“We could favour the birth of a new Islam, more inclined towards compromise and tolerance of Europe; to encourage the young generation of ulama who are working in that direction…” ~ French Colonialist, Edmond Douttee,  1901
“It is the modernists whose vision matches our own. Of all the groups, this one is the most congenial to the values and the spirit of modern democratic society.” ~ (Former) wife of US neocon Zalmay Khalilzad, Cheryl Bernard, 2003
“We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.” ~ British PM David Cameron, Speech on Extremism, 2015
Slogans based within particular parlance and values often provide the veil for an agenda of a different kind. During the 1970s, the human rights industry was used as official US imperial policy. Prior to this, the enlightened liberalism of the west was driving colonisation of the world to bring it out of “darkness” – a psychological projection of its own “dark” past. Today, neoconservatives have taken much of the above, tweaked the rhetoric and driven a strategic policy which has now begun to gain international traction. Today, the “cure” for “backward” and “violent” Muslims remains one grounded in the European, supremacist experience. However, this prescription is administered through the now pressing lens of security and specifically the counter-extremism agenda. In other words, neocons have successfully managed to securitise human rights, allowing them to foster closed societies domestically whilst pursing their doctrine of pre-emption objectives on a global scale through war – both physical and ideological. The vehicle which provides the language set and values for this culturalist war is the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda.
In a previous article, I noted how the underlying neoconservative “clash of civilisations” assumptions about Islam have premised the counter-extremism discourse. In the British context, we now a have state-coerced effort to deconstruct Islam piece by piece in order to assimilate, as opposed to integrate, Muslims. When we understand that Britain through its neocon “think-tanks” and pseudo-liberal “reformers” are at the centre of defining the counter-extremism ideology transnationally, we can appreciate, or rather, be perturbed by the extent of the influence of this dangerous thinking.
As we approach the end of the first year of the Tory regime ruling Britain, the damage wrought in terms of laws and policies passed and proposed has been extensive. Through deflections of “Islamism” and smokescreens of exaggerated terror threats, the casualties in this effort to form a “closed society” have been the civil liberties of all.
Briefly, neoconservatives prefer fascism-based despotism as a form of rule. Moreover, it emphasises duties as opposed to rights, the latter of which hinder the exercise of the power accumulated amongst the elite neocon statesmen. Understanding neoconservativism is imperative to make sense of the disparate events which have been taking place for years and which continue to do so under the cloak of fear.
Rushing through Legislation
The way in which the latest iteration of the unjust counter-terror legislation – the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTS) – was rushed on to the statute books was telling. It received royal assent without legislative scrutiny or public consultation.
“They [the neocons] really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy.” Shadia Drury
Lying and deception as tools of war have been used for centuries. Sun Tzu in his The Art of War elaborates its utility in the context of war. The book makes the reading list for the US army. However, where a government lies and deceives its own people who put them in power, this is sabotaging democracy. The manipulation of opinion, deception and the promulgation of great lies is often used by totalitarian, fascist regimes to maintain their power and pursue their agendas against the will of the people.
“Journalists need to check basic facts and ask simple questions about the identity and motivations of the people making these claims…”
So says Hannah Stuart of the Henry Jackson Society in Andrew Gilligan latest article attacking those critiquing the PREVENT Strategy. The irony could not be more profound.
It has been a while since I have given some space here on the blog to our favourite neocon propagandist, Andrew Gilligan. Perhaps it is because his role has been lately filled by David Daily Mail Cameron.
It seems the momentum against the civil-liberties violating, discriminatory PREVENT Strategy which has roused Muslims up and down the country to reject it outright, has unsettled some in the Home Office. RICU, its propaganda department has gone into over drive and the right-wing press have been all too happy implement the Henry Jackson Society’s spin bible for damage limiting the reputation of a failed policy.
He certainly delivered the trademark Gilligan goods: spin, distortion and unconvincing attempts to smear. His target this time is a relatively new organisation which has been documenting abuse cases resulting from PREVENT, Prevent Watch (PW).
Note: CAGE’s comprehensive deconstruction of Daily Mail’s upcoming PREVENT propaganda piece can be found here.
The Daily Mail has set out to smear key Muslim organisations opposing the neo-Stasi state-establishing PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. In doing so, it has appeared to have adopted the strategy to suppress PREVENT drafted by the notoriously bigoted, Zionist-backed neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS). I wrote about the colour-blind racist report published by HJS last August and noted that HJS rather pathetically spun criticism of PREVENT as being linked to CAGE/“Islamists” who propound “deliberate misinformation”. All contentions were magically rendered “extremist” because CAGE had raised similar concerns which happened to have been raised by other organisations such as the National Union of Students. Tenuous does not even begin to describe the pathetic arguments.
The Daily Mail, though, has seemingly taken the specious neocon spin as its premise and proceeded to make HJS-style assertions through several questions raised to CAGE.
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.
Over the last year and half, I have explicated in detail the views and propensities propagated by neoconservatism and its proponents (see here, here, this series, this series, here, here, and here). What has happened in the US and what has been articulated by the neoconservative thinkers has been keenly followed and articulated through narratives here in the UK. From the blueprints of the policies we are experiencing today, such as Michael Gove’s Celsius 7/7 and Douglas Murray’s Neoconservatism: Why We Need it, to the actual laws and policies which have been instituted, neoconservatism is pulsating through the underlying philosophy and assumptions which are shaping the policies affecting every person in Britain, and sadly, in the Middle East.
Neoconservatives believe that a society faced by an impending threat is the ideal society because it allows for a people to willingly hand over rights, become collectivist in their dispositions, and sets the scene for the emergence of a new “governing philosophy”. This is shaped by fascist principles and a neo-Platonic view which designates the majority of the people as “vulgar masses”, whom are required to be subjected to (philosophically Machiavellian) social engineering and a set of fixed principles which do not bind the “guiding elite”. This elite “guide” the masses, and this “guidance” is often coerced through lies and deception in the name of ideas they seldom believe in (such as liberalism, human rights, and democratic principles). Neocons and their intellectual influences know best, in other words, whilst the masses are simply incapable of comprehending the true decisions which are being made for them.
When George Bush infamously announced to the world that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”, it set policies in motion which have detrimentally impacted the landscape of Western politics and law. The thinking representing the group of men who advised disastrous foreign policies and civil liberties-eroding domestic policies, slowly but surely permeated across the Atlantic to Britain through Tony Blair and later, Michael Gove under the auspices of neocon/pro-Israel advocates. That original, reductionist, warring “us and them” narrative, courtesy of neoconservatism, has since become the normalised discourse around Islam, Muslims and foreign wars.
There is a little-known but important indication to the type of politics being played upon hearing the terms “violent and non-violent extremism”. Indeed these terms have crystallises under the previous and current British neocon regimes. The terms can be traced to the rhetoric of zealous neoconservatives. During Bush’s second term, neocon architect of the Iraq war Donald Rumsfeld promoted a change in wording from War on Terror to “global struggle against violent extremism” or GSAVE. Those familiar with the neocon-linked, pro-Israel global counter-extremism complex will recognise the “AVE” acronym often employed to denote this politicised, agenda-driven, hegemonic effort.
“There should be no ungoverned spaces…” – Prevent Strategy
David Cameron’s speech was textbook neoconservativism. It was characterised by the need to manufacture an enemy for the state to court a form of fear-based nationalism, which enables warring and a resultant neocon-shaped society founded upon principles of fascism and increasing authoritarianism.
A “Greater Britain”, a Neocon Britain
It is certainly interesting to note that a “Greater Britain” for Cameron “begins by making the case for strong defence”. It echoes neocon hawks William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “remoralisation of America” which requires a hegemonic foreign policy. There was much veneration of the global militarism in Cameron’s speech directly tied to the “greatness” of Britain and national identity. For war, an enemy the “nation” can relate to and remain in fear of, is required. In other words, an identity based on the “other” through fear is the Machiavellian recipe for a Straussian “closed society” shorn of individual liberty and freedom.
Less than two weeks ago I exposed the disturbing similarity between a press release issued by the government about “tackling extremism in universities and colleges” and a report published the bigoted, Zionist hate-funded neoconservative Henry Jackson Society. I noted that the people identified in the unprecedented, repressive blacklist of “extremists” charged with treachery against state-ideology by the government were exactly the same as those found in HJS’s Preventing Prevent report. I had further highlighted that the names noted flimsily as evidence of an apparent connection between “extremism” on campus and political violence were also the same as those highlighted in the HJS report.
This link has also been picked up in a Times Higher Education article, which states in its opening sentence that “[s]ections of a Downing Street statement accused universities of hosting hate preachers are identical to those featured in a report by a controversial thinktank…”