Chomskyans' plea:the flame of political correctness now scourged us

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Western Left's current eight-pronged map will be familiar with the name of Noam Chomsky, the great master of the Left. As the intellectual elites of the same age are gradually passing, Chomsky, who has spent his life criticizing the bastion of capitalism, the United States, and destroying this mountainous country, finally ushered in the end of America at the age of 91: in 2020, Wuhan pneumonia sent the U.S. economy into shock, and the BLM movement launched the American Cultural Revolution to erase the American history and destroy the foundations of the U.S. nation. As an "eternal opponent of America," Chomsky will of course join the revolutionary current, but also eagers to point the way, as he did during the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2003.

Chomsky's lifelong enemy: the United States

Chomsky has been an enemy of the United States all his life, and all American presidents, no matter who they are, have basically been his enemies. Take the presidents in office in the past 20 years for examples, George W. Bush was a warmonger, and Barrack Obama killed people all over the world. Chomsky therefore expressed his wish that George W. Bush, Barrack Obama and others be arrested and transferred to the International Criminal Court in his lifetime; after having won the election in 2016, Trump became the worst and most evil president in American history in his eyes. Every speech he made since then would inevitably call out Trump as a way to vent his righteous anger. As the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic spreads around the world this year, Noam Chomsky, in self-isolation in Arizona, was invited by DiEM25 TV host Srecko Horvat to share his reflections and views on the Wuhan pneumonia crisis.

Although the whole world knew that the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic originated in China, the country that concealed hand-in-hand with the WHO information about the epidemic and bought out anti-epidemic materials around the world, leading to the spread of Wuhan pneumonia around the globe, Chomsky, having all along labeled the U.S. as the world's "leading terrorist state," continued at this point to bleat out his lifelong irrelevant preaches: the epidemic aside, humanity is also facing a series of more dire threats, such as nuclear war, global warming and the decline of democracy. Interestingly, when asked about his "reflections and observations" on the Wuhan pneumonia crisis, Chomsky said nothing about China, the country where the pneumonia originated, but blamed President Donald Trump's sanctions for the suffering and damage caused to Iran and Cuba (his friendship with Castro is world-famous). At the end of the interview, Chomsky also said that the epidemic had exposed the social and economic problems caused by "neo-liberalism" and that he believed that in the near future many countries would undergo major transformations. --For the Chomskyans, Mises, Hayek and Obama are all part of the "neo-liberal" spectrum and should all be reprimanded.

It can be said that this recent speech by Chomsky exposed the incompatibility between the Western intellectuals' understanding of the social crisis and the reality. While Chomsky was dreaming that the world would "undergo a major transformation," he found himself the target of the left's "#CancelCulture" campaign. Why did the younger leftists abandon their own great masters? This was caused by the August 22, 2017 interview published in the UK's Independent: "Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a gift to the far right and US state repression." For the Far Lefts, who are currently running amok from Maine to Texas, Chomsky seriously offended the Antifa.

Chomsky, ever accustomed to others listening to him with reverence all his life, does not dread being a minority, but is very troubled by the betrayal of leftist followers who come after him. From this one can see how intense the depression the nonagenarian is experiencing right now.

The politically correct Chomskyans care only about their own freedom of speech

Why can't Chomsky, who has always considered himself a benchmark of political correctness, catch up with the revolutionary trend this time? The story started with the revolutionary bonanza, which has really been the result of years of hard work by the Chomskyans, young and old, summoning the genie out of the bottle.

Since May 25, the BLM movement has, apart from all the smashing, looting, burning and killing across the United States, identified as its mission to eradicate the history of the United States. A fierce movement of political consolidation has swept through America's arts, education, business and entertainment institutions. Even the Wall Street Journal, which initially applauded the BLM movement, had the audacity to publish an article like "America’s Jacobin Moment". That article stated that the ongoing coerced cultural transformation could wipe out whatever is left of American civic culture and undermine centuries of social development in the United States "because of its revolutionary ideological fervor and casual judgment. While the guillotine is not used, the impulse is the same and will destroy the careers, livelihoods and reputations of many individuals". Many university professors, company executives and employees have been called out to the institutions for which they work because of their remarks that the BLM and the leftists consider politically incorrect. Those people have been forced to apologize and have their jobs suspended in minor cases or lose their jobs altogether in worse cases.

In addition to Democratic state governments supporting the BLM's drive to defund the police, college campuses have come under the terror of political correctness, with many professors being called out at their institutions for politically incorrect statements and, at the demand of the BLM, have their tenure terminated by the school management, or are suspended from teaching and forced to apologize in public.

The Twitter account @SpeechUnion listed hundreds of examples of people who have lost their jobs, or suffered censorship, for violating political correctness taboos. One of the most absurd examples was what happened to Dr Mike McCulloch, a geography lecturer at Plymouth University. An anonymous source sent Plymouth University a list of tweets the lecturer had "liked" in a 24-hour period, including "All lives matter", "Gender is scientifically valid", and objection to mass immigration. This wanton destruction of free speech in the name of political correctness is something Chomsky turns a blind eye to. For the freedom of speech he has in mind is the protection of politically correct speech, not the protection of speech that contradicts the principles of political correctness, as his words and deeds have repeatedly proven over the years.

As a minority scholar in many fields as well as a prominent public intellectual, Chomsky somehow still understands the value of free speech. A person who has hated the United States all his life, ever the unforgiving critic of it, and has maintained friendships with Castro and other socialist dictators, Chomsky nevertheless still resides in the United States. When asked why he remains in the States, Chomsky explained, "There's no point in comparing countries in general, and I wouldn't compare them that way. But the United States has some achievements that are worthy of admiration, especially the leading position in free speech that it achieved with efforts made over the centuries."

It is true that the U.S. comes first in the world in legislative protection of the freedom of speech. However, the protection of free speech in the United States is not about protecting correct speech, but about protecting the rights of everyone to freely saying what they think, including incorrect views. This has been made evident by various jurisprudence on the freedom of speech. It was this protection that Chomsky enjoyed back then that enabled him to criticize as an anarchist minority everything the US government did and defend the Khmer Rouge. It could be argued that without the freedom of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, there would not be figures like Chomsky in the United States. But the leftist camp, of which Chomsky is a leading figure, has caused harm to many people or even have them fired from their jobs in recent years due to its increasingly authoritarian tendencies to restrict free speech, a drive emerged from the surging tides of political correctness.

Chomsky, a leading figure in the leftist camp, sees himself as the embodiment of political correctness, unharmed for the moment, and certainly would not exercise self-discipline.

In August 2017,  during an interview by the UK's Independent, Chomsky made critical comments about the violence of the then-growing Antifa group. Those comments were included by the interviewer in the aforementioned article. Although Chomsky did not criticize the actions of the terrorist group per se, he did say something about the tactics of the leftist movement, arguing that Antifa's violence would give the right wing and the U.S. government a reason to repress, and that was actually a voice of disappointment, And although he pointed out in the interview that the accusation President Trump made about Antifa being a "bad guy" would cause society to become unduly uneasy with and wary of the group, BLM members took that as criticism to the Antifa all the same and for them, both Antifa and BLM are divine bodies that must not be criticized. So, this year, as the BLM revolution enters the climax of its history of reckoning, Chomsky will have to pay the price for his "historical mistakes".

Chomsky, the self-proclaimed embodiment of political correctness, finally had his hair and beard burned by the flames of political correctness, which made him see one thing clearly: the "beautiful new world" to be built by BLM, a Marxist organization, will probably not have a place for him. His situation is shared by a number of leftist intellectuals, such as J.K Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, a politically correct woman who was put on the #CancelCulture boycott list in June for writing the phrase "only women can menstruate". Her works have been asked to be removed from the shelves. Cultural celebrities, including writers, scholars, professors, pop singers, musicians, as well as entertainers, who were considered by BLM and other leftist revolutionaries to have made "politically incorrect" remarks were placed on the list and subjected to severe criticism and boycotts, which included writing open and anonymous letters to the institutions in which they worked, calling for their dismissal, or the removal of their works from the shelves.

In the face of the cultural terror of #CancelCulture, a group of leftist writers, scholars, and professors, who had long ago put aside the conservative motto on safeguarding free speech -- "I don't agree with you, but I will defend your right to speak" -- could no longer sit still. After more than 40 days of sitting on the sidelines and even supporting the cultural terror,Chomsky, Fukuyama, Ms. Rowling, and more than 150 others issued a joint-signature open letter on July 10.

Why did this letter displease both left and right?

At the time of writing this letter, these cultural celebrities did not reflect on the fact that the fire of "political correctness" that was burning them was the result of their years of hard work. They didn't think it was wrong to erase history and stifle people who have different views, but rather begged for forgiveness and let the extreme leftists consider their interdependence as comrades-in-arms, letting them off the hook and pointing their guns at right-wing forces like Donald Trump. Out of all the celebrities involved, why did I single out Chomsky for my analysis? Because the letter bore indelible traces of Chomsky: it still asked the left camp not to give the right a reason to oppose them by overreaching, in line with what he said in an August 2017 interview by the UK's Independent.

The letter maintained the usual grandiosity of the left's discourse. It began by highly affirming a number of BLM programmatic demands, including anti-racism and defund the police (on the reality of these two, I've already written an analysis in "Shattering the old world and creating a new one --  The American Cultural Revolution Underway"), and then delineated an enemy camp. The right wing, represented by Trump, is the enemy and a real threat to democracy; the left wing of higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and show business are friends. The right to freedom of expression of them - the enemy - is still treated as nothing, and this open letter addresses only one internal issue: "resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion" to go after friendly forces of the same camp, for "right-wing demagogues are already exploiting [this]". And then again: "the democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides", and "we refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other." And finally, a confession: "As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes" - meaning: the battle with figures of right-wing camps, with Trump included, is on, and we are comrades in arms who can't do without each other, so stop blaming each other. We would not judge you for what you do, and we ask you not to take your aims at us, even though you see mistakes in our actions and we see the same in yours.

The letter also included the following passage: "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

The conservatives, identified by the letter as the enemies and are accused of exploiting the absurd behavior of the far left, would certainly not make a fool of themselves to like that letter. But the left equally disliked the letter, lambasting it relentlessly, with many claiming it was an expression of decadent elitism. Erin Biba, who labeled herself a "freelance journalist and fact-checker," said, "imagine the enormous advantage of a channel and the audience they all have to use this collective platform - the ability to be able to speak out and be heard. -they use it ... to whine and the internet holds them accountable for their words." DC Sentinel reporter Sam Sacks said, "Look at who signed this letter and you could deduce that it's more about the wealthy elites of the industry who don't want to suffer the consequences of their past (and current) work as war criminal propagandists."

The giant net over the heads of the Leftists in the Ivory Tower was woven by themselves

That the United States would have come to this today does not make me feel surprised at all. At least, I already understood in 2016 that this would be the fate of the United States. The is the fate ushered in collectively by the left-wing professors who monopolize the American university podiums--Chomskyans, young and old. In 1987, Alan Bloom wrote in his best-selling book The Closing of The American Mind a forewarning that the American higher education would be failing the American political system because it fosters a left-wing, anti-free-speech mentality and goes great length to achieve the uniformity of thought.

As leftist professors marginalize conservatives at universities and use their academic positions to employ various censorship to ban dissenting voices, the younger generation feels that freedom of speech need not exist at all. The findings of the Washington-based Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for three consecutive years from 2016-2018 show that half of millennial believe that freedom of speech should be restricted.

Although Professor Chomsky is already 91, it is nonetheless my wish that he would spend his remaining years thinking over the following question: the America that he hates has made him what he is, it embraced everything he said and did, afforded him fame and status, allowed him the freedom to make friends with dictators around the world, and become the biggest institutional arbiter of the modern era snaking around the capitalist and socialist systems. Now, the "brave new world" he has been calling hard for over the years has finally arrived, but there would be no room for his not-so-sharp criticism. I would like to urge Professor Chomsky, as a critical thinker, to ask himself: Which world is the one that is truly worth his pursuit?