This piece summarises the previous five articles on No Outsiders. I have linked them within the summary below.
Moffat targeting the Muslim Community
Full version with complete references and more details can be accessed here.
According to Schools Week, Moffat “promptly got a job in Birmingham with majority Muslim and Afro-Carribean Christian parents” after “teachers told him it was easy to preach from a predominantly white area”. He then targeted “a school that was 99 per cent Muslim pupils in an area heavily affected by the so-called Trojan Horse plot to radicalise pupils”. Moffat saw Muslims as a challenge to be overcome for the distribution of his syllabus and his civilising mission.
Aside from the usual media and political backing, Brigid Jones and Colin Diamond have both backed No Outsiders. Both, in differing ways, fuelled the notorious, Islamophobic Trojan Horse conspiracy theory in 2014.
Disturbingly, Jones is accepting of taking a “subliminal” approach to developing Muslim “resiliency” by subtly promoting different family setups. Moffat’s support comes from someone who is “fine” with secret brainwashing.
Ex-Muslim Yasmine Mohammed praised Moffat. Moffat reciprocated this with his gratitude to her before condescendingly claiming that the protesting parents “do not understand” the No Outsiders project. Yasmine’s circle closely aligns with deplorable neocons and their enablers including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, and other “ex-Muslims” who believe Islam should be legislated against and the Hijab should be banned.
Unsurprising, support for Moffat also came from PREVENT.
The weaponization of LGBT concerns is not new in the West. In 1994 the US military reportedly sought to develop a “gay bomb” that would be spread by the Air force behind enemy lines. The aim was ultimately to increase distraction and reduce military efficacy. In the runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion, the CIA floated the idea of shooting a fake video of Saddam cavorting with a teenage boy. The aim? Destabilisation of his regime. More recently, Israel has been using LGBT promotion as propaganda to deflect focus from the suffering of Palestinians.
This mode of abusing a contentious issue to cause disruption in pursuit of an agenda seems to be surfacing in a recent set of events in the Saltley area of Birmingham.
Once again, the area has become ground-zero for Muslims becoming the subject of national debate. Per the norm with such “debates”, the negative framing sees Muslims couched as the regressive aggressor battling enlightenment, equality and the “victim”; in this case a white gay headteacher who is, he professes, merely teaching what is law.
Given the toxicity of the PREVENT label, the Muslim minority is all too familiar with its problems. Its name results in an anxiety which now simply cannot be dismissed. As the highly problematic report “The Missing Muslims” published by Citizens UK recognised, the “Prevent Strategy on Muslim communities came up in most of the hearings across the country”. To deal with this breakdown, there is now a reversion to a “community-based” approach to tackling extremism and terrorism.
The “community response to terrorism” approach seeks to mask the issue that “buy-in” and trust of the community is absent and therefore the policy is not being co-opted by the community. The solution therefore operates on the assumption that PREVENT, or more accurately, a pre-criminal intervention is not necessarily the problem, and where there are problems, these are simply implementation detail which can be rectified. This is further supplemented by a co-existing effort to produce a response developed by the community in the hope that PREVENT would be rendered obsolete. Both however, posit the community and its exploitation central to the promulgation of pre-crime interventionism.
In this piece, I intend to outline a brief history of this resurgent “community-driven response” trend and highlight some of the organisations that seem to be pursuing this course of action.
The 22nd May Manchester Arena bombing has etched a particularly traumatic experience into the people of Britain. The attack in Manchester has claimed the lives of young teenagers, including an eight-year old. My sympathies go out to the victims of this atrocity.
I delayed writing on this topic for two reasons; the first being in respect of the lives lost; the second because so little had been established concerning the motive. With the Westminster attack, if we recall, there was a significant internalisation of blame by the Muslim minority without establishment of key facts – a dynamic that was fully exploited by neocons. Indeed, once the motive was established, it pointed to an uncomfortable motive, which is increasingly being marginalised in the discourses that seek to analyse the “causes” of terrorism: Western violence.
The fostering of the Straussian neocon “closed society” continues to soldier on ahead. The main, but certainly not the only, conduit for this austere vision of society utilises the rhetoric of fear – “safeguarding”, “cohesion” and “counter-extremism”, augmented courtesy of puppets of the neoconservative malignancy within Government.
Despite being utterly baseless academically and broken as pre-crime tool, there has been effort to mainstream PREVENT into society. This normalisation of authoritarian PREVENT-thinking has led to the latest charade; anti-fascist group Hope not Hate (HnH) has been used to spread the tentacles of PREVENT further into civil society by using Sara Khan in its publication State of Hate 2017.
In doing so, HnH comprehensively debilitated its legitimacy.
The founder of HnH, Nick Lowles, has a history of confronting far-right racist individuals and groups. He has also campaigned for the banning of Pamella Geller and Robert Spencer for their anti-Muslim, hate filled rhetoric. The question is of course, how has such a campaign group been hoodwinked into co-opting PREVENT-thinking and allowed itself to be exploited by a cheerleader of discrimination?
There has been a flurry of commentary and articles on both sides of the pond seeking to fathom and comprehend the somewhat diabolical outcome over in the US. Donald Trump, the orange hued caricature of the volatile white supremacy movement, is to step into the Whitehouse to take the reins of a country which has for over a decade defined itself by secular creedal beliefs like freedom and democracy which have been militarily imposed upon the rest of the peoples of the world.
The reaction from the commentariat and Twitterati has been one of shock, followed by attempts to understand the rise of Trump. From disenchantment of the people with the elite, to the interconnected rise of neoliberalism and globalised greed, to even questioning liberal democracy itself (PREVENT anyone?), the reasons have been varied. A further explanation is that this is historic white supremacy reasserting itself – a racist institution recalibrating in the aftermath of a black president and excessive equality. For this reassertion, however, here has had to be a catalyst.
Culture wars are a neoconservative forte which is born from neoconservatism’s societal prescription of nationalism of the type which actively creates enemies, Otherises “aliens”, courts the religious/nationalist fanatic, and champions wars abroad. This is done under the overarching aim of creating an authoritarian closed society based on fascist principles, which is for neocons the solution for America’s liberalism-based cultural decline. To facilitate the “enemy” aspect of neocon policies, the clash of civilisations thesis is used along with the military doctrine of pre-emption to normalise the culture war against Islam and Muslims within the upper echelons of government. It is pumped through a multi-million-dollar, sophisticated network of hatemongers, think-tanks, propagandists and “alt-right” racist papers. Neoconservatives, in other words, are key in fostering the climate in which people have chosen Trump.
Earlier posts on Rockwood Academy:
Rockwood Academy is run by Trojan Horse Beneficiaries and Endorsed by “Extremists”
What did you learn at Rockwood Academy today, Dear Little Boy of Mine?
In the previous blogs on the Birmingham-based Rockwood Academy (formerly Park View Academy), we saw how policies of persecution like PREVENT and indoctrination using the British Army dovetailed the neoconservative agenda to forge a compliant, subservient subject and consequently the “closed society”.
The question of course remains; how can parents allow this to happen?