> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://otherwise.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The insanity of revolutionary utopianism: “We will never surrender.” - URL: https://otherwise.ghost.io/the-insanity-of-revolutionary-utopianism/ - Published: 2025-09-27T16:43:26.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-17T13:43:29.000Z - Author: Khaled Salih - Tags: Newsletter, #Migrated-1792244264359, #Import 2026-10-17 14:38 *By Khaled Salih* ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d6/2c/d62cdd13-a476-41c5-8f2c-29270c99d95d/content/images/2026/10/7ec94209-b4c0-43a2-aeb0-dbc75a333f6a_336x498.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d6/2c/d62cdd13-a476-41c5-8f2c-29270c99d95d/content/images/2026/10/bdb80bb1-640e-4eba-9df4-b2e58b6cfe6b_2554x1373.png) Possibly [Sergey Nechayev](https://seandiscourse.com/p/dostoevskys-greatest-villain-sergey?ref=otherwise.ghost.io) & [Ghazi Hamad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4n0V2i2M&t=47s&ref=otherwise.ghost.io) on CNN. “I am perplexed by my own data and my conclusion is a direct contradiction of the original idea with which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social problem but mine.” —Shigalyov, *The Possessed* This pronouncement, made by the extremist theoretician Shigalyov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel *The Possessed*, serves as the perfect guiding framework for analysing the revolutionary conviction and profound psychological detachment exhibited by senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad. Dostoevsky’s work, which was inspired by the real-life nihilist Sergey Nechayev, details the ideological pathology of revolutionaries who, in their quest for ultimate social liberation, embrace totalitarian and destructive means. Hamad’s rare interview on CNN reveals the insanity of revolutionary utopianism, demonstrating a movement that claims to seek “unlimited freedom” for the Palestinian people but justifies actions that lead inexorably to “unlimited despotism,” destruction and immense suffering. Critically, Hamad maintains the fierce conviction that their path of merciless destruction is the “only solution” of the problem the Palestinians face. The analysis of Hamad’s statements, informed by Nechayev’s philosophical commitment to destruction and Parker and Sitter’s framework of terrorism strains, illuminates the cold calculus behind the October 7th attack, the strategic valuation of mass casualties, and the systematic deflection of responsibility for the devastation witnessed in Gaza. The initial phase of Shigalyov’s dilemma, the starting point of seeking “unlimited freedom,” is manifest in Hamad’s framing of Hamas’s political violence. The revolutionary seeks the destruction of the existing “filthy social order,” which, for Hamas, is represented by 78 years of Israeli control. Hamas operates within the established patterns of political violence, exhibiting characteristics of both nationalism and religious extremism. In terms of nationalism, Hamas is categorised alongside groups like Fateh, aiming to become a crucial part of the Palestinian independence narrative. Hamad affirms this by insisting that Hamas is “part of the Palestinian fabric” and that its weapon is “legitimate and legal” against occupation, not a “terrorist weapon.” This deflective framing is characteristic of groups employing violence to achieve political aims who reject the label of terrorist. The religious strain is central to Hamas’s ideology, conceptually linking it to the Muslim Brothers (MB), which champions militancy and martyrdom. Hamas copied the MB’s structure, combining militancy with social services to build strong constituent bonds. Furthermore, Hamas adopted the tactic of suicide bombing after operational training from Hezbollah, demonstrating organizational learning across ideological lines. Hamad presents the October 7th attack as a necessary act of last resort, taken after decades of living “under the occupation, under humiliation, under oppression, under repression, under killing, under displacement.” This justification aligns with historical revolutionary narratives where groups conclude that “more dramatic action—terrorism—would be required” after peaceful efforts failed. The science of destruction. Hamad’s rhetoric is absorbed by the single thought and passion for revolution, knowing “only one science: the science of destruction.” He dismisses two years of immediate consequences, focusing instead on the long-term context. The political action of October 7th, he asserts, was the result of asking: “What is the option left for the Palestinians to do?” This rhetorical strategy justifies the extreme action as the single, necessary path to victory. Defining victory by utopian goals. Hamad defines the outcome of October 7th as a decisive victory, viewing the event as a “golden moment for the world to change the history.” This objective, a radical, utopian transformation of the global political structure, justifies the means of total destruction. He believes the resulting international pressure on Israel, including recognition of a Palestinian State and condemnation, are the “fruits of the October 7th attack.” This dedication to an absolute political vision, driven by the perceived exhaustion of peaceful alternatives (such as the Oslo Agreement, which Hamad notes failed over decades), establishes the moral ground for revolutionary violence: the attainment of ultimate, “unlimited freedom.” The core of Hamad’s [Left Hemisphere Capture](https://khaledsalih.substack.com/p/lost-in-the-left-how-hamas-ruined) lies in the **“**direct contradiction” of Shigalyov’s paradox: the drive for freedom manifests as “unlimited despotism” over the very people meant to be liberated. This despotism is realised through the cold calculation of human cost, rooted deeply in Nechayev’s revolutionary mandate to regard human life as disposable capital. Nechayev requires the revolutionary to exclude all “sentimentality” and employ revolutionary passion with “cold calculation.” Hamad demonstrates this purely utilitarian approach by prioritising the abstract political goal over human life. Valuation of death. When confronted about the staggering human toll following October 7th, over 65,000 Palestinians killed, according to the interview context, Hamad explicitly states that “65,000 deaths is worth it” because of the political gains achieved. He acknowledges the price is “so high” but insists it is necessary given the lack of alternatives. This severe moral calculation, prioritising “changing history” over immediate suffering, is consistent with Nechayevian doctrine. Strategic sacrifice (despotism over the masses). Nechayev’s doctrine mandates that uninitiated followers and the general population should be regarded as “part of the common revolutionary capital” which should be “spent as economically as possible in order to derive from it the greatest possible profit.” When Hamad is asked whether Hamas has the right to decide that Palestinian women and children “should be sacrificed on the altar of your resistance,” he affirms this concept, stating: “No, all the time we are sacrificing, we are fighting.” This acceptance frames the civilian population as an inexhaustible resource, whose necessary sacrifice achieves the “fruits of the October 7th attack.” The despotism is amplified by the fact that the suffering of the Gazan people was not an accident, but a foreseeable outcome built into the strategy. Senior Hamas officials, including Hamad, “knew would be the kind of heavy-handed, disproportionate response that they would get from Israel.” Learning organization. Within the Parker and Sitter framework, terrorist groups are “learning organizations” that analyse their rivals. Hamad’s acknowledgement confirms that the “disproportionate Israeli military response” was a predictable and factored part of their strategy, deemed a “win” because of the resulting international pressure. Intensifying misery. The Nechayevian philosophy encourages the society to use its resources to “increase and intensify the evils and miseries of the people” until they are driven to a general uprising. By executing the attack knowing the massive retaliatory destruction was inevitable, Hamas strategically used the anticipated suffering of the Gazan population (the “capital expenditure”) to achieve maximum international political profit. This “strategic cruelty” views massive civilian death as a functional strategy, a necessary catalyst to incite international pressure. The final, defining aspect of Hamad’s Left Hemisphere Capture is his conviction that “there can be no solution of the social problem but mine.” This belief necessitates a total rejection of accountability, dissent, and truth, transforming the revolutionary commitment into a despotism of ideology. The revolutionary morality mandates that “morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.” This framework allows Hamad to completely absolve Hamas of culpability for the destruction it instigated. Total Deflection. Hamad refuses to “accept any responsibility for triggering so much death and destruction” since October 7th. He avoids culpability for the destruction unleashed in the two years since the attack, asserting the problem lies exclusively with the 78 years of Israeli occupation. This constitutes a fundamental self-deception, allowing the movement to maintain its narrative of purity and perpetual resistance, rather than facing accountability for the strategic consequences of its actions. Exclusion of compromise. Hamad demonstrates very little that suggests any willingness to compromise. He rejects the notion of surrendering or disarming, insisting that the “arm of Hamas is a legitimate and legal weapon which is used all the time against occupation.” The revolutionary must view his path as the *sole* path to triumph, viewing any compromise as “immoral and criminal.” The true revolutionary “despises public opinion” and must operate in “secrecy, deception,” and reject the light of truth. Dismissal of dissent. Hamad is confronted with video footage of Gazan citizens demanding that Hamas “stop gambling with us” and acknowledging that the leadership is “disconnected from reality.” Hamad systematically dismisses these voices, claiming he has seen the video but insists that the suffering is “not the whole story.” The denial of surrender. When asked what he says to those who want Hamas to surrender, he claims “No one asks Hamas to surrender,” suggesting that such demands are merely the result of people being **“**under abnormal circumstances” of killing and massacring. This refusal to acknowledge legitimate internal criticism and attributing dissent solely to external Israeli pressure constitutes a profound strategic and psychological disconnect, solidifying the despotism of the ideological cell over the population. This systematic denial is necessary for the single-minded passion of revolution to be convinced that its chosen method of “merciless destruction” is the *only* solution. Hamad’s insistence that October 7th created a “golden moment” validates the Nechayevian premise that the ultimate goal excuses all intervening atrocities. Ghazi Hamad’s interview captures the essence of revolutionary madness, characterized by a complete moral and psychological detachment rooted in extreme dedication to the cause. The core aspects of this lunacy are stark: Valuation. Assigning higher value to the symbolic gain (international condemnation of Israel, global awareness) than to the immediate, massive loss of civilian life and destruction. Strategic sacrifice. Explicitly accepting, and even justifying, the “sacrifice” of Palestinian civilians (women and children) as a necessary means to fulfil the resistance movement’s goals. The rejection of humanity. By prioritising the abstract political goal of destruction over the immediate survival and welfare of his constituents, Hamad embodies the Nechayevian ideal of the revolutionary who is a “doomed man” with “no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments.” Ghazi Hamad embodies the tragic irony of Shigalyov’s paradox: the drive for absolute liberation through revolutionary violence results in the tyrannical subjugation and sacrifice of the very people meant to be freed. Hamad, with a “straight face,” maintains that the scale of Palestinian suffering (65,000 killed, massive displacement) is politically justified, cementing the disconnect between the staggering cost and their strategic calculation that this horrific outcome is, nonetheless, a political “win.” His commitment remains total: destruction is the highest virtue, and the violence is the “only solution” to the Palestinian problem. When pressed, he insisted: “No one asks Hamas to surrender. We will *never* surrender” \[emphasis added\]. **Sources:** Sean Berube, 20250924, “Dostoevsky’s Greatest Villain: Sergey Nechaev,” [Dostoevsky’s Greatest Villain: Sergey NechaevFew revolutionaries in history were as controversial as Sergey Nechaev. A pioneer of the Russian nihilist movement, he advocated for communist revolution by any means necessary.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d6/2c/d62cdd13-a476-41c5-8f2c-29270c99d95d/content/images/2026/10/8a206077-d51a-424d-99fe-36a4a05cc967_857x857.png)Sean Berube](https://seandiscourse.com/p/dostoevskys-greatest-villain-sergey?ref=otherwise.ghost.io) CNN, 20250925, “Watch extended cut of CNN’s interview with Hamas official ,” [www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4n0V2i2M&t=47s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4n0V2i2M&t=47s&ref=otherwise.ghost.io) Sergey Nechayev, 1871, “The Revolutionary Catechism,” [https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm](https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm?ref=otherwise.ghost.io) Tom Parker & Nick Sitter, 2016, “The Four Horsemen of Terrorism: It’s Not Waves, It’s Strains,” in *Journal: Terrorism and Political Violence*, volume 28, umber 2, pages: 197–216. Khaled Salih, 250250924, “Lost in the Left: How Hamas Ruined Gaza and the Palestinian Cause,”