Scan barcode
kitkat962's review
3.0
It was a new, exciting perspective for me. In the first two chapter, at best. Then it becomes dragging and complaining without specific numbers or graphs. The author basically repeats the same things over and over, without offering a counter-arguing. That is also the reason why the book appeared to be xenophobic and narrow. I hate not finishing, but I gave up somewhere two-thirds of the book.
teokajlibroj's review
1.0
Terrible book. The premise is that Islamic immigrants are destroying Europe and Western values, but there's very little evidence of this. In fact it's remarkable how little sources, references or evidence at all that the author uses. Worse still, he never even defines what Western values are, so it's impossible to know if immigrants hold them or not. Instead, Murray acts as if all immigrants have the same beliefs and values and these are incompatible with ours.
Murray does everything he can to twist his opponents views to make them look ridiculous, take quotes out of context or just invent a strawman. At one point he claims people (he never explains which people or provide any references) believe borders cause war and then ridicules this view that he just invented. At another point he claims "probably" 80% of Syrian refugees were male, but gives no citation for this figure and the vagueness makes it suspicious.
He is deliberately misleading in his treatment of immigration, frequently acting as if most if not all immigrants are Muslims. In reality, most immigrants in Britain are from Eastern Europe, but Murray never mentions this. In fact, he can't because it would ruin the premise of his book - if he admitted that most immigrants are Europeans with the same culture, then obviously Europe is not dying. But if he claims that Eastern Europeans have a different culture that threatens British culture, well that ruins his premise that there is one European culture and we all share the same values.
He obsessively lists every crime committed by a Muslim that he could find in order to make them look like a horde of rapists, murderers and terrorists. Of course, there's no mention of any attacks on Muslims (Breivik who?) because racism was invented by the left to silence people like him (I'm only slightly exaggerating). He claims there is a conspiracy to silence anyone who criticises immigration and that the media, police and politicians are working together to cover up all negative aspects of immigration. At times he borders on White Nationalism, while never using the term "White Genocide" he does claim European are being "replaced". Europeans are supposedly drowning in guilt (how does he know how 500 million people personally feel?) but they shouldn't because colonialism wasn't really that bad.
Listing everything wrong with this book would be a long article (which I'll write another time), but let's just say there's a lot.
Murray does everything he can to twist his opponents views to make them look ridiculous, take quotes out of context or just invent a strawman. At one point he claims people (he never explains which people or provide any references) believe borders cause war and then ridicules this view that he just invented. At another point he claims "probably" 80% of Syrian refugees were male, but gives no citation for this figure and the vagueness makes it suspicious.
He is deliberately misleading in his treatment of immigration, frequently acting as if most if not all immigrants are Muslims. In reality, most immigrants in Britain are from Eastern Europe, but Murray never mentions this. In fact, he can't because it would ruin the premise of his book - if he admitted that most immigrants are Europeans with the same culture, then obviously Europe is not dying. But if he claims that Eastern Europeans have a different culture that threatens British culture, well that ruins his premise that there is one European culture and we all share the same values.
He obsessively lists every crime committed by a Muslim that he could find in order to make them look like a horde of rapists, murderers and terrorists. Of course, there's no mention of any attacks on Muslims (Breivik who?) because racism was invented by the left to silence people like him (I'm only slightly exaggerating). He claims there is a conspiracy to silence anyone who criticises immigration and that the media, police and politicians are working together to cover up all negative aspects of immigration. At times he borders on White Nationalism, while never using the term "White Genocide" he does claim European are being "replaced". Europeans are supposedly drowning in guilt (how does he know how 500 million people personally feel?) but they shouldn't because colonialism wasn't really that bad.
Listing everything wrong with this book would be a long article (which I'll write another time), but let's just say there's a lot.
tomstbr's review
4.0
Mandatory reading. Could have been structurally edited a bit, kind of rambled and felt repetitive. But I guess he does have a lot of evidence to provide. Eye-opening stuff.
alexandrabree's review
5.0
Is worth reading at least twice through.
As I peek through the goodreads comments, I can't help but have an ironic laugh. The people who are "outraged" over Murray's statements about Islam and immigration are ALMOST all non-Islamic and non-immigrant, not that they would have to be but in their ravings they clearly foreward Murray's opinion "in the flesh" So to speak.
I know many immigrants who wish to see the numbers of migrants, in particular illegal migrants go down. It has little to do with race overall and more to do with ideological fractions, classism, and opportunity.
I think most of what Murray's has said resonates with the middle, lower middle, blue collar, and those people living in poverty.
My highlight of the book was learning about how English "blm" rally shouted don't shoot while marching with hands up, protected by police escorts that don't carry guns anyways.
As I peek through the goodreads comments, I can't help but have an ironic laugh. The people who are "outraged" over Murray's statements about Islam and immigration are ALMOST all non-Islamic and non-immigrant, not that they would have to be but in their ravings they clearly foreward Murray's opinion "in the flesh" So to speak.
I know many immigrants who wish to see the numbers of migrants, in particular illegal migrants go down. It has little to do with race overall and more to do with ideological fractions, classism, and opportunity.
I think most of what Murray's has said resonates with the middle, lower middle, blue collar, and those people living in poverty.
My highlight of the book was learning about how English "blm" rally shouted don't shoot while marching with hands up, protected by police escorts that don't carry guns anyways.
jasperburns's review
4.0
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
yates9's review
4.0
Infuriating and incendiary at tines, reasonable and insightful at others this book looks at immingration in europe and criticises its lack of vision while arguing that it involves basic compromise in values. The thesis is that Europe ceases to exist because it can no longer stand for the values it has in the past, its “culture”.
I would dismiss the text except the author’s basic question of how much immigration is good/ok cannot be completely dismissed. The author’s vision of a clash of cultures is more messy and inbalanced, and does not remember similar stories that occured in europe’s past even between neighboring countries.
The value in this text is to draw up a response to some of the policy suggestions the author makes in the last chapters. And ro think deeply as to what aspect of what the author discusses is in effect true for a long term, or a temporary effect.
There are some huge missing holes in the text:
- the fact that european culture has changed all the time and not been so unified as the author argues
- the impact of social media on gathering diverse tribes that drive extrememist positions over practical policy and constructive action
- the idea of responsibility: if not colonial what about climate impact on people
- the economic agenda of globalism mixed with liberalism that has led to the kind of europe we have where human capital movement is at its core
- the impact of technological transformation on inequality of means but open access to information about what life is somewhere else, how to coordinate travel etc…
In any case the book captures a more rational background to the birth of a new backlash against immigration than what we hear on the street.
I would dismiss the text except the author’s basic question of how much immigration is good/ok cannot be completely dismissed. The author’s vision of a clash of cultures is more messy and inbalanced, and does not remember similar stories that occured in europe’s past even between neighboring countries.
The value in this text is to draw up a response to some of the policy suggestions the author makes in the last chapters. And ro think deeply as to what aspect of what the author discusses is in effect true for a long term, or a temporary effect.
There are some huge missing holes in the text:
- the fact that european culture has changed all the time and not been so unified as the author argues
- the impact of social media on gathering diverse tribes that drive extrememist positions over practical policy and constructive action
- the idea of responsibility: if not colonial what about climate impact on people
- the economic agenda of globalism mixed with liberalism that has led to the kind of europe we have where human capital movement is at its core
- the impact of technological transformation on inequality of means but open access to information about what life is somewhere else, how to coordinate travel etc…
In any case the book captures a more rational background to the birth of a new backlash against immigration than what we hear on the street.