Douglas Murray Talks About Charlie Hebdo

The following audio is an excerpt from an interview with Douglas Murray that aired yesterday on the BBC.

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Mr. Murray was discussing the sham nature of all the candle-lit vigils for “free speech” that were then taking place. Well-meaning, well-heeled people stood with pens held high and tears running down their cheeks, holding signs that read “Je suis Charlie”. But in all likelihood none of them — especially those associated with Big Media — will do what Charlie Hebdo did: lampoon Islam with unbridled ferocity.

Collectively speaking, we have long since lost our freedom to speak our minds about Islam. From Salman Rushdie through Theo Van Gogh to Charb, we have now been frightened into submission. Islamic intimidation has taught us the rules.

These heartfelt demonstrations are no more than beautiful lies. This is all theater — public posturing that makes ordinary middle-class people feel good about themselves. Full of sound and tear-drenched sentiment, but signifying nothing.

Below is an excerpt from what Mr. Murray said, as transcribed by our British correspondent Richard Edwards:

One of the most important things at this time: there will be a lot of reaction of people saying things like “we must defend freedom of expression, we must stand for freedom of expression”, but it really is all empty, if I may say so, because we have been going through this for many years now. And since 2005, at the very least, when the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten published some cartoons which depicted Islam’s founder Mohammed, all of the European and Western press, all of them failed to stand alongside Jyllands-Posten — none of them republished cartoons, except for Charlie Hebdo.

And now, when everyone says “We must stand with Charlie Hebdo”. “Solidarity with Charlie Hebdo!”, they can’t really mean it. because you and I know the BBC won’t dare to show any of these cartoons. No other major newspaper, journal or magazine in Britain or across most of Europe will dare to show these cartoons.

The point is, we say again and again we stand for freedom of expression, when we don’t really. And we say again and again “We mustn’t allow the terrorists to win.” And they do, again and again. The terrorists routinely succeed, and have succeeded again, shutting down a whole a whole area of discussion, a whole area of debate, and journalists and others and all sorts of people who like to think they’re in favour of freedom of speech, in fact, again and again, cede the territory to the terrorists.

I think it’s shaming.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

#PublishTheMotoons, dammit!

23 thoughts on “Douglas Murray Talks About Charlie Hebdo

  1. I guess when one thinks back to their early childhood experiences at school they may get an inkling of that time as to how the school yard really is a microcosm of the larger world in general. Many may recall the class bully or bullies who routinely badgered the greater majority of the class into doing their bidding while the same bullies left alone those in the same class, and generally the minority, who were willing to stand up to the threats and intimidation of the bully.

    The world is really no different to that classroom, and as in that classroom, the world is full of many cowards who have been taking backward steps in their own defence, and of those they may be employed to represent, all their lives, ever since they could talk. Our Traitor Class is full of them. They are the Quislings of our time who willingly sell out our countries for the hope of being left alone just long enough for them to enjoy their lives while giving scant regard to the future and for those who will inherit the whirlwind of their treachery.

    I pay no regard to that mass of people who turned up in silent protest after the results of yet another Islamic slaughter – the numbers of which continue on as the years pass. I call them cowards who have continually retreated in the face of fundamentalist Islam in the hope that fundamentalist Islam will just leave them alone. They chose to retreat and to do nothing when Islam started to flex its muscles and chose instead to hide behind ‘diversity’ and other fancy – but repeatedly proven cowardly expressions of surrender – misnomers that can only come out of the coward’s mind.

    This latest Islamic terrorist act is shaping to be a defining moment in our struggle against Islam. Let us hope that the momentum does not get lost to the cowardly double speak and lies that now defines our other enemy – the Traitor Class.

  2. Clear word from Douglas Murray, thank you.

    This cynical hypocracy and shamelesness is demonstrated by they way Michel Houellebecq is being attacked and asked to justify that his writings did not in some sense trigger the Charlie attack.

    “Der radikalste Schriftsteller unserer Zeit”

    “The most radical Author of our Time”

    [Interesting title already, since we talk of “radical Islam” when talking about ISIS, or radicalized Moslems when talking about the attackers of Charlie.]

    “Dieser Mann, der – seitdem er 1994 mit seinem ersten Buch „Ausweitung der Kampfzone“ in die Öffentlichkeit trat – die Berufsbezeichnung „Skandalautor“ trägt, ist eine ikonische Figur der westlichen Kultur. Sein Gesicht, seine Art zu rauchen, sind noch bekannter als seine Skandale und viel bekannter als seine Bücher. Sein neuer Roman, der unter dem Titel „Soumission“ („Unterwerfung“) am Dienstag in Frankreich erschienen ist, hat schon in den Wochen zuvor zu schweren politischen Auseinandersetzungen und wütenden Kritiken in seinem Heimatland geführt. War er jetzt sogar Anlass zu den brutalen Morden in der Redaktion der Satirezeitschrift?

    „Ich lehne jede Verantwortung ab“, hat er dem Journalisten Sylvain Bourmeau schon vor Wochen auf dessen besorgte Frage nach möglichen Folgen seines Romans erklärt. ”

    I translate

    “This man who wears the tile of ‘Scandal Author’ since the publishing in 1994 of his first book “broadening of the battlefield” [actual English title “Whatever”], is an iconic figure of western culture. His face, his manner of smoking, are more widely known than even the scandals and his books. His new novel “Soumission” (submission) which was release in France on Tuesday, has already in the weeks prior led to serious political confrontations and angry critique in his home country. Was the novel/the author [“er” may refer to either (since both are masculine) but most likely the novel was meant] maybe even a trigger for the brutal murders of the editorial staff of the satirical magazine?
    ‘I reject any suggestion of responsibility’, responded the author already weeks ago to questions from journalists Sylvain Bourmeau in relation to possible consequences to the new novel.”

    What lovely hints of character assassination in the wind against another author.
    The question I have when will the author of the Koran be held to account. Never, I fear, since Islam, the most direct cause for all this misery, has never anything to do with anything.

  3. I agree with Mr. Murray when he says that those people holding up signs and saying “We stand with Charlie Hebdo” or “I am Charlie” do not mean what they say. As he says, those are empty words.

    I find it quite common for many of us to say gratuitous things, when deep down we know our statements mean nothing. I often wonder, when I see people – I often have to catch myself doing it too – professing devotion and solidarity to some idea, whether or not they really mean what they are saying. I ask myself: How much are they willing to stand by and defend that idea? I often hear the aphorism attributed to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” And I would look at that person and ask myself if he or she is just making bravado. Sometimes, if I know that person well, I know deep down whether or not that is a true confession coming from the mouth.

    But we should really examine, each of us, our confidence in statements like those. Are we “sunshine patriots” who show bravado only when it is easy to do so? But when confronted with times that test men’s souls, would we crawl under a rock and become inconspicuous in order to avoid pain? I believe it is at that point we know who we really are and what stuff we are made of. It is not looking good for us in the West right now. We appear to be “sunshine patriots.”

    Unfortunately, freedom will not survive in a nation or in a civilization founded on freedom if the people are not willing to defend it at all costs. The forces are always working to undermine freedom, for I believe the default mode is for the strong to rule the weak. We have inherited from the ancient Greeks, in my opinion, the idea of fairness and justice. When Aristotle, in Plato’s Republic, asked the sophist Thrasymachus what is justice, he answered that it is the advantage that the stronger has over the weaker. That is, might makes right. Is that where we are at today? Is the man with the advantage the one with the gun and the willingness to use it? That seems to be the default mode and we are heading there if we are not there yet.

    The United States is, or was built on freedom with each of us possessing individual rights of freedom. But as I said, the default mode is might over right, the stronger rules over the weaker. If that is the case, how willing are we to turn that seemingly natural state of inequality, might being greater than right, around when confronted with losing our rights? How much do we believe those rights in the 1st ten Amendments are worth defending? Is freedom of speech worth it? Is freedom to peaceably assemble worth it? Is life worth defending? Do we really believe them to be God-given and to be inherent in our nature? Do we believe them to be unalienable? If there is doubt, then when the time comes and the pretext – yes, there will be a pretext – arises where we have a choice between dying in the process of keeping our freedom or relinquishing it in order to maintain a life of order and safety, which will we choose?

    • “Maintain a life of order and safety?” Don’t you mean a life of servitude?
      The American revolutionary, Samuel Adams, had something to say about that in response, I believe, to the Boston Massacre. (BTW, The British soldiers were defended by Samuel’s 2nd cousin, John Adams, one of Massachusetts’ leading lawyers, future revolutionary, and 2nd President.) Though Samuel Adams’ words were spoken almost 250 years ago, they are as relevant today as they were then.

      “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

  4. Douglas Murray is an odd bird in the Counter-Jihad; I’ve seen lots of stuff from him in the not so distant past that is quite decidedly PC MC. I can’t tell if he has evolved or not.

    • Not wishing to be argumentative, but everything I’ve ever seen by Douglas Murray has been excellent and I’ve followed him for years. He is one of the most lucid, courageous and articulate counter-Jihadists I know of – with Pat Condell the best in Britain. Only about a week ago I came across him lambasting people demonstrating against the Pope for opposing gay marriage: his point was they do so only because its safe to do so. He then went onto say that being gay himself (a fact which was news to me), he would like to be able to marry, but the Pope, unlike every Imam and many Muslim leaders, didn’t want him thrown off a cliff!

    • One may be against the Islamisation of the West, Hesperado, without embracing all the other views of those who share that goal (or I wouldn’t be here!)

      Mr Murray is interesting, but has a patronising manner which I suspect loses him potential allies.

      • Hoho! Your last statement is one that I definitely agree on.

        And, based on some of the first-hand stories that circulate privately, he can be quite unpleasant in person to people who don’t have the right vowels or who dress like “chavs”.

  5. Freedom of speech was snuffed out in the UK long before the massacre in Paris, Charlie Hebdo was one of the last flickering flames of freedom of expression in Europe.

    Like any weapon the pen is only mightier than the sword if there is the courage and will to deploy.

    Douglas Murray -Full Sky Debate: Freedom Of Speech Vs Freedom Of Religion

    On 5 January 2015 when Cologne Cathedral lights were switched off to protest against PEGIDA a chill ran up my spine, it did not take long for the darkness to descend over Europe.

  6. I guess it’s a little easier to write #jesuischarlie on Twitter than to actually offer any more thoughtful analysis, or maybe even a Motoon?

  7. Note correction in my comment:
    When Socrates (not Aristotle), in Plato’s Republic, asked the sophist Thrasymachus what is justice, he answered that it is the advantage that the stronger has over the weaker.

    -A result of inadequate proof reading.

  8. Raising of pens, publishing motoons, … will not stop the western invasion by muslims. Stopping their import will. Traitor Class are the problem not muslims, terrorism is just a logical result of their infinite stupidity and unconscionable immoral decisions.

    • Totally agree. How do we defeat the enemy within(traitor class), or pull them towards our side, in order to face the real enemy?

      • The dirty little secret is that he Traitor Class is the foe that must be battled FIRST.
        Only when [intemperate recommendation redacted] can we get on with the real fight.

  9. I believe it was the despicable and thankfully dead Osama bin Ladin who made the painfully clear statement that men will always choose the strong horse over the weak one. Dare I ask, which horse the West will choose….now?

  10. well,yes, hypocrisy is the word that came to my mind when I saw all those ” We are Charlies”! How come that the sales of this magazine just come to about 60,000 weekly?Like of some glossy foody or classic car collectors magazine?Those French are unbelievable. Reminds me of Theodore Dalrymple’ s “Culture of poisonous sentimentalism”.

  11. The right of the homicidal maniac not to be offended does not exist.

    The media and assorted political cowards seem to think it does.

    Ensuring the deaths of many more through this lickspittle lunacy.

  12. As someone pointed out elsewhere, this “Je suis Charlie” is not enough. What is needed at this time is “Je suis Charles Martel.” Islam needs to be completely removed from the West – root and branch.

  13. The political leaders in Europe encouraged immigration as a solution to an “economic” problem. How short sighted they were to not foresee a future whereby the culture of the immigrants would cause more of an economic burden than had we accepted a decreasing population and learnt to live with a high technology / efficient economy and the necessity of well educated citizens and less capitalistic profiteering for the ruling elite.

    In other words the greed of a few has / will cause suffering for the majority, potentially from civilizational war.

  14. How can a religion declare war upon a planet? Isn’t religion a matter of faith in the acceptance of what another has said? Should I be forced to accept as true and worthy of belief what another has said about God at the point of a gun (or sword)?
    Jesus presented His divine credentials and invited examination (Thomas). Is it because Mahomet has no divine credentials to support his belief system that he must threaten with death those who refuse to believe what he says?

    • As we have been saying for some years now, Islam is NOT a religion. It’s a wolvish utopian scheme dressed up with the thinnest veneer of ‘religion’. It is as spiritual as Communism.

      Islam depends not on theology but on submission to the rules. It is chaotic, inbred, and murderous. America’s first run-in with Islam was our conflict over the behavior of the Barbary pirates toward our merchant ships; we were on our own once we became a separate country. Europe had other fish to fry so it treated Berber piracy as a chronic headache rather than a mortal threat.

      Eaton, who had plenty of dealings with the pirate-states, had a long overland trip from Alexandria to the Barbary coast. His memoirs included scathing reports on the character of the Muslims he hired to accompany his entourage. He found the Egyptian Christians to be reliable, though. In his comparison of the two groups the Muslims came up short.


      • So plagiarizing 5th and 6th Century Christian Liturgy that is written in Syriac and then calling the Syriac a “mystery” writing is par for the course for them. I am about halfway through “Christmas in the Quran” and the adventure has been filled with giggles, surprises and some moments of scandalization. All I can say is that with its track record of consistently egregious behavior and woeful lack of censure by the rest of the world, Islam must truly be a ‘faith’ that glorifies its infernal father. One would think that with all the misery he has caused that the Lake of Fire would be too good of a punishment for him as he would merit much worse for all the havoc he has created (the only thing he ever ‘created’)

  15. Why not take the marches and protests to the no go zones and see what happens and how much free speech really exists in Europe and elsewhere

Comments are closed.