Today it was revealed that the perpetrator of the Norwegian massacre quoted Dalrymple (and many other writers) multiple times in his 1,500-page manifesto. But Dalrymple in fact rejects the idea that Muslim immigration represents a threat to Europe, as he has written on several occassions. (Of course, it shouldn’t need to be said that people who do consider Muslim immigration a threat, such as Mark Steyn, not being psychopaths, in no way support mass murder as a proper response. But unfortunately it does need to be said, as some addle-minded commentators are already attempting to implicate such writers.)
But Dalrymple’s writings make it plain that he does not accept the “Eurabia” thesis:
“The Iranian refugees who have flooded into the West are fleeing Islam, not seeking to extend its dominion, as I know from speaking to many in my city.” (final paragraph, When Islam Breaks Down)
“The wildest fear is as follows: that the Moslem population of Europe is younger and much more fecund than the rest of the population, and that therefore, before very long, Europe will become Islamized or Islamic by sheer weight of numbers.
“…[But] there is reason to believe that the proportion of Moslems in the population will stabilize, at a higher proportion than now no doubt, but still at minority levels. Demographic change is not the threat to the survival of Europe that it is sometimes claimed to be.” [The New Vichy Syndrome, p. 19]
“There is another consideration that should give pause to those who see Islamization…as the fundamental threat to the continuation of Europe as a civilization: the assumption that the experience of migration to, and subsequent life in, Europe does nothing to change the Moslems themselves, and that, in fact, their religious affiliation is of such overwhelming importance to them that nothing else goes into forming and maintaining their identity. This, I think, is far too crude and pessimistic a view…
“[In response to] the question of whether religion is always and everywhere the organizing principle of Moslems’ sense of identity: that is to say, once you are a Moslem, nothing else counts for you, at least not much. The answer to this question is no.” [TNVS, p. 21-22]
“Westernization is in fact far advanced among Moslems in Europe, as elsewhere.” [TNVS, p. 23]
So Dalrymple disagrees with the idea that Muslims will overtake native Europeans in numbers, or that European Muslims as a whole are extremist or violent to any substantial degree.
None of the Dalrymple quotes in the manifesto suggest that Dalrymple does believe these things. In fact, only one of the quotes has anything to do with Islam at all. The others are statements on Western self-destructiveness and cultural decay. It is unclear how these latter thoughts in any way played into the murderer’s view of an Islamic threat to Europe (and I am not going to read the manifesto in an attempt to find out), but these statements are obviously very far afield of any belief in a Muslim threat or a support for violence. Which, again, should be obvious.
UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments to this post, it turns out that the murderer did not directly quote Dalrymple, but rather included entire essays from a blogger who was quoting Dalrymple. (h/t Gavin O.)
Hi Clinton. Indeed, there are actually no signs in the killer’s “manifesto” that he has ever even read anything by Dalrymple.
The only references to him are contained in essays – pasted verbatim – by blogger Fjordman (whose life and arguments Breivik has now, incidentally, made far more difficult).
Dalrymple has also made it clear he doesn’t agree with the Eurabia idea, or that it is at all likely on the Dennis Prager radio show in the US.
Gavin, thank you for the clarification. Did you learn this on your own, or did you see it somewhere?
I called Dalrymple earlier today to tell him of all this. He did not know he was mentioned in the manifesto. I’ll update him with this information.
Several blogs are now reporting that police have said that Breivik has admitted to being Fjordman. I haven’t seen anything to confirm this.
I wouldn’t give the slightest credence to that, Clinton. It’s about as likely that he is “anders”, top rated commenter on The Telegraph. As if he would use his own name though. I’m sure he commented on blogs but is not either of these two.
There are many reasons why this would not be Fjordman, but for one thing Fjordman’s writing is that of a lucid mind and not someone, I believe, who would go on a shooting rampage.
The claims of Breivik being Fjordman seem to be unfounded. Apparently Fjordman posted to the Gates of Vienna blog today (for which he has written in the past) stating that he is not Breivik and does not support terrorism.
That Dalrymple should be linked, even indirectly, to this man is a real shame.
Think what effect this event will have on the reputation of every author Breivik quoted. They are tainted forever now:
“He was one of the authors quoted by terrorist Breivik in his manifesto…”
Hi Clinton. I downloaded the manifesto yesterday having first watched the guy’s video. I scanned through it first, then started reading it from the beginning.
I am 33% (500 pages) through it (as a PDF on Kindle). Thus far it has consisted almost entirely of other people’s writing. Some of the essays I had read already, others I had not. Breivik starts by saying he will be intermingling other people’s work, therefore it is not strictly speaking plagiarism (though the press has said it is) although it is sometimes unclear where their writing finishes and his begins.
Being only one third through, I had seen 3 of the of the approximately 6 mentions of Dalrymple. I ran a search just now to check for others. As I say, they are all references (favourable ones) within Fjordman essays.
I really don’t think any of them will be tainted by this, Seymour, especially considering Breivik also quotes a Guardian piece, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, etc.
Dalrymple may not agree with the Eurabia idea, but a lot of reasonable right-wing commentators do, and with good cause:
I felt all through reading The New Vichy Syndrome that TD was understating the (potential) threat of Islam to the West. Perhaps he was simply being rational and there is really no cause for worry.
But I suspect that when a culture is discredited (and Western culture was discredited by World War II, as TD says), and a fervent religion is in the right place and time to usurp it, it is likely that said religion will make an attempt to do so.
In other words, if we lack faith in our culture, we are less likely to defend it. The important question is to what degree Westerners lack faith in Western culture, for that will be the deciding factor should Islamic elements attempt some kind of takeover.
And I believe they will. Once they’re present in sufficient numbers, why would they NOT try it? Even a benign culture would wish to be on top. And Islam, at least in the hands of flawed mortals, is not benign.
Yes, you’re probably right. It’s just that I know how malicious and pedantic the blogosphere generally is.
You’re right! I was thinking rationally, and we all know a lot of the blogosphere doesn’t. Steve and I excepted, of course.
“Dalrymple may not agree with the Eurabia idea, but a lot of reasonable right-wing commentators do, and with good cause”
Very true. I don’t want to suggest that it is untoward to be concerned about Muslim immigration, just wanted to head off the inevitable attempts to blame Dalrymple by pointing out that he doesn’t even agree with the overall thesis.
Dr. Dalrymple is almost certainly wrong about Eurabia..
First, Iranian refugees are hardly typical. More typical are Turks in Germany, North Africans in France, and Pakistani in the UK.
Second, given that birthrates across Europe are well below the replacement rate, Muslim birthrates would have to drop to that same abysmal level and immigrations rates would have to drop to almost zero for the ratios to stabilize. Given how easy it is for the poor to have large families in the European welfare state, that’s unlikely.
Third, the stabilization he assumes is premised on all Islamic immigrants adopted Western anti-natalist lifestyles. Not so. Those that do will shrink in numbers like Europeans. But that matters little. Those that don’t will multiply and multiply and multiply. The very culture of traditional and radical Islam ensures that it will come out on top, particularly in a modern welfare state. The latter may collapse, but it will do so too late to save Europe’s culture.
Fourth, he is neglecting the very real possibility that the decline of Western culture will feed on itself. Feeling more and more like a minority even when they’re not, some Europeans will immigrate to more congenial surrounds. But not just any Europeans will immigrate. They’ll be mostly young, well-educated adults who will take their children real or potential, with them. Europe will not only become less European, those who remain will be older and typically less willing to fight for their culture. They’ll simply want to die in peace.
My hunch is that the learned doctor is hedging his bets. No one likes to be an alarmist about everything. He wants to sound the alarm about UK culture, and that is fine. But he’s wrong to think that that means he can’t sound a similar alarm about Eurabia.
It’s not even surprising that this is happening. Both problems are the result of the fact that Europe no longer feels good about itself or its future. That’s why Europeans have so few kids. It’s why they can’t resist Islam like it did some 500 years ago.
A very interesting post, Mr Perry.
One reviewer of TNVS (I think on Amazon) suggested that Dalrymple downplayed the Islamic threat because, simply, the threat is too awful to contemplate. We could be looking at a total transformation of Europe. Such drastic cultural change is very possible and I think we forget that.
I think we have grown used to believing that, as a race, we’ve got “peace” pretty much sorted and that life is therefore going to continue in a safe, stable, predictable way. We have come to take civilisation – OUR civilisation – for granted. We don’t mind it being eroded because we think it invincible and everlasting. But what if it isn’t?
On the other hand, and I say this because I always try to remain open-minded and not get carried away, the future is still completely open and nothing is set in stone. I mention “getting carried away” because I think people (including myself) like getting carried away in their hunt for the truth. It’s exciting to believe in a conspiracy, or an apocalypse, etc.
For example, I think people enjoy believing in catastrophic climate change; it’s like something out of a sci-fi film. People enjoy believing that 9/11 was a government job; it’s like something out of a 60s spy thriller. People enjoy believing that “evil bankers” are tearing goodness apart; it’s like something out of an anti-Jewish propaganda reel. And people enjoy teasing themselves with the extreme drama of Europe becoming Islamic. It would not be pleasant, but that’s precisely why it’s interesting to imagine.
For me the more immediate threat to my way of life is not Muslims but the decay of the British themselves. This is something I’m far more certain of.
Perhaps it’s just time for change. I was recently in Saverne, an exquisitely picturesque town in France. I was taken by the beauty and quaintness of it until my father pointed out that everybody looked miserable. There was no energy. Just old, tired people living in an old, tired culture. I go to Italy and see the same thing. I go to Holland and see thriving Muslim markets.
You may be right. I go back and forth on this issue. I was entirely convinced after reading Steyn’s book. Dalrymple’s position is simply that, as he told me today, “I think the problem is us.”
I think a lot of people who otherwise agree with Dalrymple pretty much entirely, part ways with him on the issue of Islamification. I’m sure I have seen him write negatively, as it were, about it, but then he often seems to take a very optimistic view, as we have all seen. I remember reading The New Vichy Syndrome on the plane – the whole book – and being surprised by how cool he was about Muslim expansion across Europe. This seemed to be based largely on an analysis of a Muslim dating website.
You present good arguments, I think, Michael.
I saw it mentioned somewhere recently that people tend to interpret the world according to their own experiences. This theory explains of course why wealthy liberals have such naive ideas about human nature and it’s encapsulated in two of my favourite quotations:
“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.” – Galsworthy
“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” – Eisenhower
People tend to be very quick to judge, instead of listen, whereof they have no experience.
I want to be very careful not to cast any aspersions as to Dalrymple’s intellectual integrity here (I suggested Baron Bodissey did this in the past), but in an attempt to understand, perhaps we can view this through Dalrymple’s own experiences and in particular his parentage. Not to get Freudian about it at all, but I believe his mother was Jewish and fled the Nazis, was an immigrant into the UK. Perhaps this has coloured his judgement a little about the whole immigration issue. Perhaps he just doesn’t want to be hypocritical. Or perhaps it is really his considered analysis.
In any case, on this sole issue I do find the conclusions of the likes of Fjordman to be more plausible.
(By the way, Micheal, I literally fit into your pattern as someone who is moving from the city to the countryside.)
I thought Steyn made some good points in his book (if you mean “America Alone”) but he didn’t list his sources well and he does have a certain style which, though I find it quite amusing, can be rather intimidating for liberals I think.
He really gets into his stride in this video:
There is no doubt the man makes some sound points, painful to the ears of liberals!
Incidentally Douglas Murray is very good in other clips here too (though I have heard Murray be very critical of what appears to be Dalrymple’s position on religion – viz., crudely, “I don’t believe it, but it is good for others to”).
Regarding Islamification, of course, what is scary about Dalrymple’s remark “The problem is us” is that that indeed appears to have been a viewpoint shared by this maniac. In his tract he is (or at least quotes others who are) highly critical of cultural Marxism, as Darymple is.
But this said, only an idiot, or a particularly nasty and opportunistic left-winger, could suggest any of these writers would be anything less than appalled at his brutal and crazed and misguided “solution”.
> Steyn… does have a certain style which, though I find it quite amusing, can be rather intimidating for liberals I think.
Well, he’s a crowd pleaser, rather in the vein of an American talk show host (which I believe he is). He speaks in broad brush strokes. I like him, though.
>I have heard Murray be very critical of what appears to be Dalrymple’s position on religion – viz., crudely, “I don’t believe it, but it is good for others to”
I think it is galling for people to hear these words from an intellectual: “It’ll be good for you, but it’s not good enough for me.”
This is the trouble with a culture that discusses everything openly.
It’s also the trouble with a culture of rationality. You end up justifying religion not on its own merits, but on the basis that human beings are flawed. And you can’t say to someone: “you need religion because you’re flawed”. But many of them do. I would say most of the human race need religion, and those that don’t only escape the need because they have something equally interesting to amuse themselves with.
It’s actually quite interesting that two writers (Fjordman and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff) have already been “painted” with guilt by association with the atrocity.
This is really what I meant. The liberal media will not let these “connections” go unremarked. This event has been a gift for them because it enables them to smear elements of the Right, albeit in a fatuous way.
At the very least, all future discussions about Europe’s immigration problem will have to be prefaced with the remark “of course I condemn what happened in Oslo” and the Left will easily respond “you don’t really!”.
Yes well, if you were guilty of indulging moral relativism; all that which corrupts the moral sentiments, undermines civilization – would you not be eager to exploit those very elements of the mob for which you have been an apologist, in order to precipitate a back lash against those who had the temerity to criticise, to judge and articulately expose the wickedness of your ways?
As Dalrymple (and presumably users of this site) knows only too well:
“On no subject is the British public more fickle and more prone to attacks of intense but shallow emotion than childhood. Not long ago, for example, a pediatrician’s house in South Wales was attacked by a mob unable to distinguish a pediatrician from a pedophile. The attackers, of course, came from precisely the social milieu in which every kind of child abuse and neglect flourishes, in which the age of consent has been de facto abolished, and in which adults are afraid of their own offspring once they reach the age of violence. The upbringing of children in much of Britain is a witches’ brew of sentimentality, brutality, and neglect, in which overindulgence in the latest fashions, toys, or clothes, and a television in the bedroom are regarded as the highest—indeed only—manifestations of tender concern for a child’s welfare.
There is no more powerful stimulus to emotional dishonesty than a guilty conscience,”
As Dalrymple explains in Reader, She Married Him – Alas
“Of course my work brings me into contact with the most dramatic instances of such caste, religious, and cultural intolerance, but I could tell very many such stories, the protagonists of which also know of many similar instances unknown to me.”
“I am by no means concluding that the cultures from which these patients come are worthless, that there is nothing to be learned from them (for example, about the role of family solidarity in enabling many children who live in physically poor conditions to achieve at school), or even that there is nothing whatever to be said in favor of the scale of values they espouse. When I talk to the parents who believe in that scale of values, they often speak most eloquently and intelligently of the social devastation they see around them among the white underclass, for whom human relationships are kaleidoscopic in their changeability, and whose lives are built on the most shifting of sands. I can quite understand that what they see only reinforces their determination to live according to their own beliefs, and that they do not want their children to become like that underclass.”
So, for instance, the ‘feminism’ of Slutwalk has more in common with the shifting of sands of feckless desires; it is counterproductive. The overriding problem is that when money is scarce and Mob Rule (Greece, for example) starts to breakout, the wretchedness of people surfaces – they default to their tribal tendencies. They are particularly eager to assuage a sense of guilt by finding a target victim for Freudian like projection, to
My last comment was to suppose to begin:
“But unfortunately it does need to be said, as some addle-minded commentators are already attempting to implicate such writers.”
hmmm… that was suppose to finish …Freudian like projection, to attribute their faults to others.
Put it this way – find out Norway’s statistics for Pornography, this is a most potent indicator of a society’s health, lack of.
But will there be candid discourse about this in relation to recent events? Not bloody likely!
I like what you’re posting, Mr Clufley.
> Well, he’s a crowd pleaser
Indeed, he comes across pretty much as a stand-up comedian in that video, I think, and a good one!
This is one major point where TD differs not only with Murray but also with Sam Harris (who has also posted on Breivik recently). Murray used to be a Christian and, like Dalrymple (and even Richard Dawkins), is still a “cultural Christian”) but abandoned all religion on reading the Quran.
Harris has, I think, never been a believer although he is quite keen on “spirituality” and on certain narcotics. I disagree with him on these issues, but believe he has much else of great merit to say.
Anyway, both Murray and Harris (especially in his book The Moral landscape) seem to believe that the values of humanism may be taught to and understood by all people such that they may replace the need for religion. Dalrymple seems to disagree, on the grounds that some (indeed many) people simply do not have the capacity to appreciate these values and that religion is simpler for them.
In theory I share these critics’ concerns doubts as to whether deliberately promoting an untruth is a good course of action. In practice I wonder if Dalrymple is right.
> I like what you’re posting, Mr Clufley.
Thank you. I’d very much like to discuss these ideas further. This is something you could help out with!
> both Murray and Harris… seem to believe that the values of humanism may be taught to and understood by all people such that they may replace the need for religion
Even if you could do that, you’d still have this problem: there’s no God to back up the ideas you’re espousing. In the old days, the “fact” of God meant that anything built on top of it was stable. “Humanism” is a much shakier ground on which to build because it is merely a concept, whereas God was considered a living being capable of action, capable of punishing you.
> Dalrymple seems to disagree, on the grounds that some (indeed many) people simply do not have the capacity to appreciate these values and that religion is simpler for them.
Religion is simpler and it’s also more interesting. It gives you a story, and stories are fun. Compared to that, a complex web of values is rather dull.
I’m not saying necessarily that people learn through stories, just that stories are more persuasive to an emotional being, such as a human.
There’s also the fact that, for people like Richard Dawkins, the intellectual world is interesting because they have the mental capacity to tackle it. Most people do not. Telling the man on the street that life is worth living because of the wonders of science is going to fall on deaf ears. He doesn’t care about science or humanism or whatnot: he just wants a reason to be good.
Having said all that, a caveat…
There’s always a danger that one attributes one’s own shortcomings to the whole of the human race. (Think feminists with daddy issues.) Perhaps if I was stronger and more resourceful, I would not think people so fragile. As it is, I think people are incredibly fragile, and very apt to be misled. “Vulnerable” may be a better word. I think that people choose beliefs which protect them from ideas they can’t accept. Religion is a good candidate for this job. Science is the very antithesis of a moral comfort: it tells you life is inherently meaningless and you weren’t born for a reason. It may be selfish to want more than that, but people do, and understandably!
> Even if you could do that, you’d still have this problem: there’s no God to back up the ideas you’re espousing
Well, Harris seeks to show in The Moral Landscape that this is unnecessary. He tries to show what what is moral may be determined by reason and that it is in everybody’s own self-interest to act morally. Audacious, certainly. Possibly right, it seems to me, but whether everyone could appreciate it is another matter.
Well, I had a moderate Christian upbringing but on encountering the more extreme views of ‘Born Again’ Christians I was seriously put off – I, however, pretty much retained a Christian ethic, just not the God.
After years of being pretty much resigned to an indifferent universe of chance hypothesis… I have very recently been quite surpised.
Actually, it was the discovery of The Master And His Emissary (McGilchrist)over a year ago that somewhat prepared me for a more recent book (the author of which acknowledges McGilchrist as a catalyst) and that book is The Great Partnership by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Partnership-Jonathan-Sacks/dp/0340995246
Yes he does have a tendency to come out with things… like, say, he says something like ‘the meaning of a system exsists outside the system’ as though it were a syllogism. I think I’ll always be sceptical, but this is not really a book about radical conversion, epiphanies etc.
Basically I’m very impressed and I recommend it.