Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Islam's Useful Idiots
I confess that I first heard of this article yesterday while listening to rush in the workroom. I was curious to find out more about it, and finally came across it on the American Thinker site. It is a most damning expose of Islam and taken from one, who was once within it's midst. but the main thrust of the article is that of the 'enablers' within the West. And those just happen to be mostly from the politically Left, who are willing to use Islam to further their own aims in dismantling the very fabric of wester civilization and the very pirnciples that allow them to do just what they are doing.

While you read this article, remember that while M. Imiani is listing a damning case against Islam, it is the facilitators in the West, who are just as guilty, if not more so. And yet none dare call it treason.

Quote:Islam's Useful Idiots
August 7th, 2006

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy,(how perceptive) the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.

But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same—the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha, leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia.

The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.

Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist. He maintains a website at

Based upon this article, I should not be using the term "radical Islam", since it is all radical. And he should know, having been born and raised within it. The only thing missing here is how he would change it. Obviously one or two things will be the result: either destruction, or eventual change.
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken

Look,here's how it is. You had Marxism/Leninism in the late 19th century and 20th. It broke into 2 camps with the SAME GOALS,different tactics.

Mesheviks and Bolsheviks. Patient,less patient. Less violent,more violent,but the same goals.

That's how Islam is. Most are Mensheviks obviously,but the Bolsheviks as the Marxist kind rule without outside assistance to the Mensheviks.

Were if not for the USA,the bolsheviks would rule Iraq and Afghanistan,but our problem is the mensheviks have the same GOALS. Our job is to change the goals of the mensheviks while assisting them to rule over the bolsheviks OR kill them all OR become slave to Islam.

Either A or B is acceptable with me when C is the alternative. I prefer option A,but I don't think it can possibly occur,B can occur. BUT,B cannot occur in the future when they are relatively as strong as us.

I say we have us about 1/4 a century to change the minds of the less violent or see a conflagration burning up lots of the earth. The Bols ain't changing and I ain't a slave without a good fight.
But what about the non Islamic ones, who are the "useful Idiots" as the major theme of the article?
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
You know my expressed feelings on this John. The Useful Idiots are wrong but they are not evil. They actually believe the stuff based on falsehoods they fell for growing up - and were never lucky enough to learn the truth. It is an uphill battle for those of us who have unkited some of the mistruths spread through the Public School system - against the reinforcement of a complicit Media entrapped by the same disinformation.

It may be grueling, but the fight is against the disinformation. You do it every time you take the time to introduce a new poster to Supply-side economics. You do it every time you supply a link to Thomas Sowell.

The good thing is there is no evangelist as terrible as a reformed drunk. Those who can be made to see are the best bridge to reach the Useful Idiots. Dennis Prager may be more effective than Rush Limbaugh. Michael Medved more influential than Sean Hannity. Reagan was a reformed democrat. Zell Miller said his party left him.

Do what you can to open eyes, and then don't stop the effort. Some point in our lifetimes we will see a result from our attempts to light the shadows. Thank God for AI-Jane.
While much of what he says is true, the truth is also that adherents of the Iraq War have just as many neurotics and others disappointed in themselves, who are projecting those disappointments onto an aggressive foreign policy. By being articulate and forceful, the author tries to convince people that the obvious(voters are mostly influenced by their own emotional conflicts when choosing candidates) only exists for one side. It would be like someone writing a long, detailed article, with plenty of data, about how the Democrats take big campaign donations... but then saying that this only exists for the Democrats. There's always two sides.
WmLambert Wrote:Do what you can to open eyes, and then don't stop the effort. Some point in our lifetimes we will see a result from our attempts to light the shadows. Thank God for AI-Jane.

Right you are Bill. It is an uphill battle, but eventually more and more will come to see the facts of the matter. Wink1
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Anon, I am referring to objective facts and disinformation - not opinion. Everything you said is non-applicable. Saying adherents to the war in Iraq may be: "neurotics and others disappointed in themselves, who are projecting those disappointments onto an aggressive foreign policy" does not work.

We are not discussing any such disappointments or neuroses. We are discussing outright lies taught to kids in vulnerable stages of their youth which they use as adults to color their basic thoughts.

Some of the easiest lies to counter is the attack made on religion. The church created science. Ancient Greece and Rome and Alexandria did not have science. These ancient civilizations had accumulated lore and Leviticus-style lists of "what might kill you" as its only instance of empirical science. It was the Christian God with consistent physical laws of the Universe which caused science. As scientists came to understand these laws, they did so to glorify the God who created them. But you learned in school that Columbus was held back by religious zealots who argued that the Earth was flat. This is a documented lie. There is no argument. The religious advisers merely stated the correct circumference of the globe as documented by science. The "Flat-Earth" nonsense was written by Andrew Dickson White who lied on purpose with the intended aim of creating distrust of religious advisers. Likewise, there was no "Dark Ages" attributed to the Church holding back the civilization of ancient Greece and Rome. The exact same lies were made for the expressed same reasons.

Do you still believe what is untrue? Does it color your "feelings" about faith? Do you sadly attempt to rationalize the lies in order to protect your innate belief system which is wrong?

Another lie which is easy to counter is the teaching you received in elementary school denigrating the greedy Dickensian businessmen at the start of the Industrial Revolution, where impoverishment was lifted and people were universally treated more humanely than ever before. You read Oliver Twist and bought into the opposite. A London Parliamentarian lied in his Sadler Report and invented horrors instead of reporting the glory that came from the new industrialization. He did it for personal interests and admitted his lies. Yet his report was picked up without annotation or fact-checking by the Hammonds, a husband and wife team of historians who wrote the books adopted by all the Public schools and forever after put forward as Gospel.

In the same vein, you learned about Robber Barons, the entrepreneurs who actually saved our country from greedy, incompetent, and corrupt government business monopolies. You learned in school the opposite of true history that it takes a strong central government to hold these greedy Robber Barons in check - when it was diametrically the opposite.

These and many, many other things are fundamental to what you think and who you are. The more truth one learns, the more understanding comes with it. It is not as you claim that one side uses emotional claims of ignorance to influence politics - it is that one side desperately needs enlightenment in order to make objective decisions based on truth rather than universal disinformation seen as fact.

When John speaks about Thomas Sowell - don't blow it off - but go to the link and read to understand what is presented. When I mention Rodney Stark, do yourself a favor and spend a month reading his books for the corrective background he provides.

It is in no way similar to claiming Democrats get big campaign contributions but act like the GOP doesn't. What is important is specific nuance of how the new campaign finance laws sponsored by millions of dollars from George Soros made contributions from Unions to political parties illegal - so that the money that used to go to the DNC now goes to extremist 527 and c-4 groups aligned to George Soros. Union dollars are meat and potato to democrat fund-raising - not for the GOP.

The issues are clear and completely objective if one understands the issues thoroughly. Understanding how the new money is distributed explains why Lieberman is attacked and why the Far Left holds the purse strings. It explains why Hillary Clinton who can raise money effectively without Union bosses is the target of the far Left and why.

It is not subjective opinions we are discussing but hard fact.
...and supporters of the Iraq War haven't been told lies?
As a matter of fact they haven't. The administration specifically gave the honest and correct reasons for Iraq. The so-called "lies" trotted out by the Left have been researched and found to have been completely invented and untrue - a case of the ones complaining about lies doing the lying.

Your response was a direct attempt to deflect the point I made. Are you now satisfied that Columbus was not held back by Religious zealots, for instance? How difficult is that to answer? Do you still believe in the foundational disinformation that upholds so much of the Leftist mindset? Do you believe Free enterprise leads to corrupt Robber Barons who must be controlled by a strong central government? Or have you really looked at history and discovered the opposite is the way things operate?
Wm, He probably doesn't know the robber barons have been replaced with middle class business managers..........and that the robber barons' ill gotten gains are now primarily in charitable foundations.

He probably does not know the percentage of funds to the less fortunate are given...not coerced... from those foundations as opposed to governmental spending toward the same groups.

I was amazed the first time I tripped over those percentages.
John L,
I confess to be an useful idiot.
I don't feel abused by Islamic warriors. I feel you are abused by Bush and the big money. Bush is an useless idiot, he would be the last person I'd liked to be abused by. That article is an insult for all owners of a brain. Try better.

Palladin, your historical essay above is somewhat unprecise. The mensheviks were socialists or social democrats. Lenin and his group parted from them in 1903 for political differences. Mensheviks carried the 1905 uprising out, but opposed the 1917 revolution. They were banned shortly afterwards. Socialist have usually heard of Marx, but to my knowledge, never established a communist regime. Quite the opposite, they all have gone the way to neoliberals.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
quadrat as you mature and gain more practical experience and lose some of the disinformational misunderstanding you have with economics and politics, you may change your viewpoint. I urge you not to paint yourself into a corner you'll be embarrased to explain your way out of later.

There is no abuse by Bush or big money. Think where you got that from and understand what their agenda is. Being a useful idiot is not anything to be proud of. Free Enterprise works, and improves life wherever it touches.

Its easy to understand socialists if you understand incompetence, jealousy, and redistribution. You also need to understand economics better than looking up words used by Keynesians to rationalize blather. Please start at the Economics subject in our forums and gain some different background before making up your mind about anything.
Free Enterprise works, and improves life wherever it touches.
It actually does, in a precious few countries even for a majority. Some of the around 20% of your population living below the poverty line (is it not a disgrace for such wealthy a nation?) might not share your opinion, though breastfed with free market values from the craddle too.
In a different thread you said something about "failed communist experiments". There are some. Actually almost all of them are. S2 But not many compared with failed capitalist experiments that fill the world. Free enterprise improves the life of minorities there only.

as you mature and gain more practical experience and lose some of the disinformational misunderstanding you have with economics and politics, you may change your viewpoint.
Could I blame you for lack of maturity? I don't think so. You are a product of your environment. Influenced by the people who use you, influenced of course to a certain degree by your own ambitions. You need your view of economics to get along there.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
quadrat, your youth is showing. Read slower and understand that discounting truthful statements and making wisecracks based on your own youthful misunderstanding of both history and the subject matter does not make you appear up to the level of the more mature posters.

Most posters are more aware of their reputation and don't throw out so many incorrect preconceived notions posing as fact, understanding that such smugness standing in for objective reasoning will come back to haunt them.

Let's look at what you posted in reply to my statement that Free Enterprise works, and improves life wherever it touches:
quadrat Wrote:It actually does, in a precious few countries even for a majority. Some of the around 20% of your population living below the poverty line (is it not a disgrace for such wealthy a nation?) might not share your opinion, though breastfed with free market values from the craddle[sic] too.
You should understand that we use economic quintiles when archiving data in the U.S. and elsewhere. That means we divide the entire economy in five even groups. Since the U.S. has virtually no poverty as understood by historical definitions, the bottom quintile is what you are referring to. This group is not like the impoverished of the world who fear where their next sustenance will come from. Our lowest quintile averages out as owning color TV sets, personal computers, a car, air conditioning, housing, food stores, and enough wealth to live without fear. Some households are made up of a Mom and Dad, young kids, and older kids. Sometimes with older parents or other relations. A family with a teenager will see him classified in the lowest quintile - even if he lives in an upscale home. His income is low because he is an entry-level worker. broken out by itself it reads as low income - but in reality he is just an entry-level worker, probably with a part-time job to help with expenses as he is attending school. Most people in the lowest quintile are not poor - just beginning workers.

Some people do have problems and need help to live. Our economy allows non-workers a comfortable existence. Many are upset that LBJ's Great Society programs enacted in the 60's and increased on an ever upward-trending scale made welfare so attractive that a welfare class came to exist with the sole aim to live multi-generationally off of welfare. Many people have no intention of leaving welfare because it is more than sufficient for them to live comfortably. Any income they make under the table is not reported, and just goes to enrich their subsidized lifestyle. The unintended consequences of such a seemingly benevolent welfare system are rules that make it more advantageous for fathers to deny responsibility for children they help bring into the world - allowing the mother to qualify as a single-parent with extra benefits.

The most important thing to understand, is that unless a person is insane or incapacitated (which qualifies him for plenty of generous welfare assistance) that person is able to begin in a low-paying entrance-level job and rapidly rise into higher quintiles. The bogus figure of 20% of Americans living below the poverty line is laughable. Our unemployment number is nationally at higher than full employment. The percentage on unemployment is actually less than the number normally accounted as transitioning between jobs - usually to a better-paying one. Is there a European rate of unemployment which is not double digit?

Your next misunderstanding is about Free Enterprise and its unqualified success. You confused Mixed economies with it, and lump all the bad economies in with the successful Free Enterprise ones. Government monopolies were always historically uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The less restraint government had on these entrepreneurs the better the result. The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat. In the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government.

Geographically and by population, the U.S. is a rather small percentage of the world - yet eclipses the rest of the world in every economic aspect. We would do even better if so much of our Free Enterprise system wasn't beaten down by well-intentioned but stupid bureaucracies.

quadrat Wrote:In a different thread you said something about "failed communist experiments". There are some. Actually almost all of them are. But not many compared with failed capitalist experiments that fill the world. Free enterprise improves the life of minorities there only.
All communist systems have been found untenable. All socialist countries after encountering the failure of their command-system dabbled in mixed-economies, hoping to reap the benefits of bits and pieces of Free Enterprise, without losing governmental controls. The higher the percentage of Free Enterprise allowed in an economic system, the more successful it is. What you consider failures of Free Enterprise are actually vindication of it.

It doesn't matter,the mensheviks shared the theories with the bolsheviks,they just were not as willing to use brutality. As a result,they got sidelined as "moderate Islam" does today.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)