Muzzles and facemasks
Peter Hitchens is right to keep “banging on” about all of the lies and mistakes around the “Coronavirus” situation in the UK. The virus itself is scarcely even an issue now, in reality, but the repressive measures taken to (supposedly) contain it are being strengthened even as the virus ceases to be present in much of the country; in fact, in many parts of the UK, “Coronavirus” has always been something happening to other people in other places, and read about in newspapers (if anyone still reads them), or seen on the —now terminally-boring— BBC News propaganda.
Thought about the UK and the whole “Western” world today…
“We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.” [G.K. Chesterton]
I have so little confidence in the cultural level of most British people today (I take no direct interest in most of the other rabble tribes that live on these islands) that I suppose that I should link to Wikipedia in case some people have no idea who G.K. Chesterton even was…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton
Some other tweets and news seen today
Now if only Stuchbery would stick to tweeting about this sort of thing, and drop the “antifa” nonsense…The tweet above is genuinely interesting.
“They” want their pound of flesh…
This is their solicitor, apparently:
A few blog posts about “Mark Lewis Lawyer”:
https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/11/update-re-mark-lewis-lawyer-questions-are-raised/
https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/mark-lewis-lawyer-latest-update/
It was obvious from the start that Keir Starmer is totally in the pocket of the Jew/Israel/Zionist lobby. His wife is a Jewish lawyer, and their children are being brought up as Jewish. I understand that they have “buy to let” properties.
Oh, this is Lewis on Twitter, by the way:
Please refer to the above-designated blog posts to learn more.
More about Labour
Under Keir Starmer, Labour has recovered from the Jew-orchestrated msm anti-Corbyn barrage of last year, which led to Labour’s opinion poll ratings bumping along the bottom, hugely behind the misnamed “Conservatives”. However that may be, Labour is still 5-10 points adrift.
I see little popular enthusiasm for Labour, even as this most incompetent government lurches from lie to stupid policy to muzzling the population to scandal to more lies. Indeed, Starmer has nothing to say except to say that the “Conservatives” should do what they are doing, but harder and better. Underwhelming.
Prospects in UK politics
It is clear that, despite a government so incompetent that even its own party members are disgusted by it, the Boris-idiot/Dominic Cummings regime is here to stay, at least for the next couple of years. The 80-seat Commons majority guarantees that, pretty much.
The Labour Party, like the Conservative Party, is now back under what amounts to Jewish lobby control or strong influence. Labour is now just a rubbish “alternative”. That was in most respects true under Corbyn, but at least Labour was to some extent anti-Zionist.
I think that my assessment of Corbyn, 4 years ago, has been proven correct: yes, anti-Zionist, but still willing to play the Jews’ tune when it comes to the “holocaust” farrago. Weak. Corbyn was also willing to see the UK swamped by the non-white “ethnics”.
Corbyn was at root not sufficiently or properly ideological. His academic record was poor, his work record almost non-existent. Apart from a couple of years bumming around aged about 19, mainly in Jamaica, Cuba and South America, he knows little of the world, as far as can be seen.
Also, Corbyn’s economic and social knowledge is very shallow. One of his ex-wives says that he rarely if ever reads a book. Any book.
Starmer? Well, as noted above, in effect a fully paid-up member of the Friends of Israel cabal, though he seems not to be on their official list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Israel#2016_onwards; probably a freemason too. He is an enemy of the British people from the start.
As it stands, Labour supports almost all the policies of the Boris-idiot government of fools. Hard to think what of substance Labour would change, were it in power, though Starmer is probably a better administrator than Boris-idiot. Well, that after all would scarcely be a difficult challenge!
Boris-idiot has no real ideas beyond schoolboy ones such as bridges across the sea etc. “Boris” has no idea how to administer anything at all, and has never done so. He is basically a part-Jew public entertainer whose jokes are rapidly falling very flat with the public.
The economic hit which is coming, largely because of the “lockdown” and facemask nonsense supported by both Government and Opposition, will strain the rivets of the society and state to the utmost over the next 2+ years. The NWO/ZOG System does not much care, controlling as it does the 2-3 “main parties”. The ZOG idea is “where can they (the voters) go?”
In principle, the answer should be “we need a social-national party”. The problems are that, first, the anti-democratic laws and institutions Blair laid down (Electoral Commission, Equalities Commission etc) make it almost impossible to have a functioning real social-national party.
Beyond that, one has to look at the British people. They are not at present the material from which a real party, such as the NSDAP of the 1920s, could be formed. They are mostly interested in those new opiates of the people, sports and msm “celebrity” nonsense. In some ways, we are in “Weimar”, but in other ways not.
I have, in earlier blog posts, set out my view, that the social-national elements need to concentrate in one area of the country, creating a Schwerpunkt. That may include the creation of a party, whether registered as such or not. A political party, however, cannot be the sole focus.
Alison Chabloz on Bitchute internet radio
An interesting discussion, conducted with Alison Chabloz and others, on one of the few social-national internet platforms of any value:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1aqSy1hh2KiF/
Ian Robert Millard 
So Peter Hitchens is not a fan of genuinely fair and democratic voting systems ie those which come from the family of Proportional Representation systems though I am not keen on the Irish Single Transferable Vote version because it uses a ranked ballot and I have concerns about the true fairness and political neutrality of that sort of mechanism in electoral systems.
Well, well, well, he IS a Tory after all and therefore sees a big potential threat to his beloved Tory Party from the increased competition for votes such a system would cause his party particularly on the Conservative Party’s ‘Right wing’ flank.
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk
https://twitter.com/electoral reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
LikeLike
Well, m’Lord of Essex, I imagine that Hitchens would deny that he has any wish to see the degenerate “Conservative” Party survive. Still, I myself am not in any way a “supporter” of Hitchens, though I think that he is basically right on the “virus” front, and a few other things.
LikeLike
Of course he would but then he has been paid handsomely for years by the Daily Mail group to raise issues of concern to people like immigration and then act as a political ‘gatekeeper’ by spewing lies about the ONLY political groups in this country that would take action on this ie nationalists like the BNP and others.
I think we can conclude he WANTS to see the degenerate and virulently anti-British Conservative Party survive.
Why else would he do his ‘gatekeeping’ activities in widely read ‘newspapers’ AND UTERLY FAIL to mention the SINGLE most important way they have FAILED during this crisis ie Priti Damm Nuisance’s COMPLETE FAILURE to impose ultra-tough travel restrictions to this country in MARCH?
LikeLike
David Adams has a real good point to make about our present archaic electoral system enabling huge ‘elected dictatorships’ on clear minority voting shares as even Tory Lord Haisham once correctly acknowledged and that this can mean governments instituting oppressive and stupid policies as this government has demonstrated with its very idiotic proposal to let in up to FOUR MILLION HK CHINESE on top of the huge levels of immigration it is already allowing. This is the kind of utterly reprehensible BLATANT ABUSE OF POWER First Past The Post not only allows but positively ENCOURAGES especially if a government has ‘won’ an ill deserved ‘landslide’ like Boris Idiot’s administration has done 🤬😡☹️😞
I don’t find the government’s response to Covid-19 ‘oppressive’ though just incredibly incompetent and they have acted too little,TOO LATE.🙄
LikeLike
Steven, I don’t think you or any other patriotic Englishman should worry about the potential 3.000.000 Hong-Kong residents that could be granted visas by Boris-the-clown. Unless I am wrong, and it is possible, since 1997 Hong Kong is part of China, and I don’t think Beijing will allow any mass migration as it would constitute a slap in the face.
More importantly, most Hong Kong residents enjoy a reasonably good standard of living, far superior to the average person in mainland China. Why the hell would they leave a racially and culturally homogeneous, prosperous society to live in the multiculti sewer of the UK? I don’t see any reason why many Hong Kong residents would like to move to the UK, unless they are decadent, cosmopolitan millionaires.
LikeLike
Yes, China now legally owns Hong Kong and this has been the case since the 1st July 1997 BUT the agreement they signed with us for the ‘handover’ to take place stated that China would allow Hong Kong to exist separately from the mainland under a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ mode of governance eg Hong Kong has it’s own judicial system etc still and this was meant to have been the case from 1997 until another 50 years had passed.
LikeLike
They have been having a lot of protests in Hong Kong and the reason why is because the vile Communist government in Beijing has been deliberately breaking that agreement they signed with us in 1984 and undermining the independence of Hong Kong far earlier than they should be doing ie in the year 2047!
Hong Kongers are attached to having far more rights and freedoms than the mainland Chinese have and this factor being destroyed by Beijing might prompt them to leave.
The British Tory government is repeating the mistake of Labour in 1948 when they gave British citizenship to the then millions upon millions of the British Empire. In the 1950’s the Tory government didn’t repeal Labour’s idiocy but said to Britons worried about a possible influx from places like Jamaica there is no need to be concerned as ‘Jamaicans won’t want to leave their sunny island for usually cold, rainy Britain’ They CAME anyway and this illustrates the point in that if you ALLOW people to come they MIGHT do so!
LikeLike
The ex Portuguese territory of Macau was returned to China in December 1999 and is also supposed to exist separately under this ‘One Country, Two Systems’ governance arrangement and that appears to be the case still. As far as I am aware, the Chink commie bastards in Beijing have so far not undermined this and decided against causing trouble for Portugal. No doubt they see the British government as weak and uncaring about the rights of Britons with regard to mass immigration so they think it is acceptable to ignore Mrs Thatcher’s rather naive and stupid agreement with them and might well view Boris Idiot’s stupidity as a good way of getting rid of the more criminal elements in Hong Kong and the ones that are too ‘bolshy’ in demanding rights and freedoms.
LikeLike
So Peter Hitchens is STILL ranting and raving about the fact the government has chosen to restrict people’s normal civil liberties for a TEMPORARY period until this Covid-19 threat is firmly in the past!
Words fail me! Yes, Peter, your use of the very specific word liberty in that tweet illustrates perfectly your stance on this issue. To you, ALL this crisis is about is about the LIBERTARIAN desire to do what YOU want to do WHENEVER YOU want to do it WITHOUT considering its effects upon ANYONE else. How selfish! How typically Libertarian but then absolute personal freedom AT ALL TIMES is that philosophy in a nutshell!
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex,
No matter how often you attack Hitchens, you and I will not agree about the “necessity” for either the general “lockdown” or the compulsion to wear facemasks or muzzles.
LikeLike
Peter Hitchens a vile and evil man who clearly doesn’t care at all about the health of other people and only wants to preserve the purity of his nonsensical libertarian political philosophy.
I think it is noteworthy that even in the land where this frankly very often utterly callous philosophy comes from ie the USA even President Trump is now starting to encourage people to wear masks!🙄🙄🙄🙄
Sadly, it has come too late for over 140,000 dead Americans!🙄🙄🙄
LikeLike
Peter Hitchens wants the government to do NOTHING at all. I have not seen any indication from him he wants them to take ANY actions to contain a virus which is highly infectious and therefore easily spread.
No doubt he thinks it is all a conspiracy of some sort! It might be news to libertarian idiots like him but governments DON’T order shut downs of entire societies for less than very good reasons!🙄🙄🙄🙄
LikeLike
This, m’Lord of Essex, has been not only a kind of global “pandemic” (albeit not a tenth as bad as predicted) but a global *panic* too. Governments (some of them) panicked. The Boris-idiot one panicked.
There is, now, no *need* to do anything much. The “virus” has swept through and largely disappeared. To the extent that it still exists here, it affects mostly people who suffer few if any symptoms.
It now appears that the “lockdown” has not “saved lives” but *cost* the lives of about 200,000 people…
The real crisis now is the economy. It is not far from actual collapse, largely *because* of the lockdown madness.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t he EVER complain about the SINGLE most important mistake this wretched ‘government’ has made ie their total failure to implement very tough travel restrictions FROM MARCH onwards?
Because as a Libertarian he sympathises with what amounts to the Conservative Party’s from the 1970’s onwards underlying political philosophy which is Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is the love of ‘personal freedom’ AT ALL TIMES and love of ‘small government’. People who espouse that philosophy make it a point of political purity to NOT control our borders because to control immigration and travel to a country IS one of the prime ways ANY government demonstrates its authority/power and the reach of it.
This libertarian philosophy is the reason the Tory Party talks about immigration control but doesn’t get around to DOING it which this crisis has demonstrated so well.🙄🙄🙄🤬🤬🤬😡😡😡☹️☹️☹️☹️😞😞😞
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex,
That aspect (travel restriction) was vital. *Now*, though, the focus must be on saving Britain from sliding into an economic and social pit from which it may never emerge.
LikeLike
Peter Hitchens sees a kindred libertarian spirit in the Conservative Party which should be renamed the Libertarian Party nowdays since not only does it have libertarian economic policies but has now clearly abandoned even the language of social conservatism let alone the realty of it as it is now fully in favour of social liberalism ie no real immigration controls.
The Conservative Party’s underlying libertarianism is why they are opposed to real measures to control our borders and combat illegal migration through a national ID card scheme as that in particular would be a potent demonstration of the British state’s reach and the willingness of that state to use its power/authority.
It is all about making a fetish of ‘small government’ for the sake of the principle of having a ‘small state’!
I would rather have a GOOD government whether it was small OR large!
LikeLike
Hello Ian: Just when you think you have heard everything. I am listening to an American Internet radio show and the lady mentioned that an obnoxious moron called McFadden who is the owner of a pub in St. Just, Cornwall has installed AN ELECTRIC FENCE to keep customers “at a safe distance”! What a paranoid maniac! I bet he is one of those snitching on people who do not follow the rules regarding “lockdown.”
LikeLike
Claudius,
Thank you. That eccentric pub-owner was in the news here a week or two ago.
I lived in Cornwall and then just across the Devon border (the River Tamar) for about 4 years (2002-2005/6). Eccentricity comes with the territory down there!
I used to stay at an inn on the Devon side, nearer to Exeter, after I moved to France in late 2005. I would sit at the bar on a high stool, and next to me, quite often, one of the inn’s cats, Basil, who liked me, sitting judicially on the adjoining stool. People sometimes even took photos of us.
LikeLike
Whilst that does sound a touch extreme I can see his point. Sadly, Britain is full of selfish, amoral, libertarian scum that have no qualms about ignoring and treating with contempt social distancing requirements because of ‘muh freedom’ and ‘my INHERENT RIGHT to do what I WANT to do WHEN I WANT to do it’ and basically f%ck everyone else and their heath. That is ‘Tory’ libertarianism and the kind of rabid individualism of that philosophy of Mrs Thatcher’s in a nutshell from the 1970’s onwards!😡🤬😞☹️
The consequences of Thatcherism are coming home to roost in this crisis and it is showing!
The kind of social solidarity as shown by the nationalist, non libertarian countries of Japan and South Korea is viewed with scorn by libertarian arseholes!😡🤬
Good luck to him and if he snitches then I wish him congratulations and yes I would do the same!😄😃😁👌😎😂😂😂😝😝😝
LikeLike
After all, as the ‘Iron Lady’ (shame she wasn’t particularly made out of metal when dealing with immigration or law and order though better than the present lot constituting the sick globalist joke of today’s Conservative Party) said, “There is no such thing as society” and that is a quote that will live in ‘infamy’ as President Roosevelt might put it for a very long time to come still!
LikeLike
Yes, it isn’t just your average lefty as shown by most on Twitter who is ok with TEMPORARY restrictions on personal freedom to comply with fairly mild social distancing requirements but ALSO those of us on the ‘Traditional Right’ of politics and those who could be described as being ‘Right-wing authoritarians’ of which I am a fully paid-up member of. Not that the blog’s readers would ever have suspected yours truly of being in that sphere of politics!😀😄😀😝😆😃😝😝😂😂😂😂😂😎😎😎😎👌👌👌😝😝😝😁😁😁😜😜😜😂😂😂😂😎😎😎👌👌👌
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ha, ha, you do know that the young chap above singing that iconic Nazi song ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’ would NOT be whinging about some fairly mild social distancing requirements set by his government that infringed his freedom!
The National Socialist philosophy wasn’t exactly at one with with the aims of libertarians!
The National Socialists were big on social discipline and social solidarity within what they defined as the German ‘volksgemeinschaft’ or German national ethnic community and one of their primary slogans was ‘The Common Good before the Private Good’.
Yes, I think it is true to say Der Fuhrer would have had no truck with libertarian viewpoints if this had happened in his day and no qualms about restricting the personal freedoms of Germans to protect the health of society as a whole and particularly the most vulnerable ie the old.😂😃😃😃😆😆😆😁😁😁😂😂😂😂😂😂😎😎😎😎😎👌👌👌👌
LikeLike
Ha, ha, I do not think that young chap in the YouTube video above singing the iconic Nazi song ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’ would be whinging about the loss of a small amount of personal freedom in order to comply with a few fairly mild social distancing requirements during a worldwide viral pandemic.
Of course, the National Socialists were not in agreement with the aims of Libertarians. They would have regarded that political philosophy as a degenerate typically rather ‘Jewish’ one that was born, unsurprisingly, in a country they rightly regarded as being too much under the influence of Jews ie the USA.
LikeLike
Ha, ha, I do not think that the young chap above in that YouTube video singing the iconic Nazi song ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’ would be whinging about the loss of a small amount of his personal freedom in order to comply with a few fairly mild social distancing regulations during a worldwide viral pandemic.
The National Socialists would not have agreed with the aims of libertarians. Indeed, they would have regarded that political philosophy with contempt and thought it was a degenerate creed, one that was typically ‘Jewish’ in inspiration and therefore not unsurprisingly born in the ‘Jewish’ USA – a country the National Socialists felt had too much Jewish influence.
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex,
Wearing a muzzle for the rest of one’s life for no reason other than to save the face of incompetent politicians and scientists is *not* “losing a small amount of personal freedom”, but becoming a serf for life.
LikeLike
It WON’T be for the rest of people’s lives. It is a TEMPORARY requirement for a few months until the threat of this very nasty disease is firmly in the past and can’t revive.
Yes, I am sure Boris wants to save face and I would be inclined to do that as well in his position but then I would like to think I had enough of a personal conscience and honour to have resigned as PM before now knowing I and my government had made an utter horlicks of the situation from day one and had 45,000 plus deaths on my record as PM.🤬😡☹️
There IS some medical evidence to wearing masks as well.
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex:
Income tax was supposed to be temporary, too…
There is no immediate prospect of a vaccine. The virus may and probably will mutate anyway. Also, who knows what the Chinese will spread to us next year, or the year after?
Anyway, this facemask nonsense is 90% political, not medical.
LikeLike
The National Socialists were supporters of discipline in society and supported social solidarity within what they called the German Volksgemeinschaft or German national ethnic community.
One of their main slogans was ‘The Common Good Before The Private Good’ Yes, I think it is evident they would have viewed calls for ‘muh personal freedom’ during a worldwide viral pandemic as the height of selfishness and social irresponsibility and they would have condemned it strongly.
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex,
I should hope that doctors and leaders of politics in a social-national Britain will be able to distinguish between a real emergency and one which is mainly the projected fear of the population whipped up by a mad or incompetent government (as now…)
LikeLike
People like Peter Hitchens would have been imprisoned or even executed for his writings on this subject!
Yes, I think ‘Der ‘Fuhrer’ would have had no qualms about restricting personal freedom in order to protect the health of society as a whole and that of the most vulnerable ie the old, infirm, the disabled, the blind, the deaf, the very poor etc.
LikeLike
Willingly break social distancing requirements in Nazi Germany and you would have been snitched by an army of volunteers to the Gestapo!
Of course, Der Fuhrer, unlike Priti Useless😡🤬☹️🙄🙄🙄 was a great believer in tough immigration controls and therefore would have tried to prevent the pandemic entering the Fatherland in the first place or to get worse by imposing hardline travel restrictions to Germany if airports had existed much in his era.😎👌
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex,
As you say, there should have been a travel ban on incoming travellers in March or April.
Now we have the absurd law that, from Friday, people will —pointlessly— have to wear facemasks in shops, despite the fact that hardly anyone is dying from the virus or even with it, but *not* wear facemasks in pubs or restaurants!
LikeLike
Neither you nor Peter Hitchens would make light of the fact if one of your relatives had died of this Covid-19 viral pandemic. Also, we need to remember that doctors tell us that even those lucky enough to survive the disease run a greater risk of suffering permanent lung damage and I think heart problems though I am not sure on that last point. This just goes to show what a nasty and dangerous disease it is and why governments and societies must take it seriously. IF ONLY Boris-Idiot and company HAD done that from February onwards!🤬😡☹️
LikeLike
M’Lord of Essex: I could prevent all or almost all serious injury and fatality from car accidents by the simple step of requiring all vehicles to travel at a maximum of 15 mph. No exceptions. Unfortunately, that would, apart from being an egregious restriction on civil liberty, also cripple the country economically and socially. I think that you will get my point…
We shall not agree on facemasks, lockdown/shutdown etc.
LikeLike
Some libertarian extremists whinged in the early 1980’s about the British government making it a legal requirement to wear seatbelts in the early 1980’s but now virtually no one apart from Peter Hitchens perhaps thinks doing this is a massive infringement of personal freedom by government and they don’t have a problem with putting on their seatbelt as soon as they get in their cars.
LikeLike
The difference between facemasks and seatbelts is that, yes, seatbelts are an infringement on liberty but at least their efficacy is proven. Even specialists in viral transmission are not in agreement as to the positive and negative effects of wearing a muzzle.
Also, you have a choice as to whether you go by car or not, up to a point. You have little choice in whether you go out to shops, unless you get everything online, as perhaps more people will, now.
LikeLike
I think we should have a ‘lockdown’ every year! We can think of it as a national training exercise to inculcate some much needed personal discipline in society seeing as we don’t have the more natural training aids in this regard of well disciplined societies like Singapore with their capital and corporal punishment, state school discipline and mandatory national service in their armed forces.
Let us crack that whip and get disciplined as a country as we used to be with the low crime rates to match!😂😎👌😁😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😝😝😝😎😎😎👌👌👌😂😂😂😎😎😎
LikeLike