I have already given a brief response to Cameron’s speech in a prior piece exposing the original venue and those connected to the event. My detailed perspective on the speech will be drafted soon and it will convey dismay at the completely oblivious reaction of people (bar some) to what is happening. If people still do not realise that a closed-society is being formed courtesy of neoconservatism, then they will be like those who fell asleep in the Weimar Republic and woke up in the Third Reich. And before readers think this is hyperbole, read the philosophy of those running the country to understand what they aspire to.
For now, let us take a look at a couple of reports, one which is in direct response to David Cameron’s ideology-focussed Birmingham speech (in addition to an already growing body of academic thinking).
The first is one which I came across a few months ago in the April issue of New Scientist magazine. In the article, titled “Extremism’s false trail”, Professor of Cultural Psychiatry & Epidemiology Kamaldeep Bhui writes that the ideology explanation “lacks evidence”. He found that,
“frequency of religious worship and attending a place of worship were not correlated with extremist leanings… such findings challenge many of the pervasive ideas about what drives radical beliefs, including the notion that religious orthodoxy fuels extremism.” (New Scientist, 11 April 2015)
Interesting comments given Theresa May wants to give authorities powers to “close down mosques where extremists gather”.
The second response came on the day of Cameron’s Birmingham speech. Professor Andrew Silke – a counter-terrorism specialist who advises the Cabinet Office and the UN accused Cameron of “barking up the wrong tree”. Below are key excerpts from the Guardian report elucidating his position:
“The weight of the science suggests that most people become involved in terrorism as a result of relatively ordinary pro-social factors…
“The evidence isn’t there to say ideology is the prime reason why people are becoming terrorists, and yet ideology is the foundation on which the counterterrorism effort is built on. Everything is pitched in terms of counter ideology, even though ideology is not the prime mover in terms of bringing people into terrorism. That is a mistake. It is not going to be effective in terms of preventing people becoming radicalised. And it diverts attention from other causes which play a role in why people become involved in terrorism.”
“If you focus on countering the ideology, you are going to miss important stuff. At the early stages those that become involved in terrorism have a very limited understanding of the ideology – they are not scholars.”
He pointed out that there has been no similar focus on ideology in the fight against dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.
“Counter-ideology just doesn’t feature at all in counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland – because there is a general belief that it isn’t relevant and it doesn’t work,” he said. “Whereas with Islamic terrorism it is seen as being effective. Part of the reason is that most of the politicians making the decisions are not Muslim. So it is convenient for them for a whole range of reasons to talk about ideology.”
We know however, that the neocons are allergic to the academic milieu, especially those that provide compelling evidence against their warped, blatantly discriminatory policies.
These policies however, will continue, and it is part of the effort of terraforming not just Islam and the Muslim mind-set, which constitute the bogeyman, but society as a whole. One Nation Conservatism and war are the interconnected vehicles through which neocons are seeking to achieve this. This, I will elaborate upon in an upcoming piece.