To speak or not to speak, that is the question…
Given HART’s experiences on the receiving end of the Censorship Industrial Complex, we give a great deal of thought on a weekly basis as to what we may and may not say and write. We know that some of what we would like to put into the public domain would see us fall foul of external censorship; powerful vested interests can ensure we are not heard. Then there is self-censorship. There are many things we would like to write about but do not, because we can prove them on the balance of probabilities, but not (yet) beyond reasonable doubt. We are often conflicted on this, because the very point of the precautionary principle is that one should heed early warning signals. Caught between a rock and a hard place our action might cause our views (and means to disseminate them) to be shut down, but our inaction might allow harms to be perpetrated by others that we might otherwise hope to avert.
Concerns about censorship are one of HART’s raisons d’être, and we have written extensively on the subject. Unfortunately, we suspect that this file is not going to be one that can be closed in the immediate near future, and we have a series of articles coming out over the next few weeks and months that will explore this topic in a lot more detail.
Sometimes The Truth spills out in unexpected places, spoken by unexpected voices, written by unexpected scribes.
Consider Dominic Cummings, The Guardian’s favourite pantomime villain. Given his critical role in March 2020 in ram-raiding the ‘Trolley’ (Cummings’ nickname for Boris Johnson) into the UK’s catastrophic lockdowns, he is hardly HART’s favourite SpAd. It would be fair to say that on matters regarding lockdowns, masks, PPE and too rapidly approved and deployed injectable SNAPs (Synthetic Nucleic Acid Products), Cummings and HART are at opposite extremes. Bête noire Cummings has done almost more than anyone to inflict totally unnecessary collateral damage on the public at extreme economic cost, all in the name of ‘covid’.
Imagine our surprise, therefore to read the following from Cummings in a recent rambling blog post:
A Golden Rule of How Politics Really Works is that ministers are almost never live players, they’re the fake players while the permanent government of officials actually runs the show — but explaining this would break kayfabe*. Fake analysis, fake politics, fake government, fake news. You will learn more about how politics really works watching the Undertaker [a WWE** wrestling character] than the BBC.
* Kayfabe: ‘wrestling term used to describe scripted events and status quo of the company. It means keeping outsiders from knowing the inner secrets of the wrestling business’.
** WWE: the “wrestling business”, i.e. a scripted TV show.
Well, who would have thunk it? Politics is all show, the BBC is fake news and the official narrative is riddled with unexplained errors? Lockdown-implementer-in-chief Cummings manages to speak the truth out loud.
Chaos agent Hancock’s recent “make it up as you go along” appearance at the Hallett Enquiry springs to mind as a classic of this genre, as correctly pointed out by Isabel Oakeshott, who had the ‘pleasure’ of closely working with Hancock for much of 2022:
The key question is how play-acting politicians like this (the monkeys rather than organ grinders) manage to come up with such nonsense, and how come they only get limited pushback from the mainstream press? Is the Fourth Estate not supposed to hold these public figures to account?
All of this is galling for those of us with no voice at the time, who were desperately attempting to push back against the madness. Realists who were paying attention, will of course correctly point out that Oakeshott cheered on the lockdowns at the time. Is she now just taking her turn in the Kayfabe production?
Yes, of course lockdowns did not work… and we knew that before they were enacted. Even then, this is all just by-the-by: the fact remains that lockdowns are ethically and morally wrong.
None of this will be a revelation to readers of this article, but the implications – if taken to their logical conclusion – are profound, and explain a lot. Play the game – be that as pantomime villain, establishment lackey, plucky ‘Limited Hangout’ upstart – and get rewarded with a continued role in the Kayfabe production. Deviate from the script, however, and expect to have your bank account closed, your systems hacked, your party membership suspended, immense fines imposed, or worse. Even prior to the umpteenth exhibit of this (Nigel Farage having his bank account closed for reason of being a ‘Politically Exposed Person’ – I mean, what’s next? Will vicars be excommunicated for believing in God lest Satan be offended?), our ‘friends’ at Spiked Online accurately describe the pitfalls that await a society that tolerates such nonsensical censorship.
At heart is the realisation that it is not just a question of eradicating the physical act of censorship, as bad as it is. A much more insidious and evil practice seems to be rife, that of silencing a few outspoken people such that a larger minority choose to self-censor for reasons of self-preservation. The ‘official’ narrative – promoted by nefarious outfits – therefore prevails, unchecked.
So what is the truth, and who can speak it? While the answer to this question may not be clear-cut, one thing is absolutely crystal clear: if we are not allowed to talk about it, then it seems very unlikely that the mainstream narrative will resemble anything that is even remotely close to the truth.
HART has more to say on this matter, and we intend to say it.
