Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was summed up quite well when inner party boss O’Brien explains their goals to Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
The radical left is still upset that Bernie lost Iowa. They hate Pete Buttigieg for it. Bernie will never be president. The rest of the non-radical Left, just wants the current embarrassment out of office. Biden will do. It will be one term and he can restore our government and get it working and respectable again. The radical left will still be crying about Iowa and defunding everything.
It was summed up quite well when inner party boss O’Brien explains their goals to Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
Very complete. But I still like my short version above.
My guess is that the original poster has recently started watching Fox News or a similar media outlet.
Congratulations OP. Your transformation has begun. By this time next year, you will be wearing your very own maga hat, attending rallies, fighting a war against a massive army of radical BLM antifa marxists that don't exist, and getting close with your first cousin. You'll become a whole new (wo)man.
It was summed up quite well when inner party boss O’Brien explains their goals to Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. ...”
Goldstein's argument has fascinated me for over 30 years. Here's the problem: if absolute power is achieved, then the persons over whom the power is wielded, lack the capacity for choice, for nuance, for critical thought. hey become soulless automatons. To have power over them, offers no satisfaction, no challenge, no thrill. It's like having power over a barn full of cattle, or a room of computers. Sure, the power may be absolute. But what good is that?
Power is only luxuriantly satisfying, when those over whom one wields it, are mesmerized in a particular bent, but are otherwise intelligent and creative. They're not rote followers, but acolytes and devotees... they're not little nuts-and-bolt in a giant clanking machine, but as it were, junior colleagues.
Goldstein's argument has fascinated me for over 30 years. Here's the problem: if absolute power is achieved, then the persons over whom the power is wielded, lack the capacity for choice, for nuance, for critical thought. hey become soulless automatons. To have power over them, offers no satisfaction, no challenge, no thrill. It's like having power over a barn full of cattle, or a room of computers. Sure, the power may be absolute. But what good is that?
Power is only luxuriantly satisfying, when those over whom one wields it, are mesmerized in a particular bent, but are otherwise intelligent and creative. They're not rote followers, but acolytes and devotees... they're not little nuts-and-bolt in a giant clanking machine, but as it were, junior colleagues.
The best recent example of the far-left having their way was Pol Pot’s Cambodia. His Marxist revolution had the goal of creating an agrarian Utopia. The revolution did not seek approval from the populace, it simply made a cold mathematical decision about the worth of each citizen. “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss” was the Khmer Rouge motto as the mass graves filled. The purpose of power was indeed...power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.