The Crisis of Islamo-Marxism (And Its Roots in U.S. Case Law)

(WND)—Islamo-Marxism is a strategic and increasingly ideological partnership between radical Marxist/Progressive movements and Islamist networks.

Despite profound theological and philosophical differences – Marxism’s materialist atheism versus Islam’s theocratic expansionism – both currents converge on a shared hostility to the Judeo-Christian moral order, limited constitutional government, free-market institutions, the family as the foundational social unit and the historic Western civilizational framework that grew from biblical revelation and natural law. One seeks to erase God from public life; the other seeks to replace the Christian understanding of God and the person with a different absolute. Both reject the Cross as the measure of justice and mercy and substitute revolutionary will or divine command interpreted through political power.

This alliance is not new in concept. Twentieth-century experiments in Islamic socialism and tactical cooperation between leftists and Islamists have earlier precedents, including the wartime partnership between Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime and Palestinian Arab leaders led by Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. That collaboration produced Muslim formations within the Waffen-SS, most notably the 13th Waffen Mountain Division.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution provides another template of leftist-Islamist tactical alliance. In the West, analysts have long noted the pattern under labels such as Islamo-leftism. Certain Christian factions whose anti-Zionism has weakened solidarity with the Jewish people and the State of Israel have, often unintentionally, facilitated the advance of this coalition by eroding a key pillar of the Judeo-Christian civilizational defense. What has changed is the scale, explicitness and political success of the partnership inside the United States.

The acceleration became unmistakable after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel. Campus encampments, street protests and organizational networks fused Marxist groups, Democratic Socialists of America chapters and Islamist-aligned organizations around anti-Israel, anti-Western and anti-capitalist messaging.

By 2025-2026 the alliance had moved from protest to electoral power. Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and the first Muslim mayor of New York City, emerged as a national symbol of the fusion. Candidates he backed won multiple Democratic primaries in New York, defeating establishment figures. Parallel gains appeared elsewhere, including Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary and advances by similarly oriented candidates in other states. Explicit ideological synthesis has also surfaced among some American Marxist organizations, which publicly call for uniting the symbolism of 1917 and 1979 and assert compatibility – or even identity – between Marxism and Islam.

The threat to Judeo-Christian America is structural. The alliance exploits the language of rights, neutrality and religious liberty that Christian communities themselves have sought to defend. Demographic change through sustained immigration, institutional capture of universities and media, and the progressive capture of one major political party have converted a once-marginal convergence into a visible political force. Its immediate targets include support for Israel, traditional family norms and the residual public acknowledgment of biblical moral premises. Its longer-term aim, shared across the partnership, is the displacement of the ordered liberty that historically defined the American experiment.

This preface introduces the larger analysis that follows. The crisis of Islamo-Marxism is not an isolated cultural fashion. It is the latest and most dangerous phase of the secular inversion that began with the Supreme Court’s imposition of religious neutrality in the mid-twentieth century – an inversion that removed the biblical foundations of ordered liberty and left the public square open to ideologies that reject those foundations altogether.

How SCOTUS betrayed us: The fatal trap of ‘religious liberty’ untethered from the Bible

America’s founding settlement rested upon a distinctive understanding of ordered liberty. Religious tolerance was practiced within a society whose public life, legal assumptions and cultural norms were shaped by biblical revelation and the natural-law reasoning of the Christian Hebraists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries AD. That tradition treated the Hebrew republic as a model of limited government under divine law, balanced the separate but complementary jurisdictions of church and civil authority, and regarded the moral law as the necessary precondition of genuine freedom.

The modern doctrine of religious neutrality, imposed by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), inverted this arrangement. By elevating secular humanism to the position of official orthodoxy, these decisions stripped Christianity of its historic public standing and handed militant atheism a constitutional weapon with which to expel the biblical framework from the common life of the nation.

Ordered liberty and Christian Hebraism

The Christian Hebraists of the 1600s and 1700s AD recovered from the Hebrew Scriptures and rabbinic sources a conception of civil society grounded in covenant, natural law and limited sovereignty. They understood that liberty is not license, but the ordered freedom that arises when a people voluntarily submit to the moral order revealed by God.

This ordered liberty rested upon recognition of the universal norms of natural law – the same foundation that enabled a rules-based international order through the work of men such as Hugo Grotius, whose treatises made a treaty-based system of relations among nations possible.

Those ideals were translated into domestic political form by other Christian Hebraists, including John Locke. Strangers within the commonwealth were therefore to be tolerated provided they observed the basic Noahide restraints against idolatry, bloodshed, sexual immorality and theft. Public institutions, however, retained the duty to acknowledge the Creator and to shape law and education in accordance with the moral law that alone makes self-government sustainable.

This understanding was expressed in the American founding as coadjuvancy – the cooperation of church and state as distinct yet equal sovereigns, each responsible for its proper sphere, yet mutually supporting the common good. The 1892 decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States still reflected that pre-modern reality. The Court surveyed the nation’s history, documents and practices and concluded without hesitation that America was a Christian people whose institutions presupposed the biblical faith. Public prayer, Sabbath observance, Christian education and the recognition of divine providence in official acts were not breaches of constitutional order; they were its natural expressions.

Everson and Torcaso deliberately overturned that heritage. Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion in Everson imported a rigid wall-of-separation metaphor and applied the Establishment Clause to the states in a manner that treated any governmental acknowledgment of Christianity as suspect. Torcaso completed the inversion by holding that a state could not require belief in God as a qualification for public office, thereby elevating atheism to equal constitutional status and eliminating the biblical prerequisite that had undergirded the earlier order. Once the moral and theological foundation was removed, the way was opened for a sustained campaign to purge Christian influence from public education, law and culture.

The Post-Christian landscape

The decades that followed Torcaso witnessed the steady dismantling of America’s Christian institutional infrastructure. President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the danger and sought to reinforce public acknowledgment of the nation’s religious character. The addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and the formal adoption of “In God We Trust” as the national motto were deliberate Cold War responses to atheistic communism and attempts to recover ground already being lost. These measures, however, proved insufficient against the deeper legal and cultural current.

From the late 1950s through the 1970s the sexual revolution advanced in lockstep with the deconstruction of Christian norms. The sequence of judicial and legislative changes was not accidental. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) established a right to contraception that severed the traditional link between marital intimacy and procreation. State adoption of no-fault divorce statutes dissolved the permanent character of marriage. Roe v. Wade (1973) legalized abortion on demand, treating the destruction of unborn life as a privacy right.

Only after these foundations had been removed did the Court turn to the normalization of homosexual conduct. Each step weakened the moral architecture that had previously restrained individual appetite and sustained the family as the basic unit of ordered liberty.

A temporary national Christian revival accompanied the Reagan years of the 1980s. Cultural and political energy briefly reversed some of the momentum of secularization. Yet the underlying constitutional framework remained intact, and the gains proved fragile.

Black and White case law

The jurisprudential poles of this era are personified by Justices Hugo Black and Byron White. Black, once associated with the Ku Klux Klan and a determined secularizer, authored the Everson opinion that inaugurated the modern religious neutrality mandate on government and the Torcaso decision that gave militant atheists the legal weapons to wage war against Christianity.

White, by contrast, represented a valiant but belated pushback after Christian moral standards had been decimated. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) he wrote for the majority that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. The decision rested on the observation that such conduct bore no relation to the marriage, procreation and family relationships previously protected under the rubric of ordered liberty. Bowers functioned as a Reagan-era judicial counter-punch, a temporary bulwark against further erosion of the moral consensus that still lingered in many states.

Those willing to recognize spiritual dimensions in the unfolding of history may observe more than coincidence in the “ownership” of the Pergamum Altar – the structure identified in Revelation as “Satan’s seat” – by the United States as the presiding Allied war power in Berlin during the exact window of time when Everson and Torcaso v. Watkins were decided by the Court (and the United Nations was established in New York City).

The altar’s relocation from Asia Minor to the German capital, and the subsequent concentration of totalitarian power in that city under the Antichrist figure Adolf Hitler, invites reflection on the possibility that Satan’s Seat retained an influence beyond the merely symbolic (the thesis of my 2-volume book series “Dynasty of Darkness.” Whether or not one accepts such a reading, the pattern of successive regimes hostile to biblical order is difficult to dismiss as pure accident.

The religious freedom restoration effort

The Employment Division v. Smith decision of 1990 presented Justice Antonin Scalia with a genuine dilemma. Native American practitioners sought exemption from drug laws on the ground that peyote use was a religious sacrament. Scalia recognized that an expansive reading of free exercise could immunize any conduct claimed as religious expression, including drug use, from laws of general application. He therefore crafted a test under which neutral, generally applicable laws could burden religious practice provided they were not enacted for the purpose of targeting religion. The decision protected the integrity of ordinary criminal and regulatory law, yet it also narrowed the scope of free-exercise protection.

In response, conservatives mounted a national campaign for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA sought to restore a compelling-interest standard and to claw back some of the ground lost since Everson. It represented a genuine counter-revolutionary effort to reassert the priority of religious conscience against the advancing secular regime.

Why the counter-revolution failed

That effort ultimately failed because conservatism, as a political posture, is structurally inclined to defend the status quo rather than to recover lost territory. The Indiana RFRA episode of 2015 illustrated the pattern with unusual clarity. RINO Gov. Mike Pence, facing intense corporate and media pressure, signed a substantially weakened version of the statute that stripped it of meaningful capacity to protect traditional Christian moral convictions in the commercial sphere.

The episode confirmed a recurring strategic error: When the left advances, conservatives typically negotiate for a pause at the new position rather than for a rollback to the previous one. The practical advice that I offer is straightforward. Every leftist initiative should be met with a demand to reclaim previously surrendered ground, so that mere preservation of the status quo appears as the moderate compromise rather than a further concession.

A further and more deliberate strategy has compounded the failure. The secularist establishment – sometimes described as the Purple Uniparty for its bipartisan continuity of progressive cultural policy – has pursued large-scale importation of Muslim populations. They knew that once Christian communities succeeded in securing any legal protection under the banner of religious liberty, the same protections become available to Islamic claims. Practices incompatible with the historic American settlement can then be advanced under the same constitutional language that Christians had hoped would defend biblical norms.

The result, after decades of Muslim influx and Marxist initiation, is the emerging phenomenon of Islamo-Marxism: a tactical and sometimes ideological alliance between radical Islamic movements and Marxist cultural forces that share a common hostility to the Christian moral order. Both reject the biblical anthropology of the person, the family and limited government under divine law; both are prepared to exploit the language of rights and neutrality to dismantle the remaining Christian infrastructure.

The necessary remedy

No incremental restoration of religious liberty within the post-Everson framework can reverse the underlying inversion. The fatal trap of “religious liberty” as currently conceived is that it treats Christianity as merely one private preference among many, rather than as the historical and philosophical foundation of the American constitutional order. The only effective remedy is the explicit judicial and legislative reversal of Everson, Torcaso and the line of cases that flow from them.

Only by restoring the original understanding – that religious tolerance must operate within a society whose public institutions lawfully acknowledge the biblical moral order – can ordered liberty again become the governing principle of American life.