A rational critique of the irrational but ever so chic blame-the-West worldview.

The Adversary Culture
The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite
Keith Windschuttle
Address to: Summer Sounds Symposium
Punga Cove, New Zealand
February 11 2006

Something is obviously going terribly wrong here. The logic of relativism is taking Western academics into dark waters. They are now prepared to countenance practices that are obviously cruel, unnatural and life-denying, that is, practices that offend against all they claim to stand for.

To see how decadent these assumptions have become, compare today’s relativism to the attitude that prevailed when the culture of the British people was in its ascendancy. Sir Charles Napier, the British Commander-in-chief in India from 1849 to 1851, signed an agreement with local Hindu leaders that he would respect all their customs, except for the practice of suttee. The Hindu leaders protested but Napier was unmoved:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

The moral rationale of cultural relativism is a plea for tolerance and respect of other cultures, no matter how uncomfortable we might be with their beliefs and practices. However, there is one culture conspicuous by its absence from all this. The plea for acceptance and open-mindedness does not extend to Western culture itself, whose history is regarded as little more than a crime against the rest of humanity. The West cannot judge other cultures but must condemn its own.

Since the 1960s, academic historians on the left have worked to generate a widespread cynicism about the nature of Western democracies, with the aim of questioning their legitimacy and undermining their ability to command loyalty. Let me demonstrate some of the ways in which national and imperial histories are being used to denigrate Western culture and society and give the nations of the West, especially those descended from Britain, an historical identity of which they can only be ashamed.

Via ¡No Pasarán!

Can Arabs be trusted period? After years of immersion in multiculturalist kumbaya and stifling political correctness it’s amazing anyone can still have such thoughts, much less openly express them. How refreshing.

Congressmen threaten probe of U.S. seaports deal
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 20, 2006

“I think we’ve got to look into this company. I think we’ve got to ensure ourselves that the American people’s national-security interests are going to be protected,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat. “And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm. There can’t be a choice between profits and protecting the American people.”

Any company overseeing civilization’s critical infrastructure deserves scrutiny, not just US infrastructure and not just companies owned by Arabs. “We’ve got to look into this company”? Who is “we”? Homeland Security has already looked into it. Should the NSA tap their phones? If the press wasn’t so busy covering hunting accidents they might have broken the story sooner. Now that they smell another way to hurt Bush I’m sure we can trust them to “look into” it posthaste.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press yesterday that the takeover terms are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration.

“I’m aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn’t go to who they hire, or how they hire people,” Mr. King said.

“They’re better than nothing, but to me they don’t address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?” Mr. King said.

Well that’s the rub isn’t it? How do we guard any company against infiltration by al Qaeda? US law prevents hiring based on a person’s race or creed. Being blind to such things is considered a virtue, remember? Arabs aren’t even supposed to get special scrutiny when they board an airplane. Al Gore says the Bush administration isn’t letting Arabs into the US easily enough. Not nearly as easily as his administration.

What’s ridiculous about this sideshow is that it boils down to some Washington grandstanders trying to queer the plans of some Dubai fat cats to buy port operation rights from some London fat cats. Are the Londoners Arabs? Does it matter? Neither Republicans nor Democrats have taken any serious action to stop illegal traffic across US borders. There is no need for Al Qaeda to infiltrate anything. They can safely walk themselves and their weapons right across the US-Mexico border. Which is not to say we shouldn’t secure our ports. But with the front door wide open there’s not much sense arguing about locking the back door.

Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, cited Mr. Chertoff’s remarks as proof that the administration “just does not get it.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, agreed, calling the secrecy “ridiculous” and saying she will support legislation “to say no more, no way” to foreign ownership of U.S. ports.

“We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets,” Mrs. Boxer said. “Al Qaeda has said if they attack, that’s one of the places they’re looking.”

“I don’t think we’re being overly paranoid. It’s very simple to say that our infrastructure has to be protected and let’s have American companies do that or the government itself,” Mrs. Boxer said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, yesterday called on President Bush personally to “override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter.” He was joined at a press conference by some family members of September 11 victims.

What caused Boxer and Schumer to suddenly morph into Global War on Terror hawks? Leftists don’t believe we’re at war, now they do? What might be motivating them? That the new port operators are rich Arabs? Class warfare, that’s fine, but the racism – how unseemly. These recent converts to nationalism want to protect us from another 9/11? Leftists criticize Republicans for their jingoist slogans and exploitation of 9/11. Now it’s OK? Is this the kind of awkward out-of-character posing we can expect in response to Hillary’s call for Democrats to take “a backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism”? It’s OK for Democrats to play the “fear card” now? Apparently so.

It makes far more sense to assume their motives haven’t changed. That Boxer wants to expand government and Schumer is pandering to longshoremen. That and the usual “thwart Bush” strategy. Mystery solved.