The previous two pieces have established the following:
- Tony Blair is ideologically-motivated to impose his worldview and toolset that he has tested with despotic, authoritarian regimes.
- The report produced by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (henceforth “Institute”) has Blair’s neocon ideology shaping its poor methodology, from the way it targets Muslim organisations, to how it establishes, in a deeply totalitarian fashion, its categories or “spectrum of extremism”.
In this piece, examples from the report will be used to demonstrate how the various “extremism” categories identified in the report come together to protect elements of the state and associated actors from scrutiny and police the views of citizens by rendering them potentially terroristic.
In the previous piece, I established an intertwining set of connections between PR companies involved in the Iraq war, the Islamophobia industry, the comical Commission for Countering Extremism and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (“Institute”).
Whilst the Institute’s report – “Narratives of Division – The Spectrum of Islamist Worldviews in the UK” – should not be taken seriously on account of it being advocated by the degenerate Blair, the issue remains that the framework outlined in the report will most likely influence the evolution of the “extremism” discourse. The report’s method is not disconnected from PREVENT. It is in fact a consistent set of ideas employed by neocons and followed by some Muslim organisations also.
It is important, therefore to critique the proposed methodology and outline its draconian trajectory.
Tony Blair has an impressive resume. The man hoodwinked an entire nation into pushing its men and women towards death into a pre-planned war that has now precipitated chaos and destruction in the Middle East, including the deaths of two million, and the rise of IS. It is expected, then, that propaganda and spin are a mature part of his skills matrix.
This skill is usefully deployed into ensuring the reputations of unhinged, power-hungry, murdering despots are palatable to global audiences.
Of significance is how the disgraceful Iraq war’s poison courses through the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (TBFF – now renamed as the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change – henceforth “Institute”) and into the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE).
“It is massively to our advantage that President Sisi succeeds. We should help him.” ~ Tony Blair
In a shocking sentence from his essay Tony Blair called for unfettered support for Sisi. You see, the Western powers have a selective hate when it comes to undemocratic regimes. Some will be bombed for the apparent reason that they are undemocratic, as was the case in the Iraq war. In other instances, democratically elected governments like Hamas and others, will be boycotted and the bombing of the “demos” for choosing their government tolerated in a show of latent support. In Egypt, Sisi’s secular military dictatorship exceeded Mubarak’s oppression by being involved in mass rights-violations, massacres of civilians, discharging mass death sentences and violently overthrowing the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood. Through David Cameron’s investigation into the thus-far peaceful, democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood at the behest of the Saudi regime (which is funding Sisi), the UK is tacitly supporting the Egyptian military regime, against “British values” of democracy, rule of law and individual liberty.
Apart from the paradoxical situation of promoting human rights and democracies whilst supporting coups and attacking a democratically elected political party purely upon the assumed propensity towards violence courtesy of “Islamism”, Blair’s statement on Sisi and his cosiness with despotic brutality was given extended context a few days ago. In a previous article I noted the well-known profiteering Blair enjoyed after his tenure as a Western power-hungry war-monger through military-focussed corporations like the Carlyle Group.
“Peace increases our peril”
There was a time when the “Islamists” were admired by the British. Be it the “brave” Afghan Taliban who fought against Communism, or the Ottomans through their tolerant “calm, absorbed Islamism” who staved off Russian Christian extremism. They were admired because there was an interest to be served.
Pealing through Tony Blair’s staple neocon doublespeak and uncovering Blair’s definition of Islamism, it emerges that the war against Islam is ever-fervent, disguised under the words of human rights, democracy and convoluted epithets.
This is the third piece in the series exploring the neocon “mode of thinking” based upon Tony Blair’s essay. The first piece can be accessed here. The second piece is available here.
What becomes evident is that, though other factors exist for violence, for Blair, they are trivial compared to the threat of Islamism. Be it extremism of other faiths now, or Christian barbarity of the past. “We are dealing with the present” we are told. And in the present, we have the Boko Haram and ISIS.
Blair writes that they are fanatic, and “thus it is hard to envisage compromise with such people. They have no reasonable demands upon which we can negotiate.” Therefore there is no alternative except to fight such people:
“At a certain point, once they know superior and determined force is being used against them, some of them at least may be prepared to change.”
In other words, take a leaf out of Israel’s book and bomb the people into compliance. Ironically, a month after Blair writing his neocon manual for World War III, ISIS have been negotiating with States and releasing prisoners whilst the Boko Haram have negotiated a truce.
The feed for these groups are the “spectrum”. And herein lies Blair’s blatant imperialistic design. “Islamism” he defines as a “politicisation of religion to an intense and all-encompassing degree”. It is an ideology and a theology derived from Salafist thinking, he claims. It isn’t. An analysis of contemporary Islamic political movements (most of which are reactions formed in the colonialist/Nation State paradigm) is beyond the scope of this piece however, suffice to say, an outright rejection of an Islamic political and military ascendancy denies 1300 years of Islamic history in which Islam ruled through the Caliphate. The existence and the preference for a khilafa within the Islamic paradigm is a position adopted by all four mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence.