9. september 2020

Selsing anm. ‘Hordernes hærgen’: “Det er ikke bare ekstremisme. Det er fascisme. Det er totalitært.”

Morten Uhrskov kalder identitetskampen for ‘nykommunisme’, og det dækker ganske godt. Eva Selsing har anmeldt Douglas Murrays seneste bog, og selvom sengebordets stak af ulæste bøger vokser og vokser, så lyder det til at ‘Hordernes hærgen’ er svær at komme udenom. Bogen kan købes hos Forlaget Ellekær for 295 kroner. Forstå dine fjender.

Fra Selsings veloplagte anmeldelse på Berlingske.dk – 6 stjerner: Bog om identitetspolitikkens rødder og endemål er uhyggelig læsning (kræver login).

“Har De svært ved at forstå, hvorfor nogle ekstremister fra amerikansk e universiteter fylder så meget i resten af verden? Og ved De ikke, hvad De skal sige til det? Den britiske kommentator og forfatter Douglas Murrays forklarer og besvarer disse og relaterede spørgsmål i sin nye bog, ‘Hordernes hærgen’. En ekskurs ud i identitetspolitikkens rødder og endemål – og det er uhyggelig læsning.

‘Hordernes hærgen’ handler om det, der rettelig er (post)marxismens dødsmarch hen over vores institutioner – akademia, offentlig debat, medier – over vores køn, vores fællesskab og sandheden som sådan. …

Murray identificerer det, han kalder ’snubletråde’ – altså fælder, som tilhængerne af den migrerende totalitarisme lægger ud for almindelige mennesker. Det kan være ord, man pludselig ikke må bruge. Individer, man ikke må associeres med. Bøger, man ikke må læse. Tanker, man ikke må give udtryk for. Den slags. I virkeligheden er der tale om, at man opstiller problemer, der ikke kan løses. Man reaktiverer gamle konflikter, åbner lægte sår, og etablerer et volatilt, boblende minefelt, som man sender Gud og hvermand ud i (og nyder at se eksplodere). Man fremmaner et billede af ekstreme uretfærdigheder i verdenshistoriens mest retfærdige samfund. Hvorfor?

Snubletrådene er pointen. Meningen er ikke at påpege nogle problemer og så løse dem. Meningen er splittelse. Konflikt. Opvigling. Had. Meningen er at gøre almindelige mennesker usikre på alt – thi usikre mennesker er mere medgørlige for hvem, der end har magten. Hvilket tilfældigvis i stigende grad er de identitetspolitiske militser.
Murray viser, hvordan idégrundlaget for hele baduljen er old school marxisme. Med totalitarismens mest genkendelige ingrediens: Sandhedsværdien af et udsagn afhænger ikke længere af, hvad der siges, men af hvem, der siger det.

Et morsomt afsnit gennemgår alle selvmodsigelserne, de forskellige intersektioner imellem. Hvordan trans-fortalerne har et essentialistisk syn på køn, mens homoaktivisterne er arge modstandere af enhver snak om kønsessens. Hvordan vi er gået fra at være farveblinde til at være besatte af race. … Hvordan kvinder i feminismen insisterer på at være sexede, men ikke seksualiserede.

Bogen giver talrige eksempler på, hvordan de nye venstreekstreme identitetspolitiske bevægelser har støvletramp i ascendanten. … Det er ikke bare ekstremisme. Det er fascisme. Det er totalitært. Murray viser hvorfor.”

(Douglas Murray til TFS-møde i Landstingssalen på Christiansborg, 2015)



4. oktober 2015

Douglas Murray i Danmark, 26. september 2015: “… freedom never were a popular idea.”

Det var en fornøjelse at overvære Douglas Murrays tale i Landstingssalen på Christiansborg, sidste lørdag. Herunder en række citater fra den 21 minutter lange tale, der også kan ses på Youtube.

“… how ludicrous it is, that we now talk about a cartoon crisis. Just accepted it. Eleven years ago, if you said, that there we’ll be a big cartoon crisis in Europa in the coming years. People would say ‘What?’ It’s like a Mickey Mouse atrocity, a Bugs Bunny outrage…”

“What have we learned. It’s very tempting to say, that we have learned absolutely nothing in the last ten years.”

“… so bit by bit the language of health and safety meets the language of insurance companies, and it becomes routine, the british police become our art censors. I just about trust the police to catch burglars, stop robbers, mockers. I don’t trust them at all in art critics.”

“But we have learned something in the last ten years, and I dwell on it for at moment. We learned in the clearest way, that could be possible by now, that most of the press in the free western countries are cowards. We learned that most of our artistic establishment are cowards, and most of our politicians are cowards. We learned that industries which spend much of their year in award ceremonies padding themselves and eachother on the back for bravery, stop, when an actual act of bravery may be required. We have watched an entire liberal class artists and writers and thinkers stop just at the point where bravery is needed.”

(Douglas Murray, Landstingssalen, Christiansborg, København, 26. september 2015; The Spectator, Uriaposten)

“If twenty years ago you’ve said, that the early years of the 21st century will be dominated by discussion of blasphemy, people would have said, ‘you don’t mean repeal the blasphemy laws…’ Nobody would have believed you.”

“… allready the selfpointed census in Canada looking forward to prosecuting people who engage in so called hatespeech against Islam. The problem they gonna keep on coming across, is the problem of facts. It’s going to be deeply disturbing for them, but they will keep on going.”

“… well, we learned some others thing the last ten years. Five years ago, almost precisely we learned from Angela Merkel, that multiculturalism has failed. Four years ago we learned the same from president Sarkozy and from primeminister Cameron. It’s not clear exactly what they meant… What do they mean by that. … Why would multiculturalism have failed, when migration was at a relatively low point, but it will be just fine, when migration was at a higher point that it every have been in our history. Why would integration not work when migration is relatively low, but we’ll have to keep quiet when it’s a lot higher… It isn’t clear to me…”

“We learned that our politicians are incredibly good dealing with secondary problems. Let me give you a couple of examples. … In the UK hvor someone called Tommy Robinson started a movement called English Defence League – I don’t agree with it, I don’t like what it did, but he started this, a movement of street protests. When he started that, very soon afterwards, his own house was raided by police, his family’s house very raided by the police, computers were taken away and ‘amazed’ to get him to prison on a mortgage fraud case. … He went to prison. Mortgage fraud is bad – don’t get me wrong, but it seem rather obvious to some of us, that the reason he got to prison was not because the mortgage fraud, but because he was a problem for people, politicians wanted that to go away… If you could do that to a person why caused you problems, why couldn’t you do it to people that person was objecting to. Why couldn’t you send the police into the house of every extremist islamist Mullah in Britain.

“Another example. Chancellor Merkel in her new year message on the Pegida protests. I don’t agree with the Pegida protests particularly, but that’s not the point. It’s a legitimate movement of people. .. She and the entire administration of the government turns to the reaction to the problem. So on new years message, she said that the Pegida protesters has coldness in the hearts. Why does she nok say, that the islamists, which the Pegida protesters are concerned about, have the most incredible coldness in their hearts, and that is our primarely problem. … We have a political class that think you can solve these problem by dealing with secondary symptoms…”

“We learned in january this year, that almost everybody seemed to be Charlie. We learned that Mahmut Abbas is Charlie. We learned that every politician that has spent the last ten years calling cartoonists inflammatory and islamophobic and right wing and fundamentalist, enlightment fundamentalists and troublemakers and so on – was Charlie. For about an hour. We learned very soon after, that allmost nobody was Charlie.”

“We learned how incredibly slow our societies crawl toward truths which should be selfevident. We have spent the last ten years still going around with the circular assertion whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.”

“… my favorite is from the movement this has nothing to do with islam, to this has nothing to do with Islam and islamic in any case and religion of peace, to Barack Obamas best hit ever, which came last year after an american hostage were decapitated in Syria, and Barack Obama said, it not only dosen’t have nothing to do with islam, it has less to do with Islam than with any other religion. If someone cuts off someone’s head while shouting Allahu-akbar, the buddists should get it.

“If you were to select a subject which should be the easiest subject in the world to get total political and popular support for. Does anything get easier than saying we are against the mutilation of young girls genitals with knives… I can’t think of anything. … It has taken thirty years to even get it to be a legitimate political conversation, and one which still had no practical repercussions. That I would suggest, is assuming that if we are learning, we’re really slow learners.”

“… by an large – we failed”

“… that contrary opinion, that minority opinion against the overwhelming consensus of your time might turn out to be right. And if it turn out to be right, you shouldn’t disable yourselves to be able to hear it, being able to read it, from being able to see it. Thats why freedom of speech matters. It’s because it’s the only way we has to avoid error… We need to hear this contrary opinion.”

“…. what seems to have been the contrary opinion in resent years, was the opinion that seems to have been right.”

“I learned… freedom never were a very popular idea. If you look down history, almost any phase… Almost any period in history. People was’t very bothered about freedom, they wanted security and they wanted safety, and they wanted a comfortable and easy life, and they wanted to be cozy. Freedom of speech was ever only defended by a few people… But maybe what we only need is a few people.”

“When the history of this era is written… the name of Denmark will be abled to be talked about with enormous pride.”

Oploadet Kl. 13:55 af Kim Møller — Direkte link13 kommentarer
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper