Bloody hell. Hitchens has excelled himself with his latest Sunday column.
A piece on our simpering outrage about the British drug smuggler on death row in China, coupled with our government's hypocrisy on human rights and Tibet. A further piece about worrying civil rights transgressions following from a clampdown on security after the failed Christmas Day 'Dam to Detroit flight bombing. A further piece quoting Cameron as outing himself as a consensus wet liberal. And a further piece yet about how tough prisons work, citing the Isle of Man's success in this area.
This stuff needs to be repeated and the word needs to be spread. Something is very wrong with our ruling elites. They are all the same (on the weird social democratic left) and they are all destroying the country.
Whether you are left or right, a supporter of civil liberties or just someone who wants to see a country run properly, there is nothing the three main parties have to offer that will lead to much needed improvements.
Some say Hitchens is a pessimist. I don't think he's pessimistic enough. He has it alarmingly right about things, but I cannot see a way out of the malaise we face in Britain unless serious, direct action is taken. The current political system down there in Westminster doesn't work. Politicians increasingly come from the same self serving, gutless, principle-free pool of careerists and aloof wankers.
Do we need revolution to bring about a desperately needed resolution here?
Hats off to Hitchens. As time goes on, I believe an answer may lie in a coalition of sorts between libertarian and conservative. I don't see how effective change can occur from either one of these groupings alone. Unity is called for.
TO ADD: A full review of Peter Hitchens's 'The Broken Compass' coming soon...
Saturday, 2 January 2010
A cracking Sunday column from The Hitchmeister
Posted by J Demetriou at 20:49
Labels: left wing britain, new labour lies, peter hitchens, social democrats
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Agreed, I was reading it earlier. The only things I find slightly distasteful about it are (1) Hitchens' unwavering support for smoking bans, and (2) his apparent agreement with body scanners, which were not needed in the past, and so surely are not needed now.
Check the comments tomorrow for a pointless "rebuttal" from Establishment "voice of reason" Harry Rose, which will include phrases such as "traditionalist conservative dinosaurs" and will applaud David Cameron for his commitment to "liberal socialism". This will be roundly ignored, thanks to the MoS moderation policy of deleting all the angry replies to it.
HAHA! So you follow Hitchensblog, too? I read the comments quite a bit, but rarely post anymore.
I did once post a reply to a Harry Rose piece, noticed it never got onto the site and I have also noticed that not a single post responding to any of his points ever makes it. It therefore must be a moderation policy to contain the troll within narrow parameters. In other words, he can have his say, but he won't be allowed to totally take over and disrupt the site.
It's not a tactic I'd use lightly, but I can totally see how and why Hitchens reached that point of despair.
Harry Rose, initially, seemed like an interesting, albeit rabid, opponent and one worth looking out for. But it has become utterly clear that the man is a troll and one who appears possessed, as though some sort of maniacal obsessive compulsive freak on speed. I mean, why does he bother? No post ever goes up to talk back to him! Bizarre.
On Hitchens and smoking etc. I of course disagree with him about that. I disagree with him about body scanners and other intrusive tools of the state. They are depressing and humiliating. Furthermore, I disagree with him about drugs.
But...
I agree with him more than I disagree, and I read more stuff from him championing civil rights and freedoms than I do stuff that appears authoritarian.
To be honest, his stuff about Beeching is sufficient to earn my respect. The reversal of Beeching is, in my view, extremely important to this country.
Do we really want to spend a chunk of our lives outside of work stuck in a dangerous tin can on wheels, isolated, in traffic, drudging along with millions of other mugs?
We need those branch lines re-opened and our country given back to the people. This means crushing the depressing 1960s structures that symbolise central planning and it means a return to the values of the great Classical Liberal era of the 19th century.
I read Hitchens for much the same reasons. He is an excellent writer and debater, and while I certainly do find things to disagree with, there is also much to agree about. Reading his books and articles has been quite an enlightening experience for me.
Yeah, ditto that.
Looking forward to your review of Broken Compass, John. I really liked the book also - top quote: "A liberal will defend to the death your right to agree with her, disagree with her, and she will call the police"!
I have read "Abolition of Britain", which is good and am also in the middle of "Abolition of Liberty", which I strongly recommend to you.
I agree with the vast majority of what Hitch says, for the record. I tend to find his writing sobering and somewhat depressing, yet, alas devastingly accurate and to the point.
I often think that Hitch should move to another newspaper....he is in my opinion, far too good for the Daily Mail.
Ah, the poor, hard-done-by smokers. Here's what life used to be like for us non-smokers.
I bought a leather jacket - lovely leathery smell, until I made the mistake of wearing it to a pub. When I got home it reeked of tobacco smoke, and by morning the stench had permeated my flat. YOUR stench, on MY possessions. Another night I wasn't sure whether it would get cold enough to need a jumper, so I took one in a carrier bag and it stayed there, on the floor, the whole evening. Yet it still absorbed so much smoke that it had to be washed the next day.
Nobody forced any of you to become drug addicts. That was your free choice, and I'm damned if I see how it trumps my choice not to. The law still lets you smoke, just not indoors where you ruin the evening for people like me. What a difference to know I can leave a pub smelling the same as I went in. I loathe and detest the Labour party, but apparently even the most half-arsed incompetents can get one thing right.
Smokers moan that they should have the right to smoke where they like because it's pleasurable. So is sex, but I don't hear them whining that they're not allowed to do that in a pub.
I'm a non-smoker, and what I don't like is illiberal and authoritarian laws. Before the ban there were non-smoking pubs, and many if not most pubs and restaurants had non-smoking sections. It was perfectly possible to avoid smokers, who were already pariahs, already despised by respectable society for many years.
And now, thanks to the ban, we find them hanging about on the street, outside the pubs and offices. The solution to this will not be to allow them to have their smoking rooms back. No, it will be to ban them from the streets as well.
This is illiberal and authoritarian not because it takes away the smoker's "rights" but because it takes away the right of the owner of a building to say "smoking is permitted here, in this room, which I own". It is another piece of liberty, chipped away to the applause of so-called "liberals" who are happy that their existing prejudice against the smokers has been institutionalised.
Perhaps the word "liberal" became meaningless a long time ago, but for me it lost all meaning when it became possible for a self-described "liberal" to call for legalisation of drugs, while at the same time calling for tighter discrimination against tobacco smokers.
Rich: I agree. But none of the broadsheets are right wing or conservative enough for him. The Telegraph is basically an economically liberal right wing paper, with strong neo con strains running through it. It's more Heffer right, than Hitchens right.
The Times is disgracefully left wing, and increasingly so. No doubt this will be because they have bought into the Cameron bullshit (a line backed by Murdoch, obviously).
Hitchens is stuck at the Mail. I feel sorry for him, because the Mail is a perverted, deranged newspaper obsessed with naked women and weird sex obsessed stories, often involving minors. It is also celeb obsessed. Hitchens must hate all that stuff, especially the shite that gets plastered all over the online edition. But where else is there for him to go?
Vlad says what I would want to say about smoking, but clearer and with patience. Peter Green is utterly wrong on the matter, and any reasonable person would realise this.
I wrote "Yet it still absorbed so much smoke that it had to be washed the next day."
Anonymous Coward wrote: "try washing your clothes after a night out you smelly cunt."
Reading and comprehension not your strong suit, is it? Anyway, must dash, I'm off for an enjoyable evening down my local.
You assume im a coward because i havent got a google account or dont use a pseudonym like you? Like i said i have read this shit from you before, now fuck off down your local you turd i seriously doubt whether you would know how to have a good time and cannot believe that anybody likes you,go and troll Labourlist probably find more of your kind of people over there smelly.
"As time goes on, I believe an answer may lie in a coalition of sorts between libertarian and conservative. I don't see how effective change can occur from either one of these groupings alone. Unity is called for."
Unlikely I think JD, although we might be able to agree on enough things to keep out of each other's way....if Libertarians can manage to broadly agree among themselves first, that is....
But there are too many areas of fundamental disagreement for a meaningful coalition - for example, your new party leader's views on what should and should not be against the law would I think pose an insurmountable problem in terms of core beliefs for most conservatives.
This smoking row is weird. Anon, I don't disrespect your right not to smell of smoke. What I do believe is that the smoking ban went far too far. A decent balance could have been struck that compromised no-one.
Just because you don't like something, doesn't automatically mean a ban is right and that the junking of others' wishes and liberties is OK. As has been said here already, a blend of smoking and non smoking pubs and pubs with certain allocated areas is fair. Funnily enough, the market sorted itself out regarding this before the ban.
In reality, no ban was needed at all. At most, I could have accepted some sort of law that ensured non smokers got better choice and say, but this all out ban is pretty outrageous.
I fail to see why you have adopted your weird aggressive tone. Part of me thinks you are trolling. If so, it hasn't worked.
If you come back, exercise some manners. Oh, and watch your fucking language on here will you? You fucking useless cunt.
Mr Rob,
Thanks for dropping by, always a pleasure to read you here.
It's no longer my party, Mr. R. I have left.
If unity is to work, then I'd argue that a meeting of minds and a healthy discussion is in order. Pie in the sky stuff, perhaps, but I like to dream.
I believe a pragmatic, reasonable and moderate approach is in order, in libertarian land. I also think conservatives have a lot in common with libertarians, particularly on matters of law and liberty and the opposition to social democracy (an ideology that is massive in today's Britain).
We are also two non racist movements, proving a refreshing change from certain parties on the far right. I'm sure you and I could name a racist party that isn't the BNP, but maybe here's not the right place to start all that again?...what you think?
;-)
JD
Hopefully you get so many hits nowadays that you do not notice, but I do often pass by, as it is usually worth it :-)
No need to discuss that pile of festering mind-vomit that you alluded to; I believe that they are self-destructing quite nicely as it is, with a little encouragement from certain unforgiving characters every now and then....
So you are now a libertarian without a party, just as we conservatives have had no party for decades - I wonder how many unrepresented voters there are out there....
Many fucking voices. Which is partly what makes me so angry. The sheer shocking truth that people like us run into the countless hundreds of thousands if not millions, yet have no real political voice or source of representation, is often too much to bear...which is why I blog.
Do keep dropping by. I do try and make it worthwhile for readers, even if I go through many a poor patch and end up writing daft tat about betting and shite. Mr B will be back soon to entertain and intellectually arouse.
regarding the mind festering fuck pit of a party, I dropped by the Shite Site recently to see how you and Steve have been getting on. I loved the thread you started about that absolutely hilarious 'Alliance'. My fucking god, I can't believe it. Talk about ends justifying the means! These people would sell their own grandparents to necrophiliac sociopaths if it helped gather a few extra points in some meaningless poll. Bunch of sad cunts. What I want to know is why some of these outfits, notwithstanding the god bothering dick heads, would want to coalesce with the Cunt Party?
I mean, what are Jury Team doing, ffs! I voted for them in the Euros! The shame of it.
Ha! So did I...so much for my choice of utterly futile protest vote.....the cunts!
No more Jury Team. Any party, and I mean any party, that so much as proverbially smiles or intimates a vague sense of friendliness towards the Cunt Party will earn my eternal ire.
As I've said many times before, at least the BNP are vaguely honest about their position. This lot hide behind some mask of respectability and inclusiveness. It fucking irritates me.
Nah, don't let it - they are a dead party walking, fucked already and they don't even realise it. Worth keeping the old proverbial foot on their head when they struggle to rise out of the ordure, but nothing to get put out about.
Unlike with the real enemy, who have been winning for years now...
Absolutely, Mr. R.
Incidentally, how come you don't post on Hitchy anymore?
You tended to shake things up quite well on those discussions.
These days, it sometimes seems a bit dry on there, bar the amusing spats between Williamson and 'Wesley'.
I got bored, John.
After Hitch himself stopped engaging in debate, not only could one not pursue detailed lines of argument with him, but it seemed some of the better contributors also decided to leave. I still remember with fondness some of the debates, which were really of a rather high standard - stand-outs being the one in which he gave me my name, and of course the Great Driving/Mens Rea Debate; has Kevin recovered yet? :-)
I suppose to put it more simply, the blog's IQ dropped.
Well the average IQ will always be rooted to the bottom of the table with people like Wesley Crosland around. I'm sorry, but the bloke is a daft, half-witted sycophant with no ideas of his own.
Peter Preston annoys me by beginning each post with:
"Contributor Joe Bloggs states..."
Followed by a big blob of impenetrable text.
There are a few other usual suspects who are boring and piss poor. There are BNP idiots. There's Mike Williamson and 'Mark' who are good, but they rarely say much and when they do, their good comments are ignored.
And then there's GRB, the conspiraloon and Wiccan expert.
I think Hitchens is incredibly articulate and intelligent. I agree with loads of what he says. But the trouble is, in my opinion, if you do disagree and you get into a tussle with him, it all goes pear shaped very quickly because he takes it all so damned personally! Bless him.
He'd encourage more readers if it weren't for the 'chase the Ace' element to his discussions.
But as I say, he is brilliant and he has convinced me of a lot of stuff over recent years. He is also, in many situations, extremely polite and civilised and he takes the time to get back to people. Most Fleet Street journos wouldn't give schmucks like us the time of day. At least Hitchens has some respect for people interested in engaging.
I agree to a great extent John.
Hitch has a first-class intellect, and I think is one of the few remaining "real" political journalists, in that he has not been bought, and he takes genuine risks with some of his foreign reporting - although obviously not excessive, he has no personal stake in the countries he reports from and he has a family.
Re arguing with Hitch, yes he does take it personally, but that is just part of the deal - he likes the exercise of debate, that's why we get the chance to debate with him, so you have to expect him to try to win....sometimes a little too hard perhaps, but we can all make our own minds up about whose arguments have convinced us.
On the subject of Harry Rose as mentioned by Vladimir, I tried a little experiment - I posted last night (5th Jan); half was a veiled attack on another MOS columnist who disgracefully in my opinion wrote an article full of praise for Cressida Dick while the enquiry into the Stockwell killing was yet to be concluded, on the basis that she is personally known to him.
The other half was to congratulate the MOS on the invention of the spoof character "Harry Rose", who was an excellent charicature of a champagne socialist prig, but pointing out that it would probably be just as amusing if "Harry"'s posts were less verbose.
The result at present is the most recent comment:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/01/we-fight-to-save-drugrunners-yet-sell-a-nation-down-the-river.html
Spot on Vladimir!
Oh, BTW John - schmucks like whom???
:-)
Yeah I saw that Mr Rob! Obviously didn't know they half censored it, but do now.
It's a containment policy. Not making him go away though, is it?!
He'll ban Lucas McCarty next, for his insubordinate remark about 'dishonesty'. Deary me! Not a light hearted forum is it?
I'll be honest here, I haven't the foggiest what they are on about in that debate. Way over my head. Not my strongest topic, that.
Right, back to writing articles supporting a philosophy which is championed by a new political party in Britain that has contempt for us (Boaty & D).
It's a lonely life, this!
Post a Comment