‘Enlightened’ USA: FBI warns of right wing militia attacks against Muslims

NYSubway

Crosspost: CJ Werleman

Those who naively and optimistically believe the “enlightened” West is incapable of repeating the genocidal horrors of the 20th century are those most susceptible to mankind’s destructive impulse.

In American society, there’s an unconscious faith in the nation state, technology, modernity and science that assures Americans that the horrors of a fascistic state could never happen here. But to believe this one must forget, as Karen Armstrong, a prodigious religious historian reminds us, that the most advanced educational institutions in the Western world were located directly next door to the gas chambers.

Notwithstanding the fact it was not that long ago hundreds of thousands Japanese American civilians were harassed, removed from their homes, and placed into military internment camps. Decades later those of Russian heritage were treated to similar discrimination.

Continue reading

“Sexual Slavery” and the Slanderous Neocon Attack on the Qur’an by the Times

from user @mrjammyjamjar1

Journalism is meant to convey an impartial view of the world.  Whilst the spirit of this ideal is laudable, the application is increasingly rarely seen.

Nazi-Style Propaganda from the Time

Skimming across news reports on social media briefly, my eyes caustically jarred upon a Times article defamatorily titled “Koran encourages rape”.

Can a newspaper fall so low? Could it be that a paper will front page grand lies demonising a minority? We are talking about Muslims here, and the nihilist paper which pedals lies only to have them retracted later knows the value of the initial impact of its propaganda – and frankly dangerous propaganda at that.

Continue reading

The Neocon Method of Suppressing PREVENT Dissent: Label it “Extremism”!

henryJacksonSocietyTearingapartDemocracyThe perpetuity of critical blows to the inimical PREVENT Strategy seems to be registering with the neocons, although not in the manner in which one might logically presume.  That presumption would be on the basis that, given experts have brought to attention the blatantly unsound academic basis of the PREVENT Strategy (see here and here) coupled with the condemnation of the policy by over 200 academics, PREVENT and its accompanying enforcement apparatus (Channel) would be scrapped and genuine experts – not pseudo-experts who derive their credentials from dubious former alter egos, or seek to implement a “closed-society” courtesy of neoconservatism – consulted.

These would be the logical next steps.

The response, however, from the government and their associated mouthpiece organisations which butter government policies by producing supporting “reports” has been typically neoconservative: ignore sound research and concerns of Muslims, propound deceit and suppress legitimate, academically-supported critique.

Continue reading

Lies Spin and Distortion: Archive of Articles on Andrew Gilligan’s Anti-Muslim Journalism

Andrew GilliganLiar

Andrew Gilligan has attained notoriety for his focussed attack on Muslims and Islam through the prodigious use of spin, deception and lies.  Over a decade ago he seemingly did the same, this time punching upwards and exposing the infamous Iraq dossier as being “sexed-up” by Alastair Campbell.  In all honesty, I feel he became the victim of an establishment witch-hunt, in similar vein to the treatment of the American awarding-winning journalist Garry Webb, and more recently, the government’s thorn, the accountability-seeking CAGE.

However, over the years Gilligan, it seems, realised that if you punch down attacking a single minority, internalising the Hutton inquiry’s critique (making “unfounded” claims) in a warped case of self-fulfilling prophesy, job prospects are not only secured but improve. Serving the state as opposed to holding it to account as per the function of journalism is certainly more lucrative.

Continue reading

Apologists for terror or defenders of human rights? The Cage controversy in context

Crosspost: Tom Mills, Narzanin Massoumi, and David Miller

Last week, in a widely trailed speech, the Prime Minister laid out the government’s counter-terrorism strategy for the next five years. It is necessary, Cameron explained, to challenge the idea that political violence is rooted in ‘historic injustices and recent wars, or… poverty and hardship’.  Terrorism, he said, is caused by ‘extremist ideology’, which his government is determined to confront.

There was little new in Cameron’s speech, which simply affirmed in strong terms the authoritarian drift of counter-terrorism policy. Influenced by the security apparatus and its supporters in Parliament, and by neoconservative think tanks, such as the Henry Jackson Society, and (partly) state funded propaganda outfits like Quilliam, policy makers have become increasingly preoccupied with ‘non-violent extremism’ rather than political violence. Officially this is portrayed as a political campaign against ‘intolerance’. Thus Cameron claims that his government will be facing down ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ by asserting ‘basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality’.

‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society’

On the face of it this seems agreeable enough. But the actual policy is another matter. As was pointed out in a recent letter to which we were signatories, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 will ‘mean that individuals working within statutory organisations must report individuals suspected of being “potential terrorists” to external bodies for “de-radicalisation”‘. In effect, the government has drawn the entire public sector into its controversial counter-extremist agenda, meaning that public servants once responsible for the welfare of citizens – including children – must now monitor their behaviour, appearance and political views, feeding into the most unaccountable and repressive elements of the state. Since 2014, 400 children, even as young as three-years-old, have been referred to the government’s ‘Channel’ programme for ‘de-radicalisation’. The true political implications of the policy, which has now passed into law, were made clear in May when Cameron told the first meeting of the National Security Council: ‘For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”.’  So much for liberalism.

Continue reading

Possible Terrorist Toddlers and Neocon Thought-Henchmen? That’ll be Britain’s Insane PREVENT Strategy

PREVENTShapingIdeasMuslimsReflection has become a unicorn in today’s post-modern, entertainment-driven age. News reports flood our social network streams, emails, and news channels conjure up spin-infested reports providing little to absorb, analyse and reflect on the direction such reports are heading society towards.   In this information-overloaded era, our minds have become acclimatised to binging on information, with our fingers manipulating pieces of glass, sending or receiving information packets restricted to 160 characters.

In the past week reports have surfaced which should be sending alarm bells ringing, forcing the wider population to sit up and ponder over the implications of the policies our government is pushing. We need to take a step back a moment.

In January, absurd proposals which implicated children as young as three being on the path toward terrorism, were revealed and understandably criticised for being unworkable, and heavy-handed. I also took the opportunity to explain how fascist neoconservatism was driving the policy, drawing chilling parallels with the authoritarian East Germany’s Stasi security apparatus, where professionals were required to monitor the thoughts of those they worked, thus creating a state in which ideas were restricted and curtailed by the state. Totalitarianism, in other words.

Continue reading

Cameron, Cromer and Colonialism: Yes Mr Cameron, It is a Colonialist-Style Attack on Islam

DavidCameronAnd no, this is not an “Islamist lie” like Maajid Nawaz seems to have informed you.  It is however, a neoconservative conspiracy, which spans the inception of the War on Terror.

David Cameron’s doublespeaking speech was incessant in its assertion that there is no conspiracy to “destroy Islam”.

Increasingly, it seems that practically any argument, however well referenced, even academically-backed, is to be rapidly brought into the sphere of “extremism” or “Islamism” and suppressed through State apparatus. They have become the terms through which the government is censoring counter-narratives.

For neocons, “active opposition” to their civic religion of secular liberalism and its symbols – “British values” of democracy, rule of law and human rights – is equivalent to “undermining” it. It is “an attack” no less.  To protect it, the state has effectively deployed the counter-extremism and terrorism industry. However, the double-standards applied by neocons means that any effort to undermine Islam, as understood from the time of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and explained and refined through the past fourteen centuries by thousands of Ulama – scholars of impeccable learning and piety – cannot be seen as an “attack on Islam”.  Nay, for David Cameron and his colonialist brown-sahibs, it is part of the “Islamist” narrative. Presumably the “extremism” policy, which imposes an extreme interpretation of secular liberalism on Muslims and an opposition to it seen as “undermining our values”, is also part of the “Islamist” narrative.

Continue reading