In a previous blog I set out how government proposals which scrap the Human Rights Act and propose the curtailment of legal expression via the Counter-Extremism Bill are intertwined. I have also in the past explained how the assault on civil liberties is founded in neoconservative thinking.
In this series, we will delve deeper into the views held by our new Justice Secretary, Michael Gove as articulated in his book, Celsius 7/7, with additional commentary explaining the neoconservativism underpinning the statements where appropriate and the impact it has thus far had on the good Britons of this country.
In this first part, we will briefly examine the people who shaped his disturbing worldview.
One of the recurring themes of “counter-extremism” groups – be it the latent Radical Middle Way (RMW) and ISB, or the more overt Quilliam Foundation, and the puppeteered Humza Arshad – is that it always tracks back to an agenda to undermine Islam, “reform” it, crush dissent and deflect Western foreign policy critique. This is one of the reasons why, I believe, that our “transparent” public bodies are more resilient in disclosing the organisations they are funding from the counter-extremism pot. A link to PREVENT is all that is needed to expose the soul-destroying efforts of whichever organisation is acting as a conduit for neoconservative, anti-Islam agendas.
With the counter-extremism industry growing over the years, a cross-pollination of those neoconservative-based ideas has occurred, primarily between US, UK and Europe. The ideal for the neocons is to mount an ethnocentric, culturalist attack on Islam. History shows us two ways of doing this, as exemplified by Britain’s evolution of the PREVENT Strategy. The current strategy is one of secularisation of Islam through the “British values” social engineering programme. The previous strategy, also designed by the “sophist” (or rather supremacist) minds of neocons is one where apolitical, pacifist readings, usually through the abuse of Sufi Ulama, is posited as the “ideal” Islam. This is a temporary measure only, of course, until the next phase of the neocon agenda of aggressively promoting “progressive Muslims” and “ex-Muslims” is entered, as per the current strategy.
This strategy of promoting “moderate Islam” seems to be returning into vogue, as can be seen by Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah and Imam Hamza Yusuf-endorsed ImamsOnline initiative. Another recurrent theme is the Zionist interest and involvement in influencing the counter-extremism discourse, with the likes of Mossad internationally monitoring “moderate”, pacifist Muslim movements, and domestically, organisations like the Board of deputies of Jews contributing to the counter-extremism policy.
Jumping on the deradicalisation VW Camper Van is “Abdullah-X”, a character of a graphic novel aimed at providing the “counter-narrative”. The character in the initial episodes experiences some sort of divine unveiling, all on the topic of “extremism”. He then possesses a “mind of a scholar” and the “heart of a warrior” who proceeds to provide the counter-narrative to the “extremist” discourse. Not exactly Frank Miller’s Dark Knight then.
John Ware’s content suggests he is an establishment journalist who makes the facts fit the government agenda. However, in order to grasp an idea of his political outlook one needs to examine some of his work.
In an article for the Jewish Chronicle (JC), Ware praises Douglas Murray as a “titan of the commentariat”, and defends his trivialisation of Islamophobia, who calls it a “crock” to the sharp criticism of another JC writer, David Aaronovitch. Douglas Murray needs no introduction. An ardent neocon, he has called Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, a “very bad man”, and Islam along with the Qur’an, “bad”. He translates this hate into calls for special negative treatment of Muslims, by making conditions for them in Europe “harder across the board”. According to Murray, even “universal” human rights are tiered, with the rights of “West’s people [overriding] those of the Islamist’s in their midst.”
His Henry Jackson Society is funded by a transnational Islamophobia-pumping industry. In the discussion between Aaronovitch and Murray, Ware sides with Murray and echoes him in “rationalising” away his exceptional treatment of Muslims, justifying his position by stating that anti-Semitism is “entirely irrational” whilst Islamophobia is “reactive”. He then attempts to give credence to his position by highlighting that Jewish integration has been a “success story”. The success of “Jewish integration” has been addressed in previous articles, and it is not entirely as it is made out to be. Muslims are demarcated, however, because they,
“cite foreign policy as the reason for terrorism here, which suggests they identify more closely with other Muslims in far-off lands than with fellow Britons.”
The Real Trojan Horses
Much has been written on this Hoax hype which was triggered by a fabricated document and blustered by neocon media outlets and politicians such as Michael Gove and Theresa May. Some have highlighted that the term “Trojan Horse” is a Chapter heading in Gove’s anti-Muslim diatribe, Celsius 7/7 which has been comprehensively exposed by writers such as Darymple as essentially a useless book. However the usage amongst xenophobes, Islam and Muslim-haters amongst the right-wing and neocon extremist is more common than first thought.
Douglas Murray, the notorious neocon, has been a key influence in the discourse regarding Muslims today and his desire to make the lives of Muslims difficult is coming to fruition, as can be seen from the treatment of the Muslim minority at the cold-blooded hands of the government and media. From the false Eurabia hypothesis to blatant racism Douglas Murray is an anti-Muslim, Islam-hating racist neocon.
Douglas Murray in his book Neoconservatism: Why we need it was first published in 2006. In one section, lamenting the fact that Americans were focussed on anti-Muslim violence he states,
“The Whitehouse and all government departments remain intent on demonstrating how pro-Muslim they can be, celebrating Muslim religious festivals and arranging constant photo-opportunities with Muslim “leaders.” These are the early signs of societal suicide… In the face of this the government has been unwilling – because scared – to recognize that its immigration and multiculturalism policies have to an extent allowed this threat within American society. The moves to counter it must be harsh, and mosques and centers that have been preaching hatred must be closed down entirely. Treating the Islamist threat seriously means being wary of allowing the Trojan horse into our midst. At the very least it means ensuring that the Trojan horse is not built from our own materials of tolerance and fairness.” P.178
Regarding Muslim schools he writes,
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… America must start implementing its response… For we have allowed the Straussian-nightmare endpoint of relativism to arrive, in which intolerance towards our society is treated as a value “equal in dignity” to intolerance… we must not allow tolerance to prove the Achilles heel of freedom. To defend our tolerance we must be intolerant to those who oppose us. pp. 177-178