Diana West

Diana West in my view has become one of the best commentators of the cultural situation of the West and the cultural war beung waged by radical Muslims. And, I add, the rapid surrender by the so-called elites in Europe and slower, but just as surely, by the those in the US.

She reminds me of Ann Coulter of years ago before Coulter decided shock was more important than substance.

Here is a portion of an interview. It is well worth clicking on and reading all.

Lopez: How are “dhimmi life under Islam” and “PC life in a multicultural world” similar?

West: For me, this pairing was something of a “eureka” moment in the writing of the book.

I would describe PC life in a multiculti world as being marked in part by self-censorship based in fear — fear of professional failure, opprobrium or social ostracism. I would also describe this same self-censorship as a form of childishness. During one lecture on The Death of the Grown-Up, I took a question from a man who wondered, in a rather agitated way, if I were actually saying that multiculturalism is juvenile. I hadn’t phrased things that way, but, on quick reflection, I told him that, yes, that was indeed what I was saying. The fact is, buying into multiculturalism — the outlook that sees all cultures as being of equal value (except the West, which is essentially vile) — requires us to repress our faculties of logic, and this in itself is an infantilizing act. I mean, it’s patently illogical to accept and teach our children the notion that a culture that has brought liberty and penicillin to the masses is of no greater value than others that haven’t. In accepting the multicultural worldview, we deceive ourselves into inhabiting a world of pretend where certain truths are out of bounds and remain unspoken — even verboten.
...

Such a fact is no small matter. It’s not for nothing that Plato taught us to “mark the music” to understand an individual or his society. After all, people who hum Berlin or Arlen or Gershwin think they want to fall in love; people who hum (hum?) Motley Crue or the Ying Yang Twins think they want to have sex. People who listen to Mel Torme (Nat Cole, Bing Crosby, or Ella Fitzgerald) don’t want to pierce their tongues; people who listen to Eminem (Alanis Morisette, Kurt Cobain, or Public Enemy) don’t want to pin on an orchid corsage. If the American popular song could idealize romantic love to a fault, rock ‘n’ roll degrades physical couplings to new lows — destroying not just the language of love and romance, but also the meaning of love and romance. And, I would sadly add, our capacity to experience both. The fact is, between a world in which romantic love is the ideal and a world where non-marital sex is the goal lies a vast cultural chasm. And not simply in terms of aesthetics. There are salient differences between a civilization that sings of romantic love and marriage (“Have You Met Miss Jones?”), and a civilization that sings of lust and one-night stands (“I Can’t Get No Satisfaction”). More than just the time has changed between 1937, when George and Ira Gershwin’s “They Can’t Take That Away from Me” was a hit:
We may never, never meet again
On the bumpy road to love…
and 1987, when George Michael’s “I Want Your Sex” was a hit:

Don’t you think it’s time you had sex with me
Sex with me
Sex with me.

The changing of the cultural guard that took place in between tells us a lot about the death of the grown-up.