Two recent articles are worth reading in light of the conviction of Geert Wilders for voicing uncomfortable truths. One is an interview with the EU ambassador to the United States, David O’Sullivan. It’s worth noting his final answer, which unequivocally rejects the idea that another member state will sever ties with the European Union-despite the this year’s election results in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy. Whether this is simply another case of wishful thinking, a la Jean-Claude Juncker, remains to be seen. However, the idea that what was once inconceivable will remain so indefinitely is a particularly bad mental tic cherished by our ruling class-something my friend Todd Seavey has refuted using several concrete examples, the most prominent among them being the unanticipated and rapid dissolution of the heretofore indestructible Soviet Empire.
Another worthwhile piece is Eugene Volokh’s blog entry questioning the assumptions of anti-Trump, open borders critics. As loathe as I am to post a link to the Washington Post, the fake news paper of record, Professor Volokh’s observations are always worth noting. Not only does he reject the oft-repeated liberal canard that a proscription on Muslim immigration would violate the Establishment Clause, he raises the intriguing question of whether Muslim immigration in general is a wise idea. The conviction of Geert Wilders, the exile of Oriana Fallaci and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the persecution of countless European dissidents who run afoul of current year thinking, illustrate how consequential the decision to welcome millions of Muslim immigrants into our nations can be.
This is a choice that will have far-reaching consequences for all of us, and one of the most important results will be the delimitation of what we can and cannot say. We are surrendering our freedoms without even getting a vote on whether we should relinquish them. The problem isn’t so much Islam as the totalitarian thought police who exercise power at every level of our civilization and want to suppress dissent, however muted, to their grand project. Salman Rushdie was the canary in the coal mine, but we are now witnessing what our refusal to defend free expression, and to reject illiberal, undemocratic immigration policies, back then has sown.
Recent Comments