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.
This is the final part to a series of blogs analysing the recent Channel 4 documentary titled, “What British Muslims Really Think”
Part 1: An Orchestrated Attack on Islam
Part 2: Brief Profile of Trevor Phillips
Part 3: Trevor Phillips’ Propaganda and Normalisation of Muslim Minority Discrimination
Part 4: Trevor Phillips and the Forging of a Closed Society
Having delved into the Straussian nightmare neoconservatives are dog-whistling to implement for broader society in the previous article, here we will examine the implications of Trevor Phillips’ words for the Muslim minority by drawing parallels with particular events in history.
Evil to Outsiders
Alienating a particular minority in order to achieve neoconservative objectives necessitates an enemy. Further, the Straussian conception of justice of the state, in the words of Shadia Drury, means doing “evil to enemies or outsiders”.
By treating Muslims as the outsiders – “a nation within the nation” – the enemy is conceived and thus, evil unto them is legitimised.
In the previous piece, we saw how despite an ostensible opposition furnished against PREVENT, the likes of Fiyaz Mughal has no qualms with the Muslim-demonizing policy of PREVENT aside from its “brand” being damaged. It is therefore even more of a concern that Mughal is increasingly operating Tell MAMA as vehicle to establish neocon government-compliant “norms” for Muslims. Further, there are indications which suggest that Mughal is using Tell MAMA as a screen to protect those who are advocating the securitisation of the Muslim minority through the rhetoric of Islamophobia and racism.
Blind MAMA and “House Muslims” Spin
In a piece published on its website September last year, Tell MAMA moved beyond its remit to judge what are acceptable labels used by Muslims, ironically, chastising the “moral guardians of the internet”. I say ironically because firstly, Mughal, as already highlighted, perpetuates the CVE (Countering Violent Extremi) agenda that is all about labels (Islamism, extremism etc.), and secondly, the piece was published in favour of someone who hyperventilates litanies of “extremist”, “Islamist” and “regressive-Left” at any given opportunity (see below).