The first reaction to a blatant and bloody attack is instinctive by nature. Indignation, horror, fear are feelings in theory linked to every human being willing to relate according to the rules of a harmonious coexistence. The attacks perpetrated against the symbols of Western normality, however, should provoke a more heated reaction in those sectors of civil society that make freedom and emancipation tout court an ideological flag and a lifestyle.
In other words, obscurantist Islamism should be the antithesis of any support for progress expressed in the most diverse forms in which we are accustomed to manifest it in the West. Just to give an example it is difficult to imagine on the ideological level a greater distance than the one that divides the LGBT universe from the world of jihad.
Like every time Islamic extremism returns to show its genocidal abilities, however, a hitch comes up. Calls for caution and distinctions between moderate Islam and jihadism they come precisely from those sectors of society that on paper would be the most threatened by an imaginary world ruled by Sharia.
To be clear: why the universe "lefty " Does he seem the most skeptical in identifying links between Islam and violence?
We do not enter into the contents regarding the possible connections between Islamic culture and international terrorism. We are talking about reactions in the Western world and those in hot countries in particular, that is more linked to the instinct to defend one's civil rights.
The ideological debate within the First World thus repeats an eternal refrain: on the one hand the rights that support the primacy of self-defense against the alien invasion; on the other, the leftists who claim to look beyond, abstaining from religious and cultural crusades.
The caution expressed by progressive circles, however, sometimes turns into a campaign fought with an unnatural fervor with respect to the heralded principles, tolerance on all. The fury with which a political adversary is fought manages to be even more bitter than the natural rage with which one should be indignant for the massacre of innocents carried out by confessional fanaticism. We arrive at the paradox for which exponents "Liberal" instead of expressing themselves against those who oppose every elementary form of human dignity, they prefer to rage against the political enemy next door.
In all likelihood the one that ends up looking like a wink to the Islamic world (tangent to the Islamist world) stems from a long-term ideological goal, often pursued not even too consciously. The progressive galaxy, heir to the post-communist world, though orphaned of strong references and now declined in a myriad of nuances, remains for better or for worse still linked to anti-Western projections. By choice or by attitude it seems that the profile of thought radical, antagonist or moderate, it remains mostly hostage to a dystonia with Western society and its cultural, social and religious traditions.
The overturning of the so-called "bourgeois society" failed with the internationalized class struggle and fortified for decades by the Soviet bloc, is cherished today through more current and effective tools: multicultural society, religious relativism, ethical polycentrism. The sword defense of uncontrolled immigration is the spearhead of this strategy aimed at modifying those principles over which, over the centuries, European society has been built up and for the American one derives.
The attack by extremist fringes of the Islamic macrocosm at the heart of Europe is an unmissable historic occasion. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the former detractors of the Western system find themselves with a horizon that is not too different from that pursued by the militiamen of terror: the white and Christian West is an outdated scheme for both.
Islamic extremism and the liberal world virtually connected on an ideological level: is it an abstract suggestion or a concrete reality?
(photo: press جهاد)
