The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason

Product Information

The book includes too many thoroughly moving accounts to detail. One example to come to mind is the spine chilling account of Hutus in Rwanda who butchered a doctor and laughed at his brain spilling – “all the years of education and learning all the knowledge and experience in that head was destroyed in a moment by people who had achieved none of those things” reflects Murray, “it is one of the saddest realizations we have as a species not just that everything is transitory, but that everything particularly everything we love and and into which love has been poured is fragile.” Without repeating himself it is a perfect addition to his body of work. His three books, that I’ve listened to, all look at how our current society is being irreversibly vandalised, largely, from within. Each of his works deconstructs the myths that have been created around these new paradigms, then proceeds to skewer them and drag their creators into the light. At the end, Murray makes a weird point about historical knowledge. It all boils down to a reversed no-true-Scotsman fallacy. The reason people don’t agree with Murray is because people don’t know about the horrors of the Third Reich, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Maoist China. It’s an argument wherein Murray can forever move the goalpost. It’s also just a poor argument, as it presupposes that people need an in-depth knowledge of world history before they can suggest changes to their own material circumstances. This is just Jordan Peterson’s rule 6 all over again. A worthy successor to crowds, with more than enough new and original material to make it completely fresh.

Considering how willing Murray has previously been to dig deep into stories about characters like Cecil Rhodes and Churchill, it’s rather hypocritical that Murray doesn’t extend the same curtesy to Michel Foucault. I guess it’s only a problem to mischaracterize people you agree, right? What Murray gets wrong, is that he seems to interpret ressentiment as merely action against someone else. To paraphrase Murray’s idol for this chapter, ressentiment is people not cleaning out their rooms. This is not the same way that Nietzsche explains ressentiment. Instead, Nietzsche considered ressentiment a fundamental expression of slave morality, where, due to their own failings, the slaves forces everyone into a system that project the slaves’ failings onto everyone. But that is not to say that every action that’s external to the individual is an act of ressentiment. The masters in Nietzsche’s moral philosophy can also act externally, but rather than ressentiment their actions are an expression of the will to power. He says that 'few people wished to defend the maintenance of confederate statues' after the George Floyd protests erupted, yet many did defend the statues including the President of the USA. I also appreciated this book’s tone and how he points to the future, what can be done and that it is not too late to minimize the potential consequences of this war on the west. It had an overall more hopeful tone than his previous book. It gave me plenty to think about and I will likely revisit this read again at a later date.If you are interested in a balanced view of the state of the western world and how and the effect of a changing wider world. Then please don’t bother buying or reading this book. The commentator said: “An allegation can be levelled without any justification and is impossible to completely refuse. There’s something very sinister when the most damaging claims against a person in society are not provable and not disprovable. They come at everyone with this, they come at Churchill with this. He was born in the Victorian era, so he had some Victorian attitudes.” Instead of providing answers this is more a guide in what to look out for and how to counter some of the more spurious arguments of those who are seeking to redefine our society and create an entirely new paradigm. He discusses how young people don't know any holocaust history yet research that looked at adults from a range of ages like Pew has shown that older US adults do not do much better only scoring slightly better on holocaust knowledge.

Alternately admiring and critical, unvarnished, and a closely detailed account of a troubled innovator.XIX и ХХ в. се надига вой, че положението е по-лошо от всякога, направо нетърпимо. В резултат радикалите на ултралявото започват да бълват безумия в посока на политкоректността (каквото и да правиш, си расист, тъй че по-добре си признавай) и канселирането (и да си признаеш, ще те канселираме, защото си расист, а ако пък не си признаеш - пак ще те канселираме, защото си бял и си расист по презумпция). На това мслоумие, разбира се, съответсва ултрадесният екстремизъм (черните са престъпници по рождение, те ��руго не познават, а емигрантите се плодят като зайци и след 10 години великото ни Отечество ще е изцяло чернокожо и чуждоговорещо). Тези две екстремности май имат навика да извървяват пълен кръг от едната до другата, и който се падне при някоя от тях - жална му майка. А междувременно, САЩ (понеже само дотам ми издържаха нервите с този автор) ярко демонстрира и двете злини. Което само по себе си е интересно, защото поне значи някакво “разнообразие”. А нормалността е на мушката на истериците от двете крайности, забравили, че в живота има и други добродетели, както и други пороци. Disingenuous and often fabricated claims are taken to task. An interesting point is made when Murray asserts that the “leftist” love for native cultures is fetishistic and shallow. They often wish to impose another foreign, western ideology; in this case putting them under the boot of Marxist industrialism and deconstructionist narratives. I was minded to think much of this book before I read it, as usual Murray has surpassed my expectations.