The Sun is not exactly a paper reputed for its unbiased reporting. Rather, it has been a vehicle for the propagation of neocon policy. Take, for instance, the odd counter-extremism campaigns by Sara Khan and Inspire, that did more to damage the credibility of the counter-extremism industry given the paper’s stature as the bastion of anti-Muslim hate and hyperbole.
A recent report, however, evidenced some peculiar PREVENT politics.
In my previous set of blogs (here and here), we saw how those groups connected to “foreign influences” – the sophisticated pro-Israel lobby and neoconservative “think-tanks” – have bullied through unethical policies and laws which have deteriorated civil liberties. Characteristic amongst these lobby groups which have unquestioned loyalties to a foreign belligerent state is the use of threat and intimidation; not toeing the pro-Israel line means no “donations”, as accurately demonstrated by Ed Miliband’s condemnation of the 2014 Gaza massacre. And no donations means a lesser likelihood of attaining power. It is similar to how these behavioural traits manifest in other areas of politics. In place of diplomacy, neocon like to utilise “Hard Wilsonianism” urging the benevolent bombing of “peace” and “freedom” into the hearts of (mainly) Muslim communities throughout the Middle East in concert with Zionist strategic interests. At home, bullying has been used effectively against those who politically dissent against government policies by being hounded by a press using strategies devised by neocons. There is also, of course, using the law to force compliance to state ideology and policies through PREVENT. In the words of Machiavelli, approvingly quoted by the “godfather of neoconservatism” Irving Kristol:
“for neither conscious nor shame ought to have any influence upon you… those who obtain great power do so either by force or fraud, and having got them they conceal under some honest name the foulness of their deeds”.
There is a darker side to this bullying and intimidation. Wrongdoing over the years, like donation scandals and buying or selling influence, which would result in a cacophony of press coverage accompanied by vigorous laws and regulation if the perpetrators were Muslim, barely attracts a slap on the wrist where individuals involved have been linked to pro-Israel lobby groups.
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.
Copyright Daily Telepraph
Just over a year ago, a furore had been triggered by none other than the neoconservative hate-mongers from the Student Rights group, a front organisation for the Zionist-funded and thoroughly bigoted Henry Jackson Society. The furore was specifically around the practice of sex separation at universities. An Islamic organisation had privately hired university premises for their own religious usage and the audience were set to be sex-separated – perfectly within the law and in keeping with the eventual guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission during the hysteria. Thanks to the frenzy whipped up by the Student Rights group, and HJS’s prized links with the government courtesy of the Islam-hating neocon Michael Gove, David Cameron “weighed-in” into the debate. Cameron, though, didn’t stop at merely preventing speakers from requesting a separated audience. In his neocon-driven adversarialism towards Islam and Muslims, he fanatically went further: the PM wanted a ban on men and women who chose to voluntarily separate themselves from one another.
Equality was the raison d’etre with a “possible” risk of discrimination. The rationale was airy fairy at best. He did stress that his views did not extend to places of worship. Cameron couldn’t target places of worship as a matter of pragmatism, otherwise he would have targeted more than just the Muslim minority; he would have hurt the lobby groups which fund his Tory party. Nevertheless, it certainly demonstrated David Cameron’s keen, concerted commitment and concern for gender equality. The man went so far in his fight for equality that Muslim individual liberty and volition was defenestrated along with reason.
Having gone through in detail regarding the incredibly biased and prejudiced former member of the board of Directors of the Henry Jackson Society (William Shawcross) in some depth it is time to scrutinise the “charity” he left behind to take the reign of the Charity Commission.
The Henry Jackson Society Limited was registered as a charity on the 18th of February 2011, at which point it became the plain Henry Jackson Society (HJS). According to the former Greater Europe Co-Director, then European Neighbourhood Section Director, Marko Attila Hoare (and staffed at HJS for seven years), the HJS was not always a right-wing, anti-Muslim organisation. Despite it being a pro-American and pro-European society it was, according to Hoare, a centrist, cross-partisan organisation. It was not until the merger with the extremist Centre for Social Cohesion and the position of Douglas Murray as the associate Director of HJS, that it took a sharp decline towards the far-right, anti-Muslim, anti-EU stance and nurtured an increasingly obsessive affair with “Islamism”.
HJS Links and Views
The HJS has Douglas Murray as its associate director. He promulgates the same “Islamic invasion” rhetoric which Anders Breivik shared when he proudly committed his terrorist atrocity. He has gone on record to say the following regarding Muslims:
“It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop.”
Gender segregation. These two generally inconspicuous words have come into the negative limelight of late to a startling degree. And, they have done in the context of Islamic events at University campuses.
It is shocking and a patent absurdity for any government figure to negatively dismiss a religious practice for religious groups in any institution. However, David Cameron, the Prime Minister for all citizens of the UK, felt it necessary to weigh in on the matter and express is disapproval thereby marginalising a large majority of Muslims who practice gender segregation. The spotlighting of this incredibly trivial practice has come from the ZionCon department. Head over to Loon Watch for a thorough expose. For David Cameron to make such a statement seems rather hypocritical as he himself was schooled in Primary and Secondary education in boys-only schools. If gender segregation in an academic environment is so problematic, as this seems to be crux issue then why do all studies comparing co-education and single-sex education indicate to better academic performance for the latter? And why were David Cameron and eighteen other UK prime ministers schooled in a single-sex school? Perhaps it was so that they could focus on the subject at hand and achieve higher? And finally, is it discrimination to prevent a girl from going to a boys only school? If it is than this needs to be certainly tackled first, before a gender-segregated religious event at a University can be regarded as “risking discrimination”. If it is not then an event or a lecture which caters for both sexes equally most certainly cannot be thought of coming any where near “risking discrimination”.