Academia’s (literal) terrorists

The professoriate regime’s “stochastic terrorism” is leading to a domestic terror campaign and the regime must be held responsible.

Academia’s ruling dictatorship of the professoriate tends to justify and enforce its totalitarian rule by claiming that any dissent is, in and of itself, an act of violence. According to the regime, speech is violence, silence is violence, anything is violence unless it’s exactly what the regime wants you to say or do. Indeed, one of the regime’s most beloved (and convenient) concepts is “stochastic terrorism”—the claim that any speech of which the regime disapproves constitutes terrorism.

Of course, the idea of “stochastic terrorism” is risible and the regime itself does not believe in it. We know this because if the regime did believe in it, it would be passionately in favor of it. The professoriate, after all, loves nothing so much as terrorism of any kind and all kinds—the more horrific and depraved the better. Indeed, the professoriate itself is a terrorist regime. It established itself by terror; it rules by terror; it manufactures terror; it worships terror.

Usually, this terror is “stochastic” in nature. In other words, the regime does not resort to outright physical violence. Since the Oct. 7 massacre, however, such scruples have been cast aside. The regime’s foot soldiers in the streets and on campus have proven perfectly willing to use violence to terrorize Jews and non-Jews alike.

Moreover, this is hardly unprecedented. As far back as the 1970s, the nascent professoriate regime, which had only just begun its conquest and colonization of the academy, was sending out its stormtroopers in the form of terrorist groups like the Weather Underground.

I recently wrote that the stochastic terrorism of the professoriate regime and its minions will soon result in decidedly non-stochastic terrorism. That is, literal terrorism, first against Jews and then against Americans in general.

Ominous rumblings of this oncoming storm were heard last week when a George Mason University freshman was arrested for planning a mass casualty terrorist attack on the Israeli consulate in New York City. Egyptian citizen Abdullah Ezzeldin Taha Mohamed Hassan apparently had a long history of support for Islamic supremacist and antisemitic terrorism. Thankfully, the FBI knew it via an informant, which led to Hassan’s arrest.

So far, so lucky. But the scope of Hassan’s bloodthirsty plans indicates that this is not so much a bullet dodged as a stark warning of things to come. According to the New York Post, Hassan wanted to commit a major atrocity. He reportedly told the FBI informant: “Two options: lay havoc on them with an assault rifle or detonate a TATP [suicide] vest in the midst of them.” Regarding “them,” Hassan used the Arabic term for the Jews—“yahud”—which in today’s Arab/Muslim culture is almost always derogatory.

More ominous still were Hassan’s larger, vaguely genocidal ambitions. The Post states: “Hassan allegedly told the FBI informant the Big Apple would provide ‘a goldmine of targets’—those targets being Jewish people.”

Clearly, Hassan was determined to kill Jews and to keep killing Jews until somebody stopped him. Thankfully, someone did.

All of this is disturbing enough, but even more disturbing are the questions that must now be asked: Did Hassan have help? Was he in contact with foreign terror organizations? Is he part of a larger terror cell or group of terror cells? Was Hassan further radicalized by faculty, administration, or student groups at George Mason University? If so, were they aware of his plans? If they were, did they inform the authorities? If not, why not?

All of these questions need to be asked because certain things that were unthinkable a year ago are not unthinkable today:

1. Antisemitism and support for antisemitic terrorism has become a consensus ideology in much of the Muslim American community and its more radicalized members will inevitably attempt to act on it.

2. That ideology is also hegemonic in American academia and, again, its more radicalized members will inevitably attempt to act on it.

3. A domestic terror campaign spearheaded by but hardly confined to Muslim and radical leftist university students is probably inevitable if it is not interdicted before it begins.

4. With its avowed faith in the nihilistic creed of “by any means necessary,” the professoriate regime may decide that terrorism is not only the necessary means for groups like Hamas, but for the regime itself. The regime might very well act accordingly by lending moral and material support to a student domestic terror campaign.

5. This would constitute an active, imminent, and existential threat not only to the American Jewish community but to American society as a whole.

We are facing, in other words, a very perilous moment. Nonetheless, responsible law enforcement and intelligence authorities have a chance to neutralize the danger.

In Hassan’s case, the authorities took the appropriate action. We do not know, however, how many Hassans are now embedded in student bodies across the country, nor how many collaborators and supporters they enjoy in faculty and administration. Suffice it to say, there are likely more than a few.

The measures that must be taken, then, are clear:

1. A congressional investigation into possible terrorist activity on American campuses.

2. Infiltration and surveillance of suspected sources of such terror activity by the relevant law enforcement agencies—not confined to the FBI—to interdict possible attacks.

3. The arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of all those involved in these terror activities.

4. The immediate dismissal of any faculty member or administrator who gives moral support to terrorism or individual terrorists.

5. Deportation of any foreign students or faculty who give moral support to terrorism or individual terrorists.

6. The adoption of the larger policy goal of dismantling the professoriate regime in its entirety.

Achieving this final goal will require confiscatory taxation of endowments, cutting off all federal funding to offending universities, and other punitive measures. Such policies, of course, will be violently opposed by the regime and its catamites. The relevant authorities must be prepared for this.

Nonetheless, the authorities must stand on a basic principle: No institution or individual is exempt from the laws and codes of conduct that all other Americans must obey. To fail to enforce these laws and codes is to grant impunity to criminals. The consequences of such indulgences are, as we have learned in recent years, decidedly undesirable.

We should hope that many and perhaps most of the measures enumerated above are already being quietly taken. Hassan’s arrest indicates that this may be the case.

Nonetheless, it will take years if not decades to smash the professoriate regime in its entirety. The first step, however, is to remind ourselves of certain absolute truths:

First, as I have said numerous times and must say again, we do not have to listen to these people. The moral admonitions of those who commit, support, and enable terrorism—even if only out of cowardice—are not just empty but laughable. We should no longer grant the professoriate regime the indulgence of listening to a single word they say. They are a fundamentally illegitimate regime that no decent society should allow to take part in the public discourse.

More importantly, perhaps, Americans must hold the professoriate responsible for its moral depravity. Hassan and what Hassan represents did not emerge out of any kind of vacuum. The professoriate regime and its minions in a million classrooms are directly responsible for it. Should an attack such as Hassan planned take place (God forbid, but very likely), the professoriate and its minions will be directly responsible for that as well.

The regime will object to this accusation, of course. Although they constantly tell us that speech is terrorism, they have a remarkable capacity to exempt themselves from any and all of their professed principles. We should not be surprised that they do so in this case as well.

Americans shouldn’t stand for this for a single moment. They should take the regime at its word. Very well, Americans should say, speech is violence. If speech is violence, then there is no question that your speech is violence. Accordingly, you should be held responsible for it.

Of course, despite the professoriate’s best efforts, America is still a free society. So long as they do not act on it, the professoriate has a constitutional right to give rhetorical support to terror. Their own words, in any case, condemn them.

But Americans also have constitutional rights. These include the right to tell the professoriate and its minions: You’re canceled. You’re expelled. You’re out of a job. You’re ostracized from polite and impolite society. Go to your gated compounds in the middle of nowhere where the FBI can keep a very sharp eye on you. We’re not going to let this happen in this country. You’re done. For good. Period.