“Hey hey, ho ho, Western civilization must go,” roared segregationist Jesse Jackson and 500 protesters at Stanford University in 1987. Like cancer left untreated, it didn't stop there, it metastasized. And whether it's now at stage three or stage four, is well illustrated by a shocking story from Columbia University.
There are 116 different groups, all part of a coalition, all with a common goal: “We are Westerners, and we are fighting for the complete eradication of Western civilization,” they wrote.
Of course, we should take this seriously, since “the philosophy of one generation of schools is the philosophy of the next generation of governments.” Furthermore, consider the size of this organization, which it writes represents “thousands of Columbia students across nine different schools.”
Robert Spencer reported on the story for PJ Media: “The Columbia University Movement to Abandon Apartheid (CUAD) describes itself as 'a coalition of student organizations that see Palestine as a vanguard of our collective liberation,'” he wrote last Friday. “But 'Palestine' is not its only concern. On Thursday it issued a 'statement of solidarity with the student movement in Bangladesh,' which actually makes no mention of Bangladesh at all” (noting that the Muslim country is currently quite unstable, with its government having recently been overthrown and the country recently hit by serious violence).
Spencer next speaks of the goal of “the eradication of Western civilization,” warning:
The movement is undoubtedly broad-based, encompassing all sorts of left-leaning pressure groups currently active. Some of the organizations listed as part of the coalition are: Young Democratic Socialists of America, Columbia University Queer and Asian, African Student Association, Muslim Student Association, Columbia University Palestine Social Workers Association, Black Student Organization, Students for Palestine Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, Reproductive Justice Collective, Columbia University Chicano Caucus, Black and Latino Student Organization, RightsViews (a Graduate Journal of Human Rights), Columbia Review, Amnesty International at the University of Colorado, Union Theological Seminary (UTS) Students for Palestine Freedom, as well as WBAR Radio, Barnard Garden Club, and even Poetry Slam, among many others.
Pointing out the seeming contradictions in the above and adding some perspective, commentator Eric Atter writes:
To be honest, I am a little confused as to why Jewish Voice for Peace and the Bernard Garden Club are in favor of the complete eradication of Western Civilization.
Do you believe that CUAD made false statements, exaggerated statements, or understandably wrote the message in anger and then apologized? No. Neither CUAD nor any of the individual organizations that make up CUAD made any such statements, nor have they denied the statements in any way, shape or form.
Interestingly, I have never heard anyone say that “Orientals are fighting for the complete eradication of Oriental civilization” or that “Muslims are fighting for the complete eradication of Islamic civilization.”
I hate to say it, but Mark Steen is right when he points out that “diversity is where nations die.”
And as I have said many times before, tolerance is not an inherent virtue. Moreover, the consequences of your tolerance will come back to you.
Also note that, as I have explained before, “tolerance” always means tolerating a perceived negativity (you wouldn't “tolerate” a delicious meal; you'd have to put up with a stubborn cold). So if that perceived negativity is also objectively negative (e.g., evil), then you shouldn't willingly tolerate it; you should eradicate it, if possible.
Robert Spencer claims that the idea that “Western men will destroy their own civilization with their own hands” comes from the Quran, and cites passages to support his claim. His scholarship on Islam is impressive, but it should be noted that the French revolutionaries (“leftists”) were trying to destroy Western civilization some 250 years ago, long before the influence of Islam penetrated Europe.
And there was the radical Students for a Democratic Society who said in the 1960s, “The problem is never the problem; the problem is always the revolution.”But the truth is that neither this nor Spencer's simple explanation is sufficient.
Of course, there are demagogues who will use any means necessary to incite the masses, and while they are human (at least marginally so), and therefore have emotional preferences for ideological positions, ultimately they want power more than anything else.
Then there are the pseudo-intellectuals, university professors, media personnel and others who are genuinely passionate about their false beliefs. As was the case under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, these people are often murdered when the regimes they support flourish.
And then there are the other useful idiots, the rioters, whose members take to the streets and commit physical destruction. They are like lynch mobs, ignorant and driven by pure emotion.
But this is why we must never accept the toppling of statues, the destruction of traditions, or the plundering of cultural landscapes, whatever the motives. The people who do it are not acting in good faith; they are driven by hatred and a lust for power, and they just want to burn the world as it is.
But what about the indifferent majority? Why do they tolerate wrongdoing, while Muslims would never tolerate those who fight for the “total eradication of Islamic civilization”? The difference is simple.
Whereas Westerners today believe “shallow things” — in the words of columnist Bret Stephens — Muslims tend to believe deep things. They believe their faith is real, and not a passing fad.
In contrast, most Westerners today are gray-area, “perspective” moral relativists, who will fight for principles but never for mere perspectives.
As for “tolerance,” those who believe in the gray may learn that the warriors of black and white can ultimately erase the gray, and that when their black and white is wrong, they will impose the utterly intolerable.
