Neocons and “Gradualism” – No “Counter-Entryism” for Fascists in Government?

henryJacksonSocietyTearingapartDemocracy

Neoconservatism’s subversive nature is characteristic of the fascist ideology. While the neocons like Michael Gove and their associates in the far-right have pushed the myth of “Eurabia”, the Muslim Trojan Horse in the West, hell-bent on taking over Europe, the neocon Trojan Horse in Whitehall has permeated policy largely unnoticed. Indeed, the basic premise of the hyperventilating “counter-Jihad movement” which neoconservatives often provide oxygen too, is of an impending take-over by Muslims who wish to impose “Shariyah”.

Maajid Nawaz dog-whistled Michael Gove’s Trojan Horse fetishes as late as last year, explaining his then new buzzwords “tadarruj” or gradualism as “parlance for entryism & Islamisisation from within”. This has now of course translated into Quilliam’s counter-extremism proposal which mainly focusses on “counter-entryism”. The “counter-extremism experts” at Quilliam have, though, typically failed to address the greatest threat that are the neocons running the government in their discriminatory proposals.

Neoconservativism itself advocates precisely this strategy to take over governments. Neocons had taken over the US and helped architect the diabolical Iraq war and all the niceties which came with it (such as the relentless erosion of human rights). Presently, neocons are at the peak of their influence, with leading cabinet members of the British government subscribing to neocon thinking.

Strauss’ “Gradualism”

Leo Strauss in his essay, “Persecution and the Art of Writing”, expounded his view of the “best regime” drawing on his interpretation of Plato’s allegory of the cave and asserting the classical or ancient natural right where the defining principle of this right is inequality. Thus the best regime for Strauss is grounded in a discriminatory, hierarchical order. The contemporary manifestation of this in Straussian terms is effectively a guiding elite (the “philosophers”) shaping and moulding society into the “ideal city” through various Machiavellian ploys. According to Strauss the best way to realise this revolution is through “gradualism”. The political change should be thus in a,

“more conservative way of action, namely, the gradual replacement of the accepted opinions of the truth or an approximation of the truth.”[1]

In other words, the “opinions of the city” should be gradually replaced over time towards an approximation of the ideal city. We need to recall here that Strauss regards the “closed society” better than the “open society” and seeks to leverage “the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles”, to realise this. Note also that the hate preacher Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, defends and praises Strauss in his book Neoconservatism: Why We Need It.[2]

This “gradual replacement of accepted opinion” can be seen in how the neocons have, over the years, shifted the counter-terrorism discourse to focus on ideology, removing scrutiny of government actions.

It can now also be understood why bigoted neocons like the non-transparent, undemocratic Henry Jackson Society were influencing Parliament through the backdoor (see also here). With neocons associated with this organisation manoeuvring themselves into positions of control of key government bodies, the policies of Government have been “gradually replaced” by fascist neoconservative policies which are steadily chipping away at the open society to form their coveted closed one.

The next time a gutter journalist from the Telegraph scrapes the bottom of a barrel to give credence to his Trojan Horse fabrications, or David Cameron and his neocon cabal decide to invoke the “Trojan Horse” to justify their erosion of civil liberties, it is worth asking why they, the fascist neocons who are already in power and effectuating policies concordant to their retroviral ideology, are not being taken to task for their dangerous agenda.


References:

[1] Strauss, L., Persecution and the Art of Writing, 1952, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p.17

[2] Murray mounts a passionate defence of Strauss against Shadia Drury’s sharp critique of Strauss’ dangerous views. See Murray, D., Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, Encounter Books: New York, 2006, pp.5-8

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s