The rot of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness

Id­i­otic PC de­mands are cre­at­ing so­cial chaos on cam­puses across the land

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - James A. Lyons, a re­tired U.S. Navy ad­mi­ral, was com­man­der in chief of the U.S. Pa­cific Fleet and se­nior U.S. mil­i­tary rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the United Na­tions. By Tammy Bruce

as a func­tion­ing en­tity is a tac­ti­cal ob­jec­tive. How­ever, we should not get in­volved in a 1,400-year sec­tar­ian war. Never for­get, both sided have joined forces to kill us.

Sec­ond, the Stop Arm­ing Ter­ror­ists Act (SATA, H.R. 608) was in­tro­duced with bi­par­ti­san back­ing by Rep. Tulsi Gab­bard Hawaii Demo­crat, a com­bat vet­eran of the Iraq War, and in the Se­nate (S. 532) by Sen. Rand Paul, Ken­tucky Repub­li­can. SATA would pro­hibit the use of fed­eral funds to arm or sup­port al Qaeda, ISIS “or any in­di­vid­ual or group that is af­fil­i­ated with, as­so­ci­ated with, co­op­er­at­ing with, or ad­her­ent” to them. It also would bar send­ing funds to the gov­ern­ment of any coun­try that the di­rec­tor of na­tional in­tel­li­gence de­ter­mines has pro­vided as­sis­tance to such groups within the last year.

SATA is al­most the mir­ror im­age of the new AUMF. It seeks to de­fund and stop our al­lies from arm­ing the very groups our mil­i­tary per­son­nel are risk­ing their lives fight­ing against.

It shouldn’t take an act of Congress to stop our tax dol­lars from go­ing to arm peo­ple we know are ter­ror­ists. Sadly, it’s far from clear that cut­ting off such aid can be as­sured with­out a le­gal prohibition. Press cov­er­age of the war in Syria over the past six years has been re­plete with re­ports of groups sup­ported by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion — ei­ther di­rectly via covert pro­grams or via our al­lies — that ei­ther fight along­side al Qaeda or de­cide to de­fect, tak­ing their U.S.-pro­vided arms with them.

The Los An­ge­les Times, Na­tional Pub­lic Ra­dio and the BBC re­ported that in March 2015 the U.S.backed group Fur­san al-Haq, equipped by the CIA with anti-tank mis­siles, par­tic­i­pated in an al Qaeda-led cam­paign in Idlib. How­ever, there is no clear af­fil­i­a­tion today. Af­ter the city fell to the ji­hadis, Chris­tians were driven out amid a ter­ror cam­paign of ab­duc­tions and church de­struc­tions. Many of the Druze res­i­dents were mas­sa­cred.

Idlib re­mains un­der al Qaeda con­trol today, as­sisted by Fur­san al-Haq, now re­branded part of the Free Idlib Army un­der the pro­tec­tion of Turkey’s ji­hadi pres­i­dent (and Amer­ica’s du­bi­ous NATO ally) Re­cep Tayyip Er­do­gan. Has the weapons pipeline been cut off? Even if it has, turn­ing it back on may just be a mat­ter of an­other change of name and flag.

There is no such thing as a mod­er­ate ji­hadi ter­ror­ist. Arm­ing one group of ter­ror­ists to fight an­other group of ter­ror­ists can only have one out­come: more ter­ror­ism. It’s time to slam the door on a wrong­headed and self-de­feat­ing pol­icy.

In today’s acad­emy truth is an in­ven­tion. Ex­pect­ing peo­ple to show up on time is racist. Cen­sor­ship is good. Si­lenc­ing op­pos­ing view­points im­per­a­tive. Vi­o­lence to en­force safety is nat­u­ral.

For the last 25 years, un­der the guise of “po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness,” we’ve been watch­ing the in­ex­pli­ca­ble flow into our cul­ture. The id­i­otic de­mands of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness in the 1980s, iron­i­cally re­ly­ing on the de­cency of the Amer­i­can peo­ple for their ac­qui­es­cence, was just the prep course, an amuse bouche be­fore the main course of cre­at­ing so­cial chaos and de­struc­tion.

It sounds dra­matic, and it is, and it’s also the only way the left main­tains power — brain­wash­ing peo­ple into be­liev­ing that so­cial norms must be de­stroyed in or­der to cre­ate a more per­fect so­ci­ety. From the ashes would emerge the great

col­lec­tive phoenix.

Just ask the Soviet Union, Cam­bo­dia, Cuba and Venezuela how well that works out.

Last year we watched po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness on cam­pus jump with aban­don into its per­fected state of fas­cism. Within a year, we moved from weep­ing stu­dents de­mand­ing safe spa­ces to di­rect, or­ga­nized vi­o­lence to stop speak­ers who do not pay al­le­giance to the left’s sta­tus quo.

Per­haps with the as­cent of Don­ald Trump, it was the shock of real­iz­ing the Amer­i­can peo­ple weren’t Venezue­lan and were not in­clined to com­mit mass sui­cide.

Con­sider some re­cent rev­e­la­tions, the nat­u­ral tra­jec­tory from the crowd a gen­er­a­tion ago that was de­mand­ing man­hole cov­ers be called “per­son­hole cov­ers,” and mak­ing “mail­man” “fire­man” and “po­lice­man” all ver­boten. We as­sented, and a thou­sand steps later:

Re­port­ing about Pomona Col­lege: “Black stu­dents con­demn ‘truth’ as an in­ven­tion of white peo­ple, want con­ser­va­tives ex­pelled.” News about Clem­son Univer­sity: “Pub­lic univer­sity’s ‘di­ver­sity train­ing’: Ex­pect­ing peo­ple to show up on time is racist.” A head­line about the work of an un­grad­u­ated re­searcher at Univer­sity of Wis­con­sin-Madi­son: “Teach­ers should al­low Ebon­ics be­cause English gram­mar is too hard for mi­nori­ties to learn,”

This “ac­tivism” at the acad­emy is not only clas­si­cally fas­cist, it de­stroys the fu­ture for the young peo­ple awash in its con­di­tion­ing. Imag­ine, af­ter all: What busi­ness, what cul­ture, could sur­vive a gen­er­a­tion that thinks ex­pect­ing peo­ple to be on time is racist?

At­tempt­ing to en­act Or­wellian rules at col­lege is just one pas­time of stu­dents. Free Bea­con com­ments on the di­rect and of­ten vi­o­lent ef­forts to stop non-lib­eral speak­ers from be­ing heard:

“With Notre Dame stu­dents feel­ing ‘un­safe’ at the prospect of Vice Pres­i­dent Mike Pence speak­ing at their com­mence­ment, the ri­ots at Berke­ley caused by the pres­ence of pro­fes­sional troll Milo Yiannopou­los on cam­pus, and the ex­plo­sive protest in March against au­thor Charles Mur­ray at Mid­dle­bury Col­lege that re­sulted in the as­sault of a pro­fes­sor, the war on cam­puses against free­dom of ex­pres­sion and hear­ing op­pos­ing views is per­va­sive and trou­bling.”

To say the least.

Last week, the Univer­sity of California at Davis’ Stu­dent Se­nate voted to re­move the Amer­i­can flag from Stu­dent Se­nate meet­ings. If you want it to be vis­i­ble, you have to file a pe­ti­tion in an ef­fort to con­vince oth­ers.

Todd Starnes re­ported one UC Davis stu­dent’s sup­port of the ac­tion on her Face­book post: “Why do you feel that ad­vo­cat­ing for the U.S. flag that rep­re­sents a his­tory of geno­cide, slav­ery, and im­pe­ri­al­ism is more im­por­tant than stuff that ac­tu­ally mat­ters like I don’t know, the vi­o­lence against our LGBTQ Brown and Black stu­dents, ris­ing tu­ition, re­sources for our stu­dents with­out homes,” she fumed. “What a waste of time.”

The odds are quite high that the stu­dents at this pub­lic univer­sity are re­ly­ing on a va­ri­ety of fed­eral, state and alumni loans to fi­nance their rage against the ma­chine. Per­haps some of the as­sis­tance should be re­con­sid­ered when a clas­sic ed­u­ca­tion is tak­ing a back­seat to so­cial jus­tice war­rior­ing. On Mon­day, I ap­peared on Tucker Carl­son’s Fox News pro­gram dis­cussing this af­ter the stu­dent lead­ers can­celed a planned ap­pear­ance on the pro­gram. Ap­par­ently, their col­lege bub­ble was threat­ened.

Yet, col­lege was sup­posed to be the bub­ble de­stroyer. Leaving home and all fa­mil­iar, thrown into a new, chal­leng­ing world. You are to be pre­pared for a world big­ger than you, and cer­tainly dif­fer­ent from you.

In­stead, we are in­fan­tiliz­ing stu­dents, ap­peas­ing and pla­cat­ing them, con­demn­ing them to a life un­cer­tain. Who needs time man­age­ment? The abil­ity to work and live with peo­ple un­like your­self? Why not re­sort to vi­o­lence be­cause you’re up­set or an­gry or ir­ri­tated?

It has been a per­fect storm cre­at­ing this dis­as­ter, one of which is the low­er­ing of ex­pec­ta­tions of stu­dents in gen­eral be­cause of the rot of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness. Our pub­lic schools have failed so mis­er­ably, univer­si­ties now can’t hold ap­pli­cants to any sort of stan­dard.

Con­sider the fright­en­ingly ab­surd de­ci­sion by Stan­ford, as The Wall Street Journal re­ported: “Ev­ery year, Stan­ford asks its ap­pli­cants an ex­cel­lent ques­tion: ‘What mat­ters to you, and why?’ Ziad Ahmed of Prince­ton, N.J., summed up his an­swer in three words. His es­say con­sisted of the hash­tag “#Black Lives Mat­ter” re­peated 100 times. He got in.”

We can an­swer Stan­ford’s ques­tion quite sim­ply: What mat­ters to us are col­lege de­grees that still mean some­thing; grad­u­ates who are ready to con­trib­ute to so­ci­ety and are ready to pur­sue dreams in busi­ness, life and so­ci­ety. What mat­ters to us is the fu­ture. What mat­ters is us win­ning this ex­is­ten­tial fight for stu­dents and a na­tion be­ing aban­doned by the lib­er­als run­ning our univer­si­ties.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY HUNTERG

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.