We are told that the Coronavirus COVID-19 started spontaneously in a seafood and live animal market in Wuhan, China, a country where people, or some people, treat animals appallingly, and where many eat strange things such as bats.
That may be true. I cannot say that it is untrue. There are, however, dissenting voices, that is to say voices dissenting from the official narrative. I was sent this:
I was at first inclined to accept the official narrative as most likely correct. Now? Not sure.
What interests me more are the socio-political effects of the Coronavirus on the world and particularly the UK. In particular, I noted that the near-dictatorial powers which the Government of the UK has taken on are not designed to last for a few weeks, a few months. No…they are drafted to last for TWO YEARS. I think that we are entitled to ask why that is so.
True, the powers taken by the UK Government can be removed again by Commons vote (every 6 months or, in constitutional principle, at any time), but this government, with its 80-strong majority, can push through extensions easily, if it wants.
Boris-idiot, posing as PM, has shown little or no leadership, but that has not prevented “Conservative” scribblers from behaving like the most sycophantic Stalinists in the Soviet Writers’ Union (of about 1948). Look at this creature:
An assured performance by @borisjohnson who was speaking like the head of a wartime government. ‘We are all enlisted,’ he said.
Most people are natural followers. Few like to have to think for themselves. In this case, spurred by natural feelings of fear, anxiety etc, most people want to “do the right thing” and that can include thinking the “right” thing.
Despite the above, a minority is beginning to question the origin of Coronavirus, the fairly draconian measures now being taken by the UK government and, even leaving all that aside, whether the economic stimulus is being done in the right way.
Peter Hitchens has tweeted scornfully about the situation
Then they are complacent fools, who do not deserve the liberty they inherited, and so will lose it for themselves and their children. Shaming. https://t.co/WtpSz8uCvP
They're exaggerating its importance, and sliding over the fact that people who die *with* coronavirus did not necessarily die *of* it. Average number of flu deaths in England for last 5 seasons was 17,000 deaths annually. Ranged from 1,692 deaths (2018/19) to 28,330 in 2014/15. https://t.co/LxOPcBBfvL
Prepare for an outbreak of informing. The Johnson house arrest scheme is an ideal opportunity for the spiteful and the vengeful, to report neighbours for what would have been legal on Monday. Ugh.
So humiliating to have to confess to foreign admirers of British freedom that our liberties were suppressed by a clown, and the British people rolled over and accepted it. Lots of national songs now need to be rewritten.
Twaddle. Until tonight I was free to leave my home whenever I chose for whatever purpose I chose for as long as I chose, and go wherever I chose, a freedom I used to the full. Now all those freedoms have been extinguished. And by a clown. https://t.co/70O0TDeoO2
Well, almost no dissenting voices. But those who *do* dissent can be guaranteed to receive a slime-storm of abuse and calls for them to be silenced. https://t.co/QZ8U3ly0t5
Perhaps they felt the advice was oppressive and disproportionate ( as it was) . Until today they were free to do so. Now they live in a comic-opera police state Please watch https://t.co/Q9FmTDybIDhttps://t.co/kEt0T4D0J0
Because @KD_dono the danger is gravely over-rated, and the measures proposed unproven, damaging disproportionate and most unlikely to succeed. Listen to a real expert here https://t.co/Q9FmTDybIDhttps://t.co/chyC4T4ngU
Al Johnson's brilliant plan: like a doctor treating a pneumonia victim by amputating his leg. AS a result, the man has one leg, and still has pneumonia. When the sufferer eventually recovers from pneumonia, Johnson will say he has cured him. But he will still only have one leg.
Now listening to 'debate' in Commons on major stifling of personal liberty. One can only assume that there is now a stringent test to prevent intelligent people from becoming MPs. A rare government success if so.
Clown puts country under house arrest. Country doesn't care. So perishes one of the freest societies ever to exist in human history, amid giggles and bad science. And suckers who believe state propaganda. Govt has no idea what it is doing: https://t.co/Q9FmTDybID
Anyone else out there still have any regard for liberty? It is striking that the country of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the Bill of Rights should be put under house arrest by a clown. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a giggle.
But what is interesting is how many people attack me for attacking this blatant assault upon liberty. This is how you can tell the country is finished. And people used to ask me, they really did, why I urged them to get out while they could.
I'm partly mocking Alexander Johnson's ridiculous, sinister government because I'm worried that tomorrow night he'll come on TV to tell me I am not allowed to mock the government. Unthinkable you say? How unthinkable was national house arrest a week ago?
Ridiculous and Sinister – the policy of the Johnson government. The man who crashed the economy and put the nation under house arrest while he was doing it.
I do not agree with everything written or said by Hitchens, who is also, in fact, not the great champion of freedom he likes to present as (he blocked me on Twitter a few years ago when he discovered a. that I could match his erudition and b. that the Jewish lobby trolls were hostile to me; I presumed that he did not want to lose his lucrative msm work), but his tweets here are important, because they go against both an almost hysterical official narrative and also an unthinking public.
Hitchens is on to something here, and makes a few valid points for sure. He is not alone.
Others have noted unreported factors or strange anomalies in the present government policy:
The economy was due to crash anyway, this virus is the patsy. Also allows them to bring in draconian laws that will be used to control the masses of unemployed in the near future
Just spoke to my friend who is cabin crew on a BA A380. About 45 minutes ago he landed at Heathrow from HKONG and disembarked over 300 British Chinese. Why ffs?
Heathrow arrivals tomorrow morning. Business as usual. In the meantime, I can't leave the house. pic.twitter.com/3hH0ARk9lE
— Randy Twinkler, Lawyer, MMC, MA ,R&C (@ChangePolitics5) March 23, 2020
The “lockdown” relies on people self-censoring, “doing the right thing” if you like. I am not opposed to that as matters stand with “the virus”, but I am very uneasy with where this is all leading.
I am presently blogging separately about where UK society and economy will be in a while. We are approaching a massive change across the world, particularly across Europe. 2022 will bring change on a scale not seen since socialism in all forms collapsed in and after 1989. It’s a 33-year cycle which has interested me for a long time.
We must be clear. These restrictions can only work if the general population goes along with them. I don’t mean “work” in terms of suppressing Coronavirus infections. The restrictions may or may not work in that sense. I do not know. No, what I mean is “will the restrictions work in terms of enforcement?”
Most people will no doubt go along with the restrictions for a few weeks. If this situation continues for longer, probably not. It has been reported that the police have been told to expect 6 months of this! I cannot see the population sitting still indefinitely.
The head of the Police Federation has now said that officers
are unsure how to enforce the new “lockdown” measures;
are already ignoring crime because prioritizing the enforcement of “lockdown”.
I cannot see how the two above statements can be easily reconciled, but the law was ever “a ass…a idiot”, as one character from Dickens expostulates.
At this stage, it is clear that the portentous announcement, by a clownish Prime Minister, of “lockdown”, is a kind of sleight of hand, or if you prefer, confidence trick. The State, as matters stand, cannot actually enforce these strictures. It is reliant on the population agreeing with them and playing ball.
I suppose that the police could impose road blocks between towns or even within towns, but the police officers would have no way of checking whether any one motorist is on a legitimate mission of mercy, of shopping for supplies, of commuting to a “essential” job, or whether that motorist is going to a house party (banned under the regs) or simply driving around because bored. If that last, why shouldn’t he, really? Someone in a car is not going to infect anyone by reason of simply driving around.
It is hard to escape the view that at least part of all of this is designed to create an atmosphere in which a fearful population submits to State orders. Of course, behind that is, also, the real threat from Coronavirus.
Despite the plaudits heaped upon Rishi Sunak for opening the gates of the money dam, I wonder what the outcome will be, a year or two down the line. Not good, I think. However, I shall examine that more in my (not yet published) blog on the socio-economic aspects of the virus crisis.
As blogged about previously, the police in the UK are gradually abandoning the population, especially the white English population. The police, behaving as a Poundland KGB, prefer to concentrate on political or socio-political “crime” such as “racist” tweets etc. Or now, “prioritizing lockdown”.
Another absurdly ambiguous Govt. press conference. Zero clarity re whether people should go to work or not, what constitutes 'essential' etc. Why can't they get their damn messaging right? Health Secretary @MattHancock says 'it's crystal clear'. It's NOT!
Went out not long before darkness fell. Intended to visit a chemist’s, only to find it shut by reason of truncated opening hours. Nuisance. Drove to small village shop a few miles further on. Near to its new 1800 closing time. No bread, but bought a little milk and some local asparagus. I noticed that some dry pasta was available. I myself have no need for any more, but it was heartening to see that not all had sold, even if only basic spaghetti. At least the shelves were not bare, except for the bread shelf (and even that had a sad and solitary roll still on sale).
As for other people: a few couples walking in the country lanes, a few solitary dog walkers too in the semi-suburbanized villages, a few bicyclists. No one at the little shop noted above. Roads very quiet, even the nearest rural A-road. No sign of police activity of any kind, even in the local town. General impression of an almost-closed-down society.
Poignant, but what struck me was the “two degrees” bit. Why does someone with two degrees work in a pub (for years)? The answer —unless the degrees were only completed out of interest— must be that, from the strictly vocational/job point of view, “degrees” (an outdated mediaeval concept anyway) are now next to worthless on the open jobs market (even though quite ordinary jobs now “require” a “degree”). When everyone and his dog has a degree, what is a degree worth? Not much.
The corollary to the above is that one must ask why the State should subsidize those educational qualifications that are valueless, in direct terms, to the State and society.
Above, we see an illustration of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a scene which could be applied to a multiplicity of situations of the present day; in this case, to the Extinction Rebellion protests which have brought parts of London to a halt (again).
I have blogged, in recent months, about both Extinction Rebellion and the connected silliness of the Greta Thunberg hullabaloo; prior to that, I also blogged about the present and possibly upcoming environmental catastrophe, as well as the connection between “green” politics and what might be termed “social nationalism”:
Smug, posh vegans from Extinction Rebellion have occupied Smithfield Meat Market. They’re publicly shaming the working-class meat traders and preventing them from making a living. This sums up the nasty elitism of the green movement, writes Brendan O’Neillhttps://t.co/dfv6TmWuDh
Those robed women (some are men in drag) give me the creeps; reminiscent of the women fanatics adherent to the ISIS barbarians. Sinister, and obviously meant to intimidate. Greta Nut must love them.
What do these #ExtinctionRebellion protests do to stop climate change? Absolutely nothing. Instead, their festival on our streets is preventing the police from tackling London's VIOLENT CRIME EMERGENCY! Luckily our Mayor is on the scene to stop it… oh wait. pic.twitter.com/ZatkiYioxN
The above tweeter, apparently a recent graduate from Cambridge presently trying to be (yet another) singer, seems to have just wasted three or four years [2020 note: since I drafted and published this article, I have discovered that Billy Lunn is about 35-40 and that his group has had some, albeit limited, success in the music business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subways#Discography].
These and similar street protests achieve nothing; only unthinking student-types (or other people, of any age, who do not want to think too deeply) imagine that they might. The judgmental attitude is very much of the present time. Akin to the fanaticism of the 17th Century.
Another tweeter (see below), talks about repression of those “expressing dissent”. Since when was closing down cities, interfering with aviation etc, mere “dissent”? I do not know this tweeter and had in fact never heard of him before today. I wonder whether he spoke up for me (disbarred because a pack of malicious Jews disapproved of my “expression of dissent” in tweets)? Or for Alison Chabloz (persecuted, prosecuted and convicted after effectively the same pack of Jews targeted her for years, all for singing satirical songs that came a bit too close to the truth about “holocaust” fakery)? I have seen nothing, either from that tweeter or from the many similar ones, protesting against such repression of free speech. Au contraire…
And here, below, is a typical “millennial” idiot, incapable of saying why he has superglued himself to a roadway except by repeating, “it’s about, like, saving the planet, like…” —and, yes, odds-on that some “university” has awarded him a “First” in something or other (just like almost everyone else) or will do so…and note the anger at the end of his inarticulate “explanation”. He may not know his **** from his elbow, but by God he wants to impose his ill-directed will on someone (or anyone)…
Kai needs to explain how supergluing himself to the floor is protecting/ saving the planet https://t.co/8DsWBkzTic
Extinction Rebellion has all the hallmarks of an end-of-world cult. They preach about the “fire” that will destroy mankind. They sing hymns to the God of Science. They want us to do penance for our eco-sins. They are bonkers, says Brendan O’Neillhttps://t.co/WFSsKHZGoA
It’s not only in London. Here, below, we see one of the protests in Australia, in this case Melbourne. Guess what these scenes of ridiculously-puerile pseudo-ecstasy are doing to stop “climate change”? Nothing.
Extinction Rebellion’s “disco-bedience” is about to head to the streets. They’ll be dancing to climate-themed music – stopping traffic and blocking intersections. I’ll be live at 6pm on @9NewsMelb with the latest. pic.twitter.com/U2vqIEoQ38
And here’s yet another one (see below), again an Australian, who thinks that he and his friends have the right to do what they want to make a useless noise and to interfere with others because climate change is (or may be) happening and is (or may be) a result of “emissions”. What do such protests do to stop whatever may be happening, happening? Nothing…
Extinction Rebellion has all the hallmarks of an end-of-world cult. They preach about the “fire” that will destroy mankind. They sing hymns to the God of Science. They want us to do penance for our eco-sins. They are bonkers, says Brendan O’Neillhttps://t.co/WFSsKHZGoA
The Metropolitan Police response to the Extinction Rebellion protests
It was noteworthy that, months ago when Central London was first closed down by Extinction Rebellion, the police response was pathetic. More than that, there were some police officers appearing to enjoy themselves and dancing with the protesters! This is one result of the slow but advancing politicization of the police and other public services. As far as the police are concerned, we have seen how police forces have attempted to police social media, including expression of “politically incorrect” opinion. By way of example, the Jew-Zionist lobby has actively infiltrated the police. The “influence” seems to be strongest in London, Manchester and Scotland.
Here below we see Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, socializing with sinister Jewish Zionist Gideon Falter, who heads the malicious faux-“charity”, the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” or “CAA” (private thought-police):
Thank you to our friends at the @JewishPoliceAs for hosting us at their annual #Chanukah party at New Scotland Yard, where we discussed concerns over antisemitism and the Chanukah message of hope and resilience with @MetPoliceUK Commissioner Cressida Dick pic.twitter.com/VoT7hx1DK0
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) December 7, 2018
Falter seems to be welcome at Scotland Yard despite the fact that several of his colleagues at the CAA have been exposed in open court as serial and would-be anonymous online trolls, sadistically taunting and persecuting anti-Zionists, and particularly women.
Falter also has other Zionist activities going on…
As for Cressida Dick, she has been accused of being a so-called “graduate” (member) of another sinister group, Common Purpose, a kind of politically-correct freemasonry:
A double-first from Oxford (she herself, not her degree): the first woman and the first lesbian to head the Metropolitan Police, which is less and less effective against real crime (which is exploding in London) but ever-more active against political dissent online etc, ever-more in the Jewish-Zionist pocket, ever more political in its judgments.
It was very strange to see the police non-response to the first big Extinction Rebellion protest (attack on London) months ago. Much criticism about the police uselessness attached (again…) to Cressida Dick personally. In this second protest, many more arrests have been made (at last count, over 600) but those arrested are mostly bailed and most of those come straight back to the streets…
There is something not quite right here. Just as Greta Thunberg suddenly has world leaders pretending to listen to her, the msm laying down a red carpet for her etc, and just as we see migrant-invaders supposedly “intercepted” in the Channel, or Mediterranean, but really helped to invade mainland Europe and UK, so with these protests we see the authorities in reality facilitating them while pretending to crack down on them. What is the agenda behind all this. Cui bono?
Update, 10 October 2010
Where does real civil disorder start? When does dictatorship start to be the demand of the people, because it at least cures disorder? Somewhere, somewhen like this (below): a smug, entitled and (?) affluent “passenger” who has clearly bought himself an air ticket at London City Airport (and is dressed unlike the usual “protester”-type) so that he can interfere with takeoff of a flight, on behalf of Extinction Rebellion. Note the generally compliant/submissive attitude of most passengers at first, which then changes, with some, to a demand that “something be done” about this selfish nuisance; some people look ready to smash the ****’s face in, but the cultural conditioning to be polite, non-violent and (in this case at an airport) to rely on the persons in nominal authority (in this case, the cabin crew) keeps the lid on— just. For how long, though?
The fact is that, in any near-future situation of real civic or societal collapse, people like that will just have to take a couple of rounds each…
Meanwhile, the Extinction Rebellion hysteria meets a cool interview style from Andrew Neil:
This is the interview that needed to happen.
Every time we have #ExtinctionRebellion on the show, we always ask how to reduce to net zero by 2025. No practical answers come forth.@afneil calmly, carefully, politely demolishes that target.
This is the sort of madness that thrives when supposedly serious political figures (below, the Jew Ed Miliband, one-time Labour Party leader, Layla Moran MP, and pro-Israel “Conservative” Cabinet minister and expenses fraudster Michael Gove) listen enraptured (or pretend to listen) to a mentally-afflicted Swedish autistic aged 16 and three quarters…
Update, 11 October 2019
Below, the sort of idiot and idiocy abroad today: the citizens of London (or anyone critical of nonsense posing as idealism) have to “sit the fuck down and be quiet” because Extinction Rebellion is “stopping Armageddon” and that “cause” justifies anything. It is not very far from such attitudes to Cambodia Year Zero and the “Killing Fields”.
and (see below) in Australia, it seems that “fighting for the most important cause in human history” involves some exhibitionistic women and gay narcissists doing those synchronized dance routines you see at some American political protests:
— Extinction Rebellion Australia (@XRebellionAus) October 11, 2019
What interests me increasingly about all this is the degree of support that Extinction Rebellion is getting, not from the general public (the “protest” has little support there, if only because the public can see that “XR” has no real ideas but just negative emotionalism to offer; the public sees the futility, hypocrisy and silliness of the protests) but from those System drones involved in the manipulation of public opinion. I have seen numerous pro or effectively-XR tweets from CEOs of public relations and “comms” firms, from known political commentators etc. Here’s one:
People say that if you're protesting, you're losing. Extinction Rebellion shows how wrong that is. They are changing the debate.
Peter Hitchens, below, makes some rational if obvious points in his Mail on Sunday column. However (and as he himself implies), he’s wasting his time: irrational zealots do not want rational points but compliance with their irrationality.
Seriously, fuck off. You've managed to piss off most of society and get absolutely fucking nothing done. Protest in front of Parliament. Bring them to standstill, they're the ones making the decisions you so badly want to change. #ExtinctionRebellionhttps://t.co/kqEQ1jJQyO
Below, a good example of the muddled thinking all too common today: Jewish scribbler tweets about how it’s OK that his bus was delayed because of Extinction Rebellion protests (“…because the minor inconvenience of having to walk a little longer is nothing compared to the catastrophic consequences of inaction on climate change“) as if the protest and the consequent bus delay and inconvenience actually somehow helps to do something about climate change (even taking all that theory and assumed fact as given):
and look here [see below], as some brainwashed little boy on holiday from Australia (on holiday?! Think of all those “emissions”! He will have to spend the rest of his life atoning for his sin…or blaming other people, if old and white…) spews in Trafalgar Square the hate he has been taught, the hate against those “old white guys” who have, he has been told, “stolen his future”. Yes, the “old white guys” who, together with other white people, created almost everything of value in the past 1,000 or more years.
That brainwashed little boy will become yet another depressed and self-hating white man (unless he wakes up at some point). One does not, necessarily, expect a boy of his age to understand that white Northern European civilization is not the cause of “climate change” (leaving aside the question of whether it is happening and whether human activity is the cause of whatever is happening). The main human activity to blame for environmental catastrophe is breeding, i.e. too many people— and the non-whites have increased their numbers hugely both in absolute terms and relative to Europeans (white people) in the past century.
Indoctrination. #ExtinctionRebellion is not about climate change and things every person cares about like getting plastics out of the ocean… but they just want to tear down capitalism.. bunch of champagne socialists, communists and anarchists https://t.co/LrCNnQCC6o
World population was almost flat for nearly 2,000 years until 1700 AD. Even in 1900 it was only about 1.6 billion. Now, in 2019, it is nearly 8 billion.
There are twice as many humans on Earth in 2019 as there were in 1970, when I myself was 13-14 years old. White Northern European people, the spearhead of positive evolution, are now a tiny percentage of the world population.
The problem is not modern technology and industry, but too many people and, particularly, too many non-white people.
This (below) made me laugh! Unreasoned comments, but no more so than those of the Extinction Rebellion types…
This is funny: Extinction Rebellion idiot annoys a crowd of London Underground travellers trying to get to work, and gets the bejesus kicked out of him.
This response in London today has my full support.
Extinction Rebellion undermines its noble cause with such disruptive and illegal stunts. Well done to the general public for swiftly standing as one, stepping forward & closing the incident down when individuals break the law. pic.twitter.com/TKdDNiBBFZ
Surprising all the same to see Conservative MPs supporting the mob! What strikes me also is how how poor and drably dressed etc the commuters on the Underground look. The word that comes to mind is “downtrodden”. Not sure whether “diverse” is the bon mot…
Extinction Rebellion cameramen who were part of the protest exhibition were exposed by the crowd of angry commuters whose trips to work were delayed due to protesters jumping on top of the train. pic.twitter.com/e5JccMaP0N
Regarding the Extinction Rebellion protest this morning at Canning Town tube station, who do your sympathies lie more with…? The protestors: 13% The commuters who dragged them off: 63% https://t.co/cr3nFHEpmFpic.twitter.com/NsBp2DLWg5
Can you believe that this stupid…creature… might be Home Secretary soon? She thinks that an organized anarchistic conspiracy to shut down the capital city of the UK for weeks or even months is “peaceful protest”! Much as I hate Boris-Idiot and the “Conservative” elected dictatorship, Labour has no chance so long as idiots of this type are proposed as Cabinet ministers of a Corbyn-Labour government:
This ban is completely contrary to Britain’s long-held traditions of policing by consent, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. https://t.co/4NDBZ5pQGI
The Extinction Rebellion idiots have, as I foresaw, descended to simple vandalism. They have no real ideas, so they are left with destruction once they have made a few noisy demonstrations. This is sub-terrorism. Where are the Cambridge police? Arresting people making justified criticism of Jews and Gypsies on social media?
[later and further thoughts: why did no students or fellows of the University not descend on those vandals and kick the shit out of them? At least that might have attracted the attention of the Cambridge Police!]
The only update is that Greta Nut announced, from Sweden, that she “suspected” that she had been infected, on her travels, with Coronavirus and so had “self-isolated”. Well, I “suspect” that Greta Nut, pushed out of the msm limelight by Cornonavirus news, is desperate to become again an item on the international msm news agenda, and so has been trying to get onto the Coronavirus bandwagon.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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!):
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 1971) 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!
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Update, 24 April 2022
Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).
On the face of it, a clear case, with no doubt about the immediately-relevant facts. The defendant admitted to the crime and was sentenced to a year in prison. There are some nuances, however.
Obviously, criminal damage cannot be tolerated, and it is certainly not very nice and certainly not very polite to daub words on the door of a neighbouring dwelling; but to my mind the sentence was harsh.
The defendant was sentenced to a year in prison and will therefore be released in 6 months’ time, possibly earlier. The chances are that he will lose his local authority home. I have no idea what possessions or companion animals he may have, but unless he has friends or family somewhere to look after them, they too will be lost. He will come out of prison with nowhere to go, and may not be rehoused if some local penpusher decrees that he made himself homeless by his own actions.
That is part of the background. Then we have the point that the defendant had no previous convictions save for a silly one, 27 years previously, involving a “sick-note”.
In view of the fact that the local authority would probably take the crime to be a breach of lease terms or conditions, and so would take away the defendant’s home anyway, would it not have been more just simply to have given this defendant a suspended sentence?
This looks like kicking a man when he is down. At the same time, we see the courts daily giving thugs, thieves etc non-sentences. Of course, this was a “racial” crime…the courts have obviously been told to treat any offence having a “racial” element more seriously (harshly), in an attempt to keep the doomed multikulti society from falling to pieces.
I noticed, also, that the victims were from the Congo. Again, I do not know the full facts, but it is odds-on that what we have here are either “refugees” or economic migrants who have left Africa in order to settle in the UK. Odds-on, again, that the British people (including the defendant) are paying for the victims to live here and breed.
The case above reminds me of one about 25 years ago in Hammersmith, in which a man was driven half-mad by the incessant noise of blacks and their “music”, parties etc in the flat above his dwelling; so much so that he burned them out, killing several. He got a sentence, I think, of about 10 years for manslaughter and arson. Again, the act can scarcely be “justified”, perhaps, but it can be understood. Legally, provocation does not exist and provides no defence in such a case. In real-life terms, though, I think that many will feel a little sorry for such a defendant.
There is a further point: the defendant in the immediate case in question felt the need to say that he is not “racist” (perhaps after consultation with solicitors or Counsel). So even he himself felt the need to “virtue-signal”! If he or his advisers thought that a display of “contrition” and “I’m not racist” protesting would mitigate the sentence, they seem to have been mistaken.
There is also the point that, as hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns etc flood into the UK every year, and as politicians bleat about the “need” to destroy what is left of the countryside in order to build little boxes for migrants on agricultural land and forested land, very many fully-entitled British people are homeless (after today’s sentence, add another one, 6 months down the line).
I am at present also preparing a blog post about Peter Hitchens, who thinks that the UK is doomed in terms of its present society. I suppose that most of us hope that he is wrong. I also suppose that he is probably right.
I was reminded yet again (not that I require the reminder) of the migration-invasion of the UK, having seen a Daily Telegraph article written some 6 years ago (2012), just recently tweeted or retweeted by (ironically) a Jew-Zionist extremist. To read the full article, see Notes, below.
What the article says
In that Daily Telegraph article, the authoress writes that
“I feel like a stranger where I live.”
I am living in a place where I am a stranger.”
“Muslims…it feels as if they have taken over.”
“There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too.”
“I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.”
“I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.”
“…now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.”
“It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
So finally the authoress, obviously by nature something akin to what the Americans might term, mutatis mutandis, a “Country Club Republican” (meaning “liberal conservative”) has to concede that “I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
The only thing to be added to her article itself is that it is 6 years since she wrote it. The statistic given of 600,000 white British or mostly British who left (fled?) London in the decade before the article was written could probably be updated to 1M or more now.
Personal Experiences and Thoughts
The Daily Telegraph article focusses on the Muslim influx into London. Firstly, that influx has been far greater in percentage terms in some of the post-industrial Northern towns and cities; secondly, the writer says that “Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number.”
In what world is a million (now? God knows…) not a great number? In what world is nearly 13% (now, what?) of the population (and growing fast as those “young families” breed) not huge? The lady writer so obviously wants to be “nice”, and not to “offend” etc, but I fear that desperate times betoken desperate measures. Nice polite sentiments are, well, nice and polite, but we have to face facts with both clear thought and clear expression of thought if Western civilization is to survive.
The Daily Telegraph guest writer prefers to focus on the Muslims as a population bloc (and, though unsaid, population bomb), but effectively ignores the multitude of other races, ethnicities and nationalities that now comprise part of the London population. Africans, West Indians, Chinese etc, a giant multikulti Pandora’s Box. We hear much now about the explosion in youth “gangs” and “knife crime” etc (almost all of which is carried out by blacks and other non-whites), and the System msm and political milieu becomes ever more hysterical with calls to restrict and get rid of…knives! In the old phrase, “’nuff said”!
I once lived in London, starting in Little Venice in 1976 (at age 19; I returned intermittently and that was the main area in which I lived over the years), eventually living in a number of different areas, some good, some not so good: Blackheath, Lee, Lewisham, East Dulwich, Tulse Hill, New Cross, Holland Park. The house in which I first lived, in Little Venice, was valued at £100,000 when sold to the lessee c.1980. It was sold in 2005 (by my friend who bought the freehold c.1980) for £1.4M…That same house, or at least identical Victorian semi-detached villas with good gardens in the same road, were valued in 2018 at up to £4M! A 40x increase in “value” in less than 40 years! A low to average pay in 1976 would have been about £100 per week; similar work would today pay perhaps £400 or £500 a week. In other words, pay has increased, for most people, at a face value of perhaps 4x or 5x over those 40 years, but the cost of a house by 40x! Rent has increased similarly.
Mass immigration is only one of the factors that have driven up the cost of London housing, but it is a major one and probably the most important. The wealthier parts of London now house largely a cosmopolitan crowd of Chinese, “Russians” (many of which are in fact Jews from Russia), Israelis, Arabs, you name it. In fact, large swathes of expensive housing are owned but kept empty by absentee foreigners. The poorer parts (such as in the Daily Telegraph article) are now flooded and indeed swamped by a motley mob of blacks, browns and others (and also whites from the poorer parts of Europe).
Little Venice has changed from, in 1976, being a fairly affluent, in places wealthy, and also rather intellectual (because of the BBC studios in the outer part of Maida Vale, perhaps), inner suburb, to a now very wealthy enclave (one cannot list the famous pop stars, theatrical people, film stars, “entrepreneurs” etc who now live there, so numerous are they). However, this “island” is surrounded by a black/brown sea in all directions North and West. Even in the 1990s, if a school trip party from the nearby areas were to be encountered at Warwick Avenue Underground Station, there were few if any white children.
I myself saw what was coming, decades ago. I stayed in London (for much of the time, though I was sometimes overseas, at times resident in the country or in the USA) until I left to live in Kazakhstan on kommandirovka (work contract) for a year (1996-1997). Others I knew in London had started to leave by then.
One couple, the sister and brother in law of a lady I knew, lived in Catford, South London, in what was probably the only decent road there: a leafy enclave of large detached Victorian or perhaps Edwardian houses. They, professed Labour supporters and, I think, members, no doubt “anti-racist” etc (I was warned not to talk politics with them, and I think that they had been given a similar warning!) were able, for a while, to live there an comfortably affluent life (he a partner in a City of London law firm, she a housewife –though I daresay never accepting such a label– and Open University student) and able also to put out of mind the enveloping near-jungle that started at the end of their own road. They relocated to rural Kent in the 1990s, pleased to discover that their Catford residence could be sold to their advantage, allowing them to buy a country house complete with acres of manicured grounds, a swimming pool, tennis court, stables (and horses) etc, somewhere near Tonbridge.
I doubt that the above couple would ever have said (even between themselves, probably) that there was a racial element to their relocation (escape?); more likely to have cited fresh air, space, less noise, better schools for their two children etc (and would never have linked those factors, at least consciously, to the racial-ethnic one…).
The lady whose sister and brother in law are mentioned above also relocated out of London, in the late 1990s, having contracted a marriage or quasi-marriage. She and her “partner”, to use the contemporary word, sold their London homes (in his case in the “bandit country” of the Seven Sisters neighbourhood of North London) and bought a house in Brighton. Neither of them, I am sure, would ever mention ethnic-related crime as one reason to move (they were both strong “anti-racists” and she is the only woman ever to have walked out on me at a restaurant, the result of an ideological disagreement at the –now and sadly closed-down– Luba’s Bistro in Knightsbridge). More likely to be mentioned: sea air, a less frenetic life etc…
Thirdly, a barrister I knew, who also relocated, also to the South Coast, in the early 2000s, together with his very charming wife and then-young children: another Labour Party member (and one-time Islington councillor, who was offered but declined the chance of a safe seat in the Commons under Blair), I am sure that the reasons which he or his wife might give for having moved out of London would be fresh sea air, space, good schooling for their two children etc; certainly nothing to do with the ethnic swamping of London. They may even believe that themselves. Call me a cynic…
It may or may not be significant that in all three of the above cases, one person from each couple had to commute a considerable distance daily to London. Obviously, those people thought that the trouble and extra travel expense was worth it.
Another case: someone I had known from school, who bought a house (later two others) in South London, rented rooms, converted two houses into flats, starting around 1980. He eventually married and then, around 2000, moved out of London to what the Daily Mail might call “leafy Buckinghamshire”. I do not know whether he would say that racial or ethnic swamping was a cause of his relocation or not; he would probably cite cultural factors. Like the others above, he and his wife are bringing up their children (indeed, by now have brought them up) in a basically white English racial and cultural milieu.
There are similar relocations constantly, from London and other UK urban centres to the country, to Australasia etc. Few of those fleeing or, put less dramatically, relocating, are very “political”; if they were, there might be no need for “white flight”!
Safe Zones
I have previously blogged about the need for English (to a lesser extent, Welsh and Scottish) people to relocate to “safe zones” and in particular to the one major zone which I propose in the South West of England. This is not exclusively a racial imperative. It is also a social and cultural one.
I have been criticized by old-thinking persons who say that English people should “stay and fight” (at least politically). Such people still think in terms of starting a political party, printing leaflets (in the digital age!), holding meetings, and canvassing voters “on the doorstep” just like System party MPs and candidates pretend to do at election time as part of the meaningless flim-flam of System party politics. Well, how has that worked out? The NF tried it in the 1970s (before the Internet). Result? Nothing. The BNP tried it in the 1990s and 2000s. Result? Almost nothing (and eventually nothing). UKIP tried it and is still trying it with its few members. Result? Nothing, really.
How is it possible to fight or struggle politically for social nationalism in a city such as London which is majority non-white/non-European? A doomed struggle. That is what faces us in most UK urban concentrations.
There must be a concentration of forces, to enable a new future to be developed. Not just “white flight” away from certain ways of life, but advance to a new society.
Further to the above, I saw the youtube video below, which is self-explanatory and also hilarious, as virtue-signalling Swedes tie themselves in knots trying to backtrack after lying that they would, if asked, accept a “refugee” into their homes as a staying guest. It reminded me of all those enemies of the people in the UK, who are constantly telling (other) British people to give up their living standards or even their own homes to (mostly fake) “refugees”. You know some of the worst of them: Yvette Cooper, Lily Allen, Billy Bragg, the jew “lord” Dubs etc.
Now look at these virtue-signalling Swedish morons!
and here (below) is the Peter Hitchens view. Sadly, not a social nationalist, but he does castigate mass immigration
Update, 3 June 2019
I am probably wasting my time talking about a random tweet seen, especially when it is typical of thousands, but anyway…
Nicely put! 🙂 I am one of those Brits living in Europe and fighting for the rights of my children and grandchildren to enjoy FOM.
which is in a very pleasant and quiet (and European-race) corner of France (the village or town has fewer than 3,000 inhabitants). Hardly any non-Europeans live anywhere in the whole region.
This woman is tweeting in support of a Romanian girl who wants to stay in the UK, where the Romanian has been living for 7 years (probably at State expense in part, possibly as cheap labour in part) and who is doing a PhD (on “migrants in the UK”! You could not make it up!). Judging from the photos tweeted, the Romanian girl is at least real Romanian, not one of the horde of Roma Gypsies with Romanian or other passports.
My attitude? I have no objection to the odd (real) Romanian coming to or staying in the UK; n.b. not Roma Gypsies, not in the millions (of any kind of person). As for the tweeters supporting mass immigration, “idiots”, “bien-pensants”…..”well-meaning fools” pretty much covers it. Look at the Woolf woman, wishing yet more swamping of the UK… from her rural idyll in one of the most scenic and prosperous (and unswamped) parts of Western France!
I suppose that I should add that I myself was resident in France (Finistere-Nord, Brittany) for several years, but there again (unlike many of those who are swamping the UK) I am of European race and culture, did not use the French social security or free health system, brought money into France rather than exporting funds from France and was never in trouble with the police (save for one minor nonsense “crime”, an on-the-spot speeding ticket, when I was caught doing nearly 100 mph on a dual-carriageway with a speed-limit of about 65 mph).
These idiots tweeting their virtue-signalling tend to equate British pensioners, business owners, or expat residents (working part-time in the UK or elsewhere if working at all), with (often non-European) cheap labour, fake “refugees”, criminals, scavengers etc! Such hypocritical and (at least in their own minds) “well-meaning” idiots are some of the gravediggers of Europe’s future.
Update, 27 June 2019
A Daily Telegraph property report published this week.
“Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) said that “property prices are a big deal” and the main cause of internal migration from London. “Obviously people also want a better quality of life, but they also want access to good schools, to live in rural areas and to get away from the stabbings.”“[Daily Telegraph]
“Neil Park, head of the ONS’s population estimates unit, said: “In the last two years, population growth in the UK has been at its lowest rate since 2004.”
“For the fifth year in a row, net international migration was a bigger driver of population change than births and deaths”
The racial-ethnic aspects of migration by English people out of London are not mentioned directly once in the (immediately above) Daily Telegraph report. It’s all “better schools”, “fresh air”, “leisure opportunities”, “knife crime” etc. Same old…meaning same hypocrisy and same unwillingness to face the truth.
Ian Robert Millard 