The ease with which Mr. Galloway has transmogrified himself from rabid Marxist to rabid pseudo-Islamist demonstrates that the driving motivation for the political leaders of collectivist movements is raw, untrammeled power over other human beings, power for power's sake.
One can hardly improve on Orwell's terrifying description, in _1984_, of a totalitarian world without end, As O'Brien brutally but matter-of-factly explains to Winston, "Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." The labeling on the boot, whether "Made in National-Socialist Germany," or "Made in the U. S. S. R.," or "Made in the Caliphate" is essentially immaterial.
That is why so many totalitarian leaders tried different brands of collectivism before settling on one: Göbbels underwent some years of existential angst in deciding whether to become a Communist or a fascist, Mussolini started out as a socialist before founding modern fascism, Fidel Castro was a great admirer of both Italian fascism and German Nazism in his adolescence (and patterned his much-admired "History Shall Absolve Me" speech, his summation for the defense during his trial for his failed 1953 assault on the Moncada Barracks, on Hitler's own defense speech during his own trial to answer for the failed Munich Rathaus Putsch of 1934 . . . bet you didn't read that in the Canadian media!).
The apparent contradiction between cultural Marxism and Islamism is so easily resolved by Leftists. What matters is that Western values of individual liberty and rule of law be overthrown; then, they'll decide which brand of collectivism shall prevail. But you'll see the cultural Marxists easily convert to Islam if their predilect ideology does not prevail.
The ease with which Mr. Galloway has transmogrified himself from rabid Marxist to rabid pseudo-Islamist demonstrates that the driving motivation for the political leaders of collectivist movements is raw, untrammeled power over other human beings, power for power's sake.
ReplyDeleteOne can hardly improve on Orwell's terrifying description, in _1984_, of a totalitarian world without end, As O'Brien brutally but matter-of-factly explains to Winston, "Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." The labeling on the boot, whether "Made in National-Socialist Germany," or "Made in the U. S. S. R.," or "Made in the Caliphate" is essentially immaterial.
That is why so many totalitarian leaders tried different brands of collectivism before settling on one: Göbbels underwent some years of existential angst in deciding whether to become a Communist or a fascist, Mussolini started out as a socialist before founding modern fascism, Fidel Castro was a great admirer of both Italian fascism and German Nazism in his adolescence (and patterned his much-admired "History Shall Absolve Me" speech, his summation for the defense during his trial for his failed 1953 assault on the Moncada Barracks, on Hitler's own defense speech during his own trial to answer for the failed Munich Rathaus Putsch of 1934 . . . bet you didn't read that in the Canadian media!).
The apparent contradiction between cultural Marxism and Islamism is so easily resolved by Leftists. What matters is that Western values of individual liberty and rule of law be overthrown; then, they'll decide which brand of collectivism shall prevail. But you'll see the cultural Marxists easily convert to Islam if their predilect ideology does not prevail.