However, by reading between the lines and taking a look back at previous Government reports published on the subject over the past few years, it’s impossible not to conclude that the UK Government is looking to label any dissenting view to the official narrative as extremist, such as opposition to Covid-19 restrictions, all in order to maintain its power through ‘Groupthink’ and turn the United Kingdom into a communist society without anybody even realising it has happened.
Dame Sara Khan, the Government’s Independent Adviser for Social Cohesion and Resilience, has launched an 8 week call for evidence that will help examine the impact, harm, and response to extremism at a local level.
The Government’s adviser wants to hear directly from those who have been targeted by extremists to understand the impact on their lives and the support they received. As well as representatives from local councils and civil society, members of the public are being asked to explain what has gone well and what more could be done. These responses will help her understand the impact extremism is having at a local level and what could be improved to protect and build up social cohesion.
The Government says that “responses will help develop Sara’s independent recommendations on how the government can better support and protect victims of extremism and those working to stamp it out, as well as communities that are affected.”
The call for evidence opens on 7 April 2022 and closes on 2 June 2022.
Dame Sara Khan, Independent Adviser on Social Cohesion and Resilience, commented on the call for evidence:
“I have been asked by the Prime Minister to examine what more is required to protect social cohesion and build resilience against extremism at a local level.
“I will be seeking to hear from victims of extremism whose life-changing experiences are often unrecognised and from local authorities and communities who play an invaluable role. I will be taking an independent, impartial and evidence-based approach and I want to hear from all those who have experience of these issues. This public consultation will give everyone an opportunity to contribute.”
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities Kemi Badenoch said:
“By sharing your views, you will be helping ensure that our work to tackle extremism continues on the right track – so that risks in our communities are easily recognised and swiftly dealt with, and we can build resilience and promote social cohesion.”
Jo Broadwood, CEO of ‘Belong – The Cohesion and Integration Network’ said:
“Belong’s own research has shown that local areas that prioritised social cohesion prior to and during the pandemic maintained stronger social connections, trust, neighbourliness and more positive attitudes towards others during the crisis. As such, actively attending to and maintaining social cohesion is a vital part of building social capital and supports communities and places to be resilient to the forces of division and polarisation, including violent extremism.
“It is vital that we understand cohesion in this broader sense. We therefore welcome this call for evidence and encourage all those with a concern for building a more cohesive, inclusive society to respond.”
But what exactly is ‘extremism’? And what do the Government and its advisers mean when they say ‘social cohesion’?
The term ‘extremism’ is primarily used in a political or religious sense, to refer to an ideology that is considered (by the speaker or by some implied shared social consensus) to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of society.
Here in lies the problem. Who exactly is it that decides a certain view point is considered extreme? Who is setting the mainstream attitudes of society?
If the pandemic of dictatorial tyranny that swept across the world in March 2020 has taught us anything, it is that it is the television in the form of propaganda published by TV news, mainly the BBC, that sets the mainstream attitudes of society.
The majority of humanity has been so well trained to obey authority that it is now incapable of free thought and afraid to ask questions. Never before have we seen such docile conformance to words echoing from the speakers of a television screen as when the Prime Minister of the UK announced in March 2020 that he had “one simple instruction” for the British people… “You must stay at home”. But Mr Johnson spoke through the ‘telescreen’, and the nation listened.
Within an instant the UK economy came to a halt, without question, all because a man, in a suit, on the TV said it should. Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed their doors to customers and staff. Schools and nurseries closed their doors to children, which in turn lead to parents being unable to work because they could not find care for their children. Unless of course the man, in a suit on the TV told them that there job was deemed essential, in which case it was fine to send their children to school and go out to work.
“Three weeks” was what the man, in a suit, on the TV said the country needed “to flatten the curve,”. But three weeks turned into five weeks, which turned into eight weeks, which turned into fourteen weeks. We wonder how many would have complied for so long with an instruction given to them by a man, in a suit, on the TV if it had not been for another man, in a suit, on the TV promising to subsidise up to eighty percent of their wages for sitting at home and not working?
We bet the authorities could not believe their luck at how easy it was to get the vast majority of every man and woman in the land to obey an instruction that was emitted via the telescreen, and boy have they made the most of it ever since.
However, not everybody falls for the trap of being told what to think or do by the mainstream news. But as we well know, those views are not allowed to be voiced in the mainstream. Many were opposed to the introduction of a lockdown, but they were not allowed to be heard. And if they were heard, they were labelled an extremist.
You only need to read an official UK Government report published in March 2021 to know that.
The ‘COVID-19, Disinformation and Hateful Extremism’ report was authored by Kate Cox, Theodora Ogden, Victoria Jordan and Pauline Paille and was prepared for the Commission for Countering Extremism.
The Executive Summary reads as follows –
This study explores hateful extremism within society during COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, disinformation and hateful extremism. Pandemics are inherently fast-moving and information is constantly evolving, creating opportunities for hateful extremist groups to spread doubt, fear and suspicion among the public. Forums such as 4Chan and Reddit are hubs for real-time debate, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Similarly, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube play a role in generating and amplifying false information. During lockdown and with rising unemployment, more people have been spending time at home and online, with greater exposure to false information and hateful extremist narratives.
Particularly in the COVID-19 context, it is important to ensure that today’s digital generations are equipped to identify hateful extremism and false narratives in order to build societal resilience. As COVID-19 presents an unprecedented challenge and a catalyst for false information, this rapidly developing area requires research input. There is a need to consolidate existing research, better understand the evidence base and address gaps to inform primary research, policy planning and decision making.
This is an official Government document essentially admitting that anyone who disagrees with the Governments official line on Covid-19 is spreading false information and conspiracy theories, and claims that anyone who encourages people to research and question everything and come to their own conclusions, is in fact part of a hateful extremist group that is spreading doubt.
Which brings us nicely to exactly what the Government and its advisers mean when they use there new favourite phrase ‘social cohesion’.
Social cohesion refers to the strength of relationships and the sense of solidarity among members of a community. It is defined as the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper. It is enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community.
So social cohesion is in effect communism.
Communist ideology emphasises the development of a “New Man”—a class-conscious, knowledgeable, heroic, proletarian person devoted to work and social cohesion.
In communism, there are certain laws and goals which determine resource and responsibility allocation. If the citizens abide by these laws, this leads to a harmonious spirit of sharing one goal. Allegedly this is supposed to build stronger social communities and an even stronger economy.
The problem with this is that it is the Government who sets that one goal and defines what the socially acceptable view is with the help of the television screen. And what we are now seeing with this new call for evidence on “extremism” is the Government attempting to cement the unbelievable compliance to ridiculous policies implemented since March 2020 for years to come.
How are they going to do it? By using the psychological phenomenon known as ‘Groupthink’.
Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people. Therefore, the Government wants to ensure people are scared to air their “dissenting” views in public.
The presence of the following antecedent conditions can lead to groupthink:
(a) High Cohesiveness within the group
(b) Insulation of the group from outside sources of information
(c) Lack of methodical procedures for information search and appraisal
(d) Directive Leadership
(e) Homogeneity in members’ backgrounds
(f) A high stress situation with little hope of finding a better solution than the one advocated by the leader.
(g) The absence of disagreement (conflict, hostility)
One of the main mitigations used to avoid Groupthink materialising is the use of the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ role. The Devil’s Advocate role is that of a person who takes a position for the sake of fostering argument and conflict and is one of the oldest tools that can be used to mitigate the groupthink bias.
This is the role the mainstream media should be playing. But you will no doubt have noticed the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ role has been entirely absent when it comes to any policy relating to Covid-19. So absent that they instead played the role of enouraging further and more Draconian restrictions.
But the Government cannot necessarily rely on the mainstream media to continue to ensure the public remain in a state of Groupthink off their own back. So instead what the Government is looking to do, with this new call for evidence, is label any dissenting view as extremist. This will then give the mainstream media a bit of a nudge and ensure they refuse to play ‘Devil’s Advocate’; because they will in no way, shape or form wish to be seen condoning “extremism”.
If you do not want to live in a world where any dissenting view is considered extemist and therefore shut down to maintain “social cohesion” (communism), then we strongly suggest that you respond to the call for evidence before it closes on 2 June 2022.
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post