THOSE IN POWER DEFINE THE MEANING OF “EXTREMISM”
I noticed in the Guardian on the 23rd January edition an article by Peter Walker, the Political Correspondent, entitled
“New national security unit set up to tackle fake news in UK”.
The key extracts are:-
“The government is to set up a dedicated national security unit to tackle fake news and disinformation, Downing Street has said. The prime minister’s spokesman said.
One specific area agreed as needing new resources by the national security council as part of the NSCR is the spread of fake news, he said.
“We are living in an era of fake news and competing narratives. The government will respond with more and better use of national security communications to tackle these interconnected, complex challenges.
“To do this we will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation by state actors and others.”
The unit will “more systematically deter our adversaries and help us deliver on national security priorities”, he added, saying there was as yet no information on where it would be based or who would staff it.”
Here is a link to the original article >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/new-national-security-unit-will-tackle-spread-of-fake-news-in-uk
It is worth noting that Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “extremism” is:– “The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism”.
Anyone who is not a fully signed up multiculturalist or, to quote the Judicial Appointments Commission (on the requirement for judicial office in our cartel democracy), a person “who can demonstrate a life -long commitment to equality and diversity” should bear in mind what I explained in one of my previous articles called “Fight the Good Fight with all thy might” (here is the link >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/fight-good-fight-with-all-thy-might.html) when I pointed out that now even a scripturally based Christian has been re-defined by the British Government as an “extremist”!
Also the expression of any view at odds with the official one is likely to be classed as “offensive” just like the Electoral Commission calling our slogan “England worth fighting for” offensive. (click here for my article on that called “UK’s Electoral Commission rules that “England worth fighting for!” is OFFENSIVE!” >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/uks-electoral-commission-rules-that.html)
This means of course that we are now truly in a political landscape where it can rightly be called out saying what John Tyndall did years ago, that:-
“The first lesson is to realise that it is our lack of power not our so-called “extremism” that is the big deterrent and anyway what is “extremism”?
At different times across history extremism has meant different things.
So what has changed since then? Has the truth changed? Is what was true then no longer true now? No. What has changed is power. Power then was in different hands and that is what we are up against. Those who have the power today…. they are able to determine what is mainstream and respectable and what is extreme.
We have to understand that “extremism” is a meaningless term. It is entirely what the current makers of public opinion decide it will be. No more, no less.
Our activity must be geared to the winning of power. That still has to be said to some people… They are crusaders for the truth but they don’t relate it to necessities of winning power. It cannot be said enough.
‘Power is what must be won.’
First just a little bit of power, then more power and finally complete power.
Activity geared to anything else is a waste of time.
But we one day will be answerable to our grandchildren and our grandchildren are going to say to us when that great time of decision came what did you do? Did you give in or did you fight?
Are we going to say to them well the struggle was too severe. The odds were too strong. Perhaps we left it a bit too late. We hadn’t a chance and therefore we lost our country, we lost our nationhood?
Or will we be able to say to them with pride and honour I was one of those who fought and there were more and more who came and fought with me. I went off into the streets and worked and struggled for our Cause. We stood firm like the men at the Alamo, like the men at Rourke’s Drift, like the men at Blood River. We fought to the bitter end and we won!”
For original click here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlNtIMAdvLk
So it is worth bearing in mind that what is meant by the word “offensive” is also changing.
In the English Democrats Judicial Review Case in which we were judicially reviewing the Electoral Commission’s removal of our long registered description saying ‘England worth fighting for!’ They claimed this is now offensive. Evidence was produced of the Electoral Commission’s thinking which read as follows:-
“LE: I would retain all the descriptions except the ‘fighting for’ one. They all advocate support for England, which is itself exclusionist (ie, it excludes other parts of the UK). But favouring one part of the UK is an established policy position that parties can and do hold, not just in relation to England. If the slogans referred to the English I would be more concerned, as that is a distinction based on race. I don’t think you can read ‘English’ into ‘England’ in this instance. In my view the phrase “worth fighting for” is commonly used and understood in a non-violent context. Phrased like ‘ideas worth fighting for’ or ‘relationships worth fighting for’ are common (try a Google search), and would not be read to mean physically fighting for them. If this description was seen in the context of all the others, I think it would be reasonably clear its intention was non-violent. Seen on its own, however, as it could be on the ballot paper, I think that it is arguable that the only way to ‘fight for England’ is a violent or militaristic way. Seen on its own, I think it can be viewed as offensive in the context of this by-election. It’s the potential for that to happen which leads me to conclude that we should remove it.”
So it now appears that it is okay to say as one slogan does which is still registered with the Electoral Commission ‘Fighting for Wales’ and of course the Scottish Party is allowed to ‘Fight for Scotland’, but the English are not allowed to be “exclusionary”!
I produced evidence in court of the Oxford Dictionary’s meaning of ‘offensive’ which is defined as follows:-
1. Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed.
‘the allegations made are deeply offensive to us’
1.1 (of a sight or smell) disgusting; repulsive.
‘an offensive odour’
2. attributive Actively aggressive; attacking.
‘offensive operations against the insurgents’
2.1 (of a weapon) meant for use in attack.
‘he is also accused of possessing an offensive weapon’
2.2North American Relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game.
‘Shell was an outstanding offensive tackle during his 15 years with the Raiders’
But clearly the Establishment wishes to be able to re-define what it considers to be “offensive” rather than taking account of what ordinary people think or even what the Oxford Dictionary says that the word means! As per George Orwell’s 1984 “War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength!”
Welcome to the Age of “Cartel Democracy” in the UK where even our English language has been co-opted into the Cartel Parties determination to dominate us all and extinguish English nationhood. Who is willing to let them win without a fight?