RUTHFULLY YOURS

Leftwing radical billionaire George Soros fancies himself as “some kind of god.” He believes in the delusion that he is endowed with special insight into what is best for the world, even as his declarations defy reality and any objective distinction between good and evil.

Soros’s latest example of self-righteous tripe was his op-ed article, appearing on December 28th in The Guardian, in which he blamed the “hysterical anti-Muslim reaction to terrorism” for helping jihadist groups recruit more fighters to their cause. He wrote that “the fear of death leads us and our leaders to think – and then behave – irrationally…when we are afraid for our lives, emotions take hold of our thoughts and actions, and we find it difficult to make rational judgments. Fear activates an older, more primitive part of the brain than that which formulates and sustains the abstract values and principles of open society.”

Sorry to pop Soros’s balloon, but open societies will not be “open” for long if the jihadists succeed in expanding their Islamic supremacist ideology to the West. It is both a rational judgment of free peoples and a perfectly understandable human emotion to want to fight and destroy those who want to kill us.

Professing dislike of the West and its culture and legacy is an industry on campus. The subtext of “white privilege” is that it consists of unearned status accorded those of European background. To listen to the anti-Westerners, you would think that the inventors of electrical generation, indoor plumbing, and vaccinations were enemies of the planet.

Multiculturalism, the orthodoxy of popular culture, and the current bite of the media and the arts are all predicated on the idea that Western civilization is more toxic than admirable. Citing the evils of the European tradition can also provide exemption from an occasional politically incorrect gaffe. And assuming a non-Western identity (ask Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill, Rachel Dolezal, or Shaun King) can offer career dividends.

American society lavished scholarships on the upper-middle-class prep-school graduate Barack Hussein Obama but perhaps would not have done so much for just another Barry Dunham. It is not surprising that when George Zimmerman had been in a fight with Trayvon Martin, his scars were photoshopped away and his 911 call racialized. Would that have happened had he chosen to go by the name of Jorge Mesa?

Paradoxes arise in attacking the West in general and the so-called European diaspora in particular. First, there is the obvious question: “Compared to what?” There are plenty of alternative cultures unstained by past Western imperialism and colonialism. Are their legacies more congenial to the present politically correct progressive agendas?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened to “punch” in the “mouth” any countries that stand in the way of “completely Islamic” change as the rift between Iran and its neighbors grows wider.

Washington is trying to step carefully around the Saudi executions that have touched off a storm between the kingdom and Iran.

Pro-regime protesters in Iran broke into the Saudi embassy setting fires and looting — one posted a selfie with the telephone he stole — after Riyadh executed an opposition Shiite cleric.

“Doubtlessly, unfairly-spilled blood of oppressed martyr #SheikhNimr will affect rapidly & Divine revenge will seize Saudi politicians,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted on Sunday. “The only act of #SheikhNimr was outspoken criticism and he promoted virtue and prohibited vice which was due to his religious zeal. #SheikhNimr’s martyrdom & unfair bloodshed is Saudi govt’s political mistake. Islamic world & whole world must be concerned about the crime.”

“Saudi army’s oppressing of Bahrainis & destruction of their homes & months of bombing of Yemenis are other cases of Saudi regime’s crimes,” the supreme leader continued. “Surely, martyr #SheikhNimr will be graced by God & no doubt Divine revenge will seize oppressors who killed him & it is the point of relief.”

The siren’s call of UN-led multilateralism beckons for the year ahead. Before succumbing yet again to the UN Charter’s endearing promise “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,” a look back at the devastating record of 2015 is in order.

Number One: In 2015 the world’s nuclear non-proliferation regime was emasculated.

The Security Council had adopted four sanctions resolutions against Iran over almost a decade, resolutions that constituted binding international law. Iran refused to comply with all of them. In response, in July, the Council chose to “terminate” the laws, rather than insist on their implementation.

Successive Security Council resolutions demanded Iran “suspend…all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.” Iran never did. In response, the Council approved the Iran deal and granted Iran a right to enrich.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in December that Iran had engaged in “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and had taken specific steps to conceal them. In response, the IAEA decided not to insist on full disclosure but to close the books.

A 2010 Security Council resolution states: “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” In mid-October Iran tested medium-range missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. In response the UN did nothing. So in early December Iran did it again.

No state interested in acquiring nuclear weapons will henceforth take the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA or Security Council resolutions on the subject seriously.

Number Two: In 2015 the UN made a mockery of its central tenet of the “equal rights of nations large and small.”

I do not know whether I have been more struck by the similarities between the American and the Australian or the differences. I incline to believe that the similarities are more superficial and the differences more fundamental.
—J. Pierrepont Moffat, American Consul-General in Australia, October 14, 1935

In November 2003, in an ABC radio interview, Andrew Peacock, once leader of the Liberal Party, and a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, was asked to identify the main differences between Australians and Americans. Without hesitation Peacock identified four areas in which national beliefs sharply differ: interpretation of the meaning of political freedom; attitudes towards the role of religion in public life and the challenge of American exceptionalism; the place of wealth and economic status in society; and attitudes towards war and the standing of the military. He went on to warn that while Australians and Americans are long-time military allies and share common Western liberal democratic values, they remain, at heart, two distinct nationalities shaped by very different histories.

These contrasting histories need to be carefully examined and understood, if only because casual assumptions about cultural similarities between Australians and Americans only act to conceal important differences—differences that carry with them risks of diplomatic superficiality and political miscalculation. When Mark Twain visited Australia in 1897, he observed that Australians “did not seem to me to differ noticeably from Americans, either in dress, carriage, ways, pronunciation, inflections or general appearance”. In the twentieth century, Twain’s comfortable image of similar peoples—what Alfred Deakin called “the blood affection” between Australians and Americans—was strengthened by the rise of the United States to global power and the pervasive Americanisation of so much of Western popular culture. Yet if Australia is to possess effective statecraft in the new millennium, we must probe beneath the veneer of popular myths and commonplace beliefs.