Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

Radical Islamist and leftist progressivist movements often look incompatible on the surface, but the real threat they pose has less to do with the ideology they preach and far more to do with the cult machinery that powers them.

These movements operate through psychological capture: isolating individuals, reshaping their perception of reality, and demanding total emotional, moral, and intellectual submission.

The ideology is simply the content; the cult structure is the delivery system. And it is that structure—its ability to override independent judgment, induce derangement, and turn ordinary people into enforcers of the cause—that makes such movements dangerous regardless of what they claim to stand for.

When viewed through this lens, radically different groups can reveal the same underlying architecture.

Consider:

1. Both deploy “sacred” or morally absolute language to shut down debate and elevate leaders beyond criticism. Each inverts key terms—expanding “violence” to include dissenting speech while redefining “community” as the exclusion of ideological non‑believers.
2. Both treat dissent as a form of “blasphemy,” morally licensing retaliation and social punishment.
3. Both use symbolic dress (e.g., hijab; masks) as visible markers of ideological loyalty and boundary‑setting.
4. Both cultivate insider jargon, mantras, and slogans that reinforce group identity and dehumanize opponents through ritualized language.
5. Both maintain ritualized calendars—holy months or celebration cycles—that reinforce group cohesion and ideological intensity.
6. Both exhibit expansionist ambitions, whether through visions of a caliphate or through global ideological frameworks such as Agenda 2030 as interpreted by critics.
7. Both demand strict obedience, where ideological “blasphemy” results in ostracism, harassment, or more severe consequences.
8. Both pursue institutional capture, especially in early childhood education, often minimizing parental authority. Critics argue that both endorse forms of bodily modification for minors (e.g., FGM; gender transition).
9. Both use territorial‑control strategies, establishing “no‑go,” “autonomous,” “safe,” or encampment‑style zones to consolidate influence.
10. Both express hostility toward America and Christianity within their radical factions, framing them as primary civilizational adversaries.

Full post: https://lnkd.in/erBMHneS

(Written with the help of Grok/Gemini/Copiloy AI; image by Meta.)