"I completely agree."

If you want to know what the average student at UC Santa Cruz is thinking, it's exactly that. The so-called 'critical mind' is not the least bit critical. Perhaps critical of the "establishment", but as far as the student-professor relation is concerned, they are preaching to the choir. As John J. Ray states, "The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present."


It's almost as if I am back in community college, where the professor continues with her lecture in front of a silent class - half of them drank too much the previous night, didn't get enough sleep, or are busy thinking about other things. The other half are bored out of their minds.

Here, it's different. The students are not silent because they are bored. They are silent because they have no objection to what the professor is saying.

The university system and all of academia have this unhealthy fixation with diversity. What does it really mean? Sure, you can paint each robot in your robot army all different colors. You can change their shapes and sizes, but fundamentally they are all still robots. Academia loves to speak their volumes about how having lots of people who look different make higher education better, even if all those people are more or less ideologically homogeneous. If we're all thinking and doing the same things, does it really matter how we look?

Today the instructor (feminist studies graduate student, mind you) put on a DVD of a Noam Chomsky lecture, complete with a packed lecture hall of wide-eyed and attentive college students ready to greedily lap up everything that St. Noam speaks without hesitation or question.

The theme of the lecture was that the world's terrorists are the US and Israel. No mention of the centuries of terror and slaughter that Jews and Christians have faced as a result of their dhimmitude in the Middle East. No mention of the massive bombing campaigns carried out by Hezbollah against anyone associated with the US or Israel. No, the world's worst terrorists are the US and Israel, which have only become world and regional superpowers, respectively, in the last 30 years. Chomsky has a very limited view of history, and refuses to acknowledge his double standards.

His "thesis #1" was that we are all hypocrites in regard to our views on terrorism. Well, if that's true Mr. Chomsky, where do you fit into the subject of "we all"? Are you a hypocrite as well, or are you conveniently shielded from criticism because you're the one lecturing? Are you so focused on the speck in the eyes of others that you can't or won't see the log embedded in your own short-sighted vision of global politics?

Chomsky may be aware that is was CIA-backed Lebanese that detonated the car bomb that killed 80 worshippers as they left a Beiruit mosque instead of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, an ex-leader of Hezbollah, yet frames the claim that the attempt was directly done by the CIA and in the context of total Lebanese innocence and not retaliation for attacks by Hezbollah.

Chomsky rationalizes, excuses, and downplays terrorism that is not committed by the US or Israel. It seems that one finds it easier to point the fingers at large things than at small things, no matter how minor or grievous the acts in question are. He is opposed to US "hegemony", yet sees no problem with UN hegemony. To Chomsky, the UN can do no wrong. He is still highly critical of US action in the former Yugoslavia, yet finds little to say about the same UN that essentially allowed the Srebrenica massacre (of Muslims, no doubt!) to occur under Dutch auspices.

Chomsky is the type who slams the US on its foreign policy in Iraq, but would join the legions of drones in condemning the US for not doing anything to free Iraq from the murderous Baathists had the US instead gone the diplomatic route, just as we are with the genocide in Darfur. US refusal to intervene in Iraq would probably have prompted hemp-wearing Community Studies majors across the US to add a "Free Iraq" bumper sticker to the back of the Prius their parents bought (so they could look hip and environmentally responsible, all while allowing Toyota to use massive amounts of toxins and heavy metals in the manufacture of the batteries) for them, alongside the Obama '08 and "Free Darfur" "Free Burma" and "Free Tibet" stickers.

That's what the aggregation of international law, "condemnation", and UN Resolutions have culminated in: bumper stickers. That's the only thing they have to show. It's a big boost for capitalism. I mean, who wouldn't delight in making the adage "a fool and his money are soon parted" a reality?

Chomsky's beloved international law and the UN are somehow institutions to be respected, yet no other nation or coalition of nations have ever been able to put pressure on the US or Israel. Condemnation and scorn are the only tools the UN has at its disposal, as if the multiple failed resolutions commanding Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors free reign of all Iraqi facilities weren't enough evidence to showcase the toothlessness of the UN.

If Chomsky is so concerned about double standards, berates others for having them, and then refuses to acknowledge his own, why have standards in the first place? Leftism rejects all objectivity, and standards would imply some form of objectivity. If he is so concerned about US hegemony, wouldn't it have a better net result for the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and the Asian states to bring the US down on its knees either through economic or military force? Chomsky is opposed to violence, but that all depends on who is carrying out the violence and how well Chomsky is prepared to rationalize it.

Chomsky has been quick to declare that Israeli and US leadership should be detained, charged with war crimes, and then sentenced, but Keith Windschuttle says in a New Criterion article:

"No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."

He has downplayed the horrific acts of Slobodan Milosevič's regime, citing Western "aggression" as a catalyst for the subsequent attempts at ethnic cleansing. Chomsky is not averse to making up information that suits his views, no matter how fiercely he criticizes others for the same behaviour. His statements that the US attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory caused "tens of thousands of deaths" was strongly refuted by Human Rights Watch - who never made an official investigation to determine the number of dead as a direct result of the attack. Here, Chomsky is practically pulling figures out of thin air. The Tomahawk missile strike disrupted food distribution, not to mention the hostility against US aid groups working in the Sudan, so the "tens of thousands of deaths" still would have occured due to the Sudan's internal condition of civil war and famine.

Chomsky frequently uses the word "obvious" in describing unverified and uncited statements about events that he makes. Anyone who criticizes his description of those events would be identified as someone who cannot see the obvious; someone who is ignorant - that old word that the Left loves to throw at anyone they disagree with. Who's going to take you seriously if you're IGNORANT? It's just another way of shutting down criticism and establishing Chomsky-ites and other members of the Left as the omniscient ones. He uses the phrase "too obvious to talk about" as if to say "this is not open to discussion", yet such an assumption is in direct violation of his first thesis of "we are all hypocrites". I found, and continue to find to this present moment, his glaring hypocrisy and narcissism to be absolutely sickening.

Here is a man who is fabulously wealthy - in a First World nation, not an authoritarian Third World country like the ones he so zealously defends without little regard to their own behavior - who decries tax shelters and concentration of wealth, yet the Hoover Institute clearly shows that Chomsky himself has made use of trusts to guard his ill-gotten wealth (what else can you call a massive sum of money made in a capitalist nation by a mainstream critic of capitalism?). When confronted about his tax shelter, Chomsky rationalized his hypocrisy by stating that he is setting aside the money for his children and grandchildren, which I'm pretty sure those other rich people are doing, too. He went on to shift the attention away from himself in saying that he and his family shouldn't be criticized because they are "trying to help suffering people".

Does he think about the environmental destruction that comes as a result from the trees cut down to make the paper for his books? Does he even care? Like so many other authors and celebrities on the Left, it's not likely they really care as long as they can get their point across. It's a "necessary sacrifice" or "using the system against itself", much like Al Gore's 221,000 kWh-using mansion/office along with the private jets that he takes to and from colleges when giving commencement speeches.

Speaking of taxes and the "rich", the IRS data still adamantly refuses to corroborate the claims of the wealth redistributionists. New data points to the fact that while the top 1% of income earners receive 22% of all income, they end up paying 40% of income taxes. If that isn't enough, the entire top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. Who's really isn't paying their "fair share"? The poor use the most social services, yet most of them are receiving aid that they did not and will not pay for.

On top of that, the US has a higher corporate tax rate than the "sustainable and progressive" EU! It's easy to stop businesses from moving jobs overseas: we lower the cost of doing business. The purpose of a business is to supply a product and to offer an attractive target for investors. Businesses should have no allegiance to a government, and they should be able to do business with whomever they want, at least within legal boundaries. Stop taxing profitability and the efficient use of resources at present levels, and we can at least slow down the rate of outsourcing. Just as labor will look for the best possible wages and operating conditions, business will do the same.

What is Chomsky's complaint with the wealthy, who would still be financing the overwhelming bulk (and even more so than now!) of an expanded welfare state under an Obama administration? Wouldn't this be his dream come true - the evil and exploitive capitalists getting their just desserts at the hands of a black socialist? Chomsky is in favor of the estate tax and income redistribution, but only on the condition that it's not his own estate or his own income. After all, he has to support his family and "suffering people", so making an exception for him is completely legitimate.

The sad reality that the rest of my class took Chomsky's words at face value and without objection points to a greater problem - the refusal to criticize their own views and the "revolutionary" views that are presented to them by instructors who are presenting it as the Gospel truth, and nothing less. Just as David Horowitz said, there are plenty of feminists who have written critiques on their own movements, yet the bulk of Feminist Studies (or Womens' Studies, as it's called at most universities) majors will only read texts extolling the virtues of feminism and doing nothing but tearing down any legitimacy of masculinity. Like Chomsky implies, it should just be "obvious". To go against the "revolutionary" doctrine is to admit that one is uneducated, ignorant, racist/sexist/classist/ageist/homophobic/Islamophobic/et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The Left pushes the doctrine of self-criticism and self-reflection, on the condition that they are exempt from the same activities.

You'll never learn to argue well if all that you hear are things you agree with.

David Horowitz came to speak at UC Santa Cruz, a school he considers the "worst school in America". His aim was to direct the attention of the unwitting student body to the fact that opinion is being presented as fact in a majority (if not all) of the liberal arts and social "sciences" classes. No criticism of such teaching is offered. The university is now the religion-less version of seminary school, where you are certainly going to Hell if you don't believe all the world's problems are caused by rich people, capitalism, white people, men, Republicans, or the REAL troublemakers in the world - rich white male pro-capitalist Republicans. No ands, ifs, or buts.

Many of the classes center around political activism through creating a victim mentality: "you're black, so it's only natural for you to be oppressed by white people, and that means you need to do something about it because white people hate you", regardless of whether such a thing is actually occurring or not. If you don't believe me, pick up the course catalogue, or audit a class. I have run into the "whites/males/Republicans are to blame for all this country's problems" dogma in more than one of my classes here at UCSC. Criticism of such theories is truly slaughtering sacred cows. The idea that Robert Mugabe's seizure of land from white farmers and redistributing it to black Africans who have no knowledge of farming is the cause of Zimbabwe's (I still prefer to call it Rhodesia) problems of hunger and violence would be considered "racist" - a label leftists love to toss at people and ideas that threaten their comfortable political monoculture.

The university's student body has insulated itself from criticism with that jargon. A white person criticizing a black person's behaviour or policy? Racism, and you're a racist too if you don't agree with that assessment. What's that? Someone's critiquing leftism? Obviously a right-wing bigot, if you ask me.

Speaking of "racism" and other such ad hominem devices, the anti-Horowitz protesters chanted a familiar song:

"Racist, sexist, anti-gay
Right-wing bigots, go away!"

It's cute, really. If you're 12 years old and "Bushisms" still make you laugh.

Who are they calling racist? Don't they realize that their precious affirmative action programs only serve to treat minorities like children who need lower standards instead of expecting them to rise to meet the same standards as everyone else, or that they have no problem calling whites who criticize a black Presidential candidate "bigots" and black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" or "race traitors" because they don't tow the line of victimization at the hands of whites, or that the enslavement of blacks from 150 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are disadvantaged?

Sexism. How is Horowitz a sexist? By declaring that the Feminist Studies has no internal mechanism of self-critique, ignoring the works of prominent feminists who have critiqued their own movements? Ohhh, the horror! How dare you tell us that our ways are wrong!

Hint: if you're an 'enlightened progressive', there's no need for self-examination, because your enlightened nature just means that everyone else is wrong. See, if everyone adopts the mindset of the 'enlightened progressive', there would be no argument about things. We could all get along peacefully, without any of those filthy ass-backwards right-wing bigots to ruin our beautiful ideological homogeneity!

They cannot claim he is "anti-gay", either. It's a common slur used against anyone even remotely identified with the right, whether or not they have any stance on homosexuality at all. Horowitz is outspoken among conservatives in his support of gay marriage.

As I've noted earlier, "right-wing bigot" identifies everyone who threatens the monoculture. More importantly, the ending to that verse "go away" demonstrates just how open and tolerant the leftist community is to opposition. They have a monopoly on dissent, and nobody is allowed to challenge it. It is their self-proclaimed sacred right. Just watch some ProtestWarrior vids, showing how the early pro-war demonstration groups were harassed and attacked by "peace" groups, for no other reason other than their presence at the big anti-war rally in 2004. "Go away" is another way of saying "get out" or "we don't want you here", as if to say "as a speaker paid for by public funding, you should not be allowed to speak at a public university because your statements and ideas shock and offend our delicate sensibilities".

Something that amused me in a manner most hearty was a leaflet that anti-Horowitz organizers passed out to students and guests. I'll see if I can scan it and post it here, because it's really a hoot.

The main thing I noted was the lack of quotes around a statment the activists claim that Horowitz said - something along the lines of Slavery was self-inflicted by Blacks [why is 'Blacks' capitalized? Did they mean the All Blacks?] and that reparations should be stopped. Instead, Blacks should be greatful [sic] for having been brought to America through the slave trade.

They quote no actual sources - just baseless opining and conjecture. Holding an "anti-racist day of action" after accusing someone based on what may be fabricated quotes only further damages the reputation of the academic left.

The flyer then quotes Horowitz, correctly identifying the nationwide Muslim Student Associations as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group affiliated with Hamas (with whom Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are hunky-dory having non-binding talks and agreements). Pointing out this accurate connection is "racist" because Islam is a race (however that works) and associating any part of Islam with terrorism (however accurate and true it may be) is also "racism"/"bigotry"/any of the other overused leftist buzzwords.



The presentation itself was fairly civil once Mr. Horowitz got started. There were some goons banging on the windows from outside, but it was only occasionally that they did this, along with posting signs - "Kill Whitey", "Free Speech =/= Hate Speech" (the left has a nasty habit of labeling all criticism as 'hate speech'), among others. Horowitz looked quite disheveled and I could tell he was definitely not on top of his game. I'm not sure what was causing this, as numerous of his previous speeches have been much more rowdy and chaotic than this one. Maybe it was because he was deep in "enemy territory", I don't know. He verbally stumbled on occasion, and I felt his lack of anecdotal evidence (for instance, speaking with only 4 or 5 students instead of 40 or 50) and lack of ability to put forth a clear, concise and persuasive argument weakened his thesis regarding the consequences of political homogeneity in higher education.

The 'Indoctrinate-U' film by independent filmmaker Evan Coyne was much more persuasive and its "on-the-ground" approach would have made a more significant impact on the audience.

His conduct towards the hooligans outside was derisive - for instance, calling security instead of ignoring them. The left thrives on attention and martyrdom - give them an inch, and they take a mile. Another disruptor attempted to walk down towards the front of the room, holding a large sheet of paper on which was written 'Liberal Bias' with the rest of the sheet blank, as if to suggest Horowitz's claims were baseless by virtue of writing two words on paper and that blank space. If I had been the one speaking, I would have stared him down, asked him politely to explain his arguments in a civil and reasonable fashion. I would have made an example of him to the left, that shouting and theatrics do not take the place of rational discourse, but I suppose common sense is lost on too many these days. I would have told the audience "See how they react when I say things they don't like? That's what happens when you spend so much time in an environment that is only critical of everyone else. You don't learn to debate, but instead priority is placed on shouting, disrupting, and stamping out all views contrary to your own. Welcome to college, where everyone else but you is wrong." Talk about your tax dollars at work.

One girl in particular stood up during the Q&A period at the end, ranting about free speech, as if to suggest shouting matches in a crowded lecture hall where a paid speaker was trying to conduct affairs in a orderly manner was appropriate free speech. Horowitz made the point that allowing everyone in the room to stand up and start shouting just as she did would eliminate actual speech and replace it with a cacophony of unintelligible voices. I wonder if she stands up in class whenever she pleases and shouts out questions and comments when her professors are lecturing. Maybe it's different because it's "ol' racist Mr. Horowitz, who said mean things about our school in a non-mainstream news source". I think that deserves an epic 'BAWWWWW'.

Another question during the Q&A session concerned conservative favoritism at universities, but all the examples everyone came up with (including Mr. Horowitz) were private colleges, such as Pepperdine, Hillsdale, and Brigham Young. Horowitz has no problem with the existence of a private "Marx & Engels School of Revolutionary Thought", however oxymoronic such a thing would be, but when public universities not only favor leftist groups on campus, but also make it more difficult for rightist groups to obtain funding/secure a location for a lecture or meeting/etc., that is not what taxpayers should be funding. If a public institution was heavily subsidizing Christian campus groups, all the while only giving the bare minimum to other religious groups, or only giving them meeting times early in the morning or late at night, the uproar over such a thing happening at the taxpayers' expense would be enormous.

This is called a double standard. Favoritism. Hypocrisy.

Then again, did you expect any less from people who are quick to label critics of Barack Obama as "racists" yet do not consider people like Ward Connerly, Condoleezza Rice, or Thomas Sowell to be "real blacks" because they don't subscribe to the typical agenda of the black community?

After the question period had ended, most of us applauded for Horowitz (it's nice to know there are at least a few UCSC students who can be civil towards people they oppose), after which he just about bolted from the room. I made my way down the stairs to see if I could have a word with him, but he was long gone before I even got to the front of the room.

It was a fairly productive night, and the leftists who are roosted comfortably in the rafters of academia consistently fulfill my expectations of them.