Discriminatory David Cameron and New Year Neoconservatism


I am actually quite looking forward to this year. Neocons are set to go crazy making the task of exposing this toxic threat to British society all the more vibrant. And what better way to start this year with the discriminatory head of the British state, the Muslim-bashing Prime Minister David Cameron.

Cameron’s (epistemologically neoconservative) weltanshauung obsessively revolves around every career-opportunist hack, neocon prostitute “reformer” and neo-fascist’s scapegoat drug relief for Western insecurity: Muslims. How loved we are.

The Long Walk

Being the neocon that he is, his recent article had an interesting twinge of Irving Kristol (the “godfather” of neoconservatism) in it, right off the bat. But then he is surrounded by cheap American neocon rip-offs like Michael Gove. Or maybe it’s simply that the “neo” aspect isn’t very “neo” anymore, but rather, regurgitated trash which is taken from each other’s work, year in year out.

Whatever the case, Cameron’s “long walk back to a greater Britain” sounded awfully like the Platonic aims of Irving Kristol. Kristol argued that America was required to start the “long trek back” too. But his walk was explicitly towards “pre-modern political philosophy”.[1] And by “pre-modern political philosophy” he meant the Straussian-Platonic conception of the ideal state as encapsulated in the oligarchic society marked by immanent inequality as alluded to in the allegory of the cave.

It is interesting to note that Cameron’s idea of a stronger Britain begins with “greater defence spending” with investment in “new jets frigates and armoured vehicles”. This means, for Cameron, that our boys in green are “keeping our nation safe”. In other words, the theme was similar to David Cameron’s 2014 conference speech, and, as I highlighted at that time, it echoes neocon hawks William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “remoralisation of America” which requires a hegemonic, militarist foreign policy. I have already expounded what “greatness” in neocon-speak actually means, which is intrinsically tied to the one-nation policy outlined by the Tories (I have explained the concept of the one-nation policy in neoconservative terms here). In short, it is a society-terraforming recipe for a closed, managerial state with societal regulation dictated and determined by the “wise” neocons in government. How “wise” these horrendous and corrupt neocons are will be the subject of upcoming blogs.

A Flood of Deception

The characteristic neocon deception was on full display too. Cameron blusters that due to the “competent management of the economy… we are… able to fund the necessary flood defences” thus enabling “help to families when they need it”. George Osborne, however, stands accused of “jeopardising Britain’s crumbling flood defences over the past five years by prioritising cuts to the deficit”. Cameron’s promised investment of £400 million a year was drastically cut at the beginning of last parliament. Meanwhile, despite the suppression of the press, Muslims, reflecting Islam in its intended form, have been travelling to the north to help out. In a Sky News report on New Year’s Eve, a person was asked what help he had received, to which he replied,

“On the first night of the flooding all we had down here was Cleveland mountain rescue in the boats, they came to evacuate the people… the only real help came yesterday evening, a van load of Muslims from Birmingham working for homeless outreach charity..

At this point, the outrage of Muslims assisting those whom the government has miserably failed was too jarring for the journalist’s Murdoch-set narrative on Muslims, so she cut in and refocused the discussion on attacking Jeremy Corbyn. Muslims are only game for blame.

Extremism, Strauss and Duties

Setting aside the “collateral damage” of the hundreds of thousands of starving people in the streets of Great Britain, and the societal destruction wrought by supply-side economics and deregulation which neocons promulgate, Cameron proclaims with an air of certainty wrapped in deflection, that extremism “is one of the biggest issues facing our country”.

Finally, we reach the favourite of neocon regulation – the realm of thoughts and ideas. It is perhaps the greatest insecurity of the fake liberals. Upon the slippery slope of totalitarianism, from “extremism”, the “conditions of extremism” are delved into:

“Failure to integrate, the dangers of segregation and deprivation, women treated as second-class citizens, communities living side by side but never coming into contact with each other.”

The exegesis of this part of the article can be found in a later, blunter message by Cameron. Taking on “another social problem”,

“When our national security is threatened by a seething hatred of the West, one that turns people against their country, and can even turn them into murderous extremists, I want us to be very clear: you will not defeat us. And we will not just confront the violence and the terror. We will take on the underlying, poisonous narrative of grievance and resentment, we will come down hard on those who create the conditions for that narrative to flourish. And we have greater confidence in, indeed, we will revel in our way of life. Because if you walk our streets, learn our schools, benefit from our society, you sign up to our values. Freedom. Tolerance. Responsibility. Loyalty.”

The Daily Mail kindly informs us that this is primarily aimed at Muslims in this country and even goes onto (rightly) state,

“His words on extremism will cause dismay among many Muslims, who feel they are being unfairly singled out.”

The discriminatory aspect will be the subject of a further blog. My focus here is on the broader impact on society. The implication of his ironically PREVENT-textbook articulation of the “us and them” narrative on an open society are of course grave and self-evident. The Prime Minister is, after all, including “grievance” and “resentment” – a nod to foreign policy concerns – as an underlying threat to national security. The manifestation of this can be seen in the fiasco which erupted when Cameron attempted to coerce conformity by using security rhetoric and calling those who opposed bombing Syria “terrorist-sympathisers”.

He plans to “come down hard” on those who “create the conditions for that narrative to flourish”. Good bye religiously-worshipped-when-attacking/insulting-Islam-and-Muslims freedom of expression. Hello neoconservative closed society.

Cameron ends his statement with a new requirement for the people: you must sign up to freedom, tolerance, responsibility, and loyalty. In other words, your views not only must conform to what neocons tell you what they should conform to, you have to “revel” in worshipping the central domain of the state and peripheral secular symbols (the limits of which are set by neocons) that incidentally regulates your expression. The concern here, then, is more for the duties of the citizen – compliant thinking, belief in “our values”, responsibility and loyalty – rather than the rights, i.e. the right to choose one’s thinking, words, and way of life.

Cameron the collectivist commie? More like Cameron in the footsteps of the source of neoconservatives, Leo Strauss.

In Strauss’ articulation of the natural right, he frowns upon the modern liberal thinker, John Locke’s conception of rights. Thus Strauss notes,

“Through the shift of emphasis from natural duties or obligations to natural rights, the individual, the ego, had become the center and origin of the modern world.”[2]


Just remember though, it is not the neoconservatives, who, whilst in power, draft and force through policies which rip up British tradition and society, and “endanger national security” through pointless perpetual wars, who are the threat. Of course they aren’t. How silly.  It’s those who neocons designate a threat. Now please just conform otherwise be rendered an “extremist”!


[1] Kristol, Reflections of Neoconservative, p.76, as referenced in Thompson/Yaron, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, Boulder: Paradigm, 2010, p.87

[2] Strauss L., Natural Right and History, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, p.248

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s