As evidence about the horrific mass murders in San Bernardino unfolded, and explanations about the killers’ motive devolved to the familiar statement, “we can’t rule out terrorism,” the rest of us shocked by this slaughter wondered why the authorities were so hesitant.

In fact, only 48 hours after the event, we learned quite a bit. For instance, in spite of CNN, MSNBC, and other progressive tripe-peddlers suggesting everything from right-wing terrorism to the triggering effects of a nearby Planned Parenthood, it was clear that this was a premeditated assault carried out by “very religious” Muslims. The wife, Tashfeen Malik, even professed allegiance to ISIS on her Facebook page. As far as motive goes, how about the title of Brigitte Gabriel’s book on the subject: Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. Isn’t that enough?

Apparently not, according to a witch’s cauldron of MSM pundits frothing at the mouth to blame the whole thing on guns, therefore on the NRA, and therefore and especially on the NRA’s principal supporters in Congress, the Republican Party. And everyone by this point has seen the Daily News headline, which shouts, “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS,” followed by the subhead, “As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.” The Daily News followed it today with another blazing headline that grouped Wayne LaPierre with four psychotic mass murderers. The subhead read, “Syed Farook joins long list of murderous psychos enabled by the NRA’s sick gun jihad against America in the name of profit.” Perhaps the most ominous headline was a headline about US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who vowed to “Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence.’”

All of which, in my view, is quite beside the point, considering two other significant matters: the presence of millions of Muslims in America, and the radicalization of many of them via the Internet. Absent a massive, Trump-inspired deportation program, Muslims are here to stay. So is the Internet, which leads to an interesting question — one that might put progressives in a peculiar bind, if they ever consider it. First, as I have written elsewhere, many secular progressives and all Islamists share a number of views, which include the following: They both are hostile to Christians and Jews, condemn “Islamophobia,” and hold America in contempt. Both ideological movements favor massive governmental controls over the population, lie habitually, and do their best to expunge free speech and rid themselves of dissidents, using different methods, of course (so far). All of which amounts to secular progressives burning their brain cells to the limits in efforts to excuse Muslim barbarisms, in order not to acknowledge the Islamist elephant in that tiny room where they remain imprisoned by their reality-free ideological chains.

Suppose, however, as a thought experiment, that secular progressives were presented with an opportunity to extend their conquest of academia to the entire nation by controlling all Internet content, including the kind that is considered sufficiently inflammatory to induce Muslims to act on ISIS instructions and perpetrate horrible crimes. Think about it. The Islamist propaganda control rationale would just be a pretext to trample all other speech under the jackboots of their approved narrative. All that progressives loathe — a very long list — could be labeled “hate speech.”

This would include everything from Rush Limbaugh to National Review and Fox News, and certainly any argument coming from Republican lips. After all, for a party whose members want to criminalize and imprison “climate change deniers,” commandeering the Internet constitutes a logical next step. And throwing their allies under the bus for this massive advantage is a small price to pay, regardless of how the irony-challenged CAIR would complain about their rights to free speech. Further, such a move would allow congressional liberals to bulk up their national security credibility, something sorely needed. All of which sounds like not a bad deal.

Is this thought experiment off the rails? I don’t know. If a few decades ago, someone had told me that academia would be saturated with such things as “microaggressions,” “safe spaces,” and “trigger warnings,” I would have thought you were laughably weird. And if someone had insisted that you could fight terrorism by preventing the earth’s temperature from rising another degree or so in 75 years, I would have concluded that you have gone insane. But here we all are, in this brave new world of weirdness and insanity.

Might as well throw in Orwellian thought control while we’re at it.