Because both Government and Opposition are pro-“The Great Reset” and “the Great Replacement”, both are riddled with agents of the Jewish lobby, both are pro-ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government], pro-NWO [New World Order] and in favour of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, and therefore both following exactly the same agenda. Understand now??
Not sure that I can agree with Hitchens. “Peter Simple”, whose stuff I occasionally saw in the early 1970s, always seemed to me to be a rather unfunny propagandist of a kind of faux-English suburban pseudo-reactionary mindset. Fake. At least, that was my occasional impression, a long time ago.
Ah, useful Wikipedia…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wharton: “Wharton was born as Michael Bernhard Nathan, the son of a businessman of German-Jewish origin...”
There are plenty of examples of socio-political madness at present in the Western world, not least the near-worship of the blacks (as in the “BLM” nonsense), and in respect of “the virus”. The former is nonsense partly because much of our present world has been created over the past few thousand years, and especially the past 600 years, by white European people(s). The blacks were and are mere adjuncts, bystanders, spectators, sometimes nuisances and, yes (and as the “BLM” proponents themselves say) sometimes “victims”.
As to the latter of my two examples, i.e. “the virus”, in some respects that seems to be a deeper-embedded sort of madness, perhaps because based on a deeper emotion— fear.
The Coronavirus or Covid-19 virus has (supposedly) so far killed somewhere around 2 million people in the world. That is about one person in every 4,000 people. In the UK, the death toll per unit of population has been far higher (taking the statistics as given, though they are obviously faked or wrong to a great degree). In the UK, there have been well over 60,000 people who have died at least “with” Coronavirus. That is somewhere around one person in every 1,000 people in the UK.
Conclusion as to seriousness: serious but not existentially so.
Conclusion as to measures taken: absolutely mad. Society has been crippled, normal life largely put on hold, civil rights abrogated, and the UK economy facing a very serious hit. A cowed and frightened population have been walking around (even on solitary country walks etc!) in facemasks (despite such masks being of doubtful use), and every kind of busybody and self-appointed guardian of public behaviour given loose rein. That applies also to the police.
Meanwhile, millions of people are all but abandoned by the NHS because their ailments (including the most serious) are priotitized as secondary in importance to the supposed battle against “the virus”.
The public debate, such as there is, is futile, because a huge propaganda campaign has frightened the unthinking mass of the people into imagining that their lives are in danger from this virus, whereas for 999 out of 1,000 people that is simply not so. Reasoned arguments from such as Lord Sumption, the former Law Lord (Supreme Court justice), cut little ice, because emotion almost always trumps reason.
Oh, well. In the phrase of the day, which so well sums up the present apathy and complacency, which applies in almost everything now (apart from the “panicdemic”), “we are where we are”…
On this Easter Sunday, let us not forget brave and persecuted satirist, singer and songwriter, Alison Chabloz, presently sitting in prison because a malicious Jew-Zionist cabal instigated a prosecution under the notoriously flawed Communications Act 2003, s.127.
It is to be hoped that Counsel for Alison Chabloz will soon be able to secure her release on bail pending appeal (to Crown Court) against an egregiously poor verdict and sentence by a magistrate. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen (if it does happen) before Tuesday [6 April 2021], at earliest.
His latest column: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2021/04/peter-hitchens-weve-seen-it-before-the-rape-culture-frenzy-will-ruin-innocent-lives.html.
That last is interesting as a metaphor. The same view, pretty much, that John Buchan, or Zuleika Dobson, might have seen before the First World War, or that others might have seen between the wars. Oxford now is hugely different (not just in terms of buildings but socially too) from both 1911 and the 1930s world of Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, from that of C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and the Inklings, but that view remains essentially the same.
When I was a (rather belated) law student, in the 1980s, there was being discussed the question of whether barristers would continue to wear wigs and gowns. The wisest answer came from a lecturer who said that the Bar would cast aside everything except the wigs and gowns. The outward forms would remain.
In fact, while the above has proven to be mainly the case (in Crown Courts especially), in County Court the judge has discretion to dispense with the old form of dress, and in High Court and other fora (particularly in commercial cases) the old form of dress is often not in use now (neither is it in family law cases).
Nonetheless, most people do encounter the practising Bar in Crown Courts, and there the old forms remain in force. The substance of the Bar has, however, changed out of all recognition even since I was finally (having spent time in the USA) Called to the Bar in 1991.
Looking at the UK, the same is true in many other ways. Look at, for example, the Monarchy. It looks, at least largely, similar to what it was in, say 1956, the year of my birth. In reality, it has changed to something rather different. As I have blogged on previous occasions, whatever one may think of the Queen and Consort, no-one could mistake them or their lifestyle for that of “ordinary people”.
When you look at Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward, there is less of the “royal”. You could just about (certainly in the case of the last three) imagine them living in some expensive part of suburbia, as part of (if the term now has any meaning) the rich “middle classes”, or indeed the “nouveaux riches”; or (as indeed is the case) living in Gloucestershire or Surrey, racing around in Range-Rovers, like characters in an “Aga saga”.
What about William and Kate, Harry and the Royal Mulatta? Notionally “royal” (in the case of William and Kate), but only in a “holding on by the fingertips” sense. Certainly there is nothing royal about Harry the “Royal Cuck” and Meghan the “Royal Mulatta” (who, not so many years ago, was actually married to someone else, a Jew businessman in Southern California!).
I do not want to be too hard on Harry. He obviously has emotional or mental problems, and was bagged by the Mulatta easier than the Duke of Edinburgh used to bag grouse, but he is basically now a peripheral nobody, albeit with plenty of money and still holding (so far) a couple of English titles.
William and Kate? At present still lined up to be King and Queen at some point, but I rather doubt that they will reach the finishing post.