Cameron Must Go!

The following essay by Nick McAvelly is a follow-up to a November piece on David Cameron. It was originally published in a slightly different form at Patriot’s Corner.

Cameron Must Go!
by Nick McAvelly

David Cameron is a politician, so naturally, no one believes a word he says. That is the default position for the majority of British citizens, and what’s more, that distrust is justified. Cameron does not deserve to represent anyone in any capacity whatsoever, let alone be the prime minister of Great Britain. One of Cameron’s most obvious failures is his inability to understand the threat of Islam to the United Kingdom. Cameron is not alone in this, but there is an election coming up in May, so the least we can do is make Cameron pay. Here is what he’s said on the subject:

“I’m not a scholar of any religion but […] these people in Iraq and Syria doing these appalling things, they have nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace, a religion that inspires daily acts of kindness and generosity.” — David Cameron, 8th October 2014.

“They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people, Muslims, Christians, minorities across Iraq and Syria. They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims.” — David Cameron, 14th September 2014.

Cameron wants the British public to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Muslims of the Islamic State are not Muslims. Cameron has said that he is not a religious scholar, and that he claims no authority whatsoever when it comes to discussing religious matters. Very well then. If Cameron wants the British public to accept what he says about Islam and the Islamic State, then his only option is to present the voters with an evidential argument.

On 8th October 2014, Cameron tried to do just that. He said that he had met a fellow Tory at the party conference who happened to be a Muslim, and he liked the cut of her jib. This apparently led him to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. If anyone looks at this logically, it is easy to see that Cameron’s argument is a catastrophic failure. Let us grant that it is true that some Muslims’ behaviour is peaceful. It simply does not follow that all Islamic doctrines are peaceful. We can see here that Cameron has used three terms, but only two premises. If we express this logically, we have:

    Premise 1.   Some Muslims’ behaviour is peaceful.
    Conclusion.   All Islamic doctrines are peaceful.

Taking Cameron’s conclusion to be the universal affirmative proposition ‘All S are P’ we can see that the minor term of the syllogism he tried and failed to construct is ‘Islamic doctrines’ and the major term is ‘that which is peaceful’. The middle term is therefore ‘Muslims’ behaviour’.

For Cameron’s enthymemetic argument to make sense, he needs a second premise, and it must connect his middle term and his minor term in a particular way. It is a syllogistic rule that the middle term must be distributed (which means something is said about all the members of that class) in at least one of the premises. Since the middle term in Cameron’s argument is not distributed in the first premise (it is an I proposition), we can avoid a fallacy on Cameron’s behalf by making the second premise of the argument an A proposition. Cameron’s argument can therefore be laid out as follows:

    Premise 1.   Some Muslims’ behaviour is peaceful. (An I proposition.)
    Premise 2.   All Muslims’ behaviour is attributable to Islamic doctrines. (An A proposition.)
    Conclusion.   All Islamic doctrines are peaceful. (An A proposition.)

It is possible to examine the underlying form of this argument in order to test whether it is valid. Where the minor term is ‘Islamic doctrines’, the major term is ‘peaceful’ and the middle term is ‘Muslims’ behaviour’, the form of Cameron’s syllogism is as follows:

    Premise 1.   Some M are P
    Premise 2.   All M are S
    Conclusion.   All S are P

The mood of a syllogism is designated by the types of proposition that have been used. Premise 1 here is a particular affirmative I proposition, and both Premise 2 and the Conclusion are universal affirmative A propositions. So we can see that the mood of this syllogism is IAA. Since the middle term is the subject term in both premises, the syllogism is in what is known as the third figure, so the syllogism is of the form IAA-3. This is not a valid argument form.

It is a syllogistic rule that any term that is distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises. In Cameron’s argument, the minor term is distributed in the conclusion (which as we have seen, is a universal affirmative proposition) but it is not distributed in the second premise (where the middle term is distributed but the minor term is not). The argument therefore commits what is known as the fallacy of illicit process. Cameron’s logical error can be illustrated using a Venn diagram:

The second premise of Cameron’s argument is an A proposition (All M are S) which is shown in this Venn diagram by the part of M that is not S being lined (showing that it is empty.) The first premise is an I proposition (Some M are P) which is shown by the variable x in the part of M that is not empty and which is part of P. The conclusion of Cameron’s argument (All S are P) is not represented by this Venn diagram. This means that that the argument is invalid — the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

This is important, not just because David Cameron has made a significant logical error here, but because so many other politicians make the very same error. They point to one or two ‘peaceful’ Muslims and declare that Islam is a religion of peace. This is obviously one of the worst arguments in the history of human thought, and we all need to start saying that, loudly and repeatedly. And we need to hold David Cameron accountable for his failures, and vote him out of office in May 2015.

Read ‘The Cameron Analysis’ free on Kindle.

18 thoughts on “Cameron Must Go!

  1. While George Bush literally tip toes through the imported tulips hand in hand with his Arab prince in Saudi Arabia, Cameron does the same in Pakistan bringing gifts of outrageous British taxpayer fortunes as a love commitment to the “peaceful religious.” The Muslims are playing the only music their degenerate outlook on life allows. George, Obama and Cameron like violins and the rest of Christianities leaders like second fiddles. How long can this traitorous idiocy go on? It’s not cricket. Wot?

  2. This analysis uses a common sense argument based on Boolean logic. It is common sense to anyone with an elementary school education and by the time anybody who is not developmentally disabled reaches adulthood arguments such as this are both common sense and irrefutable. I’m sure that GoV readers will immediately see this. Yet watch as the liberal left refutes this pure logic anyway.

    The other side of the coin to this logical argument is akin to Alinsky tactics: Create a big lie and then use it as a shield from the truth. “That’s the story I’m sticking to,” as it were. I have given up on debating lefty ideologues for the purpose of swaying their opinion, I will however continue to debate them for the purpose of exposing their failed logic to undecided observers.

    When I share some unkown tenets of Islam with people who are uncaring or who are on the fence the response is usually in the form of, “I didn’t know that.” To which I answer with the question, “Then upon what did you base your opinion?” “Did you learn about Islam from Joe Biden? You could do a more scholarly job of it.”

    Ignorance is not evil, nor is it a crime. But it can be cured.

    • Indeed, we have to make the effort to expose their fallacies and outright lies. We have a window of opportunity, in my view, to attack David Cameron in particular because there is a general election scheduled for next May. So I think we ought to have at him, big style … and in the process, slip in a few subversive ideas that could have a long term effect .

      What I did in the essay I put up on Kindle was try to put together an overall argument, as follows:

      The conclusion that all Islamic doctrines are peaceful is not supported by Cameron’s argument.

      The conclusion that some Islamic doctrines are peaceful can be supported by a valid argument (the eagle-eyed amongst GoV readers will have recognised that Cameron’s failed argument is in fact of the form known as Disamis which supports an I proposition as its conclusion).

      By starting from the premise “Some Muslims’ behaviour is not peaceful” it is possible to construct a second valid argument, of the form Bokardo, which suports the conclusion that some Islamic doctrines are not peaceful.

      So, having started from Cameron’s position, we now have a situation where we can argue that some Islamic doctrines are peaceful, and some Islamic doctrines are not peaceful.

      How to make sense of this & explain what we see in the world around us today? The traditional Islamic principle of abrogation will do the job here – I lay this out, citing someone who definitely was a religious scholar, using the analogy of an abrogation ‘app’ that runs in the mind of the reader so that the surahs of the Koran can be sorted not according to whether they are peaceful or not, but according to the date when Gabriel is supposed to have revealed them to the world.

      We arrive at a situation where some Islamic doctrines are peaceful, some Islamic doctrines are not peaceful, and the principle of abrogation allows devout Muslims to decide which teachings they are going to follow.

      This is all perfectly reasonable, unlike the nonsensical jibber-jabber spewing from the mouth of the current PM. So – is is reasonable to vote for this man? No, it is not. Come May, he’s got to be handed his P45.

      I’ve taken the view that it is ‘reasonable’ to embark on a project like this, since Cameron is the PM, his words are in the public domain, and there is an election coming up – therefore the essay is legally defensible. However, I have taken the opportunity to slip in some ‘subversive’ ideas along the way …

      I have laid all this out in more detail (Venn diagrams included) in the essay which I put up on to Amazon (as a free Kindle book.) I’d be interested to find out what GoV readers think of my overall argument, as well as the initial look at Cameron’s nonsensical claptrap ..


      • When I say Cameron’s failed argument I mean of course the opening two premises, which are shown in the Venn diagram above – the A proposition ‘All S are P’ is not shown in that diagram, but the I proposition ‘Some S are P’ is. If you see what I mean … hence the premises don’t support Cameron’s conclusion, but they do support a different conclusion.

        And we can use that …

  3. Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservative party because he was a Blair clone and was pretty on television (he didn’t talk funny like Haig). He is not a Conservative and is not even conservative, he seems to have no opinions or direction of his own, and has been the leader of a Conservative party that has allowed tyranny to become firmly established in the country.

    This is the creature that has allowed Tommy Robinson to be Gaoled as a political prisoner, Yes Dave, a POLITICAL PRISONER in England, what a betrayal.

    I do not agree that his attitude towards Islam is based on ignorance, I strongly suspect that he knows exactly what the threat is, but he also knows which side his bread is buttered too, those nice retirement funds and ‘lecture’ tours…..

    This guy is a parasite, he has destroyed the Conservative party and has nurtured the ‘flesh’ devouring larvae of Islam in our midst, the worms are in the hive, and the hive will die.

    So all you Conservative MPs its time to dump Dave and do a deal with Paul Weston!

    • Tommy Robinson
      – Just a note on
      ….The Quilliam Foundation
      “A Renowned Think Tank”, according to MSM

      Another example of total ignorance, or a full lie, by the MSM?

  4. MCinSderot, well said. The frightening thing is that this socialist/ communist madness is pervasive throughout the Western world. Nothing will change until these communists are thoroughly crushed but that won’t happen until enough normal people want it to happen.

    • Yes. But people are waking up to the threat – the frustrating fact is that some people wake earlier than others.

  5. Cameron Must Go!

    I don’t think Cameron is the problem. What the one who replaces Cameron would be even worse, as the recent past has shown. The problem mainly is with the psyche, attitudes and morals of the elected. Voters bear the blame too. Why should they vote at all.
    White voters have no say in democracies. It is the muslim jihadis who determine everything. As a USA citizen said, “We no longer have control over the fate of our country.”

    How could Traitor Class be so anti-citizens and still be called democracy?
    And still be ruling over us. Who will remove them like Saddam and Qaddafi?

  6. Basic Islamic doctrine requires (1) death for apostasy and blasphemy as well as (2) the necessity of shariah’s supplanting of kuffar laws.

    Muslims adhere to basic doctrines of Islam.

    Therefore, Muslims believe in (1) killing other Muslims who want to leave Islam or who blaspheme by questioning Islamic doctrine, as well as in (2) the necessary extinguishment of Western nation laws and the creation of an Islamic theocracy in every Western nation.

    Keeping this in mind, consider that Cameron and his Conservatives work to ensure that the Muslim population of the U.K. increases and is supported with state subsidies.

    This is state-of-the-art political thinking in all other Western nations as well.

  7. Islam is not defined by whoever represents it. Islam is defined by Sharia law – the Koran, the Hadith, and the life example of Mohammed. There is no leeway. The teachings mandate violence towards non-muslims, and their subjugation as second-class citizens, with no freedom of speech, no freedom of conscience, and inferior status for women.

  8. I’m going to disagree with your logical analysis of Cameron’s argument. I don’t think it fits into a syllogistic format. For example, S in premise 2 is “attributable to Islamic doctrines,” while in the conclusion it reduces to just “Islamic doctrines.” Let me suggest a different way of reconstructing the argument, one that uses a second added premise and with a final conclusion that more faithfully reflects Cameron’s actual words:

    (Premise) 1. Some Muslims’ behavior is peaceful

    (Premise) 2. All Muslims’ behavior is attributable to Muslim doctrines.

    3. Therefore, there is a subset of Muslim doctrines that entails that Muslims’ behavior should be peaceful.

    (Premise) 4. If a subset of a religion’s doctrines entail that its adherents’ behavior should be peaceful, then it is a religion of peace.

    5. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

    This is a valid argument, I believe. By the way, statement 3 is merely a restatement of 2 in a more formal way. Cameron’s error, as I see it, isn’t one of logic but of accepting the premise in statement 4. As many of us have pointed out repeatedly, just because there are a few statements in the Qur’an suggesting that Muslims should be peaceful, that alone isn’t enough to make Islam a religion of peace. If there are many more statements demanding violence from Muslims, and if those statements seem more central to Islam, then it is ridiculous to say that Islam is a religion of peace.

    • Ah yes, but he also said …

      “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.” – David Cameron, following the murder of Lee Rigby.

      It actually became a lot easier to think logically about the issue, and to construct sensible arguments, with reasonable conclusions, once I moved on from Cameron’s anti-intellectual jibber-jabber. I’d be interested to know what you think of the subsequent arguments I put forward in my essay, which I made available for free on Kindle.

      Any rational person who hadn’t been brainwashed would think that none of this is necessary, and we could have simply got on with discussing the real issues re. Islam straight away, on Sept 12th 2001. But no – it looks like we really do have to waste time wading through the poisonous filth the political elite insist on sending our way in order to prevent an open and honest discussion of the real issues … it looks like we need to torpedo their ridiculous arguments & regain control of our own countries first, so that the truth can once again be spoken, and only then will we be able to make any headway.

      • “…the poisonous filth the political elite insist on sending our way in order to prevent an open and honest discussion of the real issues.” But there will never be an open and honest discussion of the real issues because such a discussion would bring about the collapse of the multiculti paradigm which in turn would bring about the downfall of the Traitor Class.

        They will continue doing what they do in order to maintain their place at the trough and will only stop when they are dragged away, kicking and screaming, and introduced to their fate.

    • The problem is not with logic. It does not mean that Cameron lacks in intelligence and if we present him with a logical case he will understand the problem and change his mind against islam and muslim jihadis.

      No Cameron and all western politicians know what anti-islam are talking about and why? They know about our worries of a near-future civil wars. Even a donkey today can predict that. It has started already in Sweden, Norway, Canada, Aussies, and these countries are making an ass of themselves and making themselves another Israel. The difference is that Israel has no choice being surrounded by beastly enemies. Why these “democracies” have the choice, and they have chosen to strengthen their enemy and enslave themselves.
      Reason: Some get money from muslim petro countries, some get employed by muslims like espositos, some do it just because they prefer to be slaves to others, they don’t want to think, ( servile genes, as Jane Austen mentioned), some just dread islam and have no courage to say no.
      This started 50 years ago: You can’t beat your child no matter how rude he / she is You can’t hang a criminal no matter how cruel, but find an excuse for his behaviour, no jail or punishment for politicians when they break laws and some “celebrities”; no respect to elders, or teachers, or authority. Forget about Christianity and Judaism and their teachings: they will corrupt you and distort your character, you deserve a philosophy more sublime than Christian religion: The religion of : ME FIRST. And I am the centre of the universe. but any other religion, is ok, especially islam.
      Anything goes : So Islam goes.
      In the sixties some teachers, principals brought poro magazines to school to “educate” the students. No one had the courage to say no and jail the perpetrators because of “freedom of speech and expression.”
      They lost the will to say no. They lost the will to say no to islam and its whims.
      When feminists stepped over the red line no one had the courage to say no. Ergo: no one says no to jihadis. or islamic banks.

      When islamic petro dollars were injected into western universities and turned them into islamic institutions no one can say no. Ergo no one can say no to islam. Lost the will to resist evil.
      Any vice film, or movie, debased and depraved was made and no one could so no. So when islam was invited with open arms no one remembered there was a word in English called “NO” NO NO NO to islam.

      Everything was promoted in “democracies” to make people zombie like: to spend brainlessly, to drink to excess, to start smoking, to party with abandonment, not to respect parents, to see any base, vulgar movie… just to make you spend and spend unwittingly, debt is not a shame, live in the now, wisdom is old-fashioned, don’t think about the rainy day, Result: Creating zombies, and zombies create millionaires, then billionaires.
      To be fair: Some billionaires made themselves through hard work and produced something we needed (e.g. PC).

      Voters without thinking. Elected ones without morals or conscience.
      The problem is jihad and islam. You can’t have muslims without jihadis and oppression. Islam is built on oppression of others. And it seems others are happy to be oppressed and dhimmis.

      If politicians would lose their jobs whenever they promoted islam, the islamic problem would stop. But actually now anyone promoting islam gets a well-paid job. (e.g. De blasio, Cameron)

      Muslims in the west have learned a valuable lesson: Don’t believe western politicians what they say during elections: What matters what they do and promote after elections.
      So when Cameron during election said that he would do something about immigration: muslims laughed at our stupidity when we believed him. He did something: He went to Pakistan with a fat cheque / check and facilitated granting visas to muslims only not the oppressed Christians and Hindus.

  9. good approach by nick m. cf:

    1. some muslims (followers of islam) are not terrorists.
    2. islamic doctrine, scripture, law and tradition preach terrorism (and murder and war).
    3. ergo: some muslims do not follow islam.
    4. ergo: some followers of islam do not follow of islam.
    5. ergo: all we need is 2. above.

Comments are closed.