Tag Archives: Enoch Powell

Diary Blog, 16 March 2021

Music

[“At the end stands— Victory”…]

Alison Chabloz

The persecuted satirist and singer-songwriter, Alison Chabloz, will be in court tomorrow on first appearance in respect of a charge under Public Order Act 1986. From what little I have heard, it sounds like a nonsense charge, but I await developments. In the meantime, I wish her well.

Alison Chabloz also awaits trial, set down for 2 days (30-31 March 2021) on a charge under the notorious bad law of the Communications Act 2003, s.127.

Tomorrow’s hearing, and also that trial at the end of the month, will be at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Marylebone Road, London.

[Alison Chabloz]

I wish her good luck and, above all, victory.

Tweets seen

That would be highly unlikely!

What is now happening is of course terrible, and is closely connected with the upcoming very significant year 2022, the latest since 1989 in the 33-year cycle.

By grace of God, there may be a way to turn all of it to the Good in the end.

Eliminate such exploiters.

The suppression of truth is what the Jew-Zionist element has been trying to accomplish, for decades, in respect of the “holocaust” farrago, and in particular the “gas chambers” nonsense.

The Camel and the Needle’s Eye

I am told that the book is interesting. Read it for free here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/60379/60379-h/60379-h.htm

The author was opposed to war with Germany both in 1914 and in 1939, and therefore was also opposed to Churchill taking over as Prime Minister in 1940 (there was no General Election): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ponsonby,_1st_Baron_Ponsonby_of_Shulbrede. A rare politician of principle.

Mark Collett

I happened to be alerted to the following GAB post written by Mark Collett of Patriotic Alternative: https://gab.com/MarkCollett/posts/105900556944266277.

Perhaps not hugely interesting, but I agree with it; hard to see how any intelligent social-nationalist could take issue with it.

More tweets seen

I blogged about nonsense of this sort a couple of years ago: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/11/15/when-reality-becomes-subjective/.

There will probably be an all-out war with China (NATO v. China) sooner than we think. That war may well devastate the USA and Europe. It will be terrible, but also may give the post-Aryan European people the possibility of joining with Russia afterwards, in order to create a new society across Eurasia…and a future super-race.

If he feels so strongly about such bad behaviour, Goodwin should have a word with the officials of the small but well-funded Jew-Zionist cabal known as the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”. They and their members have been trying to ruin people’s businesses, professional practices, academic careers etc for years, all the while playing the Jewish “victim”… The same applies to other basically Jewish groups such as “Hope not Hate” and its smaller copyists.

Diary Blog, 27 December 2020, including some thoughts about IQ, EQ, education etc

Funding of a social-national party and movement

I noticed that one of my first few blog posts, from four years ago, has had some hits today. I have just re-read that post, and have nothing more to add to it: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2016/11/19/problems-of-finance-in-social-nationalist-politics/

Christopher Langan: IQ and EQ, Nature v. nurture

I was sent this Wikipedia material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan, which is biographical detail about someone who has had some of the highest I.Q. test results ever recorded; between 195 and 210.

My own I.Q. was once (long ago!) tested at 156, which is considered high, the global average being taken to be 100. The average for UK university students is supposed to be 125 (though I am citing a figure from the 1980s, before “everyone and his dog” went to a “university”, so the average for students must surely be lower now…). I believe that the British “dating club for eggheads”, MENSA, takes candidates with I.Q. levels above 140 or 142 (I cannot recall exactly, offhand).

That Christopher Langan biog. is an interesting read in terms of the “Nature v. nurture” debate. As Wikipedia notes, it is interesting to speculate as to whether Langan would have had a very different (easier? Less turbulent?) life had he had such background (and family wealth) as the Jewish scientist, Oppenheimer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer].

As far as Langan himself is concerned, Wikipedia says that: “Langan’s IQ was estimated on ABC’s 20/20 to be between 195 and 210,[2] and he has been described by some journalists as “the smartest man in America” or “in the world”.[3][4][5][6]” and adds that: “Langan has developed an idea he calls the “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU)[3][6][8] which he maintains “explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase”.[9] He calls his proposal “a true ‘Theory of Everything‘, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler‘s ‘Participatory Universe‘ and Stephen Hawking‘s ‘Imaginary Time‘ theory of cosmology”[3] additionally contending that with CTMU he “can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.[1][4] “

Langan has socio-political views which would —and perhaps do— enrage the Jews and their “antifa” dupes:

Langan’s support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement (Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU) and the white genocide conspiracy theory, as well as his opposition to interracial relationships, have contributed to his gaining a following among members of the alt-right and others on the far right.[10][11] Journalists have described certain of Langan’s Internet posts as containing “thinly veiled” antisemitism[10] and making antisemitic “dog whistles“.[11]” [Wikipedia]

Hard for the sort of mediocre, self-describing “Left” Twitter-twits and/or Jews often noticed to describe someone such as Langan as “a knuckledragger”, but no doubt many would still do it. They certainly do it to other intelligent and well-educated social-national people; they have done it even to me! Fortunately, such ignorant critics are irrelevant both to me and general society.

High IQ is better than low, but high morality (in the sense of the Good, or compassion etc) is more important, or equally important; perhaps more important. We are used to thinking, perhaps from popular thrillers etc, of “clever” and “bad” as going together, whereas “bad” often goes with stupidity, in fact. The future must be both “clever” and “good”.

Nature v. nurture. A debate which has been lively since the time of Darwin, and arguably since much earlier times. The Jesuits said, following no less than Aristotle, “give me the child until he is seven, and I shall give you the man.”

Rudolf Steiner was right to place education in the forefront of society. The German National Socialists, with very different aims and methods, did the same. As did the Soviet Union. None was 100% “right” in terms of what was done. Even Waldorf (Rudolf Steiner) schools are subject to criticism, sometimes ill-founded, sometimes not.

Whatever one may say about different forms of education, there is no doubt that, in the wider sense (meaning upbringing from birth, as well as more formal education), it is key to the future of the whole world.

People vary widely in their abilities. It should be the job of educationalists to discover what abilities a child has, and then to nurture them, both for the good of the child and for the good of society. Vocational dissatisfaction is at the root of many of the ills of society.

Also, it is not just a matter of stuffing the child with as much knowledge as possible, important as that may be. “EQ” (emotional intelligence) must run alongside I.Q. This idea is not new. After all, in exaggerated form it appears in Tom Brown’s Schooldays:

If he’ll only turn out a brave, helpful, truth-telling Englishman, and a gentleman, and a Christian, that’s all I want.” [Squire Brown explains his expectations of a Rugby education in Tom Brown’s Schooldays][https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/thomas-hughes-tom-browns-school-days.html].

That formula, however, all but chucks out the idea of “IQ” and an education of facts. It is more akin to the basic National Socialist education of 1930s Germany. Not for nothing did Hitler admire the Boy Scout and Girl Guide movement of Baden Powell, and emulate it via the Hitlerjugend and Bund Deutscher Mädel.

The better ideal takes into account both the formation of intellect and the formation of character, including that of helping others: Durch Mitleid wissen (“Through compassion to knowledge”, the motto of the Knights of the Grail).

I wish that the “educational debate” in the UK were more about the themes noted above, and less about meaningless “grades”, “degrees” etc; and far less about “equality” (whether absolute or “of opportunity”).

Tweets seen

I wonder what it would take to “raise the sense of personal threat” felt by members of “SAGE” (aka “DUMB”, the Department Under Matt and Boris”)? Or MPs, for that matter…

Of course, many MPs have contracted “the virus” and are still around. Are they incapable of learning?

Britain at the end of 2020

Image

Image

More tweets

Yes, that is right. As Hitchens says; 1998, not 1997, I think. I remember reading about it, in an overpriced Sunday Times bought when I was living in Alexandria in early 1998.

Peace at any price…in 1997, the USA had its own agenda anyway. From the USA, the UK seems very much a sideshow (part of Europe/Eurasia), so Northern Ireland is “a sideshow of a sideshow”…

Ten persons, only two (or —unclear—four) of whom are white Northern Europeans. Britain’s crippled near future?

Load up“…

That sort of pseudo-SWAT militia is more now in evidence than previously. In the 1990s, they were mainly seen around Heathrow, often with smug semi-smiles on their faces. I often used to wonder what would happen in the event of a real terrorist outrage. Would the “robocops” really open fire with their Heckler & Kock MP5s? In a crowded terminal?! As seen often on Twitter, “genuine question”…

Having driven extensively in both Greece and Turkey (and in the Northern part of Cyprus), I am both unsurprised and (because I like the tweets of “European Housewife”) disinclined to comment!

I remember tweeter “Manon des sources” from when I had a Twitter account. She used to retweet my tweets occasionally.

Ah. If it is true that Ferguson is talking with (conspiring with?) Blair, then it becomes clear why Ferguson is still given a clear run on the BBC…

Yes. The police have largely become an alien invasive force obsessed by “anti-racism” and other current shibboleths. They seem (often) to have forgotten that their job is to serve the British people, not alien and/or special interest groups. I have blogged about my own experience: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

There has been a backlash, though. I notice that in Hampshire, where I live, the police command has decided to close a number of the local police Twitter accounts. Most were in fact interesting and informative, but I saw a couple which were obviously out of control. One was (it is not now tweeting and will be closed within a week or so) “@WatersideCops”, covering the western shoreline areas of the Solent, close to Southampton. That Twitter account was always pumping out propaganda about various things, particularly “racism” against “Roma” gypsies and so-called “travellers”, i.e. the caravan-dwellers once known as “tinkers”. Ironic, in view of the crime profile of the area (and areas around).

Often, though not always, civilian employees of the police are to blame for nonsensical tweeting.

Oh well…”Waterside Cops” will soon have to stop tweeting nonsense and start doing their real job better.

[Update, 2 January 2021: as of 29 December 2020, “Waterside Cops” were still threatening people who mocked their silly tweets! See below:

Nothing since then, so it looks as though the above silly and impotent tweet, posted not long before midnight —hm…—, will be the swansong of “Waterside Cops” on Twitter. Byeee!]

I suppose that I should not say more at present about the continuing persecution of the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, the complaints against whom (like the malicious Jew-Zionist complaint made against me in 2017) have mostly been made by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” in the person of Stephen Silverman of South Essex. Alison comes up for trial at the end of March 2021.

One has to ask, in general terms, how it is that a tiny fanatical pressure group has in recent years exercized such influence over the police of London, Essex, Derbyshire etc. Also, how it is that these Israel-fanatics are apparently welcome on LBC, Sky News etc. Well, I suppose that it depends on the (((political editors))) and on their (((bias)))…

More tweets

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6451027/PETER-HITCHENS-suffering-Enochs-craziest-cruellest-idea.html]

Well, Enoch was right, in principle, about mass immigration, but as to mental hospitals, may or may not have been right. It is a complex problem. I agree, though, that he was, for all his erudition, often vain and silly.

Powell was especially silly to try to be a latter-day, and Unionist, Parnell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell], by linking with Ulster unionism in the idea of controlling a bloc of seats in the House of Commons. Rather, he should have left the Conservative Party either in 1970 or 1974, and then founded his own party, or maybe taken on the leadership of the National Front. That really might have worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

Watched that excellent film, Waterloo. Rod Steiger is amazing as Napoleon, the man who changed the face of Europe even in defeat.

While watching I drank (probably too much) “blackstrap”, a mixture of cognac and port. A drink almost forgotten today, but which, before the First World War, was considered the drink of the Life Guards (officers) and (as and when permitted) Eton.

A good and warming drink, when taken in moderation.

Late music

Diary Blog, 15 August 2020

So nearly 4,000 people daily thought to be newly infected, yet the death rate (in hospitals) is still falling: the last recorded day, 20. So as a very rough and ready measurement, about 1 person dying out of every 200 (known to be) infected. Not an exact proportion, and with many random or variable factors, but it seems about right.

It is clear, surely, that the governmental over-reaction, and particularly the facemask nonsense, is not only over-reaction but also pointless, in that the main Coronavirus wave has passed, in fact passed months ago. In any case, facemasks have little impact overall.

This virus is real enough, but the governmental reaction (over-reaction) to it (not only in the UK but in many countries) has become a massive scam, building on the initial fear in order to impose rafts of “serf-citizen” fake legislation (in the UK, not properly passed by Parliament; misusing existing laws to impose invalid secondary legislation described as “rules” etc…).

It is clear, looking at the open jubilation of the World Economic Forum that “the virus” is an opportunity to impose a “Reset” of the world, that the New World Order (NWO) cabal(s) are, if not actually behind the release of this virus in China (was it in reality released in Europe at the same time?), then certainly using it to force the people of the advanced countries into compliant citizen-serfs.

Look at this (below)!

New Zealand plod denies that he is “thought police”, yet tells the citizen that if he continues to post about “lockdown”, the government, or MPs, he will be “over the line” and will be arrested!

New Zealand! Formerly one of the most —overall— free countries in the world! All that it has taken has been a very complacent citizenry mostly interested in sports, “celebrity” nonsense etc, then mass immigration of non-whites including Middle Eastern Muslims (leading to the Christchurch/Brenton Tarrant massacre, which in turn gave the NZ government the excuse to crack down on free speech online etc), a very “woke” prime minister, Jacinda Ardern (who used to work for the Tony Blair Labour Party in London), and finally “the virus” and fear thereof (though New Zealand’s remote location —not “lockdown”, please note— has largely protected it).

The are parallels with the UK. Here, as with New Zealand (an offshoot of the UK, originally), we have a very sleepy and complacent population, mostly interested in sports (not doing them, just watching team sports on TV) and “celebrities” (so-called). The level of socio-political (let alone historical) understanding is at a very basic level.

That population has accepted mass immigration, destruction of culture, the lionization (on the BBC and in the msm generally) of inferior and malicious persons who are in many cases outright enemies of this country; the people accepted the “lockdown” (shutdown) of most of the economy and society because they were paid off via furlough payments etc; now also accepting facemask muzzles and endless repression, not only of free speech, but even of everyday life.

I note that the New Zealand policeman is superficially “reasonable”, all the more so because he is being filmed, but underneath that is the expressed threat that, if the dissident citizen continues to post disagreement with the government, he will be arrested!

True, that “iron fist in velvet glove” approach to dissidence is softer than that adopted by, say, the authorities in Belarus, which is more “iron fist and no glove” but in the end is essentially the same: “do as we say or else…”.

The facemask nonsense is being kept up and hardened because the government wants to maintain control. It has nothing at all to do with stopping the very rare transmission of “particles” etc. If the government really thought that person to person transmission by proximity was a serious problem, the pubs would not be open, because pubs are the most likely places where such person to person air transmission might occur (along with offices, which are also open and without facemasks).

Other topics and tweets

Doubtful or not quite understood history. I suppose that the Soviet victory at Khalkin-Gol in 1939 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol] might be said to have occurred on Soviet territory; grey area. Manchuria/Mongolia. Zhukov wrote about the military aspects in his memoirs.

The Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland 1939-40 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War] was quite different.

A group of Finnish soldiers in snowsuits manning a heavy machine gun in a foxhole.
[A Finnish machine-gun post, 1939-40]

The Finns won in the field, despite being hugely outnumbered. Hitchens says that “they lost in the end“. In the sense that Finland was forced, as part of the “peace” treaty, to cede Karelia to the Soviet Union, yes, but Finland was able to keep its independence in the rest of its territory, and was able to help the forces of the German Reich in 1941 by assisting in the siege of Leningrad etc.

Thousands of scattered rocks litter the landscape. In the distance, leaves of trees are slowly turning yellow. It is the site of a Winter War monument at Suomussalmi, Finland, containing a rock for every soldier who died at the Battle of Suomussalmi: 750 Finnish and an estimated 24,000 Soviet.
[Remarkably bleak: “A Winter War monument at Suomussalmi, Finland, containing a rock for every soldier who died at the Battle of Suomussalmi: 750 Finnish and an estimated 24,000 Soviet” (Wikipedia)]

After the Second World War ended, Finland was not taken over by the Soviet Union. An armistice was signed in 1944. After 1945, Finland remained independent, though in some measure generally subservient to the Soviet Union in foreign affairs etc, a situation now known as “Finlandization” (eg, escapees from Soviet rule were invariably handed back if found before they could get to Sweden or Norway).

I cannot agree with Hitchens that Finland “lost in the end“. Not everything is black and white. Finland retained its way of life and a political sovereignty which was somewhere between independence and autonomy…It also created favourable trading relations with the Soviet Union. Admittedly, it never regained Karelia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II_and_after

I myself once had a girlfriend from Karelia (but from a few miles West of the Soviet border). I used to joke with her that the only reason she was not a Soviet citizen was that the Red Army had been short on fuel! In fact, her father had fought, as an 18 year old, in the Winter War. He had once stumbled on a Red Army soldier, similar age, in the forest, by a stream. They both fled in opposite directions!

The sheer rabbit-compliance of most people in this country is a sign that not only do the people not deserve a vote, but that they actually do not even want one.

Look at what the British people have swallowed in the past 30+ years! Mass immigration and migration-invasion on a scale that would have staggered Enoch Powell! NWO wars against Saddam Hussein, the Taliban etc (the latter thoroughly deserving it, but from the UK point of view, why be there?). War (in effect) against Gaddafi of Libya (why?). Disastrous. The attack by both Labour and Conservative Party governments, since about 2000, on the unemployed, disabled and sick of the UK. The crazy “lockdown”; and now the facemask nonsense.

Yes. I recall going into a pub in the Westminster Bridge Road (London) one afternoon in the 1980s, something I did not do usually, and being surprised to find a woman sitting with friends and with her two small children! That must have been about the time that the laws were relaxed by the Thatcher “open all hours” government.

Many pubs in the UK, even before the Coronavirus panic, were not really pubs. Economics dictated that many had to become quasi-restaurants, and/or “family pubs”. The old type of pub, which was basically for quiet drinking, and without people sitting eating pies, fish and chips, trifle etc, was rare even before 2020. Now? On the endangered list.

The “newspaper columnist” has existed for a long time, certainly since the 1930s, and in most cases is a know-nothing idiot (in more recent years usually, though not always, a woman) who creates hysteria. The sooner the misdescribed “free Press” is closed by lack of money, the better.

It’s only a matter of time…

Other tweets seen

Zionist arithmetic: take a number, any number (so long as it is six million), then double it. Or triple it. Who’s counting?

Looks as though Belarus is on the cusp of political revolution. The country avoided the wars and poverty (the latter caused by unrestricted finance capitalism) which afflicted Russia, Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union after 1989, but at the cost of, in effect, dictatorship. Seems that that is now not a bargain the people think worthwhile, though it is hard to judge from outside.

Belarus has a population of about nine and a half million; how many support the government v. the protest movement is an unknown. In any case (and in any country) what really matters is not the percentage either way, but the proportion willing to struggle or fight for supremacy.

Online presence v. boots on the ground

I have written before about this.

5-10 years ago, before the Jew-Zionists and others (but mainly “them”) gained traction over the Internet, before the really heavy censorship came into effect, it was possible to believe that a new world of freedom of expression had opened up. I was always somewhat sceptical, but saw that people barred from the Zionist-controlled mass media had been able to start their own online organizations, using the large online platforms: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc.

Again, these people were generally not on the same ideological page as myself, though there were some points of agreement. Some of them were able not only to put over points of view, but also to make a passably good living doing what they did.

For me, the sticking point was their support for Israel and the Jewish lobby. Paul Joseph Watson, “Prison Planet” Watson on Twitter and YouTube, Katie Hopkins (at the time also a columnist for the Daily Mail), various Americans, some less prominent ones such as “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin); and of course there was also “Tommy Robinson” (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).

For me, all of the above were wastes of space, though “Robinson” did have followers offline as well as online, if one could ignore the fact that most were simpleminded pub drinkers and beer-bottle-throwers.

All of the above were making a living by their activity; Katie Hopkins was also receiving a salary or fees from the Daily Mail. Then the Jews (mainly) prevailed on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to restrict their posts, eventually having them expelled, though “Prison Planet” still has a Twitter account (with 1.1 million “followers” at that) and one on YouTube (which was briefly suspended). Example (well worth seeing, btw):

I agree with him about the facemask nonsense, by the way. It’s the new WW1 “white feather” hysteria.

The point is that all the above-named “alt-Right” or similar people are hostages to fortune. As the Jews have worked out, take away their online platforms and these people fade away to nothing.

Where now is Katie Hopkins? Not on Twitter. Permanently banned, just as I was in 2018. She is still on YouTube, though:

As I say, I hold no brief for her, or any of what might be called the “alt-Right”. Pro-Israel, pro-Jewish lobby. Also, with no discernible political programme. Always negative (and sometimes rightly so) but putting forward no real alternative. Not just Katie Hopkins; all of them.

Whether unwittingly or not, all the above wastes of space are basically controlled opposition. Katie Hopkins and “Prison Planet” Watson take every opportunity to laud the Jews and Israel, and while that will not necessarily save them from online oblivion eventually, it may stave off their being “excommunicated” for a while, while they are somewhat useful to the System in drawing the sting of social nationalism.

If the above people lose their “platforms”, there is nothing left for them. I doubt that they could raise a dozen people in the streets even now. Even Tommy Robinson could only manage about 200 to protest against his being tried about a year ago. One dimwit follower of his even wrapped himself in an Israeli flag, in the manner of football supporters (which almost all of Robinson’s followers are).

The only thing that matters now is “boots on the ground”, whether a million, a thousand, a hundred, or even ten. Online influence may be fine, but is a mirage which can disappear overnight.

Britain needs a social-national organization. Maybe not, or not exclusively, a political party as such, but an organization which can be relied on, through thick and thin, come what may.

A few late tweets

British people homeless, including young people, ex-servicemen, middle-aged couples fallen on hard times, and others as well, but migrant-invader untermenschen are transported in luxury to take accommodation that could and should be for the exclusive use of British people.

Surely the closest Peter Hitchens has ever come to justifying violent rebellion…

Hitchens is right, and it is precisely the “socialists” on Twitter, the “anti-fascists”, those who have for years been loudly virtue-signalling in favour of “human rights”, “civil liberties” and all the rest of the platitudinous garbage they have spewed out, who now, when it matters, are not only compliant with the slightest “rule” (under dodgy and possibly invalid secondary legislation) or even “advice” given out by Boris-idiot and this government of alien clowns, but who are often to be seen on Twitter etc actually, and literally at times, begging to be put under stricter “lockdown”, under harsher “rules” and “laws” mandating facemasks and muzzles at all times, and so on!

The above virtue-signallers and “useful idiots” are the ones, many of them, who have been most critical of the unpleasant and stupid actions of “Conservative” government for a decade. Now, they roll over for the least-competent Con regime ever, despite all the evidence against “lockdowns”, facemasks etc.

I blogged before, a week or so ago, that my own doctor told me that his practice (12 or so doctors in two locations) had had few (if any?) Coronavirus cases since the panic (my word) began in February or March, and that he had heard of no more than a few cases in the whole area.

I read in the past week, in a local online newspaper, that in my local authority area, a rural/suburban coastal and near-coastal area with a few smallish towns and villages, only 3 people have died of —or at least with— Coronavirus in almost a month! In a quite large and widely-spread area the population of which totals 180,000! Three people! Sad for them and their family and friends, but in effect close to statistical zero.

Anecdotal evidence, as always, is suspect, but then look at the government’s misleading and/or simply untrue statistics!

Late music

Diary Blog, 7 April 2020

Image

It will be seen from the above chart that the UK is in 4th place for death from Coronavirus, expressed in proportion to population. Belgium, Spain and Italy, all of which had strict “lockdown” regimes, have fared worse than has the UK. Some countries which have implemented only light regulation, such as Sweden, have fared better than the UK.

There are many variables, based on lifestyles, the way deaths are counted, when the virus really emerged in a particular country etc, so people can argue endlessly over which country has the worst or best record and why. However, it seems clear that whether a country has strict “lockdown”, less strict, or none at all, is almost irrelevant to the spread and effect of the Coronavirus, taken over a couple of months.

It will be seen, also, that Coronavirus has killed (taking the statistics as provided) about 500 people for every million in the UK. One out of every 2,000. That is unfortunate, but is hardly the Black Death (which is said to have killed about 1 out of 3 people across Europe, in other words about 700x the rate of Coronavirus in the UK (so far).

I notice that the political Twitterati have not disappointed me. They always get it wrong. They are on the wrong side of pretty much any argument. They predict every election or referendum inaccurately. In this case, they (most of them) want an extension of the UK “lockdown” nonsense; many want it even more strictly enforced, and with even fewer services and facilities open for business.

You cannot really talk or debate (not that I wish to) with that unthinking and self-righteous Twitter mob. They are the bookburners, the proponents of heresy laws etc.

As things stand, people in the UK are under loose house arrest, en bloc. It seems that some restrictions are going to be eased next week. All the same, and more importantly, the British people cannot do all manner of normal things at present, some of which are very necessary. Examples include accessing dental services, getting hair cut, sending their children to school.

This farce has to end. The cost is enormous. Vast numbers of people (at last count, over —uh-oh, that number again!— six million) were “furloughed” on 80% pay (capped at £2,500 per month). I have to admit that a wry smile may have been seen on my face at the sight of those who, many of them, cheered on Dunce Duncan Smith and others from both main System parties as they marginalized and demonized the poor and especially the not-employed poor, now themselves staring down the barrel of destitution.

Apart from that, the fact is that the “lockdown” is killing people every day in various ways: deferred consultations, cancelled operations etc.

At some point soon, all the “emergency” measures will have to end. Many prefer to stay away from boring jobs for a while, given that they are “furloughed” on 80% of their pay (and when you take off costs such as transport, it might even add up to 100% of net pay in reality). However, this will not be sustainable for much longer.

Having scared the people out of their skins, the government of fools is now preparing to crack the whip to get those same people out of their houses, by reducing the furlough cap to (probably) £2,000 from £2,500, by reducing the amount anyone can get to 60% of pay rather than 80%.

I wonder what the unemployment figure will be by Christmas. 3 million? 5 million?

Latest news (only 1 hour old at time of writing):

Those calling for “lockdown” to continue almost indefinitely, and certainly for months more, have no interest in or understanding of the effects on the UK economy. They seem to think that people can be subsidized indefinitely to stay in their homes while commerce and industry die on the vine.

As usual, the Twitter mob, all but irrelevant to the real course of events, rant at those (in this case) calling for an end to the “lockdown” nonsense, calling them “stupid” etc. Those Twitter drones have evidently not thought through all the implications of a continuing “lockdown”. Apart from which, it occurs to me that the present times are characterized, at least in part, by unthinking selfishness disguised as concern for society.

I favour Basic Income, but that can only work where society (and the economy) is open for business. If not, then the monies expended are merely dead outflows, fuelling inflation eventually.

Notting Hill Carnival

The Notting Hill Carnival has been cancelled, a rare bonus from the Coronavirus situation. The blacks may or may not riot as a consequence in August, when the heat builds and the tom-toms drum incessantly in the darkening (urban) jungle. For the local population, this will come as a blessed relief.

Notting Hill was already being gentrified when the Carnival (the white would-be ethnics drop the “the”) started to become a really major event in the 1970s, having started in 1966. In the 1960s and 1950s, Notting Hill had been known as an “edgy” neighbourhood wedged among other, more expensive, areas (Kensington, Holland Park etc).

I myself was familiar with Notting Hill in the 1980s. I would fairly often visit the wonderful art-nouveau Electric Cinema in Portobello Road, which sometimes showed Soviet films such as Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears; I was trying to improve my Russian at the time.

The Soviet diplomatic presence was not far away, near Notting Hill Gate (Consulate) and Kensington Palace Gardens (Embassy). The Czech Consulate was also at Notting Hill Gate.

Some of the films were very odd at first sight:

Other films (especially the ones from the Caucasus) seemed almost impenetrable. I remember this one, which I think was shown with Russian subtitles:

I visited the actual Portobello Road Market, specifically, a few times in the 1980s and early 1990s. It sold everything from apples to antiques and expensive fur coats (some valued at thousands of pounds, with provenance doubtful).

As for the Carnival, I did go once, out of curiosity. That would have been mid-1980s. Ghastly. Non-stop drumming “music”, dubious palm wine bought from an African in the street, fried plantains (not unpleasant but very over-priced) and, everywhere, huge numbers of people (by no means all non-whites, though blacks were by far the majority, as I suppose they soon will be in all of London, if they are not already). A hot day, too. I stayed for an hour or so. To return to real London was not easy. All Underground stations in the vicinity were closed because of the crush. I ended up walking all the way home, in the hot sun, to Little Venice, which was blessedly quiet and leafy by comparison with the streets of “Carnival”.

The present-day residents of Notting Hill (where houses now sell for millions) mostly barricade themselves in for a few days, or lock their houses up as securely as they can, and then go away for a few days. I imagine that they must be (secretly?) celebrating the cancellation this year.

Tweets seen

I start with one, the poster of which evidently imagines itself very clever:

Or…just maybe…because Iceland, unlike the UK, is not a multikulti, globalized, overcrowded dustbin of peoples…

Something better:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6197097/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-REAL-truth-Communist-infiltration-Britain.html

Hitchens of course glosses over the fact that most important Communists in the UK, from the 1920s up to the effective end of the socialist/Communist movement in 1989, were Jews.

satan-maskt

In fact, Hitchens’ own Daily Mail article (an inset of) refers to Karl Marx simply as “German“, and not the more correct “Jew“, presumably because Marx was born in Germany and spoke German as well as other languages. If I had been born in China, would I be Chinese? Of course not (though some of the madder Twitterati would probably and defiantly answer in the affirmative!).

I cannot recall when I last heard a cuckoo. Perhaps in a deeply-wooded part of Surrey, c.1985, aged about 28, when I would go trekking every week for several hours with a well-organized group of elderly persons (all 70+), some of whom, like my parents’ then neighbour, Edward, had been officers of Special Operations Executive (SOE) and/or other organizations during the Second World War.

They would trek on a pre-planned route along rural footpaths (very rural— we never met another soul), wooded, with ferns pressing in at time, and always ending up at the country pub where we had started (and where a ploughman’s lunch and a pint of beer would await). Those old people were resilient! I myself, 50 years their junior (and at the time a student of Taekwando, who also could swim 2 miles or more) always fell asleep on the way home in Edward’s car! That was a tough generation.

More tweets:

I am rather surprised that Hitchens even bothers with Twitter, let alone little twerps such as his “interlocutor” there, “@taggio72″. I myself am banned from Twitter anyway, because a group of Jews organized a campaign of complaints against me in 2018. I do not know whether my 3,000 followers miss my tweets. I followed only about 50 accounts, I believe, and most of those were organizations.

Twitter is basically a waste of time. I do read tweets from a few people (Hitchens being one), but Twitter is basically an echo-chamber and outrage-chamber where the agenda changes almost daily. When you add to that the fact that the more interesting tweeters (like me) have been systematically removed over the last few years, the net result is that Twitter is almost useless, though it is a way of identifying some “enemies of the people”. The bias in Twitter is such that it is almost useless as a way of gauging public opinion. Maybe if you see the Twitter mood, the best idea is to then take the reverse view as being the view of most people.

More tweets

Hitchens is against Powell on various bases, including Powell’s alliance with what is now called “racism” (before about 1989, most people would have used the word “racialist”, though that was not so often heard. The politically-correct mob had not yet quite stormed the citadel (under their paramount chief, Blair).

My own view about Powell is that he was a Conservative, so I am not on the same page as him. When he made his famous or “infamous” speech, I was only 11 and living in Australia.

The ITV News piece below is of course multikulti-biased; still…

The fact is that, overall, Enoch Powell was right. Is the Tiber “foaming with much blood”? Not in the cartoon sense, but look at the violent crime in the large cities, the knife crime, the gangs etc. Look at the direction of travel. It is getting worse.

As to Powell himself, one of the true stars of postwar British politics. He was a Conservative, which I am not. He hunted the fox, which I deplore. Still, a real mind amid, even then, the mediocrity. Look at that clip again. Both of the other MPs featured are very slight as compared to Powell.

The first, Paul Uppal, a Sikh, was Conservative Party MP for Powell’s old seat, though only from 2010-2015. Prior to that, supposedly “ran his own business”, the nature of which was not disclosed even on his own website, except that it apparently had no employees other than himself… (#bullshitklaxon…)

As for Ian Austin, MP for Dudley North 2005-2019, he was a press officer in the Labour Party prior to becoming an MP. A total mediocrity, as well as being one of the worst expenses cheats in the Commons and a doormat for the Jewish lobby and Israel.

Austin was finally removed from Parliament in 2019, having stepped down to avoid losing his seat. He was not popular, and caused scandal by apparently wanting the law against pornography featuring bestiality to be repealed. He too has now been given a government sinecure. He is unmarried (I do not know whether he has a pet or companion animal; I hope not!).

Powell, a former Professor of Ancient Greek (Sydney University), who had been born into very modest circumstances in the UK, was multilingual, an academic star student who, after leaving his Sydney academic post, joined the British Army as a private soldier in 1939. He ended the war in 1945 as a brigadier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

I imagine that Powell would have been appalled at the MPs now sitting in the Westminster monkeyhouse. As for Twitter, I cannot see him having an account or bothering with the tidal wave of ignorance, though the brevity taught by his mastery of Greek epigrams and proverbs might have assisted him, if he were to have a Twitter account.

I oppose Powell in that he was very pro war with Germany, even before Hitler took power! Also, he did not say much about black and brown immigration into the UK until the late 1960s. To that extent, Hitchens is right. Powell did try to, as people now say, “weaponize” the race issue for his own political benefit. However, that resonated with millions of British people who even then suspected that the System was betraying them.

Why did Powell never really get anywhere politically after 1968? My view is that, as someone who was basically a Conservative and reactionary, he could not see himself as “national revolutionary”, leading a social-national party.

A February 1969 Gallup poll showed Powell the “most admired person” in British public opinion.” [Wikipedia]

Had Powell started his own party, even if Conservative-nationalist, he probably would have won several seats and perhaps attracted a few Conservative Party MPs too. It has to be borne in mind that, in the 1970 General Election, over 97% of the votes went to LibLabCon, just under 90% to Labour and Conservative. Powell probably simply thought that new parties fail…

So it was that, in 1974, Powell abandoned the Conservative Party and joined the Ulster Unionists. Why? Again, my own view is that Powell had in mind the bloc of Irish MPs (I think about 90) that Parnell had once led, in the 19thC, though Powell was not the leader of the UUP (which was also few in number at Westminster, I think about 11 MPs).

It may be that, in the end, Powell over-valued Parliament, Parliamentary procedures etc. It was alien to him to start a new party, despite his surely knowing that he had all the talents necessary to lead one: public profile, public support (up to a point), a fine mind, public speaking skills of a high order, administrative skills etc.

Imagine if Powell had had the initiative to start a new party immediately after the “Rivers of Blood” speech. He could have recruited thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. He might have been able to get a bloc of MPs and, from there, who knows?

As for Hitchens, where I part company with him is that he is a kind of “small-c” conservative or quasi-conservative. The race question is as nothing to him, the Jewish Question is as nothing to him. As a result, he inevitably gets things wrong at times even when, often, he is on the right track.

My blog post about Hitchens, written a year ago:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/19/peter-hitchens-and-his-views/

Back to 2020 Britain

Why are they not dealing with that gorilla, even if it requires a taser (or a Glock)? I have no idea what the situation was, though. The black may simply have been sunbathing. God knows.

A tweet about the pathetic Question Time rubbish now fronted, poorly, by ludicrously-overpaid BBC face Fiona Bruce:

People who are “conservative” nationialists can never see that the UK is not being flooded by non-whites by some kind of accident! Question Time, The Pledge etc are not full of ignorant blacks such as Afua Hirsch or “Femi” by “accident“! Au contraire. This is part of the Great Replacement. It is not a “conspiracy theory”. It is real and it is all around you. Just open your eyes.

https://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

Well, that’s enough for today. I may not like the Chinese attitude to animals, but they can put on a parade!

End of the day…

Afterthought: the officially-mandated “clap” nonsense, which has been conspicuous by near-absence around where I live, was briefly in evidence this evening, at 2000 hrs. Some fireworks went off in the distance, then I heard one person loudly clapping, unseen but not far away. Maybe a drunk.

Peter Hitchens and His Views

I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.

I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/

To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.

As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).

The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).

Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.

It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,

From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…

The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.

Alcuin_College_in_Snow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1691889

Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.

Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?

Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include

  • central heating as the norm;
  • wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
  • less antiquated snobbism;
  • more understanding of animal welfare;
  • far easier access to information (via Internet);

Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)

  • the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
  • pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
  • pervasive “political correctness” etc;
  • the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
  • the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
  • British people swamped by mass immigration;
  • real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
  • hugely less choice of employment for most people;
  • many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
  • unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
  • congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
  • a huge new mixed-race population;
  • a huge amount of crime;
  • public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
  • huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
  • workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
  • public services near to collapse in some respects;
  • intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
  • standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone

We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.

If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!

Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#The_British_visitor’s_passport

Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_City_Airways#The_1950s

Yes, you might have to show your passport or wave it (you still do…)

There were excellent hovercraft services (though only from 1970-2000) across the Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoverspeed

The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1970) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).

I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!

Anyway, back to Hitchens and his views.

True, the early 1950s did still have rationing (until 1954), the result of the stupid and terrible war against the German Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.

Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?

Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.

Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…

[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]

Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!

I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.

Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.

CxDUqlFWgAAY3LX

D635NrZW0AAGWQo

scan25

Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…

Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.

Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…

An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.

As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/

I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.

So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).

Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.

Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!

Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.

Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.

I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin_College,_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_life_and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Jewish_identity

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Hitchens’ most recent Mail on Sunday article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7045469/PETER-HITCHENS-green-seats-prove-careering-catastrophe.html

Other recent articles by Hitchens:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993553/PETER-HITCHENS-time-view-police-just-like-failed-industries.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019091/PETER-HITCHENS-country-slowly-choked-death-rights-wrongdoers.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7070715/PETER-HITCHENS-did-warn-Marshmallow-Lady.html

Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)

Update, 18 September 2020

Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.