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.
Cameron in his New Year message demanded that if people “walk our streets, learn our schools, benefit from our society, you sign up to our values. Freedom. Tolerance. Responsibility. Loyalty.”
With the government regularly eroding civil liberties, consistently targeting Islamic beliefs, dogwhistling the far-right, and courting murderous dictators from around the world, the call for enlistment to the values of freedom, tolerance and responsibility evidences empty, hypocritical rhetoric; demagogic words to which the elite feel unbound by.
“Loyalty”, is the aspect however, which will be the focus of this series. I want my readers to place in the back of their mind the question, who indeed is Cameron and his neoconservative syndicate “loyal” to?
To answer this, we will begin by analysing Jeremy Corbyn’s predicament.
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.
Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, since writing the previous blog, has additionally contributed her cries to another Guardian article. The report, ridiculously biased in its tone, continues to give the anti-Muslim head teacher space to air her unsubstantiated claims, without presenting too much of stern test of verification.
A Distraction from the Contentions Against Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson
Let me make this clear: most of the article is a deflection of the legitimate contentions I have raised against Hewitt-Clarkson’s bombastic claims. Nevertheless, I will entertain this distraction because the Trojan Hoax allegations are still being used to give credence to the totalitarian “extremism” policy announced yesterday. Theresa May, an extremist by her own definition, cited it an interview with the Beeb in which she failed to provide examples of the now widely criticised “extremism” policy would be applied. The Trojan Hoax farce was a pretext for these ridiculous measures; journalists and blustering, opportunistic teachers would do well to take note.
The Guardian article summons the powers of spin to discredit not only me (in the words of the neocon Michael Gove’s lackey Peter Clarke, “Islamist blogosphere” – what?! Now I’m an Islamist?!), but the cross-party Education Select Committee inquiry into the Trojan Hoax allegations, which found no “extremism”, bar one incident. I have clarified this one incident, but hey, why would the Guardian or any other paper regurgitating Clarke’s diatribe give a damn about the nuances when it comes to smearing Muslims. The Peter Clarke being quoted knew exactly what this one incident was; that it was allegedly PREVENT material being copied at the behest of PREVENT officers, yet he still sought to only note that the existence of an “Al-Qaeda video” at the school was “disputed” by Park View Trust.
The past couple of weeks have been quite eventful in the context of the “reformist” deformist attack on Islam. There is no longer a need for a smokescreen of social issues behind which to mount the attack. It seems to be the case that the events like the actions of ISIS have provided a sufficient pretext to renew the call to deform Islam. This, despite the fact that scholars from different theological backgrounds have continually expressed their revulsion at ISIS activities, not as a matter of political expedience but through Islamic textual deductions.
The Conveyor Belt to Disbelief
Neoconservatism has been at the forefront of pushing a reformation, or as I call it, a deformation in Islam, particularly after the onset of the Iraq War. Leading neocon and architect of the disastrous US foreign policy, Paul Wolfowitz stated on the eve of the Iraq war,
“We need an Islamic reformation and I think there is a real hope for one”.
The fountains of traditional Islamic learning also came in for neocon smear. In a speech at Georgetown University on the 30th of October 2003, Wolfowitz described madaaris (Islamic schools) as “schools that teach hatred, schools that teach terrorism” while providing free “theologically extremist teaching to ‘millions’” of Muslim children.
Crosspost: Rania Khalek
Addressing a recent rally in Frankfurt, a self-identified Israeli man equated Muslims with Nazis, murderers and rapists, and implored the crowd to “never feel ashamed” of Germany’s past.
The rally was called by Pegida, or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West, a far-right organization founded last October in Dresden. Its demonstrations initially attracted hundreds of people protesting what they believe is Islam’s takeover of Germany. More recently, the number of people to attend has been in the thousands.
An assortment of rightwing groups, including neo-Nazis, have been taking part. Following the attacks on the paper Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris last month, a 12 January rally drew more than 25,000 people.
A video, which was posted to YouTube by Journal Frankfurt last week, shows a man, wrapped in a German flag, describing himself as an Israeli with German heritage during a Pegida rally.
The notoriously anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist Henry Jackson Society headed by the virulently bigoted Douglas Murray has hit a spot of bother. The Guardian reports that campaign organisation Spinwatch lodged a complaint about the organisation’s compliance with all-party parliamentary regulations which requires transparency with regards to donors. As it refused to provide the details the agreement for HJS to represent two all-party parliamentary groups, homeland and international security (and you wonder why government officials only ever talk about “Islamist-extremism”), has been terminated.
Why would HJS hide their donors? After all, they are working on policies which are affecting the British public. Of course, they don’t want the public to have too much knowledge of who is really pulling the strings on the discourse around Islam and Muslims because it would reveal their links to overt politics of hate. There are a couple of points I would like to add however, in addition to the revealing Guardian report.
Nina Rosenwald and the Anti-Muslim Industry
The report makes an interesting link between HJS and Nina Rosenwald,