UK set to ban all travellers from South America – but by the time the Govt do it the latest 'new strain' will already be here, giving them the excuse for weeks more lockdown dictatorship.https://t.co/FU1xai10hQ
Dorset. Police arrest a woman strolling along the beachfront with an elderly companion and, nearby, another woman sitting on a bench looking out to sea. If this doesn’t make you uneasy about what is going on in our country, nothing will. pic.twitter.com/ZCLuRkP5tm
Still think that you are living in (what people long ago called) “a free country”? Police state.
Yes, at present only a “toytown” police state, but steadily becoming a real one. Tyrannical government, no real Opposition in Parliament (quite the reverse, in fact), the Press, TV, radio almost entirely pumping out System propaganda, the police becoming a Stasi-lite, the law corrupted or ignored, Government wishes (sub nom “guidance” and “advice”, or made-up “rules”) treated by the police as if “law”, while the courts are silent or craven.
At present it is “iron fist in velvet glove”, but for how long?
A debate which has been around for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. On the one hand, cities are the fount of organized culture and science, along with other desirable things; on the other hand, cities are sinks of dirt, corruption, decadence and evil.
Marx referred to “rural idiocy”, a point of view arguably typically Jewish; the Jews have long been associated with urban life, though not exclusively: there were once plenty of rural Jews in the Pale of Settlement (Western Russia and what is now Belarus), and also in Poland and Ukraine.
On the other hand, writers, poets and thinkers have always existed who were ready to extol the country life, and even life in the wilderness. Virgil, Rousseau and Thoreau among many others.
Perhaps the best way to look upon these questions of urbanization and rurality is to say that there can be decent and aesthetically-pleasing cities, and there can be a rural life with high cultural and living standards. There must be the will to create both.
Hodges @dpjhodges seems actually to have *forgotten' that he said : 'And there isn't a shred of epidemiological evidence their incarceration will prove effective.' He claims his misgivings were about sustainability. https://t.co/sn9gmLFZ8X
Inquiries now show that the mysterious disappearance of followers on Twitter (often against their will) is *not* limited to conservatives. So that obviously changes things a lot. But it is still plainly wrong. I'd ask *everyone* affected to unite against it. @thecarolemalone
Dyson is but one example of very wealthy persons buying lands in huge quantity in England and also Scotland at present. I myself have noticed how few large estates are on sale for long before being bought. I am sure that it is partly by reason of a drive for security. London is becoming a zoo. Who knows how long it will be safe for the wealthy? Also, in circumstances of socio-economic and/or socio-political meltdown—which may develop— rural estates are safer than London houses.
There is also the point that land is a hedging asset in a way that cash and equities (shares) are not. The pound must be sliding from now. Not just the “panicdemic”, but mishandled Brexit/Brino as well. We have just been told that the UK economy contracted by nearly 3% recently. Yes, the Government can borrow to distribute largesse— for a while. Not indefinitely, though.
I was just reading some American anti-Gates Twitter accounts talking about these issues. One fellow said that he has bought 1 acre and intends to build his own home on it and grow things. Fine, though an acre is very little, but, while that may be straightforward in parts of the USA, in Western Europe there are so many factors etc to overcome. God help the man who buys an acre of Devon or Dorset and just builds his own home on it without planning permission etc.
More tweets
Below, “Antifa” cheerleader (always from a very safe distance) and serial grifter, Mike Stuchbery, attacks the memory of Ashli Babbitt, an American woman who, though unarmed, was shot dead at the US Capitol building recently:
She was a violent thug who attacked a federal facility with the intent of harming elected officials, @PatrioticTalk14. She died a traitor's death. No wonder you Patriotic Alternative lemons are trying to turn her into Horstina Wessel. pic.twitter.com/YpEas8tybY
Stuchbery, who used to pose as “historian” and “journalist” (in fact, he was briefly a “supply” —i.e. temporary— teacher, who was sacked for reasons unclear) is now living off German welfare payments in Stuttgart (he also seems to scribble a bit for politically-tendentious online websites). I have blogged about him previously (he later sent, a couple of times, puerile and would-be threatening messages to me as a result): https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/10/23/a-few-words-about-mike-stuchbery/
Quite funny. First of all, and despite her extensive education (her father was a wealthy timber merchant, of the sort mentioned in Russian literature of the 19thC), Rosa Luxemburg was an idiot. She died before she was able to see most of the devastation wrought by Soviet socialism. Her own ideas were, arguably, typically Jewish, tending to protest, dissolution, revolution and chaos. Even had she been gifted power, she would have been unable to do anything positive with it.
Incidentally, her Wikipedia entry initially describes her as “Polish”, rather than “Jewish”, because of her having been born in Poland [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg]! The (((influence))) is very obvious in parts of Wikipedia.
Sad. Give the bird a chance. It can always be prevented from mating, if that is the problem. There’s no do-gooder “conservationist” as extreme as an Australian one (unless it’s a German one).
Ironic, though. A poor pigeon makes an epic journey to Australia and will be killed, but the idiots in Australia have let in every kind of ethnic riff-raff, and those idiots in Canberra and elsewhere pat themselves on the back for being so “hospitable” and “diverse”!
[update: it turns out that the pigeon was probably not from the USA, and so will not now be killed].
Thank you @theblogmire. In this @dpjhodges says he tried to buy an imitation gun because he was so scared by the Covid crisis. And yet he cannot grasp that the same fear kept thousands away from doctors and hospitals, so that they missed key scans, referrals and treatments. https://t.co/8ihDZhG4Qw
Yes, it is @dpjhodges . Talks to ministers, Goes on about it as if it's a big deal consorting with nonentities. Doesn't know people are finding it hard to get medical treatment all over the country he lives in. https://t.co/cfx3UUNKlV
This is the problem not only in relation to the “panicdemic” but also in relation to other issues which scarcely impact on the very wealthy, and only peripherally on the merely very affluent Westminster denizens, whether politicians or msm drones. Immigration. Poor roads. Poor public transport. Crime (mostly committed by immigrants and/or their offspring). Declining quality of the NHS. Poor pay for most. Poor education.
In fact, the very wealthy don’t necessarily care much about most of those issues. Immigration? No problem (cheap labour inc. domestic help; and no immigrant “communities” live anywhere near them or in the same buildings). Poor rail and roads? No problem (private planes and helicopters, supplemented by chauffeur-driven or other Range-Rovers and other expensive cars). Crime? No problem (private security, expensive alarms etc). NHS problems? No problem (private healthcare, money for medicines unavailable on NHS…). Poor pay? No problem (inherited or other wealth). Poor education? No problem (anyone with wealth can pay for expensive schools and/or private tutors).
[meant to be Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn, but if the cap fits…]
Harry and the Royal Mulatta: A Continuing Bad Joke
On Twitter, there are many idiots who blame “racists” and “misogynists” for “hounding” out the Royal Mulatta and her henpecked little boy. Their huge privilege goes with certain approved and customary behaviours. They want the lifestyle (minus the duties) but can’t seem to behave. This was always going to be a disaster. Some of us predicted it. Cultural differences…
Let’s just leave it at that.
I have an idea for a sitcom or comedy drama: A British royal prince marries a black woman (darker than MM, in my screenplay) and gives up his position to live with her in Hollywood, Beverly Hills or maybe Bel-Air. The marriage goes sour, she chucks him out, he is unable to return to his old life so he becomes a mixture of “bum” and private eye (a la Rockford Files)…Working title? What about “The Private Eye Prince“? Only joking…though I suppose that the Queen or Charles will have to chuck the “prince” some money to prevent him selling used Cadillacs or making money opening stores on Rodeo Drive…
To be fair to MM, at least she has some idea of what it is like to live without everyone fawning simply because you are the holder of an inherited title (come to think of it, Harry never did have that DNA test done…).
One has to ask, where would Harry be without his princely title? A junior Army officer unlikely to be promoted beyond the rank of major? An estate agent? A car salesman?
That thought (where would Harry be were he not a prince?) brings me to another thought. Were he an average Joe in title as well as every other way, would MM ever have agreed to meet him, as we are told she did, on a blind date?
Meanwhile, the tweets just keep coming!
Just had chat w/ Harry and Meghan & told them I'd set up a Go-Fund Me page for them and have an old-fashioned Southern "pounding" for them so they could get set up as "commoners." https://t.co/CvTK6ZIFNC
Meghan Markle & Prince Harry’s wax figures have been removed from the Madame Tussauds royal family display following their announcement to step back as senior Royals. pic.twitter.com/Pn1Cu3tnqv
[for the historically illiterate, the above photos show Stalin with Molotov, Voroshilov and —brushed out of the second photo, having become an unperson— Yezhov, on the Moscow River embankment c.1937].
I am not a royalist, though not exactly an anti-royalist either. It all depends on circumstances and on the type of society.
“The welfare of the people is the highest law” [Cicero]. Harry has probably never heard that one.
For those who are dyed-in-the-wool royalists, and for those concerned about the —literally— millions of pounds of public funds spent only recently on renovating the “cottage” occupied by Harry and MM, I offer this consolation: Harry and the Royal Mulatta are still going to spend some time in the UK, their very presence providing balm and comfort to the repressed and suffering British people. Yes, indeed, they will fly in on private jets and helicopters to lecture the grateful British masses on “climate change” and, of course, “how to be multicultural”…So the £3M those taxed masses have had taken off them for the refurbishment etc (oh, and of course the £1M p.a. security costs, and the costs of world travel etc) have not been wasted. Oh, no, wait…
What is really funny is that all the “left wing” Twitterati, those who (you would imagine) oppose royal privilege, are actually on the side of Harry and MM. Ha ha! Those idiots.
“Ali G” said it!
Dominic Cummings
Not much in recent days from No. 10’s lunatic-in-residence. I blogged (again) about him last week:
Only in Private Eye: the People's Prime Minister answers questions from the public (but not ones from his wife's divorce lawyers like "how can you afford to go to Mustique?"). Plus an exclusive diary from Dominic Cummings, as told to Craig Brown. Buy your copy now! pic.twitter.com/10ffe7titk
I do not think very highly of loudmouth msm talking head James O’Brien, but I agree with this!
I am naturally very scruffy. Clean but incredibly messy. Even when I’m suited & booted for telly etc I will look creased & dishevelled within two hours max. And I don’t see how anyone can routinely look as absurd as Dominic Cummings without consciously trying to.
Trump has appeared at a White House press conference slurring his words and even odder than usual. I have previously wondered whether Trump has suffered some physical brain abnormality, something causing organic change. So far no proof of that beyond his behaviour and his peculiar and puerile-looking tweets etc. Now he has had killed an Iranian general, has threatened to obliterate Iran (Hillary Clinton did that too; they’re both in the Jew-Zionist/Israeli pocket) but has not retaliated after Iran sent missiles into Iraq.
What’s going on? Has Trump been drugged to stop him launching a world war? Are we in “Seven Days in May“?
In the next 5 years, almost anything could happen.
Alison Chabloz
Alison Chabloz is in court tomorrow, at Derby. She appeals her conviction and sentence (8 weeks’ imprisonment, notionally) for breach of a condition of her original 2018 sentence. Good luck to her! May justice and mercy prevail!
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).
Ian Robert Millard 