When we spoke earlier of fundamentalism we spoke of dualisms and apocalyptic orientation. Surely the neocommunists, whose beliefs are nihilistically defined as against that of the ‘other’, can be considered victims of dualistic thinking as well. Surely their irrefragable calls for change, for an end to the current system, for action NOW are all examples of an apocalyptic syllogism. Indeed, the more we look into the ideological patterns of the radical Left, the more we notice a millenarian strain of thought akin to fundamentalism. Apocalyptic imagery used to portray global warming as an impending cosmic catastrophe requiring immediate and comprehensive change to our ways of life, the constant reiteration of the word ‘change’ from the Obama campaign to refer to a shift in lifestyle that is larger than life itself, and just as impossible—even the very concept of “social justice” in its own right, with its notion of evening out societies woes in an attempt to achieve utopia—all exhibit an apocalyptic orientation, a sort of revolution-oriented fundamentalism which lends them both profound urgency and at the very least, public support by dint of passivity.
Similarly, Islamists seek to depose of the current established order and establish in its place one which is predicated on the totalitarian Islamic justice system of Sharia. Eerily similar to the neocommunist movement of the far-left, the movement to Islamize the West is similarly reliant on fundamentalist strains of thought, calculated subterfuge, and a general call to ‘change’. In fact, the Islamists—in their hair brained attempts to make all the world part of a global Islamic caliphate—are also aiming towards their own dream of ‘social justice’. According to McCarthy, “It is a very specific Islamic prescription, and elements of it diverge markedly from the neocommunist’s more amorphous utopia. But the essentials of their visions coalesce: they are totalitarian, collectivist, and antithetical to the core conceit of American constitutional democracy, individual liberty”. (McCarthy, 17) Both the neocommunists Left, and the Islamist aim for the deposition of the current world order, in favor of a totalitarian, collectivist and fundamentally anti-American substitute. A natural and unholy alliance forms between the two movements easily, owing to their common goals of taking out the old and bringing in the new. Their end-goals may not match up perfectly, seeing as a neocommunist is essentially secular and will aim for a more loosely defined set of morals while the Islamist’s end-goals are not debatable (rooted strictly in Islamic theology), but their alliance is sealed and fire-branded through their common effort to overthrow the Capitalist, individualist world order.
The Unholy Alliance
Now that we have established the root causes behind the fundamentalist alliance between the Left and the Islamists, we can afford to dig a little bit deeper to see how this alliance operates in furthering both their goals. Neocommunists believe that government is the solution to all problems; they hold that “capitalist democracy is an abject failure, habituated to racism, and relentless in its materialism”. (McCarthy, 227) Their ideal socioeconomic form is that of socialism—a collectivist form of governance that grants goods to those who have not earned them, forcibly taken from those who have. The concept of “individual rights” does not exist in their rulebook, since more is at stake than simply the individual. Their goals are lofty, and millenarian: “societal betterment” or “the common good”, both ill-defined concepts which require large statist governments, and presuppose that a society is something more than the sum of its individual constituents. The truth is, dualistic ideologies verging on hypocrisy abound within the neocommunists mindset. Leftists virtually order citizens to chase down ideals of “sustainability”, to do away with materialism and commodity-driven capitalism, but yet they themselves are seen indulging in the very alleged vices they heed us to avoid.
