Douglas Murray's Nail in the Coffin
And the New York Post's embrace of lies and censorship
The Oldest American Newspaper in Print Allows the Likes of a British Neocon to Destroy its Credibility, What a Dark Day for Corporate Hackery and a Bright Day for Independent Media
I didn’t want to say anything else about this. I fast-forwarded past his interview on Real Time, and I definitely wasn’t going to read whatever else he had to say in the New York Post but tuning in to Dave Smith talk about it on his podcast, sure, I’ll do that.
Dave Smith was going over Douglas’ latest “Op-Ed” in the New York Post that seems to be, if nothing else, calling for censorship. That’s what it means when anyone else calls for “Standards.” That’s surely all Rachel Maddow and Jen Psaki was asking for right? But when I got to the claims he made, that we’d like to see some “standards” for. I became so infuriated, I couldn’t stop myself. Now, here we are.
The New York Post’s Steele Dossier Moment
“Douglas Murray: So-called Israel-Hamas, Ukraine war ‘experts’ spew false info on Joe Rogan’s podcast — There has to be a standard”
This Op-Ed/article/whatever is the most flawed piece of disinformation in journalism since the “Horse Paste” bit put out by CNN and the lot during Covid.
Maybe worse, this is the New York Post’s Steele Dossier moment. I think I might be madder at the New York Post for publishing these easily verifiable lies. I don’t know if it’s because it falls under the purview “Opinion” that they would just be a-okay with publishing things that a Google search and a Ctrl+f (find on page) could verify for you, but I’m at least a bit loathsome of Douglas Murray’s abuse of credibility he’s gained by clinging onto people, institutions, and the culture war shit.
I mean, I’ve been reading his books since the Madness of Crowds, thinking this guy had really put in the work, but now I see it oh so clear. He’s a first-class liar that counts on his identity as a gay conservative Brit and the institutions he clings onto to give him credibility. How could they let him get this so wrong? I would never think it was okay to publish something on this Substack that I didn’t not only believe to be true but verify to make sure it’s true.
I remember the first time I heard mention of him, it was from Joe Rogan, and Joe was referring to the — extraordinarily fitting to our times — claim that when civilizations are on their last leg they start to experiment with things like gender and what-not, things that in a normal world would seem like madness, things that, as of late, have been happening here in the West.
Please someone, if you know what book, article, archive, this claim came from message me or comment because now that I know Douglas Murray is a habitual liar I must know who said that shit? And did he make it up? Because it’s his most widely cited claim.
So, what sent me on my first Google of Mr. Murray wasn’t simply that claim. It was what followed that claim I’m sure which was — something to the effect of — “Douglas is an interesting case being that he is a gay man who, because of his identity, can say the things that they would get anyone else cancelled.” I thought, “Oh, how exotic. I must hear this guy talk.”
I’ve always been one to find myself into the less orthodoxy. I preferred “Little Wing” to “Purple Haze”. Ralph Nader to John Kerry, but who wouldn’t. “Soul to Squeeze” over “Give it Away.” “One in a Million” over “Patience.” “…And Justice for All” over “The Black Album”. “Brain Damage” over “My Name is.” You get it, right?
I have an immediate appeal to the more contrarian view and sometimes move more towards the mainstream and sometimes further away.
I’m feeling maybe that has become an out-of-control train in the case of Douglas Murray. I recently, after he appeared on Lex Fridman’s podcast and was bragging about his “Mr. President, this is THE dictator” article in the NY Post, checked out the article, and thought immediately that it wasn’t what I’d consider a well-written piece, and it didn’t say anything surprising. It was not at all what I’d expected to find from Douglas. In fact, Douglas Murray was writing like a glorified corporate media pundit, so I thought, hey “maybe it’s a one off.”
But, no. This “Op-Ed” he just put out for the NY Post has zero “-Ed” and not that much “Op-.”
The following passage comes to mind from
’s Hate Inc., and I cannot believe it is now describing Douglas Murray.Have you noticed that the most famous people in media – the people with the most influential slots in top newspapers, with shows of their own in prime-time, voices first heard by Senators and CEOs and other key decision-makers – tend not to be all that bright?
Don’t get me wrong: they’re not dumb. The people who rise to positions of high influence in this business tend to be at least literate, and quick-minded enough not to drown on live television.
But, as is curiously the case with high-level politicians as well, top on-air personalities and print editorialists are never geniuses. They almost never say or write surprising things. They don’t dazzle or amaze.
You’d trust the average newspaper editorialist to be able to assemble an IKEA product, but the problem is their editorial arguments feel similarly designed, i.e. never too complicated for the average consumer to follow. In a way, it’s almost the same kind of quality control standard.
—
, Hate Inc, The Church of AveragenessDouglas’ “Averageness” is so average you think its exotic!
So, I wonder, is it his identity as a gay conservative with a know-it-all accent that gives him the ability to lie to everyone in this publication, and in his books, and on the news? The New York Post is the very same publication, who we all defended when their “Hunter Biden Laptop” story was broke four years ago. How can they allow themselves to be co-opted by such easily verifiable bullshit?!
What bullshit? I thought you’d never ask.
The Claims
The headline, of which is just the best. Talk about drinking your own Kool-Aid. “There has to be a standard.” Agreed! Let’s talk about it:
Let’s talk about this line: “Claiming some Jewish ancestry, he has spent the 18 months since Oct. 7, 2023, being very unfunny indeed.”
This is allowed, being purely opinion, but I should say, “Claiming some Jewish Ancestry” is pretty funny for him to say, in a fucked-up way. Dave Smith’s grandfather died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, so yea, he “claims” some Jewish ancestry.
My real issues come in when he, by means of “standards” can’t even be bothered to figure out who said what? You can tell this guy heard one story and never went back to see if he heard it right, or he’s remembering it clearly. Not a second draft in his life!
Alright: First claim, on Dave Smith:
Specifically, he has decided to spend his time going around the podcast world sounding off about Israel.
In the process, he largely cites people like him — people who have many views but no obvious expertise.
Dave Smith has been doing a show called Part of the Problem since February 2016. His first episode was called “Venezuela 1984.” He found his calling in this during the Ron Paul debate when he fell in love with Ron Paul’s anti-war stance. Geopolitics has been his animating issue since the beginning. Subscribe at PartoftheProblem.com if you’d like to hear more.
Dave literally never refers to other podcasters as his basis for any of the claims he makes. He reads books, reads reports, the same shit we all do to find out truth.
If you can get his first episode, “Venezuela 1984”, he says at 5min:45secs in “My three main issues in this order are: Foreign policy, the Prison industrial complex (war on drugs, mass policing, etc.), and financial corruption.”
If you’d like to know why he’s a critic of Israel, maybe read this report, I found out about it from him, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm this was a letter to Netanyahu in the 90’s telling him, instead of making peace with the Palestinians hold off on the “Land for Peace Process”, instead we’re going to overthrow Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, and peace with Palestinians can be pushed to the back burner forever. The guys who wrote that letter became part of George W. Bush’s cabinet, and Netanyahu testified in Congress as a “Regional Expert” in 2002, claiming that if Iran and Iraq are overthrown “Democracy would sweep the region.” Turns out he was wrong.
Or read, “Rise and Kill First: History of Mossad’s Targeted Killings” a recommendation of
, and Dave Smith. These people read history books by actual experts. It’s so stupid. Next claim:One of Cooper’s many ahistorical claims is that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of World War II.
On these and many other occasions, Cooper has simply lied about history.
When invited to debate the world’s foremost living expert on Churchill last year, he declined, saying that he didn’t know enough to go against such a figure.
One of his many. I’d like to hear what the rest of them are, but no one addresses anything but this one claim that isn’t what he said at all! Just watch the following clip: This is everything
has said about Winston Churchill.There’s a bright line in opinions of
. On one side of the line is those who have heard his work, on the other side is those who haven’t heard his work. Not one person who has listened to his work has a negative opinion of him. You just can’t, so I implore you, check out his work. It’s free, here , click there and listen to any of it and tell me your opinion is still the same. Or check out the first ten minutes of this:Also, he was offered to debate Andrew Roberts on World War Two, but he declined. He said, “I don’t do many podcasts, I’m not good at talking off the cuff. I’m a bookworm. I wouldn’t want to debate Andrew Roberts; I’m a fan of Andrew Roberts. I’ve been reading Andrew Roberts books for years. And I am no historian of World War Two. I do a history podcast where I read books and write long scripts and read those scripts.”
Next claim: Here’s a good one!
Another such figure from the world of comedy who is changing his shape to fit the time is Rogan guest Ian Carroll.
This is someone who, when he last went on Rogan’s podcast, very carefully tried to minimize the evil of Adolf Hitler.
Outrageously and completely falsely, Carroll claimed that in the 1930s, Hitler had kept his antisemitism down.
A provably false claim that Rogan did nothing to counter.
“Another such figure from the ‘World of Comedy’. I’m sure of it now. Douglas has had a concussion. Or a secret membership to “The Fight Club” causing him CTE.
Ian Carroll has never, and I mean not one single time been on any stage as a comedian of any kind and has never claimed to. What is this idiocrasy. “Another?” Is he saying
was a comedian too?Joe Rogan and Dave Smith got their start as comedians, literally nobody else!
And the word “Hitler” was only spoken during the JRE episode with Ian Carroll one time, in the whole three hours, only uttered one time.
Once again, if you’re going to call for “standards” Douglas maybe you could have some yourself.
What was said is that “early on in Hitler’s rise, to avoid causing outrage from the regular German people, not sympathetic to the National Socialists (Nazi’s), Hitler was downplaying his antisemitism on the global stage. His point was not all German people were all in for Hitler, there were still some good German people.
The claim you’re making wasn’t made by Ian Carroll, you fool, it was made by
and many mainstream Historians who wrote some of the most prominent histories on World War Two, here, I’ll give you five, since I already have this point cued up from my debate breakdown:
From page 102 of Ian Kershaw's "Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution," where the author remarks about Hiter's propensity to temper his violent antisemitism in the early 1930s, a timeframe Murray denies him doing so:
Courtesy of Author and Historian, Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons on X.
Sorry, Doug, I’m just looking for standards. You shouldn’t accuse someone of hiding behind something, that no one, including them, has ever said they were.
You shouldn’t attribute things to someone that they literally never said.
And if you are going to accuse someone of peddling in falsehoods, you should probably make damn sure it’s false.
Next Claim: Oh, Shit. Now Dougie Bites the Hand That Feeds Him?
Two weeks ago, Rogan had his mate Dave Smith on yet again for a long podcast.
But for my return to the show, the deal was that I could come on only if Dave Smith was — once again — in the studio.
As if Joe didn’t want to be unaccompanied.
Or that Joe thought it was I — of all his guests — who must be challenged.
I like a debate as much as the next Scotsman.
But what resulted was more than a debate.
It seems to have led to some kind of podcast-world meltdown.
The first reason was that from the outset, I challenged Joe on his choice of guests and why he had been giving a platform to only one side of a debate —
and a very conspiratorial one at that.
He and Smith were immediately defensive.
Oh, isn’t this fun. Accusing Joe of being afraid that Dougie might challenge him. Let me first say that Joe is the only reason that many millions of us even know who you are.
Let me also say, there have been several pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine people on the Joe Rogan Experience, every single one of them were more knowledgeable on the subject than you, Douglas Murray.
Gad Saad grew up in Lebanon during the wars. Are you saying you’re more knowledgeable than him? Mike Baker was part of the CIA during the war on Terror, are you more knowledgeable than him? I don’t even mean that to be ad hominem, read his writing. He’s retelling the same corporate media positions just with his own spin to it. Not even very much spin either, but you’re the guy Joe is afraid of taking on, yea, sure. “Mr. President, Vladimir Putin is THE dictator!”
Coleman Hughes is Coleman Hughes, you’re not more knowledgeable than him!
The idea that Joe was afraid to talk to you without Dave Smith present, sounds like you’re trying to hide behind being a comedian too. It’s the funniest bit I’ve heard this year, but it is also not true.
We (the listeners) even knew about this debate coming up, you didn’t get blindsided, Dave Smith announced on his show over a month ago that he had a big debate coming up, at first, he said it was in talks, and then he said it was confirmed. If you got blindsided it wouldn’t have been something that had to be “confirmed.”
“They were immediately defensive.”
Yea, sure. My girlfriend watched this before I did, she had zero preconceived notions, she said, “Who was that British prick that came on with Dave Smith?” She said, “They dismantled his bullshit like brilliant gentleman.” Mind you, she doesn’t follow politics, just listened to this episode for something to pass the time at work. They weren't on the defense, you were, and what's great about the internet is that it never dies. Anyone who ever wants to know how that went can go to YouTube and roll it back.
Last Claim: You Haven’t Been There
His last paragraph was on this argument. He really wanted this to be more of an own than it was. I would absolutely love to visit these places I write about, I’d love to know how the people on the ground feel, maybe one day that will be in my budget, but that will never change the history of a conflict, the history of a region. And it does not mean that I can’t educate myself on what is going on and what has gone on and give my positions. It must be nice to be propped up by institutions that pay you to travel around and do mediocre work. I think about
, breaking the biggest stories in the world for the New Yorker, now that places like that, hire hacks like this, it leaves no room for the Hersh’s of the world, what the fuck happened?In order to be knowledgeable about these things you don’t have to — as Joe said, “go and touch the ground” — you simply have to be diligent, read every perspective you can from all sides and stay curious. I will refer to your position before your recent bout with Dementia:
There are people who've written about the Holocaust who didn't experience the Holocaust and have written about it better than people who did.
My Final Words on This Story
So, here’s a nail for Mr. Murray’s coffin.
Dishonesty obviously comes easily with this one, everyone knows that now. The last person who would’ve gone to bat for him no matter what, he’s now attempting to get deplatformed.
Shouting him down like the censorious college student wokesters that made him famous. Two conflicts later and his neoconservative roots have returned. The sick, sadistic, homoerotic affection for war have been dragged out of hiding and into the mainstream. Finally, I must ask, editors of the New York Post, what are you going to do? Are you going to allow this fool to use the pages of the oldest journalistic publication in America to call for the censorship of one of your biggest allies in Joe Rogan when the entire system was crashing down upon your publication in 2020? To uproot the first amendment that’s been so precious to us here in America? Will you allow some Brit that doesn’t believe in these God given rights himself to cloud your judgement?! Come now. Excise this tumor. Douglas Murray should be in the funny pages, not because he’s actually funny, but because he’s using the old “Comedian-Historian” switcheroo routine, like his best buds Bill Maher and
. And don’t forget .Thank you for reading!
Editor-in-Chief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWcTYY1Dofg
Love it! So much where y mind was. “Immediately defensive?” How about insistent Murray be accurate and truthful.
Like you, I learned about Murray from watching Rogan, then started reading him. I also learned Murray was a putz by watching Rogan, and I’m done reading him now.