To his supporters, Donald J. Trump is the 47th president of the United States. For our enemies, he is something far more intolerable: the de facto leader of Western civilization. He is nothing less than the obstacle to a civilizational transformation they have already advanced in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Ottawa.
This enemy has a name: the Red-Green alliance. It is the political covenant between the left and Islam. Its strength is precisely that it is not external. It votes. It holds our passports. It sits in our legislatures and city halls. It shouts down, as in the example of Democrat Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, our president’s State of the Union. This is the enemy within: a left who mobilizes blocs of Islamic voters whose only shared objective is the destruction of the West.
Trump is alone among Western leaders in saying this plainly. When pressed as to whether British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to assist U.S action against Iran was due to his “pandering to Muslim voters,” Trump refused to recite the ritual lie.
He grasps what our elites seek to conceal: that the U.K., like France, Germany, Spain, and Canada, are leftist regimes now constrained by Islamic voting blocs whose potential for domestic turmoil and electoral punishment dictates the limits of policy. When fear of one constituency sets these limits, a nation has surrendered its freedom in everything but name.
This is precisely what the American left hopes to reproduce here. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s machine, where leftists deliberately organized and mobilized dense immigrant Islamic districts into a distinct electoral bloc, is the opening salvo. Even the recent terrorist attack in Texas confirms this trend: Ndiaga Diagne was not an “illegal alien” but a naturalized citizen. We obsess over silent sleeper cells and yet we refuse to see the closer threat of those who carry our passports, vote in our elections, and despise our civilization.
For President Trump, this is not some quaint foreign oddity. Rather, it is a portent for the United States and the West at large.
The success of the Red-Green Alliance does not lie in the might of Islam or the truth of its doctrines, but in the visible weakness of the West. What passes in polite discourse as “progress,” “social justice,” and “democracy” is, in fact, the open expression of anti‑Western hatred dressed in the moral language we once reserved for liberty and right. We still have eyes, but we have educated them not to see.
The so‑called “Red‑Green alliance” is not a partnership of equals. It is a disguise: Islam in leftist drag. The left and Islam do not share a positive account of the good life; they share a common enemy. The left condemns the West as oppressive, racist, colonial, patriarchal, capitalist. Islam condemns it as impious, decadent, rebellious against its god. They converge not in what is to be built, but in what is to be destroyed.
Two Admissions
To call this what it is, anti‑Western hatred, would require two admissions that our modern conscience cannot bear.
First, it would require acknowledging that “the West” is something more than an empty slogan. It is an inheritance of reason, natural rights, constitutional government, and a particular moral and religious tradition. To speak of anti‑Western hatred is to imply that the West has substance, that it can be known, judged, and defended, that our way of life has a determinate meaning and might even be good.
Second, it would require admitting that there are those, both foreign and domestic, whose beliefs are profoundly incompatible with our way of life. They are not merely “misinformed” or “mentally ill.” They grasp the essentials of the West more clearly than we do and they deliberately reject it root and branch.
Instead of taking them at their word, we translate enmity into pathology. Those who hate the West are said to be “alienated,” “radicalized,” “marginalized.” To call them crazy is our most soothing sedative. A madman does not have to be refuted. He can be administered. In so doing, we excuse ourselves from the labor of taking their doctrines seriously and from the more painful question of whether, in their way, they are more serious about their first principles than we are about ours.
The Muslims who organize under leftist banners are not ideological flotsam. They possess a coherent teaching about God, law, politics, and history. They regard the West as an enemy to be humbled and subjugated. They deploy, with intelligence, the left’s language of oppression, decolonization, and racism because it is effective. It radically disarms us and recruits allies already schooled in hatred of their own civilization.
Three Reasons for its Success
This Trojan horse succeeds for three related reasons. First, the left flatters itself that it can control Islam, treating Islam as more raw material for its emancipatory project. Iran has already answered this conceit. The shah was deposed by just such a “Red‑Green alliance.” Once power was taken, the Ayatollah shot the leftists. Islam did not become progressive; the progressives became corpses.
Second, Islam gratifies the left’s vanity. That an avowedly non‑progressive, devout, patriarchal, non‑Western community adopts the jargon of liberation convinces the left of its own universality and blinds it to the fact that its “partners” do not share its ends.
Third, in its most corrupt form, the left treats Islamic forces as an auxiliary militia. This is an imported proletariat that genuinely hates the West and is prepared to act upon that hatred. Islam supplies the belief and will to intimidate and destabilize the West of which our academics only posture. They are the practical instruments of a theoretical hatred.
The left fails to recognize that it too is being conquered. Islam is not a decorative addition to the progressive cause; it is on the verge of becoming its animating spirit. In the universities, media, and halls of power where the left thinks and feels, the rhetoric of emancipation is being infused with foreign theological and civilizational content. What appears as an alliance is, in truth, an Islamic colonization of language, sentiment, and institutions. The left imagined it was incorporating Muslims into its universal narrative; in fact, it is supplying Islam with a moral vocabulary and an army of useful idiots.
Crisis of Belief
All of this meets so little resistance because we in the West are experiencing a crisis of belief. We no longer affirm that our principles are true. We speak of “values,” as if they were consumer preferences, and not truths. We are taught that our founding documents are mere instruments of domination and that our history is an unbroken ledger of crimes. A people educated to despise its own foundations cannot recognize, still less resist, those who seek to destroy them.
Courage presupposes conviction. No one risks his life for a “social construct.” At its best, the West affirmed that reason can discover standards of right; that man is by nature free and equal; that rule by reason is superior to rule by force. These were claims about man as such. Because they were believed, it was possible to see those who sought to abolish them as genuine enemies, not as additional perspectives to be “included.”
It shows what happens when a serious belief, however erroneous, encounters a civilization that no longer believes in itself. If the United States in particular, and the West as a whole, continue to educate their young to despise their own foundations, they should not be surprised when those foundations disappear.
Defense presupposes love, and love presupposes belief. We are approaching a point at which our incapacity to say “this is good, and that is its enemy” will be faced by an adversary who knows exactly who we are and what we deserve. Then it will be unmistakable that the alliance we were too sophisticated to name has become the soul of what still calls itself the left, and that our cultivated silence was its most faithful collaborator.
