The Trojan Horse event of 2014 in Birmingham, which saw a political and media campaign to prove a “Islamist plot” to “takeover” state schools, and its fallout will go down in history as an eerily textbook implementation of neoconservative “father” Leo Strauss’ vision of the closed society. Briefly, the fascist thinking of neoconservatism has exploitation of fear, public deception, ruthless militarism and a totalitarian society as its tools and aims. As I have covered in some detail citing neoconservative writers and thinkers, the idea is that an active military abroad will result in people handing their freedoms here at home on a platter to an intrusive, all-encompassing state controlled by a small elite. Ultimately, a society willing to sacrifice its life for the neoconservative state is the ideal. This seemingly dystopian vision however has more than flavour of reality in Britain.
The Trojan Horse fiasco – now known by Muslims as the “Trojan Hoax” – entrenched the far-right myth of the “Muslim takeover”. This was done by employing lying journalists to cook up stories of “extremism”, whilst neocon infiltrated education departments and regulators (Ofsted) were weaponised into feeding the myth of the Trojan Horse. Muslim teachers were purged on the flimsiest of reasons – privately held beliefs – in order to fulfil the interconnected purposes of providing a pretext for regulatory measures (PREVENT), and constructing the fifth column Muslim enemy archetype. Of course, Ofsted was criticised by a host of academics early on, the “Trojan horse plot” turned out to be an elaborate piñata constructed by neocons, and courts are now overturning bans on Muslim teachers.
Rockwood Academy Militarisation
Despite the slow but steady disintegration of the Trojan hoax pretext, the neoconservative machine is chugging away at chipping and socially re-engineering the open society into a closed one. Leading the way is the Muslim-majority, Birmingham-based Rockwood Academy, formerly known as Park View School – the first victim of the Trojan Hoax political Islamophobia in the education sector.
The political landscape globally has been changed thanks to the Panama Papers. A consortium of independent journalists have releases a trove of hacked details from the database of Panama-based law firm, Mosack Fonseca (MF), implicating politicians, celebrities and the wealthy engaged in shadowy arrangements to hide their wealth.
Those Linked to Neocons
MF itself offers wealth management and company law services for off-shore jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands. In short, it can help set up shell companies that disguise the beneficiaries – an ideal set up for gangsters, banksters, and impious politicians.
Reading through the list of individuals exposed in the leak, it is interesting to note that some of the individuals are linked to neocons in some way or another.
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.
Crosspost: Nafeez Ahmed
Last week, leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump provoked global outrage with his call for a ‘temporary’ ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States.
His remarks also sparked enthusiastic support from neo-Nazi white supremacists, triggered a spike in campaign donations, and maintained his 35% lead in the Republican campaign race.
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron described Trump’s proposal as “divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong.”
The media outlets have relayed their dismay at the outpourings from the pucker-mouthed, flame-headed Republican candidate Donald Trump. From closing down mosques, and requiring all Muslims to register onto a database, to banning Muslim immigration, Donald Trump is, in the one words of one journalist, “at war with Muslims”, thoroughly exploiting the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. The media has painted his views as fringe, however, could not be further from reality, at least at the policy level. Trump is tip of an iceberg of narratives rooted in neoconservatism and its proponents.
It is worth noting that American neoconservatives like David Frum have openly backed Trump in the past. At that time, too, Trump was on the train of hype and demagoguery, obsessively attacking Obama through “birther” allegations, fuelling the architecting of the “other” and feeding the far-right claims that Obama was a “closet-Muslim”.
His current campaign continues the theme of fear-mongering of the “outsider”. It began with Mexican immigrants being stereotyped by Trump as “drug dealers, criminals and rapists”. His focus has, over the course of the year, transitioned to Islam and Muslims.
There was tragic irony in the recent words of the NUS President Megan Dunn. Allow me to elucidate.
Dunn, capitulating to the pressure mounted by the neoconservative lobby – constituted of William Shawcross, Peter Clarke, George Osborne, and fronted by David Cameron – pleased the gleeful “native Muslim informants” over at Quilliam when she dissociated from CAGE, perhaps trying a little too hard in the process. She stated that the dissociation with CAGE was due to NUS’s policies on “anti-racism, anti-fascism and how we define anti-Semitism”.
The release of a report which points to democracy being undermined by a society linked to a shadowy network of hate-financing, anti-Muslim, pro-Zionists should have at least twiddled the whiskers of some of the media. In fact, the symposium held at the University of Bath on Islamophobia should have made some headlines: this was perhaps the first time an academic and intellectual response to the dominant narratives surrounding the Muslim minority were collated and deployed on a single platform. The major media response? Nowt.
The Human Rights Act (HRA) is an eyesore for David Cameron and his neocon clique. It is a thorn in the side of their desires to strip civil liberties under the apparent pretext of terrorism, “foreign criminals” who presumably are not “human”, and other excuses such as “Parliamentary sovereignty”. Article 8 – the right to private family life is often invoked as a troublesome Article by the neocons. When a government looks to reduce civil liberties of any people, it should be a cause for concern for all of us.
While the plans to repeal the HRA have been temporarily been shelved, other pieces of legislation which are designed to violate the rights of the people are steamrolling ahead. These pieces of legislation cannot be seen mutually exclusively. A holistic analysis presents a grim reality. I have previously argued that the doing away with Human Rights Act allows for an even more opaque government. It also paves the way for other draconian legislation to be brought in without the need to comply with the HRA. As I stated in a previous blog,
“The point to note is that any subsequent legislation must be compatible with HRA. With the Tory proposals regarding the HRA itself, the requirement of compatibility and giving due regard to the European Court’s judicial interpretation will be removed, which naturally means the courts would take into account the intention of Parliament. The intention of Parliament, if the proposals go through, would be to limit the application of human rights to the “most serious cases”, with inalienable rights being subject to “tests”.”
The neocons in government are hell-bent on creating a closed, securitised, on-edge society which values their aims over and above individual rights. To this end, varying aspects of our lives are slowly being restricted and exposed to the government.
“There is a great deal of con in neocon ideology”
I have discussed and expounded the retroviral neoconservative thinking penetrating the heart of Whitehall in several blogs now. I have also discussed elsewhere the practical interplay between Zionists, neocons, corporations and the government. The immoral, deep-rooted neoconservative impact on fiscal policies from a philosophic perspective is a discussion which has thus far eluded me.
With David Cameron continually assuring the good people of Britain that “we” need to stick to an economic plan that “works”, despite the many failures of the current strategy, not to mention scathing criticism of the “trickledown economics” from a leading think-tank, the Conservative party, beneath the shallow, exoteric rhetoric continues to unveil its higher priority: corporations. Peeling back recent happenings reveals the distinct duplicitous traits of neoconservatism, thus allowing me to touch upon the “con” in neocon tactics in the economic context.
Influencing Voting Through Deception
The political dirt of buying influence is well known: some peerages are granted to individuals who in turn scratch the back of the parties when required. Ultimately, party donors and said peers can exert influence on legislation which may ultimately benefit them, or rather, their coffers. The cash for honours scandal of 2006/7 comes to mind.
With elections nigh, Cameron’s party has been using its peerage and donor connections to the full in what seems like a corrupt attempt to “influence” voters through deception.
There is something fundamentally wrong with Britain. I have addressed in past blogs how the neoconservative political thinking, which a number of government officials adhere to, is dangerously spearheading Britain towards a neoconservative authoritarian state, no doubt due to the lies, deception and tendency toward despotism inherent in its philosophic underpinning.
Though it is established that neoconservatism has taken root in the government, what needs further analysis is how it is drastically undermining democracy through influence, backed by spineless corporations and one-track “think-tanks”. In the end, it is this triumvirate of influence which negatively impact the “demos” in the “democracy”.
Unleashing Corporations Against the People
George Osborne announced, in time for the run up to the election, that he will ensure companies which avoid tax through elaborate tax havens, are forced to pay taxes. Note of course, that the biggest tax havens in the world reside in the square mile of City of London as well as the Cayman Islands, the former for which the government legislated to make tax avoidance far easier for large transnationals. David Cameron even exclusively consulted those holding hundreds of tax haven subsidiaries on how laws should look within that process. But let not such a minor point distract us. Osborne’s proposals, like a catalogue of prior fiscal failures, seem unrealistic, as the taxes (which is already low for companies), are most to likely to bounce due them conflicting with EU law.
The proposals themselves would have limited impact on big companies like Google and Amazon which Osborne seeks to target. Once we get passed the potential illegality, and the slippery nature of its application, the aspect being taxed, “diverted profits”, would be equivalent to trimming at the hedges. Professor Sol Piccciotto, notes,