I have pretty much stopped watching BBC programmes, especially given the psychotic Zionist, pro-Conservative (or rather, neoconservative) lean the Beeb elicits. Seeing the bubbling social network activity around the recent Big Questions programme, I decided to break with my intuition and watch it. The result? It reminded me of Frantz Fanon’s depiction of the colonialist French who would entertain themselves by mocking the “backward” – it was a show of individuals so inebriated by their own sense of superiority that they were blind to their own hypocrisy.
And indeed as I tried to play “word association” to psychologically disassociate from the mental trauma inflicted by the circus act, I kept cycling through words starting with “hypocrisy”, “deception”, “dishonesty” round back to “hypocrisy” again.
Right from the start “Islamo-fascism” was used to describe ISIS by Nicky Campbell. This term has been used by the far-right/liberal interventionists and extreme neocons like Norman Podhoretz who wants a World War IV (WWIII is the War of Terror according to him) to describe Islam itself. A Freudian slip indicating a very neoconservative bias, perhaps? It would certainly explain his glee witnessing the reactions of neocon Emily Dyer. More on her later.
One wonders whether Campbell would have the fortitude to declare the Orthodox Jewish community, nay, the Prime Minister of the Zionist entity Benjamin Netanyahu, “Judeo-fascists” for the Biblical justifications for the creation of Israel, and for seeking to impose “an interpretation” of the Talmud as the foundation for the justice system in Israel. He would be sacked in an instance for his “anti-Semitism”.
It was, in short, an Islam-bashing fest. Further into the show, “Muslims” were referred to as “Islamists” by a Zionist war-monger, demonstrating how pervasive the term has become in smearing the Muslim minority.
And one individual kept referring to Muslims only in the context of faith schools, whilst clasping Peter Clarke’s perverted report which addressed state schools. A report which incidentally painted non-Muslims as the pinnacle of truth, completely ignoring Muslim testimony. Certainly, the anti-Muslim “sophists” were wanting in inquiry; the sort of inquiry which would question the government’s narrative of a given set of events. Instead, the allegations have taken to be gospel because lies and spin emanating from discredited sources were reproduced across the media spectrum. Argumentum ad populum becomes the basis of “truth”.
True inquiry is stifled. The one Muslim journalist who was there – Dilly Hussain – and who provided a counter-narrative was given a handful of minutes to speak, and subsequently, audibly drowned out when critiquing the nefarious neoconservative Henry Jackson Society.
Ah, the neoconservatives. Emily Dyer, was “shocked” at the notion of teaching a child that another faith is wrong and asks “what type of society do you want?” Such is the Machiavellian deceit of neoconservatism and indeed people like Dyer. Or perhaps she is unaware of the neoconservative “mode of thinking”. The religion of “British values”, which neoconservatism has now spawned and imposed on British society, has excommunication built into it: actively oppose the concept of democracy, then a person is labelled an “extremist” and then “disrupted” through a number of measures which result in pecuniary losses and societal chastisement through the loss of reputation, courtesy of neoconservative front organisations which Dyer’s bosses support and push. You are treated as a terrorist without having even committed a crime.
Please, spare us the self-righteous cocking of the head and spiel of “society” soaking in the sea of sanctimony. The “Big Question” is: what type of society do neoconservatives, who are in power, want? One which favours an authoritarian, “closed” society and actively undermines the British values it pushes? One simply needs to peruse the content of the Counter Terror legislation and the discriminatory PREVENT Strategy to witness the impact it has on the rights of people, and understand the hypocrisy of the content of the programme. With incriminating, anti-liberal, pro-fascist statements from the founders of neoconservatism like Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol, it is little wonder that academics like Shadia Drury render severe critiques of neoconservatism:
“It is… but Strauss’s philosophy that invites the horrors of the Nazi past. Strauss’s conviction that there is no disagreement among the wise, who instinctively recognize the truth and know what is to be done, mirrors, Hitler’s celebration of the genius who can learn nothing from the discussions and deliberations of others. Strauss’s contempt for ordinary people, and for philosophical debate, mirrors Hitler’s contempt for Parliament as a useless debating society. Strauss’s insistence on lies, myths, and illusions as necessary for the vulgar many, echoes Mussolini’s paean to myths and illusions and Hitler’s reliance on propaganda as a means for controlling and manipulating the masses. The centrality of the enemy (including the internal enemy) reveals the close alliance of Strauss’s politics with the politics of the Nazi jurist, Carl Schmitt. Finally, Strauss’s ‘tyrannical teaching’ betrays a disregard for law and due process that is characteristic of tyrants of every stripe.”
Those who have been subverting democracy and undermining it sit on the pulpit of rectitude lecturing others of their beliefs, as the people are completely oblivious to the true threat neoconservatism poses to Britain. Come on Nicky, chair a discussion every other episode delving into the deceptive neoconservatism pulsating through the offices of the ruling elite. That is of course, if you have no fear of losing your job.
 Drury, S.B. The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005, p.xxi