UNSPEAKABLE TRUTHS AND THE MIGRANT CRISIS
DR. ALAN NED SABROSKY
The suppression of criticism of historical narratives and ongoing policies is an old story, dating at least back to the Kingdom of Ur in the ancient Near East. More recently, it has been a useful tool of dictatorships across the globe, with prison or execution awaiting those who dared to push the envelope of criticism too far.
None of this is surprising. Regimes of any stripe, whose position and legitimacy rest on oppression and the suppression of dissent, really have no other choice. Let the cat openly out of the bag, and they invariably collapse and fall: the fate of the USSR and other communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in 1991 make this abundantly clear.
What is disturbing is that the suppression and criminalization of criticism of some historical narratives and some ongoing policies have now spread to encompass many political democracies in the West, and some international organizations as well. For example, whatever its historical accuracy, criticism of the accepted narrative of the Holocaust has now been criminalized worldwide in at least 22 countries, with legislation to criminalize it in the United States pending as I write. The reason generally given is that such criticism constitutes a de facto form of hate speech, and is therefore illegal on its face. In some cases, that extends to criticism of Israeli actions and policies, especially against the Palestinians – it is in fact included in the pending U.S. legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY – pictured), himself a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
The most dramatic example of international organizations attempting to use coercion or criminalization to suppress criticism of current policies involves the waves of migrants illegally swarming into many European countries as well as the United States. In all instances, the majority of these migrants are young males, poorly educated, unskilled, indigent and often violent, with little or no cultural affinity with the countries they try to enter. Much of the media in Europe and the U.S. tries very hard to suppress the reality that these migrants largely bring disorder, urban blight, a sharp rise in crime (especially rape and drugs) wherever they settle, and an escalation in welfare costs.
One hopes that the bureaucrats in the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) are neither demented, nor blind, nor possessed of a death wish for their members. But the EU has consistently pushed for the mandatory intake of refugees by its membership, and attempted to coerce those (as in the Visegrad Group of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) who resist their pressure.
Opposition to the EU stance from a growing list of EU members and their citizens may force a change to the EU position, or at least bring down a number of compliant national leaders. But now the UN has weighed in, seeking to criminalize any criticism of migrants anywhere – a stance doubtless welcomed by the EU, and in the U.S. by the Democratic Party and much of the mainstream media.
And in the background but financially driving the migration movement both in Europe and the U.S. is none other than billionaire George Soros, who has funded so many of the NGOs active in both areas.
Remember that there is only one reason to suppress and/or criminalize a critical discussion and review of any historical narrative, and that is because the narrative is false in one or more key aspects. Likewise, there is only one reason to suppress and/or criminalize condemnation of any current policy, foreign or domestic, of any country or leader, and that is because that policy is inherently indefensible on substantive and/or ethical grounds. Think carefully about what historical narratives and contemporary policies are being defended by suppressing criticism and criminalizing the critics, and you will know which ones are false and indefensible, respectively.
Dr. Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at [email protected]
How, exactly, can it be LEGAL or legitimate in any way whatsoever, for a US-Israeli dual citizen, U.S. senator OR NOT, to introduce legislation into a country in which his FIRST LOYALTY does not lie, to make criticism of a foreign country criminal?