Dangerous redefining of words by HM Gov
All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.
For those paying attention to the rising tide of totalitarianism here in the UK, the latest from The Ministry of Truth, AKA HM Government should really make your blood run cold. Michael Gove has now overseen the redefining of extremism.
It is not hard to see what is at play here. You sell the peasants an idea that they think they want. I mean, who wouldn’t like to stop extremism? Boo, we hate extremists. That’s a good thing right?
Well that rather depends on who is doing the defining of what constitutes extremism. In this case, Michael Gove. No it doesn’t leave us feeling reassured either.
In the latest egregious bout of trolling from HM Gov, it takes about 3 milliseconds of studying the new definition of extremism to realise that during the so-called ‘pandemic’, the government did precisely everything therein:
- negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others;
What, like denying them social contact, denying them the right to be with their dying relatives, forcing medical procedures on them in order to continue their job, denying them the right to earn a living, denying their rights of free movement, locking them in their homes and arresting them for sitting on a bench? That kind of thing?
- undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights;
What, you mean like introducing a brand new legal act (in spite of there already existing an appropriate instrument) that completely tramples parliamentary democracy, giving the sitting government the right to jackboot their way into people’s lives as outlined in point 1 above? Or like shutting down parliament entirely and cancelling elections? Or perhaps like Matt Hancock telling parliament that he had unilaterally decided to offer the pharmaceutical companies indemnity for their products.
- intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
What, you mean by censoring and smearing any opposing views, demonising anyone who didn’t get with the programme and creating an environment of extremism via a media monopoly that would have been more fitting in Mao Zedong’s China.
This upside down clown world is really getting too much. The government is now brazenly behaving like a criminal mafia gang. You do as they say, as defined by them, otherwise you’re an extremist. And you will be punished.
The boiled frog analogy seems to be a good one. What will it take for the British public to realise that they live in a liberal democracy in name only? The architecture being rapidly put in place is the polar opposite of a liberal democracy and if we study our history books, this particular trend tends to end very badly for the non-ruling classes.
