by Alex Story
Few things are as predictable as seeing choirs of Progressives, Marxists and Islamists belting out their hatred of Israel - whether or not blood was spilt in the Near East. Even less remarkable is the sight of rainbow coloured faced painted Progressives and marxists flying out of windows or hanging from helicopters once their erstwhile Islamic allies conclude their struggle to power. The LGBT flag didn’t fly long on government buildings in Kabul after the Great Satan fled in the summer of 2021. “Progress” died the minute American funding stopped flowing. The Taliban had very different ideas. Sharia was reintroduced.
The pattern is unmistakable: Crowds of posh western children fed on fashionable ideas taught to hate themselves, their culture and history siding with the very people whose aim it is to facilitate the dismemberment of their very national existence. They cheer the destruction of the country from which Marxist theories have alienated them. The moment it happens, however, and much to their surprise, the alliance breaks. The implementation of their hoped-for Progressive Nirvana slips from their grasp and falls on the lap of their former allies – the Islamists. Darkness falls, hope dies, and humanity vanishes. The pattern though always seems to reassert itself.
On the face of it, neither ideology has much in common with the other. Marxism is part of the complex fabric of a Progressive world view. A Progressive passionately believes that the course of history is set, nearly pre-ordained. He holds with fevered religious certainty that the past was awful, the present is bad but the future, if the opportunity afforded by the “urgency of the Now” is grasped by both hands and mercilessly exploited, will be better. To him, religion is merely a manifestation of a dark past the necessity for which decreases as mankind becomes ever more civilised, rational, and scientific. The greatest sin is for a man to stand in the way of history. To force a polity to “miss the bus” or “the boat” is unthinkable. Obstacles - people with differing views that is - on the road to progress must be ruthlessly, and often violently, removed. Costs, collateral damage in society and consequences are immaterial.
Islamism, on the other hand, bases its view of everything on the Koran. Its content is made up of intermittent messages Mohammed professed to have received from Jibreel, an angel or spirit, over the course of circa 20 years to 632 AD, when he died in Medina. Some say he had been poisoned by Zaynab bint Al-Harith, a Jewish housewife, who had been asked to prepare a lamb for Mohammed and a few of his men after her family had been put to the sword by Muslim raiders in 629 AD at Khaybar. At least, this is what his third wife Aisha is said to have claimed in Sahih al-Bukhari, a collection of narration, often used to give context to the Koran. From an Islamists perspective, the Koran is the perfectly preserved word of Allah.
Sharia, the body of religious law that forms a part of the Islamic tradition, is fully derived from religious precepts and based on the Koran and the Hadith. Laws made by humans in Parliaments to regulate our affairs are interpreted as an act of corruption in particular when these stand in opposition to Sharia - laws that are issued from the faultless word of Allah. Any reform is therefore seen as an attack on Islam itself. It is unacceptable. Perfection cannot be improved on, ergo “progress” is anathema. And yet, in practice Progressive Marxists and Islamists often operate like pees in a pod. To understand the overlap between these two seemingly opposite creeds, we find a pamphlet written in the Autumn of 1843 by Karl Marx.
Published in “Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher” in February 1844, its title is simply: “On the Jewish Question”. He invites us to discover the secret of religion “in the real Jew.” His answers are that the secular basis of Judaism is “self-interest”; his world religion “huckstering” (commerce); his worldly God “Money”. He continues: “we recognise in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time.” He adds that “the Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews”. Judaism can only reach “its highest point” in a Christian world in which “civil society attains perfection.” Christianity and Judaism are thus constantly brought together in an evil pas-de-deux destined to lead the world into a cesspit of egoism, greed and individualism where liberty simply means people being “differentiated by interests, their particular passions and prejudices.”
In the final analysis, Marx says: “the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” He calls for destruction of the Christian and Jewish religions: “it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life.” For Marx and Progressives, removing (Judeo-Christian) religious constraints leads to political emancipation. “Political emancipation is the dissolution of the old society.” No constraints in politics; No place for the individual; No peace: All is traded in for Political emancipation – whatever that might mean. This brings us to our Islamist friends.
No forgetting the crucial point that the Koran is the perfectly preserved word of Allah, unimprovable and eternal, we read in chapter 98:6 that “the unbelievers among the people of the book (Jews and Christians) and pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell.” Allah, through Mohammed, adds “they are the vilest of all creatures”. In short, Jews and Christians are worse than rodents and vultures. And should be treated as such. Indeed, we read in other parts of the Islamists’ Holy book, chapter 9:30 for instance, a call to crush Christians and Jews: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah” the book states “until they humbly pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued”. We find another chapter which states that “fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.”
Further, explaining perhaps the modus operandi of groups such as ISIS, we read in chapter 5:34 that “The punishment for those who fight God and His Messenger, and strive to spread corruption on earth, is that they be killed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the land.” There are many such quotes in Islam’s most holy book. However, tying the noose of the overlap together nicely with Marx, Allah through the medium of Mohammed tells his followers in chapter 5:51 to “take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another.” In Marxian terminology, the Christians have merged with the Jews. They are one and the same. And so we notice that in both Islam and Progressive Marxism, Christianity and Judaism need to be dealt with.
Whilst theologically, there is not much commonality between both faiths, there is a great deal of it in claims and practice. The first and most obvious point is that both are ideological declamatory movements. They make bold claims that are not backed by facts. To paraphrase Tom Waits, the big print giveth; the small print taketh away. Both talk of peace but neither wish to get there through consent, instead they seek the subjugation of the individual to the broader community. Marx and co push for permanent revolution to dissolve the old order. Violence is a necessary corollary. The article of faith being that what Progressives have on offer will be better than the culture they work ceaselessly to destroy. For Islamists, as we have seen, fighting is important for the propagation of the faith. However, belief is not important as much as is submissivness. As we see in chapter 49:14 the Bedouins are told by Allah not to say they believe but “'We have submitted,' for faith has not yet entered your hearts”. Consent and free will (egoism and individuality) are not de rigueur for either Belief.
The second point is less obvious perhaps but points to something much more radical. When Progressives from Rousseau to Bentham and from Marx to John Maynard Keynes talk of political emancipation and the need to dissolve religious constraints, their aim is the same as those of Islamists. It is simply the erasure of the 10 Commandments. The Old Law is an incontrovertible standing reproach to both movements, a giant step back into the law of the jungle in fact. Honor thy father and mother; Thou shall not kill; thou shall not steal; thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour; thou shall not covet. All this is crystalised in Mark 12:31 with “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. All these commandments are, in part or absolutely rejected, by both Progressive Marxists and Islamists. They are roadblocks to progress on the one hand and an Islamist world order on the other. In either ideological movement, free will is an encumbrance and therefore inexpedient. Hate is a powerful short-term force that consumes those who are fuelled by it. Submission is slavery for the soul of the subdued but satisfying for the ego of those who wish to wield political power. In the meantime, don’t be surprised when you see an LGBT supporting blue haired communist and an Islamist supporting thug shouting their hatred for the Western world and Israel in unison distributing “Vote Labour” leaflets. Twas ever thus.Vota Labour“. È sempre stato così.
Alex Story is a managing director, who works closely with Private Equity and Venture Capital fund and other financial institutions. He represented Great Britain at the Olympic Games and won the Boat Race for Cambridge on two occasions. His team still holds the course record.