“Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go” chanted racial agitator Jesse Jackson and 500 demonstrators back at Stanford University in 1987. As with a cancer left untreated, too, it didn’t end there but metastasized. And whether it’s now stage 3 or stage 4, where we currently are is well exemplified by a shocking story out of Columbia University:
One-hundred sixteen different groups there, all part of a coalition, are united in a goal — “We are Westerners,” they write, “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.”
Of course, since the “philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next,” we should take this seriously. Consider further, too, this organization’s magnitude: It represents “thousands of Columbia students across nine different schools,” it writes.
Robert Spencer reported on the story at PJ Media. “Columbia University Apartheid Divest [CUAD] describes itself as ‘a coalition of student organizations that see Palestine as the vanguard for our collective liberation,’” he wrote last Friday. “But it’s not just interested in ‘Palestine.’ On Thursday, it issued ‘a statement in solidarity with the student movement in Bangladesh’ that didn’t actually get around to mentioning Bangladesh at all.” (Note that this Muslim country is currently quite unstable and just experienced serious violence, with its government having recently been toppled.)
Spencer then mentions the “eradication of Western civilization” goal and warns:
The movement is undeniably broad-based and encompasses all the various types of leftist pressure groups that are operating today. Listed as part of the coalition are Young Democratic Socialists Of America; Columbia Queer And Asian; African Students Association; Muslim Students Association; Columbia Social Workers For Palestine; Black Student Organization; Students For Justice In Palestine; Jewish Voice For Peace; Reproductive Justice Collective; Columbia Chicanx [sic!] Caucus; Black And Latinx Student Organization; RightsViews (Human Rights Graduate Journal); The Columbia Review; CU Amnesty International; Union Theological Seminary (UTS) Students For A Free Palestine; and many, many more, including WBAR Radio; Barnard Garden Club; and even Poetry Slam.
Noting something seemingly incongruous about the above and adding some perspective, commentator Eric Utter writes:
I must admit I’m a bit puzzled as to why Jewish Voice For Peace and the Barnard Garden Club are all in on the total eradication of Western civilization.
Think CUAD misspoke? Exaggerated? Composed the message in an understandable fit of rage for which it apologizes? Nope. Neither it nor any individual organization comprising it has done so — or repudiated the statement in any way, shape, or form.
Funny, you never see “Easterners fighting for the total eradication of Eastern civilization.” Or “Muslims fighting for the total eradication of Muslim civilization.” Etc.
I hate to say this, but Mark Steyn is right when he notes that “diversity is where nations go to die.”
And, as I have repeatedly stated, tolerance is not inherently a virtue. Moreover, you get what you tolerate. Period.
Note also that as I’ve explained in the past, “tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative (you wouldn’t “tolerate” a delectable meal; you would have to tolerate a stubborn cold). Ergo, if that perceived negative is also objectively negative — e.g., evil — you’re not supposed to willingly tolerate it. You’re supposed to, if possible, eradicate it.
Robert Spencer claims the idea that “Westerners would destroy their own civilization ‘by their hands’ comes from the Qur’an,” and he quotes a passage to make his case. Yet while his scholarship on the topic of Islam is impressive, note that the French revolutionaries (“leftists”) were trying to destroy Western Civilization almost 250 years ago — long before Islam’s influence had permeated Europe.
Then there was the “Students for a Democratic Society” radical who said in the 1960s, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The truth is, however, that neither this nor Spencer’s simple explanation suffices.
There are demagogues, of course, who rouse rabble, using any tool at their disposal. Being human (at least barely), these people certainly have emotional preferences for ideological positions, but ultimately they want power more than anything else.
There also are the pseudo-intellectuals — college professors, media types, etc. — with true passion for their misbegotten beliefs. As under Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, these people are often killed when the regime they help enable comes to flower.
Then there are other useful idiots, the rabble itself, whose members take to the streets and effect the physical destruction; they’re like a lynch mob, ignorant and running on pure emotion.
This is why, though, no matter the alleged motivation, we mustn’t tolerate the toppling of statues, the destruction of traditions, or any denuding of our cultural landscape: The people effecting it aren’t operating in good faith. Driven by hatred and/or power lust, they just want to see the world, as it is, burn.
But what of the apathetic majority? Why do they tolerate the wrong things whereas Muslims never, ever tolerate those who would fight “for the total eradication of Muslim civilization”? The difference is simple:
While Westerners today believe in “shallow things, shallowly,” to quote columnist Bret Stephens, Muslims often believe in deep things, deeply. They hold that their faith is the Truth, not just a flavor of the day.
In contrast, most Westerners are now moral relativists, who see only gray — “perspectives.” And you may take up the cudgels for principles, but never for mere perspectives.
As for “tolerance,” believers in gray may learn that warriors for black and white can ultimately erase the gray and, if theirs is the wrong black and white, will impose what is quite intolerable.
