In all honesty, I feel for the journalists working at establishment papers who have to churn out desperate and utterly dubious rubbish to protect the state’s totalitarian tendencies. Bills need to be paid, afterall. The Telegraph, with its history of neoconservatism is one such paper. With the likes of Dean Godson, and Charles Moore, the Telegraph was, according to its former editor Martin Newland, effectively a mouthpiece for US and Zionist interests. Today, the standard of journalism – or churnalism – is Andrew Gilligan-level: dubious state-propagandist tripe of the neoconservative variety. And it seems with the stalled and now exhumed and resuscitated Telegraph piece attempting to a) delegitimise PREVENT opposition and advocacy group CAGE, and b) intimidate Muslim charities to not work with them, the neoconservative tradition of spin, deception and outright lies continues.
Note: CAGE’s comprehensive deconstruction of Daily Mail’s upcoming PREVENT propaganda piece can be found here.
The Daily Mail has set out to smear key Muslim organisations opposing the neo-Stasi state-establishing PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. In doing so, it has appeared to have adopted the strategy to suppress PREVENT drafted by the notoriously bigoted, Zionist-backed neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS). I wrote about the colour-blind racist report published by HJS last August and noted that HJS rather pathetically spun criticism of PREVENT as being linked to CAGE/“Islamists” who propound “deliberate misinformation”. All contentions were magically rendered “extremist” because CAGE had raised similar concerns which happened to have been raised by other organisations such as the National Union of Students. Tenuous does not even begin to describe the pathetic arguments.
The Daily Mail, though, has seemingly taken the specious neocon spin as its premise and proceeded to make HJS-style assertions through several questions raised to CAGE.
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.
This third and final part directly continues from the Part II:
Also operating within the well-oil neocon counter-extremism machine is the Quilliam Foundation, which brings us to Adam Deen’s rather expected (see here also) announcement of joining the cold war-era style state-validator organisation. In his blog piece announcing the squandering of his faith, Deen convolutedly explains why he wants to fight “extremism” but fails to convincingly explain why he would join an organisation born in the lap of another extremism – neoconservatism – which continues to legitimise neoconservative policies.
This equivocation-ridden nucleus in his piece indicates to the pseudo-intellectualism which comes head way in the second paragraph. Deen is, like Sara Khan, a fan of the deconstructionist, Khaled Abou El Fadl. The fanboyism, though, is taken to a new level. He writes,
“It may not be coincidence that al-Hakim al-Jishumiyya al-Bayhaqi (a Hanafi Mu’tazili jurist from the 12th century) in his book ‘Satan’s Epistle’ asks: “if Satan were given the chance to speak on the Day of Judgment, whom would he pay tribute to?” Al Bayhaqi concludes that Satan would end up praising and thanking every Muslim who adapted ideas that attributed to God things that were irrational, unjust or hideous.”
This is lifted from Abou El Fadl’s The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of Books almost verbatim:
The piece continues from the first part:
Whilst Ali is known amongst Islamic scholarly circles for twisting texts and now history to suit the views his paymasters demand of him, there are other characters who are willing accomplices in this project.
Sara Khan seems to have been on a bit of a mission to shake off the negativity surrounding her involvement as a human rights-touting feminist who confusingly promotes the human rights-violating PREVENT Strategy through the incredibly feminist “weaponisation” of Muslim women. The Guardian’s Alex Preston penned a piece late last month looking at Khan and her work. Of pertinence is the exploitation, like her human rights and feminism discourse, of Islam.
Ignoring the fact that Islam guides on all facets of life, Khan homes in on the “fascination” of “Muslim clerics and preachers” with women’s clothing. For her, removing the veil “was about removing the authority of religious clerics”. Of course, with statements like that, considering that the Prophet of Islam was a man who designated the status of the Ulama as “heirs of the Prophets”, she might as well absolve herself of the authority Allah, and His Messenger, peace be upon him.
When the dust settles and the reality of neocons is more publically known, history will recall the discriminatory nature of the entire Trojan Hoax fiasco, in which Islam and Muslims were dragged through dirt based upon fabricated allegations of takeover plots which have yet to be proven till this day. The same sort of allegations, incidentally, which could be found in other minorities (see here and here), but were only solely focussed upon in the context of the Muslim minority, constituting Muslim minority discrimination.
Most of the press, reflecting their churnalistic function contrasting with genuine journalism, hopped upon the neocon bandwagon to create the pretext necessary for the totalitarian measures, which the government is now looking to legislate for.
Here, the BBC’s Muslim minority discrimination through its line of questioning is exposed.
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”.