Amis with his obedient lackey spouting of ruling elites' agendas can be described, a little generously, by Nietzsche in Human All Too Human, "Scholars who become politicians are usually given the comic role of having to be the good conscience of a policy."
The Telegraph has an article on this: Martin Amis essay 'like work of BNP thug'. Here's how it ends:The hard-line Prof Eagleton seems to have lost patience with Britain's intellectuals.In an article this summer, he wrote: "For almost the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life."One might make an honourable exception of Harold Pinter, who has wisely decided that being a champagne socialist is better than being no socialist at all; but his most explicitly political work is also his most artistically dreary."The knighting of Salman Rushdie is the Establishment's reward for a man who moved from being a remorseless satirist of the west to cheering on its criminal adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan."David Hare [the playwright] caved in to the blandishments of Buckingham Palace some years ago, moving from radical to reformist."Christopher Hitchens, who looked set to become the George Orwell de nos jours, is likely to be remembered as our Evelyn Waugh, having thrown in his lot with Washington's neocons."
Exactly wherein lies the value of questioning "the foundations of the western way of life?" Why just the western way of life? Why not any way of life? And on what exactly does one base one's questions?