Niall Ferguson on Paris and the sack of Rome, a comment by Political Reporter

Niall Ferguson proves himself to be the natural successor to Samuel P. Huntington, whose paranoia embraced all of the world’s Civilizations, except our own naturally superior Western example. Huntington in his last book titled ‘Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity’ posits the notion that American Anglo-Protestant virtue is being threatened by Latino immigration. Mr. Ferguson trades in the same kind of paranoia mongering but with the refugees fleeing the ‘Middle East’ as the New Barbarians about to sack Rome. Ferguson penchant for drawing melodramatic historical parallels that reinforce his Neo-Imperial ambitions makes his essays almost comic, in a perverse way. The inconvenient fact is that these refugees are the watershed of the Western ‘War on Terror’ and the drones used, with absolute disregard for any human value. This is irrelevant to Ferguson’s idee fixe of Western Virtue facing obliteration, by means of a subversive contingent of Muslim refugees, bent on our destruction from the inside, a Muslim 5th Column. The Barbarians sacked Rome with an army, in Ferguson’s telling the refugees play the part of a Trojan Horse in his speculative melodrama.
Here is a quotation from his essay that demonstrates a facet of the Ferguson posturing hypocrisy:

‘ But it is also true that the majority of Muslims in Europe hold views that are not easily reconciled with the principles of our modern liberal democracies, including those novel notions we have about equality between the sexes and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities.’

One need only recall Mr. Ferguson’s comment on Keynes sexuality and its negative relation to economic thinking  to see that not all of we Westerners share a tolerance ‘of nearly all sexual proclivities’ !

Political Reporter


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.