David Cameron Islamic Extremism speech July 2015

I’ll be making some remarks on David Cameron’s recent speech on so-called Islamic Extremism. Later on in his speech Cameron says that he wants to do away with this blog under his ‘Extremism Bill’. edit: He doesn’t actually say this blog but

“First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories

we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services aren’t behind terrorist attacks

Second, as we counter this ideology, a key part of our strategy must be to tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent.

This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.

We must demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism too. Being tough on this is entirely keeping with our values.

We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for [Tory values]. These people aren’t just extremists. There are despicable far right groups too. And what links them all is their aim to groom young people and brainwash their minds.

So as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred.

As I said, this is not about clamping down on free speech. It’s just about applying our shared values uniformly.

This blog peddles conspiracy theories and claims that security services are behind terrorist attacks.

Sorry Cameron, you’ll be imprisoning me.

image of David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks
David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-extremism-speech-read-the-transcript-in-full-10401948.html

It’s great to be here at this outstanding school, Ninestiles School. Your inspiring teachers and your commitment to British values means you are not just achieving outstanding academic success, but you are building a shared community where children of many faiths and backgrounds learn not just with each other, but from each other too.

Politicians giving speeches at schools is out of order. While they’re guaranteed an audience it’s insulting and disrespectful to the school-students involved. There is an authoritarian regime in schools where students are ordered about and they follow those orders. Their human rights are not recognised. The students didn’t realise they could turn around and say “Fuck off! I’m not listening to that asshole” because of course they can’t. It’s lucky no politician tried that while I was at school.

Blair used to do it a lot – probably because he’d never get an audience towards the end of his reign. He’d go to a school and avoid any eye contact with the students – that’s one of the things that put me onto him and his evil ways. Why was he avoiding eye contact?

Blair went to one school and was booed by the students. He was so deranged and divorced from reality that his aides persuaded him that they were doing some youth-speak “Boom” showing respect for him. Twat.

And that goes right to the heart of what I want to talk about today.

I said on the steps of Downing Street that this would be a ‘one nation’ government, bringing our country together.

That’s total bullshit then. It’s four or five nations for a start. What about the Evel measures Cameron was pursuing? That’s certainly very divisive.

Today, I want to talk about a vital element of that. How together we defeat extremism and at the same time build a stronger, more cohesive society.

My starting point is this.

Over generations, we have built something extraordinary in Britain – a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. It’s open, diverse, welcoming – these characteristics are as British as queuing and talking about the weather.

It’s not welcoming, is it?

It is here in Britain where different people, from different backgrounds, who follow different religions and different customs don’t just rub alongside each other but are relatives and friends; husbands, wives, cousins, neighbours and colleagues.

It is here in Britain where in one or two generations people can come with nothing and rise as high as their talent allows.

It is here in Britain where success is achieved not in spite of our diversity, but because of our diversity.

I’m letting that pass because it’s trivial.

So as we talk about the threat of extremism and the challenge of integration, we should not do our country down – we are, without a shadow of doubt, a beacon to the world.

Oh come on.

And as we debate these issues, neither should we demonise people of particular backgrounds. Every one of the communities that has come to call our country home has made Britain a better place. And because the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism – not Islam the religion – let me say this.

Hmm, Muslims are the one religion that is seriously discriminated against. I happened across a couple of Muslim school students who were about fourteen the other day. I was cycling through a park and they had to move out of the way for me to pass through the gate to leave the park. We exchanged a few words. They were ashamed. I regret not making an issue of telling them that they had nothing to be ashamed of. This is what it’s all about – it’s young Muslims who will be [ed: relentlessly] bullied by school authorities – they’re not ever going to have a break, are they? That seems to me very much like a way to create extremism rather than defeat it.

26/7/15 I’m going to jump ahead because it’s crap.

I was thinking about whether these “our values” actually exist and who is Cameron to define these “our values”. I was intending to argue that there is no consensus since we are so diverse as Cameron has already said and that I share very few values with Cameron. Values are different from beliefs and I should think that values probably follow from beliefs. It follows that since peoples’ beliefs are different then they have different values. I think that’s about right. What about you?

Take for example a religion that promotes the idea that all other religions are inferior – that all others not following that particular religion are animals or beasts in human form, sub-human. Now if you had accepted such beliefs, wouldn’t values follow? and wouldn’t behaviour follow from those values?

So, my proposition is that there are no such “our values”.

26/7/15 19.30 BST

What are these “our values”?

But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.

Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality.

Surely Cameron must mean pretend-democracy, pretend-freedom and not even pretend sexual equality. Cameron, former PM Tony Blair and former Resident Dubya Bush are Neo-Conservatives. Neo-Conservatives follow the anti-democratic and illiberal philosophy of Leo Strauss that it is necessary to deceive to rule. It would seem that Cameron is proposing that “our values” includes support for an obvious sham-democracy that is maintained through dissembling and deception.

Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.

Like Cameron’s proposed Extremism Bill.

Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.

Like the religion I mentioned earlier and this speech and the proposed Extremism Bill and Neo-Conservatives.

TBC

Danger Mice

Cameron fights for his brutish values – more Islamophobia and war

Continue ReadingDavid Cameron Islamic Extremism speech July 2015

A conspiracy theory is …

A suspicion that a group has conspired to arranged something …

Is that so difficult to accept?

Don’t political parties conspire to promote something to their best advantage? (spin)

Why shouldn’t other groups conspire to promote things or events to their best advantage?

Don’t they have reasons to do so?

Conspiracy theories

29.7.14 I like ‘conspiracy theories’. Tone doesn’t.

 

Continue ReadingA conspiracy theory is …

Conspiracy Theory Unofficial Narrative Fake Manufactured Terrorism The story of the London Bombings 7 July 2005 7/7 Jean Charles de Menezes Ian Blair Tony Blair

I’m not sure about this and I’d like some feedback.

THIS ARTICLE IS TO BE REPEATEDLY UPDATED AND AMENDED. While I have a lot, I don’t have the whole story so I would appreciate help with the uncertain parts. Thanks.

[23/11/13 One of the problems I encounter is that people helping don’t realise what I’ve already got. For example, I got the ’empty’ lead years ago when I was ignoring it as it was repeatedly raised.]

It’s a good day (to start).

Context, Terrorism, 2005 election, Inquiries Act, Bristol Indymedia, G8 & Privy Council ruling, Dust explosions, London Bombings, Cobra meeting for G8 not 7/7, Jerusalem Post articles, Ian Blair, murder of Jean Charles de Menezes

START:

Terrorism is a godsend for governments. It provides a wonderful excuse for dodgy newly-developed airplanes falling out of the sky when their doors open at 30 thousand feet and it provides a wonderful excuse for dust explosions on the London Underground. It provides a ready excuse for shitty old Jeeps with documented faults crashing off motorways and bursting into flames. It provides for massive made for television sacrificial rituals to start already planned wars.

7/1/14 The magick is working, I’m making fine progress – it’s almost as if it was hidden in plain sight all along. It was.

Just a tiny piece today. On 7/7/2005 – the day of explosions on the London underground and the strange bombing of a double-decker bus an hour later – the boss of the Metropolitan police Ian Blair said “The most important message though however is just that it, while it is a confused situation it must be a confused situation in multiple sites like this, a co-ordinated effort is slowly bringing order out of the chaos.”

There are two issues about this statement. Firstly try finding it using a search engine. It’s almost as if I made it up. I didn’t of course but the web has been scrubbed. That takes the sort of power that only governments have.

Secondly, what is meant by the phrase ‘order out of (the) chaos’ which is explained very well here

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood. Back in 1921, the highly influential political columnist and media analyst Walter Lippmann, wrote the book “Public Opinion”,where he discussed the need for the “manufacture of consent”; given the inherent pitfalls and barriers to an accurate and effective public opinion (democracy, essentially), it is necessary that this opinion is crafted by a higher sphere of influence. This was understood very well by Edward Bernays, who was the founder of Public Relations (he indeed coined the term), and the formulator of not just corporate, but also political PR. He sketches out his views on this in his 1928 work, “Propaganda where he states that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, suggesting like Lippmann, that democracy is a “chaos” that needs regulation from above. This “above” is a small section of elites: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These are the people who will ensure that the masses are sedated, and free to run their daily lives, without participating in the broader picture of public policy, given the dangers that this would pose to the influence of said elites, and thus the smooth functioning of society. To paraphrase Bernays, a leader must serve by leading, not lead by serving.   Read more: http://u2r2h.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/911-and-propaganda-model.html#ixzz2pkrbXafu

As explained in the quoted section above, bringing order out of chaos can be understood to be ‘manufacturing of consent’,  “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses …”

Well-educated people – better educated than myself – politicians and the like, people who … for whatever reason … have come to realise the meaning of the term would, er … recognise the term and know what it means. That there was a manipulation of events to manufacture consent going on.

8/1/14 Just for fun since we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously, … he know’s I’m right. I’ve seen the light, it’s been revealed to Me, etc.

Enjoy

 

Continue ReadingConspiracy Theory Unofficial Narrative Fake Manufactured Terrorism The story of the London Bombings 7 July 2005 7/7 Jean Charles de Menezes Ian Blair Tony Blair