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.
NOTE: Since writing the last piece, which garnered thousands of hits, Facebook has locked my coolnessofhind account. The only way Facebook allows me to unlock it is to provide a photo id – a passport, driving license or a marriage certificate. I find this very strange, and refuse to provide these highly personal details especially to a dubious corporation like Facebook. I have therefore set up a second FB account. Please add/join me there.
Tauheedul Islam Boys High School, run by Star Academies, was reported in the Times as having started a cadet force, to the strange glee of Star Academies Chief Executive Mufti Hamid Patel. This piece is the second in a series examining Star Academies, how it got to a point where it is celebrating an agenda to militarise young Muslim children, and what it is subjecting Muslim children to.
In the previous piece, it was shown how Star Academies – previously known as Tauheedul Educational Trust – had entrenched neoliberal and neoconservative policies from the outset of their free schools journey. Hamid Patel, had passionately defended the free schools neoliberalisation agenda, supported Michael Gove when he departed as Secretary of State for Education, and maintained what seems like a mutually beneficial relationship between neoliberal elements of the government and Star Academies.
In this section, I will continue to examine Star Academies to better understand the Trust’s recent moves.
I had not intended to write in the context of the most recent attacks. Ramadan is upon on us and hearts are in dire need of purification, especially when one can see the policies that are on the political horizon. However, a brief interjection into the incredibly loud echo chamber that has been created, if I may.
No doubt the lurch of the government will be authoritarian in the best of neoconservative moulds, with more calls to implement closed society measures. Hilariously, the precarious Theresa May has just announced that she will tear up “human rights laws” to fight terrorism. In doing so she will become the very PREVENT-defined “extremist” she and mafia of neocons endlessly harp on about. PREVENT officers, you may need to refer this unstable lady as she has very publicly and vocally opposed “British values”.
As for the Muslim response, much can be said on a number of alarming behaviours. However, I will for now limit it to a statement by some 200 Muslims scholars and activists urging Imams to refuse the burial of terror suspects.
“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”. – Irving Kristol, quoting Machiavelli
Lying and deception are traits ingrained in the post-modern political world we inhabit today. Worse still, is the continued unaccountability and societal indifference to the consequences of these traits. This remains the case despite wars initiated upon on blatant lies, ulterior motives and utter deception. The Iraq war comes to mind, however, it is frequently isolated as a case of bad planning and a blip in the normally “virtuous” causes of Western violence in the Middle East. Few recall that the massively delayed and strategically released (Jack Straw’s Brexit silver-lining) Chilcot report went through a sanitisation process with documents and correspondences blocked at the behest of the Americans. Whistle-blowers like Katharine Gun and her leaks demonstrating underhanded tactics to convince UN Security Council delegates to favour war, were ignored. It matters little that a grinding genocide has taken place over the course of the War on Terror.
Every facet of the Iraq war and the accompanying War on Terror is doused in deception.
Enter a caption Arend van Dam
As of yet, I have refrained from writing on the EU referendum, despite being prompted by friends to provide the neoconservative perspective.
Given the indeterminacy and misleading nature of the arguments being presented, the truth is I could not produce an advisory for either choice for reasons which will become evident through the course of this piece. One thing was for sure, that those who have been responsible for politically terraforming the closed society here in Britain and other Western countries, as well as physically destroying the Middle East courtesy of benevolent bombs and civilising war, had largely been ignored.
The neoconservative position has been a split one. It needs to be understood however, that the core aim is not being differed (militarisation, projection of power etc.), but rather the approach.
It has been quite the spectacle in the last few days. Sitting from the side-1line and watching the political parties tear themselves apart in pursuit of power is a scene which would be amusing were it not for the far reaching consequences for the people of Britain.
As neocons fall over themselves to consolidate their elite, civil-liberties-eroding, democracy-subversion mafia, media attention has swiftly moved to a diversion from the bigger issue of the logistical nightmare of leaving the European Union. The Labour party is in “crisis” as a number of Labour MPs resign in protest to force Jeremy Corbyn to step down. Reasons vary from not campaigning hard enough for the EU Remain campaign (although his own constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU) to not showing leadership – a quaint remark given that those resigning are demonstrating the complete opposite by entering into a childish charade at a time when the country needs stability. At the time of writing, fifteen MPs have resigned, whilst fifty-seven MPs have written a letter expressing a lack of confidence in Corbyn and calling for him to step down.
What hasn’t been adequately highlighted in mainstream media is that those leading the resignation-revolt in Corbyn’s party also happen to be pro-Israel activists and Blair-apologists who promote Blair’s neocon doctrines and, of late, have sought to undermine Corbyn (and by extension his refreshing absence of Israel-lobby kowtowing).