The Red-Green Axis: Predatory Convergence

 

The Red-Green Axis: How Islam and Marxism Converge

The entire world is being driven into madness by people who believe in insanity as a literal way of viewing the world. Ideological possession poses the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed. It has created a cadre of kakistrocrats, kleptocrats, ideologues, and theocrats who will commit any murderous horror imaginable that is necessary to promote their sick world view. Simply put, the only world view that has ever worked to promote peace is one based upon individual liberty and free market enterprise based on capitalism. This is why the murderous theocracy of Islam sees Marxism as necessary to create the ideal conditions to further its idolatrous world view. Islam and Marxism of necessity become bed fellows despite the fact they contradict one another.

Ideological possession—where abstract doctrines hijack reason, morality, and basic self-preservation—isn't a new human failing, but the scale and speed of its spread today (amplified by technology, institutions, and elite capture) make it uniquely corrosive. When people internalize a totalizing worldview that redefines "good" as whatever advances “The Cause”, atrocities stop feeling like crimes and become sacred duties. History's body count from this pattern is staggering, whether the banner is class struggle, racial purity, divine mandate, or "equity."

Here is why my core claim holds water under scrutiny: the only system that has reliably scaled peace, prosperity, and non-coercive cooperation among strangers is one grounded in individual liberty secured by secure property rights, voluntary exchange, rule of law, and market prices.

Empirically: Societies that moved toward economic freedom (think post-war West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Chile under the Chicago Boys, or even China's partial liberalization) saw explosive poverty reduction, rising life expectancy, and declining internal violence.

Liberal market orders channel self-interest into mutual benefit via the price mechanism and competition; they don't require saints or commissars. They also correlate with the "democratic peace" observation: mature market democracies almost never fight each other.

By contrast, every major experiment in central planning (Marxist or otherwise) or theocratic absolutism has produced mass death, economic collapse, and exportable aggression. The 20th century's socialist tally alone runs well over 100 million dead from famine, purge, and gulag. Islamist regimes add their own ledger—executions, honour killings, terror campaigns, and demographic flight—without ever delivering the earthly paradise they promise.

The marriage of convenience between radical Islam and Marxism is the most glaring illustration of ideological possession overriding logic. They are metaphysically irreconcilable: Marxism is atheistic materialism that abolishes private property, the family as a bourgeois relic, and religion as "opium." Salafi-Jihadist or Khomeinist Islam is theocentric totalism that subordinates everything—including the economy—to sharia, apostasy laws, and the ummah's supremacy.

Yet they sync up like gears because both are revolutionary anti-liberalisms. Their common enemy is the Enlightenment settlement: the sovereign individual, limited government, secular law, and the right to exit or criticize. So, we see the pattern repeat:

Tactical alliances against the Shah in 1979 (Marxist Tudeh and Fedayeen groups cheering Khomeini, then slaughtered).

Soviet arms, training, and propaganda to Arab nationalists and early Islamists as anti-Western proxies.

PLO-era Marxist terror groups morphing into or partnering with Hamas/Hezbollah pipelines.

Today's "red-green" axis in the West: campus Marxists marching shoulder-to-shoulder with Islamist activists, both chanting against "Zionism = capitalism = colonialism," while ignoring the gulags and stonings each would impose on the other if victorious.

This isn't ideological coherence; it's predatory convergence. Both see liberal capitalism as the final barrier to their utopia. Both thrive on grievance, envy, and the sacralization of violence. Both produce kakistocracies (rule by the worst) where competence is subordinated to purity tests. And both recruit the same personality type: the intellectually possessed who would rather burn the world than share it.

The theocrats understand something the Marxists often don't: you can't build the caliphate on a prosperous, free, skeptical populace. Hence the need for engineered scarcity, resentment, and imported Marxist "oppressor/oppressed" framing to soften the ground. The Marxists, in turn, get foot soldiers willing to die for transcendent purpose—something dialectical materialism never quite delivered.

So, I am not wrong that this fusion poses an existential risk greater than any single past threat, because it weaponizes modernity's tools (social media, migration, captured institutions) while rejecting modernity's restraints. The antidote isn't another ideology—it's the unglamorous, empirically tested default of classical liberalism: protect negative rights, enforce contracts, let individuals and markets sort the rest, and defend it ruthlessly against those who would replace it with holy or proletarian dictatorship.

The madness ends when enough people remember that reality doesn't grade on intent, and that the only sustainable peace is the one that lets people disagree, trade, and walk away. Everything else is just theology with better branding. Face it, our universities preach ideological nonsense that has historically failed every time it was applied in practice. This is why they sympathise with murderous Islamic tyranny while condemning the only democracy in the Middle East for protecting itself against those who have sworn to wipe it off the face of the earth. And we wonder why anti-Semitism is out of control on our campuses?