And by self-regarding deathcult snob, I mean you

If I’d have known he was going to have this sort of week, I’d have sent flowers.

Only yesterday Victor Davis Hanson attacked mulitculturalism for the bazeenth time. At the crux of the evisceration he found it instructive to drag the Tsarnaevs out into the public square. The problem with the terrorists he claimed was you. Tolerance was what led them to believe that “they could continue to live as Russian Muslims inside the United States.” That’s why they blew up Boston.

I suppose you could call this cry of Hanson’s “Rampart Xenophobia.” He’s implying that the bigger an asshole you are, the safer society becomes. Have you ever seen a terrorist throw a bomb at Victor? Q.E.D.

So having punctured the melting pot, today he takes on the Summer of Love.

Ideas of the 1960s have grown reactionary in our world, which is vastly different from the America of a half-century ago.

Civil rights and feminism and all that bleeding heart crap, they’ve become the cogs and tubes of government. And just what hippy would that be, sopping up its mushy benefits? Which lazy slob has his pockets full of Victor’s cash?

Take well-meaning subsidies for those over age 62. Why are there still senior discounts, vast expansions in Social Security and Medicare, and generous public pensions? Five decades ago all that made sense.

It’s grandma. Though she was no fan of the potheads, they handed her the keys to the treasury anyway. Because why? Kindness and treason. This is fairly obvious, not that it doesn’t require plenty of explaining. Don’t worry, we’re only in the second paragraph.

A heckuva essay. On Victor’s part a towering effort. He throws everything he hates about America into a tie-dyed bandana, knots the four corners and hucks it in the trash. Some decades are useful to a man that way, like a contractor’s bucket. Revenge gets even sweeter when you can slag the Home Depot squishes for giving you the stupid thing for free. People think being a National Review writer is more complicated than this but people are wrong.

And do tell, what is the Sixties’ greatest crime? Awareness.

If Latinos are underrepresented at the University of California, Berkeley, is it because of stubborn institutional prejudices, which, however, somehow have been trumped by Asian-Americans enrolling at three times their percentage of the state’s general population? If women are so oppressed by men, why do they graduate from college in higher numbers than their chauvinist male counterparts?

For three paragraphs Victor goes on this way asking only rhetorical questions about opportunities, minorities and education. As in: ‘If this one big thing is true, then what is this mote from my ass?’ And these points are devastating. Why? Because Victor is the only one allowed to write his column. Otherwise we’d take to it and call him a bitch. The National Review knows what it’s doing in erecting discursive fences high enough to prevent reasonable people from scrambling over and kicking his butt.

But, now, in particular. How to defeat the hippy education? This. Is Good.

In reaction, private diploma mills are springing up everywhere.

Make the system for-profit.

. . there are no “diversity czars” at DeVry University. There is no time or money for the luxury of classes such as “Gender Oppression” at the University of Phoenix. Students do not have rock-climbing walls and are not addressed by Michael Moore at Heald College.

Killer. For-profit colleges are nationwide scams that suck up loans, provide fourth-rate educations and destroy financial lives. Students are left with little hope for employment or for getting out of debt. But at least no one has to suffer through ethnic studies or Jane Fonda, right? Not that there aren’t personal tragedies abounding here. But sacrifices need be made once Victor settles upon the real threat to our existence . .

Scan the government grandees caught up in the current administration’s ballooning IRS, Associated Press, and Benghazi scandals. In each case, a blue-chip Ivy League degree was no guarantee that our best and brightest technocrats would prove transparent or act honorably. What difference did it make that Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress?

College snobs. Feast your eyes upon them. They hand out benefits with one hand and cut down ambassadors with the other. And you can’t find one decent enough to offer a ‘Sorry’ to Victor. But just what did you expect? Our higher institutions have long been overrun with the self-centered and the irrelevant . .

. . now-aging idealists of the 1960s long ago promised us that a uniformly degreed citizenry — shepherded by Ivy League–branded technocrats — would make America better by sorting us out by differences in age, gender, education, and race. It is now past time to end that ossified dream before it becomes our collective nightmare.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His new book, The Savior Generals is just out from Bloomsbury Books.

So it’s time to replace the whole lot. Beginning with the self-aware.

Plus: Via Amazon.

This review is from: The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost – From Ancient Greece to Iraq

Average Customer Review
2.7 out of 5 stars (6 customer reviews)

1.0 out of 5 stars
Riddled with errors-did anyone fact check this book?
May 23, 2013 By UVAalum

A fan of Victor Davis Hanson’s work, I eagerly anticipated the release of this book. I jumped immediately to the chapter on Matthew Ridgway in Korea. I was very disappointed by the seemingly high number of minor errors (reference to Eisenhower and MacArthur as four-star generals, reference to Ned Almond as a Marine general, etc.). For me, basic errors in a book like this call into question the very tenets of the author’s argument. Don’t publishers employ fact-checkers and editors anymore?

1.0 out of 5 stars
May 23, 2013 By William H. Korman

The Civil War was lost but for General Sherman? There was this other guy named Grant who figured pretty strongly in the final outcome.