The Henry Jackson Society Penetration of the Conservative Leadership Contest


Whilst the neocon/Blairite subversion of the Labour party leadership continues unabated with ever more contrived and adventurous ways being used by Blairites and pro-Israel activists to pressure Jeremy Corbyn to step down, the Conservative party leadership race has been overrun by neocons.

Four out of the five of the Conservative leader aspirants are linked to the anti-Muslim, hate-financed Henry Jackson Society.

It is important to understand that neoconservatism is a “persuasion” which believes in using “noble lies” to steer the “vulgar masses” towards a fascism-based closed society which serves the interests of the neocons such as obtaining and maintaining power.  This entails bludgeoning “principles” like the rule of law and human rights through their “prudence” unashamedly in name of these very “principles”.

Thus, we can fully expect an increased hardening of securitised policy and therefore an assault on the civil liberties of all.  We can also expect a continuation and possibly an increase in the political hostility against the Muslim minority and Islam as Britain’s identity is forcibly built against this minority as the Machiavellian enemy.

Michael Gove

As the papers focus their efforts to creatively subsume Shakespearean treacherous tragedy into their headlines, Gove’s grossly disturbing views and statements have been largely ignored. Indeed, his high-profiling ditching and slamming of Boris Johnson and attempts to assume power in this manner is in perfect synchrony with his neoconservatism.

Michael Gove’s curriculum vitae makes for a distinctly troublesome read.  Gove is the founder of Policy Exchange, a neoconservative think-tank which Professor Arun Kundnani highlights has been crucial in the formation of discriminatory cold-war style anti-Muslim policies. Gove also was an advisor to the neocon hate-enablers Quilliam Foundation.

And, according to his book, Celsius 7/7, he is a founding member of the Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

Defecting also to camp Gove from Johnson are key backers Nick Boles and Dominic Raab.  Both of these individuals are HJS council members.

Gove’s pro-Israel activism has seen him directly interfere with schools to censor workshops on Palestinian literature and human rights at the behest of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He has railed against the BDS movement, which of course means more censorship and subversion of local democracy. The Jewish Chronicle wrote of him that he is,

“an outspoken critic of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a strong advocate of the government’s recent attempts to prevent local authority boycotts of Israel”.

I have written an exposition of his book Celsius 7/7 in detail, explaining how his policies interplay with his fascist inclinations. Some of his notable positions and views have been reproduced below:

On his influences:

  • His book was influenced and shaped by extreme neoconservatives and pro-Israel activists linked to US hate groups, like Douglas Murray, William Shawcross, Stephen Pollard and Dean Godson.

On foreign policy:

  • He whitewashes and trivialises foreign policy concerns.
  • Believes in spreading democracy “across the globe” because his way of life is superior.
  • That UN backing required to engage in wars is a threat to Britain’s sovereignty.
  • His “morality clarity” includes giving full support to the Iraq war.
  • He believes the misjudgement made in the Iraq war was the use of too little force.
  • He describes the “exemplary military force” applied with “vigour” in the case of Fallujah (in which white phosphorous was used and the area was completely delimitated) and Jenin (where Israel used excessive and disproportionate force in civilian areas) as “beneficial”.

On Islam/Muslims:

  • Gove believes that the success of the West challenged the Muslim assumption of the perfection of the Qur’an.
  • He categorises orthodox Islamic beliefs as Islamism and then compares Islamism to fascism.
  • He believes that those who campaign for freeing Guantanamo detainees and who support their wearing of traditional garb like the jilbab should not complain if Muslim identity is viewed through the lens of the War on Terror and “extremism”.

His ideal society:

  • His society of choice is one which is not one in a state of peace, but rather, in concert with neoconservativism, “vigilante” against a threat, and ready to sacrifice its civil liberties and lives for the “greater good”.
  • Like neocons, Gove claims the defence of “our values” requires curtailment of civil liberties and “exceptional legislation”.

All the citations for the above can be found in my multiple-part analysis below:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

These views come together to form a dangerous man.

Whichever role Gove has found himself in, he has left a trail of illiberal, discriminatory and anti-democratic destruction in his wake.  From his academisation of schools which benefits corporations and neocons, to a discriminatory assault on schools in Muslim areas vis-à-vis the disproven Trojan Hoax, to his censorship of pro-Palestinian views, and Islam itself.

David Cameron’s own remarks about Gove are instructive:

“[Gove] is basically a bit of a Maoist – he believes that the world makes progress through a process of creative destruction!”

Cameron is not wrong.  Neocon thinker Michael Ledeen suggests to American political leaders to adopt “Machiavellian Leadership”, arguing that sometimes one may need to resort to doing evil actions like being a dictator in order save freedom, presenting the model examples of Mao and Hitler.

Gove has taken this advice on quite literally.

Theresa May 

Human rights have ushered in a framework developed to protect against state abuse of power. Theresa May’s tenure as the longest serving Home Secretary in a century is the antithesis to this paradigm.

A brief summary of her “achievements” paints a disconcertingly totalitarian picture.

As I have covered elsewhere on the blog, she has a disturbing habit of stripping British nationals on the basis of suspicion,  extraordinarily rendering Muslims without technically rendering them, banning MI6 approved counter-extremism Muslim speakers, discriminatorily handling anti-Muslim attacks until it is brought to her attention, discriminatorily handling the extradition cases of Talha Ahsan and Gary McKinnon, interfering with the courts and their interpretations, and advocating the repeal of the Human Rights Act.

Signalling the disintegration of the principle of separation of powers, it is also credibly alleged that Theresa May had rule of law and due process activist Moazzam Begg arrested in 2014, who after being imprisoned in Belmarsh without trial, had his charges abruptly dropped.

Echoing Nazi-era secret trials, Theresa May has signed off certificates authorising trials to be heard entirely in secrecy.

She has been historically at the forefront (see also here) of making the discredited PREVENT policy statutory duty through the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill, which added additional abusive powers (pushing Extremism Disruption Orders which meant May could ban speakers from campuses threatening free speech, “excluding” British citizens suspected of “terrorism-related” activity through the use of secret evidence).

May has been a strong advocate of the affront to human rights that is the Snooper’s Charter.

In announcing more counter-extremism measures, she conflated Shari’ah arbitration panels and “unregulated mosques” with the terrorism-linked “extremism” framework, whilst reassuring the Jewish community that the Jewish Beth Din courts would be “safe”.

Under her auspices, and ignoring the empirically wanting basis of the “extremism” agenda, the thought-policing McCarthyite Extremism Analysis Unit has been set up within the Home Office to monitor the views of individuals in order to determine their “extremism”.  The broader aim is to prevent government and public sector engagement with a “blacklist” of individuals and organisations which the government deems “extremist”.

Theresa May sought to extend the terror powers to strip citizens of nationality to tackle “Asian sex abuse gangs”– again ignoring the white paedophilia rampant in say, the BBC.

She has contributed to heightened anti-immigration rhetoric by proposing non-EU international students leave Britain and the end of their courses.

A recent legal ruling against May found that she had deported some 48,000 students on the basis of hearsay evidence.

Whilst her efforts to ruin Britain have been quite successful, among her failures is the woeful delay in instituting the Westminster paedophile inquiry.

This is May’s sordid legacy.

It is little wonder then that HJS associate director and neocon hate-preacher Douglas Murray has previously endorsed her.

Stephen Crabb

Sold by the media as a person in touch the lower socio-economic classes because of his background, Crabb’s link to the HJS has not been so well known.  Crabb is a signatory to the statement of principles of HJS.

He is a committed – and according to Craig Murray – “fundamentalist Christian”.  His entry into politics was through a “fringe” evangelical Christian organisation called Christian Action Research Education (CARE), which is said to exercise “an entirely disproportionate influence on British politics by providing shiny eyed fanatics free to MPs as interns.” Indeed, in a truly equal application of the counter-extremism policy outlined by Theresa May, Crabb would probably be called an “extremist” for his views, whilst endless op-eds and Daily Mail characters assassinations would be written about how bigotry is rife in Westminster, with David Cameron himself appointing the likes of Crabb as Work and Pensions Secretary.

Over his career, he has ingratiated himself well with the neoconservative narrative and the pro-Israel lobby.  Thus in one speech, the Paris attacks, as per the neocon script, was viewed as a clash of civilisations, where the attack was an assault on “our freedoms”, mimicking George Bush, and David Cameron. And like them, he has diligently supported the erosion of civil liberties in the context of terrorism (for instance, he voted against a right for someone suspected of involvement in terrorism to appeal to a court if their travel documents are temporarily seized).

In 2007, after visiting Israel with the Zionist lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel, Crabb issued an impassioned set of statements in defence of the 2006 Gaza assault on Palestinians, calling the Palestinian resistance government of that time, Hamas, “radical Islamic terrorists” (a designation which the British government has not given till this day). The statements were pure hasbara (propaganda): rocket attacks were noted, but the sixty year theft and occupation of Palestinian land ignored, and the disproportionate violence was couched as a “right to self-defence”. Finkelstein clarified the prelude to the assault on Gaza:

“In January 2006, sickened by years of official corruption, the Palestinians elected the Islamic movement Hamas into office. Israel immediately tightened its blockade on Gaza and the U.S. joined in.” (Finkelstein, N., This Time We Went Too Far, Or Books: New York, 2010, p.23)

Hamas was then subjected to a series of pre-conditions for international engagement which were not placed on Israel, and which prevented allowing the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination. Of course, Crabb was not debriefed about this during is paid for trip to the Holy Land.

Ten years on, his whitewashing of Zionist actions and anti-Palestinian rhetoric continues.  In his 2015 speech, he highlighted that Christians were being persecuted around the world. He failed to mention one of those places being Israel, where Christians are spat on, attacked and even killed. Instead, his obedient kowtowing is so blinding that he believes that “Israel was one of the few places in the Middle East where Christians were free to practise their religion”.

Speaking at Israel Independence Day event which also hosted notorious Zionist violence spinner Mark Regev, he stated,

“The need for a Jewish state remains as crucial now as it was in 1948.”

In other words, he renders Israel into a racially-identified and therefore discriminatory state, which cements the official Zionist perspective of Israel and ultimately denies the Palestinian right of return from the areas of dispossession and colonisation.

Further, coming aboard the latest censorious Zionist agenda, Crabb subsumed the BDS movement into the category of anti-Semitism:

“We need to make it clear that anti-Semitism, whether it is expressed through the pernicious illiberal boycotts and sanctions bandwagon; through pouring out hate on twitter; or through any other means, is totally unacceptable”.

And his views on Muslims?

Well, he has used Muslims to spin his own agenda.  Crabb has (rightly) lamented the hardened secularism which has had “chilling effect on Christians” and Muslims and has spoken on the issue a number of times.  Dipping into the discussion on radicalisation and hijacking it to push his own views through Muslim political exploitation, Crabb claimed that “hard-edged secularism” risked pushing “more young Muslims into the arms of Isis”. Muslims, not Christians. Like Britain First, for example.

Liam Fox

In the dangerously latent racist Leave campaign, we saw the right-wing being manipulated though dog-whistling creating an atmosphere which eventually led to the death of Jo Cox.  Liam Fox, it must be recalled, contributed to the feral atmosphere with his own scaremongering.  Thus, building on the myth of the Cologne sex attacks, he argued that such migrants could acquire German passports only to enter the UK.  He then ratcheted this rhetoric up a few more notches by adding that terrorists could also come too – as if security services/border security do not exist, and people from international countries do not already come to the UK.  The BNP tellingly celebrated his article and used it to demonstrate the fact that Fox had adopted their narrative.

Echoing his neocon comrade Michael Gove, Fox has in the past argued against the position (in light of Snowden) that the state’s powers must be restricted, and instead has called for greater powers for the state to “protect itself”.

What the warmongering Fox will always be remember for, however, is his scandalous resignation as defence secretary in 2011.  As I have covered in detail, his think-tank Atlantic-Bridge had on its board Gove and George Osborne and was linked to the defence industry through Fox’s unelected friend Adam Werritty. Werritty was financed by pro-Israel activists and organisations as well as the defence industry.  The entire racket led shadow defence minister Jim Murphy to claim that it had “traces of a stealth neocon agenda”.

And at that time, who came to Fox’s defence? Douglas Murray.

Murray’s HJS has also hosted Fox, giving him space to air his views.  In 2011, Fox spoke at a HJS event where he urged warring in Libya and increased defence spending.  He gave a speech again last year, this time on the US-Iran nuclear negotiations.

Concluding Remarks

Reading the above, one can swiftly conclude that the above individuals should not be placed anywhere near public offices and responsibility let alone run for effective leadership of the country. Yet this is exactly what is taking place.

It should be noted that regardless of whether any of these neocons are elected, they will most likely maintain senior ministerial positions in government.  That alone constitutes a closed society threat facing Britain. The web of fascist neoconservatism has successfully worked its way up through the government to effectively create a Henry Jackson Society government.

Despite this fascist threat, the people must continue to do what they have been doing for the past number of years.  The policies neoconservatives have instituted and supported, like PREVENT and the counter-terror laws, must be challenged and repealed, however, within a broader plan to end the devastating, genocidal endless war paradigm of the War on Terror and drone assassinations, and accompanying immoral politics of prejudice and psychological manipulation. A post-War on Terror plan must now begin to be discussed which eschews global militarisation and allows the peoples of the world to choose their own paths, ideas and destinies.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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