After Easter: Islamic Tyrannosaur Eggs (I)

While Jesco Delorme in his article "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism!" states that in Liberalism the fundamental idea is that "the human being is autonomous, takes precedence over the collective ... metaphysical concepts such as God, History and The People may not be invoked in the formulation of political demands", he goes on to state at least three - in his eyes legitimate - examples of Muslims invoking Allah (or the Koran) in demanding privileges in re of headscarves, separate swimming pools and beaches for Muslim women. Those that mind about such minor details are merely being shortsighted and petty bourgeois. Yesterday we saw that Mr Delorme's brand of Left Liberalism justifies granting certain special rights to unequal minorities.

I don't propose screening Mr Delorme's article further on inconsistencies and inconsequential reasoning, but to move on instead to another very important point that he raises, which sets Left Liberalism (or free-market Socialism), apart from Classical Liberalism (or Libertarianism).

It is the fundamental leftist mistake of abandoning universal equality, thereby introducing subjectivism into politics and society. Decades ago I was taught the virtue of trying to be as objective as possible: to assess a casus or a situation on its own merits, without taking into consideration the persons involved: their social class, status, race, gender, or the amount of money in their bank accounts. This premise was based on the biblical principle that God created man in His image, and that consequently all people are of equal value, have equal rights and possess dignity in and of themselves.

With the Left in attendance of politics, the judiciary, education, housing, welfare, social services and a number of other fields, this universal principle was abandoned - objectivity made way for subjectivity - with grave consequences all round. Jesco Delorme justifies it as follows: "Aristotle himself insisted that equality must be understood as proportional equality. To treat persons equally in the strictest sense is justified only when they are truly equals. However, if they differ from one another in normatively relevant respects it is justified - indeed imperative - to treat them unequally in proportion to their differences". This principle may be philosophically sound when pertaining to plastic balls and pieces of fruit; it doesn't make good policy towards a healthy social state of society.

Since the departure from objectivity in politics it has become the norm for people and groups to formulate and foster any number of perceived grievances and inequalities, so as to claim special status and privileges over and at the expense of other people's rights and freedoms. It has caused the cultivation of victimhood, it has kept people from taking responsibility for their own actions, and caused the waiving of acceptance and atonement for the consequences of mistakes. That is, apart from the endless debates over how and in what measure perceived unequal proportions must be determined and compensated.

Mr Delorme's article brings us right to the heart of today's trouble when on its basis a number of privileges for Muslim women are demanded: we are not to whine pettily over headscarves and separated bathing areas. In the past decades we have been likewise subjected to positive action for women and blacks, unreasonable demands on the mentally and physically impaired, special housing and services for lower income brackets, ditto for immigrants, ditto for students, funds for violence prone youths, pregnant women, sufferers of particular diseases, AIDS victims, teen mums, the elderly, underprivileged youths, the morally challenged, divorcees, the list is endless and the struggle for inflated victimhood goes on ...

The result is the virtual incarceration of people within social and mental ghettos, poverty, class justice, ludicrous situations as a result of positive action, unfair mirroring of society in group quotas, and the excruciating phenomenon of the politically correct: the inviolate face of the prevailing ideology, the representation of today's red handkerchief. Still worse, it has made inequality the norm in Western society.

Dr Pat's chart shows in which areas the Left and Islam's social views coincide: socialism, collectivism - the subordination of the individual to the group, subjectivism, anti-realism and a socially constructed victimhood. The Unholy Alliance presently extends to a growing Muslim constituency adding to the Left's vote and a growing influence on politics in general, on immigration policy, and of influence of foreign governments on Western soil.

On a less directly visible plane of operation it could be said that the multicultural branch of the Unholy Alliance is disseminating ideological confusion, while the terrorist off-shoot takes care of radicalization in copying Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory. The multiculturalist's view of a world without national borders - one huge multi-ethnic Empire without a worldly Emperor, coincides very happily with the Islamist's vision of the Khalifate.

Islam's unprecedented special status of victimhood backed up by terror threats has led Liberal subjectivism to allow distortion of history, adjustment of school curricula, denial of the holocaust, all so as not to hurt Islamic sensitivities. The story is ongoing. Further special privileges are demanded or coerced at the expense of other groups, and cohesion of society as a whole. Especially the more radical versions don't accept the democratic tenets, nor do they accept - or even appreciate - democratic values. We have passed "go home if you don't like it here" a long time ago. This has turned into "let's change it in accordance with our wishes". It's the West that does the assimilating, at home.

The incompatibility is to a large extent due to the Islamic principle which holds that society is subservient to the all transcendental laws of Allah, as laid down in the Koran. The concept of free will is non-existent. Assertive Muslims don't accept, nor are they willing to understand, Liberal c.q. Western values which they take for weak and degenerate. As an exclusive, superior religion it expects global conversion and victory of Islam over the infidel. Neither does it accept socially deviant behaviour of the faithful, nor does it tolerate dissent.

With regard to Delorme's proposition one wonders how he reckons to police the Liberal rights of the individual within the Islamic singularity. I'm thoroughly looking forward seeing him do that!

~ In Part II: That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental ... ~