The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Strange Death of Europe, please sign up.

Answered Questions (6)

Mark Alexis I have the same doubts about whether some of these people read this great book before giving it a single star. I thought it very lucid, mild-mannered …moreI have the same doubts about whether some of these people read this great book before giving it a single star. I thought it very lucid, mild-mannered and balanced. But if you consider everybody to the right of Bernie Sanders a hate-filled hater full of hate, Mr. Murray is not your guy, I guess.(less)
Nathanael Hoernlé I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be a small or a large number. The numbers struck Oriana Fallaci as dangerous when they were half that.

Since …more
I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be a small or a large number. The numbers struck Oriana Fallaci as dangerous when they were half that.

Since then another number has gone up sharply - victims of Islam-inspired violence. No reason to suppose that that development will reverse itself.(less)
Beth-In-UK If it is, it is simply in terms of the norms of western culture, such as deploring FGM and challenging the 'surrendered female' trope as 'feminist cho…moreIf it is, it is simply in terms of the norms of western culture, such as deploring FGM and challenging the 'surrendered female' trope as 'feminist choice'.

There is also the issue of whether European Muslims are entitled to 'bring the war on terror home to Europe' or to want to establish a caliphate in Europe.

Also, perhaps, that because Islam is nearly always a majority religion wherever it is in the world, that European Muslims can find it hard to accept being in a minority, and in a religiously pluralist/secular society.

Otherwise it just regards it as a shame that it is becoming a 'mass religion' in a geographical region which has not only been 'Christendom' but also has spent a good amount of time and effort historically in keeping Islam 'out' of Europe (Reconquista, reversal of the Ottoman conquest sence in the Balkans).

After all, Islam is geographically vast, so it really doesn't need Europe at all! (less)
Beth-In-UK Isn't that because leftists like, and seek, change, and conservatives don't? (The clue is in the name 'conservative'!)…moreIsn't that because leftists like, and seek, change, and conservatives don't? (The clue is in the name 'conservative'!)(less)
Beth-In-UK I do think the main problem that all discussion by the Establishment 'host culture' - from politicians to journalists - is that they cannot extrapolat…moreI do think the main problem that all discussion by the Establishment 'host culture' - from politicians to journalists - is that they cannot extrapolate from (1) individual racism (abhorrent) through (2) non-integration (not necessarily abhorrent per se, but depends on the specific cultural practices, eg, FGM, method of killing animals, veiling of women et al) to the Elephant in the Country which is (3) sheer numbers!

The author rightly deplores that there is a conspiracy of silence, in that (2) and (3) are forever being conflated with (1), which 'automatically' shuts down all rational discussion of the impact on a host society of non-integration and, separately, mass immigration.

(2) may not be a problem for the host culture at all (again, I use my example of extreme Orthodox Jewry, which is pretty 'invisible' to anyone not in the immediate vicinity) (I don't comment on its morality, eg, social separation of men and women, which may, indeed, be regarded as 'unacceptable' to a 'liberal/egailiarian' host society).

(3) is the problem, because it 'forces' (2) to our very obvious notice (DO we offer 'female only' sessions at swimming pools, DO we alter exam timetables for Ramadam, DO we 'cancel Christmas' etc etc).

Most societies I would argue are inherently conservative about things they have a choice over - when 'we' (the electorate') make a positive choice for change (eg, new government, new laws etc) that is, by and large, tolerated even by those who wouldn't have voted for them per se (eg, gay marriage??). But when societies feel they have not been given a choice, in this instance, the SCALE of mass immigration, then they can become resentful and defensive.

The question really boils down to, does ANY society have a moral right to conserve itself - ie, not change! - if that means denying others their 'right' (is it??) to change them without their consent or cooperation or toleration?

If it is argued that no, there is not such 'right' to change a society without that society's consent and cooperation, then there is no 'right' to immigrate into someone else's society.

But, as I say, the host society's consent, cooperation and toleration is significantly affected by the sheer numbers involved - even small British towns have had Indian and Chinese (etc) restaurants for countless decades - who has ever 'protested' about that? Obviously not! It has had absolutely NO impact on the town's population!

These, are, undoubtedly, difficult issues to moralise about, but the question of whether 'self-preservation' (anti-change) is a right that every society 'as is' possesses, is key. (less)

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more