From a Canadian blog, The Propagandist with a H/T To the Gates of Vienna
A popular but apocryphal legend tells us that Lenin cynically coined the term “useful idiots” to denote Western sympathizers of the Soviet regime. A BBC radio documentary of the same name appeared last summer, outlining the history of such individuals, from Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Stalinist propaganda in the 1930s to those who defend the authoritarian government of Iran today. Useful idiots are also prevalent in Canada’s far left milieu, acting in support of such diverse causes as anti-democratic Islamism in the Middle East, Communism in Cuba, Bolivarian socialism in Venezuela, and even the re-establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. An overview of the far left scene shows us how each group specializes in the defence of a particular autocracy. Like their Stalinist predecessors, these modern useful idiots are attracted to the ideological prestige and recruiting potential that come with such efforts.
The Canadian far left’s current direction on foreign issues began with the Iraq War in 2003. Socialist Voice, an online magazine, emerged out of a 2003-2004 debate within the Communist League, a Trotskyist sect, over the nature of the Iraq War. The theorists of the League posited that it was an “interimperialist” conflict between the capitalist West and the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, but a small group of Canadian cadres wanted to support the Iraqi resistance. The latter group split from the Communist League to form Socialist Voiceand organize within the anti-war movement. Those associated with the publication are particularly prominent in Vancouver, where they are now leaders in the Vancouver StopWar Coalition, which was organized in the lead-up to the Iraq War in late 2002 and early 2003.
For the rest of this analysis please click over to The Propagandist here:
The profound problem of Muslim immigration
The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order tor transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future – but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.
Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.
Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the ‘Sunna’. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.
Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:
I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.
Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:
So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/38496
And from Jihad Watch
The massive, catastrophic problem that is the presence of tens of millions of Muslims in Europe is finally dawning on the other citizens of that continent. Fitfully and unevenly, they are stirring themselves to find that they have invited a dangerous enemy into their home, who has no intention of leaving, or ceasing to act aggressively. Time will tell if this civilizational crisis will be solved by peaceful, lawful means, or the fate of Europe as a whole will mirror that of Kosovo–a province that as recently as 1900 was still majority Serbian and Christian. Indeed, with its ancient churches and monasteries, that region was the historic heart of the Serbian nation–the Balkan equivalent of Ile de France, Westminster, or Plymouth Rock.
Indeed, I think the real reason why NATO and the U.S. struck so hard at the Serbs in 1999 was to teach Europeans a lesson: When sharia comes, you will not be allowed to fight back. You are being displaced as the Serbs have been displaced. Attempt to resist, and this will be your fate. Of course, the real atrocities Serbs committed against Kosovar Muslims cannot be justified. Besides being evil, they were utterly futile; the battle for Kosovo had been fought decades before, and lost. The higher birthrate of Muslims was part of the story, but another part is too often forgotten: the role of the Communist Yugoslav government, which saw Serbian nationalism as a threat and sought to dilute it by purposely moving Muslims out of Albania and into Kosovo. (Read the melancholy story in Milica Bookman’s The Demographic Struggle for Power–cogently reviewed here.)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/the-new-conquistadors.html
DP111 you may be right on the reasons NATO struck the Serbs so hard, I thought it was because Bill Clinton wanted to give the news media something besides his latest scandal for headlines. The helping of the Moslems and advancing Sharia were unintended consequences. Not that Clinton wouldn’t have advanced them if paid enough money, he was the crookedest US President until Obama.