Top Menu

“Henry Jackson Society” Associate Director Douglas Murray & “Daily Mail” journalist Melanie Phillips exposed: The facts

Robert Spencer and Douglas Murray photo

Original guest contribution

by Jai Singh

Regular readers will be aware that the United Kingdom’s Home Secretary recently banned the American anti-Muslim propagandists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the UK (details here, here, here, here, and here). Spencer and Geller had intended to speak at the Far-Right English Defence League’s demonstration in London on 29 June 2013.

Several very high-profile British figures subsequently published articles objecting to the ban and defending Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller:

Exhibiting a clear case of double-standards himself, “Henry Jackson Society” Associate Director (and contributing editor to The Spectator magazine) Douglas Murray promptly complained about alleged “double-standards over hate speech”, despite the fact that he had certainly not objected to the Home Secretary previously banning an extremist Muslim individual. (Note: The Spectator also recently published an article defending & whitewashing the explicitly racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party, titled “A fascist takeover of Greece ? We should be so lucky”.)

Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips similarly rushed to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s defence after the banning. Although Phillips claims she “does not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic”, in the same article Phillips defends Spencer and Geller, claiming that they “don’t go around…..spreading conspiracy theories and lies to foment hysteria and hatred”, and describing the banning as “a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer”. Phillips goes on to praise Spencer’s so-called “scholarship”.

In the same article, Melanie Phillips also claims that “the reason for the ban is that the British government is now telling people that certain interpretations of Islam are to be proscribed, even if they may be true”. Considering the fact that, in the same paragraph, Phillips explicitly states that she is basing this claim on the text of the Home Secretary’s letter to Robert Spencer, it is worth noting that Phillips is actually referring to Spencer’s own statements about Islam and claiming that Spencer’s “interpretation” is the “true” version of the religion.

Robert Spencer himself has responded to Melanie Phillips’ piece by writing a rambling article criticising Phillips and defending the EDL.

However, there is much more to this story. Considering the information detailed below, it is astonishing that Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are regularly invited as guests on various high-profile BBC debate programmes here in the UK, especially Question Time; most recently, Murray and Phillips were part of the Question Time debate panel in July and June 2013 respectively. Murray has also repeatedly been a guest on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live discussion programme (most recently on 28 July 2013, on the subject “Are Muslims being demonised ?” Full video footage and revealing further details below). These prestigious programmes have millions of British viewers.

Not only are Douglas Murray’s real views on Muslims & Islam far, far more extreme than is generally known by the British public (especially Murray’s statements when the audience is not the mainstream British media), but it also turns out that both Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips have actually been heavily involved with the Robert Spencer-David Horowitz cabal. In 2009, Murray even stated “I happen to know Robert Spencer; I respect him; he is a very brilliant scholar and writer”.

********************************************************************************************************

ROBERT SPENCER’S INNER CIRCLE

Before I address the issue of Douglas Murray, the Henry Jackson Society, and Melanie Phillips, for the public record it is worth reiterating the following relevant facts about Robert Spencer and a number of key members of his inner circle:

Robert Spencer:

1. Robert Spencer is the author of the virulently anti-Muslim website “JihadWatch”; he is also co-head of the “Stop Islamization of Nations”, “Stop Islamization of America”, and “American Freedom Defence Initiative” organisations. Spencer’s pivotal role in the multimillion-dollar international anti-Muslim propaganda network has been heavily documented. An extensive and fully-referenced list of examples of Spencer’s statements (a) demonising the entire Muslim population and (b) demonising the religion of Islam as a whole is available here.

2. Robert Spencer and “JihadWatch” were the most heavily cited sources of propaganda in the terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto; in fact, Breivik explicitly stated “About Islam, I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer”.

3. Robert Spencer is formally allied with racist white supremacists and European neo-Nazis, and has even organised joint public demonstrations with them.

4. Robert Spencer is an ordained Catholic deacon (also see here) who has repeatedly made demonstrably false statements about Islam & Muslims (eg: see here, here, here, here, here and here) and repeatedly tried to hide the evidence when his misinformation was exposed. Spencer has publicly admitted that his actions are heavily motivated by his [unilateral] agenda for the dominance of the Catholic Church.

5. Robert Spencer’s actions are in direct violation of official Vatican policy towards Islam and Muslims. Spencer’s actions also directly undermine the extensive Christian-Muslim interfaith bridge-building efforts of his own Catholic sect’s global leadership (see here and here) and indeed the admirable message promoted by Pope Francis himself (see here, here, and here).

6. Robert Spencer is now being publicly supported by Father C.J. McCloskey, a senior priest in the controversial Catholic organisation “Opus Dei” which is notoriously secretive about revealing the identities of its members. McCloskey has been described as “priest to Washington’s conservative establishment” and “the Catholic Church’s K Street lobbyist”. Promoting Spencer’s latest book in an article for the National Catholic Register, McCloskey made a series of extremely bigoted and derogatory statements about Islam and “the Muslims”. His actions are in direct violation of official Vatican policy along with the message promoted by Pope Francis.

7. In 2002-2003, Robert Spencer was an Adjunct Fellow at the Free Congress Foundation, an arm of the Heritage Foundation. Both organisations were founded by Paul Weyrich, a convert to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, which is the same Catholic sect that Spencer belongs to; Weyrich was ordained as a protodeacon in this sect. The Anti-Defamation League identified the Free Congress Foundation and Weyrich himself as closely affiliated with “Dominionism”; furthermore, the ADL identified the FCF and Weyrich as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations that threaten the separation of church and state in the US. The FCF’s strategic plan, whose authorship was guided by Weyrich and which was published in 2001, has been described as calling “for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States.” (Note: Dominionism is an extreme interpretation of Christian fundamentalism deriving from “Christian Reconstructionism”, which involves the belief that rule by non-Christians anywhere in the world is sacrilege, explicitly approves of the historical slavery of African-Americans, and openly advocates the replacement of American law with Old Testament injunctions including the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality; Dominionism also claims that its adherents have a God-given mandate to infiltrate the highest echelons of power and subsequently impose their beliefs on the entire world).

8. Furthermore, Robert Spencer is on record as stating “Paul Weyrich taught me a great deal, by word and by example, about how to deal both personally and professionally with the slanders and smears that are a daily aspect of this work”. Spencer also named Weyrich as a mentor of his writings on Islam. Spencer’s first book on Islam was published in 2002. Weyrich himself is on record as making the following extremely anti-Semitic statements on his website shortly before Easter in 2001, in which he directly blamed “the Jews” for the death of Jesus: “Christ was crucified by the Jews…..He was not what the Jews had expected so they considered Him a threat. Thus He was put to death.” During the subsequent outrage (particularly from Jewish organisations) at Weyrich’s statements, he was defended by David Horowitz, Spencer’s boss.

9. Robert Spencer has been proven to have made completely false statements about historical Popes and major Jewish figures, and to have subsequently tried to conceal the evidence when his actions were exposed. Full details here and here.

10. Robert Spencer is not actually a “scholar of Islam” in any credible sense of the term; he has precisely zero academic, professional or linguistic qualifications in this subject, and therefore cannot credibly be described as a “scholar” or an “expert” in the matter at all. In fact, Spencer’s own alma mater, the University of North Carolina, have publicly described Spencer’s writings as “perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.” Full details here

11. Robert Spencer’s anti-Muslim propaganda has been proven to be identical to the anti-Semitic propaganda of Julius Streicher, a Third Reich-era Nazi whom the US subsequently prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials and convicted on the charge of crimes against humanity; even Spencer’s arguments in his own defence are identical to Streicher’s statements at the time.

12. Robert Spencer is on record as claiming that there is “no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists”.

13. Robert Spencer is on record as denying the Srebrenica genocide, explicitly describing it as “the-genocide-that-never-was” and proposing “the possibility that Muslims could have carried out any deceptive atrocity-manufacturing in the Balkans”.

14. Robert Spencer is on record as repeatedly promoting the work and writings of Serge Trifkovic (also see here), the former spokesman for Radovan Karadzic, one of Serbian war criminals charged with genocide during the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia; Spencer and Trifkovic have even held joint interviews and collaborated on an anti-Islam documentary film. Trifkovic is on record as making the following extremely anti-Semitic statements: “Since the late 1800’s the Jews have had a disproportionate impact on a host of intellectual trends and political movements which have fundamentally altered the civilization of Europe and its overseas offspring in a manner deeply detrimental to the family, nation, culture, racial solidarity, social coherence, tradition, morality and faith.”

15. Furthermore, Serge Trifkovic openly supports and defends Ratko Mladic, whom the United Nations Tribunal has indicted on 16 counts of genocide and war crimes. In 2003, Trifkovic appeared as a defence witness during the trial of Milomir Stakic at the Hague Tribunal; Stakic was subsequently found guilty of multiple counts of murder along with crimes against humanity such as extermination, persecutions and deportations. In 2008, Trifkovic appeared as a defence witness during the trial of Ljubisa Beara, who was subsequently convicted of genocide, extermination, murder and persecution. Trifkovic was also cited by Anders Breivik in his manifesto.

16. In 2009, Robert Spencer publicly admitted to having joined a genocidal white nationalist Facebook group titled “Campaign for the Reconquest in Anatolia”, whose mission statement openly advocates the ethnic cleansing, mass sterilisation and euthanasia of Turkey’s entire Muslim population, targeting “up to 150 million people”. Readers can draw their own conclusions about Spencer’s convoluted explanation after his actions were exposed. Full details here. Spencer’s own website has also promoted the aim of “freeing Constantinople from Muslim occupation” (eg: see this article written by Spencer).

17. Robert Spencer has made extremely disparaging statements about the prestigious West Point military institution and has described Far-Right terrorists in the United States as “ordinary Americans who believe in individual rights”. Full details here..

18. When the Washington Post asked Robert Spencer if he was being deliberately combative and provocative, Spencer chuckled and said “Why not ? It’s fun”.

Pamela Geller:

1. The Board of Deputies of British Jews recently released a lengthy statement supporting Pamela Geller’s banning from the UK. Full details here. The article includes Geller’s own response to the Board’s statement, including the fact that Geller appears to blame Jews for the Holocaust.

2. Pamela Geller is the author of the virulently anti-Muslim website “Atlas Shrugs”; she is also co-head of the “Stop Islamization of Nations”, “Stop Islamization of America”, and “American Freedom Defence Initiative” organisations. An extensive and fully-referenced list of examples of Geller’s statements (a) demonising the entire Muslim population and (b) demonising the religion of Islam as a whole is available here.

3. Pamela Geller has repeatedly made demonstrably false statements about Islam & Muslims, and repeatedly tried to hide the evidence when her misinformation was exposed.

4. Pamela Geller has repeatedly made false statements about her own actions, despite the fact that her extensive anti-Islam/anti-Muslim writings are a matter of public record.

5. Pamela Geller was repeatedly cited by Anders Breivik in his manifesto.

6. After Breivik’s terrorist attack in Norway, Pamela Geller wrote an article claiming that the victims (predominantly children) were not innocent; she also included a photograph with the caption “Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian”. Full details here.

7. Pamela Geller is formally allied with racist white supremacists and European neo-Nazis; she has even organised joint public demonstrations with them, and then tried to hide the evidence when her allies’ explicitly Nazi sympathies were publicly exposed.

8. Pamela Geller is now on record as publicly advocating what is effectively a “Final Solution” targeting British Muslims, including mass-murder.

9. Pamela Geller is on record as insisting “There are no moderates. There are no extremists. There are only Muslims”.

10. Pamela Geller is on record as denying the Srebrenica genocide, describing it as a “fabricated narrative”, a “lie”, and a “manufactured genocide” that is part of a “classic Islamic modus operandi of self-killing and manipulating media coverage”. Geller is also on record as defending the Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic. Extensive details here.

David Yerushalmi:

1. David Yerushalmi is Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s lawyer. He has been directly involved in supporting the SION/SIOA/AFDI leadership.

2. David Yerushalmi heads an organisation whose mission statement explicitly declares that its [currently unidentified] members are “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the United States.

3. David Yerushalmi believes that American women shouldn’t even have the right to vote.

4. David Yerushalmi is on record as claiming that there is a racial hierarchy of intelligence, with black people at the bottom.

5. David Yerushalmi is General Counsel for Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, an extreme right-wing organisation actively trying to infiltrate & influence US domestic, foreign and (particularly) military policy; the CSP’s financiers include a number of the largest weapons manufacturers in the world.

6. The Center for Security Policy is also the main source of the ridiculous conspiracy theories about “Muslim Brotherhood infiltration” of the Obama Administration.

7. Frank Gaffney himself was recently exposed as having attended networking events organised by David Cole (aka “David Stein”), a high-profile (and unrepentant) Holocaust revisionist. Commenting on Cole’s views on the Holocaust, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, stated “I’m very disappointed that someone who abused his Jewishness to get his five minutes of notoriety still stands by his lies. It’s disgusting and puts him in the camp of bigotry.”

8. According to the New York Times, Frank Gaffney is David “Yerushalmi’s primary link to a network of former and current government officials, security analysts and grass-roots political organizations” and is also able to tap “a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT! for America, which has 170,000 members”.

9. Despite the fact that David Yerushalmi, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer publicly claim to be staunch supporters of the concept of “freedom of speech” and refer to this concept when justifying their own actions, they keep threatening to sue people who exercise their own freedom of speech against them.

English Defence League:

1. On a personal note, as a Sikh I’d like to mention that the EDL have been forcefully condemned in a joint statement by a very long list of British Sikh temples and organisations, including the two largest Sikh temples outside India. The signatories also include the most senior Sikh religious leader outside India; he is (a) closely linked to the global Sikh authorities at the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar, and personally represents the global Sikh community at the Parliament of the World’s Religions, (b) the recipient of an award from England’s Queen Elizabeth II due to his Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha organisation’s humanitarian activities, and (c) the recipient of the rare honour of being one of the few non-Catholics whom the Vatican has formally declared a Knight of the Papal Order of St Gregory, due to his exemplary efforts to promote peace between people of all religions.

2. The EDL have also been publicly condemned by the Israeli Embassy and more than a dozen major Jewish organisations in the UK, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, the Community Security Trust, and Jews for Justice for Palestinians. (Also see here.)

3. The EDL leadership are members of the “Stop Islamization of Nations (“SION”) Presidents Council”.

4. The EDL leadership are formally allied with racist white supremacists and European neo-Nazis; they have also organised joint public demonstrations with the aforementioned neo-Nazis, in conjunction with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (who were also present).

5. The EDL leadership are on record as repeatedly admitting that their agenda is racially-motivated; EDL leader Stephen Yaxley (aka “Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon/Stephen Lennon/Paul Harris) himself is also on record as repeatedly making public statements clearly demonstrating that he is using the terms “Muslim” and “Islam/Islamic” as codewords for “South Asian”; furthermore, Stephen Yaxley is on record as publicly accusing “every single Muslim” of collective guilt and simultaneously threatening the entire “Islamic community” with retribution involving “the full force of the English Defence League”. Further details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (Also refer to this article.)

6. Stephen Yaxley is on record as publicly promoting neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, white supremacist websites and organisations, in one instance citing defamatory material from such websites live on the BBC in front of millions of British viewers, and subsequently promoting the same neo-Nazi website online; further details of such incidents are available here and here. (Also see here and here.)

7. During an EDL demonstration in London in May 2013, a major British news channel photographed multiple EDL members openly doing Nazi salutes in Stephen Yaxley’s immediate vicinity; Yaxley is the man in the brown army/camouflage jacket surrounded by EDL members.

8. Stephen Yaxley is on record as giving an interview to the Norwegian media in which he publicly praised Anders Breivik, promoted Breivik’s manifesto, and claimed Breivik’s mass-murdering terrorist attack would have been “easier to justify” if the people killed had been Muslims. Full details here and here.

9. Stephen Yaxley has been prosecuted and convicted for illegally travelling to the US using a false passport in order to attend an anti-Muslim conference hosted by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and David Yerushalmi in New York in September 2012. Full details here, here, here, here, and here.

10. EDL co-founder Kevin Carroll is on record as ranting about non-Christians being “pagans” whom he will “never bend or bow to”; Pamela Geller, David Yerushalmi and David Horowitz are of course non-Christians themselves. Kevin Carroll also gave a speech at the aforementioned anti-Muslim conference in New York, a fact that Geller enthusiastically publicised on her own website.

11. EDL co-founder Richard Price is a convicted criminal on multiple counts of downloading child pornography; at the time, Stephen Yaxley first tried to cover this up, and then launched a campaign to try to free Price from prison. Details here and here. The EDL leadership also released an official statement defending Price, written by Yaxley (screenshot here).

12. The EDL leadership were deputy leaders of the now-defunct “British Freedom Party”, a white supremacist Far-Right political party in the UK whose extremely discriminatory religious policies targeted everyone who was not a Christian (including Jews, Hindus and Sikhs) and their respective places of worship. Furthermore, BFP chairman Paul Weston is on record as revealing his real views in an article titled “Ethnically Cleansing the English”, published on the extremely anti-Muslim website Gates of Vienna in March 2010; Weston’s article is openly racist. The article also repeatedly implies that non-white people are automatically “Muslim”, whom Weston proceeds to stereotype and demonise in the worst terms. (Also see here). Weston was present alongside the EDL leadership, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller when they hosted a demonstration in Europe which they had organised in conjunction with European neo-Nazis.

13. An extensive list of the criminal records of EDL members is available here, including details of the criminal convictions of the EDL leadership themselves (especially Stephen Yaxley). Members of the EDL have been prosecuted and convicted for murder, arson, assault, human trafficking, child abuse, and child pornography.

14. Robert Spencer is on record as claiming that “the EDL deserves the support of all free people”.

15. The EDL’s allies and apologists claim that it is a “working class” organisation; Robert Spencer is even on record as recently describing the EDL as “made up of people from a lower social class” and claiming that opposition to the EDL is therefore based on “class” issues. Douglas Murray is on record as previously commending some aspects of the EDL, stating “If you’re ever going to have a grassroots response for non-Muslims to Islamism, that would be how you’d want it, surely.” However, a Sunday Times investigation exposed some very revealing facts about several of the EDL leadership’s wealthy British backers, particularly Alan Ayling (aka “Alan Lake”) and Ann Marchini. Furthermore, despite Stephen Yaxley’s efforts to portray himself as “working class”, along with his claims that he “has no money”, during a televised BBC debate in June 2013 Yaxley publicly admitted that one of his businesses turns over £300,000/year (video footage here; see 22m onwards); on 1 July 2013, Yaxley also admitted online that he actually “owns 7 properties which are all rented out”, with “taxable income”.

“Ali Sina”:

1. “Ali Sina” is currently unidentified.

2. “Ali Sina” is named as a Board member of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s “Stop Islamization of Nations” and “Stop Islamization of America” organisations.

3. “Ali Sina” was cited by Anders Breivik in his manifesto.

4. “Ali Sina” claims to be an “atheist”, but his own writings expose him as a fanatical Christian extremist; he also bizarrely keeps comparing his own experiences to those of Jesus.

5. “Ali Sina” is repeatedly on record as promoting the genocide of Muslims, claiming that Muslims are “diseased”, “infected”, bereft of “every trace of humanity”, “all guilty as sin”, and must be “amputated”.

6. “Ali Sina” is on record as claiming that the Prophet Mohammad was “an instrument of Satan” and that it is a “demonic plot to end humanity”.

7. “Ali Sina” is on record as exhibiting extremely anti-Semitic attitudes, claiming that the Prophet Mohammad “copied his religion from what he learned from the Jews”, “The similarity between Islamic thinking and Judaic thinking is not a coincidence”, “Islam and Judaism have a lot in common…..the main common feature between these two faiths is their intolerance”, “This intolerance in Judaic texts gave the narcissist Muhammad the power to do as he pleased…..How could he get away with that ? The answer lies in Judaism…..The reason Arabs fell into his [Mohammad’s] trap was because of the groundwork laid by the Rabbis in Arabia”.

Considering the fact that this irrefutable information about Robert Spencer and his inner circle is a heavily-documented matter of public record, it raises the question of whether (1) Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips have been shockingly incompetent about researching their allies, (2) Murray and Phillips have been tricked by these allies, or (3) Murray and Phillips are perfectly aware of these damning facts but are still supporting and defending Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller nevertheless.

The first option, as I said, suggests gross incompetence. The second option perhaps reflects worse on Robert Spencer and his inner circle, including the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The third option, however, reflects extremely badly on Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips themselves. Either way, Murray and Phillips clearly have some explaining to do.

*********************************************************************************************************

DOUGLAS MURRAY:

1. From Douglas Murray’s Wikipedia profile:

Douglas Kear Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British neoconservative writer and commentator. He was the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion from 2007 until 2011, and is currently an associate director of the Henry Jackson Society.

Kingston University’s Dr Marko Hoare, formerly a senior member of the Henry Jackson Society, writes on his own website:

The HJS is a UK think-tank frequently described as ‘neoconservative’. It includes among its Trustees Michael Gove, the current Secretary of State for Education, and it is alleged to have influenced the foreign policy of David Cameron and William Hague. It currently serves as a secretariat, at the House of Commons, to the All-Party Parliamentary Groups for Transatlantic and International Security and for Homeland Security.

From a Guardian article written during the launch of the Henry Jackson Society in 2005:

Richard Perle, one of the Pentagon advisers credited with persuading George Bush of the case for invading Iraq, worked for [Henry] Jackson and is one of the Society’s patrons. The list of patrons reads like a roll call of hawks: William Kristol of the rightwing Weekly Standard, the former Nato commander General Jack Sheehan and the ex-CIA director James Woolsey, among others. The supporters include a smattering of spooks, diplomats, Times journalists and grandees whom recent events have treated badly: David Trimble, Colonel Tim Collins, Irwin Stelzer (another Cameron fan) and the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.

From a Guardian article in 2013:

When it was first created in 2005, the London-based Henry Jackson Society (HJS) appeared to offer a base for those on the centre-left and right who believed in a variant of “muscular liberalism”. Much like the senator after whom it was named, the HJS sought to fuse a concern for social justice at home with a hardline approach to totalitarianism and autocracy abroad.

As a result the organisation attracted broad parliamentary support, including 11 Labour MPs, who continue to sit on the organisation’s advisory council to this day.

In February, Labour’s shadow secretary for defence, Jim Murphy, even gave a speech on policy at an event organised by the HJS.

According to those who’ve worked behind the scenes at the HJS, however, in recent years the organisation has degenerated into something that is anything but liberal.

…..The spirit of intolerance at the HJS appears also to extend to those who have taken issue with Murray’s rhetoric.

Marko Attila Hoare, a former senior member of the Henry Jackson Society who left the organisation in 2012, told me that his opposition to Murray’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigration views saw him driven out of the organisation.

“It rapidly became clear that Murray had not tamed his politics, and that actually they were becoming the politics of the whole organisation,” Hoare told me.

Murray’s boss, HJS executive director Alan Mendoza, has form too. In March of this year he claimed that the increasing European Muslim population was to blame for Europe’s “anti-Israel feelings”, adding that the voices of Muslims “are heard well above the average Europeans”.

Eleven Labour MPs are still associated with this organisation. How, one wonders, do the views of the Henry Jackson Society sit with one-nation Labour?

I wrote to all 11 Labour MPs with my concerns about the Henry Jackson Society but none were available for comment.

2. Tom Brake, a senior British MP who is also Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, has recently resigned from the Henry Jackson Society after questions were raised about disturbing comments from a number of the controversial think-tank’s senior executives, including Douglas Murray.

3. Douglas Murray is the author of “Neoconservatism: Why We Need It – A Talk to the Manhattan Institute”. Full text available here.

4. Douglas Murray is also on the international advisory board of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based organisation which prominent Jewish figures and organisations such as a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and former Deputy Attorney General of Israel, a former New Israel Fund president, the New Israel Fund itself, a Managing Editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post, have all accused of promoting false information.. NGO Monitor has also been forcefully criticised by prominent figures and organisations including Human Rights Watch, journalists at The Jerusalem Post, and a former professor of Politics and Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis University. Furthermore, in January 2010, thirteen Israeli human rights organizations released a common statement which described NGO Monitor as “extremist” and accused the organisation as engaging in an “unbridled and incendiary attack” against human rights groups.

5. A rare example of Douglas Murray’s “moderate” mask dropping in front of the mainstream British media was one particularly notable incident on the BBC’s Question Time on 5 May 2011. Murray was subsequently confronted and demolished by the veteran British politician (and former special forces soldier) Paddy Ashdown. Full video footage here.

6. Douglas Murray has publicly made extremely defamatory statements about the British anti-racism organisation Hope Not Hate. Murray specifically blamed HnH for the attempted shooting of the EDL-and-Anders Breivik-linked Danish anti-Muslim propagandist Lars Hedegaard. Murray also made some further dubious statements about the Far-Right and Breivik. Full details here. (Note: HnH of course subsequently played a key role in facilitating Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s banning from the UK).

7. Douglas Murray has subsequently published a follow-up article in support of Lars Hedegaard and his organisation. Extensive details here, including information on Hedegaard’s own actions & extremely anti-Muslim statements.

8. Douglas Murray definitely has direct links to Robert Spencer, going back a number of years. Initial details in this excellent article by Richard Bartholomew.

9. Douglas Murray has repeatedly appeared as a guest on Frank Gaffney’s radio show, including this interview in 2011 when Murray defended Lars Hedegaard.

10. Video footage of Douglas Murray and Robert Spencer giving anti-Muslim speeches at a joint conference in West Palm Beach, Florida. According to the explanatory information attached to the video, the conference was hosted by a member of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. As mentioned previously, Horowitz is of course Spencer’s “boss”.

(Melanie Phillips was also one of the three main speakers at the conference, alongside Spencer and Murray. Video footage in the next section further below).

11. Douglas Murray has participated in other anti-Muslim conferences organised by the David Horowitz Freedom Center in the US, alongside Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney. For example, see here and here. American readers in particular will recognise the senior Republican politicians and other public figures also present at these annual events (also see here and here).

12. An article was published on Robert Spencer’s “JihadWatch” website proving that Spencer’s direct links to Douglas Murray go back to 2006 at the very least (includes photographic evidence).

13. The following articles from 2010 and 2011 briefly mention Douglas Murray’s links to Robert Spencer, although it’s unclear if the Guardian authors were aware of the full scale of Murray’s direct involvement with the Spencer cabal: See here, here and here.

14. It also turns out that (a) Douglas Murray has appeared on a high-profile “Intelligence Squared” debate alongside Ayaan Hirsi Ali, where both presented anti-Muslim propaganda [see the information at the end of the "Views on Islamic fundamentalism" section on this webpage], and (b) Murray has published an article defending Hirsi Ali. Note that Hirsi Ali (whose background story has been exposed as falsified) is now on record as giving a speech in Germany in which she publicly sympathised with Anders Breivik and blamed so-called “advocates of silence” for Breivik’s mass-murdering terrorist attack. As that Loonwatch article detailing the incident also highlights, this is just the tip of the iceberg, considering an earlier interview in which Hirsi Ali revealed the full scale of her shocking beliefs — which are far more extreme than is generally known.

15. Dr Marko Hoare, a former founding member of Douglas Murray’s Henry Jackson Society, has published a considerable amount of “inside information” on the HJS leadership, including matters pertaining to Murray himself. Marko Hoare has resigned from the HJS, basically due to his disgust at (a) the organisation’s shift to the extreme Right, (b) the organisation’s hiring of Douglas Murray, (c) Murray’s extreme anti-Muslim views and his close alliance with Robert Spencer [including Spencer’s denial of the Srebrenica genocide], and (d) what appears to be the organisation’s systematic “conspiracy of silence” regarding Anders Breivik.

Marko Hoare has written very detailed articles on these issues:

—- Article focusing on Douglas Murray. It includes lengthy quotes providing a range of examples of Murray’s anti-Muslim propaganda.

—- Article detailing the aforementioned “inside information” on the Henry Jackson Society leadership, including details on Marko Hoare’s clashes with Douglas Murray, the issues involving Anders Breivik, and full details of Marko Hoare’s reasons for subsequently resigning.

I will also provide some extracts from the first article, specifically quotes of Douglas Murray’s statements that Marko Hoare has highlighted (the original article includes embedded URL links to the primary sources of information, including embedded video footage where applicable). Readers will notice that a lot of Murray’s rhetoric about Muslims sounds disturbingly familiar:

Douglas Murray: “In the middle of the last century, there was an almost negligible Muslim presence in Europe [sic !] At the turn of the twenty-first, in Western Europe alone, there were 15-17 million Muslims – that’s a very fast migration, ladies and gentlemen; one of the fastest in human history, and no society would find it easy to deal with that kind of migration. As it happens, European societies, Western European societies, have, I think, dealt with this, much better than some would. Certainly, Muslims coming to live in Britain and in Western Europe enjoy more rights and better rights, among them freedom of worship, than they do in any Islamic country on the Earth here today. We do have a problem; we have a problem when the failures of Islam throughout the world; the failures of all Islamic societies come here into Britain. Their intolerance of freedom of conscience; their intolerance of apostates; their intolerance of freedom of expression and freedom of speech; their intolerance of minorities, other religious minorities, sexual minorities; their intolerance of gays; their dislike and distrust of half of the population – women; and many, many other things. And they call, what is more, for a parallel legal system within Britain and European societies. This is monstrous; no other group behaves like this – asks for parallel laws. This is a fundamental problem, and it’s one we’re going to have to deal with. It’s a problem between a society – Western Europe – that believes that laws are based on reason, and Islam that believes that they are based on revelation. Between these two ideas, I’m not sure there is very much compromise for Europe. It is not Europe that has let down its Muslims, but the Muslims of Europe that have let down Europe. … It is not Europe that has failed its Muslims; it is Islam that has failed Europe. I’d argue, Islam has failed its Muslims”.

Douglas Murray: “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. In the case of a further genocide such as that in the Balkans, sanctuary would be given on a strictly temporary basis. This should also be enacted retrospectively. Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be persuaded back to the countries which they fled from once the tyrannies that were the cause of their flight have been removed.”

[Jai’s note: Regular readers will notice that Murray’s speech immediately above, along with a speech by Murray in 2006 quoted immediately below, sound strikingly similar to the following statements by the currently-unidentified anti-Muslim propagandist who has used the online alias “Hugh Fitzgerald” and is named as Vice-President of Robert Spencer’s “JihadWatch” website. Details on “Hugh Fitzgerald” here; the information in the subsequent comments thread is also important. Anders Breivik cited “Hugh Fitzgerald” more than a dozen times in his manifesto.

“Hugh Fitzgerald” in 2005: “A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained citizenship and — unless they are native-born converts – their countries of origin.….No, there is another way, or many other ways. And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.….An end to all outward and visible signs of rhetorical “respect” for Islam…..Stop all attempts at verbal escamotage, where the listener is left, puzzled, dissatisfied with the deliberate vagueness…..Clean out the taxpayer-funded government radio and televisions stations of those who have so misled us about Islam over the past 20-30 years. Begin, possibly, by firing John Simpson, the deeply, even conspiratorially, anti-Israel and islamophilic head of the BBC World Affairs broadcasting…..What will it take for the long-suffering British license-payers to demand a change in the BBC coverage and, even before that, in the personnel in charge of reporting on the Middle East and Islam?”

Douglas Murray in 2006: ”Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs. There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don’t have a mosque to go to, then they’ll just have to realise that they aren’t owed one. Grievances become ever-more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to. So don’t flatter them.”

[Jai’s note 1: On 28 July 2013, Murray appeared on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live debate programme, opposite Huffington Post UK Political Director Mehdi Hasan, debating the subject “Are Muslims being demonised ?”. Full video footage here. During the discussion, Fiyaz Mughal, director of the “Faith Matters” think-tank and the “TellMAMA” project, quoted some of Murray’s speech above and also mentioned that Murray had advocated that mosques should be “demolished in some circumstances” in the same speech. As can be seen at 10m 50s – 11m 00s, Murray subsequently accused Fiyaz Mughal of misquoting him, claiming that he had merely advocated that mosques should be “shut down” in some circumstances, not “demolished”. However, as can be seen in the original text of Murray’s speech above, he had indeed advocated that mosques should be “pulled down”. There are only two plausible explanations: (a) Murray does not accurately remember his own statements in that speech, despite the fact that video footage and full transcripts are widely available online, or (b) Murray was deliberately lying during his “rebuttal” to Fiyaz Mughal on Sunday Morning Live. Readers are also strongly advised to observe Murray’s reaction and comments when Mehdi Hasan mentioned Anders Breivik (see 6m 15s – 6m 35s).

Jai’s note 2: In October 2011, Murray wrote an article for the ConservativeHome website in which he claimed to have disowned this speech a long time ago. However, as documented by Paul Goodman, the timeframe does not even remotely match the actual sequence of events involving Murray’s own public statements and actions.

Paul Goodman writes: “Murray claims to have realised that the speech was poorly expressed "some years ago". But as I pointed out earlier, he defended it in print only last October: "I refused to change my opinions", he wrote. Furthermore, he cited the support of others for them. "What I advocated had been argued by members of the conservative party of Holland and was, and is, being argued by mainstream politicians across Europe". Readers will scour the piece in vain for the slightest hint that the views of the speech are "not opinions I hold", or for the faintest indication that he considered his words "poorly expressed". In short, Murray praised a speech twelve months ago that he now claims to have disowned for years.

Furthermore, I can find no previous record of him renouncing his Amsterdam speech - the course that I recommended to him when we met before the election. It is thus reasonable to ask whether he would have done so had I not raised the matter recently. Readers must decide for themselves whether first surreptitiously to remove a speech from a website, then laud it in print without direct quotation, and finally disown it under pressure - while claiming to have done so long ago - is decent or not. I believe it is part of a pattern of disingenuousness.”].

Douglas Murray: ”If there were one thing I would wish Muslims in Europe could learn today, as fast as possible, it would be this: you have no right, in this society, not to be offended. You have no right to say that because you don’t like something, you would use violence or you would like something to be stopped or censored…”

[Jai’s note: Murray has also spoken at conferences dedicated to attacking Muslims for employing libel “lawfare” to silence criticism of Islam (video footage here and here. However, as documented here, ironically Murray himself has an extensive history of accusing his critics of “libel” and threatening to sue them; Murray’s targets so far have included the Huffington Post, Marko Hoare, and Guardian political journalist Sunny Hundal].

[Marko Hoare writes]:Murray has denounced the idea of the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ as a ’sick joke’. He has written passionately in defence of Geert Wilders, a Dutch far-right populist politician who believes that the Koran should be banned. He has described Islam as a ‘very backward ideology’, and complains that ‘Britain has already gone too far in accommodating Islamic ideology into our culture’. He has accused the Pope of having been ‘forced to pacify the Islamic beast’, and spoken of ‘the laughable, ahistorical and uniquely retrospective form of religious imperialism that Islam is’. In March of this year – immediately prior to the merger of the CSC with the HJS – Murray travelled to Athens to argue, alongside Melanie Phillips, against the opening of a mosque in that city, on the grounds that such a mosque could become a centre for Islamic extremism, and that ’Islam when it is in a minority, is extremely good at talking about tolerance. In a minority, Islam loves to talk about the tolerance that people must show towards minorities [but] whenever Islam is in a majority, minority rights are nowhere to be seen. It’s a one-directional talk of minority rights… You better hope, ladies and gentlemen, that your mosque here is a first internationally, and that nobody with any unpleasant statements, any unpleasant ideas could possibly come to it’, before issuing further lurid warnings of the Islamic danger to his Greek audience, including a reference to the Islamism of the current Turkish prime minister. Murray said these things in Greece, a country where the Orthodox Christian nationalist right is extremely powerful, aggressive, intolerant and Islamophobic, while the Muslim Turkish minority is denied basic democratic rights.

[Jai’s note: Readers will notice that Murray bizarrely referred to Islam (a religious belief system) as though it were a conscious, sentient entity. The nature of those statements suggests that Murray was actually referring to Muslims. Murray has a history of making similar statements, eg. “Islam is not violent per se, though they’re quite good at it when they’re in charge”. Murray’s own statements also contradict the following assertion he made in 2007 (in which Murray also refuses to describe Islam as a religion): “Islam is not a race, it’s an ideology. It’s not bad to dislike someone for their ideology. That is not racism.” Murray made that assertion after a Jewish community leader commented that British Jews should be aware of the existence of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism.]

16. In May 2013, the Guardian published a revealing article by James Bloodworth, highlighting some new incriminating facts about Douglas Murray, the Henry Jackson Society and the Labour party. The HJS leadership are proven to be racially-motivated (eg. note Murray’s claims about white Britons “abolishing themselves” etc):

[James Bloodworth writes]: In March, Murray wrote an article following the release of the results of the 2011 census in which he bemoaned the fact that in “23 of London’s 33 boroughs ‘white Britons’ are now in a minority”. It wasn’t so much integration that Murray wanted to talk about, however, but skin colour:

“We long ago reached the point where the only thing white Britons can do is to remain silent about the change in their country. Ignored for a generation, they are expected to get on, silently but happily, with abolishing themselves, accepting the knocks and respecting the loss of their country. ‘Get over it. It’s nothing new. You’re terrible. You’re nothing’.”

[Jai’s note: Murray subsequently wrote an article making a series of demonstrably false allegations against Marko Hoare, including (a) the specific reasons for Dr Hoare’s objections to Murray’s statements quoted above, (b) grossly exaggerating the frequency of Dr Hoare’s tweets and blogs referring to Murray, (c) falsely claiming that Dr Hoare “frequently abuses” Murray, (d) grossly downplaying and distorting the nature and extent of Dr Hoare’s previous involvement with the Henry Jackson Society, and (e) falsely claiming that “It is no-one’s fault if they have not heard of Hoare. His opinions are largely self-published”, despite the fact that Dr Hoare is actually an academic at Kingston University who is well-known as a historian of the former Yugoslavia and whose work has been published by Oxford University Press.]

17. Marco Hoare has claimed that “Alan Mendoza and Douglas Murray, respectively Executive Director and Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society, have been attempting systematically to falsify the history of the organisation they run”. Dr Hoare provides evidence supporting his claim, including screenshots of documents detailing the organisation’s founding (along with further information), here and here. Furthermore, Dr Hoare states in the second article: “Despite his spurious claim to have a ‘well-established track record of support for the Bosnian Muslim population’, Mendoza was removed a year ago from the International Expert Team of the Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada, which fights genocide denial over Bosnia, Srebrenica and the Holocaust. The IRGC’s director, Professor Emir Ramic, and its Governing Board were rather quicker than I was myself in correctly understanding him and taking appropriate action.”

18. Soon after the murder of Lee Rigby in London in May 2013, Douglas Murray published an e-book sarcastically titled “Islamophilia”. The book is published on Melanie Phillips’ new e-book company, which is also geared towards targeting audiences in the US.

19. Douglas Murray has promoted his e-book “Islamophilia” on the extremely anti-Muslim ”Sun News Network” Canadian news channel. Video footage here. The channel has previously given a platform to Robert Spencer and other members of his inner circle, including Pamela Geller, David Yerushalmi, David Horowitz, and EDL leader Stephen Yaxley.

20. Douglas Murray has publicly claimed that the prominent British atheist scientist Richard Dawkins criticises Christianity and Judaism but “avoids” Islam. As extensively documented here, in reality Dawkins has a lengthy history of writing extremely anti-Muslim/anti-Islam propaganda, and he has even been exposed as citing & promoting material from hate websites run by none other than Robert Spencer’s extremist inner circle, specifically “Ali Sina”. Furthermore, it turns out that Murray and Dawkins know each other; for example, they recently took part in a public debate at Cambridge, albeit ostensibly on opposing sides (details here and here.). On his own Youtube channel, Murray has also repeatedly promoted videos of televised BBC debates where Murray and Dawkins have appeared together (eg. see here and here). Dawkins himself recently approvingly re-tweeted the aforementioned Spectator article Murray wrote after Spencer and Geller’s banning from the UK, claiming “Douglas Murray exposes “A gross double standard over hate speech”; UK Government’s gross favouritism of Islam again”.

21. The Times and Jewish Chronicle columnist David Aaronovitch wrote an excellent article about Douglas Murray on 7 July 2013. The article is worth reading in full, but some key extracts are as follows:

“Two weeks ago in the JC the writer Douglas Murray described the idea of Islamophobia as “a crock”. Douglas and I have shared a few platforms over the years…..So it is with disappointment and trepidation that I take issue with him here. He is, I think, completely wrong. And here’s why…..[…]…..

Some of this is, whatever Douglas says, very familiar. Before the race theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, antisemitism (or Jew hatred) was not racial. The problem wasn’t with the Jews themselves but with what they obstinately believed. If they abandoned Judaism they could become good people. So it is quite possible to posit an Islamophobia which corresponds to pre-racial antisemitism. The fact that, in this society, most Muslims are brown, can give this hatred a racial dimension…..

As to “they bring it on themselves”, well maybe some few do. But the people who then do the supplying of “it”: the attacking and scaring and intimidation of ordinary Muslims for being Muslims – the EDL foot-soldiers and the BNP and the rhetorical fringes of UKIP – well, we’ve seen them before. We see them now. We understand their atavistic urge. Whatever we call it, we who think about it know what it is.”

22. It is presently unclear if the BBC are aware of the full scale of Douglas Murray’s views, activities and affiliations.

23. Extensive further information about Douglas Murray is available here, here, here, here, here, and here. Readers are advised to familiarise themselves with the material in all of these articles.

*********************************************************************************************************

MELANIE PHILLIPS:

1. Melanie Phillips is currently primarily known as a journalist for the Daily Mail. On her own website, Phillips describes herself as a journalist and writer who moved from “darling of the left” to “champion” of what Phillips describes as “the moral high ground”; readers can draw their own conclusions about the accuracy of the latter statement, considering the facts highlighted in this article.

2. Melanie Phillips was cited by Anders Breivik in his manifesto; he even quoted an entire article Phillips had written for the Daily Mail.

3. Like Douglas Murray, it turns out that Melanie Phillips is also much more closely involved in joint activities with the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Robert Spencer than is publicly known here in the UK. Page after page of information is available online via Google, including sources associated with the DHFC itself.

4. Video footage of Melanie Phillips giving an anti-Muslim speech alongside Robert Spencer and Douglas Murray at the aforementioned DHFC-hosted conference in West Palm Beach is available here and here.

5. An “insider’s account” of a DHFC-hosted anti-Muslim conference involving Melanie Phillips, Robert Spencer and Douglas Murray is available here. According to that article, the conference was held at West Palm Beach in the US.

6. As mentioned at the start of this article, Melanie Phillips has repeatedly appeared as a panellist on the BBC’s high-profile Question Time political debate programme in the UK. Her most recent appearance was in June 2013, when she bizarrely claimed that Syria and Iran are part of a proxy war currently involving “the Soviet Union”, a nation-state that actually hasn’t existed for decades (video footage here; see 1m 08s onwards).

7. Furthermore, even though the main topic of discussion during that episode of Question Time was actually Syria, Phillips then started ranting about Iran, Shia Muslims and “the apocalypse”, including claiming that Iran cannot be negotiated with and therefore needs to be “neutralised”. Phillips’ statements triggered a vocal backlash from the audience; this resulted in further strange behaviour from Phillips, in which she insultingly shouted at audience members and accused them of being “ignorant”. Full video footage here.

8. Writing in the Daily Mail in 2009, Melanie Phillips made the following statements in an article criticising the Far-Right BNP (British National Party):

“Such distinctions [between Islamic extremists and ordinary Muslims] should fool no one. The BNP is hostile not merely to Islamic supremacists but to all Muslims, including those who threaten no one’s way of life.”

However, Phillips herself is also on record as making the following statements:

“The problem, however, is that it doesn’t understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has ‘hijacked’ and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.”

9. From LeftFootForward:

Left Foot Forward has learned that [Pamela] Geller’s inspiration is none other than the British Daily Mail and Spectator columnist, Melanie Phillips.

On her blog, Geller describes Phillips as “a great intellect and truth teller, a woman I greatly admire” and says that Phillips’ book, ‘Londonistan’, is “the most compelling book on Islamic fundamentalism, violence and intimidation in the West.”

Geller has posted videos of a talk by Phillips, and quotes Phillips as telling a US audience:

“There has been over the past 20 to 30 years an evisceration of British National identity and values which has created a cultural and moral vacuum being exploited by Radical Islamism which has come to fill that vacuum.”

Phillips has written defensively of the English Defense League in the past, writing of one clash between EDL and anti-fascist protesters:

“In any street altercation like this, the anti-Islamist demonstrators must be aggressors and those who confront them must be either their victims or heroic anti-fascists.”

“The Islamists have an incentive to provoke a violent reaction by white groups calling themselves names like English Defence League — simply in order to produce yet more demonisation of the anti-Islamists.”

She has criticised former Communities Secretary John Denham for not ‘critically engaging’ with the EDL, and called his comparison of the EDL to Mosley’s Blackshirts “absurd” and “offensive.” Phillips continued:

“The label of the ‘far right’ toxifies everything it touches. There is now a real danger than anyone who opposes Islamic supremacism will find themselves vilified not only as ‘Islamophobes’ but also as BNP fellow-travellers.”

10. Melanie Phillips is now targeting the United States via her new e-publishing company. As mentioned above, Phillips’ company has recently published an e-book titled “Islamophilia”, written by Douglas Murray. The Independent has a fairly detailed article on Phillips’ plans; some key extracts are as follows:

“Yesterday she launched a US-focused ebook publishing company called emBooks, a branch of of Melanie Phillips Electric Media LLC, which will provide a platform for a range of authors,…..

“What you’re getting is not just a set of books, you’re getting a particular viewpoint that is associated with me,” she told The Independent yesterday. Phillips, who recently described Barack Obama as a “sulky narcissist with close links to people with a history of thuggish, far-left, black-power, Jew-bashing, west-hating politics”, may hope to find a receptive audience among America’s Tea Party-aligned conservatives.

…..Phillips said that her goal was to open up public debate “with a different set of voices and a different set of attitudes”……“I do think that western society is in quite a lot of serious trouble and I want to forge a way of addressing these problems that brings people together rather than pushing people apart,” Phillips said. Although she will continue to write for the Daily Mail and appear as a panellist on BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze, Phillips said that along with setting up the company in America, she would be engaging more closely with US politics.

“I’ve always looked further than Britain,” she said. “This is not an ordinary e-publishing company, I’m not simply publishing books, as any ebook company would, just because they’re interesting and I think they’re going to sell. That’s part of it, but that’s not all of it. It’s very much to do with putting across my general take on the world.”

11. From Melanie Phillips’ Wikipedia profile:

Phillips’s criticisms of liberal Jews who disagree with her positions on Israel have been condemned by Jewish writers such as Jonathan Freedland, Alan Dershowitz, and Rabbi David Goldberg. Freedland criticised Phillips’s labelling Independent Jewish Voices, a group of liberal Jews, as “Jews For Genocide”. He wrote in The Jewish Chronicle: “Now, as it happens, I have multiple criticisms of IJV [...] but even their most trenchant opponents must surely blanch at the notion that these critics of Israel and of Anglo-Jewish officialdom are somehow in favour of genocide—literally, eager to see the murder and eradication of the Jewish people [...] it is an absurdity, one that drains the word ‘genocide’ of any meaning.”

Jonathan Freedland continues (from the Jewish Chronicle):

“But it was a sentence in Melanie’s January JC column that really got me going. “Individual Palestinians may deserve compassion,” she wrote, “but their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project.” Read that line again. I have, along with the entire piece that preceded it. Think about what it means: that the Palestinian urge for national self-determination — their desire to have what we Jews yearned for so long, a homeland of our own where we might govern ourselves — is nothing more than a collective plot to deny Jewish suffering. So those Palestinians living under curfew and hemmed in by checkpoints aren’t angry about this hardship or desperate to throw off a 40-year occupation. No. Their shared desire, their national project, is to join David Irving in pretending that Hitler did not murder six million Jews. Of course, it follows that such people — a nation of neo-Nazis — deserve nothing, let alone a state of their own.

Some will tell me there is no point getting agitated by such sentiments, that newspaper columns are merely tomorrow’s fish-and-chip wrap. That may be true of what most of us in the column business churn out. But Melanie Phillips is different. She has acquired a particularly devoted audience — far beyond these shores.

In the United States, Melanie has a substantial following, with thousands logging on daily to her website or lining up to hear her lectures — several of the leading lights of American Jewry among them. They snap up copies of her book Londonistan, in which Britain — a rotting, decayed island awash with amorality — is on the brink of an Islamist takeover. Above all, they swallow whole her insistence that Europe is back in the 1930s, and that Britain now seethes with Jew-hatred.

I hear this from several well-placed leaders of Britain’s Jewish organisations, who have had to hose down their American counterparts……In response, no less than the Chief Rabbi has had to join other British communal leaders to tell these visiting donors — associated with Aipac and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, among others — that London is not the Warsaw ghetto, that Europe is not an inferno and that there is no need for the big US bodies to come to Anglo-Jewry’s rescue. They have also had to explain that the US method of doing business — offering heavy financial help to pro-Israel MPs, for example — would not play well here.

Of course, it is mad to blame one person for shaping this distorted world view. But when asked where they had picked up this apocalyptic impression of the state of British Jewry, the Americans apparently cited one name again and again. Melanie will doubtless be heartened by that — but it might not be so good for the rest of us.”

12. Melanie Phillips is also on record as making the following statements about Israel, Jews, Palestine and Palestinians:

“To repeat for the nth time: Israel was never the Palestinians’ ‘homeland’. It was never taken from them ‘by force’. On the contrary, they tried to take the Jews’ homeland from them by force – and are still trying. It was the Jews alone for whom historically ‘Palestine’ was ever their national homeland.”

13. Since the election of US President Barack Obama, Melanie Phillips has accused him of “adopting the agenda of the Islamists” and of being “firmly in the Islamists camp”. Phillips is also on record as making the following statements:

“We are entitled to ask precisely when [Barack Obama] stopped being a Muslim, and why. Did Obama embrace Christianity as a tactical manoeuvre to get himself elected?”

14. Melanie Phillips also used to write for The Spectator (as mentioned above, Douglas Murray is currently contributing editor for this magazine), but she resigned in June 2011. Further details in the Guardian and the New Statesman.

Extract from the Guardian article:

Melanie Phillips claims that she resigned from The Spectator because it published an apology for one of her blog items. She writes – on her own blog – that the apology “misrepresented my post” and has given rise to “false assumptions.”

The apology, shown here, is to a former MI6 operative, Alastair Crooke, who heads the Conflicts Forum, a body that “aims to open a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world.”

The apology states: “A blog by Melanie Phillips posted on 28 January 2011 reported an allegation that Alastair Crooke, director of Conflicts Forum, had been expelled from Israel and dismissed for misconduct from government service or the EU after threatening a journalist whose email he had unlawfully intercepted. We accept that this allegation is completely false and we apologise to Mr Crooke.”

But Phillips has distanced herself from the apology.

….In a January Spectator blog posting, Phillips described [Baroness Sayeeda] Warsi as “a stupid mouthpiece of those who are bamboozling Britain into Islamisation.”

[Jai’s note: As discussed in the aforementioned article on Richard Dawkins, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi is the target of similar extreme hostility from Dawkins and the EDL leadership. Baroness Warsi is a British Muslim Member of Parliament who is currently the Senior Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Minister for Faith and Communities; she has also repeatedly spoken out against the increasing mainstreaming of anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK].

Extract from the New Statesman article:

…..a well-connected source tells me that the payout to Crooke cost the Spectator “tens of thousands of pounds” and left Fraser Nelson and Andrew Neil “furious” with her.

15. From Melanie Phillips’ Powerbase profile, specifically the section on Neoconservatism:

In an article published shortly before the US-led invasion of Iraq Phillips told the Guardian’s Andy Beckett: ‘I’ve been very influenced by what’s called the neo-con movement’…..Three years later she posted a review of Douglas Murray’s book Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. She praised the book and described neoconservatism as ‘the only truly moral response to the times in which we live’.

16. From Melanie Phillips’ Powerbase profile, specifically the section on Londonistan:

In 2006, Phillips published Londonistan: How Britain Has Created a Terror State Within. Londonistan is Phillips’s variation on the Eurabia theme. In a 2008 foreword, she wrote that “Britain is even now sleepwalking into Islamisation……Some people will read that sentence and think this is mere hyperbole. That’s the problem. Britain still doesn’t grasp that it is facing a pincer attack from both terrorism and cultural infiltration and usurpation. The former is understood; the latter is generally not acknowledged or is even denied, and those who call attention to it are pilloried either as ‘Islamophobes’ or alarmists who have taken up residence on Planet Paranoia.”

17. From Melanie Phillips’ Powerbase profile, quoting Phillips’ statements on multiculturalism and minority rights:

“The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country’s own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted…Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or “anti-racists” who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people’s livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands.”

From Melanie Phillips’ speech at the IAB anti-boycott conference in Israel in 2006:

“Multiculturalism and anti-racism were the weapons the minorities were handed to beat the majority [in the UK]……Anyone from the third world, however, was suitably powerless and therefore their values had to trump those of the majority……The Palestinians are the epitome of victim culture. So the cause of those who wage genocidal jihad is regarded with indifference or even supported in Britain while its victims are now excoriated as Nazis.”

18. Examples of other statements by Melanie Phillips:

“The nation-wrecking ideology of multiculturalism and the Marxist redefinition of racial prejudice into racism – ‘prejudice plus power ‘– which have turned our society inside out are the product of the left.”

“Voters have been told in effect that there is nothing standing between national suicide on the one hand and racism on the other. If you don’t want the former, you are automatically branded with the latter.”

“They are areas of very high immigration where the transformation of the ethnic, religious and cultural landscape has made indigenous inhabitants feel strangers in their own country — and yet they are told they are racist for saying so”

“In the war being waged by radical Islamism against the west, such symbolism [as mosque-building] is of the utmost importance and significance. It is itself a strategic weapon of cultural and religious demoralisation.”

19. It is presently unclear if the BBC and the Daily Mail are aware of the full scale of Melanie Phillips’ anti-Muslim activities and affiliations, particularly her involvement with Robert Spencer, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Douglas Murray.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: EXPOSED: Quilliam leadership directly involved with neocon Douglas Murray’s Henry Jackson Society - Mushy Peas - The Nation's favourite

  • Tighe McCandless

    “We are here trying to defend Muslims from bigotry. What are you defending?”

    This, evidently:

    “…and people like me will continue to support our government in its policies regarding drones, gitmo, Israel and the like.”

    The best response, as always, to possible human rights abuses is continue the cycle because Muslims are clearly not worthy of being treated as anything but subhuman. Intellectual honesty regarding this point would, at least, be nice.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Rational choice? Profit maximization?

    Now ceteris paribus?? The shibboleth of a student of economics. :)

  • Chameleon_X

    I got a chuckle out of that similarity too. I just read your post. Mr. Bowman has one strike left before he is out, so I will at least stick around for that unless he forfeits by fleeing the ballpark or pleads for a rain delay. That said, I may give him an extra inning just for exhibition entertainment value, since it is so rare these days that I get to play this game. Thanks for your contribution – excellent points, as always.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    I agree 100%. Unfortunately, in spite of your bolding that for emphasis, what you idiotically did not realize is that your entire rant was based instead on the ad hominem logical fallacy of “ISLAM is as Muslim does.”

    I just got done writing almost the same stuff. Echoing one other once again. :)

    It’s been interesting, but I’ve set aside time to write and spent far too much of it here, chatting by the water cooler. Going forward, if Mr. Bowman wants continue, he’s all yours.

  • Chameleon_X

    “Muslim is as Muslim does.”

    I agree 100%. Unfortunately, in spite of your bolding that for emphasis, what you idiotically did not realize is that your entire rant was based instead on the ad hominem logical fallacy of “ISLAM is as Muslim does.” Muslims, like anyone else, are indeed a sum of what they do and will be held accountable for such, including for any criminal acts that they commit. By contrast, the religion of Islam is held to account only according to what it actually teaches.

    Contrary to popular delusion, the prevalence of violent crimes amongst Muslims (ceteris paribus) is statistically no higher than those of other groups based on all available data that I have seen. Therefore, the argument that Muslims are uniquely prone to violence, aggressive warfare or even extreme violence is simply not supported by statistical facts, anecdotal deluges notwithstanding. If you have statistical data to the contrary, then present it instead of ranting more bald claims and anecdotes.

    Once again, what is woefully missing from your post are facts from the Quran to rebut my clear and 100% consistent interpretation regarding what Islam actually teaches. Do you realize that there is NOT ONE fact in your entire post about what Islam actually teaches per the Quran? In short, your rebuttal was nothing more than shamefully zealous and willfully ignorant ranting.

    If you honestly believe that any of my facts and logic are incorrect, then why can’t you point to a single fact of mine or a single logical point that is incorrect? Moreover, if you honestly believe that I am “reinterpreting” in contradiction of better interpretations, then feel free to hide behind the coattails of your favorite mullah and his genius reasoning to see how well his facts and logic stand up to scrutiny. Come on, now, don’t be shy. If you think I only challenge and ridicule the idiocy of non-Muslims, then you are gravely mistaken. Or, alternatively, feel free to dredge through your favorite hate site and try to make an actual rebuttal using their facts and logic if you think their arguments are any better. I would be most happy to humiliate you further if you try.

    With respect to that other passage from the Quran you were referring to about camels and urine, let me know when you find it. Good luck, because it doesn’t exist!

    “You also sound quite angry for a person trying to show someone what a peaceful religion Islam is. Like those rage boys you see holding “Islam is a religion of peace and those who say otherwise must be killed” signs.”

    As for that trite “religion of peace” nonsense, don’t you realize that this too is just more bogus Islamophobic propaganda, designed to falsely conflate all violence with injustice? As I already emphasized, justice is never sacrificed for artificial peace in Islam, since genuine and lasting peace can never exist without justice first, which is almost never peaceful. That is why I have openly and repeatedly argued against this bogus propaganda phrase in the past. Islam is not a “religion of peace”, but rather a “religion FOR peace”.

    Finally, how exactly am I angry, and why would I be? As an Islamophobe, you are making an absolute fool out of yourself for the benefit of my entertainment, and I love it. You are merely projecting your own anger onto me, since you know full well that you are standing right in front of us with your pants completely down, dumbfounded to make any fact-based rebuttal against Islam in spite of how much you hate it.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    You’ve shifted gears again.

    When you first arrived, you were touting Spencer’s sarcasm about “misunderstanders” of Islam, meaning Muslims who supposedly act in unsavory ways because that is what Islam teaches.

    For that accusation to be credible, the person making would have to have some knowledge of Islam. After all, how can you judge someone else’s understanding if you don’t understand yourself?

    You were challenged by Chameleon to prove your case. Of course, most of here are familiar with Islam’s just war doctrine. We have made similar challenges countless times, and we already know you’re going to fail. Which you did.

    You pasted a couple of verses as “evidence” if not “proof” of your claims. Chameleon demolished your non-argument on that front.

    Then you decided to argue that it doesn’t matter because the scripture is vague enough that believers could interpret it anyway you want, and again, Chameleon effortlessly demolished that argument too–along with further elaborating on your copy and paste verses.

    Next you decided to accuse us of reinterpreting the text to align with 21st century values. Since anti-Muslim bigots are always on about how Muslims won’t “reform Islam,” shouldn’t that be a good thing?

    Of course for people who simply hate Muslims no matter what they do, it is not a good thing. When Muslims don’t reinterpret, they’r wrong, and when they do reinterpret, they’re wrong too. Heads we win, tails you lose.

    Finally, you said Muslim is as Muslim does, and at last, I agree with you. If you had said Islam is as Muslim does, that would an entirely different argument, and more aligned with your original position on “misunderstanders” of Islam.

    The problem is that all you see is the bad things Muslims do, which you seem to blame entirely on Islam. Illiteracy, poverty, cultural baggage and other factors are ignored, as is the fact Muslims do not have a monopoly on any of the bad behaviors mentioned. It’s all, entirely the fault of Muslims, and in fact you used the word “entirely” when you were blaming everything the US does to Muslims their own leaders.

    Most Muslims are of course like everyone else, just trying to raise their families and live their lives in peace, but they also do a lot of good which you steadfastly ignore. Our local masjid gives free tours, sponsors interfaith and charity events, and even has a clinic where anyone in the community, Muslim or non-Muslim, can obtain basic medical services free of charge. Are the volunteer physicians also “misunderstanders” of Islam?

    But even if you were right, what then? Even if Islam lent itself to violent, regressive interpretations and many Muslims were inspired by it. What would be the right thing to do? Spend your days over at Jihad Watch, spreading fear and hatred?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to reach out to Muslims, and perhaps to donate millions of dollars not to funding hate campaigns but to encouraging some sort of positive change? If Muslims are “misunderstanders” of Islam, thing what that $42 million well-heeled Islamophobes spent spreading hate could have done to spread the more “aligned with 21st century” interpretations you’ve already said are possible?

    We are here trying to defend Muslims from bigotry. What are you defending?

    You have expressed nothing but unremitting hostility since you arrived here. You’ve worn our patience thin here and there, but for the most part, we’ve been engaging you in a civilized discussion. A lot fot he people here are Muslims, and others are friends who feel Muslims are worth defending. If Islam and Muslims are so irredeemably awful, why have we spawned this thoughtful, inclusive community?

    I have ventured on to an anti-Muslim hate site here and there. I was pounced on, even for the most innocuous comments, ganged up on by thugs, and relentlessly harassed. Not satisfied to harass me on their turf, they chased me over to LW and harassed me here too. This is the behavior of bigoted scum, and it contrasts sharply with how you’ve been treated here. I can’t imagine what sort of reception I’d receive on Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs.

    In any case, I need to get back to research and writing, so I plan to leave this thread. You are determined to nurture your hate, so it seems futile to debate with you anyway. I do hope you’ll someday have a change of heart, for your own sake as much as anyone else’s. Hate is a heavy burden.

    Whenever I feel weighted down by all the hate and humiliation Muslims are facing worldwide, the plunder and bombing, the poisoning, starving and demonizing, I’m heartened by the notion that none of it can destroy Islam. Islam lives in the hearts and minds of over a billion and half followers, and you can’t kill them all. Even if you destroyed every copy of the Qur’an in the world, it would live on because in every generation, there are Muslims who memorize it, down to the last chapter, verse, word, and letter.

    You can go on spewing your hate, red-faced, veins pulsing, foaming at the mouth, and I’ll just smile to myself knowing that despite your best efforts, Islam isn’t going anywhere. You’ll just have to learn to live with that.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Excellent rebuttal, though I think you’re playing flute for a buffalo. :)

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Actually, anything, whether it is the US Constitution, the Bible, or the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, can technically be interpreted any way people want. Some interpretations are more sound than others, and that is equally true of the Qur’an.

    I have logically shown why Brevik is a misunderstander of Spencer, while the Islamist muslims are not doing anything not allowed in the Koran.

    No, what you’r shown is that you’re in no position to decide whether Muslim misunderstand Islam or not, because you clearly have no understanding of it yourself.

  • D Bowman

    What couldn’t people interpret any way they want?

    Something clearly and logically stated that one would expect as the final word from the omniscient omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe. So by your own admission, the Koran is nothing like that. Okay, I accept that.

    You have never been able to establish why Brevik’s act is a slur against Spencer, while the actions of thousands of Muslims is not a slur against the Koran. I have logically shown why Brevik is a misunderstander of Spencer, while the Islamist muslims are not doing anything not allowed in the Koran.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    The reply I posted linked to further commentary, and Chameleon explained still further

    You’re clearly not here to learn anything, nor are you here to exchange ideas in some kind of reasoned discussion. You’re just spamming the thread with hostile nonsense.

    I only resumed this conversation because of your rude, obnoxious comment to Chameleon, who was apparently supposed to make a study of all your verbose blather, even in cases where it was addressed to me.

    There is enough ambiguity here that people can interpret it any way they want, and still be following the religion as prescribed. That was my entire point, and nothing in the links above refutes it.

    It would be hard to refute such a nonsensical point. What couldn’t people interpret anyway they want? That is not intelligent commentary. All you’ve done is demonstrated your brash and abundant ignorance.

  • D Bowman

    Oh I see, you reply to one post of mine, and don’t bother to read the rest, even though the first time you replied it was to a reply I had made to the other poster.

    Typical of people like you I must say, back-peddling furiously when caught with their pants down.

    And your madrassah math is also showing, where quoting 2 verses apparently counts as only 1.

    Nice try with your own interpretation of “modern day terrorist”. Why not add some other things in there as well such as “tortures at least 100 babies while raping 100 women” that would support your “extreme case” argument. The verse itself is unclear about any of your assertions. As I reply below to your coreligionist, since you have trouble reading other posts:

    Right, I post two complete statements, and I am the one posting “out of context”, while it’s ok for you and others of your ilk to say things like

    “To kill one human … is as if to kill entire mankind”

    to “prove” how peaceful the Koran is?

    Thanks for wasting my time reading Elwood’s information-less post above. I read verses 5.27-34 and that does not improve the context one bit, since most of it blather about the sons of Adam attempting to kill each other and being warned against it. So what? The verse I posted is clear enough about what it means, and none of that is changed by the previous verses. It does say that people “spreading mischief/mayhem/causing corruption” are not “innocent”, with no specific definition of what “spreading mischief” or “causing corruption” means. If I make a YouTube video of Muhammed cartoons, am I spreading mischief? Causing corruption? Causing mayhem? The verses before that do not claim that one of Adam’s sons had spread mischief, and yet should not have been killed, does it? In fact, it is the other way around; the supposedly righteous one gets killed, and all Allah does is send a crow to teach him how to bury his brother’s corpse. But according to verse 33, this guy should himself be killed by the state, which Allah himself does not do in verse 31.

    There is enough ambiguity here that people can interpret it any way they want, and still be following the religion as prescribed. That was my entire point, and nothing in the links above refutes it.

  • D Bowman

    Right, I post two complete statements, and I am the one posting “out of context”, while it’s ok for you and others of your ilk to say things like

    “To kill one human … is as if to kill entire mankind”

    to “prove” how peaceful the Koran is?

    Thanks for wasting my time reading Elwood’s information-less post above. I read verses 5.27-34 and that does not improve the context one bit, since most of it blather about the sons of Adam attempting to kill each other and being warned against it. So what? The verse I posted is clear enough about what it means, and none of that is changed by the previous verses. It does say that people “spreading mischief/mayhem/causing corruption” are not “innocent”, with no specific definition of what “spreading mischief” or “causing corruption” means. If I make a YouTube video of Muhammed cartoons, am I spreading mischief? Causing corruption? Causing mayhem? The verses before that do not claim that one of Adam’s sons had spread mischief, and yet should not have been killed, does it? In fact, it is the other way around; the righteous one gets killed, and all Allah does is send a crow to teach him how to bury his brother’s corpse. But according to verse 33, this guy should himself be killed by the state, which Allah himself does not do in verse 31.

    There is enough ambiguity here that people can interpret it any way they want, and still be following the religion as prescribed. That was my entire point, and nothing in the links above refutes it.

  • Chameleon_X

    So who is dense exactly? 1) You never accepted my challenge; 2) the verse you mentioned was in a post to Ilisha, not to me or in response to my challenge whatsoever; 3) you only provided one verse, not two as you asserted, in response to my challenge, since only 5:33 is potentially relevant; and 4) my challenge asked for three examples, not one.

    OK, so now let’s get to verse 5:33, which Ilisha also addressed via Michael Elwood’s comments. This verse is not referring to any murderous kill order or even fighting, but to a legal punishment against someone who is the equivalent of a modern day terrorist, who is not only guilty of murder (as referred to in verse 5:32), but the equivalent of personally “waging war” and “perpetrating mayhem in the land”. This verse refers to the most serious crime – and, consequently, the most serious penalty by far – in the entire Quran. There is only one recorded incident of this penalty ever being applied in the early Muslim community that I am aware of, and it was with respect to a vicious, senseless, murderous attack on the Muslim community as a whole by, I believe, two individuals, NOT by an opposing army, which fits to a tee the profile of modern day terrorism.

    Isn’t it ironic how Islamophobes accuse Islam of promoting terrorism when, in fact, Islam is the only religion in the world that has a very specific punishment against it? In case you might argue that the punishment is too harsh, you cannot logically argue that the suffering of a terrorist per this verse could even come close to the unjust suffering and terror that a terrorist imposes on an entire community of innocents. Or are you one of those pacifists who says terrorists should go to Club Fed instead? If you are, then you are indirectly responsible for promoting future terrorism instead of deterring it with a punishment severe enough to be effective against it. Your problem is in conflating violence with injustice, which is an utterly irrational pacifist argument. Justice, as a general rule, is never peaceful, and justice against terrorism is exactly what this verse is about.

    That’s strike one. You have two more swings left.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    You were replying to me, I believe, so Chameleon may not have seen your earlier comment.

    In any case, all you did copy and paste a couple out-of-context verses from the Qur’an. This is meaningless, though it’s a common tactic, and so I have a copy and paste reply:

    Quran (5:33)

    From Loonwatcher Michael Ellwood:

    “If you read the verse in context (5:27-34), you’ll see that it actually promotes the sanctity of life. This is why I discourage my non-Muslim friends from getting their information about what the Quran says from the various “abridged” versions online. You won’t be able to understand what the Quran says by reading what critics say about it.”

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/americas-islamic-blind-spots-you-can-do-anything-to-these-people/comment-page-1/#comment-148946

    Read the verses mentioned here:
    http://quran.com/5/27-34

    Further commentary from The American Muslim:
    http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_533_commentary/

  • D Bowman

    Boy, you really are quite dense. Again, go read my comments up the hierarchy above where I talk about Sura 5.32 and 5.33. I have explained in detail there why that’s a “passage from the koran that exhorts violence” and is interpreted as such by fundamentalists. Not only did I quote one passage, but two, which should make you doubly livid I am guessing.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Excellent point about profit maximization and rational choice theory that I think has far reaching consequences across the whole society. This thinking seems to have permeated every aspect of American life, to the point where people are so conditioned, they hardly notice.

    For example, I saw an article sometime back in the New York Time supposedly supporting women’s rights in Turkey, but it wasn’t really focused on their rights or the interests of women and children. Rather they were an “untapped labor force”! Is that we we’re reduced to now?

    I also saw a very crass ROI analysis on CNN after the US had given some aid to Pakistan after a major earthquake. They basically reduced humanitarian aid to an investment, for which they suggested we didn’t get sufficient payback in terms of Pakistani good will and subservience.

    I could give many more examples, and I think the rise of formalized business intelligence has exacerbated the problem. It’s all very rational and logical…and totally inhuman.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    Is that proof Obama is a muslim ?
    Sir David
    Warning this post contains Irony

  • Mehdi

    Very true points as usual Ilisha, the War in Iraq is a different case, as it’s about a very important decision made by a small group of people, who then relied on the post-911 climate of fear, the propaganda of media groups such as Murdoch’s News Corp, and the general climate of gutless amateur journalism that existed back then and still exists.

    Now, the handling of the media for such matters is one thing, the everyday lazy/sensationalist journalism is another thing, in the first case you have a mobilized group of people that works hard behind a campaign to deceive the public opinion, whereas in the other case it’s journalists and their bosses who work every day in a climate of mediocrity and amateurism…

    I probably missed many other points, media propaganda in democracies is quite a complex topic, the best overall analysis I’ve read is Chomsky’s “Manufacturing consent”, but I’m not very objective here :-)

Powered by Loon Watchers