Cups of Tea With ISIS?

Christine Shawcroft.

 

In some circles she is known as Christine Trotsky:

http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/nottingham-south.html

 

She is not a well-known Labour figure. She is more on the shadowy end of Labour’s current line of stage actors, although the elevated profile of Momentum – for which she is a senior figure – has put her more into the spotlight.

She is most notable for her comments on British soldiers earlier this year:

I think we should bear in mind that [soldiers] having cups of tea [with ISIS] might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12199570/British-soldiers-should-have-cups-of-tea-with-Islamic-State-terrorists-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-ally.html

 

Let us not be mistaken. Labour is undergoing, and in many ways has undergone, a process of ‘DNA mutation’. It is essentially an anti-Western faction, commandeered by a strain of politics that serves as a useful smokescreen for anti-Western, anti-British values to infiltrate British politics. Corbyn’s Labour is an agent of change in this country, a type of change that will alter the character of our democracy, for the worst.

And do not get me wrong. This is a trend that other political parties (e.g., Tories, Liberal Democrats) exhibit too. In Labour however, this process is especially complex and more far-reaching.

 

The Thesis: A Re-Cap

A few posts back, I discussed my thesis. This argued that Corbyn’s Labour is a vehicle through which a range of interests and actors are seeding change in this country that could result in an Islamic coup. I have mentioned a few already in previous posts; Diane Abbott, Muslim Charities Forum, and now Christine Shawcroft. The list goes on. These actors all have their differences and predilections, but they conveniently meet in the middle on the role radical Islam should play on the world stage. More than that, they argue for a British politics that meaningfully links up with radical Islam, whether that be through donations (e.g., Abbott) or tea and biscuits with British soldiers (e.g., Shawcroft).

Let me stress this point. The seeding of change I refer to above is not an intentional conspiracy, in the sense that Corbyn and his followers are in league with radical Islam to subvert the British way of life. Rather, this seeding of change is a complex process of different interests coming together, acting on the party and its direction, merging together and providing complexion to Corbyn’s ‘21st century politics’.

 

A Simple Case of Entryism?

I reject those banal, simplistic theories from the likes of Britain First, who claim that there is a simple plot to directly install Islamic governance into British politics through specific appointment. Otherwise known as ‘entryism’, this process involves the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives. Indeed, entryism is a real phenomenon. It does happen. One can only look to Douglas Carswell and Caroline Evans in UKIP, who have done all they can to undermine the party and derail the interests of those who call for a return to Parliamentary sovereignty, tightly-controlled borders and an end to discriminating between EU and non-EU nationals when it comes to immigration. Even on the Labour side of things, Tom Watson’s letter to Corbyn dated 10th August 2016 raised concerns about ‘Trotskyist entryism’ in the Labour party, particularly through Momentum:

https://www.scribd.com/document/320882859/Letter-to-Jeremy-Corbyn-MP-Tom-Watson-10-August-2016#from_embed

But, the type of change being seeded through Corbyn and Labour is more than basic entryism.

Rather than just entryism, which is limited in the level of change it can bring about, the synthetic creation of ‘movements’ like Momentum go further in their ability to stoke change. I describe Momentum as ‘synthetically-created’ for reasons I will explain another time. For now, it is salient to point out that this group and key figures within it appear to be calling for radical Islamic groups to have ‘status’. I eschew Watson’s fixation on a ‘Trotskyite entryist’ problem in Labour. Let us be honest. This has been happening for decades. A more holisitic approach is called for, which requires framing Momentum and Labour’s fixation with hard-left politics as a fantasy, a wet dream, a perfect opportunity for useful idiots to come together under the cloak of old Communist cheer and chest-prodding. However, beneath this pathetic fantasy is a set of ingredients which serve to bootleg radical Islamic values into the centre of UK politics.

The Momentum/Labour fantasy is a distraction of sorts, although many useful idiots will believe in the compatibility of this fantasy with radical Islam. Shawcross may be one of them. All in all, Corbyn’s new kind of politics is certainly a new faith. It is nonetheless a dangerous one. It will certainly be exploited by some interests in order to bootleg radical Islamic values into UK politics. But this will also depend on the psychological predilections of Labour members, Momentum members and a confluence of events and interests that ultimately will carve out a road to disaster if it is not checked and halted.

 

Giving Radical Islamists Status

As for Shawcroft’s suggestion to ‘get the teabags out’, this is clearly an effort to contribute to a narrative that radical Islamic groups deserve ‘status’. Through the hard-left rhetoric on Trident, migrants and austerity is an ambition to elevate the status of radical Islam. Whether that is to rally extra support from the Muslim community, or something else entirely, we do not know for sure. What we can clearly see however is Labour’s desire to hand over status to these groups

The question is, how much status do these Labour actors want to give?

Stay vigilant.