Mister Galloway, you might want to give this post a miss.

In my humble opinion, no major figure of this generation has fooled as many people as George Galloway. He’s used his skills as a demagogue to deceive the masses who fear their own government. He also has a knack for rallying support from pacifists who fear combat of any kind. Criticism and satire of the government is a good thing of course, and the desire for peace is an admirable aim. However, these are not ideals that compliment the gullible or idiotic. 

Galloway is both very smart and very stupid. He knew that the young demographic were largely anti-war, so he appears on Celebrity Big Brother. You may think this would be career suicide no matter how well he came across, but it worked. That same year, he won Q Magazine’s ‘Politician of the Year’, The RESPECT party sent representatives to every college in the country, and every Gulf War II sceptic appointed him as their new Messiah. The attitude he instilled in these people was ridicule for his cat impersonation, but more importantly, a new awareness of the side he wanted to present; a hardcore pacifist. He was now being judged by his reputation, not by his actions; the hallowed ground of any public figure, from JFK to Ghandi. 

This reputation as an anti-war figurehead means he can turn up to any debate and know there will be a large faction of the audience with hands already poised to clap. His voice has developed a certain power that can inspire hoots of support for the simple achievement of uttering the words “Illegal War”. Other panellists need to work out facts and figures, moral conundrums, political grey areas, but old Gorgeous can simply shower them in a spit-laden yell of “Dick Cheney!”, and guarantee himself applause. Why can he survive the damning retorts laid upon him? Retorts so damning that were they pinned upon Nick Griffin, his own party would swiftly arrange a mutiny. Why has this generation been happy to immerse themselves in such a swamp of credulity? Why can no amount of character-suicide lay this man's career to rest?

In 1994, a video was examined by courts in which George addressed Saddam Hussein by saying, “I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.” He says he was taken out of context. It has also been revealed that he gave a speech in Syria in July 2005 calling Basher al Assad the “last Arab ruler”. He backtracked claiming that he was referring to Syria’s stand against Israeli fascism. In the most recent campaign to be (successfully) elected in Bradford, he used the slogan, “God knows who’s a Muslim”; boasting how he didn’t drink compared to another candidate. He denies this was a tactic to play on religion, but a way of pointing out the dishonesty of another candidate. He said in 2006 that a suicide-murder attack on Tony Blair would be “justified”. He claimed we misunderstood and that he meant that if he were an Iraqi child, he might feel this way. Am I painting the picture of a straight talker putting the world straight? Or does it sound like the classic politician dodging questions? Or even worse, does it sound like a renegade MP who is actually a hindrance to peace in this country?

I am of the old fashioned opinion that there is a difference between our elected officials of the West, and the unelected dictators of rogue middle-eastern states. Another Galloway quote: “Nato is worse than Al-Quaeda.”. I do not think that a US president, who makes a questionable decision on protecting his country, is in the same league as one who murders his own people. Tony Blair brought in a few nice things like education reforms, and then admittedly went to war against many of the publics’ wishes. Bashar al-Assad employs secret police, death squads, and torturers to punish those who speak against him. George’s opinion is: “Blair’s murder would be justified”, and “Syria is lucky to have (Assad) as their president.”  I surely don’t need to point out the absolute moral bankruptcy this suggests. Do I really need to deal with the countless other respectable politicians and news networks that have drifted in and out of the same views? I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the anti-war MP of our time, condemning civilisation and praising medieval theocracy.

I mentioned earlier that as well being very clever, this man is also very stupid. That is; clever from a conniving point of view, but dumb and dumberer from a personal point of view. A couple of years ago, Ricky Gervais caused a storm on Twitter for using the word “Mong”. It was clear that he was using it in place of the word “Idiot” for comic effect. It was pointed out that some “idiots” were still using “mong” to insult Down’s syndrome. Gervais noticed that enough people had chosen to be offended by it, so he dropped it from his act. At no point did any journalist accuse Ricky of ridiculing Down’s syndrome sufferers; it was simply decided he should drop the word out of sensitivity. Before long though, Gorgeous George had to come steaming in. “What’s this?!" he screamed at the luckless listeners of his radio show, "Ricky Gervais has been insulting Down’s syndrome children?!!!”. This doesn't say much for his supposed gift for insight. Nor does it suggest a talent for discussing morality. 

A hero of mine, Christopher Hitchens, also came under fire. To be fair, the feeling was mutual. Their debate on the Iraq War stands as possibly the greatest of our time. Hitchens, in his calm baritone, regaled the impassioned crowd with Galloway’s accomplishments, including the Oil for Food scandal, his careless anti-war stance, and his fondness for blood-thirsty dictators. George’s repost, however, was much more evocative. He described how Christopher had performed a reverse metamorphosis, from a “butterfly, back into a slug”. I couldn’t help notice the other language too. He explained how his opponent used to “write like an angel but is now working for the devil” and closed with “Damn you!” I really have to bring up the Hitch’s other famous stance here; the fact that angels and devils do not exist. George believes they do, and judging by his debating strategy, this cannot be irrelevant. He was going for every angle of attack, and that is where he made me mad. Who is the greater evil in such a debate? The man who aims to free people from religious ecclesiasticism, or the one who tells secular countries to compromise in the face of theocratic fascism?

I will give his most chilling quote in full before I conclude. It is from the aforementioned debate, and it is regarding the attacks on September 11^th. It goes:

“Some people think those planes flew out of a clear blue sky. I believe they came from a swamp of hatred created by us.”

Are you interested in masochism offered to you by sadists? 

From the most cynical bone in my body, I might suggest that Mr Galloway is nostalgic for the old-school version of his Catholicism and thinks he’s found a fitting replacement in the Middle-East. A slightly less out-there accusation, on the other hand, could be that he is anticipating a losing struggle. As apocalyptic rhetoric rains down upon British streets, as Iran defiantly continues its search for nuclear weapons, as Western policy fails to balance the Middle East: Gorgeous has sorted out his position. I can picture the smoke ridden streets of London and New York, with the new Ayatollah of the world surveying the surviving Infidels. A balding man with a thick Scotch accent raises his head, drops down on his knees, and whispers, “Remember Assad? Hussein? I've really of been on your side all along; and a man like me could be fairly useful round here.”

They listen as they look through his papers. The communist card falls out. Two sighs of resignation are let out. One is George Galloway’s. The other is an even more disappointed Michael Moore.