War On The West, Douglas Murray

​

I’ve been reading The War on the West by Douglas Murray after finishing The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher. I didn’t choose it because the topics overlap — I chose it because Murray’s worldview is almost the opposite of mine. I’m broadly liberal, and I wanted to deliberately read across the political spectrum to challenge my assumptions.

Here are my reflections so far.

1. Race, policing, and Murray’s framing

Murray argues that public perception of police killings of unarmed Black Americans is dramatically inflated, citing figures of around 10 or fewer per year. That surprised me — I assumed the number was higher.

But the way he uses this statistic feels incomplete. He doesn’t compare it with other racial groups, doesn’t explore the role of deprivation or gun prevalence, and doesn’t consider how police fear, training, and cultural narratives shape behaviour. Without that context, the number doesn’t tell the full story.

He also focuses heavily on fringe CRT voices rather than mainstream liberal positions, which makes his critique feel aimed at extremes rather than the real centre of the debate.

2. The 1619 Project and historical reframing

Murray critiques the 1619 Project’s attempt to reinterpret American history through the lens of earlier Native presence and the foundational role of slavery. I understand the impulse to re‑centre marginalised histories, but I also think some interpretations overreach.

For me, the answer isn’t erasing or replacing history — it’s contextualising it.

3. Statues and historical judgement

Murray argues that tearing down statues is a form of historical erasure. I partly agree, but I also understand why people object to celebrating figures involved in slavery or colonial violence.

My own view: keep the statues, add context, and use them as educational tools rather than symbols of uncritical celebration.

4. Empire and colonialism

This section was genuinely interesting. Murray quotes authors from formerly colonised nations — like Chinua Achebe — who acknowledge that colonialism had both harms and benefits. These perspectives complicate the narrative in ways I hadn’t fully appreciated.

Where I disagree with Murray is his claim that critics ignore non‑Western empires. I think the West is judged more harshly because it set higher moral standards for itself.

5. Slavery as a global phenomenon

Murray argues that slavery was widespread outside the West and that Western nations are unfairly singled out. I agree slavery wasn’t unique to the West, but I don’t think most people believe it was. Where he has a point is that some activists frame Western history as uniquely evil — but again, he focuses on fringe voices.

I am by no means an expert on slavery and I certainly need to understand the past before I can fairly draw judgement in this space. I do have the book Black and British which I need to get to one day.

6. Reflections on the China chapter

This was the section I found most frustrating. Murray frames Western self‑critique as misplaced because China’s abuses are far worse. To me, this is a false binary. Western societies can criticise themselves while also condemning China. One doesn’t cancel out the other.

He also seems to admire aspects of Chinese national cohesion while condemning their authoritarianism, which feels unresolved.

7. Where I’m landing

Reading Murray hasn’t changed my politics, but it has sharpened my thinking. I’m realising I care most about:

- equality of opportunity

- meritocracy

- acknowledging bias without guilt narratives

- contextualised, balanced history

- rejecting extremes on both sides

Murray raises valid points, but often undermines them by focusing on the most radical examples.

If you’ve read the book — or critiques of it — I’d be interested to hear how you processed it.