This week, yet again the word extremism has raised its ugly head in its various myriad forms and crucially definitions.

The seemingly perpetual bogey men of IS or Isis or Isil, we can’t even agree an acronym for them but if you listen to our politicians they are the biggest threat to Britain since the Luftwaffe.

But of course t’was ever thus, right-wing governments need to create an enemy and inflate the danger it poses in order to drive through their oppressive attacks on human rights.

So, it was that on Monday, coincidentally on the day that serious questions were being asked about British personnel being involved in the aerial bombardment of Syria — without parliamentary approval — that Cameron chose once again to ratchet up the rhetoric.

Speaking at a school in Birmingham, Cameron yet again attempted the smoke and mirrors trick of announcing the effective crackdown on dissent and stigmatisation of huge swathes of the population as being vital to “protect” our liberties.

Even those espousing non-violent types of “extremism” could face lengthy jail terms under the new rules.

Which begs the rather obvious question: who decides what counts as extremism?

Anarchists have long been depicted as bomb-throwing lunatics, communists in certain quarters are still regarded as traitors and fifth columnists. Even the word “socialist” has been demonised and vilified in recent weeks as too extreme.

What’s extreme about wanting to help those less fortunate than yourself?

The answer of course is that it depends who you are talking to and what they potentially have to lose.

Of course the fanatical ideology that groups such as IS, Isis etc, etc are seeking to impose should not be dismissed, but a threat to Britain?

The only serious threat to this country at the moment as far as I can see is from Cameron and his pals and a large number of selfish idiots who voted for them.

Iain Duncan Smith is basically a fascist and the rest aren’t far behind him.

If starving the poor, demonising migrants and lining your friends’ pockets isn’t extreme I don’t know what is.

Likewise that fact that the cops can brutally assault a young black man and then leave him to die on a filthy cell floor before covering it all up and in most cases getting away with it is pretty bloody extreme but, as new figures showed this week, it’s still happening.

Speaking of extremism, you cannot fail to have witnessed the furore of claim and counterclaim, condemnation and obsequious mitigation that erupted last weekend with footage of the current Queen and her sister as children, along with the queen mother cheerfully giving Heil Hitler salutes to the camera in 1933, gleefully egged on by Edward VIII.

The attempts to justify the footage ranged from the argument that they were just children to claims that people were not aware of the full extent of the nazis’ plans at that time.

Yet others pointed out, probably quite rightly, that during the war it was commonplace for children to give “mocking” fascist salutes in the playground.

That is all very well except for a couple of small details.

While of course no blame can be apportioned to two small children playing what they thought was a game, it appears to have conveniently passed many people by that there were two adults there — at least one of whom infamously became a devoted supporter of Hitler long after the horrors of the nazi regime were well known.

In addition, even the bovine brainlessness and inbred idiocy so common in the Windsor clan could not have prevented them from knowing what fascism was.

Mussolini was in power and Mosley and his odious blackshirts had been marching through, and on several occasions being kicked off, the streets of Britain for years.

And let’s face it, it’s not as if this were an isolated incident. Half of the extended Windsor were married to or related to senior nazis.

They even went so far as to ban the production of anti-nazi plays through the royal censor, the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Cromer between 1933-39, even running them past the German embassy for approval.

The subserviently fawning claims that the royals should somehow be exempt from public criticism and scrutiny are frankly bollocks.

It is a pathetic throwback to the days when we the plebs were expected to tug our forelocks and not question our “betters” even when they were, as in this case, palpably reactionary idiots.

Congratulations Britain, you are free to do what they tell you.