While many believe the most dangerous people in the world today are Islamic fanatics, they are mistaken. The pale in comparison to the Cultural Surrenderists (CS). The Cultural Surrenderists — on both sides of the Atlantic — are those who believe Western culture is something for which they owe the world an ongoing apology. That apology manifests itself in a number of ways, the foremost of which are the contemptible concepts known as multiculturalism and diversity. Both of them are based on the idea that all cultures, customs, religions and belief systems are equally viable, and that no one societal ethos is better than any other.
While many believe the most dangerous people in the world today are Islamic fanatics, they are mistaken. The pale in comparison to the Cultural Surrenderists (CS).
The Cultural Surrenderists — on both sides of the Atlantic — are those who believe Western culture is something for which they owe the world an ongoing apology. That apology manifests itself in a number of ways, the foremost of which are the contemptible concepts known as multiculturalism and diversity. Both of them are based on the idea that all cultures, customs, religions and belief systems are equally viable, and that no one societal ethos is better than any other.
Of course, none of these CSers can reconcile that ridiculous assertion with the inconvenient reality that millions upon millions of people are beating a path to both Western Europe and the United States at unprecedented levels. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that a de facto narco state like Mexico, a bloodthirsty dictatorship like Syria, a nihilistic theocracy like Iran, or the various hellholes that dot the horn of Africa are essentially interchangeable with democratic republics at the forefront of enlightened thinking, the rule of law, equal rights for women and minorities, and some of the highest standards of living in the world.
The first casualty of such intellectual bankruptcy is assimilation. For decades those who emigrated to Western nations were expected to adopt the host country’s customs and culture. In other words, if one were a fan of culturally “uplifting” concepts such as honor killings, clitoral mutilation, animal sacrifices or sex with children, one was expected to jettison those concepts as a condition for admittance. In fact, there was once a time (prior to 1965 in America) where immigration was based on the idea that the host nation, not the immigrant himself, was the primary beneficiary of this transaction.
Now it’s exactly the opposite. The great unwashed masses in Europe and America have been told by leftist leaders and their enablers in media and academia that “celebrating our differences” and learning to appreciate the “diversity” such differences bring us is the only standard that truly matters. Moreover, any resistance whatsoever to that standard constitutes bigotry, nativism and/or xenophobia.
Here’s a recent example of that celebration. “Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old girl was reportedly raped this month, have warned parents not to allow their children outside unaccompanied,” the Daily Mail reports. “Girls and women have been told not to walk home alone from the railway station because it is near a migrant centre where the rapist may live. At Pocking, another well-kept Bavarian town, the headmaster of the grammar school wrote to parents telling them not to let their daughters wear skimpy clothing. This was to avoid ‘misunderstandings’ with 200 migrants who were put up in the school’s gymnasium over the summer, before being moved on this month.”
Who “misunderstands” whom?
Here’s an even more telling revelation. “The federal government can tell you how many ‘Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders’ stole a car, the precise number of ‘American Indian or Alaska Natives’ who were arrested for vagrancy or how many whites were busted for counterfeiting in any given year. But the government agencies that crunch crime numbers are utterly unable–or unwilling–to pinpoint for the public how many illegal immigrants are arrested within U.S. borders each year,” Fox New reports. In her book "Adios, America,“ Ann coulter puts even more bluntly. "You will spend more time trying to obtain basic crime statistics about immigrants in America than trying to sign up for Obamacare,” she writes. Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams explains why. “These numbers would expose how serious the problem is and make the government look bad,” he states.
Horrific is more like it. Despite the murder of Kate Steinle by five-time deportee, seven-time convicted felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the “sanctuary city” concept that enabled that crime — and countless others — remains in effect in more than 200 cities across the nation. That these cities openly defy federal immigration law with no pushback whatsoever is highly indicative that celebrating our differences has reached the point where “accommodation” is about turning a democratic republic into banana republic where the rule of law is whatever the American left decides it is.
Why is the left willing to embrace cultural suicide? The operative quote comes from “Paradise Lost” by John Milton: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” In other words, the American Left would rather control the levers of power in a Third World nation than compete in the arena of ideas that form the historical basis of the American experience and American exceptionalism. And if that means embracing the “fundamental transformation” of a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation into one where a series of Balkanized sub-groups compete to see who can capture the largest slice of the “grievance pie,” so be it.
According to Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead, the roots of the European crisis are driven by “the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity,” he explains. "One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek.“
The EU’s solution? Import millions of the discontented — and accommodate their discontentment. Why? "Taking its cue from the U.N.‘s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other ambitious declarations and treaties, the EU holds that qualified applicants have an absolute human right to asylum,” Mead reveals. “European bureaucrats tend to see asylum as a legal question, not a political one, and they expect political authorities to implement the legal mandate, not quibble with it or constrain it.”
Why would “EU bureaucrats” and their American ruling class counterparts, who are currently advocating not only the pro-amnesty disguised as “comprehensive immigration reform,” but an increasing influx of Syrian “refugees,” be so generous? Why is it members of Congress steadfastly refuse to make themselves subject to the very same laws they impose on the public? Why do Democrat politicians regularly advocate for unionized public schools while their children attend private ones? Why do leftist politicians wax indignant about the lack of gun control whilst surrounded by armed security guards?
Americans must never forget one over-riding reality: Nothing our ruling class does will directly affect them. And until the policies they inflict on Americans do directly affect them, expect your towns and cities to bear the consequences of their “enlightened” thinking.
Ultimately, American and European Surrenderists must be asked the simplest of simple questions. And because no one in the entire mainstream media has seen fit to ask it, let me be the first: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Cultural Surrenderist caucus, what is the acceptable level of murder, rape, wife beating, gay bashing, child molestation, street gangs, “no-go” zones, overcrowded jails and schools and countless other dysfunctions we must endure to satisfy your sensibilities?
“So, Mr. Secretary Kerry, how many Syrian refugees can I put you down for?" asks columnist Howie Carr.
And not just John Kerry. "So many of the proponents of wide-open borders and more Mideast 'refugees’ have so much to … share,” Carr continues. “Vice President Biden not only has the 11.8-acre Naval Observatory, but also his own $2.8-million oceanfront mansion in Greenville, Del. Joe’s done well by doing good these last 43 years at the public trough. There are also the Chevy Chase, Md., homes of U.S. Sen. Ed Markey and MSNBC anchor Comrade Chris Matthews. Hillary Clinton said flooding the nation with Syrians is ‘a good start.’ She’s got the Georgetown mansion on Embassy Row and the mansion she and Bill bought in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $2.85 million when they were ‘dead broke,’ which was why they could only put down an $885,000 cash down payment.”
Sounds like a plan. One German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her equally self-aggrandizing bunch of EU bureaucrats would also be forced to embrace — in a better world. One where they would be directly subjected to the very same “fairness” they so willingly impose on others. Talk is cheap. Cultural surrender is not.
© Copyright 2015 The Patriot Post
Start a conversation using these share links: