On the 15th of March 28-year-old Brenton Harrison Tarrant walked into two mosques and murdered men, women and children, killing 50 and injuring numerous. This was particularly shocking for a country that, according to the Global Peace Index, is ranked as the second safest place in the world. Much commentary has followed since particularly on proposals for new gun-control measures, with various images of the New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern hugging of Muslims and speculating on whether her response was genuinely “intuitive” , or crafted for grief competitions.
The response most curious, however, has come from the neocons.
Writing in the Spectator, Douglas Murray proffers a guilt-ridden riposte to the social media reaction “blaming” him for the attack. Murray obviates himself by reducing influence to “instructing” a terrorist. Such a position, per the norm with double-speaking neocons, is hypocritical given that when it comes to Muslims, his mechanism for implicating 1.8billion Muslims in a terrorist attack is by blaming Islam because mentally unstable, drug-fuelled attackers possess the name “Mohammed” and allegedly shout “Allahu Akbar”. [1] Indeed, the attackers don’t even have to be motivated by religious conviction.
This is before we consider the fact that Murray happens to be a cheerleader on LSD for PREVENT. As is well-known, PREVENT discriminatorily targets Muslims due to the war-based enemy-identity logic which underpins it. It creates suspect communities – not individuals – based on baseless signs of radicalisation. Murray, however, believes that PREVENT, despite being widely criticised for its application in the public sphere, is still “too limited in its range and ambition”.
The bar of implication for white supremacists, fascist murderers is that one must “instruct” the killer. Muslims, however, are by default suspects simply by being a follower of Islam.
Murray passive-aggressively argues that if a person accuses public figures of being “somehow responsible for a mass slaying” that person should hope that people don’t read the manifesto and then “realize that you are lying”.
It’s a clever mind trick to make people dismissively roll their eyes and think that surely, Murray’s implication in the attack is a load of hogwash. The only problem for Murray is that it is impossible to understand the mind of the Christchurch attacker without studying the works of Murray. What readers will learn is that, though Murray is not explicitly mentioned in the killer’s manifesto, Murray’s ideas and theories and those of his Neocon cabal, are the bedrock of Tarrant’s thinking.
Murray’s Neocon Circle -> Eurabia -> Anders Breivik -> Tarrant
In his manifesto, Tarrant writes that he “only really took true inspiration from Knight Justiciar Breivik” adding that he briefly met him and received “blessing” for his mission after “contacting his brother knights”.
Breivik in his manifesto named three key people from whom he drew inspiration: Egyptian Jewish exile Gisele Littman, who writes under the name of Bat Ye’or; the Norwegian Peder Jensen who wrote under the pseudonym of Fjordman; and the American Robert Spencer. Breivik’s accompanying video made explicit references to “Islamic colonization”, Littman’s “Eurabian union” and an image representing Islam as a Trojan horse.
The reduction of the “white population” coupled with the Muslim population growth are sinister constituents of a particular narrative claiming an existential Muslim “takeover” threat to Europe aided by a secretive deal between Arabs and Europeans. This narrative was first promulgated by Littman/Ye’or. In 2004, she said,
“Europe is creating a gigantic Muslim community, or “umma,” which is also inhabited by an anonymous (and precipitously dying) European dhimmi population.”
It has been debunked by prominent scholars including Professor Arun Kundnani, who has likened its veracity to the Protocols of Elders of Zion.
The conspiracy theory has been adopted by neoconservatives and the far-right, including the Islamophobe Spencer, who has described “Europe as besieged by an ‘Islamic invasion’”, Spencer tag-team partner Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes (a key figure to whom we will return to later).
Murray who approvingly references both Eurabia and Ye’or, has that “white British people” were “losing their country”, whilst London had become a “foreign country” with “white Britons’… now in a minority.” The direct influence of this specific neocon narrative on on Tarrant’s thinking is undeniable. He too believes that Muslims are replacing dying Europeans.
Justifying his killing of children, Tarrant explains that once parents of potential immigrants are shown the “risk of bringing their offspring to our soil, they will avoid our lands”. In other words, Europe must be made a hostile and dangerous place for Muslims i.e. “a less attractive proposition” as Murray’s describes it in his Oxford vernacular while urging discriminatory treatment of Muslims as a deterrent. On immigration he
“It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities… All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop. This should also be enacted retrospectively… Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.”
Drawing from the Nazi policy towards the Jews in 1930’s Germany, Murray also for discriminatory education policies for Muslims:
“The attitude towards Muslim schools should be exceptional… if any Muslim academies are allowed to exist, they should be funded entirely privately, with no taxpayer assistance and should be subject to uniquely strict regulation and inspection. If such conditions are considered unbearable, then Muslims will have to try their luck in other countries…””
Advocating second-class citizenry for Muslims in the context of human rights, Murray has hat,
“The rights of the West’s people override those of the Islamist’s in their midst. And extradition should also include sending suspects away from our shores.”
On a panel discussing “diversity”, Murray was asked whether he would want a religious test for immigrants that would rule out Muslims. In a Trump-esque response Murray (15:20),
“I can’t see the sense in keeping a high level of economic migration from the Muslim world, no”.
After claiming that certain problems did not exist before Muslim immigration, Murray was also asked whether he is suggesting that the Muslim population should leave the country. He replies (12:52) that immigration must stop, and Muslims in the UK must “reform”:
“The first thing is you admit this issue and slow down or stop the flow…. The second thing is you try to work on the people you have here, obviously… you hope that over many many generations things will change… If you want to see a possible solution… see who the most vilified people in the Muslim community in this country, they are the reformers…”
Murray, in other words, wants an eradication of Islam, or “less Islam” as he put it. So much for the neocon claim of “secular indifference to religious differences”.
Daniel Pipes’ activism (see below) is also premised on these noxious and demonising views of Muslims.
To understand the depths of this Tarrant-driving rot, one needs to be familiarised with the hive of hate in which these urbane anti-Muslim-hate-peddlers, white-supremacist-fascists and profiteering-Israel-activists dwell.
The Gatestone Hive of Hate
Murray is a distinguished senior fellow at Gatestone Institute. The centrality of the Institute is not to be downplayed.
It publishes articles authored by Spencer (who Murray considers to be a “brilliant scholar”) and Fjordman, one of which includes the promotion of the Eurabia conspiracy theory.
Gatestone articles authoritatively reference notorious neoconservative conspiracy theorist and “anti-Muslim extremist” Frank Gaffney, who runs The Center for Security Policy think-tank. The pundit is referenced seven times in Breivik’s manifesto. Murray and Gaffney enjoy a more than cordial relationship, with Gaffney describing Murray as someone “who has been carefully monitoring… the Islamist efforts to wage a kind of stealth Jihad inside of Britain and other countries of the West”. They share the view that “Muslims who want to destroy us” happen to “track very closely to their adherence to Shari’ah”, and that “there is no such thing as a good Shari’ah, it doesn’t exist, there’s no school of it”. In other words, Muslims who practice their faith are an enemy within exactly at the Nazi’s portrayed the Jews in 1930’s Germany.
To understand the next layer of analysis, it is worth considering the central thesis of Tarrant’s manifesto: The Great Replacement.
Raspail -> Camus -> “Great Replacement” -> Tarrant/Generation Identity/Pipes/Murray
Tarrant’s manifesto was titled “The Great Replacement” which is a nod to a 2011 book authored by Renaud Camus. The terms have become prominent amongst the far-right and “identitarians” and is effectively a rehash of the Eurabia myth. Tarrant echoes much of Camus’s ideas who viewed the “replacement” of populations by Muslims through immigration as akin to colonisation, with the white race being the most threatened. He writes that immigration, which is an “invasion”, will “disenfranchise us, subvert out nations, destroy our communities… destroy our culture”.
Aside from Camus, the French scholar on the far-right, Jean-Yves Camus (unrelated), believes Tarrant’s ideas are more firmly rooted in Jean Raspail’s thinking. Notably, Renaud Camus considers Raspail as one of the “prophets” on the topic of immigration. According to the Foreign Policy,
Raspail’s dystopian 1973 novel, The Camp of the Saints, has become a beacon for far-right figures from French politician Marine Le Pen to U.S. President Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon and white supremacist Iowa Rep. Steve King. In 2015, during the Syrian refugee crisis, Le Pen, who has known Raspail since she was a toddler, urged her millions of social media followers to read his novel in order to stop France from being “submerged.”
This particularly unsavoury crew are not the only one to interact with Camus’ Great Replacement (GR) theory and The Camp of the Saints.
Reports state that Tarrant had donated 2000 euros to the French far-right group Generation Identity (GI). 1500 euros are said to have also been donated to the Austrian branch of GI. Its philosophy consists of the GR theory and expulsion of Muslims, whilst GI activists have been exposed for engaging in racist attacks.
The neocon connections outlined earlier extend into GI.
The French branch of GI began as the youth wing of Bloc Identitaire. It dog-whistled anti-Islam policies like “serve pork or nothing”, that have later been reportedly implemented in schools.
In 2015, Bloc chairman Fabrice Robert marched at an anti-Islamisation rally alongside several anti-Islam activists including Christine Tasin, who has called Islam a “cesspit”. One key figure at the rally was Pipes who has financially supported Tasin’s by paying legal fees.
And who else was present at this rally? Renaud Camus.
Pipes and Murray go way back and continue to share platforms. Murray in A Strange Death of Europe considers Pipes to be an authoritative “American scholar of contemporary Islam”.[2] Fascists and anti-Muslim far right activists gravitate towards the teachings of Murray like flies to filth.
Is it no surprise therefore, that the UK branch of GI, which also has a “mission” to stop the “Great Replacement of European peoples” and remove Muslims from Britain, has Douglas Murray at the top on their reading list for new members. They also encourage member to organise study groups around Murray’s new book and has Raspail’s The Camp of Saints on the list.
A UK GI review of Murray’s fascist screed published on their website affirms how “Islamic cultures” will, “as immigrant peoples and assertive colonizers always do, bring their own culture in its stead, and destroy ours in the process.”
Incidentally, a question is to be raised, what sort of bank would facilitate the funding of such a racist organisation? Insider information confirms that banks accounts have been closed. GI is currently being served by a Liverpool branch of National Westminster Bank Plc. Surely facilitating fascism and racism runs against the values NatWest wishes to project?
A closer look at Murray’s book reveals not only why GI takes this text so seriously, but the disturbing nexus to Tarrant’s inspirations and aspirations.
A Strange Dash to White Supremacists
Murray’s latest foray into published Muslim-bashing in the form of The Strange Death of Europe, also makes legitimising references to the GR theory.
Compared to his previous, blunt contribution on neoconservatism, Murray is now a lot more guarded in what he says, perhaps taking a leaf out of Leo Strauss’s esoteric/exoteric writing. Nevertheless, his maliciousness and cunning hatred towards Muslims is remains conspicuous.
Firmly locating his analysis in the clash of civilisations thesis of Samuel Huntington,[3] he promulgates the Eurabia conspiracy theory in all but name.
After mentioning that the experience of “everyday Europeans” is important, he explicitly makes a reference to Camus under the subheading “The Great Replacement”:
“Any trip to thousands of locations across Europe can spark the fear of what the French writer and philosopher Renaud Camus has characterised as ‘Le Grand Remplacement’.”[4]
Rather eerily, according to his manifesto, Tarrant too visited several European places before his intolerance of the presence of Muslims turned into a desire to kill them all. Elaborating his observations in France, Tarrant wrote,
“In every French city, in every French town the invaders were there. No matter where I travelled, no matter how small or rural the community I visited, the invaders were there. The French people were often in a minority themselves…”
Murray explains that a response to the Muslim presence was “dark specialism” or the concern about population replacement before adding that it was in France that “the most discomfiting and prophetic treatments of this fear emerged.”[5]
He immediately turns to The Camp of the Saints. Murray acknowledges it was dismissed as racist, though he never categorises it as such himself. The significance of the book for Murray was the “uncomfortable precision, not least its depiction of the failure of European society once the migration begins”.[6]
Revealingly, Murray treats Raspail’s book and a subsequent article by him as a “prophetic” foreboding of a “subterranean” response to the Muslim presence. What Murray conveniently omits in his legitimisation of this text is the violence it promotes against immigrants. The book gives the message that the right thing to do upon meeting a wave of migrants is to recognise the threat they pose and “kill them all”.
The main character, Calgues, portrayed as a white Christian defender, compares his own actions to historic defences of “European Christendom”, and other battles that fit with the clash-of-civilizations thesis, before going on to glorify “colonial wars of conquest and the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.”
It is little wonder, then that Murray pretty much does the same in his own book. He connects GR directly to Charles Martel (d.741 AD) who warred to inhibit “the spread of Islam throughout Europe”.[7] A parallel is then drawn between this historic figure with associated incidents and the presence of Muslims in Europe today:
“Today a visitor to the basilica in which Martel’s tomb sits may well wonder whether he did indeed succeed – or at least reflect that after he succeeded his descendants failed. To wander the district of Saint-Denis today is to see a district more resembling North Africa than France”.[8](place references in the text)
Murray validates GR theory as a potential future:
“…seeing these very large numbers of people and seeing them going about their very different lives, it might be the case that in the future these people will come to dominate – that, for instance, a strong religious culture when placed into a weak and relativistic culture may keep itself to itself at first but finally make itself felt in more definite ways.”[9]
The worry here is that Muslims will become more assertive (see concluding remarks for Murray’s real concern).
In the section “Radicalization of Western Men” Tarrant writes that Western men are trying to “combat the social and moral decay of their nations”. He explains that the reason why he attacked Muslims was because they were “invaders” who came from a culture of “with higher fertility rates, higher social trust and strong, robust traditions” possessing “much stronger communities”. They were seeking to replace white people.
The strategy of demonizing “migrants” is also a leaf from Murray’s book and in accordance with his teachings. In his retort to the benefits of immigration Murray expends concerted energy to prove the “Muslim as a sexual deviant trope” through references to rape-gangs and the infamous “Cologne sex attacks” (the book’s index has twelve references for the words “rape and sexual assaults”). Of course, Murray fails to mention that German papers are apologising for “non-truthful reporting” around the Cologne incident, or that there has been a proliferation of fake stories centred on robbery, rape and sexual harassment of women.
Tarrant also characterised Muslims in a similar fashion saying that invaders were being shipped into “European nations to plunder, rape and ethnically displace the native European people.”
The parallels – and motives – are frankly disturbing. Given a socio-political climate where Murray can dog-whistle racism, overtly demonise minority groups and legitimatise a text that promotes violence against non-whites, is it surprising that a Tarrant has been produced? Despite his attempts at subterfuge, Tarrant is an Engish speaker who does not speak any other Europen languge. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the greatest influenced on him would have come from a pool of hate-peddeler writing in English, a pool where Murray is at the top of the list and most prolific.
White Victimhood: Tarrant, Dylann Roof and Murray
The theme that white people and their concerns are played down racially is a toxic one which ignores the presumed normality of the white majority in society (81.9 % White versus 5.02% of Muslims – UK Census 2011). It is also far-fetched when it comes to Muslims. Murray’s other favourite topic, terrorism, is a good example of this. Research shows that terrorist attacks committed by Muslims receive 357% more US press coverage than those committed by non-Muslims. Far-right political violence is rarely prosecuted as terrorism. And this is before we get to the general demonization of minorities in the media, which correspondingly constructs “white” crimes as an aberration from the normative.
Tarrant highlights Dylann Roof as a person he supports. Roof makes the white victimhood point in his racist manifesto:
“In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we learn about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black.”
Murray echoes these sentiments in his book too. He has an entire chapter on the need to move away from “white guilt” around historic injustices like colonialism. He also says the following:
“If a non-white, non-European does well he or she is hailed as an example to everyone and a model of successful integration. If that person is voted out there is yet another national debate about racism and whether the individual was voted out because of their ethnicity”.[10]
“If every other group and movement in society is able to identify race and talk explicitly about it, why not the Europeans?”[11]
The Dark Money Shaping Euro-Popular Opinion
To fully understand Tarrant’s ideas and who is driving them, one needs to go beyond the GI ideologues. To do this, we need to go further down the chain of influence.
It is instructive to note that Tarrant believes his mission requires eventual popular support with a need to attract a “young audience” using “edgy humour and memes”. These are methods often used by the EDL, the failed Pegida and Britain First, all of which purport to be popular movements.
Murray proffers passionate albeit pathetic defences of the EDL and Tommy Robinson, in the latter case using laughable comparisons with the Muslim community. Cover is also provided to the racist movement Pegida in Germany. For Murray, both represent organic popular movements to the menace of “radical Islam”. Only a handful of neo-Nazi’s spoil their image. The same defence is used for Geert Wilders.[12]
Pew Research Center
Murray obviously knows that anyone who looks at the demographic statistics will immediately recognise the fallacy upon which his entire edifice of hate is perched and so calls for the replacement of actual facts with popular sentiment constructed from hysteria and xenophobia. 4.9% of the population in Europe is Muslim, whilst the projected estimates by 2050 suggest the population will grow to 11.2% – hardly a growth that amounts to a “Great Replacement”!
He writes, however:
“Here the everyday experience of Europeans is more important than any survey and the experience of their eyes is more important than official statistics from any government”.[13]
The fallacy of using popular opinions as an argument aside, exculpating the EDL and Pegida, both of which Robinson headed in the UK, is vitally important to demonstrate that true grassroots popular opinion is an authoritative basis to form morality and policy.
Of course, what Murray does not mention is how his ventriloquists and comrades in the Islamophobia industry pump millions into disinformation designed to demonise Islam and Muslims as the alien other.
The pro-Israel neocon Islamophobia industry is amplifying and supporting Robinson and a whole host of like-minded Islamophobes in other European countries. The Guardian reported that Robinson was receiving propaganda support from David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) and the Gatestone Institute; and financial support from Daniel Pipes and his “heavily involved” Middle East Forum (MEF) and the US tech billionaire Robert Shillman, a prominent “counter-jihad” donor who has also funded Wilders as well as Katie Hopkins’ role as Rebel Media’s ‘Shillman Fellow’.
Disturbingly, Shillman also “generously support[ed]” MEF’s Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow Programme. One Shillman-Ginsburg fellow, Michel Gurfinkiel, runs the neocon Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute in France. He also happens to advocate Camus’ GR theory.
Whilst all are neocon, pro-Israel and anti-Islam in their propaganda, the Guardian report superficially covers what is a deeply-rooted agenda to propagandise the removal of Islam from Western counties.
On the 1st of August 2018, the MEF website published a press release which explicitly stated that it had supported Robinson in the following ways:
- “Conferred” with his legal team and “made funding available for them”.
- Funded, organized and staffed the large “Free Tommy” London rallies.
- Funded travel by Rep. Paul Gosar to London to address the rally.
- Urged Sam Brownback, the State Department’s ambassador for International Religious Freedom, to raise the issue with the UK’s ambassador.
In October, MEF issued another press release stating that the MEF in conjunction with DHFC, invited Robinson to the US to talk about “radical Islam”.
MEF funding traces through slush funds to right-wing billionaire Koch brothers, who are considered “the biggest sponsor of right-wing anti-slam propaganda in the US”.
The dark money has been funnelled into the Henry Jackson Society, Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, DHFC, and Geller/Spencer’s hate initiatives. The Jewish United Fund has also pumped money into MEF, attracting the criticism that the Fund is mainstreaming Islamophobia.
Aside from this, a whole coterie of donor advised Pro-Israel community funds have variously funded:
- MEF
- Geller who provided funds to Robinson whilst he served his prison sentence
- David Horowitz
- The US charitable arm of the Henry Jackson Society
- Gatestone Institute
Gatestone is of particular importance here, given it has been pushing both GR/GI philosophy and promoting individuals that have inspired Breivik and Tarrant.
The Institute has mainly been bankrolled by its head, the “sugar mama of the Islamophobia industry” Nina Rosenwald. Rosenwald’s Abstraction Fund has also funnelled money into MEF. Another major donor includes Robert and Rebekah Mercer, both of whom masterminded the Trump campaign and financially propped Breitbart News. Other donors remain the usual toxic concoction of neocon/pro-Israel activists such as the Emerson Family Foundation, Shillman Foundation and the Jewish Communal Fund.
The DHFC has similarly been funded by a mixture of neoconservative and pro-Israel foundations and donor-advised funds.
This tightly-knit network of dark money and anti-Islam propaganda has startled even some pro-Israel activists, raising concerns at US pro-Israeli groups propping the likes of Robinson.
European Focus and the Great Replacement
Pertinently, all of these actors have increased their focus on the European “counter-jihad” network. Extensive details of this incestuous network of hate and their European propaganda networking efforts have been documented in this report.
In 2018, the notorious, anti-Islam Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán said that refugees fleeing dangerous conditions were doing so to take advantage of economic opportunities on the basis that they were “Muslim invaders”. The use of such terminology makes sense when one realises that Orbán has been reading and promoting Murray’s book, whilst Murray has been returning this Platonic love with public support of Orbán.
Murray more recently wrote a puff-piece for the Steve Bannon-advised Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini arguing that his “daring” approach should be a template for other European leaders. Salvini too uses Tarrant-style language, describing immigration as “an organised and financed invasion” that “brings chaos and problems”. He also quotes Benito Mussolini and Tweets statements by fascism/Mussolini admirers.
Pipes’ defence of the far-right authoritarians is similar to Murray’s. He defends and supports far-right, “soft” autocratic regimes, like Hungary and Poland, on the basis that they are not that anti-Semitic and basically free to demonise Islam and Muslims. In a recent mail shot by Pipes, the MEF announced that it is to host “a trip to Central Europe on May 21-28, 2019”, visiting Warsaw, Vienna, and Budapest.
Gushingly, Pipes writes that under Orbán, “antisemitic incidents have declined” whilst he “sensibly argues” that “allowing in large numbers of anti-Semitic Muslim migrants is the real threat to Jews”. He also “intensely attacks the anti-Zionist George Soros”. However, the highest virtue seems to be his adherence to GR theory:
“No European head of government talks remotely like Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who seeks to build a “constitutional order based on national and Christian foundations,” thereby avoiding a future in which “the whole of Europe has … submitted to Islam.“”
For Pipes, Orban “is the continent’s most important leader”.
The big anti-Islam money seems to be having an impact given the rising far-right predilections in Europe (see Concluding Remarks below). The clique already has its pro-Israel, anti-Islam foot in the Brexit debate.
Sue Neocons?
The above analysis shows that neocons encircling UK, US and European governments and influencing their policies, promote aggressive demonization of Muslims courtesy of their GR/GI philosophy through finances and propaganda support.
Neocons, when it suits them, will advocate all manner of semantic gymnastics (Islamofascists, extremists, Islamists, Khomeinists etc) to cast as wide a net as possible to implicate Muslims into any attack. Thus, children telling other children to pray are caught in the dragnet of PREVENT, mosques are designated “extremist” because an attacker happened to have prayed there once, Islamic schools are targeted because too many Muslim are too influential, Muslim charities are questioned through a counter-terrorism lens and Islamic scholars are forced to denounce the attacks and re-write their faith just to distance themselves from something that is already religiously forbidden and has no connection to them in any way shape or form
This being the case for Muslims, why is there a deafening silence and political paralysis when it comes to this cabal of hatemongering neocons?
Leveraging the neocon’s own logic, perhaps the families should lobby the New Zealand government to draft a bill similar to the American Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Its purpose was to allow the families of 9/11 victims to “seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.”
If followed through, the wheels could be set in motion to target the likes of Murray and the network of hate that surrounds him based on providing indirect support through influence and money to propagate racist ideas that were directly used by Tarrant to justify his killing spree of innocent men, women and children.
Or perhaps this logic is only reserved for victims of Judeo-Christian descent.
To be clear, my point is not to call for the application of broad, draconian precrime policies. But rather, to demonstrate the replete extreme hypocrisy of the neocons and the policies they influence, even when they very clearly should apply to them.
Concluding Remarks – the Zionist Overlap
Let us not lose perspective here. Hatemongers like Murray adhere to neoconservativism, a “persuasion” which employs the use of deceptive “noble lies” to steer the “vulgar masses” towards a fascism-based closed society that serves the interests of the neocons such as obtaining power and warring. Neocons regard the “closed society” facing a constant threat of war better than the “open society” and engaging and dying in wars the highest virtue for the vulgar masses.
Beneath the hubris and cloaked anti-Islam prejudice and racism, Murray’s book reveals the esoteric purpose of the neocon agenda: the reversal of the threat of losing public support for “British military intervention in foreign countries”.[14] Immigration and multiculturalism are an obstacle for Murray’s perpetual warring.
The Zionist funding behind neocons that are directly influencing white supremacist killers indicates that there is a further agenda that benefits Israel. It seems two birds with one stone are being killed here.
The fascist governments attempting to exclude Islam and Muslims and trampling human rights also removes the annoying opposition active Muslims have to the colonialist policies of the Zionist state and any rights concerns of the Palestinians. This concern extends into the party-political sphere. The rise of Corbyn-esque politics is viewed as threatening towards those who wish to force through a race-based “Jewish state”, whereas the far-right parties share an affinity with the racist state of Israel. Beatrix von Storch, the far-right AfD’s deputy leader, has said that “Israel could be a role model for Germany” given that it “makes efforts to preserve its unique culture and traditions”. Mischaël Modrikamen, is the president of the far-right People’s Party in Belgium and the executive director of the Movement, an organization associated with Steve Bannon. Both share the view that Israel is a model because it “fights for its values”. Eleven MEPs representing far-right parties have established the Friends of Judea and Samaria in the European Parliament to counter the EU’s boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in West Bank settlements. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is warmly welcoming Orbán in Israel.
The rising fascism has also placed the European Jewish diaspora on edge. This may benefit Israel with increased migrations. This is not exactly controversial or even new. In 1951, members of a Zionist underground movement were found guilty of a series of bombings in Baghdad. Irrespective of the controversy around the attackers, the increasing tensions and the attacks accelerated migrations to the newly founded state of Israel.
Of course, present day neocons are not averse to using pretexts to push agendas.
When I began to write, the connections between the twisted neocons like Douglas Murray and the twisted killers Brenton Tarrant kept piling up. This is not simply a case of “sharing narratives”. Tarrant’s views are based on a demonization of Muslims. Neocons of the Murray/Pipes/Gatestone ilk have made it their mission to dress up Muslim demonization as a saving grace for Europe and cast Muslims as a group that does not belong in Europe. In reality, their money, demonization and the network of hate it sustains go to the very heart of Tarrant’s motivations. It is therefore unsurprising that Murray feels it necessary to write a piece attempting to distance himself from Tarrant. Gatestone went as far as claiming that those who have ignored the neocon demonization of Muslim immigrants viz. the Great Replacement are to blame for the Christchurch attack.[15]
In his Spectator guilt-trip, Murray asks, “In what world of sickness do you have to live to think that shooting a child or an adult is a legitimate response to any claim or grievance, real or imagined?”
It is the world you have created, Douglas! Your pronouncements on TV, your statements to the press, your contributions to panel discussion, your articles, your speeches, and every paragraph of every book your write is drips with the blood of hate for Muslims in Europe. You are, in my opinion, the number one hatemonger in the United Kingdom. Your feeble attempts to distance yourself from Tarrant only reinforce the link between you which is obvious to anyone who dared to look beyond the many smokescreens you and your cabal erect.
Millions in Britain have already realised, in the aftermath of the Brexit tragedy, the dire consequence of pandering to xenophobes like you. The fallacy of your toxic rhetoric will be exposed sooner or later.
Watch this space!
References:
[1] Murray: “Although the public know what is going on, the media seems loath to find any connection between these events… in 2016 a child of Iranian parents can be portrayed as a white supremacist, while no amount of Mohameds shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ can be said to have any connection to Islam.” Link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/when-will-our-politicians-accept-the-reality-of-islamic-terrorism
[2] Murray D., 2018, The Strange Death of Europe, Bloomsbury: Oxford, [e-book] p.193
[3] Ibid., p.84
[4] Ibid., pp.89-90
[5] Ibid., p.95
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p.90
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., p.92
[10] Ibid., p.255
[11] Ibid., p.256
[12] Ibid., p.194-8
[13] Ibid., p.98
[14] Ibid., p.255
[15] “The real accomplices of Christchurch mass murderer are not those who sounded the alarm about Muslim immigration to the West, but those in the West who embrace this passive submission, weakness and cultural suicide and refuse to see the potential storms ahead.”
CoolnessofHind 