In recent years many of the identity aspects of Western civilization have ended up in the pillory. The Judeo-Christian tradition finds itself under attack. The same can be said for the tradition of secularism and the Enlightenment, the roots of so much political, scientific and artistic quality.
If we look even simply at the world of politics and that of intellectuals we realize that a race has emerged to see who participates most in the collective demolition of Western culture. The symbol of this trend is the radical chic establishment that rules universities, especially in America, an establishment that describes the West as the Evil Empire, the hell of racism, xenophobia, sexism and all forms of discrimination.
The British journalist Douglas Murray, one of the voices least aligned with this mainstream trend, offers in his essay "War on the West" (Guerini e Associati, 2023, Euro 29, pp. 368. Also Ebook) a passionate defense of Western culture, of institutions and politics. And it demonstrates, with solid arguments, how it should not and cannot be a shame to be proud of what Europe and Western culture have given to the world.
Murray is not a denier of the faults and errors of the West. However, he is against any form of demonization and glorification a priori. It is no coincidence that one of the questions around which War on the West revolves is: "If the history of humanity is made up of slavery, conquests, prejudices, genocide and exploitation, why do only Western nations take the blame?". Out of hypocrisy? For convenience as happens with some multinationals eager to appear progressive at all costs? Due to lack of knowledge of history?
Murray offers an incisive deconstruction of inconsistent arguments and hypocritical activism, explaining how Taliban anti-racism risks becoming a counterproductive weapon and showing the cracks of the prevailing political correctness. Precisely political correctness, from a sacrosanct and worthy guarantee against discrimination and prejudice, has transformed into a sort of mantra, into a form of communication whereby every expression, declaration, judgment must be carefully weighed so as not to offend or make people feel uncomfortable. Nobody. In its most ultras forms, those that intellectual salons and radical chic progressives like so much, it can become a tool to accuse anyone who does not follow the contemporary mainstream on ethical issues of racism, fascism, indifference, in short, any possible and imaginable "ism". multiculturalism, globalization and immigration. What emerges is then a real "dictatorship" that restricts freedom of thought and expression and that limits the fields of research even of intellectuals, who are too worried about not ending up in the media and social pillory of modern inquisitors and moralists 2.0.
