why radical islam votes left

and why the left votes radical islam

on its face, the alliance of the current-day western leftist and radical islam seems counterintuitive.

if “queers for palestine” held a march in gaza, they would quite literally be murdered.

and yet they seem oddly unconcerned by this fact, perhaps even driven to some sort of transgressive emotional frisson by it.

but the values misalignment could not be more profound.

and these are the oddest of bedfellows who seem destined for a rocky future. (sorry)

so how did this alliance come to be?

starting from first principles, any alliance needs to offer something to both sides.

what’s in it for me?

for radical islam, this answer is more obvious:

this is the path to power along the well-worn intrude, invade, expand, and conquer philosophy around which islam was founded.

it is not a religion of peace, it’s a doctrine of conquest purpose designed and honed to that end.

such an ethos finds allies and preaches tolerance when small and in the minority, then takes power and becomes utterly intolerant and oppressive.

when weak, seek accommodation.

when strong, grant none.

(this is a still image, for video, click the link below)

never make peace when you are powerful.

always ask it of the powerful when you are weak.

the history and intent of such praxis is clear and you can dig more into that (including a live video of the image above) HERE.

so why then pick the left? why is that the natural ally?

the interview with former radical islamist mohammad tawhidi, now known as the imam of peace, taken from dinesh d’souza’s 2020 documentary “trump card” lays this out with admirable directness and brevity.

give him a listen.

in essence, it’s “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thinking. you go where people are weak and trusting, soft-headed and soft-hearted.

you play at “multiculturalism” and “religion of peace” and you move in and grow strong. it’s easy to find supporters among the left even though you overtly stand for everything they hate and oppose everything they champion because it’s just another example of “the most important idea in current politics” weaponized once more into hens supporting foxes.

becky from vassar hates her dad and willie from minny does too and both despise the trappings of what they see as “dad’s society,” hate america, and basically want to be shocking, edgy, and feel meaningful by mascotting and championing whatever makes papa and whatever they deign “the establishment” most upset.

it’s not even discernment, it’s just rage being directed indiscriminantly to generate alliance and sponsorship of whatever makes your parents cry and helps you project the blame for your own empty life and transform your bottom-of-totem-pole intersectional position into instant status and pretense to meaning through performative outrage is your new favorite thing.

the fact that those you mascot do not actually want to be mascots is irrelevant and beneath consideration.

it’s really pretty wild what a superpower they mistake this for and how much political power those able to steer their ragebait affinity can gain.

so this is the basic trade: the radical islamists get useful idiocy and advocacy to pave a path to power and the externalized-empathy left gets a cause to champion that pulls them out of their meaningless morass and that upsets the people that they don’t like.

both sides are playing at “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and bound together in opposition to the idea of “america.”

the difference lies in the fact that one side knows that it is taking advantage of the other and will, once such advantage is exhausted, turn upon and destroy their erstwhile ally and the other side is snuggling up to a predator and thinking “the leopard will never eat my face! i supported the leopards eating people’s faces party!” and assuming they have tough friends who will return the favor and stand by them for the fight to come.

obviously, only one side can be correct.

and anyone not betting on the leopard is in for a nasty surprise.

“have spots. won’t change.”

the whole of this impending carnage is far from subtle.

“we’re on the same side, bruv!”

“no, we aren’t.”

this is like watching one of those poor baby monkeys they tortured by taking them away from their moms and giving them abusive mechanical surrogates cling all the harder in ever more desperation as the mistreatment ratchets up.

it’s as socially frightening as it is anthropologically interesting.

but an awful lot of the kaffiyah komrades are not the most discerning of people.

which is, of course, why they fell for this and why it seemed a sound basis in which to invest and anchor an identity.

you almost cannot tell what these people are even angry about. it’s an inchoate abstraction that they seem unable to even access, much less formulate or express.

and we have seen this before:

“And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.”

-orwell, 1984

marxism is famous for collecting the marginal losers, but what makes this current instantiation so fascinating is how it collected the high-status-seeming winners by robbing them of identity and status.

how do you get a college educated individual, a rich greenwich wife, or an alameda lawyer to back ideas like this?

DEI. “devastate everyone’s identity.”

such people crave status and a sense of purpose and into the spiritual and ethical vacuum left by post modern moral relativism flowed the structural worship of aggrievement and marginalization. virtue is membership in an oppressed class and if you're a straight, white educated individual, your position on that totem pole sucks. you climb by mascotting the marginal and whoever and whatever conservatives oppose becomes your new cause célèbre.

it’s basically a heuristic to pit one elite against another in implacable battle.

and it’s the same stupid games with the same stupid players as the ones that played out in other places.

same leopards, new faces.

and those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

and i am all for the right of personal conscience and faith, but this is not that. this is pretense to such values until such time as one has the power to stop tolerating others.

the game is always the same.

play it the same way as those who lost and stupid prizes will be your lot in life.

it’s just a matter of how far along the “taking power” curve the game has moved.

once the numbers are there, professions of “tolerance” evaporate.

(the death toll here now exceeds 150,000)

this is not some outlier exception; it’s the modal outcome played down the center of the fairway.

imagine the sort of person unable to learn this lesson.

then imagine what else they vote for.

yeah…

people like to call names and rain epithets like “racist” and “islamophobic” but these arguments are the last refuge of those with no real point and have grown as threadbare as they are tiresome.

i defy anyone to name 3 countries in the 20th century that have been improved by islam.

and the idea of a high-trust america with freedom of religion and ideas like “women’s rights” is not a thing to throw away, sacrificed upon the altar of weaponized empathy because “i was scared of being called names by a bunch of brainwiped dupes.”

i suspect we can aim a bit higher than that in our aspirations and in our courage.

islam is founded on ideas like “the jizya” a tax levied by muslims upon non muslims as a sort of protection racket to be allowed to live in peace in places under muslim control.

this finds consonance with the “take and lavish” socialist and communist crony policies of welfare, subsidy, and fraud. minneapolis has become a hilarity of programmatic abuse as the somalis rob program after program blind.

using the state to decide which tribe gets to plunder the others is the essence of islamic governance.

(imagine all the reasons they must love gun control)

and pretending that this is not so is one of the most expensive luxury beliefs available in the world today.

and so i leave you with one question:

“is this the sort of leopard you want to bet your life will not round upon you and eat your face?”

it’s a answer you need to determine.

choose well.

and don’t say the leopard didn’t warn you.