Orwell once said something very similar

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rdxldKZ_vcvTdps.html

"Quotation is a servicable substitute for wit" ;)

Well I wouldn't hope to match PH, never mind better him...

who ses

The truth sets you free,that's why

Telling the truth or what I believe to be the truth

It is a shame that Peter here does NOT tell the truth.

@@williammaguire1130That’s what I kind of struggle with when it comes to Peter. His conviction that he has the answers and it’s his job to reveal those truths to the unknowing; he also says later in the interview about how most people can be politically manipulated, or something along those lines. He has a quality that commands a certain respect, but that superiority and purported clear-sightedness has an arrogance that’s hard to ignore.

Mind you, Christopher arguably was much the same, but he did it with a more seductive panache…

And the reversal would be: "So, you basically ask invasive questions about people's dead family members, and attempt to shock the public with inane questions and remarks, don't you Mr "Journalist?""

Or what you believe to be the truth Peter!

Thank you!

Thanks .

That’s literally the least interesting part of this interview.

@@MadCapMag for you.

Thanks

Poetry - Reads and Writes nonsense

Really well put, I completely agree.

It was like watching a very patient lion being harassed by his cub

Very well said. I think we've reached a point in our discourse where the most important thing is to identify who is an adult and who is not, simply by whether or not they disrespect other people (and themselves, through lack of integrity). In the past decade we've become entirely possessed by the notion that anything anyone says must be taken at face value. The left has pushed this mentality because they are almost constantly disingenuous, always play-acting at being outraged and righteous, and the force of their arguments therefore tends to vanish when this is pointed out. It's like their insistence that you "have to believe the victim" every time a rape accusation is made. They don't like due process, don't like our actual systems of justice, and want to abolish all our centuries-old customs of propriety, our courts, our laws, and our basic human courtesy to one another, because none of these things tend to serve their constant overweening narcissism.

What I do is say to people “look, conversation works best if I say what I think and you say what you think. If you’re going to run both sides of the conversation it’s not going anywhere”.

Jay McMurdo really

yup, only its not something that generally applies. i fully believe a guy like Peter Hitchens who does not seem to be of great moral strength (completely abandoning your beliefs when you face resistance to them instead sticking to principles and trying to modify your thinking - this is essentially the process he describes happened to him) would have thought that way tho.

He hasn't abandoned the beliefs, only his willingness to act on them. You may say that amounts to the same thing but they aren't inherently. As for not being pro-immigrant but anti-Britain (which incidentally reflects his brother's old trope about not being anti-war but pro-the enemy), as someone who has also made the journey from far left to conservatism I can confirm that in at least some cases he is absolutely right. We hated what we saw as an arrogant remorseless Britain and wanted to see not just her imperial vestiges wither away but her very identity fundamentally altered. It also smacks of Peter "East German gap yah" Mandelson's plot to "rub the Tories face" in diversity and immigration.

Then puppet boy krishan comes and says well not everyone, well ok not everyone but most are, even to this day.

I happen upon that line of his, a couple times a year, and I'm still shocked by how right it is.

That was a mild Hitch slap by the milder brother

Both Hitchens,to be loved.

I was searching for such an comment like this!!! 😂 I do have to say i ones was like this interviewer... I'm glad God showed my errors in thinking and acting! 🕊❤😇 Even while i have to be alert to not fall for it again... 😅

Guru-Murthy should just interview himself, asking himself the questions and providing his own answers. He clearly is more interested in that than letting us hear what Hitchens has to say

When I saw that it was this interviewer who was featuring I nearly didn't bother watching. He is irritating but thought if Peter Hitchens can sit throught it, then I can too. 🙄

Thatcher Nap .... i know right.

He said he didn't like him very much, so it's a fair question really. No point in pussyfooting around.

Old Boy But it isn’t that morally fair, is it? It’s a sensitive spot and that question in particular doesn’t really add any political context.

Tellur1an - I take your point, but Peter Hitchens is very direct by nature and it's not the sort of question he would be offended by.

I miss him

Setting the paradigm

The entire purpose of this interview is to give the interviewer's opinions on the interviewee. They wouldn't be showing it otherwise.

that is too dangerous for cultural Marxists. It's the same reason why schools have moved away from a classical education. When you hate ideas but you can't effectively defeat them you simply don't let other people have access to them.

Peter Hitchens has his own columns and books. What's wrong with asking him questions?

He is merely an observer claiming his view is the truth. He has ideas on what feels better for him, but no ideas on how to get (back) there, and he stated clearly that he isn't trying to find one. I thought the interviewer got right to that point, and Hitchens struggled to find justifications for himself.

The west Indians and Asians and old british Africa are the right immigration groups for the UK. EU immigration is not. Starmer just wants to let the whole world in to dilute UK identity. I won't be voting Labour in 2024.

You are not random Lady far from it...steve

Have you self deported?

Blame left-wing post-war social policies.

Imagine how those w a birthright to be here feel

The inrerviewer is there to put the opposing point of view. Don’t you understand what an interview is? He got far more out of Peter by doing that than if he’d just sat there and said “What would you like to say Mr Hitchens?” Putting forward counterarguments and seeking clarificstion isn’t ‘biased’, it is good interviewing. This was a good interview.

For what it's worth, if you write about them, they're not left only with you.

I think that’s because Christopher had more media coverage back in the day.

@@Ryan-ix2zx yeh maybe. I think Chris was more active on tv than Peter

Christopher is far more intellectually honest

I liked Christopher accept his whole hearted defense of the Iraq War and the excuses for it

@@tomsmith6468 Christopher bent a knee to Zion

@Fine Sin we all do, but he's dead for many years now, so why don't we appreciate Peter while he's still here

@Fine Sin I'd listen to both but his brother was a powerhouse. Both are brilliant imho, but there are some big differences. I imagine family dinners would have been titanic affairs 😂

@Fine Sin His brother was witty. But other than that both are the same in the way they talk,argue and even moderate.

I've always found Christopher Hitchens to be far more intelligent and rational than his brother.

It is, but he has little understanding of the truth. He’s a charlatan, forever in the shadow of his brother.

@@davidwebster3107 i always loved Christopher Hitchens

Wouldn't it have been nice to hear him finish his sentences and expand on his ideas instead of the interviewer interrupting him and disagreeing with Peter's honest answers?

In your opinion.

Yes. So right about that unverified, unverifiable daddy in the sky.😳

@@titteryenot4524 Yes he is lol

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires"

gonch28 nothing stopping you from doing the job cry baby

Krishnan Guru-Murthy is just such an embarrassment

Every interviewer is different. What are you doing watching him if you object to his style?

Yes...my God... I was hoping it wasn't just me thinking that... I almost had to turn this off... but I wanted to hear what Peter said, in spite of the annoying and disruptive manner of the interviewer...

@@chrisbennett606 The BBC explicitly advertises job opportunities for "any race other than white." So, yes, there actually is something stopping him, assuming he's white.

It's Cathy Newman in Brown face

Under rated comment.

There is nothing "American" about this habit of speaking. Until very recently, American television broadcast highbrow programmes on which educated people spoke at length about difficult subjects (see KZfaq videos of William F. Buckley's show "Firing Line"), e.g. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ort4Z7WrptXKpmw.html As an Englishman living abroad, I find that the English-language ability of British people has deteriorated more sharply in recent decades than that of the Americans. The British these days have NO reason whatsoever to feel superior.

‘Speaking as far as possible in complete sentences and using English to its full power’ - Well said, Peter. I am so sick of the degraded, abbreviated Americanization of our language, even by those who should know better. (Make these corrections and hand in, British Hooters, esp. the contraction of it is used as the possessive). Sincerely, the American.

The Americans do not degrade the language any more than we British do, it is simply that British mainstream media held out for longer in maintaining educated standards, mainly thanks to the BBC, who did not need to pander to the masses. Now, however, the situation is reversed: British TV is much worse than its American counterpart, with the sole exception of the newly-established GB News.

Like we Americans.

They are from the same network and come from essentially the same school of interviewing style, so yes. Not always a bad thing though, when used as a means to shine clarity on what someone is saying in a conversation it can be useful, should they disagree with your characterisation of their perspective or want to sharpen it up a little, they are free to refine or disagree it. If used simply to strawman or be reductive then it's not useful of course

In fairness Hitchens is being a bit vague, especially on why he changed his mind and what ideals changed.

Drew as a moron you can't comment on this stuff. Run along.

Productive input, my man. You're going to change a lot of minds..

Two minutes into the talk I thought of this, then I see your great comment capture it so well

Vietnam was your WW1

According to just you though

Yes many Americans don't realise the rot is throughout the western world , especially the English speaking parts

@@seanmoran2743 that's true

Oh if you think he’s great you should look up his Brother Christopher Hitchens they’re both amazing but pretty opposite. RIP to honestly the better of the two as Oratoirs and debaters

Lets Talk it easy to critique on the sidelines get on the pitch and do it yourself you muppet

British Blue we don't have genuine journalists now we have neo nasty far right klantard journalists Genuine inquisitive real journalism has been dead for quite some time now.

That's the problem, our government *never* asked the people before forcing diversity on us.

And that's the Britain we love.

@Mark Lewis doesn't look like it does it

And Britain is now threatened to be torn apart along those old ethnic lines. Multiethnic states are always under threat of being torn apart. Just look at Yugoslavia. Leftist want to destroy the nation state and the West. This is why they celebrate multiculturalism and spurn assimilation.

@Whyter Well, when it was 'multicultural enough' for you... the Irish were treated terribly! I smell a culture of hate jumping from one group to another. Irish then blacks then asians now the poles and arabs.

JazuX How can someone like Krishnan be so ignorant on 20th century history. Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and far too many others. Appalling.

It happens to be true. It was nothing like what Marx wrote of Lenin, that nasty old genius, went against diamat to impose. Most unMarxist to impose superstructure on (feudal) base when it should develop in advanced capitalist countries e.g. Germany and England were what Marx expected.

It didnt happen in the more industrialized countries because governments gradually made life generally better for the lower classes which is something marx for some reason never though of or account for.

That is because it wasn't. Mostly because there never is a "real" version of anything if so many people have different opinions about what it should be. For the rest it was simply a failed attempt to create a society in trotsky's ideals and ideas that quickly got out of hand because the people attempting it where completely not suited to lead a devided and war torn country. And eventually resulted in a twisted and brutal dictatorship at the hand of stalin, which then got eagerly adopted by other that seeked the same sort of power stalin gathered.

Dan,Peter saw the demise mentally of his brother,who went from a paragon of the left to A George W door mat which was so sad....George Galloway got it right when in debate with Christopher referred to him as a Butterfly who became a Slug

Rich Not Now I enjoyed the interview. I thought Christian did a good job.

Who's Christian? That was Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Hes mildly likable but the quality of his questions were at the level of a Cab driver.

To be fair, Krishnan did push Hitchens and get deeper than most interviewers have in the past. He might have been a bit annoying but he got a great interview out of it for us all, and I commend him for that. A superb insight!

I suppose theres nothing wrong with being easily satisfied, is there Jason? And yes it's only channel 4, what did I expect! "A superb insight" really, where was that then?

LipJobby wrong

TheMaxKids What? The interviewer is a neo-liberal, how is that in any way related to Marxism?

Комиссáр Vasyanka Wanting some progress on Social rights is not Marxism. Marxism is mainly an economic critique of capitalism. Rights for minority’s and people of particular sexual orientation is in the periphery.

Silly remark: for a start G-M will not have expected any such thing therefore he's not likely to be pissed-off ("pissed" is British for "drunk"). That might explain why he is not at all cross at his failure to revert to his youthful revolutionary Trotskyism. Which itself is less prominent in student politics when PH and I were at university).

Afraid I find it impossible to be 'proud' of someone I don't know. In fact, I find it impossible to be 'proud' of anyone. But I am naturally 'pleased' to read comments that agree with my own thinking, and which in some cases tell me something I hadn't thought of, or are worded in an especially effective way.

Just like the left resorting to calling people "racist", "islamophobe" or any of that nonsense.

hahahaha these people are insufferable, are they not?

Frankfurt 13 Truly breathtaking assertion, outdone only by the interviewer’s appalling ignorance.

Bad error by him: Communism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same. Soviet Communism was Lenin's ad hoc carpentering of Karl Marx's authentic diamat.

@@garymorgan3314 Ah yes, Gary. And Hitler's form of national socialism was just a perversion of the true and authentic form. Hahaha you commies are all the same. Anytime Marxism is responsible for misery, poverty, chaos, genocide, etc. all of the sudden it's not real Marxism.

@@SonoftheAllfather You display your ignorance of Hitler pathetically: he exploited the Junkers/Hindenberg. Goebbels, about whom you appear to know nothing - your signature trait _- opted AGAINST the Luxemburgist lot... ice to see idiocy displayed though; no way NDSAP was socialist in an yway normally meant. P.S. What was the last history book you read? [honest question].

UK is an island. It's a genetic time capsule. Am am a native. The interviewer is not.

david eckhart hardly a generic time capsule, it’s been invaded time and time again. If you actually follow the genetic pathways of humans (see national geographic or something similar), you’ll see that clinging to some sort of time period for a particular group of people is simplistic and illogical. The very first human on this island had very dark skin and bright blue eyes, so on what basis do you coin the term ‘native’? Which period of migration have you arbitrarily decided means you’re ‘from’ somewhere? Have you mapped out your ancestors lineage? We all came from somewhere else....

@@Elphin89 i take it you are talking of the cheddar man ?if so the representation of skin colour was a decision made by the people who mocked the model up ,there is no proof of very dark skin and was quite obviously used as a political tool. the invasions you speak of were all carried out by genetically similar peoples mostly originating from the bell beaker and corded wear people.

earthbound boy no, the Cheddar Man has the genetic markers of skin pigmentation usually associated with sub-Saharan Africa.This discovery is consistent with a number of other Mesolithic human remains discovered throughout Europe, so the people’s around that time had dark skin with blue/green eyes. Your term ‘genetically similar’ is vague and simplistic. If you think skin colour makes people similar, you’re dead wrong. It’s just a superficial physical characteristic, it doesn’t tell the story of where the DNA comes from. Lastly, I wasn’t referring to invasions, I was talking about migration patterns long before the wave of invasions. You can pretend that everyone since the Anglo Saxons are ‘English’ if you want to, however that’s simply a construction made up from an arbitrary point - again, it has little to no basis in saying you’re ‘from’ somewhere in genetic terms

@@Elphin89 cheddar man is Caucasoid ,with blue eyes , the skin pigmentation was darker than your normal north western european ,probably closer to sardinian people . i talk of people of england coming from the very closely related peoples from the same stock . It is apparent from the rhetoric that you constantly parrot that you have no interest in ancient history but instead want to use it to prove that english and european people have no natural home ,i care not for your theories or politicised science .i have no agenda ,just truth. To see people jumping on something as far back as mesolithic to fuel their politics is astounding and a danger to real science.

He'd never get anywhere. 'We' vote tribally. Come general elections, everyone recedes back into voting for their tribe. Even if they despise you and have done everything they can do do s**t on you, people will still go and vote for them.

Problem is loads are springing up and the only choice we have is 4 usual parties

he needs a few million pounds for that

Apricot Theory brexit will be . And you think is that easy to change in what the establishment is doing for the for the last 50 years. At least I have a hope. They're a lot of things need to be changed,but small steps.

He's too pessimistic and defeatist for it, even though there is a real chance that the Conservative party can reform or break down due to the divisions within it.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy is a screaming socialist... a passive aggressive ideolog and not very bright

As a left-leaning secularist - who leans fairly heavily towards atheism - I appreciate Hitchens at least for his honesty, his clarity, his deep historical knowledge and his willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. Even if a fair chunk of what he believes is, to coin a phrase, Bonkers.

While both of you claim to disagree with Peter (one even calling his beliefs "bonkers") you don't seem to offer reasons or counter arguments. That's not to say you don't have them. I just think that would make for a good conversation.

I love that as well. He is really clear in his points and even if I feel he is sometimes a bit misguided (on drugs I am sceptical of the claim that the war never occurred, on the EU he is right to want a compromise at least for the time being but wrong on the Norway deal, he often seems to sound as if he doesn't think Atheists can be moral, which I don't believe in and his views on gay marriage and abortion are to me wrong), but he nails Blair and nails the EU, as well as is pretty decent on foreign policy, if his position is a bit too ideological.

There you go, Stephen Owen! It's important to enumerate where you might disagree with him, otherwise there is no conversation to be had, and no middle ground to be found. To the point of atheists not being moral, that argument is more nuanced than simply saying an atheist can't be moral. The argument is about where an atheist finds their basis for morality. Sure, an atheist can be moral, but how do they measure that? In Christianity, we have Jesus, who is the ultimate example of morality. Since we are not Him, we are going to fall short of that ideal ("sin" is an archery term, and it means "missing the mark"). Where does an atheist GET their morality? It has to come from something immovable and unchangeable, otherwise it's like measuring something with a rubber ruler. This point is deep, and it requires lots of introspection. Many atheists simply haven't thought about it hard enough, or bothered to listen to counter-arguments for atheism not being a workable worldview. I was a "militant atheist" for most of my life, then I started listening to real Christian apologetics. I eventually figured out where my morals came from, and that it had always been from God. I was just ideologically blinded by "new atheism" and scientism.

Capt. Cutler Well I am not an anti-theist or "militant atheist", I do actually think most of my morals are probably Christian in heritage. There are lots of secular moral systems, so utilitarianism for instance, as much as I hate that system is one, and things that see things that make people happiest as most moral etc. They aren't as strong as God sure, but it is completely possible to have secular moral systems.

Aye, right. Never worked a day in my lifetime, the charlatan.

No it isn't, there are lots of equally, if not more, intelligent people in the world, many of whom are less pompously dogmatic and not so gullibly attracted to simplistic false certainties such as extreme political views and religion.

​@@martinbrittain2573 You hide such intelligent people extremely well!

​@@martinbrittain2573Peter's classic liberal centrism is an extreme political view, is it? And religion? The horror.

WayT101 Sam Harris?

spf_fishing I'll give him a try

Noam Chomsky?

WayT101 Don’t, Harris is hardly on the left. Guys a neocon.

Steven Pinker

His Brother Christopher was the same but even better.

Both him and his brother seem to just have a natural gift for truly exercising the full might of the English language. Whether it be to persuade, to rebut, to parry, to tell a story, to describe, to emote etc etc they just do it so effortlessly and I, for one, am very glad that both of them took up writing full-time for us all to indulge in.

@@WillSavage ....

insanely is the right word.

His brother Christopher made Peter look positively dim, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Do you feel Peter is intelligent because of his voice lol

@@909rhythm You do know that like Christopher and Peter fast talking isnt as impressive as it seems.

Aren't they all! .. when you consider who they work for! The Main Street Media. Load of crooks working for the billionaire plutocrats pulling the strings.

You are joking, right? The man's a buffoon. He hasn't given one solid reason for changing his mind except, basically "I got a job and met people...". Essentially he's done what everyone does when they get old and nearer death, become more conservative and religious. Bog standard. He also doesn't want to be a second rate Christopher Hitchens and no one would be even remotely interested in what he has to say if he wasn't Chris Hitchens brother. Far from a heavy weight intellect he cuts a rather sad figure.

@@annabizaro-doo-dah "He hasnt given a solid reason" Bolchevism in by itself in his youth was quite the manner to be until he found out the idiotic rhetoric of the left. As a matter of fact,people who disregard his opinions tend to cling on his brother.(Who died by the way.) The Conservatives have now replaced Blairite New Labour as the main Left-wing party in the country. This is great for everyone who loves the Blair programme of fervent, intolerant political correctness, a continuing war on what’s left of the married family, useless egalitarian state schools and gigantic public spending and borrowing. Why people make such a fuss about Jeremy Corbyn, while putting up with the more subtle Trotskyism of the Blairites, I have never understood. But maybe you need to be (as I am) an ex-Marxist to understand modern politics.

This should be the top comment

28:58 Current state of Politics 33:08 Gay Marriage 34:47 Race Issues 36:25 Multiculturalism vs. Integration 41:44 Legacy and Influence of Trotskyism 44:22 Hitchen's career going forward 45:18 'Are you happy?'

Abe Lincoln sort of nailed that 150 years ago!

Not YOU though, I am sure. How very WISE of you.

Aaron Lewis we need a version with the interviewer edited out

Oh for eff sake. Should he apologise to you personally for bringing you the interview?

@@paulconnelly4050 lol

That must be largely to the credit of the interviewer, whom several people here dogmatically criticise

He can’t be that sure of his ground if he transmogrified from an card carrying atheist, revolutionary Bolshevik into a God-bothering Conservative Christian.😳

@@douchebagel93 Lol you obviously know nothing of North American Indian culture.

@Buro Dackel Britain has been occupied for at least 50,000 years. If you're black that makes the countries obviously yours. If you're white it means that you just an immigrant. They twist everything.

The interviewer and other leftists love to use that argument that the US, and now the UK, are nations of immigrants. What they fail to mention, however, is that these are countries of VERY SPECIFIC immigrants. They try to conflate the matter, implying that all immigrants are the same, but we can see that this isn't the case. Pick any time in history and you can see that Europe and North America were not just majority white, but super-majority white. All the things that the white nations built are the things that attract the non-white populations who could not, for whatever reason, create in their own nations. This goes back thousands of years. Even when you bring in places like China and Japan, for all their splendor and great art and architecture..... they were wholly homogenous countries. They were/are yellow ethno-states. Go around the whole continent of Africa and you find black or brown ethno-states and nobody seems to complain about any of it. But talk about Poland, Britain, Hungary, Germany, Canada or America as white ethno-states and they start to go nuts. Why? Because they've been trained to believe it's something bad only because of the color of the skin involved. Odd, then, isn't it that so many of them want to come to the wonderful place that used to be white ethno-states. They are fleeing their non-white ethno-states in droves, claiming that they have some right to enter the UK because it's a "nation of immigrants" and this just couldn't be further from the truth. For thousands of years, the only people living in the UK, or immigrating there, were white immigrants from close by. And even then, there was plenty of war and conflict between groups.

Three Rivers Forge, did humanity begin in Britain? Or can it be traced back to a place in modern day Africa?

You should take a genetics test as I did - I thought I was English - but I'm mostly of European and Irish descent. You may find your own roots are also from immigrants.

Through the High Tories.

Yes, but he doesn't tell you why it even happened? What forces were creating these influences. Nobody goes back to why Trotsky and all his ghouls were doing what they were doing because they don't want you to know the real truth about why the world is in the state that its in. It's by design and the world will be dismembered. But the point is, to start from the beginning and the beginning is in Russia in the 1800's.

*The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.* (W Blake)

If only he'd admit that large parts of his views today are also terribly flawed.

@@MontyCantsin5 Why would anyone admit that? In any case its not true

@@Confucius_76: It is true. In case you hadn't noticed, PH believes in supernatural entities, miracles, etc. He bases his world view on something for which there is no evidence. If that doesn't strike you as deeply flawed then there's not much else I can add.

Me, too. Now I want to eat the religious and put the rich against the wall.

Yes, the interviewer is quite useless. He seems to have quite a chip on his shoulder.

The interviewer seems to believe the Soviet Union didn't exist or my part of Europe lived under communism and it didn't work not even as the left's word salad.

It's the style a lot of these British newsreaders had. Idk if Paxman started it but I think a lot of them were trying to emulate him. In our current podcast world of long form discussions its jarring to witness these old hacks still feeling like they have to grill their subjects and constantly interrupt them rather than just asking smart questions and letting the guest speak. See also the now infamous Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson 'interview'.

Ahem, that makes you Woke, so they say.

@@castelodeossos3947 no, the brother I like is the one who is still with us, and he is not woke.

@@hellybelle5 Ahem, it was a pun. You wrote, 'I woke up'. And that's what they claim it means.

@@castelodeossos3947 lol I'm clearly a bit slow on the uptake 😄

He's by far the deeper of the two brothers. Christopher was an entertaining fellow but he was muddled on a lot of things.

@@murkartik This morning, reflecting in bed, the word 'glib' came to mind, for Christopher Hitchens.

@@castelodeossos3947 and he would probably answer (without googling like I did) that it comes from high german meaning both smooth and unimpeded, and that although as an extremely hirsute and masculine figure the former might not apply, that the latter sense was surely a compliment to his unstoppable progress through social and political spheres. It was a shame to see a brilliant guy reduced to playing the room for cheap kicks - "God is a myth" well done Hitch. Well done indeed.

BrionyDavid he ticks a box though....

wink wink! ;) if Krishnan wasn't there, Jorge Borwell from KZfaq could be reading the news on Channel4.

I don't think Peter Hitchens gets into shouting matches. He's too calm and measured in his approach for that.

Bingo

But Andrew, wait a second! You are sharing your opinion that 54footscray's opinion is irrelevant because of sharing it over KZfaq. And you have shared this over KZfaq. So you are saying that your own opinion is irrelevant. Good job!

dont say you have won before you have lost this is an impossible task that will never be accomplished no matter what happens no matter how hard you try it will never succeed

Only Celts, Anglo-Saxons, etc. can be English, which is an ethnicity. Anyone can become British, which is a nationality.

Chief Sunnah : Yes, and it's also about their descendants. Well, they've had a good run; more than a millennium. Within decades, it'll be the turn of their demographic successors. Conquest by uteri, not swords.