Ahmadinejad is a Sinisterist not a conservative, Alan
By Bruce Walker (09/26/07)
The spectacle of the Hitler of Iran speaking to a distinguished college in America and being greeted by many of the chic Leftists with respect should not surprise or shock us. All the evil culprits today are like the evil culprits years ago when the Hitler of Aryans also spoke to the sophisticates in democracies as if they were sheep.
The night after his speech, Alan Colmes said on the Fox News program he co-hosts with Sean Hannity that Ahmadinejad was a “conservative,” implying that his positions were more in line with Sean Hannity than with the American Left. This is an old trick used to deliberately confuse ordinary, decent and normal people who constitute the non-existent “Right” in politics.
Colmes is doubtless unaware that the Hitler of Iran like the Hitler of Aryans formally endorses socialism and rails against the rich as well as “imperialist” nations, just like any good Leftist. Ahmadinejad is what I call a Sinisterist – an evil person who has nothing to do with the beliefs of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, who espouses any doctrine which will allow him or his party to gain brutal power over subject peoples, and who hates Jews, Christians, America and Israel.
Sinisterists exist within and without free democracies. That is why Ahmadinejad has every in common with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and nothing in common with President Bush. The willingness of Sinisterists in democracies to applaud Sinisterists threatening democracies is nothing new, as I explain at length in my new book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie (Revised and Updated Edition.) The Oxford Oath, formulated while Hitler was rearming for a second world war, read “I will not die for King or Country.” Bertrand Russell, one of the great Leftist sophisticates of Great Britain, advised the British to welcome German military forces, if they invaded his island homeland, like the Nazis were tourists.
Hitler then, like the Hitler of Iran today, talked constantly of peace, even while the Second World War was being fought. He was joined by his closest allies, the Bolsheviks throughout the democracies and, of course, the Soviet Union (despite the fact that, according to dupes like Alan Colmes, the Nazis and Soviets were “mortal enemies.) In fact, while Britain was fighting alone for its survival, Bolsheviks like Bettye Goldstein, better known as Betty Friedan, was demanding that America not provide any aid to Britain and blamed the war on British imperialism, rather than Nazi brutality and aggression. Bettye was Jewish, but her sympathy was for Sinisterim, not Judaism or the Jewish people.
The opposition to helping Britain fight Hitler came from a collaboration of Fascist, Soviet, Japanese and Nazi groups within the America and the rest of the Western Hemisphere, who agitated against Britain and also against America. The book, Under Cover, which was a bestseller over sixty years ago, describes exactly how Nazis worked with Soviets who worked with Japanese and who all worked with radical black groups in America to champion the common cause of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo. This was not out of love for any particular ideology, but out of hatred of America, Jews, Christians and the nascent movement of Jews in Palestine.
More fascinating, for dupes like Colmes who believe that men like Ahmadinajad are “conservatives” or believe in the non-existent “Far Right” is that the Nazis appealed during the Second World War for peace in pamphlets aimed directly at British Leftists. In a long tract entitled “Plutocracy versus Democracy,” published in Nazi Germany, the Nazis repeatedly talk of a “National Socialist Germany and Russia” which constituted the wave of the future. The Nazis and Soviets both appealed to the workers of Great Britain to stop fighting for the “conservatives” governing their nation.
If should not be surprising, but is surprising to most people, that radical Islam was already – during the Second World War – siding with Nazis, with Bolsheviks, and with Fascists at different times, always against decent and normal people, who are invariably described as on the “Far Right.” Radical Islam was considered by the Soviets not to be a religion, but rather to be a revolutionary proletarian movement, something very different than Christianity or Judaism. Radical Islam was considered by the Nazis to have a “spiritual-ideological link” with each other, according to Nazi leaders (and in spite of the fact that most pro-Nazi Moslems were Semitic peoples like Jews. Mussolini proudly took the title, during his invasion of Ethiopia, of “Defender of Islam.”
So, Alan, when you talk about radical Moslems like Ahmadinejad being “conservative” or “Right Wing” you are talking, although you doubtless know too little to know otherwise, talking nonsense. Evil, Sinisterism, is invariably on what we would call the Left. Moving too far in the direction or Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater never leads to death camps, gulags, Baathist genocide or radical Islam. Instead moving “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan always leads to greater liberty, greater belief in the Blessed Creator worshipped by Jews and Christians, and greater decency and nobility.
Ahmadinejad is a Sinisterist. He worships lying (as the ghosts of homosexuals in Iran can grimly attest.) The is only one response in our war with Sinisterism and Churchill summed it up perfectly in the darkest hours of 1940: ‘You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road my be. For without victory, there is no survival.” Churchill, like Reagan, was called a “conservative.” What he said about Nazism, what Reagan said about the Evil Empire, is just as true today as then. Our only response to Sinisterism is victory.
Bruce Walker
http://brucewwalker.com/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Bruce Walker
