, , , , , ,

During one of my diatribes about the evils of anti-intellectualism, I briefly touched on the usual end result if left unchecked: the ideological dictatorship. These movements exist in violent enmity to the Enlightenment and modern civilization, and harken back to primitive mores like tribalism, racism, and might-makes-right to create a new order through sheer will to power.

The remarkable part is that, no matter where these varied movements purport to come from on the political spectrum, they all end up in the same destination.

Conservative author Jonah Goldberg likes to crow about how Hitler wound up promoting a lot of leftist policies, if viewed relative to modern politics, and he has half a point. National Socialism and other fascist movements of that era initially came to power through institutions of the Right: some combination of the aristocracy, the military, the crown, the church, big business and (ironically, as we shall see) anti-communism. Hitler depended on support from the Army, the Prussian nobility (Junkers), German corporate interests, some Protestant leaders and those terrified of the Soviet Union and German Communists. Even Goldberg might be forced to concede that none of these factions would make up the mailing list of your typical liberal or Social Democratic party. However, by the start of World War II, Hitler had of course established powers that reject traditional conservative thinking by making all of the above subservient to his crude racial ideology.

Just as true was Stalin’s Communists. Nobody disagrees that Communism is about as far-left as you can get. But where Stalin wound up, though, was with a USSR that absolutely rejected many elements of liberalism. The Soviets were warmongerers (even before Barbarossa; just ask Finland or Poland); haughty classists where Moscow’s Communist elite was just another type of aristocracy; huge believers in the military-industrial complex; and absolute disasters to the environment. All of these, of course, would have put them in the Heritage Foundation’s good graces had they been Republicans instead.

The point is that although the fascists and the Communists started from opposite points, they ended up exactly at the same place.

Which brings us to a third type of ideological tyranny, which is equally as hostile to the Enlightenment and equally as eager to apply the boot to the neck of humanity: Islamism.

Truth be told, I wish the media had come up with a better term to describe this great evil. “Islamism” implies that all Muslims are complicit, which despite what Pamela Geller would have you believe, is as inaccurate as to state that all Germans are Nazis. “Muslim Supremacy” might have been a better term. Still better would be “Wahhabism,” which is the chauvenist Sunni belief system from which most Muslim terrorists spring, from al Qaeda to ISIS to your average lone wolf loser. But for clarity’s sake, we’ll stick with Islamism.

This movement is peculiar because it is an alliance of convenience between the authoritarian Right of the Middle East, and their leftist enablers in the West. Thus, we have the specter of liberals like Glenn Greenwald being full-throated defenders of some of the worst sexists, racists, warmongerers, pedophiles, and (take note, Glenn) homophobes this planet has ever seen.

And yet, Islamism ultimately ends up neither on the Left nor the Right but in the same graveyard populated by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler. The specifics of their written treatises start to fall away if you’re a victim of one of their killing fields, and besides, they have no problem bending or breaking their own rules as needed to get to the end. And it’s always the same end: state control of everything; absolute nullification of human rights; enslavement or execution of dissenters, people they are racist against, or just anyone they personally dislike; and a rejection of reason, rational thinking, debate and science.

Which brings us the UK elections and the downfall of one of the most loathsome enemies of British civilization to have disgraced the planet: George Galloway.

This Politico piece from just before the election is really all you need to know about the smelly little pervert (nutshell: a Jewish reporter gets punched in the face by Galloway’s henchmen for the crime of being Jewish). Galloway decided to embrace and embolden the crude, primitive and racist Pakistani tribes that make up his benighted Parliament district to hold on to his seat for decades. He finally fell yesterday to one of their own, representing Labour, and his “concession speech” is an Islamist classic:

“But there will be others who are already celebrating: the venal, and the vile, the racists and the zionists will all be celebrating.”

Yep, he’s blaming the Jews. Note that his opponent was a Pakistani woman. It’s safe to say that there is little to no Enlightenment in that ugly skull.

But this little troll is a hero of the Glenn Greenwald left. These are the same people who cannot stop obsessing about Israel; who loved Bill Maher and his bashing of Christianity, but turned on him hard whem he dared do the same to Islam; who were glad when Charlie Hebdo staffers were massacred by Islamists; and who boycotted the literary group PEN’s honoring of the same.

Certainly, some Westerners also were apologists for fascism and for Communism back in the day. The thing is, it never stops being nauseating, does it?

In any event, one of these bastards was finally defeated in the polls yesterday (polls — another thing Islamists and their apologists hate), and anything that brings a frown to Noam Chomsky’s face brings a smile to mine. Eat it, suckas.