Votes! That is the short answer to this perplexing question. In today’s Western democracies, Allah can and does deliver solid and reliable blocks of votes for progressive candidates and their causes. But let’s leave that thought for a moment, because perhaps the more important question is this. Why does Allah love the Left? After all, the stated objectives of Allah and of our modern radical leftists would seem to be almost entirely antithetical. For example, while Western progressives have wed themselves to every imaginable sort of sexually deviant and revolutionary gender experiment including even the surgical transmutation of children, under Islamic rule all those various LGBTQ+ individuals and their chimera creations would be gruesomely and summarily executed.

And yet Allah really does seem to love our Western progressives, at least for now, and those progressives really do seem to love Allah. If an example is even necessary, just look at how our major universities and their professorial elites have embraced Palestinian terrorists in their attempt to exterminate the world’s remaining Jews. And look at the way Joe Biden has turned on Israel, constraining its defense against a manifest Islamic genocide even to the point of denying the Jewish state promised weapons and withholding critical military intelligence. What does our president have to gain by this abrupt departure from long-standing US policy? He stands to gain one hundred thousand votes, more or less, from the Muslim “refugee” block in the key battle ground state of Michigan. In other words, he stands to retain power.

Still, the sacrifice of a civilization seems a high price to pay for one election. In order to unwrap this conundrum, it is first necessary to dissect some long-abused terms. In the first place, when we speak of leftists or “the left,” or of Progressives, or radicals, or nihilists, or even of contemporary self-proclaimed “liberals,” we must recognize that in the modern lexicon these terms have been reduced to their most vulgar connotation, so that in a practical sense they mean more or less the same thing. They mean, to put it simply, a communion of all those who wish to replace Western Civilization with something else upon which they can, for the time being, pretend to agree.

And what these leftist factions have implicitly agreed upon is that the new polity with which they intend to replace our civilization must be godless, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense, and it must be all-powerful. The unspoken caveat—the card which each of these players holds most closely to his vest—is the delusion that his particular faction will become the eventual puppet master of this omnipotent dictatorship.

Of course this affair with Islam means the new leftist alliance must jettison the Jews, long a key constituency. But that they can afford to do, because unlike Jews, who are concentrated in places such as New York where the left can’t lose elections, and Florida where the left can’t win, Muslims are concentrated in key battle ground states like Michigan. Beyond that, there are millions of angry Muslims around the world eager to be placed wherever their votes are needed. And finally, unlike most other groups, Muslims reproduce.

There was once a time when the various manifestations of what we now call “the left” were wildly discordant in their doctrines and perennially at each other’s throats. For example, in Christian Russia, with the fall of the Czar, a civil war broke out during which Bolshevik socialists fought to the death against all other radical factions including even anti-Bolshevik socialists.

By contrast, socialism in England, where Marx had expected his brand of Communism to take root, took on instead a highly theoretical and incrementalist cloak so mild that many international radicals considered it “bourgeois.” The English socialists of a century ago, particularly the more respectable Fabian Socialists, would feel very much at home in the British Parliament of today.

Meanwhile in Germany, by the time Hitler was elected chancellor the three political parties receiving the most votes were all socialist. These were the National Socialists (Nazis, or National Socialist German Workers Party), the Communists, who took their direction from Moscow, and the Social Democratic Party or SPD, a kinder and gentler Marxist enemy of European civilization. These three parties despised each other.

The Socialist Party of America under Eugene Debs and later Norman Thomas inclined toward the English intellectual model but added a profoundly toxic “social justice” potion to the mix. However, upon this innocuous sounding term we must be very clear. Social justice was never the real objective of any of these factions, because Marx had taught that to mitigate the harm caused by capitalism was to prolong that hated system.

In the parlance of the modern left, “the issue is never the issue; the revolution is always the issue.” Like the left’s civil rights protests and their perpetual shadow boxing against anti-Semitism, social justice was only another stick with which to beat the faltering Western establishment into what Barack Obama referred to as a “fundamental transformation.” Social justice for women has already given way to special privileges for castrati pretending to be women.

But then how did all these various brands of socialism, Communism, progressivism, radicalism, nihilism, and liberalism come together as a block? The simple answer is that on an ideological level they had all come to a dead end. Every experiment they had proposed from the French Revolution to Mao’s Cultural Revolution had ended in misery and bloodshed, to the point that it was no longer possible for them to plausibly defend even a hypothetical socialist utopia. The simultaneous decline of liberal arts education in the West had terminally eroded the intellectual pool from which ubiquitous leftist malcontents were traditionally drawn, to the point that the left was possessed by a craving for which there was no marketable remedy.

At that same time Soviet Communism, the first star in the socialist orbit, had also become the last, and when it fell they could not catch it. Just as they had allied themselves with the Nazis during that brief period at the commencement of WWII when Hitler and Stalin were allies, so with the collapse of the Soviet Communism they suddenly became virulently anti-Russian. What, then, was left to them?

They turned inward and found only a narcissistic rage. With nothing left to offer, they concentrated instead on that which they wished to destroy. Consequently, in place of sophisticated progressive social theorists on the left today we see stridently ignorant emotionally driven mobs. They “occupy” and disrupt, but beyond that they are unable to express even in the most rudimentary terms what it is, aside from themselves, that they cherish or might be willing to worship.

Of course this is the defining characteristic of mobs, that they are driven not by what they love, but by what they hate. As Chesterton once noted, “the true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but because he loves what is behind him.” The post-modern left has stood this idealistic mantra on its head. Where once the various factions of the left were divided over the best means by which to achieve that ever elusive utopia they fancied, their progeny today are unified by their hatred of everything that has made our present civilization possible.

And most particularly they hate our fading residual faith in the God who provided us the laws and guidance which have brought us to the social harmony and bounty we enjoy. Whereas in America Islam perceives a “great Satan,” the now fully mongrelized left sees imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism—a potpourri of condemnable characteristics which apply better to almost any other civilization in history, and which have reached their apogee in Islam.

This brings us to the second term we must define. Islam. As long as we think of Muhammad’s template for world domination as a religion, and particularly as a “religion of peace,” we have fundamentally failed to understand it. Islam is a militaristic political dynasty centered on conquest (jihad) but camouflaged in a religious and ceremonial aura that disguises what is primarily a set of rules for the taking and distribution of plunder.

Islam, in other words, is a pirates’ code incrementally “revealed” to the prophet by Allah in answer to questions which arose from time to time concerning the conduct of war and the management of booty. Muhammed himself was a raider of caravans and an exterminator of Jews, and his followers have continued his policies religiously for fourteen centuries. His Kuran and the supporting Haditha of his early followers quite naturally extend the doctrine to other matters. But the essence of Islam is not etiquette; it is domination.

For many centuries that domination was expanding. But it was also parasitic. It relied upon the conquering of new peoples and lands for the materials and technologies—and particularly for the slave labor – to sustain it. But since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the first world war, Islam has failed to expand. Consequently, it has stagnated while the West has advanced. This has meant squalor and deprivation for a widespread and once prideful population historically accustomed to delightful luxuries captured from infidels and administered to them by nubile concubines and docile slaves. Today the essence of Islam is envy—envy and bitterness; and shame.

What is the cause of—or better I should say who is to blame—for this malaise? Quite obviously, to the Islamic mind it is an illegitimate usurpation by the West. But what is their solution? As the abrupt collapse of the Palestinian offensive in Gaza and several failed wars against Israel painfully remind them, their traditional military approach to the problem has proven impractical. They need an alternative, and they have found it in “hijrah,” which is their term for the invasion and eventual destruction of infidel lands by immigration. All they require to bring this about is a political party in the West willing to invite them in.

It was once believed that “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” In the face of the Muslim hordes now swarming across Europe, this sentiment appears almost more naive than antiquated. Western leftist leaders, having engaged in policies destructive to their own native populations, must now look outward for the votes they need to keep themselves in power. At the same time, Muslim populations must entice Western leftists to invite them in. The solution? An accommodation by which in exchange for an invitation to “peacefully” invade the Western democracies, the immigrant Muslim “refugees” will guarantee a block of votes for leftist politicians and their policies. This accommodation is the basis of the love of Allah for the left, and of the love of the left for Allah.

And that love is precisely the reason President Biden has just informed us that he intends to import Palestinian refugees from the terror ferment of Gaza and presumably afford them all the well-known benefits now routinely provided to illegal aliens while denied to American citizens. And that is why American leftists insist upon granting illegal aliens the vote. Consider, if Democrat politicians in this country had to rely for election entirely upon the votes of the native born, how many of them could retain office. Even California would likely turn red.

But which refugees do you imagine the Hamas administration of Gaza will send us in response to Biden’s invitation? Will they send us “huddled masses yearning to breathe free?” Or will they send us devoted Islamists set upon undermining our institutions and traditions? Will they send us doctors and engineers? Or will they send criminals and the insane? In Germany today more than half of all welfare cases are Islamic immigrants. In choosing who to send us, will the mullahs seek to enhance this first great experiment in human liberty, or will they seek to destroy and enslave it?

When Muslim immigrants first penetrate a country in small numbers they behave meekly. They plead for tolerance and complain of Islamophobia. When their numbers increase above about 5% they begin to assert themselves in protests. At the next level they begin to riot and make demands. This phase is followed by violent outbursts and an insistence upon Sharia zones. That is what is happening in the Netherlands right now as Geert Wilders attempts to restore Dutch culture in the face of 700,000 rampaging Islamic zealots.

But all the while these Islamic invaders vote in a block. And do not doubt for a minute that their ballots are programmed in advance for them by some imam, likely as not located in Iran. That is why their spokesmen in Dearborn have the power to deny Biden the entire block if he does not support their demands in Gaza. In an emergency such as Biden now faces, the Democrats can sweeten the deal with a bit more financial aid to the host nation, and that is why Iran, the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, still receives a substantial amount of financial aid from the American taxpayers.

But what happens when the Islamic population in a Western nation approaches majority. Will those immigrants still support the left? Once upon a time a woman came upon a poisonous snake freezing in the snow. “Take me in,” moaned the serpent. “Take me in for heaven’s sake!” The woman took the snake home and nursed it back to health. But then one day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, the woman asked the snake, “Why have you done this to me?” The snake stared at the woman with cold, unblinking eyes. “You took me in, foolish woman. You took me in. Your mistake.” Will we be so foolish? Will we abide the snake?