What do Islamic Extremists, the far right, and the far left have in common?

There are forces all around you who wish to exploit division, rob you of your freedom, and tell you what to think. But young folks can rekindle the weary spirit of a slumbering nation. - Wynton Marsalis

What do Islamic extremists, far left social justice warriors, and far right identitarian movements have in common?

Having been thinking about this for the last few days I’ve finally come to a conclusions.

The common trait amongst all these groups is their unhealthy obsession with identity and chasing what they perceive to be a utopian world. Each of these groups takes humanity and divides it up into sub-sections based on certain characteristics or beliefs that they hold. They also do not believe in the basic tenants of liberalism, despite the fact that some of them may claim to. They have no interest in preserving free speech, and systematically try to shut down argument either through accusations of racism, violence, or, by simply claiming that somebodies opinion hold less weight than another persons due to their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

Take radical followers of Islamic doctrine to start with. These people believe that utopia will be achieved when the whole world is living under Sharia law, and a worldwide caliphate has been established. They believe the Koran is the word of God (Allah), and that all humans should live their life according to the teachings found within it. If your lifestyle is not compatible with the teachings within the Koran, for instance, if you’re homosexual, then you should be killed. Only when man kind is living under a global caliphate will there be utopia on the planet, and to achieve that any level of barbarity is acceptable.

The utopia that the far left are chasing is one of equality. They want a world in which there is not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. The basic beliefs of the far left is that the world is run by white supremacists who will do all in their power to keep people of colour subjugated.

Where once they used class to divide people, they now use race.

Their argument is this:

White people have an inherent privilege purely because they are white. This is a privilege that can only be seen by people of colour (and maybe ‘woke’ white people?), and therefore, because most white people can’t see, or hope to understand the privilege they have, it is racist to argue against it. The world must take this ‘truth’ as gospel, and dare you claim it is untrue, you will rightfully be subjected to abuse, accusations of racism, and in some cases, violence.

Their answer to this is to place people of colour on a pedestal. Their arguments carry more weight than those of a white person because they can see the world in a way in which white people never can. People of colour are owed something, be it a certain amount of jobs within private business, extra funding for their educations, housing, extra money to put them at the same financial level as their white oppressors, reparations because slavery happened, or a platform from which they may speak unchallenged. To speak out against these things would be perceived as racist, and the upholding of white supremacy. White privilege is the original sin of far left dogma, and white people must live their lives forever guilty of the crimes of their forefathers.

Their belief is that, only when perceived white supremacy is defeated, and every person of every nationality achieves the exact same level of prosperity as white people, regardless of personal decisions, will utopia be achieved.

All their arguments come from seemingly moral motivation, but under scrutiny they just don’t hold up. If their beliefs were to be enforced at a nation wide level, they would lead to deeply immoral, and harmful outcomes.

The far right try to base their arguments in science. They’ll make arguments along the lines of, “black people on average have a lower IQ than white people.” They will use this to justify their argument that black people cannot compete in a majority white society. They will then go so far as to say that this is the reason that white people need their own all white ethno-state. They will try to base their arguments in morality, claiming it is immoral for white people, and people of colour, to live amongst one another, because in a free society there is no way in which black people can compete. Only when white people, and people of colour are separated and left to compete with those of the same intellectual capability as themselves, will utopia be achieved.

Obviously all three of these narratives, when critically inspected, are deeply flawed, and fail to take into account the nuances of living in mixed societies, and the outcomes of political decisions (some of which were aimed at helping people of all ethnicities, but arguably have damaged some groups to a greater extent than others), and inaccurate media narratives.

But, the most prevalent commonality among all these groups, is the fact that they have no interest in hearing criticisms of their ideology. They have no interest in being proved wrong, and time and time again they’ll make excuses for their beliefs, even if you were to beat them over the head with ten tons of evidence that points to them being wrong. Ideological conformity must always come before the truth, and none will tolerate dissidents.