A state founded on both terrorism and the bribery of foreign politicians, by a tribe well-versed in both.
Israel tried to run over a journalist earlier today but you won’t see that on any international headlines because he’s Palestinian. https://t.co/1ULucrRCw5
For years we’ve been fed this idea that Palestinians are inherently violent, therefore all targets in Western conceptions. This is Israel’s longest running English podcast where the hosts openly advocate for the extermination of all Palestinians. pic.twitter.com/JaCNwMOaMB
It is amazing that people have not taken, in the French phrase, “action directe” against such nonsense.
Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan.
Dawn Butler, someone who believes that babies are born without a biological sex and that 90% of giraffes are gay, is standing for chair of the UK's Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, and has the backing of 20 MPs pic.twitter.com/5OsK4FNKfx
What will it take to make people understand that the promotion of idiots like Dawn Butler is not some kind of crazy mistake but part of a conspiratorial agenda to completely ruin the UK? The public, though, mostly prefer to interest themselves in rubbish such as commercialized football, the similar Olympics nonsense, TV talent shows etc. They enjoy their party on the decks of the Titanic…
Yesterday in the Lords during a discussion on the riots, I pointed out that there have been far too many threats of more clampdowns and laws on XYZ, all justified by the riots. So I asked if the minister had ANY worries AT ALL over state-backed censorship? The response seemed to… pic.twitter.com/t9whEJAPLG
Thangam “Debbonaire” (real/original name is/was “Singh”), is expressing exactly what I predicted “Labour”-label would do, i.e. “stop the boats” by simply rubberstamping 95% of applicants for “asylum”, and allowing the invaders to enter “legally” via air, train, or ferry; thus not solving at all the actual problem of the swamping of the UK by migration-invasion, but keeping it off the TV screens, off Twitter/X, out of the newspapers etc.
— David Morgan 🏴 #StayFree (@david_r_morgan) September 3, 2024
It’s true. That weird individual’s name is Pitcavage, a Jew-Zionist who has made a kind of career as a supposed “expert” on “terrorism and extremism” with the very well financed Jew-Zionist snoop and anti-free-speech group, the “ADL”, in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pitcavage.
Incidentally, one notes that that individual’s Jewish and Zionist origins are not mentioned on Wikipedia, which is often vandalized by Jewish/Zionist/Israeli groups such as the so-called “Campaign Against Antisemitism” in the UK (the “CAA” even advertised openly for supporters with Wikipedia accounts to collaborate with them in “editing” some Wikipedia topics).
I should say that tweeter “Amy Gallagher/@StandUpToWoke” has it largely right.
The Guardian cannot bring itself to face the truth. Likewise, the same scribblers published a long appraisal of the new Attorney-General a month ago, but only mentioned in passing the fact that he is not only a Jew but from a heavily Zionist background, and apparently, in the past, advised the “antifascist” Searchlight magazine Jews, not as a lawyer but when he was a student.
Politicized law under the Starmer-Labour dictatorship.
The point is that the UK is a failing society, overall.
Part of that is caused by the ever-lessening white European proportion of the population, and the ever-increasing non-white part of the population.
Connected with all that are falling standards in all areas: (real) education, administration, the justice system, the police, the NHS, the political system; and of course added to that the unjust and actually ridiculous First Past The Post voting system, as a result of which we now have a Labour Friends of Israel “elected” dictatorship of very little, very petty, people.
A “Labour”-label dictatorship “elected” by only 4 out of every 20 eligible voters, and by only 4 out of every 12 voters who actually voted. A government without legitimacy, without a popular mandate.
Are you as happy for Zelensky that he finally got his wish of more tanks and soldiers?
Yulia Timoshenko, a complete idiot politically, but also cunning, and who was corrupt, like almost all Ukrainian politicians (in fact she is part-Latvian, part-Jew as well).
I recall seeing Michael Palin’s New Europe, from about 2007. He visited Ukraine in one episode. I recall mainly his talk with the then Prime Minister’s daughter, a rather attractive young lady who had been at an expensive school (Rugby) in England for several years (followed by 3 years at the LSE). That daughter had married an English tattooed heavy metal band leader and biker from somewhere “up North” (Leeds, I think); he died at the early age of 50, but the couple had already divorced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenia_Tymoshenko.
Late tweets
“Cancel culture has now moved from focusing on the present towards how we view our history. There is now a war against our past, the aim of which is to radically revise if not delegitimise and cancel our cultural inheritance and sense of collective memory” https://t.co/faMnjRmI6L
— Newspaper articles collection (@NewsArticleColl) September 4, 2024
Even when I was first living in the USA, from late 1989, there was very obviously a huge influx from Mexico and further south to New York City and New Jersey. 35 years ago. God knows what the situation is now.
— Newspaper articles collection (@NewsArticleColl) September 4, 2024
🇺🇦 What is behind the mass replacement of Ukrainian politicians❓
▪️Failure on the front, economic and social crisis and pressure from "western partners" are causing great turbulence in the Ukrainian government, which cannot boast of anything – neither stability nor legitimacy.… pic.twitter.com/z5FsHywzXG
Part of the soundtrack to my childhood in the early 1960s.
[Ostend, Belgium. The large building in the background, far left, is the Kursaal casino and auditorium complex. I remember that, when my family were on holiday there in (?) 1963, the starring act advertised on the outside was Cliff Richard and the Shadows]
Well, this week another narrow victory over political journalist John Rentoul, my 5/10 trumping his 4/10. I did not know the answers to questions 2, 6, and 7, and also failed to immediately bring to mind the answers to questions 8 and 10, which I “really” knew (in the back of my mind)…
Tweets seen
Imagine all the other £millions that gets wasted on them every day ie housing, utility bills, mobile phone contracts, clothing vouchers, medication, translaters, Drs, dentists, food vouchers, benefits… infact the list is endless!
Bullshit 1. We should be training our own 2. If we didn't have 10 million immigrants (high % from the 3rd world) we wouldn't need more Drs & nurses 3. We have never needed immigrants to look after our elderly before 4. Immigrants with their 6 kids each are a burden on the economy
'People have been told not to fail international students because the institution needs their money'@GoodwinMJ reveals that universities are dropping standards to hold onto foreign students' cash. pic.twitter.com/a0RbhBcZgH
According to Electoral Calculus [https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html] (adjusted to add-in tactical voting and Scottish voting), that would leave the Conservative Party with only 80 seats (Labour Party 483; LibDems 38).
The latest YouGov poll (9 January 2024) is even more stark: Con 72, Lab 514, LibDems 36.
Call me spiteful, but one of the aspects of all that I like the most is thinking about all those nasty and/or smug little careerists of recent years, in the 20-40 age range, willing to “throw under a bus” the poor, unemployed, disabled etc, and who thought that they had a future as Con Party MPs coming to them, and now face a less-pleasant future of having to work in a real job for a living.
The Telegraph:
British aircraft carriers are not ready to enter the Red Sea due to a personnel crisis in the British army. pic.twitter.com/c8P2YNFzKF
“Army“? Do they mean “Navy“? Are the 20-something wannabee “journalists” of 2024 really that ignorant? Seems so…
The Telegraph: 🇺🇦🇬🇧"The stockpile of weapons that the UK could transfer to Ukraine has dried up: Kiev will no longer receive British arms. “We have transferred virtually everything we could afford to Ukraine. The Challenger 2 tanks we have left are being upgraded to Challenger 3… pic.twitter.com/lSZcvO88og
Corbyn is still trying to say to the Jews, “hey, man! Respectttt!”. What an idiot. “They” will hate you whatever you say. Anyway, why wish them “Happy Hanukah”?
Many misguided Christians think that the Jewish religious festival of “Hanukah” is somehow analogous to Christmas, the profound Christian religious festival of birth and peace. Wrong. “Hanukah” is, like most other Jewish religious festivals, an ethno-nationalist celebration of resistance and victory (of Jewish triumphalism if you like), in this case the rebellion of the Jews against their Greco-Syrian overlords in the 2nd Century B.C. (or “B.C.E.”):
What was the Jewish response to Corbyn’s olive branch? “Jeremy Corbyn‘s annual ‘happy Hannukkah’ message to Jews in Britain and around the world has prompted a furious reaction from, amongst others, the editor of a Jewish newspaper, who told the Labour leader: ‘go f*** yourself!’“… [Daily Mail]
Need one say more? Corbyn has seen and experienced the way in which the Jewish lobby has conspired against him and the Labour Party for over four years. Why give them the satisfaction of throwing a peaceful greeting back in your face? Just cold-shoulder them.
As with the Diane Abbott situation, Corbyn seems incapable of learning from experience…
Meanwhile, Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey is attacked by the Daily Mail (which seems to be afraid of her…):
“Labour frontrunner Rebecca Long-Bailey has said her political outlook was shaped by watching her father worry about losing his job at Salford Docks
But the Shadow Business Secretary, born in September 1979, would only have been two when the docks closed in 1982.” [Daily Mail]
Well, if Jews can be terribly upset about the death or disappearance of remote relatives that they never even met, and indeed who died or disappeared long before they, the descendants, were even born, why should Rebecca Long-Bailey not…? (well, you get the idea…).
Priti Patel “to be given power over sentencing” [Daily Mail].
Looks like there is something rotten in the state of Boris…
Blyth Valley
I am reading “mainstream” analyses saying, as my blog did in the days since the General Election, that the Conservatives only have those Northern and Midland seats “on loan”, though I do not use that term. I said that the Cons have “shallow roots” there.
The msm are still trying to say that huge numbers of voters turned to the Conservatives; but we know that the Conservative vote increased by a mere 1.2% nationally over 2017. The real story was and is the collapse of trust in Labour and support for Labour. It is probably true that the Con vote increased in those Northern and Midland areas by more than the national average, and did not increase, or it fell, in some other areas.
In the most striking result, perhaps, Blyth Valley went Con after 69 years (the seat was established in 1950 and won by Lab, by Alfred Robens who later, as Lord Robens, was chief of the National Coal Board).
The 2019 Con vote, however, only increased by 5.8% over 2017. The real story is earlier: the Con vote increased from 13.3% in 1997 to 15.9% in 2001, was 13.9% in 2005, and 16.6% in 2010; not much difference. However, the 21.7% the Cons got in 2015 jumped to 36.9% in 2017, then 42.7% in 2019.
What happened? What happened was that national sentiment increased and “proletarian” old-style “socialist” sentiment took second place to that.
Only once in the 69 years did the Conservatives come 2nd where there was a third candidate at Blyth Valley, and that was in 1960 when an Independent stood. The Conservative Party has otherwise always come 3rd or 4th.
In 2010, there was an identifiable “national” vote at Blyth Valley: BNP 4.4%, UKIP 4.3%, English Democrats 0.8%. So 9.5% in toto (Conservatives 13.3%, LibDems 27.2%, Lab 44.5%).
In 2015, only UKIP represented a kind of “national” vote, and received 22.3%, beating the Conservatives (21.7%). Lab won with 46.3%. You can see that Labour only beat the combined UKIP/Con vote by a couple of points.
In 2017, no UKIP or other “national” party, and Labour’s vote surged to 55.9%, easily beating the Conservatives’ 36.9%, but in 2019, Brexit Party stood, getting 8.3%, and the Labour vote collapsed to 40.9%, allowing the Conservatives to win on 42.7%.
For me, the dynamics are clear. The Brexit vote only went partly to Brexit Party (which also was probably perceived as not fully “national”. The Conservatives benefited, though —as said above— by only 5-6 points over 2017. Turnout was 3 points down from 2017. The Brexit Party votes were probably from former Labour voters. Labour only lost to the Cons at Blyth Valley by 1.8 points. Those 8.3% Brexit Party votes were crucial. Had Brexit Party not been there, the vote would have been closer by far; Lab might have won.
The old “proletarian” certainties have disappeared at Blyth Valley, along with the coal mines. Only traces remain. That has cut the ties binding the voters to Labour.
Leaving the Brexit issue aside, as presumably will be the case next time, it can be seen that Blyth Valley will either revert to Labour or may go to a new party, so long as it is both “national” and “social”…
That may be the case in most of the new “Conservative” seats.
NHS
What was that that Boris-idiot was saying about “no plans to sell off NHS”?
Dan Hodges, faux-proletarian, who lives in his mother’s house in Blackheath (she being the once-famous actress, Glenda Jackson), describes Corbyn supporters as “parasites”…So speaks the scribbler who scribbles for the Mail on Sunday (formerly for the Sunday Telegraph) and of whom Wikipedia says: “Hodges is the son of the actress and former Labour MP Glenda Jackson and her then husband Roy Hodges.[4] He worked as a parliamentary researcher for his mother between 1992 and 1997, describing it as ‘straight-forward nepotism’.” “His former colleague Mehdi Hasan described his…role with The Daily Telegraph as one where he “now performs the role of the right’s useful idiot”. “In 2014, Hodges co-founded the Migration Matters Trust, a pro-immigration pressure group chaired by Barbara Roche, Lord Dholakia and Nadhim Zahawi and run by Atul Hatwal.”
We're used to the insults @RichardBurgon I've been alive nearly 61 years & I've been insulted more times, in more ways (boot-girl, deluded, cult-member, racist, idiot, moron, parasite….) in the past 3 yrs than in the previous 58 put together.
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 