With the endless imagery of brutality emanating from the Holy Lands, and the continued silence from neocons like Michael Gove, William Shawcross and anti-Muslim, neocon extremist ideologues such as Douglas Murray, one wonders whether the extremism of the Zionist neocons will be “PREVENTED” using extra-judicial political strategies.
As the media continues to mount pressure on Muslim institutions, be they mosques or Islamic community centres to formulate endless responses and apologies for the alleged repugnant acts of megalomaniacs in Iraq and Syria, there has yet to be the same pressure to be applied to Zionist Jewish organisations and Synagogues. There are no political or journalistic endeavours to investigate Jewish schools, colleges and Synagogues visited by British Zionist Jews who pursue a “holy war” and are now being implicated in Biblical state terrorism and potential war crimes through their conscription into the Israeli Defence Farce. There is no resultant smear-by-association of Judaism, Zionist groups and Zionist centres.
The government continues to fail in applying the “British values” of equality and rule of law, equally. It has yet to start investigating the social circles of these various soldiers to determine the “psychological hooks” which have “hooked” into the British Jews prompting them to embark on the conveyor-belt to Zionist terrorism in Palestine.
Those who support such ideologies have not been investigated, disrupted and forced to condemn the racist ideology that is Zionism, which forms the basis of the apartheid entity that is Israel. Far from being removed from government offices, detained, “PREVENTED” and referred to the extra-judicial Channel deradicalisation programme, men like Michael Gove, William Shawcross and George Osborne, all of whom have weaponised government organs over the past few years to the distinct subjection of the Muslim minority to their ammunition, continue to exert their influences.
The government, in maintaining this inequality in the treatment of minority groups and hence violating rule of law, is an extremist.
A pattern of behaviour exists with the government. After every major incident implicating Muslims, architected or otherwise, a policy which further restricts the rights of and collectively punishes the Muslim minority as a whole is pursued. Even those articles which seem to be defending Muslims, still make their case within the framework of the discriminatory PREVENT policy. Theresa May the government extremist, in a further display of discriminatory treatment has done this again through the introduction of “new powers” (translation: new erosion of civil liberties) using James Foley as her pretext.
The PREVENT Perversion
May firmly asserts that she is engaged in trying to understand why British citizens would fight in Syria and yet automatically frames the entire discourse into one of terrorism and lays the blame on “ideology”, thus paving the way for Islam as a religion to be further attacked, demonised and criminalised. Ignoring the valiant intentions of those who wish to protect the people and throw over a despotic war criminal, thus bringing the discourse into the humanitarian legal framework of an internal armed conflict, she, and her government consistently fail to recognise the involvement of UK foreign policy in the “radicalisation” of people. Michael Adebelajo explicitly cited his reasons for his actions being the duplicitous foreign policy of the UK. The symbolism in the orange jump suit worn by James Foley further reinforces the notion that foreign policy is a critical, if not the defining factor in “radicalising” people.
May’s failure to recognise this in her neoconservative manifesto, her focus on Islam, and her continued persistence in the discriminatory PREVENT strategy increases the perception of the Muslim minority as being a target, which is only exasperated through the hypocritical absence of any mention of British Zionist Jews or even far-right Christianist/neoconservative inspired terrorism.
The pretext has allowed May to push two key human rights-abusing actions,
- Making the implementation of PREVENT a statutory duty
- New anti-social behaviour orders to target extremists groups
Instead of scrapping the ineffectual and draconian PREVENT policy, it is being further reinforced through law. “Extremism” as defined by the PREVENT strategy is tied to the definition of “Islamism” which entails orthodox Islamic viewpoints. Holding alternate political viewpoints falls foul of these definitions too. In Peter Clarke’s methodologically flawed report on the Trojan Hoax plot, he categorised an orthodox Jewish group Neturei Karta as “extoling” extremist views because it was “anti-Israel”.
The reality is, if an objective application of the “extremism” definition was applied to the neoconservative elements in the government and those which support their views like Yvette Cooper and Lord Howard, who is calling for the human rights-violating control orders (see the implication of the “toned-down” version of control orders known as TPIMS, here) to be reinstated, the government itself would be regarded as extremist. The neoconservative ideology which promoted military intervention in Iraq in 2003 is now driving the same. Thus, those making such calls could also be construed as “violent extremists”.
An Evolution of Racism as Policy
The neocon rationale underpinning domestic and foreign policies is an evolution of racism, which is now focussing on Islam and Muslims.
“The neoconservatives who shaped his foreign policy in the early years of the terror war did have a culturalist analysis of the Muslim problem… To the culturalists, the Islamic world was inherently prone to fanaticism and violence… Pro Western democracy could not emerge except by force from outside—the script for the disastrous Iraq war begun in 2003… [N]eoconservatives and those favoring more conventional policies shared the same culturalist logic: Muslims could not produce an acceptable form of democracy by themselves. For Bernard Lewis, the key intellectual influence on neoconservative thinking about the Middle East, the model for this revolution from above was Atatürk’s violent “modernization” of Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s—an attempt to impose a total cultural transformation on a majority-Muslim country. This more radical solution to the Muslim problem defined the early war on terror, and especially the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Neoconservatives fantasized about rebuilding Iraq from scratch in the image of US neoliberalism—a project that in practice implied the destruction of the country’s entire social fabric. The wars of the time were, as British prime minister Tony Blair noted, “not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually ‘regime change’; it was ‘values change.’ ”
“In both Britain and the US, anti-Muslim culturalists were able to appropriate and rework culturalist arguments that had long been central to popular forms of racism… In Britain, beginning in the late 1960s, African Caribbeans and South Asians were regarded by conservatives as bearers of alien cultures that disrupted the homogeneity supposedly essential to the national political order. As Margaret Thatcher put it in 1978, a year before she was elected prime minister, there was a worry that unless nonwhite immigration was halted, Britain “might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.” Such themes continued into the 1990s and beyond, but their force was gradually diminished by pressure from antiracist movements. In response, conservatives shifted their attention to Muslims, against whom their culturalist arguments enjoyed greater success.” (Kundnani, 2014)
The one-dimensional, ideologically-driven, hypocritical statements of Theresa May and the rest of the neocon ilk are a reflection of neoconservative impulses, which, not only threatens Islam, Muslims and Britain, but stability in the Middle East too. It reinforces the continued dissension of the British Government towards neocon-inspired tyranny, which must be fought and resisted by the people and the many politicians who have felt the sting of the neocons themselves. Just as racism was fought and suppressed, so too must its successor, the “neo-racist” neoconservativism influencing discourses and Government policies.