Politics

Peter Hitchens Interview

3,060 Views 19

By Max Musson:

Sunday Mail columnist and author, Peter Hitchens, is not a racial nationalist by any stretch of the imagination, although he is a traditional conservative of a type who is completely out of place, not just within the modern Conservative Party, but within the spectrum of political opinion thought respectable by today’s mass media generally. His views on many subjects are sufficiently close to ours however to make his commentary on the state of modern Britain worth reading.

Owen Jones is a left-wing journalist writing for the Guardian newspaper and the New Statesman, but none-the-less he is a bright and affable young man and having discovered this interview, I thought I would post it here because Hitchens makes some very astute points and Owen Jones makes one very important one also, stating: “… a lot of the stuff you write about, you’ve got the passion for your beliefs, but you seem completely defeatist …”

In that one statement, Owen Jones exposes the raison d’etre for Hitchens employment by the Daily Mail — he writes stuff that most of us agree with and which ventilates our anger at what is happening in our country and abroad, but Hitchens does nothing with the passion he arouses. He is a ‘safety valve’ journalist, possibly not intentionally, the tenor of whose writing is as Owens has correctly identified, defeatist and impotent.

Hitchens, despite his  great insights into the malaise affecting Britain, regards this country as “finished” and in projecting this belief, his readership are also induced into believing that it is too late and that there is nothing we can or should do to try to oppose what our enemies are doing. This of course is wrong — it is never too late — and this difference of outlook, if nothing else, is what sets our brand of radical nationalism apart from limp conservatism.

By Max Musson © 2015

# # # #

19 thoughts on “Peter Hitchens Interview”

  1. Richard James

    - Edit

    During the siege of Stalingrad , the Red Army employed the use of constant propaganda broadcast over the airwaves of the radio and tannoy systems . Messages aimed at demoralizing the Vehrmacht by undermining the confidence in their ability to achieve a victory .
    Belief in a positive outcome is essential before setting foot upon the battlefield .
    To borrow G . W Bush’s ” hearts and minds ” phrase for a moment and applying that to our own folk and to ourselves personally is an example of how we can and must keep ourselves alert to the constant propaganda pumped out over the airwaves and in the newspapers in the attempt to dishearten us and to get us to believe that ‘ resistance is futile ‘ or that the forces against us are irresistable or unmoveable .
    A man who’s will to win has been erroded is easier to defeat than the man of optimism .
    A man who has become so demoralized that he begins to think that fighting at all is futile will certainly be defeated .
    We must gaurd our thoughts and become watchmen of our hearts as we exist under enemy occupation and constant propaganda , designed to undermine our will and errode our confidence in victory .
    The ancient wisdom of Sun Tzu can also help us here again , “If your enemy speaks loudly , he is afraid . ”
    The reason that our enemy employs constant proganda ( effective propaganda must be constant ) is because he knows that , rather than him being omnipotent , he knows that he can be defeated .
    Hitchens has become demoralized and our enemy is using that to promote to us the idea that ‘ resistance is futile ‘ , which means that he too is uncertain of the outcome . We can take some succour from this fact and redouble our efforts and strengthen our determination to succeed , seeing in our minds eye the Britain and Europe that we dream of .

    2. TiglathUK

      - Edit

      The first stage in this war of words and nerves is to correctly identify our enemies and our friends. These actually haven’t changed over the millennia, but their tribal names have changed and therefore our people are confused or just plain ignorant. ‘Christian Identity’ seems is the only branch which studies history, archaeology, heraldry and philology in parallel with the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Let us help connect the dots.

      Disraeli, in his 1844 novel Coningsby confirms that the first Jesuits were Jews, and that Neandar (also 9 other ‘Christian’ professors in Berlin alone!!!), “Founder of spiritual Christianity, who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew”.

      Being basically caring, honest, trusting people, we accept Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, Blair, Miliband and Cameron as who they claim to be, and certainly not wreckers of Christian civilization.

      Even John Calvin was actually John Cohen, and he opened the Protestant Church up to usury and debt, which God forbade. And now, with that vital ‘King Billy’ granted licence to print money out of paper, and charging of interest, they have bought up everything, including the political parties. And the churches are now flooding the residents of the Calais Jungle with gifts of jam, beans and money! We must confront these SJWs everywhere with facts and (peaceful) arguments.

      1. Max Musson

        - Edit

        You should be careful of believing everything you read Tiglath, especially the claims of Jewish writers claiming key historical characters as one of their own and also the claims of non-Jews who do likewise to apparent excess. If you are going to repeat such claims I would advise you to quote your sources. For example: John Calvin; Wikipedia states that his birth name was ‘Jehan Cauvin’. Either Jews are trustworthy, in which case we might be inclined to believe such claims without further evidence, or they are not, in which case we should be suspicious of their claims.

  2. TiglathUK

    - Edit

    Hitchins has partly himself to blame as he ritually slagged-off the BNP and ‘Nazi thugs’. He admits he is part Jewish, confirmed by his features. I suppose Christians no longer get any columns in the Kosher MSM. He is a useful ‘safety-valve’, but does speak much truth, very articulately.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      Yes, it is interesting that the Hitchens brothers, two half-Jewish brothers who grew up hating each other; one went to the US and became a celebrity ‘Jewish’ Marxist, while the other stayed in the UK and despite his partial Jewishness preventing him from embracing White racial nationalism, abandoned his teenage Trotskyism, to become a very articulate spokesperson for what many see as the ‘extreme right’ — ultra-traditional conservatism.
      .
      Based upon his wider beliefs — ultra-traditional conservatism, opposition to multiculturalism and political correctness — someone such as Peter Hitchens should logically gravitate towards White racialism. The fact that intellectually he constantly leads us all the way up the garden path, only to turn us away at the doorstep, suggests that his Aryan side is in constant conflict with his Jewish side, and at the 11th hour, his Jewish side always prevails.

  3. Dan England

    - Edit

    The first time I’ve seen Peter Hitchens, he is even more obnoxious than I thought he was, even more toffy nosed and reminds me of Prince Charles. Some of what he said was probably right, the Conservatives have been the victims of entryisim by the the left, but then I think about all the traitors who have come from his class of people.
    One of the things I remember about Hitchens he said the first two years in University was just learning to be a Trot, they say that once a Trot always a Trot, I know that people can have a change of heart but it seems it took a long time for him to have one.
    I used to have this image of him as being an intelligent well spoken ordinary man in the street character, instead I find an empty headed snob much the same as those who lead us and care little of the ordinary man.
    The man is completely deluded, and his opinions are worthless, everything that he wrote in the past is invalid in my opinion.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      I think that having recognised Hitchens’ position within the mass media and the limitations placed upon him by his ancestry, it would be wise for us to ‘cherry-pick’ the sound arguments that he advances while rejecting the defeatist conclusion he draws. No need to ‘throw the baby out with the bath-water’.

  4. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    A very interesting interview from a man who talks a lot of sense. Why then always this feeling of pessimism and let down? The reason of course is that Peter Hitchens, possibly because of his part Jewish background, is unable to grasp the importance of race. It must be said that other socially conservative Jews, or part Jews, haven’t always had this problem.
    However, if one is forced to view the nation in purely cultural terms, as a civic nationalist, then the trashing of our culture has been so thorough that it leaves us with little serious hope for redemption. If on the other hand our nation is seen as foremost a racial entity then so long as we’re able to share the same bloodline with our ancestors there is every reason to hope that our true identity will eventually reassert itself.

  5. John Londen

    - Edit

    Not only is Peter Hitchens himself Jewish, but he is (or was) married to a Jewish wife and his children have been brought up as Jews. I’m sure I need not elaborate further.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      It would appear that Hitchens is half-Jewish on the basis of genealogy, through his mother. This of course makes him Halachically Jewish.
      .
      I had not previously thought to research Hitchens’ wife, Eve Ross, who I find is the daughter of left-wing journalist David Ross, who was revealed as Jewish in his obituary in the Guardian. David Ross married Tamara Halperin, who was the daughter of anti-Nazi journalist Sep Halperin. Halperin is a common Jewish name.
      .
      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/17/pressandpublishing.guardianobituaries

        1. Dan England

          - Edit

          Read your article on Peter Hitchens and as well written as it is, I would put it that he is the man with a rag on a stick distracting an angry dog.

          1. John Londen

            - Edit

            Yes, I think that’s a good way of putting it in a nutshell and on reflection, I think you’re probably right. I must admit I am conflicted and unsure what to think about him.

            I think he is racially self-aware, though – you can sense the tribal schizophrenia in his blog posts whenever he touches on the issues.

  6. Folkvar

    - Edit

    The Mail admits to being overwhelmingly Jewish, they claim it just turned out that way. They are controlled opposition, they masquerade as right wing but are really left wing and deeply anti-white and anti-British, I’ve been telling people this for years but they won’t listen. It’s a newspaper that has many of our people under its spell. Just try putting the words Jewish or Zionist in any article comment and I guarantee it won’t get posted.

  7. Stefan

    - Edit

    I like the opening comment about interviewing people whose views are the opposite of mine, how typical of our media, all them are left of centre, nothing else is permitted in polite society.
    Hitchens is a failed conservative admitting defeat, so the dustbin of history for him.

Comments are closed.