The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray, book reviews

 

The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray review – gentrified xenophobia

 

The rightwing journalist and commentator cites Enoch Powell and wants to protect white Christian Europe from ‘outsiders’

Murray suggests that if Muslim immigrants ‘really wanted to be British they would go out and “drink lukewarm beer like everybody else”. Be more Nigel Farage, or else.’

 

Gaby Hinsliff

Sat 6 May 2017 08.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/strange-death-europe-immigration-xenophobia

 

Gentrification comes for everything eventually. Down-at-heel neighbourhoods, peasant cuisines, football: all have been polished up for middle-class consumption. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before someone gave xenophobia the same treatment.

 

Naked racism may still be unacceptable in polite society. But post-Brexit vote there’s a clear market emerging for a slightly posher, better-read, more respectable way of saying that you’d rather not live next door to Romanians or think Muslims are coming to rape your womenfolk. Think Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins, but with longer words, and for people who wouldn’t be seen dead on an English Defence League march – although one of the more ridiculous contentions in this book by the journalist Douglas Murray is that the EDL are actually terribly misunderstood chaps, who have a point, and aren’t really to blame for the way their rallies regularly end in violence.

 

So here it is; a book for all those who found David Goodhart’s recent arguments about “white self-interest” – or preferring one’s own ethnic grouping, which he says is definitely not the same as racism – just too woolly liberal. A proper book, with footnotes and everything, about how godless Europe is dying in front of our eyes; and all because it’s too knackered and feeble to resist the barbarian hordes, welcomed in by idiots who’d gladly trade a few beheadings for some colourful ethnic restaurants. (I paraphrase, but barely.) And it probably won’t even matter, for true believers, that it is all so badly argued.

 

Murray begins with some sweeping stuff about European neighbourhoods becoming indistinguishable from their inhabitants’ native Pakistan, before narrowing things down to the fact that London is no longer a majority white British city. Before long, inevitably, we are reminded of the “prophetic foreboding” of Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech. Murray never quite spells out why it matters so terribly that people should come here from abroad – what is supposedly so awful about black and brown Londoners, including second or third generation immigrants, or indeed white people born overseas. There are token mentions of pressure on public services, and a grand assertion that the evidence suggesting immigration has economic benefits is all either wrong or fiddled by New Labour. (Anyone familiar with recent Labour history will find mildly surreal Murray’s account of how he imagines the party, and the immigration minister Barbara Roche in particular, tackled immigration.)

 

But this fearless scourge of political correctness seems oddly reluctant to pinpoint precisely why people coming from India, the Caribbean or eastern Europe was such a ghastly prospect. He has rather fewer inhibitions, however, regarding more recent immigrants from predominantly Muslim Middle Eastern countries. Chapter after chapter circles around the same repetitive themes: migrants raping and murdering and terrorising; paeans to Christianity; long polemics about how Europe is too “exhausted by history” and colonial guilt to face another battle, and is thus letting itself be rolled over by invaders fiercely confident in their own beliefs.

 

Much of this is familiar Ukip territory, of course. The book regurgitates the same misleading myths as Nigel Farage about immigration turning Sweden into the rape capital of Europe. (The unexciting truth is that Swedish rape laws are among the strictest in the world, and that the numbers soared when these laws were tightened to change the way incidents were counted; the high number of rape allegations is best seen not as proof of Sweden being dragged into the gutter but of its radically feminist approach to prosecuting.)

 

He triumphantly dismisses any polling suggesting immigrants actually want to integrate by suggesting that pubs “very often close” when Muslim migrants move in – presumably in a different way than pubs all over Britain are closing, crippled by everything from cheap supermarket booze and stagnating wages to the smoking ban – and that if they really wanted to be British they would go out and “drink lukewarm beer like everybody else”. Be more Nigel Farage, or else.

 

Yet even Murray seems to acknowledge at one point that in recent years Europe has had little choice but to respond to a flow of desperate migrants in its direction. There are two chapters that barely seem to fit with the rest of the book and they are the ones in which he travels to Greece and Sicily to meet the boat people come ashore, interviewing some to hear stories of why they came.

 

For a book that argues that Europe is in mortal danger, there are surprisingly few concrete suggestions for averting it

The tone is quiet reportage rather than rage, and all the better for it. At the end, he concedes that German chancellor Angela Merkel did hit on at leastpart of the answer “by recognising that our continent is probably doing the only thing that a civilised people can do in rescuing such people, welcoming them and trying to give them safety”. But before long the book is ripping into Merkel for taking them in. What, exactly, does he want?

 

For a book that argues that Europe is in mortal danger, there are surprisingly few concrete suggestions for averting it. Murray proposes tougher curbs on immigration, suggests refugees should be given only temporary refuge and be sent home when it’s safe (a direction in which the Home Office is already moving) and bangs the drum for stronger Christian faith. But if he really does think Muslims are as inherently dangerous as his book suggests, why not a Trump-style ban? Why not refuse to take refugees at all, or do so only following an intensive programme of cultural re-education along his approved lines?

 

More surprising, however, is the author’s inability to define the culture supposedly in jeopardy. If Europe should more aggressively defend its unique identity, the least one might expect is a clear definition of this precious thing it’s supposed to be defending: the values, experiences and ideas in danger of being lost. But apart from beer and churchgoing, padded out with scorn for anyone trying to distinguish between Islam or Muslims in general and Islamist terrorists in particular, there’s little here to cling to. At one point the author is reduced to suggesting that he thinks the future Europe will stand or fall on its “attitude to church buildings”.

 

The frustrating thing is that Europe isn’t perfect. It has struggled to cope with unprecedented flows of migrants in recent years, and to integrate those already here. It is confused in some ways about what it stands for. It is politically fractured, most recently by Brexit – which this book doesn’t really cover – but before that by the euro crisis, its treatment of Greece and the alienation of many of its citizens from creaking, remote political EU institutions that do not seem up to the huge economic challenges ahead. Europe isn’t dying, but it isn’t ageing well, and all that is ripe for critical analysis. Sooner or later, someone will write a terrific book about that. This isn’t it.

 

The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray [book review]

Alan R Newton

Alan R Newton

Apr 2, 2018·6 min read

https://medium.com/@AlanRNewton/the-strange-death-of-europe-douglas-murray-book-review-f35fd058b0f7

 

 Douglas Murray is an intelligent, well spoken author and the later Chapters of his latest book — ‘The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam’ — deal with some long standing issues specifically around Islam and Identity that are both delicate and complex. Murray outlines the deep rooted nature of these issues citing examples from Van Gogh to the modern day.

 

At times, I felt Murray was clumsy with his arguments given the subject matter, cherry picking horrific incidents (of which there is no doubt) to frame the problem without a more detailed analysis. It felt rather tabloid and superficial in large parts to me and rather unfitting of a man with such obvious intellect. For example, in earlier chapters Murray concentrated heavily on gangs of sexual predators in the UK who target children, teenagers or young adults. Murray links the ethnicity of those involved to religion, a key theme — hence the title — of his book. I was motivated to listen (on Audible) to his book having heard him speak very intelligently on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, but was perturbed by some of his statements and points of view. I felt he was disingenuous on the topic of Islam, as I subsequently felt he had been in the book by not providing a balanced and cogent argument on the issues presented, preferring — seemingly — to stir up an easy sense of resentment and discord amongst the patriots, xenophobes, and — for that matter — anyone with a sound morale compass. Quite right on the latter, if the evidence is to be taken at face value, but when you look at the figures, a slightly different picture emerges to the one the author paints. I think it’s important at this juncture to lay out precisely what I mean… the topics at hand are complex and tend to create a melting pot of toxicity, which spills over to infect the innocent. It is with this in mind that commentators on such topics need to trade incredibly carefully, not for fear of upsetting anyone (that is going to happen irrespective), but as a duty to protect the innocent. I understand that is not as easily said that done and many readers take headlines as a superficial reality, which are all too frequently misleading. It is no doubt designed that way, but intellectuals like Murray should know better and should take more care.

 

Let me be clear, there is no excusing the crimes committed and the fundamental routes and ideology giving rise to those crimes. These are issues that require resolution, but it’s all too often used as a political hot potato to attack immigration and ‘all’ Muslims. This is not a healthy approach that will lead to a healthy outcome. The trouble with such topics is that the authors and their defenders are quick to shut down the conversation — the very thing they espouse to defend and protect — by shouting “apologist” or other such related terms. Yet, there is no apology, or attempt to give one, certainly not by all critics (I do recognise that the left does, however, have a tendency to do this, which doesn’t help). There is simply a tendency not to hear the message because of the tide of anger (quite rightly) that rises in response to the heinous crimes. These gangs of men are despicable, vile human beings preying on vulnerable people, but the picture is an incomplete one from that which the author paints to conveniently support his argument. In 2013, the CEOP published a study looking at “contact sexual offending against children by non related adults”, finding there were two types of group based abuse. Type 1 (defined as abusers involved in targeting a victim, or victims, based upon their vulnerability), for which the offenders are 75% Asian men. Type 2 (defined as abusers with a longstanding sexual interest in children), for which the offenders are 100% white men. There is a broader societal problem here that needs tackling, but framing it ONLY as a “cultural”, “Asian” and /or “Muslim” problem is dangerous, is factually incorrect and fuels hatred and resentment against the broader groups that does nothing to solve either Type 1 or Type 2 problems of abuse in our society. I was wholly disappointed in the author for this approach, for the reasons previous indicated.

Murray talks a lot about “areas where the immigrants” live around Europe citing no go areas in Paris, Marseille and other European cities. He suggests the same is true in Northern Britain. I’m not too familiar with this Britain and I’m pretty well traveled with a lot of friends in different parts of the country. Murray doesn’t state specific places within “northern Britain”, so it’s hard to refute 100% what he says, but he rather noticeably excludes the British city with the highest immigrant population; London, one of the world’s mega cities. London doesn’t suffer from this ‘ring of fire’ issue like Paris, because the city has taken an altogether different approach to immigration, dispersing poorer families within different neighbourhoods across the city, which creates a more harmonious — not entirely (nothing’s perfect) — situation free of these so called ‘no go’ districts. You’ll notice I’ve linked “poorer families” and “immigration” together. This is not an accurate reflection of the make-up of immigration in our country, or indeed many other countries, but it is how Murray repeatedly frames his argument. I concede Murray does give ‘some’ mention to French politicians ‘trialing’ a more dispersed neighbourhood approach but he doesn’t go into too much detail. So, you have to extend the question to whether the underlying problem is down to the ‘type’ of people or is it down to the policies of those governing? The broader evidence suggests it’s neither one of the other and requires greater insight, research and understanding. Murray’s logic is clumsily laid out in these areas leading readers to the conclusion he seemingly wants them to make.

He does make some strong arguments around atonement and historical guilt of nations, which seems to be focussed on European / Western nations over and above the rest of the world. “A pathology of the late 20th century”. Albeit, in doing so, Murray leaves the issues of relative ‘proximity’ and impact at the door, and the fact that much of the referred to exploitation of other nations still actually occurs today but via other means, such as via an industrial strategy rather than by invasion.

 

Atonement

There is also an obsession throughout the book that Europeans are concerned — despite growing atheism — that Islam will overtake Christianity as the dominant religion. Fundamentally, this is considered to be a critical issue because modern human rights and beliefs are predicated on Judeo-Christian values and ethics. There is some merit in this argument given the belief of many non Muslims, as well as more progressive Muslims — who feel constrained by religious Dogma and unable to truly speak up — for Islam to undertake a period of reformation and enlightenment. It is widely considered, in the face of growing extremism, that this is unlikely to occur and thus presents a danger to the values upon which western civilisation has been built. I’m not coming down on either side of this argument as I wouldn’t want to be Pontius pilate, and the argument has a number of known and unknown assumptions attached to it that require much deeper thought, reflection and mature debate. However, that debate is rarely a mature one, due to existing prejudices and emotional charge on either side, so it’s unlikely to be resolved in a manner that is conducive with our underlying belief system. Suffice to say, I do personally believe strongly in protecting values, ethics and identity, but also think the issue of ‘immigration’ is over-hyped and not that well understood. Immigration must be managed and we must have a fair system, but I’m not sure any of the major economies have achieved the right answer yet, and I certainly don’t know what it is. The paradox amongst all of this is that many of our underlying values and ethics will be confronted and potentially compromised (at least temporarily) in the extreme face of preservation.

Despite my criticism for Murray’s approach and abject laziness on arguing more broadly on some of his most key points, I would recommend the book, as it touches on many topics of the zeitgeist and lead one to ponder and think much more deeply about the issues.