The LSE Scandal is Just the Tip of the Iceberg


You really can’t make this stuff up: a consulting company founded by Harvard professors has received millions of dollars from Moammar Gadhafi for, in effect, rendering the services of propaganda machine to the deranged dictator.

The Boston Globe reports that the professors tried to help improve the dictator’s image:


Extolled the importance of his theories on democracy and his “core ideas on individual freedom.’’

Read More »

Muslims pour money into universities in U.K., U.S. in order to change intellectual climate and push Islam

Prince Alwaleed has given considerable amounts of money to American universities as well — notably Georgetown, where the lackadaisical pseudo-academic John Esposito heads the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. This story shows why the intellectual climate in Middle East Studies departments all over the U.S., as well as the U.K., is so pro-jihad and anti-freedom, and doesn’t allow for any dissenting voices.

Ted Nugent rocks:

“Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” by Stephen Pollard in the Telegraph, March 3 via JW. (full post below the fold)

World Briefing | Europe: London Economics School to Investigate Dealings With Libya (NYT)

Quote of the day:

“The more I thought about it, there were these two things which I found hard to defend,”

Sir Howard Davies

LONDON — The London School of Economics announced late Thursday that an independent inquiry would examine all of the university’s dealings with Libyaafter its director resigned amid an uproar over a major donation from a Libyan charity and a training contract with the Libyan government.

The inquiry is to be led by a prominent jurist, Harry Woolf, the former Lord chief justice of England and Wales.

The renowned university has been in tumult for nearly two weeks, with students protesting a recent donation of nearly a half-million dollars to the school’s Global Governance program by a charity headed by one of the university’s graduates, Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, a son of the Libyan dictator. The uproar grew on Thursday, after The Times of London reported on a leaked diplomatic cable posted on the WikiLeaks Web site noting that the university had agreed to run a training program for elite Libyan civil servants for $3.6 million.

On Tuesday, with questions being raised about whether Mr. Qaddafi’s doctoral dissertation had been plagiarized, the university’s council decided to divert the $488,000 donation from the Qaddafi charity to establish a scholarship for North African students. But the council declined an offer to resign from the school’s director, Sir Howard Davies. Late Thursday, with news of the government contract raising fresh questions about Mr. Davies judgment, the council met again and accepted his resignation.

Mr. Davies acknowledged in his resignation letter that he had also acted as a financial adviser to the Libyan government and said that the uproar over the school’s dealings with Libya had forced him to conclude that it would “be right for me to step down, even though I know that this will cause difficulty for the institution I have come to love.” He added, “The short point is that I am responsible for the school’s reputation, and that has suffered.”

Charlotte Gerada, president of the student union, who was at the Thursday meeting, said in an interview: “What really tipped the balance was the revelation that the L.S.E. was training Libyan bureaucrats. That was just the last straw. They weren’t just coming to the school. This was a bespoke course. In all honesty, it looked sleazy.”

In the leaked cables, American diplomats were told in September 2009 by Libya’s National Economic Development Board that the board was “co-operating with the U.K. government and the London School of Economics, among other U.K. institutions, on an exchange program to send 400 ‘future leaders’ of Libya for leadership and management training.”

In an interview with the BBC on Friday morning, Mr. Davies said that he remained uneasy about his decision to accept the donation from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Fund and about having acted as a financial consultant to the Libyan government. In 2007 the university received a payment of $50,000 after Mr. Davies gave advice to the country’s sovereign wealth fund.

“The more I thought about it, there were these two things which I found hard to defend,” he said.

The controversy began on Feb. 21, when Mr. Qaddafi made a televised speech warning protesters that his father’s supporters would fight “to the last bullet” and that “rivers of blood” would flow in the country. Students then occupied the faculty dining room and Mr. Davies’s office.

The inquiry the university announced Friday is also expected to examine accusations that portions of Mr. Qaddafi’s 2007 doctoral dissertation may have been plagiarized or ghost-written.

On Thursday, the consulting firm Monitor Group, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, acknowledged in a statement that part of the work for which it had been paid a fee of $250,000 a month by the Libyan government included helping Mr. Qaddafi with his dissertation.

The company also set up meetings between British and American academics and Libyan officials. Among those taking part were Anthony Giddens, the former head of the London School of Economics and an adviser to former prime minister Tony Blair, and the Harvard professor Joseph Nye, who is also thanked in the acknowledgments section of Mr. Qaddafi’s dissertation.

Sachin Patel, editor of The Beaver, the student newspaper at the London School of Economics, said he thought it was “highly likely we will see other resignations in the next days and weeks.” Noting that student government elections were also held on Thursday night, Mr. Patel said that all of the winning candidates were “very vocal about the need to set up an ethical investment policy” for the school.

Muslims pour money into universities in U.K., U.S. in order to change intellectual climate and push Islam

“Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” by Stephen Pollard in the Telegraph, March 3:

Sir Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics, has at last done the honourable thing and resigned from the university’s governing council. The LSE’s shameless prostituting of its good name in return for Muammar Gaddafi’s blood money (as the Tory MP Robert Halfon has rightly called it) is as great a betrayal of the spirit of a university as there has ever been in Britain.But while it will take the LSE quite some time to regain a seat at the table of respectability, it is not the only university that has reason to feel ashamed. The LSE is said to have received no more than £300,000 of the £1.5 million it was due from Libya.

Yet, on the most conservative estimate, other British universities have received hundreds of millions of pounds from Saudi and other Islamic sources – in the guise of philanthropic donations, but with the real intention of changing the intellectual climate of the United Kingdom.

Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City – accepted more than £233.5 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them.

Much of the money has gone to Islamic study centres: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies received £75 million from a dozen Middle Eastern rulers, including the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; one of the current king’s nephews, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gave £8 million each to Cambridge and Edinburgh. Then there was the LSE’s own Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, which got £9 million from the United Arab Emirates; this week, a majority of the centre’s board was revealed to be pushing for a boycott of Israel.

While figures since 2008 have yet to be collated, the scale of funding has only increased: such donations are now the largest source of external funding for universities by quite a long way. The donors claim that they want only to promote understanding of Islam – a fine goal for any university.

But the man who gathered the earlier figures, Prof Anthony Glees, argues that their real agenda is rather different: to push an extreme ideology and act as a form of propaganda for the Wahhabist strain of Islam within universities. They push, he says, “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor”.

This is not simply scare-mongering. The management committees of the Islamic Studies centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh contained appointees hand-picked byPrince Alwaleed. Other universities have altered their study areas in line with their donors’ demands. And it works.

A study of five years of politics lectures at the Middle Eastern Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford, found that 70 per cent were “implacably hostile” to the West and Israel. A friend of mine, a former Oxford academic, felt that his time was largely spent battling a cadre of academics overwhelmingly hostile to the West, in an ambience in which students – from both Britain and abroad – were presented a world-view that was almost exclusively anti-Western.

Although much of the money is claimed to be directed towards apolitical ends, this can often be misleading. The gift by foreign governments of language books, for instance, can have a significant effect on what is taught; in one case, the gift of an art gallery was found to have had a direct impact on teaching and admissions policy.

This is all so easily done because there is no requirement for serious scrutiny of either the source of funding or its impact on research. As a report from the Centre for Social Cohesion puts it, our universities “are now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder”. If the LSE’s actions have a saving grace, is that they could help to expose the wider scandal surrounding the behaviour of UK universities.

Beyond Libya, Howard Davies had never got to grips with the Middle East

In 2008, students and academics – including myself as Anti-Racism Officer of the Students’ Union at the time – raised concerns over a £2.4 million investment from Sheikh Abdullah al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates. In return, the university’s sleek new theatre was named after the late dictator, Sheikh Zayed.

The UAE is a country which denies citizenship to 80 per cent of its population, and hence most of the civil and human rights afforded only to citizens of the state. Moreover, Harvard’s Divinity School returned a $2.5 million donation after its benefactor, the Sheikh Zayed Centre, was linked to anti-Semitic and anti-American discourse. Davies was not ‘embarrassed’ by any of this. (source)

The London School Of Extremism

By Tom Wilson

A policy of free speech at all costs, even if it means incitement to hate, terror and violence, is an irresponsibly dangerous thing. Yet at least one might be able to respect the commitment to the principle behind such a policy. No such respect then is due to the London School of Economics. Under the guise of operating a free speech policy, it has opened its doors to countless hate speakers only to slam them tightly shut in the face of speakers that might offend certain benefactors and key constituencies on its campus.

Earlier this week the LSE German Society was scheduled to hold its annual symposium, the panel was to debate on the subject of multiculturalism and the integration of Germany’s immigrant communities. Included among the panellists was Dr Thilo Sarrazin, author of the controversial book ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’, or as The Independent described him, the ‘anti-Semitic Banker’. True, Sarrazin is a former executive of the German Central Bank. But the rest is utterly fallacious.

Curious how The Independent seems to rarely trouble itself with other genuinely anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate speakers that regularly find their way onto Britain’s University campuses. When the speaker is perceived to be of the Right however, well then it’s a different story it would seem.

As it was Dr Sarrazin and the other panellists never found their way onto the LSE campus because at the last minute the University cancelled the event claiming that there would be a security risk and that they could not guarantee that the event would proceed in an orderly fashion or that ‘free speech could be ensured for all participants’. So instead LSE decided to ensure that there would be no free speech for any of the participants. The idea that the small rabble of Leftist and Muslim protestors that had gathered outside the lecture theatre posed any real threat is simply farcical.

What makes the LSE’s decision so troubling is that when considered in light of the Universities track record a rather shameful pattern emerges. For instance when the anti-Western, pro-Terrorist, anti-Semitic newspaper editor Abdl Bari Atwan came to the LSE the university authorities boldly announced that they would be championing Atwan’s right to free speech despite the flurry of complaints they received about the event going ahead.

Similarly the LSE felt compelled to bravely guard the right of Colonel Gaddafi to openly speak his mind to their students via satellite video, regardless of his multitude of horrendous human rights abuses against his own people and his decades of sponsoring international terrorism. Same story when members of the now outlawed pro-terror group Al-Mujaharoun came to call.

Yet when it was the turn of the pro-Israel and anti-Islamist writer Douglas Murray to come and speak at LSE following Israel’s war in Gaza, LSE announced that it would be unable to ensure security. Why is it then that when those who champion murder and violence wish to speak at the LSE the red carpet is rolled out but that when those who speak out against extremism and terror are scheduled to visit well then the invitation is unequivocally revoked? What kind of twisted version of free speech is that?

LSE is sending out the message loud and clear; make anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist statements and we’ll mumble something about free speech and look the other way, but say things Leftists and Islamists don’t want to hear and you’ll be stopped in your tracks. With this ever worsening record on who it permits to speak from its platform and who it turns away, with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh among its alumni, it’s only fitting that the LSE should have earned itself the title, the London School of Extremism.

15 thoughts on “The LSE Scandal is Just the Tip of the Iceberg”

  1. I had wondered about Seif Gaddafi’s “PhD” from the London School of Economics!!

    Just goes to show – the Old Man’s money can buy ANYTHING!!

    I would love to see his Thesis and find out who wrote it……

    Though I wouldn’t be surprised if such a document is as much a fantasy as Obama’s entire “Academic” History & Birth Certificate!!

  2. Pushing islam in the universities

    Exactly what Bat Ye’or is explaining about Eurabia, in interview with Pamela Geller!

    This lady gives a good background to understanding what is going on on the worldwide scales. Bat Ye’or explains about how to make Western universities more islam-friendly at some point during the long interview, in this very chair.

  3. I still call it greed. Universities are no longer a place of “Higher” learning but places where Satan is at work. They are part of the problem in that their standards are no longer standards. They are the bottom of the pit. There are some dedicated people working very hard under difficult circumstances. Classics departments are having a battle to maintain ethical standards. It is just a mess. They have fallen so low. Shame on people like John Howard who started this trend. He was never a scholar and found it difficult to pass any of his Uni exams. Probably why he left the Law and became a politician. Politics is just one step lower than a Lawman. Look at the liar Juliet.

  4. Fitzgerald: Jihad of the Pen and Tongue from Within the West

    “British universities: seats of learning – and loathing:

    “Many British universities are breeding grounds for Muslim extremism. Islamic specialist Ruth Dudley Edwards explains why financial need and government interference have rendered academics oblivious to this threat to democratic society ”

    Hugh Fitzgerald | January 16, 2010

    Not a single “moderate Muslim” has yet been able to come with any texts that the “immoderate Muslims” rely on that are not the very same texts, in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, on which all the “moderates” rely.

    Not a single “moderate Muslim” has been able to tell us the precise textual basis for the actions and attitudes of a “handful of extremists” or those “violent extremists” or those “violent extremist Muslims” that is not identical to what “moderate Muslims” read. The real difference is that some Muslims are willing to take Islam fully to heart, and to act on it, and have made the decision that violence is the best or most effective instrument of Jihad, while other Muslims, though some lend considerable financial and diplomatic and moral and other kinds of support to those directly participating in violent Jihad, choose themselves to participate only indirectly, out of self-interest, or in some cases, choose other methods to pursue the identical goals that the “violent extremists” pursue: that is, a steady weakening of Infidels, that will lead, it is hoped, to their removing, under Muslim pressure (and as a result in some cases of their own naivete and confusion), all remaining obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, everywhere in the world.

    Nor do we find, in the Western world, a single government official able to find any convincing evidence, any textual authority, to support what is called “moderate Muslims” but those “moderates” may not be “moderate” at all, simply cleverer and more subtle in their choice of weapons. These Western civilian and military leaders, including those in the FBI and CIA, are often not used to thinking things through, but well-used to following orders and a politically-acceptable party line, and the party line today, in official Washington as in Official Elsewhere In The West, is simply to assume, to keep on assuming despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, that there must be a counter-argument, a counter-narrative, within Islam itself, there must be texts within Islam itself, that successfully refute everything those “violent extremists” do.nor a single credulous member of any Western government who believes deeply in this notion of “violent extremists” and will not, can not, come to grips with the ideology, not of something made up called “Islamism” (a phrase that Muslims themselves find comical, but are happy to use it for their own purposes if it keeps the Infidels sufficiently unwary, and allows Muslims time to establish themselves more firmly, so they think, in the West) but rather with plain old, unadorned, unepitheted, Islam, Islam, Islam.

  5. I remember University campuses in the 60’s were full of Palestinian sympathisers and moonbat left wing Professors , what do I mean left wing they were downright COMMUNIST. It has remained the same until today. So with countless thousands of Islamophile , Socialist brainwashed Graduates turned out over the years is it any wonder our Western Governments and society is in the mess it is?

    1. Yes indeed.

      It was mostly a blinkered view of Communism in the sixties. But the Pali-Arab-Muslim thing was just emerging after the 67 war. Before that, there were no ‘Palestinians’.

  6. I remember the UK university campuses in the ’60’s they were full of Pro Palestinian protests and Communist Professors brainwashing the students much as they were in the USA too. It has been the same ever since so no wonder Western Democracy is in the state it is as the brainwashed youth of the ’60’s are the ruling class of today. The Universities must be cleansed of all the left wing brainwashers or history will continue repeating itself.

  7. Thats right Sheik just as Islam was invented by Mohammad, Palestinians (AKA Mohammedan ARAB Invaders) were invented by paedophile pederast and thief Yasser Arafat who died of AIDS.

  8. Its a long held theory of mine that allah is just Mohammads ‘sock puppet’ a device he invented to fool the naive gullible 7th Century Tribesmen he lived among. Unfortunately for us there have proved to be very many 7th Century Tribesmen still around and lots of gullible naive left wing PC,MC moonbats to give the succor.

  9. One would have thought that the complete and total failure of 70 years of socialism and central planning in Warsaw pact countries, would have been conclusive scientific proof that socialism does not work. But they are still at it. Just like Muslims who always claim “this is not real Islam” after each murderous atrocity, the socialist Left claim that 70 years of socialism in all its manifestations, plus 40+ million dead, famine, Gulag, labour camps etc, was not real socialism.

    Heavens. If Germans could not make socialism work, how can the rest of humanity.

    1. The Germans had a good new start after the war. Adenauer & Ludwig Erhard were decent people, and for a while Germany was going in the ‘right’ direction. Then came the Fishers, the Schroeders and the Trittins, and everything started to turn into green-brown mud, with the unhindered Muslim invasion turning everything on its head.

      I’m not sure how the French slithered into this dilemma, it was certainly done by stealth. But in Britain the cat is out of the bag: Nullabor admitted that they deliberately tried to replace the natives with a Mohammedan proletariat. What’s puzzling is that there is no open revolt……

  10. Yes, plus the German nation carried a lot of guilt re Hitler and his Henchmen. They just tried too hard to be “really nice people”. Another social experiment to fail. France, Italy, the whole of Europe has slipped into the jaws of Islam. Look at the boatloads of mainly men in your photo, arriving by boat to Italy. The best the Italians can do is to get the GERMAN pope to tell the world he is praying. Well, how about a little leadership your holiness. How about taking a stand against the peril you and those like you who have helped put us in this mess. Take a look at your Christian martyrs each and every day. I suppose the duty of a Pope is to go to a private chapel in absolute luxury and the safety of the Swiss Guards surrounding you for protection, while you children in Ethiopia burn Sir.

    But, we have to be kind, we must not say things that may offend the very people who seek to destroy you too Your Holiness. For the love of Christ, do something, say something. Remember that old fella in Turkey who had his head cut off a few months ago. I have not heard you say a word about this Bishop your holiness. How about a little leadership and kindness to us, your people all around the world. You are supposed to be infallible – show me!

  11. Another thing, you are supposed to be Christ’s representative on earth. Really? No simalarity between you and Him or He.

  12. From Israeli news: Arutz Sheva

    Qaddafi Acted against Rebels ‘Just Like Israel against Al-Qaeda’
    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

    Read this one, I really didnt think Muslims had such a highly developed sence of Humour. Qaddafi Acted against Rebels ‘Just Like Israel against Al-Qaeda’ ? Food for thought.

  13. As salamaikum ,
    Sheikh , I am realy poor , don’t have nothing. No house . business , event no money. But I am honest . one leg is broken one road accident . —— next coming islam sium ( Ramadan). So I went buy food & new cloth . help me please . md habibur rahman.
    a/c ; 34005625 . national bank ltd . shajatpur branch . sherajgong . Bangladesh .

Comments are closed.