re: #542 Charles

I don’t agree with Wilders’ apocalyptic diagnosis.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you are now not addressing Wilder’s “diagnosis” but his “prognosis.”

You seem to think that the disease is bad, but won’t end in death; and, in any case, radical surgery is not indicated. Sort of like the “watchful waiting” that is recommended in many early stage prostate cancers. I was not willing to live my life on that basis either.

I read this entire comment section (which is why I post late and rarely). The real issue is simply how bad one thinks the threat is. That is what defines the strategy to deal with it - not any idealistic framework; not even our Constitution. Echoes of the torture “debate.”

So Wilders is pigeonholed as either Cassandra or a bigot.

For me he serves the useful purpose of the canary in the mine. He’s not dead yet, but the poison wants him badly, doesn’t it? We are all for freedom of speech, but he’s the one whose life is actually on the line. That tells me all I need to know about the players in this game.