To: OK
 
A final look at Peter Hitchens.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/11/free-speech-is.html
 
 
 
He and I don't agree on everything (e.g Iraq) but I respect the man and he knows it because I've told him so.

Hey, don't beat yourself up over this. You're not the first person to make that mistake and you almost certainly won't be the last.
 
;-)

Thanks for the post wherein he proposes solutions. Restricting immigration and leaving the EU are excellent ones. I hope he will be outspoken and effective on these points and others. He should be writing on them every week. Akira's piece on his website cited below includes some criticisms of Peter Hitchens as well as of Margaret Thatcher. I hope I was not unjust to Mr. Hitchens and that he will rise to the multiple challenges facing his nation (EU, Islam, socialism, PCMC, loss of traditional culture and identity). The well-founded British skepticism towards ideology is carried too far when it prevents someone from formulating a coherent analysis of the his country's ills.

Agreed, current immigration policy is a disaster. That requires no deliberation to understand, though it does require care in attempting to persuade a majority of the fact. My intent was to make the general point that immigration is a serious matter for the people to decide, not something to be imposed on them by ideology- and interest-driven bureaucrats, as we see in Europe. It is possible, however, to have a sane immigration policy. Until 1965, the U.S. had a policy tightly restricting immigration in total numbers and imposing quotas based on national origin that essentially mirrored the composition of the population at some prior date. That was a sane policy. In 1965, under the banner of liberalism and the leadership of Edward Kennedy, the U.S. adopted a policy which did not mirror the prior population and which greatly boosted numbers, in part by including family reunification as a criterion for immigration. This was not imposed by bureaucrats, but was inflicted on us by our own elected representatives, who no doubt wanted to be seen as generous and non-racist. We have been busily Third-Worldizing the U.S. ever since, with all that means in terms of human capital, social cohesion, cultural cohesion, distribution of wealth, political ideology, and political practices. The 1965 Immigration Act was a catastrophe from which Americans are only beginning to awaken. Whether we awaken in time--or whether it is not already too late, as Akira believes of Britain--is a huge question. (Kennedy recently received an award from Mexico.)

Thanks for your excellent piece on Britain on your website. Apparently 5000 words is the limit on BJ, hence postings in parts. The ability of Eastern bloc countries to emerge from the Hell of communist rule shows that there is hope, but the hope is that Britain will ultimately survive its near total destruction and degradation. Whether there is hope for renewal short of that has yet to be seen. Massive disregard of PCMC and the EU would be welcome. They can't jail everyone, can they? You may find View from the Right at www.amnation.com/vfr to be of interest in developing your analysis of our world.

Thank you for catching my error. I am referring to Christopher Hitchens. Where's my mind.

I  believe Onecent is confusing Peter Hitchens with the other Hitchens brother Christopher.

Apparently my response was too long to be published, so I posted it here (if anyone cares): 

http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/trying-to-be-objective-about-the-death-of-britain/

KO - Peter Hitchens has a rather sordid history of being an unrepentant Communist apologist, Martin Amis was his peer and writes about this in one of his books. The book is "Korba the Dread" which is about Stalin's crimes and as much about his smarmy British lefty elite apologists. Hitchens is still at core a socialist. That said, I admire Hitchens forcefulness and consistency regarding the Islamists and how truly profound the Islamic menace is to all of us.

Britain needs a Margaret Thatcher. Trouncing Labour is at least a start and the best that the Brits are going to get for now. If the BNP picks up more votes it can only help galvanize the Tories into getting a spine.

"Which is better to use:  @ or to?"
 
I suppose it all depends upon whether you wish to be perceived as talking TO somebody or AT them.

e.g. I would always recommend using the term, @ kappert

KO: "Because immigration decisions are more or less permanent in determining the future of the nation, they should be undertaken with the utmost seriousness and deliberation."

There is no real need for careful deliberation. Everyone already knows immigration is a disaster. In every western country, most people want immigration to stop. What we need is freedom of speech and a method to make democracy work and to get rid of the immigration ideologues who control western institutions and the mass media. I don't know how to do that.

Of course, I don't mean to say anything profound when I compare Marcfrans to Hitchens. Both of them are exasperating. FYI, Marcfrans says that immigration policy should ignore racial considerations. My own opinion is that immigration to western countries should be limited to the whites, and that even white immigration should be limited.

@lant: " @ (or rather) To: KO "

which is better to use: @ or to ?

@ (or rather) To: KO
 
 
Some time ago, Peter Hitchens was asked to provide readers of his blog with some concrete suggestions on how a new British centre-right party should set about reversing the political and moral decline of Britain since at least as far back as the early 1960's. Below I offer you a link to that discussion at said personal blog. I trust that you will find it of some interest.
 
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/09/what-is-wrong-a.html
 
 

Yes, Mr. Hitchens seems to deserve the label of a Usual Suspect, one of those who warn against the terrible problems we face but is completely unwilling to propose viable solutions, such as the end of Moslem integration, the surveillance and suppression of Islamic institutions, and the promotion of Moslem outmigration. I read his book "The Abolition of Britain" a few years ago, and it was a very moving lament about all the ways Britain has deteriorated since World War II. Yet it was frustrating, because the author seemed to have no coherent philosophy that could explain how such deterioration was the product of identifiable errors, delusions, and bad policies on the part of the people and their government, and as a result, the book presented no coherent vision of how the decline of the country could be reversed. Whether these limitations are merely inherent to Mr. Hitchens' talents and interests, or whether he feels he can accomplish more by remaining within the bounds of acceptable discourse, I do not know.

The BNP has its faults, but as I have said, who else dares address seriously the issues of population destruction and the evaporation of sovereignty? Britain needs a non-socialist patriotic conservative party, or perhaps it needs to unite patriotic Tories, nationalists, and horrified Labourites under the umbrella of a reformed Conservative party. The BNP's platform of a few years back was a first-rate document, so somewhere in Britain there lurks the talent to create an effective patriotic movement.

I don't see any comparison between Mr. Marcfrans and Mr. Hitchens. It is the lack of coherent classical liberalism and coherent traditionalist conservativism in Hitchens that makes him so frustrating. Mr. Marcfrans is a classical liberal open to traditionalist conservatism. A very different position. I am sure Mr. Marcfrans would agree that a nation has the right to determine its own immigration policy, and that it is legitimate for a nation to consider the desirability of would-be immigrants in respect of culture, economy, wealth, skills, education, intelligence, and race in determining whether it allows them to immigrate. Because immigration decisions are more or less permanent in determining the future of the nation, they should be undertaken with the utmost seriousness and deliberation. But perhaps your remark comparing Mr. Marcfrans to Mr. Hitchens was only good-natured twitting such as often adorns this most excellent website!

"He should be kicked out of Britain".
 
Q: To where should he be sent?

"Stop wasting your time with him".
 
Q: Is that a suggestion or a command?

"Your Hitchens sounds like a phony fake"
 
If he's a "phony fake", wouldn't that make Peter Hitchens the "real McCoy"?

Your Hitchens sounds like a phony fake.
Stop wasting your time with him !

Here's is a summary of his views, according to your links:
- the BNP is despicable but Peter Hitchens has nothing to do with them
- but mass immigration should be stopped
- but being British has nothing to do with having British ancestry

He appears to be some kind of English Marcfrans, only worse.

according to wikipedia: "Hitchens is a British journalist and author, noted for his moral and cultural conservatism."

Some conservative! He should be kicked out of Britain for saying that it is despicable for British people to wish to live among fellow Brits.

Yes, contemporary Brits seem far too tame. You need more shooters like Mr. Free Market (see Free Market Fairy Tales) and the Englishman (see An Englishman's Castle). You need local militias and local watches. You need to bring back fox-hunting, that great rural leveller, invigorator, and binder-together of the people. You need to take back the great old C of E from the communists and homosexuals. You need to end immigration and European integration. You need to devolve government to localities without falling into the pit of surrendering the national government to the EU. You need to remember that the police are your employees whom you pay to help maintain order and that you are inherently responsible for maintaining order yourselves. You cannot delegate that duty to the police and you certainly can't alienate it to the police. The first job for the militias is to take back the so-called no-go areas. As long as there are such areas, you have government, and self-government, in name only. You should close all mosques. You should imprison, expel, or execute enemies found on your own soil. Chin up! Rule Britannia!

Quite right, I should have known. If there were forceful patriotic Tories on the scene, however, there would be no market for the BNP's leadership. But since British elites apparently do nothing to stem the flood of immigration and the transfer of sovereignty but rather abet these paired disasters, people turn to the BNP because there is nowhere else to go. If the BNP is so terrible, let someone form another popular conservative party, one that is less socialist and more Christian and traditionalist and thus more in tune with historical British culture. Or let someone try to build up the BNP into such a party. But I don't see the BNP as so terrible, just impoverished. The BNP put out a very impressive platform a couple of years ago that was the work of some clear-thinking, thorough, thoughtful people. Those same people should get back to work on developing the party and freeing it from the vestiges of its socialist roots. Between Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Scarborough, there is plenty of good advice available!

Peter Hitchens is in no doubt about what he thinks of the BNP.
 
see here: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/04/labour_panics_a.html
 
 
and here:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/12/my-riposte-to-b.html
 
 
 

I watched a programme on the History Channel recently about the Saxons. They apparently spent all night drinking and all day fighting, what a life!

I see a recent column in which Mr. Hitchens predicts victory for left-wing Tories, who will be rescued by their reliance on a center-left coalition from having to challenge the Labour policies they actually like. Ugh, how disgusting! Maybe Mr. Hitchens should do what he can to improve the BNP, since Mr. Scarborough met with coldness in that quarter. Britain needs to remember the enterprize and boldness of her "founders," the invading Celts, the Saxons, and the Normans, and the Englishmen who settled America and Australia, and forget the insistence on harmony that characterizes modern liberalism. Bring back the "trained bands" with their Saturday gunnery practice followed by carousing! Englishmen should bear arms again and should be prepared at any moment to suppress the savages among them.

Q: "Is there any hope that the Tories will act in the best interests of the British people?"
 
A: Regrettably, just like Akira, I do not believe there is.
 
For more information on this subject from a UK perspective, you could do worse than Google search the phrase:
 Peter Hitchens useless Tories.

I hope this tip proves useful to you.

Obama is just as empty and unimpressive as the commenters have said, and I often wonder how I could respect anyone who votes for him.  Then I remember that with today's grotesquely bloated executive branch, we are not voting for an individual so much as for a team.  An Obama voter therefore may not be fooled by his candidate's glib and confident facade, but instead has simply determined he wants Obama's team at the trough instead of McCain's team.  If the voter is sympathetic to trough-swillers as a class or is a trough-swiller himself, he also knows that Obama will do everything he can to grow the trough, while under a McCain presidency, the trough might not grow and--perish the thought--might even shrink in size relative to the economy as a whole. 

The socialist-liberal media created Hussein Obama and he is using it to fool the idiot voters who by voting for him will fulfill his plot that he devised many years ago to be named "the first half-black president."

An America hater, an empty-suit, no background, no experience, can't say a word without a teleprompter or memorizing the lines he's being told by his advisors, that's what Hussein Obama is all about.

It tells you something about the herd mentality of the American voters and of course the socialists in Europe (the America haters) love it.

"Obama also favors the EU, which, he believes, is a democratic union of countries, brought together by the will of the people." BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Oh please stop.....If true, he probably believes the 20 million muslims here in europe were brought here by broad political and popular consensus!!!! Oh tooo much to try to analyze the leftist brain and stop from laughing. Just waiting for Margot Walstroom to announce she has Obama love child then we can re-start a unified EU Monarchy.

Q: "Is there any hope that the Tories will act in the best interests of the British people? "
 
A: No 

It's great to have such substantial columns on this website from the U.K., that is, from Messrs. Millar, Laughland, and Huntsman, and now the substantial comments of Mr. Scarborough.  I don't know their political affiliations, if any, but they inspire hope that there may be enough strong-minded Tories out there to right the battered ship before she sinks.  Maybe even David Cameron is not really the global-warmist, multi-culturalist, EU-appeasing lightweight he appears to be through the lens of the leftist media! I may be dreaming, so I will ask the better informed: Is there any hope that the Tories will act in the best interests of the British people? 

When I hear something about the European Union, the idea of "the consent of the governed" never comes to mind. Does Senator Obama believe the EU to be a democratic union because everyone in a room was told to vote together? If they don't get it right the first time, they can always vote again or call it something else. Besides, the Commission members spent great effort and time on all of this! They are to be saluted?