Donald Trump’s Hatemongering Neocons and their Links here in Britain


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.

Continue reading

The Henry Jackson Society and the Neoconservative “Trojan Horse”


Imagine if a group of people with an ideology which completely tears apart principles of human rights, democracy and rule of law and which had an ideologically driven hatred of a minority were advising and influencing government policy, how would the public and hyperbolic media react? If the group were Muslims, the media and politicians would be crucifying the Muslim minority multiple times a day for several months and then building policies implementing a “fix” for those pesky Muslims. The bigoted “counter-jihad” movement would be out in their hate-filled troves talking about how the “Trojan Horse” Muslims have “taken over” Britain. In fact we saw what would happen when such allegations were made in the education sphere. Michael Gove went berserk.

Cue the Henry Jackson Society, a strongly neoconservative outfit which has been involved in two critically important areas which have maximally impacted the Muslim minority – homeland and international security. Neoconservatism is the “mode of thinking” which has resulted in the rule of law and human rights being continually eroded in Britain. It philosophically postulates one language and thinking for the people and one for themselves which they abide by. For those who think Cameron et al’s rhetoric of “British values”, democracy, human rights and rule of law is sincere, one merely has to look at the PREVENT strategy, Counter-Terror Bill and their rubric around the Human Rights Act to see the aforementioned values being shredded to pieces. Neoconservatism is about duality at every level. Hence even in the context of foreign policy, neocon Britain thoroughly enjoys lecturing Russians about adhering to their international obligations but becomes asphyxiated when it comes to critiquing the Zionist state about its observance of obligations. The love of liberalism is an emotional façade for the people which the neocons can abuse to attain power. The reality of how neocons regard liberalism is as stated by Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservatism,

Continue reading

Human Rights and Justice: Understanding the Neoconservative Threat


In my previous article, I highlighted how Moazzam Begg and his ordeal signalled the death knell of the counter terrorism and counter extremism agenda.  His presence, words and actions were and still are a thorn in the side of the neocon government’s intentions.

Que Alan Henning’s death. However saddening and condemnable it is, from a government point of view, frankly it’s the best thing that can happen for the neocons to continue the onwards march of the war on human rights, and continuation of the foreign policy agenda.  It is a means of accelerating the recuperation from the damage dealt by the release of Moazzam Begg.

Neoconservatism – a “Mode of thinking”

Murray has supported American policies like done attacks and waterboarding

Douglas Murray – supported American policies like drone attacks and waterboarding

Neoconservative policies are driving much of British politics today, but aside from a light mention of what neocons really stand for on this blog, the understanding of the intricate play of neoconservatism with the politics and the people requires a deeper analysis of the writings of the neocons and the sources from which they derive. I have already mentioned Douglas Murray, a man who does exert an influence over the current direction of UK’s frankly absurd policies. Murray in his book cites Leo Strauss,[1] and academics like Shadia Drury have described their thoughts as “Machiavellian”, abusing democracy to achieve their own ends.  For many, this serves little meaning in terms of everyday life.  In order to fully understand the implication of the neoconservative mind-set, one needs to delve further into the neocon “mode of thinking”.

The Henry Jackson Society, which is a key influence on UK domestic and foreign security policy, proudly imports (and exports) the American neoconservative “persuasion”.[2]  The focus on America is why Douglas Murray has passionately spoken in defence of American policies, for instance defending the use of US drone attacks and shockingly, even torture in the form of water-boarding. It is also why William Shawcross has defended Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq war and why Michael Gove pursued his “ideological” military-esque foray into the Muslim minority vis-à-vis Trojan Hoax, and why now the ground has been prepped for the neocons in Government to pull the plug on the Human Rights Act, to the disdain of various rights groups such as Liberty and Amnesty.

The “fathers of neoconservatism” are Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss. I will focus on Irving Kristol and other contemporary “leading lights” like David Brooks as it was Kristol  who brought out the writings of Strauss and wrote in defence and promotion of neocon “persuasions” (as opposed to principles) whilst contemporary neocon thinkers have built upon what has been written.

Neocons and the Acquisition of Power

The aim of the neocons is to firstly get into power, and once in power, stay there. They fundamentally do not believe in liberal “principles” as they do conservative ones.  This notion allows for the easy dispelling of other principles, such as the rule of law. As Kristol explains, there are moments when it is “wrong to do the right thing”,

“There are occasions where circumstances trump principles. Statesmanship consists not in being loyal to one’s avowed principles (that’s easy), but in recognizing the occasions one’s principles are being trumpeted by circumstances…”[3]

Continue reading

So David and Boris, it is Foreign Policy which is to blame?


Britain’s RAF Tornados are in Iraqi airspace after the motion was passed in Parliament. Now it’s only a matter of time as Cameron joins US’s mission creep.

As the case was being built for partaking in the meal of Syria and Iraq and propaganda was being pumped, there was a concerted effort to blame ideology for the threat to security of Britain. That ideology was in essence Islam or “Islamism” which is so loosely defined by the PREVENT strategy it criminalises legitimate Islamic beliefs.

The entirety of the PREVENT strategy is focussed on dismantling Islam as a causal factor towards terrorism, whilst foreign policy grievances are downplayed and conveniently ignored. In fact it is a signifier of something wrong with an individual if he challenges official government narratives (there must be a lot wrong with me then). Indeed the existence of Quilliam, its lifeline is the failed counter terrorism strategy (CONTEST 2) and discriminatory PREVENT policy. As Haras Rafiq pointing to his pay check more than anything and linking ISIS to “Islamist” extremism stated,

“When our Prime Minister says that his Government is going to redouble the efforts to stop youngsters being radicalised – the redoubling of zero still equals zero.”

He explicitly cites the PREVENT strategy and cements the discredited neocon-devised conveyor-belt to terrorism theory:

“the last review of Prevent in 2011 the Department for Communities and Local Government was tasked with publishing the strategy on how they would help stop British Muslims being radicalised ie: the challenging of ideas and counter narrative dealing with non-violent extremists before they quickly become violent”

There is a lot wrong with the above paragraph but then there is a lot wrong with the guy who said it too so we’ll leave it for now.

Continue reading

The Ideology Threatening Britain is Neoconservatism Mr Cameron

In writing about the Rotherham case in my previous article, it became apparent that there is a common practice amongst the elite and establishment to downplay crimes perpetrated by non-Muslims of Caucasian race. From painting the neocon-inspired far-right terrorism as “lone-wolf” acts perpetrated by people with psychological issues, to covering up middle-class “white” paedophile networks operating in the government, failing to identify it as perhaps endemic of the white race (as has been done with the case of perpetrators in Rotherham), the media and politicians consistently downplay the gravity of crimes perpetrated by those who are not the victim of political expedience architected by the neocon element.

The effect of this is that white criminals in relative terms are seen as victim of circumstances and/or are not given the “shock and awe treatment by the media, whereas crimes by Muslims are magnified as though they are the majority group, the crime is made a characteristic of the minority and draconian legislation ensues to reinforce the narrative for good measure.

The killing of Foley resulted in Theresa May and Boris Johnson reinforcing their governmentally-recognised extremism. David Cameron has now decided to add his voice to the neocon choir. Cameron deflected any blame from the hawkish, neocon-inspired foreign policy of Britain and the West as a cause for the apparent rise in the terror threat. In supporting his absurd claim he made another ridiculous statement, striking a neocon-tuned chord with Tony Blair: the terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war. In fact, “It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the war.”

Continue reading