Category Archives: Interviews

Dalrymple promotes new book on visit to U.S.

Dalrymple has spent the last few days making the rounds in New York and Washington, D.C. promoting his new book, Admirable Evasions: How Modern Psychology Undermines Morality.

He spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. The video is here. The action doesn’t start until the 21:30 mark. (Update: the video has now been edited.)

On Thursday he visited the Wall Street Journal and recorded two short video interviews. In this one he addresses Islamic extremism, and here he discusses his book’s thesis that psychology has been a generally useless attempt to avoid the reality that “the permanent condition of mankind is dissatisfaction”. (H/t Michael G.)

On Thursday evening the New Criterion hosted a launch party in New York City for the book, and your humble correspondents (along with Skeptical Doctor reader Adam) enjoyed seeing the good doctor once again. He spoke for a few minutes, humorously sharing the titles of the psychology-inspired self-help books he noticed in the bookstore of DC’s Union Station.


Other attendees included his old City Journal editor Myron Magnet, Roger Kimball and James Panero.

Killer Emotions

Dalrymple is featured here in the first half of an interview on the podcast “Uncompromised Truth”. I would call this one of the best interviews I have ever heard of him. The American hosts do a great job of getting him talking in a relaxed, conversational manner as they discuss his criticisms of modern sentimentality. There will apparently be a part II soon.

The site includes other items that may also be of interest, such as an interview with Roger Scruton. It is all very well done, and our readers will certainly find many of the hosts’ insights cogent and accurate. Definitely worth a visit.

Dalrymple interview at The Coffee House Wall

There is a great deal here I’d like to quote. Though it is brief, this is one of the best, most revealing interviews of Dalrymple I’ve seen, and it provides answers to some of the more common, and more central, questions about his beliefs.
To what extent, as an atheist, do you ascribe value to the Judeo-Christian tradition? Is this a necessary foundation of Western civilization?
It seems to me obvious that western civilisation is Christian in origin, and those who decry Christianity are in effect decrying western civilisation. I say this as someone who is not myself religious. I believe it is possible for some people to live without religion, but probably not for whole peoples to live without it. To have a sense of transcendent purpose without religion necessitates a political ideology (which is likely to be very bad), or a belief that one is contributing to a culture. Without this, one is living in an eternal present moment, without past and without future.
Have we seen a different type of person arise in the West, as Mr. Boot proposes? How else would you explain that the virtues of respect, duty, deference and self-sacrifice seem to have been universally derided if not abandoned?
Certainly I am worried about a shallowness in the human personality that, if I may so put it, appears to be deepening. Even such things as the electronic media of communication, for those unfortunate enough to have been brought up with them, seem to hollow out human relations, making them extensive rather than intensive. As to derided ideas such as humility, proper deference and so forth, I think we live in an age of inflamed egotism, and of individualism without individuality. Never has it been more necessary, and at the same time more difficult, to mark yourself out as an individual. The slightest subordination in any circumstances is therefore felt as a wound, because the ego is so fragile, and relies on such props as the brand of trainers you are wearing.

Symposium: Why Do Progressives Love Criminals?

Frontpage Magazine editor-in-chief Jamie Glazov has conducted another symposium involving Dalrymple, this one in response to the recent books The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander and Are Prisons Obsolete? by the revolting Angela Davis. Be sure to click to the second page to read all three of Dalrymple’s contributions, among which:
A mixture of sentimentality and intellectual pride distinguishes the attitude of many liberal intellectuals towards crime, which almost never affects them personally. On the one hand there is a reluctance to believe that ordinary people can behave very badly; on the other they believe that it is the function of the intellectual to uncover the underlying ‘reality’ of phenomena (if he is not for that, what is he for?), so that it represents a loss of caste to express the ordinary man in the street’s horror at or revulsion against crime.
Thus crime has to become not really crime, but something else altogether more noble, which it takes nobility and intelligence or acuity on the part of the intellectual in turn to recognize. People don’t steal or rob because they want something and think it is the easiest way to get it; they are uttering a protest against injustice. Moral grandiosity and exhibitionism are the occupational hazards of intellectuals.
None of this should, of course, be taken to mean that we should not oppose injustice where it really exists.

Putin Forever?

Jamie Glazov, editor of FrontPage magazine, has included Dalrymple in another excellent symposium, this one a discussion of “the power of the KGB and the meaning of the new freedom movement in the streets of Russia.” Among Dalrymple’s contributions:

The question has been asked why the present opposition seems to lack the moral authority of the anti-Soviet dissidents. In part, this must surely be because of the change from totalitarianism to ‘guided democracy,’ where there is – despite the murder of journalists – some semblance of a marketplace of political and economic ideas. Where there is such a marketplace, it is more difficult to achieve moral grandeur [in dissidence], though it is much easier to say something; strange compromises and alliances are made; it is not simply a matter of courageously facing down patent monolithic evil. You can oppose Marxism root and branch, from its epistemology to its practical economic corollaries; the corruption of the Putin regime seems more the consequence of the weakness of human nature than of an ideology, and few people are quite sure what they would do if subject to the temptation of a quick fortune.

Be sure to click through to the second page for both of his remarks. Glazov also included Dalrymple in this symposium on suicide bombers, and has interviewed him on two occasions.

FSM Interviews Dalrymple

An American organization called Family Security Matters has just interviewed Dalrymple about his new book Anything Goes, a collection of his New English Review essays between 2005 and 2009.

The interview is interesting, especially as it includes discussions of Dalrymple’s use of different pseudonyms, his history with the
New English Review, his childhood and his appearance (or lack thereof) in the media.

Read it

Dalrymple on TV, on Radio and in Print

Dalrymple is in the media a lot more these days for his newest book Litter and for his views on the rioters in England. He will be appearing on the CNN show “Fareed Zakaria GPS” Sunday morning at 10am Eastern U.S. Time to discuss the riots. I may be wrong, but I believe this will be the first time he has appeared on television in the United States. It looks like the show is broadcast internationally, but I’m not sure in which countries.

He recently gave a very short (and poorly-conducted) interview for ABC Radio National in Australia (Hat Tip to Tom R.). Halfway through, the interviewer asked him why he was qualified to have an opinion on the topic, to which someone less-polite could have replied, “Well, why did you invite me on the show?”

Lastly, the Yorkshire Post recently did this story on the new book.