A response to this article in The Brussels Journal. The author recommend the political Right to emphasize its common vision with the Left about human rights in order to attract the latter against the Islamization of Europe. He argues that the left is based on christian values and therefore there is a common ground with the Right, and its support for islam is based on its emphasis on self criticism is and on the ignorance of what Islam really is.
My point is that this may be true for the main part of American left, but not for the main part of European Left. And there is no way to agree with the main branch of European left on common grounds about Islamism. This is independent from what any terrorist like Blevilk promotes or leaves unpromoted.
Your considerations about the christian origin of the left are too coarse grained. The self-criticism in christianism is individual, personal, while the self criticism on the left is not against the self, but against the own group to exhibit moral superiority and exonerate oneself from any critic. It is exactly the opposite. It is an exploitation of the concept of self criticism.
Moral superiority has an unprecedented role in the West. Thanks to the disqualification of violence that Christianism stablished in the first place, moral superiority became the foundation of political legitimacy. That did not happened anywhere else. Therefore the adquisition of moral superiority by devious means became a critical issue. The Christianism contains a well balanced collection of rules that have been tested for centuries. Every rule about good behaviour may have inherently some consequiences in terms of moral superiority that can be exploited (The devil lurks behind the cross).For that matter, christianism was very keen to impose additional sins to prevent exploitation of moral superiority . That is the only way to maintain a love based society. For example, Against exploitations that try to gain moral superiority trough harsh criticism of others and against false exhibition of good behaviour, there is the "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" and the mandate to "not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (charity must be discrete). respectively.
As a set of rules for pacific convivence, it has these rights and duties of which the above are some examples. An order based of virtue is not profitable for ambitious people that want to climb to political power trough the shortest path. Violent alternatives have been used but have been defeated, How to gain the hearts of the people in a peaceful society with something better that christianism?. It may be said that the demagogues had a hard time in the West, but the solution is simple, because christianism only works as long as people accept the Christian tradition in full.
Fot that matter, the demagogues had an opportunity of exploit cristianism by asserting that rights come for free, while duties are just superfluous. So they start critizicing others, they exhibit his supposed "solidarity" in obscene ways. With this self exhibition runaway, the demagogues gain moral superiority, while make people think that, liberated from their duties, life is easier than it really is. If finally, the right to the heaven in the afterlife is substituted by a more inmediate heaven on heart, then the appeal of this demagogy is guaranteed. More for less. This is what we call "the Left".
I´m talking about the european left. This left is basically amoral. She believes that the duties are an artificial burden made by "The System" for the exploitation of the people, Since he is sincerely after the destruction of these moral duties, she is also after the destruction of the West. It can not be otherwise. So they are not, not they can be in the side of conservatives. They freely transform themselves from socialists to ecologists, to multiculturalists to altermundists because the pivotal point of his ideology is not a clear plan for the construction of something, but the destruction of the Western "superstructure" in marxist terms. That is, the structure of intermpersonal dependencies ruled by traditional moral duties and historical institutions, both formal and informal.- That is no more, nor less than our identity. This is according with their faith, what keep them away from a heaven on Heart of infinite rights at the cost of no duties. Whoever read Voegelin, whould say that this is a Gnostic ideology. They consider islamism and christianism in the same way that they cosidered comunist nuclear warheads in East Europe, as basically equivalent to the american military bases in their own countries. This is not a conspiration of a group of masters of the Universe, This is the logical consequience in the strets, and in the parliaments, of a conflict of worlviews, also called ideologies, formerly called religious wars.
Perhaps your considerations apply more to other kind of left that is dominant in USA, not in Continental Europe. The left and right wing descendant of the puritan founders have less ideological differences. As descendants from apocalyptic religious sectarians, americans believe in the promise of a heaven on earth under God, for which his country is the beachhead.
Therefore both american Right and most of the american Left are moral, they believe basically in the same principles. Yet, the american left has gone in the way of relaxation and secularization. There are radicals in the universities, but the situaiton is not as critical as in Europe. Maybe the americans would reach a consensus about what to do with this secondary infection called Islamism, but no doubt, the same in Europe is definitively beyond reach.