Moves to Replace Reality

Duly Noted

Two recent bits from a forgotten source are stuck in your correspondent’s mind. One says that, if Arabs see a bikini, they have to accept it. And if Germans see a veiled woman, they too have to accept it. The other tells that Muslims and Europeans both need to learn to accept what they reject regarding the other group. Both statements tackle the same issue and both reflect the helplessness of the helpers.

At first, these opinions appear to rephrase ritual pleas for tolerance. Close up, you find in the advocated broadmindedness something disturbing. If logic and not feeling is used to dissect the advice, then something iniquitous emerges.

As the starting point of the examination we need to be reminded of a bias of liberals which is actually not part of the original ideology. Thus this is about the present’s over-represented liberal persons, and not about the creed’s original content. Actually, the writer, and probably most of those that read this, will agree with classic liberalism and find that their own world-view reflects it.

What is that bias? It is an inclination to make a mistake in logic. If two clashing ideas or values appear at the same venue at the same time, then our day’s liberalism assumes that both are of equal merit. To the extent that these they clash, the suggestion tends to be that the “truth” lies between the two. Adhering to that is a good cop-out to avoid a controversy’s initial stage. Additionally, it can serve as a pedestal from which “reasonableness” is preached to prevent “radicalization”. The benefit: One enjoys inaction while nobly advocating a search for “conflict-resolution”.

For some, 2×2 is four, but five to others. The mathematical example has its public affairs analogies. The compromise solution, if accepted, will postpone an argument. Yet, the upshot will be bad math and bridges whose two ends will not meet over the middle of the river. Clearly, not all contradictory positions are of equal value. The truth does not need to lie in the middle. In fact, a position can be totally right, while the other is totally wrong. In this case no genuine compromise is possible. Nor should one be pursued. The open society approach cannot meet the “GULAG solution” half-way for the promise that the inmate rations will be raised to 1200 calories.

Accepting the foregoing does not make one into an extremist. As long as an assertively advocated view does not claim infallibility, it can be challenged, which is not a trait of fanaticism. Churchill in 1940 was doggedly dedicated to defend Britain, no matter what. That steadfastness did not make him an extremist. A system that can utilize the method of constructive compromise is a good system. That is so, as long as the positions have a common denominator and are represented by persons that are open to a rational discourse. If this is not the case, then a “compromise” will be one sided, meaning that it is capitulation made to sound good.

To get back to the opening “quotes”. The problem represented by the iceberg-peak of textile prison cells worn by migrants, cannot be solved by only calling them awkward.  Adding that there is a right to dress as one wishes, and making that into an aspect of personal rights, is an argument raised by the desire to avoid controversy. Equally invalid is the follow-up claim, according to which a right is being exercised which is, therefore, to be accepted, while the conspicuous exhibitors of Islamic convictions might be persuaded to accept the lewd dress code of the natives.

Let us consider the underlying evasiveness exhibited to stand up for anything that is resolutely resisted. The lesser one of these is the “taste” nature attributed to Islamic dresses. Since the religion does not demand a full cover, those that insist otherwise represent only a special branch within their community. With that, the use of those textiles is catapulted from a matter of personal taste to the level that signals politicized membership. Thereby, an attitude toward politics, the social order, and a way of life are indicated. Therefore we are not talking about taste in clothing but about an exhibited conception of correctly structured public affairs. All what is signaled, is incompatible with the political culture and values of those that are asked to harbor and protect the source of the challenge.

To demand that kind of tolerance means that tolerance for the subversion of the value system that practices tolerance is asked for – in the name of tolerance. Going along with such a request is not a mark of magnanimous patience oozing good will. It is a sign of being conned onto a descending spiral, at the end of which there is no growing together, only irreversible submission. Just in time for posting, a theme came up that relates to the “descending spiral” and to “submission”. German TV. A twenty something, born in Germany and a citizen expresses support for a Sharia approved crime. – “But our constitution forbids it!” -“We do not recognize the constitution“.

Western Civilization’s countries are being requested to prove their liberality and commitment to liberty by not defending the values that made their civilization successful –and attractive to assertive migrants.

Lastly, let us take the matter of accepting burkas and the like in exchange for tolerance for the blasphemous dresses of the women of the host society. The implication is that the recognition of a right is traded for the acknowledgement of another. Regardless of what one might think of these ways to dress and the preferred way of life expressed, the proposition is iniquitous. Its advocacy assumes that, at the place the claims are made, the rights of the involved parties are equal.

Would one ask in Saudi Arabia for the right to walk around in hotpants? The matter does not even arise because the country is Sharia inspired. Analogously, Europe, America, et.al. also have indigenous customs. These take precedence over alien ways. For instance, FGM or honor killings might be the habit of some countries. Nevertheless, they properly provoke chastisement if practiced in advanced entities. Only the most liberal judge will accept a defense –even if it happens- that it was a dictate of folklore and thus, by right the deed deserves to be judged accordingly.

The veil, and the preferences for which it stands, is outside of the region shaped by Islam, not equal to the local code of conduct. Ergo, claiming a right to acceptance falsifies the case. “Equality” is claimed for something that is not equal. The rights derived from that distorted premise of equivalency, do not exist in reality. The attempt to displace reality by “acclamation” will still not prevent it from shaping life.

This implies that, integration –it is inseparable from stability and the host’s continued prosperity – requires that the applicants for protection must accept the ways of those whose protection they request. In case they are unable to comply with this obligation, and if they find their hosts repellent, there are alternatives open to them. One is to conquer; the other is to find a compatible and more decent congregation.

 

Comments are closed.