Was Saving Bosnian Muslims the Primary Objective for Neocons?

NatobBelgrade

What started out as a response to a comment on my article turned into a fully-fledged piece for my blog.  An edited cross-post of one my heavily referenced articles on neoconservatives and their fascistic impact on society published on another site tendered the following colourful comment from an upset neocon apologist:

i21cCommentOnNeoconservatismBosnia

Clearly, the individual was upset by the reality expressed in the article, which resulted in personal attacks, smears, followed by two subsequent post scripts. Normally I do not respond to comments, mainly due to want for time, but also because they rarely tackle the content of the articles. Here, however, something caught my attention, which I have been meaning to write about for some time.

Continue reading

Anti-Muslim David Cameron’s Conference Speech and the Forging of Neocon Britain


DavidCameronOneNationWithoutMuslims

“There should be no ungoverned spaces…” – Prevent Strategy

David Cameron’s speech was textbook neoconservativism.  It was characterised by the need to manufacture an enemy for the state to court a form of fear-based nationalism, which enables warring and a resultant neocon-shaped society founded upon principles of fascism and increasing authoritarianism.

A “Greater Britain”, a Neocon Britain

It is certainly interesting to note that a “Greater Britain” for Cameron “begins by making the case for strong defence”.  It echoes neocon hawks William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “remoralisation of America” which requires a hegemonic foreign policy.  There was much veneration of the global militarism in Cameron’s speech directly tied to the “greatness” of Britain and national identity. For war, an enemy the “nation” can relate to and remain in fear of, is required. In other words, an identity based on the “other” through fear is the Machiavellian recipe for a Straussian “closed society” shorn of individual liberty and freedom.

Continue reading

“Sexual Slavery” and the Slanderous Neocon Attack on the Qur’an by the Times

from user @mrjammyjamjar1

Journalism is meant to convey an impartial view of the world.  Whilst the spirit of this ideal is laudable, the application is increasingly rarely seen.

Nazi-Style Propaganda from the Time

Skimming across news reports on social media briefly, my eyes caustically jarred upon a Times article defamatorily titled “Koran encourages rape”.

Can a newspaper fall so low? Could it be that a paper will front page grand lies demonising a minority? We are talking about Muslims here, and the nihilist paper which pedals lies only to have them retracted later knows the value of the initial impact of its propaganda – and frankly dangerous propaganda at that.

Continue reading

The Neoconservatism in Michael Gove and Celsius 7/7 (4) – Terraforming Britain into a “Closed Society”

MichaelGoveCelsius77_4

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.

Click here to read Part 1.

Click here to read Part 2.

Click here to read Part 3.


Why Such an Offensive Foreign Policy?

Gove leads us to believe that democracy is the best “solvent yet devised for Islamism”, or rather, Islamic self-determination. Hence the benevolent West should bestow this loving gift through bombs and arms primarily in the resource rich Middle East.  This fantasy justification has been rebutted by history itself, be it through the hypocritical stance taken on the death sentence of the first democratically elected President of Egypt, or the outgrowth of the ever belligerent ISIS from the ruins of neocon foreign policy.  The argument that democracy means a safer world is untrue; the US “democracy” has been overthrowing other democracies for decades.

No, the real reason is alluded to through shrewd wording.  Gove writes that the importance of the spread of democracy is firstly “a matter of simple, prudent statecraft.”[1] While Gove goes on to extol the hypothetical virtues of a “proper” democratic Iran, a trackback is needed and these words carefully analysed.

“Prudence” and “statecraft” have very particular meanings amongst neoconservatives. And as the citation of Allan Bloom and reference to Kristol and Kagan’s “moral clarity” in the book shows, Gove is not unfamiliar with American neoconservative works.

Continue reading

The Neoconservatism in Michael Gove and Celsius 7/7 (3) – Foreign Policy and an Amoral “Moral Clarity”

MichaelGoveCelsius77_3

 

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.

Click here to read Part 1.

Click here to read Part 2.


 

Michael Gove’s views on Foreign Policy

Gove’s articulation of foreign policy issues are, in typical neocon fashion, equally belligerent and supremacist.  He arrogantly writes that,

“If we believe in the superiority of our way of life, if we believe in, as the anti-apartheid movement the civil rights movement believed… then we should believe in, and want urgently to work for, the spread of democracy across the globe.”[1]

Warring is thus arrogantly premised upon the colonialist notion of superiority.  The remit of a discussion on the appropriateness of democracy for all nations is beyond our scope, however, it is a dubious claim to say the least.

Continue reading

The Neoconservatism in Michael Gove and Celsius 7/7 (1) – His “Inspiration”

MichaelGoveCelsius77

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.

Continue reading

Theresa May’s Neoconservative Cold War Against Islam and Muslims (1)

BritishValuesMusimOnly

“Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative politics: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty… if you can convince people that liberty undermines security, they will gladly renounce it.”[1]

 

The principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been “hijacked” and torn down by neoconservatives in government.

Theresa May, an “extremist” by her own criteria of “British values”, has outlined some truly shocking measures to “counter” the notoriously nebulous “extremism”.  Before delving into the McCarthy-May Measures speech, there are few overarching points to keep in my mind.

There is a fundamental flaw which runs straight through her speech.  The flaw is the underpinning conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation i.e. that one begins disaffected, starts practising Islam, becomes politicised and then blows things up.  The professoriate in the counter-extremism and terrorism field have slammed the theory as no longer maintaining any credibility. From sociologists to former CIA operations officer, the focus on ideology, or in this case “Islamism”, has been placed on its head, with it being characterised as incidental as opposed to pivotal.

The second point of note is moral supremacy afforded to liberalism, which has been posited as the zenith of societal values, yet it has been thoroughly shackled, gagged and torn up in pursuit of its preservation, as though it is too weak to stand up to scrutiny.

The final point to keep in mind is the issue of definition.  I am not one to labour this point, as I have addressed this in several blogs in detail (see here).  The issue is defining “Islamist extremism” and “extremism” itself.  The bottom line is, part of rule of law, an ascribed “British value”, is that the law being applied is just, and a law cannot be just if it references vaguely defined terms, especially where the impact is such that it effectively socially cripples one’s life. What are the boundaries of critique and vocal opposition? What is the fault line which demarcates traditional religious beliefs shared across the Abrahamic faiths for instance, and “extremism”? Simply stating they are clear is political-speak with no real meaning. Indeed, the social experiment in which the Muslim minority has been the guinea pig for the PREVENT Strategy has already evidenced miscarriages of justice.

Continue reading