Kieran, I respectfully entirely disagree. Be very careful about monitoring the content of anyone's speech; this leads to Starmerland, and to why Vance has such a point. With respect, I spent the better part of 10 years at St. Andrews and grew up with guys like Murray, they don't get off the hook because of class, especially given his objectively awful record of political risk analysis-i dont believe he gives a fig for free speech. Instead, he is trying to play magistrate of what people say, in a vain attempt to regain control of a medium he has rightfully lost. Rogan, for all his faults (and I agree with some of your posts here) is very much not the mainstream media; that remains the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 et al in the UK and PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS in the US. While phenomenally popular he has not taken the place of a media and print elite that has been wrong about a great deal and is now trying to censor their way into staying in a position of power they simply dont deserve. Judge a person by their record; he Murray wouldn't be getting coffee at my firm
I think for those <30, this really is their MSM. That matters. The rest is for us old fogies. That matters less. I don’t know Mr Murray, so I can’t really comment personally, but for sure they shouldn’t get off the hook because of their background or upbringing.
Monitoring free speech? That’s weird and a red flag. Regulating? Absolutely not. We need to be repealing laws in the UK, not adding to them. We are suffering from law inflation, and I believe Starmer has got it wrong. But calling people out and highlighting the responsibility and power they hold? Absolutely yes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I think this largely misses the point. The MSM for those who actually make the political decisions in the world remains (and I do hate this) the BBC, NYT, the Post. They set the tone for what thousands of little American newspapers feel is 'fit to print' and for those who actually make decisions; not the under 30s. As for Mr. Murray his record on Iraq and Libya is clear; he should be held to it as anyone else should be. The answer to bad speech is always more speech; but I dont need an insufferable neocon gatekeeper to tell me I should listen to experts. He and is attitude are the problem; he is not right not in any way. Full stop. For he is not arguing about the substance of the matter, but rather questioning the medium. Rather as I pointed out in the piece his attitudes are those of his dying view
I agree he should be called out and own up to getting things wrong. I’m straying off topic here, but I doubt the richest man (who is indirectly driving policy) in the world pays much attention to the MSM. If X et al are replacing legacy media, they bring a different concern: algorithmic curators. Whether it is Grok, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, or any personalised feed, something decides what we see and hear (or at least focus on), while the rest is quietly buried. So who is curating the curators? If free speech is the goal, are these platforms truly open, or just a new layer of control?
It seems to me that one approach says you can say anything you want, but only this will be shown to you. The other says you cannot say that, only this. One filters and directs what may be said, the other forbids it outright. Neither seems aligned with Jeffersonian free speech. That is a bit of a bother.
Kieran, picking Musk as an example simply won’t cut it. As I said you must admit the real MSM dominate local media coverage all over the US, that Senators and Congressman are highly susceptible to this. Musk is one of thousands with influence, most are affected by this. Let me tell you a quick story (and I must get back to work). The NYT puts out a list of their five most important stories a day, which is picked up by the lion’s share of young tv producers (who may well not read the thing). At all the major think tanks everyone looks at that story list and knows that those are the 5 things these very self-same producers will pitch all day on TV all over DC. Its just a fact, and needs to be accepted. It matters
There is no bother here or confusion about free speech. You can whatever you like; I can then (If I dont agree) choose to attack it. My credentials are as good or better than Murray, and yet i’ve never once in my life tried to gatekeeper any form of speech ever. If I hate it, or merely disagree with it, I say something. There is clarity here, the waters simply are not muddy. Bad speech is corrected with more speech
Hi John, I have no doubt your credentials are absolutely better than his! I try to listen to as many different viewpoints as possible for that very reason, to dilute the bias. The biased distribution you described is bonkers, as though whoever is in power has a divine right to dictate the direction of travel. I cannot comment on the US, but yes, that sounds wrong. It could also reflect incredibly poor journalistic standards. Where has the impartiality gone? Where is the investigative spirit?
My point is that the strategies adopted so far to preserve absolute free speech in practice today, with ~8bn people on board, many of whom have access to instant comms, feel increasingly fraught with contradictions (e.g UK legally restricting it, or others filtering and channeling info). The world, at a high level, seems to be genuinely struggling to get it right. I do not mean personally, but structurally and systemically. That bothers me, that is all.
I think that's entirely right Kieran; which is why the Jeffersonian mantra about speech is my way through the darkness and complexity, as it cuts the gordian knot and leads to a vital and defensible ethical realist position. We all should animist be held to account for what we say and what we do; my point is that in failing to do so (and even more, failing to have the self-knowledge as to the necessity of doing so) neocons point out the very intellectual qualities that have rightfully led to their demise
Hello Kieran, and others here on this chain.. I understand Elon gets under some individuals skin, and that your option. I do not want to veer too far off topic here but algorithms, are implanted everywhere. Face Book has SOLD everyone on that platforms to DATA CHINA. Before Social Media, Credit Card companies, and others sold and used your data for many reasons. Unfortunately there is a footprint out there on everyone. I know this is off topic, I just think it needed to be said.
Hi Dianne, hope you’re doing well. It’s not that Elon gets under my skin. His apology to the bricks actually made me laugh. What I find more unsettling is how difficult it has become to get a clear, impartial view of what is really happening in the world.
It is not just the overwhelming number of news sources and platforms. It is that so much of what we see is curated, filtered, and packaged in ways that are often engineered and, I would argue, increasingly hostile to genuine free speech.
When certain voices or platforms start appointing themselves as moral arbiters, it becomes a dangerous game. Douglas, for example, may have risked doing just that by slipping into the role of gatekeeper, as John pointed out. It takes the air out of real discussion and makes everything feel a bit too controlled.
The remedy to bad speech should be more speech, though ideally not more bad speech. I know that’s a paradox, but it’s one worth living with. I think at its core that’s what Douglas was getting at.
Hi Kieran, I hear what you say...and your process is uniquely yours as mine is individual to me.(Organic) I am not judging or criticizing in any way. I try to get at the belief systems. We all navigate differently, as John says times it's the small things that matter. I listen to it all, my head spins, but I try to understand the thinking or lack of in some cases to get to the motive or the end game of others. In the case of this discussion loosing control of the narrative. I understand your frustration at trying to get the realty of what's happing though the noise. We are in the mist, of a major counter revolution, and it's a fight that the left and neocons will fight as hard as they can, with no holding back on annything to the end. The stunts they did to Trump was criminal and internally organized as more information gets revealed. It back fired, woke up a lot of people up.
Ok, I am going off track here. Yes, Elon has a good sense of humor, and I think we could all use more humor.
Kieran, I am doing well, thank you for asking. It was a great dinner on Saturday night, and a big full moon. I hope your weekend went well. I can sense the visitors may have a perspective impact??
Be well, I wish you a great week. And, I will accept more music anytime:) Best!
John, thanks for this! It also struck a chord with me… I looked up Douglas Murray’s credentials, and from what I can tell, he has not seen any active duty in the military. (Someone let me know if I am wrong) So if Mr. Murray can ask someone if they have ever been to Egypt, Greece or Ukraine, then I guess we can ask him if he has ever had a military weapon in his hands, been in a tank that ran over an IED, been shot or seen the person next to him get blown to pieces. I have family members who have and many others have too. So if any loved one of mine or anyone else’s is put in these situations, there better be a damn good reason for it!
He's the one guy it seems who goes to the frontlines wherever possible, at least recently anyway, and most recently Ukraine when he was in the trenches.
Meaning he's a lot more hands on, if that's the right way to say it, than most journalists for that very reason and he was outspoken about e.g. what he witnessed in Israel in response to Oct 7 where he was one of a few people invited to watch the graphic video of what Hamas did to their victims. He also spent 6 months there.
Murray isn't perfect - his posh accent and elitist air will turn some people off - but he's got a good track record (imo) of telling the necessary people where to get off (his Munk debate with Jordan Peterson, and dismantling of Cenk Uygur, Enver Solomon and Mehdi Hasan the highlights - not all of them heavy weights but wrong, loudmouths nonetheless!).
Having done a bit of searching he's not as hard neo-con as John is suggesting I don't think - he doesn't carry on like most neocon clowns do (who, to a man, all hate Trump whereas Murray has publicly stated support for him and his realist policies) - but perhaps with Israel and Ukraine the two live wars at the moment, and with Murray advocating fighting them both to the end, I could be mistaken.
The guy surely nailed it with those books I mentioned, however - prescient and ahead of his time are fair descriptions of them - but this is IMO once again!
The elephant in the room is the call record; it is beyond doubt that his views on Iraq, Libya et al were entirely wrong. And over Ukraine I think its clear that his 'fight until the end' is a wish, not a policy. I'd agree he is better than Applebaum, Kagan, Kristol and the rest on the cultural issues, writes well, etc. But given his clear, disastrous analytical views, he doesn't get to be the gatekeeper of anything.
Simon, I am sorry I thought I responded yesterday to this. Thank you for responding and giving me something to think about. I love how this chat works, respectfully!
I have a dear friend back in the states, originally from Republic of Georgia, who was drafted into Afghanistan by the Soviets back in the 80s. He suggests to anyone who is pushing war, « here’s your rifle, here’s your rucksack, the bus is over there. Get on, they will take you to the front. »
I have learned from following John about 3 “rules” that justify, for lack of a better word when the US should be involved in a war: the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt and Kennedy rules. It has clarified so much history for me. This is the best Substack.
Interesting comments John, which I agree with for the most part, but some important points to consider which I think you missed:
1. While Douglas' support of experts on the Joe Rogan podcast was expressed badly (which I think Murray would agree with on reflection), it does raise two key points,
i) Joe Rogan really is platforming ignorant idiots, and too many of them, which genuinely does create misinformation. There is no argument for censorship, but what Rogan is doing removes weight from that statement, at least for the rabid censors on the left. I've no doubt Rogan will lift his game post Murray's appearance because Murray makes such an important point here.
ii) Fair enough that one can't visit Nazi Germany or Ancient Egypt, but the actual events of Israel-Palestine are still ongoing, and Smith's comments about the blockades required someone who had actually seen them to prove him wrong. This was what Murray got killed for - unfairly, imo - because most clips are cut to show only Murray's comments and not the context in which he made them i.e. in response to Smith's awful ignorance.
2. I struggle to see Murray as one of the bad guys in the vein of Applebaum, Krugman, Bremmer et al as he is so prescient and on point with much of his other analysis (see his books, most notably The Strange Death of Europe, The Madness of Crowds, The War on the West and On Democracies and Death Cults), so to say he's desperately gatekeeping a position of declining authority appears short sighted at best, wrong at worst as Donald Trump - realist in chief - promoted Murray's final book mentioned above immediately after the podcast.
He is absolutely still relevant, in other words, and his insight into Israel has been both informative and necessary, particularly as it supports Trump's less stated key policy agenda, which is combatting the rise of radical Islam.
Hi Simon, no, again, with respect, if you are wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, you really shouldn’t be lecturing the rest of us about your expert status. In a democratic society I like my experts to be right; indeed, I choose them precisely because of their track record.
As for Joe Rogan, as I said, I’d have preferred Ian Kershaw be gotten (he’s have done it I’m sure) to talk about Hitler and the Nazis. His choice in guests spans the gamut from interestingly eccentric to totally off base. But the way to combat this is to talk about what others have said abut whatever the topic that is profound; to discuss (on a platform like mine) an expert you admire who doesnt get enough air time. Or to go after Rogan or a guest over a specific topic oneself .In my case, you all have inspired me to do a next culture series based on ‘Experts we dont hear enough about.’
But saying that, he didn’t just make a poor choice of words; Murray gave the game away. He believes he is part of a priesthood of all believers who have a right to play traffic cop for the rest of us. Thats insufferable, particularly given his total lack of slef-reflection given his own dire record
But i’m inspired for the next culture series after we are done with Gene Hackman, so thanks to you and Kieran
"Hi Simon, no, again, with respect, if you are wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, you really shouldn’t be lecturing the rest of us about your expert status. In a democratic society I like my experts to be right; indeed, I choose them precisely because of their track record".
Agreed, but Murray is also very right on other matters (so don't throw the baby out with the bath water I think is what I'm saying!).
"But saying that, he didn’t just make a poor choice of words; Murray gave the game away. He believes he is part of a priesthood of all believers who have a right to play traffic cop for the rest of us. That's insufferable, particularly given his total lack of self-reflection given his own dire record".
Perhaps my own pro-Murray bias is shining through! I didn't realise his record was that bad, in which case I can agree with your priesthood-gatekeeping argument, but the argument about not mainstreaming idiocy is a valid one also.
More, better speech as you rightly say, but it is the sometimes-calculated, usually controversial statements that generate the clicks - and $'s - in this social media age, and that needs to be better managed, lest we give more ammunition to the censorship weirdos. And as much as I love the diversity of opinion on Joe Rogan he can surely help in that regard.
Yes, his record is really that bad (I wouldnt hire anyone that wrong, and we dont). so the gatekeeping becomes rather insufferable and is a main reasons the neocons are so in decline. I agree that where he has been right, that counts too. But adding it up…well, we wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole
Yes, the danger is people say idiotic things for clicks, because shock value sells far more than being reasonable. I think that’s a great argument to punch back with re Rogan, and many other people as well.
John, you just answer a question I have been asking myself over and over again for a while...
Why Are the Neo Conservative's in such a mind melt down???
Paul Gigot , WR Mead trying to explain their explain this Saturday morning... I needed to shut off the media after that. I continuing to question what is at the root of their thinking? Was I missing something???? You just answer it! ""They have lost the control of the narrative, gate keeping and I believe your words were, as well as " neoconservatism has their minds being totally authoritarian". You solved it, for me... Thanks!!
I remember a saying, I believe it goes " A wise man doubts often, and changes his mind often, as facts change, the fool is obstinate and doubts not, he knows all things but his own ignorance".
John, Yes I. noticed your X posts are getting lots of hits and reposts, great news!
You are definitely on the case, Dianne! I think that’s it, they were never going to go gracefully as neocons are so incredibly ideological; this fanatic uniformity helped them beat the odds and come to power despite being very much a minority view, but now its getting in their way as they cannot adjust to the reality that the facts of the past generation have laid bare the glaring contradictions in what they think. As the Greeks knew all too well, most traits are janus-faced, having both a good and a bad side. For them, the meltdown is they have lost power definitively in both parties, are generally discredited and have nowhere politically to go. Worse, they have try to explain the inexplicable, the nation-building folly of the past 30 years. So right up both our streets, there’s a very good Sherlockian psychological angle to all this! Yes, we had a relatively quiet Weekend, I touched base with John about the work ahead today and all systems are go!
What I now can find humous, is that they are acting the way behind closed doors, and you know this in person, for me it's off the record zooms referring to Trump "its a shit show"(apologies for the bad language) "he is an idiot" " He is an embarrassment with my that I have to try to explain him to my EU friends"
Great,Thanks John, and John G.
One a side note I had an "Ahhhh Haaa" moment on what I thought was ridiculous Ukrainian rare earth mineral proposal. This will I believe flow into the China Tariffs. There is so many strings in this Ball of Yarn.
Have a great week to everyonel.... More Enlightenment ahead.
What a UK "intellectual" has to say about anything, plays little role generally today, whatever their convictions or methods. The country is languishing. Whether it can be put together again, is an open question. The baton has definitely been passed.
The problem is, Erik, the do matter, in terms of the conveyer belt the neocons have built between the US and the UK. While I agree that (sadly) the UK is languishing, this broader ecosystem is still important. Say the neocons still make up around one-third of the elites in the Republican Party and about one fifth in the Democratic Party (smaller numbers overall but they still play in DC, sadly) people like Murray and Ferguson do provide firepower for some of the people realists are in our death drip with; so they still play a deleterious role and must be argued against for this indirect but important intellectual and political reason
Hey Eric, Are you the one who put out a proposal on US tax reform a couple weeks ago? If so I hav heard JD is working with Trump on Taxing Foundations. I believe Trump is cutting Harvard federal funding and bring to the table this idea. As well as the Gates Foundation ... If I heard this correctly?? So much going on.
Specifically the 501 (c) (3) tax exemption has been abused by the likes of Gates & Soros (and others). These platforms unfairly compete with companies and investment firms and should be curtailed by taking away the tax advantage. 501 (c) (3) is the main reason "the rich don't pay taxes". Today 501 (c) (3) are chiefly money launderers, even sponsor terrorism, besides buying corrupt political services with campaign funding.
Also the overseas "coordination centres" which are really tax havens where large corporates funnel overseas profits through transfer payments for nominal services (such as "brand royalties", "patent royalties" etc.): sheer tax fraud through fancy fictitious nomenclature. They should be derecognised for US federal taxes. Apple, Google, Microsoft... hold $trillions in Dublin, Ireland with virtually no tax hitting them (unlike your wallet, Dianne).
Expanding the tax base should then be reversed by lowering regular corporates taxes on genuine businesses to say an OECD low 15% with improved same-day write off of productive investments. This would undercut the pernicious activity of tax havens and make the USA even more competitive.
Other use of the expanded tax base could be freeing tip income and overwork as well as social security income, raising the income tax threshold and expanding threshold for families with children, leaving the money in the wallets in 50 states instead of channeling all income to Washington DC.
Good morning, John. This actually spooked me a bit. I was listening to that very podcast yesterday! The fact that they were speaking together should, in itself, be seen as a victory for free speech, I suppose.
Douglas is undoubtedly well read, but I agree that his delivery often comes across as patronising, condescending, and entitled. This reflects a classist dynamic that plays out daily in the UK. The early part of the podcast especially felt combative, making it harder for me to connect with his perspective. Of course, that does not mean he is wrong on points.
I have listened to Rogan since the early days (much less so now, not really into MMA). It used to be a strange, entertaining escape, never really meant to be taken too seriously. What is fascinating now is that, as a victim of their own successes, Rogan et al in many ways have become the mainstream media. They have enormous reach and now must contend with the responsibility that must come with it, a level that certainly was not required before.
I completely agree that more free speech is a good thing. Where I take a slightly different view is that I do believe Douglas genuinely cares about it. His point seemed more about how, in our modern media environment, the most entertaining and provocative rhetoric tends to dominate. With that influence comes a responsibility to ensure what is said is balanced with facts. At some point, Rogan et al will have to decide whether there is value in dialling down the sugar rush in favour of more considered, factual content. It might mean fewer views and less reach (so less revenue, how will they eat?!), but perhaps more lasting value and integrity.
The ice cream man might wear a white coat, but that does not mean I take medical advice from him, but others just might.
Kieran, I respectfully entirely disagree. Be very careful about monitoring the content of anyone's speech; this leads to Starmerland, and to why Vance has such a point. With respect, I spent the better part of 10 years at St. Andrews and grew up with guys like Murray, they don't get off the hook because of class, especially given his objectively awful record of political risk analysis-i dont believe he gives a fig for free speech. Instead, he is trying to play magistrate of what people say, in a vain attempt to regain control of a medium he has rightfully lost. Rogan, for all his faults (and I agree with some of your posts here) is very much not the mainstream media; that remains the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 et al in the UK and PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS in the US. While phenomenally popular he has not taken the place of a media and print elite that has been wrong about a great deal and is now trying to censor their way into staying in a position of power they simply dont deserve. Judge a person by their record; he Murray wouldn't be getting coffee at my firm
I think for those <30, this really is their MSM. That matters. The rest is for us old fogies. That matters less. I don’t know Mr Murray, so I can’t really comment personally, but for sure they shouldn’t get off the hook because of their background or upbringing.
Monitoring free speech? That’s weird and a red flag. Regulating? Absolutely not. We need to be repealing laws in the UK, not adding to them. We are suffering from law inflation, and I believe Starmer has got it wrong. But calling people out and highlighting the responsibility and power they hold? Absolutely yes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I think this largely misses the point. The MSM for those who actually make the political decisions in the world remains (and I do hate this) the BBC, NYT, the Post. They set the tone for what thousands of little American newspapers feel is 'fit to print' and for those who actually make decisions; not the under 30s. As for Mr. Murray his record on Iraq and Libya is clear; he should be held to it as anyone else should be. The answer to bad speech is always more speech; but I dont need an insufferable neocon gatekeeper to tell me I should listen to experts. He and is attitude are the problem; he is not right not in any way. Full stop. For he is not arguing about the substance of the matter, but rather questioning the medium. Rather as I pointed out in the piece his attitudes are those of his dying view
I agree he should be called out and own up to getting things wrong. I’m straying off topic here, but I doubt the richest man (who is indirectly driving policy) in the world pays much attention to the MSM. If X et al are replacing legacy media, they bring a different concern: algorithmic curators. Whether it is Grok, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, or any personalised feed, something decides what we see and hear (or at least focus on), while the rest is quietly buried. So who is curating the curators? If free speech is the goal, are these platforms truly open, or just a new layer of control?
It seems to me that one approach says you can say anything you want, but only this will be shown to you. The other says you cannot say that, only this. One filters and directs what may be said, the other forbids it outright. Neither seems aligned with Jeffersonian free speech. That is a bit of a bother.
Kieran, picking Musk as an example simply won’t cut it. As I said you must admit the real MSM dominate local media coverage all over the US, that Senators and Congressman are highly susceptible to this. Musk is one of thousands with influence, most are affected by this. Let me tell you a quick story (and I must get back to work). The NYT puts out a list of their five most important stories a day, which is picked up by the lion’s share of young tv producers (who may well not read the thing). At all the major think tanks everyone looks at that story list and knows that those are the 5 things these very self-same producers will pitch all day on TV all over DC. Its just a fact, and needs to be accepted. It matters
There is no bother here or confusion about free speech. You can whatever you like; I can then (If I dont agree) choose to attack it. My credentials are as good or better than Murray, and yet i’ve never once in my life tried to gatekeeper any form of speech ever. If I hate it, or merely disagree with it, I say something. There is clarity here, the waters simply are not muddy. Bad speech is corrected with more speech
Hi John, I have no doubt your credentials are absolutely better than his! I try to listen to as many different viewpoints as possible for that very reason, to dilute the bias. The biased distribution you described is bonkers, as though whoever is in power has a divine right to dictate the direction of travel. I cannot comment on the US, but yes, that sounds wrong. It could also reflect incredibly poor journalistic standards. Where has the impartiality gone? Where is the investigative spirit?
My point is that the strategies adopted so far to preserve absolute free speech in practice today, with ~8bn people on board, many of whom have access to instant comms, feel increasingly fraught with contradictions (e.g UK legally restricting it, or others filtering and channeling info). The world, at a high level, seems to be genuinely struggling to get it right. I do not mean personally, but structurally and systemically. That bothers me, that is all.
I think that's entirely right Kieran; which is why the Jeffersonian mantra about speech is my way through the darkness and complexity, as it cuts the gordian knot and leads to a vital and defensible ethical realist position. We all should animist be held to account for what we say and what we do; my point is that in failing to do so (and even more, failing to have the self-knowledge as to the necessity of doing so) neocons point out the very intellectual qualities that have rightfully led to their demise
Hello Kieran, and others here on this chain.. I understand Elon gets under some individuals skin, and that your option. I do not want to veer too far off topic here but algorithms, are implanted everywhere. Face Book has SOLD everyone on that platforms to DATA CHINA. Before Social Media, Credit Card companies, and others sold and used your data for many reasons. Unfortunately there is a footprint out there on everyone. I know this is off topic, I just think it needed to be said.
Hi Dianne, hope you’re doing well. It’s not that Elon gets under my skin. His apology to the bricks actually made me laugh. What I find more unsettling is how difficult it has become to get a clear, impartial view of what is really happening in the world.
It is not just the overwhelming number of news sources and platforms. It is that so much of what we see is curated, filtered, and packaged in ways that are often engineered and, I would argue, increasingly hostile to genuine free speech.
When certain voices or platforms start appointing themselves as moral arbiters, it becomes a dangerous game. Douglas, for example, may have risked doing just that by slipping into the role of gatekeeper, as John pointed out. It takes the air out of real discussion and makes everything feel a bit too controlled.
The remedy to bad speech should be more speech, though ideally not more bad speech. I know that’s a paradox, but it’s one worth living with. I think at its core that’s what Douglas was getting at.
Hi Kieran, I hear what you say...and your process is uniquely yours as mine is individual to me.(Organic) I am not judging or criticizing in any way. I try to get at the belief systems. We all navigate differently, as John says times it's the small things that matter. I listen to it all, my head spins, but I try to understand the thinking or lack of in some cases to get to the motive or the end game of others. In the case of this discussion loosing control of the narrative. I understand your frustration at trying to get the realty of what's happing though the noise. We are in the mist, of a major counter revolution, and it's a fight that the left and neocons will fight as hard as they can, with no holding back on annything to the end. The stunts they did to Trump was criminal and internally organized as more information gets revealed. It back fired, woke up a lot of people up.
Ok, I am going off track here. Yes, Elon has a good sense of humor, and I think we could all use more humor.
Kieran, I am doing well, thank you for asking. It was a great dinner on Saturday night, and a big full moon. I hope your weekend went well. I can sense the visitors may have a perspective impact??
Be well, I wish you a great week. And, I will accept more music anytime:) Best!
John, thanks for this! It also struck a chord with me… I looked up Douglas Murray’s credentials, and from what I can tell, he has not seen any active duty in the military. (Someone let me know if I am wrong) So if Mr. Murray can ask someone if they have ever been to Egypt, Greece or Ukraine, then I guess we can ask him if he has ever had a military weapon in his hands, been in a tank that ran over an IED, been shot or seen the person next to him get blown to pieces. I have family members who have and many others have too. So if any loved one of mine or anyone else’s is put in these situations, there better be a damn good reason for it!
Well said Terri, our people are too precious to be destroyed to uphold some theory: caring for them is a huge part of what ethical realism is about
He's the one guy it seems who goes to the frontlines wherever possible, at least recently anyway, and most recently Ukraine when he was in the trenches.
Meaning he's a lot more hands on, if that's the right way to say it, than most journalists for that very reason and he was outspoken about e.g. what he witnessed in Israel in response to Oct 7 where he was one of a few people invited to watch the graphic video of what Hamas did to their victims. He also spent 6 months there.
Murray isn't perfect - his posh accent and elitist air will turn some people off - but he's got a good track record (imo) of telling the necessary people where to get off (his Munk debate with Jordan Peterson, and dismantling of Cenk Uygur, Enver Solomon and Mehdi Hasan the highlights - not all of them heavy weights but wrong, loudmouths nonetheless!).
Having done a bit of searching he's not as hard neo-con as John is suggesting I don't think - he doesn't carry on like most neocon clowns do (who, to a man, all hate Trump whereas Murray has publicly stated support for him and his realist policies) - but perhaps with Israel and Ukraine the two live wars at the moment, and with Murray advocating fighting them both to the end, I could be mistaken.
The guy surely nailed it with those books I mentioned, however - prescient and ahead of his time are fair descriptions of them - but this is IMO once again!
The elephant in the room is the call record; it is beyond doubt that his views on Iraq, Libya et al were entirely wrong. And over Ukraine I think its clear that his 'fight until the end' is a wish, not a policy. I'd agree he is better than Applebaum, Kagan, Kristol and the rest on the cultural issues, writes well, etc. But given his clear, disastrous analytical views, he doesn't get to be the gatekeeper of anything.
Simon, I am sorry I thought I responded yesterday to this. Thank you for responding and giving me something to think about. I love how this chat works, respectfully!
I have a dear friend back in the states, originally from Republic of Georgia, who was drafted into Afghanistan by the Soviets back in the 80s. He suggests to anyone who is pushing war, « here’s your rifle, here’s your rucksack, the bus is over there. Get on, they will take you to the front. »
I have learned from following John about 3 “rules” that justify, for lack of a better word when the US should be involved in a war: the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt and Kennedy rules. It has clarified so much history for me. This is the best Substack.
Your friend is right!
Thank you, Terri. I so enjoy these podcasts and am learning a lot.
Interesting comments John, which I agree with for the most part, but some important points to consider which I think you missed:
1. While Douglas' support of experts on the Joe Rogan podcast was expressed badly (which I think Murray would agree with on reflection), it does raise two key points,
i) Joe Rogan really is platforming ignorant idiots, and too many of them, which genuinely does create misinformation. There is no argument for censorship, but what Rogan is doing removes weight from that statement, at least for the rabid censors on the left. I've no doubt Rogan will lift his game post Murray's appearance because Murray makes such an important point here.
ii) Fair enough that one can't visit Nazi Germany or Ancient Egypt, but the actual events of Israel-Palestine are still ongoing, and Smith's comments about the blockades required someone who had actually seen them to prove him wrong. This was what Murray got killed for - unfairly, imo - because most clips are cut to show only Murray's comments and not the context in which he made them i.e. in response to Smith's awful ignorance.
2. I struggle to see Murray as one of the bad guys in the vein of Applebaum, Krugman, Bremmer et al as he is so prescient and on point with much of his other analysis (see his books, most notably The Strange Death of Europe, The Madness of Crowds, The War on the West and On Democracies and Death Cults), so to say he's desperately gatekeeping a position of declining authority appears short sighted at best, wrong at worst as Donald Trump - realist in chief - promoted Murray's final book mentioned above immediately after the podcast.
He is absolutely still relevant, in other words, and his insight into Israel has been both informative and necessary, particularly as it supports Trump's less stated key policy agenda, which is combatting the rise of radical Islam.
Hi Simon, no, again, with respect, if you are wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, you really shouldn’t be lecturing the rest of us about your expert status. In a democratic society I like my experts to be right; indeed, I choose them precisely because of their track record.
As for Joe Rogan, as I said, I’d have preferred Ian Kershaw be gotten (he’s have done it I’m sure) to talk about Hitler and the Nazis. His choice in guests spans the gamut from interestingly eccentric to totally off base. But the way to combat this is to talk about what others have said abut whatever the topic that is profound; to discuss (on a platform like mine) an expert you admire who doesnt get enough air time. Or to go after Rogan or a guest over a specific topic oneself .In my case, you all have inspired me to do a next culture series based on ‘Experts we dont hear enough about.’
But saying that, he didn’t just make a poor choice of words; Murray gave the game away. He believes he is part of a priesthood of all believers who have a right to play traffic cop for the rest of us. Thats insufferable, particularly given his total lack of slef-reflection given his own dire record
But i’m inspired for the next culture series after we are done with Gene Hackman, so thanks to you and Kieran
"Hi Simon, no, again, with respect, if you are wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, you really shouldn’t be lecturing the rest of us about your expert status. In a democratic society I like my experts to be right; indeed, I choose them precisely because of their track record".
Agreed, but Murray is also very right on other matters (so don't throw the baby out with the bath water I think is what I'm saying!).
"But saying that, he didn’t just make a poor choice of words; Murray gave the game away. He believes he is part of a priesthood of all believers who have a right to play traffic cop for the rest of us. That's insufferable, particularly given his total lack of self-reflection given his own dire record".
Perhaps my own pro-Murray bias is shining through! I didn't realise his record was that bad, in which case I can agree with your priesthood-gatekeeping argument, but the argument about not mainstreaming idiocy is a valid one also.
More, better speech as you rightly say, but it is the sometimes-calculated, usually controversial statements that generate the clicks - and $'s - in this social media age, and that needs to be better managed, lest we give more ammunition to the censorship weirdos. And as much as I love the diversity of opinion on Joe Rogan he can surely help in that regard.
Yes, his record is really that bad (I wouldnt hire anyone that wrong, and we dont). so the gatekeeping becomes rather insufferable and is a main reasons the neocons are so in decline. I agree that where he has been right, that counts too. But adding it up…well, we wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole
Yes, the danger is people say idiotic things for clicks, because shock value sells far more than being reasonable. I think that’s a great argument to punch back with re Rogan, and many other people as well.
Maybe Gove will kick him off the Spectator and we can all have a rest.
Sadly, I’d say he’s just Michael’s cup of tea
Douglas Murray is a terrible terrible bore.
He reminds me of a type I met over and over again debating at St. Andrews…they weren’t hard to beat as they invariably got in their own way
John, you just answer a question I have been asking myself over and over again for a while...
Why Are the Neo Conservative's in such a mind melt down???
Paul Gigot , WR Mead trying to explain their explain this Saturday morning... I needed to shut off the media after that. I continuing to question what is at the root of their thinking? Was I missing something???? You just answer it! ""They have lost the control of the narrative, gate keeping and I believe your words were, as well as " neoconservatism has their minds being totally authoritarian". You solved it, for me... Thanks!!
I remember a saying, I believe it goes " A wise man doubts often, and changes his mind often, as facts change, the fool is obstinate and doubts not, he knows all things but his own ignorance".
John, Yes I. noticed your X posts are getting lots of hits and reposts, great news!
Hope everyone had a well rested weekend.
You are definitely on the case, Dianne! I think that’s it, they were never going to go gracefully as neocons are so incredibly ideological; this fanatic uniformity helped them beat the odds and come to power despite being very much a minority view, but now its getting in their way as they cannot adjust to the reality that the facts of the past generation have laid bare the glaring contradictions in what they think. As the Greeks knew all too well, most traits are janus-faced, having both a good and a bad side. For them, the meltdown is they have lost power definitively in both parties, are generally discredited and have nowhere politically to go. Worse, they have try to explain the inexplicable, the nation-building folly of the past 30 years. So right up both our streets, there’s a very good Sherlockian psychological angle to all this! Yes, we had a relatively quiet Weekend, I touched base with John about the work ahead today and all systems are go!
What I now can find humous, is that they are acting the way behind closed doors, and you know this in person, for me it's off the record zooms referring to Trump "its a shit show"(apologies for the bad language) "he is an idiot" " He is an embarrassment with my that I have to try to explain him to my EU friends"
Great,Thanks John, and John G.
One a side note I had an "Ahhhh Haaa" moment on what I thought was ridiculous Ukrainian rare earth mineral proposal. This will I believe flow into the China Tariffs. There is so many strings in this Ball of Yarn.
Have a great week to everyonel.... More Enlightenment ahead.
What a UK "intellectual" has to say about anything, plays little role generally today, whatever their convictions or methods. The country is languishing. Whether it can be put together again, is an open question. The baton has definitely been passed.
The problem is, Erik, the do matter, in terms of the conveyer belt the neocons have built between the US and the UK. While I agree that (sadly) the UK is languishing, this broader ecosystem is still important. Say the neocons still make up around one-third of the elites in the Republican Party and about one fifth in the Democratic Party (smaller numbers overall but they still play in DC, sadly) people like Murray and Ferguson do provide firepower for some of the people realists are in our death drip with; so they still play a deleterious role and must be argued against for this indirect but important intellectual and political reason
Hey Eric, Are you the one who put out a proposal on US tax reform a couple weeks ago? If so I hav heard JD is working with Trump on Taxing Foundations. I believe Trump is cutting Harvard federal funding and bring to the table this idea. As well as the Gates Foundation ... If I heard this correctly?? So much going on.
Specifically the 501 (c) (3) tax exemption has been abused by the likes of Gates & Soros (and others). These platforms unfairly compete with companies and investment firms and should be curtailed by taking away the tax advantage. 501 (c) (3) is the main reason "the rich don't pay taxes". Today 501 (c) (3) are chiefly money launderers, even sponsor terrorism, besides buying corrupt political services with campaign funding.
Also the overseas "coordination centres" which are really tax havens where large corporates funnel overseas profits through transfer payments for nominal services (such as "brand royalties", "patent royalties" etc.): sheer tax fraud through fancy fictitious nomenclature. They should be derecognised for US federal taxes. Apple, Google, Microsoft... hold $trillions in Dublin, Ireland with virtually no tax hitting them (unlike your wallet, Dianne).
Expanding the tax base should then be reversed by lowering regular corporates taxes on genuine businesses to say an OECD low 15% with improved same-day write off of productive investments. This would undercut the pernicious activity of tax havens and make the USA even more competitive.
Other use of the expanded tax base could be freeing tip income and overwork as well as social security income, raising the income tax threshold and expanding threshold for families with children, leaving the money in the wallets in 50 states instead of channeling all income to Washington DC.
I like this... Erik, thanks for your reply and insight.
Erik, don't forget the Clinton foundation!
Good morning, John. This actually spooked me a bit. I was listening to that very podcast yesterday! The fact that they were speaking together should, in itself, be seen as a victory for free speech, I suppose.
Douglas is undoubtedly well read, but I agree that his delivery often comes across as patronising, condescending, and entitled. This reflects a classist dynamic that plays out daily in the UK. The early part of the podcast especially felt combative, making it harder for me to connect with his perspective. Of course, that does not mean he is wrong on points.
I have listened to Rogan since the early days (much less so now, not really into MMA). It used to be a strange, entertaining escape, never really meant to be taken too seriously. What is fascinating now is that, as a victim of their own successes, Rogan et al in many ways have become the mainstream media. They have enormous reach and now must contend with the responsibility that must come with it, a level that certainly was not required before.
I completely agree that more free speech is a good thing. Where I take a slightly different view is that I do believe Douglas genuinely cares about it. His point seemed more about how, in our modern media environment, the most entertaining and provocative rhetoric tends to dominate. With that influence comes a responsibility to ensure what is said is balanced with facts. At some point, Rogan et al will have to decide whether there is value in dialling down the sugar rush in favour of more considered, factual content. It might mean fewer views and less reach (so less revenue, how will they eat?!), but perhaps more lasting value and integrity.
The ice cream man might wear a white coat, but that does not mean I take medical advice from him, but others just might.