation, but usually the argument is about the Marxist moral paradigm (which is really the relevant topic to today given that modern leftism is essentially just the moral paradigm of Marxist egalitarianism laid on top of technology driven mixed-market capitalism as an economic system) being an outgrowth of Western Protestant Liberalism. I'm also not exactly an expert on this argument. I've read a few books where that sort of idea is talked about (e.g Why Liberalism Failed by Deneen and Return of The Strong Gods by R.R.Reno) but I'm not 100% convinced myself beyond it being an interesting angle to look at the fairly Christian moralization often used by the powers that be in the modern social left.

It's really not a productive conversation to have because when you talk to a leftist about Marxism they are expecting a conversation about the economics, whereas Marx's often indirect moral philosophy and the resulting critical theory is really more what right wingers refer to as "Marxism". It's sort of like when leftists argue with libertarians about the moral questions surrounding those who end up on the losing side of capitalism, and then the libertarians go on to talk about efficiency data. Both sides are intentionally ignoring talking about the moral weaknesses of their beliefs and instead deflect away from the visible problems trying to instead play semantic games surrounding "economics".

>> No.14558682
File: 303 KB, 1712x2560, 81fxaUTw-vL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14558682

>>14551137
>Should I have read Strange Death of Europe instead?
Yes absolutely, read it in tandem with The Camp of the Saints.

>> No.14558742

>>14552068
this is a good question
this is an important question
the answer is surprisingly simple

>> No.14559922

>>14557914
>I don't really know how strong the connections between the actual tangible governmental/economic manifestation, but usually the argument is about the Marxist moral paradigm (which is really the relevant topic to today given that modern leftism is essentially just the moral paradigm of Marxist egalitarianism laid on top of technology driven mixed-market capitalism as an economic system) being an outgrowth of Western Protestant Liberalism.
Right, but imo Western Protestant Liberalism is if anything closer to what Marx criticizes. Such a systematic, all-encompassing philosophy would never catch on in the Anglosphere outside of a certain class for example, and even there Marxism becomes more of a moral sentiment than a system of critique, i.e. "Marxism is about being nice to poor people, the nicer you are the more Marxist it is" or "Even though Communism has its flaws, all decent people are at worst anti-anti-Communist". Also, the authors you cited are Catholic so they're going to see Protestantism in everything. I am Catholic as well but I don't really buy that particular line of reasoning.

>the fairly Christian moralization often used by the powers that be in the modern social left.
Rene Girard writes about scapegoating the outsider and how Christianity subverts this social phenomenon. Modern leftism essentially identifies a rival and scapegoats him by accusing him of scapegoating an outsider (that's not very nice!). A lot of social leftism gets denounced as hedonistic, or individualistic, but it's really more like highly-evolved anti-racism.

>> No.14560083

>>14555855
>gay guys can often be pretty based on Islam, is that the main topic of the book?
Yes, the book is solely about Islam, not anything else. And he does make the case that LGBTs and progressives have more motive than anyone to be against Islam growing in their society.

>> No.14560178

>>14559922
I'm going to be honest, I don't think the word "racism" (let alone "anti-racism") actually means anything aside from being a placeholder for whatever a power system wishes to denounce as being heretical (and pious in the case of "anti-racism").

You may be right in that if you're a reactionary Catholic hammer everything looks like a Protestant Marxist nail. I'm not pretending to be really an expert on the topic, I'm just presenting it as I've read it and understand it from my limited perspective. E. Michael Jones also has a lot of writing on the connection between Jewish radical groups and various Protestant organizations, but again, he's a reactionary Catholic so if you're dismissing his view as biased I don't have much to say to that.

>> No.14561253

He's a posh British faggot but I do like listening to him speak

>> No.14562950

>>14558682
Read CotS years ago. A classic for sure.

>> No.14563060

>>14552080
You forgot BAP

>> No.14563462

>>14552068
>Why does politics lack anyone of intelligence in both the right and the left when it comes to the mainstream?
It's almost as if that is intentional.

>> No.14563466

>>14563462
that's why all thinkingmen should join their local nazbol gang to smash the pseud centre

>> No.14563599
File: 312 KB, 919x855, 1576262294663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14563599

>>14563466
Try me you silly bitch, I'll put you in the fucking ground.

>> No.14563611

>>14563060
>Based

>> No.14563880 [DELETED] 

Mass Psychology of Facism by W Reich