Sunday, 2 March 2014

Peter Hitchens won't condemn the low sexual morals of British women because of how his mother died, I have concluded.

Why won't this political commentator with the sad dead eyes discuss the low standards of sexual morality of most British women?  Because his mother committed suicide with an Anglican clergyman in a hotel in Athens?

In 1973, Hitchens' mother committed suicide in Athens in a suicide pact with her lover, a former clergyman named Timothy; they bled to death, in what was initially thought to be a murder scene, after overdosing on pills and cutting their throats and wrists. He flew alone to Athens to recover her remains. While there he reported on the Greek constitutional crisis that was happening at the time. It became his first leading article for The New Statesman. Hitchens stated his belief that his mother was pressured into taking her own life under the fear of his father becoming aware of her infidelity.

Even now this disgraced woman is exercising her malign influence on her son now in his 60s. Peter Hitchens fears to discuss the disgracefully low moral standards of British women because he understandably does not wish to discuss the morals of his late mother.

While he was at Oxford he became aware that his parents had quietly separated - he saw his mother walking down the high street with a man carrying her shopping bags, and afterwards she told him she was living with this man and what did he think? He made encouraging noises - he wanted his mother to be happy - but didn't pay much attention.

In 1973 he had a phone call from his father asking if he knew where his mother was, because her passport was missing. He said he didn't. A few days later he was in bed with a new girlfriend when the phone rang and it was an old girlfriend asking if he was all right. He said yes, fine. Because, she said, there was a story in The Times that a woman with his mother's name had been murdered by her lover in a hotel in Athens. 'So I went out and got the paper and there it was.' He contacted the police and then flew out to Athens to identify the body - he was taken to the hotel room where it happened. The police at first believed it was murder, because there was blood everywhere. But then they found a suicide note addressed to Christopher, saying, in effect, 'You will understand one day.' Apparently, the couple had made a suicide pact and had both taken pills, but the man had also slit his throat and wrists. Hitchens believes that his mother had come to her senses at some stage and tried to ring for help, but there was no response.

After a long police inquiry, he buried the bodies in Athens and brought the effects home. He had to take the man's effects to his family - an ex-wife and daughter - 'and they weren't particularly pleased to see me'. He found out later that the lover was a defrocked priest with a history of manic depression. He believes that he must have talked his mother into the suicide pact. 'She probably thought things were getting sordid - he wasn't able to hold a job down, she couldn't go back, she was probably about the age I am now and perhaps there was that - she'd been very pretty - and things were never going to get any better, so why go through with it? She might not have been that hard to persuade, but I know that she did try to save herself because I have the photographs still. So that was sort of the end of family life really.'

This was the end of a promiscuous woman.  To be promiscuous does not mean necessarily to have many sex partners, merely to be indiscriminate.

Promiscuity, in human sexual behaviour, is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or of being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

Can it be true that one wrong partner and one ill-advised act of copulation, and you are a slut? Yes, because even virgins can get pregnant the first time they have sex.

Even Conservative writers can be infamously promiscuous, or compromised by their wives.

The adultery of Kingsley Amis led to the adultery of his wife.  The adultery of his wife led to truly fucked up life of the sister of Martin Amis, Sally Amis, commemorated in his book The Pregnant Widow.

It doesn't look like Martin Amis has still got it about Islam judging from what he said at  Amis sneers at Islam even as he writes about his dead sister, not acknowledging the almost Oresteian horror of his sister's life that came about because of the liberal tolerance of sluts.

Sally Amis: "She was pathologically promiscuous."  "It would have needed the Taliban to protect her."

Actually, no.  A prohibition against the extramarital sex would have done the job nicely, but men like Martin Amis must have their cheap slut sex as anyone who has read his books would know.

For some reason The Pregnant Widow didn't go down well with feminists, probably because they didn't like the fact that a slut came to a sticky end, I suppose.  

Liberal arrogance seems to be the order of the day by the British intelligentsia. White people don't need rules, they seem to be saying with their insufferable chauvinism.  "The colour of our skin will protect us from the slings and arrows of outrageous sluttery, our mothers and sisters can be dead sluts, but we are still around, giving our opinions about this and that, but carefully pussyfooting around the subject of sluts being bad for Britain and the agents of degeneracy and decline.  By the time the shit hits the fan we will be dead. We also deep down hate our liberally-parented children, so we hope they suffer when they have to deal with their excrement-spattered surroundings we have left behind. "

Read about the tragic life of Sally Amis at and marvel at how Peter Hitchens and Martin Amis are still sneering at Muslims and the religion they regard as so backward and barbaric wondering why Muslims don't want to integrate into this liberal shit of saying it is OK for your women to be sluts.

Do we want our daughters and sisters ending up like Sally Amis and Peter Hitchens' mum?  No thank you.  The whites have become black' says David Starkey 85% of mothers in Jamaica SSMs.

The decline of the West is directly linked to its tolerance of low standards of sexual morality. Peter Hitchens complains about the decline of the West time but refuses to make the link, when even the liberal BBC is gingerly pussyfooting around this subject on The Sunday Programme.

Uganda has passed an anti-gay bill which sentences people to life imprisonment for gay sex. Rahul Rao is an expert on the development of anti-gay feeling in Uganda and explains what role religion has played in the Bill. Scott Little is an American evangelical anti-gay activist who has advised the Ugandan governnment. He explains the rationale for his beliefs.

While I understand his reluctance to discuss the delicate matter of one's disgraced mother's morals, I am under no such constraints.  If he had any sense of honour at all he would encourage The Mail to hire me as a columnist, instead of striving to ignore me and saying that single mothers "should not be condemned or harassed".  Why on earth not?  It is the only language stupid sluts understand.

"Your mother committed suicide, in a pact with a lover, in 1973. Did she suffer from lifelong depression?"

"No. I think she was having a bad menopause, and she was losing her looks, which were pretty impressive."

I am sorry to be so brutal, Peter Hitchens, but I am sick and tired of the collective neurosis of British men and their knee-jerk deference to sluts who cannot be criticised.  "We know who is in power by those whom we cannot criticise", don't we?  The British pornocracy are in charge of the ship of state, and it is time to take the wheel from them NOW.

Feminism should be challenged HEAD ON.  If you hate gay marriage, then ask yourself why 83% of female MPs voted for this abomination, while only 48% of male MPs did.


No one, but no one but no one will discuss this subject.  Criticising sluts is the equivalent of blasphemy for liberals and British men, even those who do not consider themselves liberals, like Peter Hitchens.

If feminism is a cancer, then SSMs are cancer cells.   The cancer has spread to all major organs of state.  The now disgraced Constance Briscoe, an SSM, was a member of the judiciary. It was a mistake to have appointed her in the first place.  In Islam, extramarital sex attracts corporal punishment.  In Islam, Constance Briscoe would have been considered a sex criminal.  Time to discuss the low standards of sexual morality of Western women, Peter Hitchens, Britain's most influential Conservative journalist.  I have made it easy for you now.

If the late Mrs Hitchens had lived, would she have become like this woman at

Or would she be more like Shirley Conran?

Control: He has the name of the mole the Russians have planted in the British intelligence service, right at the top of the Circus [British Intelligence]. There's a rotten apple, Jim; we have to find it.

rotten apple
noun: rotten apple; plural noun: rotten apples
used to refer to a morally corrupt person in a group, regarded as capable of having an adverse effect on others.

"The rotten apple turned out to be Smiley's wife."

More pornocratic rotten apples in British public life


Owen Moss said...

In Hitch 22, his brother told the story quite differently. I love the way you completely ignore the fact that this woman raised two incredibly intelligent, successful sons and the one, single fucking thing you can focus on was that she left her husband for another man. Fucking genius. Her kids contributed so much to so many fields and if you read C. Hitchens book you'd see that he attributed most of his positive attributes to her.

You do realize that, when you ignore all of someone's achievements just because you disagree with how they used their genitalia for a period you sound like a spiteful, slightly insane old witch. One that is on decidedly shaky moral ground considering the way you have lived your life.

I usually like you, but dismissing a clearly superior intellect's opinion on an issue, simply because his mother fell out of love with his father is ludicrous, fallacious and just fucking hateful and wrong.

Your entire position is wrong. You get told this every single day by far more balanced people than yourself and almost nobody (except a few retards) agrees with the vast majority of what you spout. Maybe it is time to accept that the rest of the world has the right to live their lives as they chose and not according to the hypocritical morals if someone that cannot even be bothered to practice what they preach.

Frankly this piece gave me a lower impression of you than anything else of yours that I have read and I actually feel a little more stupid for having been exposed to it.

Claire Khaw said...

What other way can I provoke him into discussing the low moral standards of British women, pray tell?

Owen Moss said...

You can't Claire. He is an internationally famous and respected writer, journalist and thinker. You are (in this instance) a mean spirited, fringe looney who is basically untouchable. Why would he waste his time? If someone started talking shit about one of my deceased loved ones, I would never waste my breath responding too them, unless they were with striking distance. If he ever heard about this piece I would imagine the conversation to go something like this, "Hey, Peter! Some nutter that got kicked out of the BNP is talking shit about your mum!" "Really? Ok have to go deliver a speech at Harvard now. Talk to you soon."

Claire Khaw said...

If he has any sense of honour he would acknowledge the truth of what I say and deal with it by writing about how the low moral standards of British women will be the ruin of their nation.

If not, he is complicit and emasculated because of the behaviour which he is unwilling to acknowledge and discuss.

Owen Moss said...

To group all western women into one and label them as immoral is just ridiculous!

Claire Khaw said...

It has been said that all women have to do is remember not to have sex with men not their husbands, and men can look after morality all by themselves.

Once men say it is OK for women to be sluts, then they are handing over their guts, balls and brains to the slut - who is the worst of women in society.

The alpha female is the partner of the alpha male.

The beta female is the partner of the beta male.

The omega female is the least desirable woman of all because you would not choose as your wife and the mother of your children a woman who already has offspring by another man. The omega female is the SSM who is betrayed by the evidence that she has had extramarital sex when she has illegitimate offspring.

Owen Moss said...

It has been said that...." Well what a compelling argument. And if you are suggesting that an internationally famous and respected journalist and writer must respond to fringe lunatics in order to have honor you are barking mad. You seriously need to realize that you are irrelevant to most people. I doubt very much that Peter Hitchens has ever heard of you. That is why you feel this "honorable" need to insult his dead mother to get his attention.

Claire Khaw said...

I have met both him and his late brother. He knows very well who I am since he makes such a point of ignoring me.

He won't condemn the behaviour of his dead mother. This means he won't condemn the behaviour of women like her. This means he won't condemn SSMs either.

Owen Moss said...

Why would he? His mother did an excellent job of raising them. And I doubt very much that he is taking the time to ignore you, just has more important things to do and less crazy people to speak to.

Claire Khaw said...

If you are going by Biblical and Koranic morality, his mother was guilty of two crimes: adultery and suicide.

Peter Hitchens says he is a Christian, interestingly. Is he a Cultural Christian or a practising Christian?

What does that even mean these days, eh?

Lucas said...

Peter Hitchens is a White Knight who says he always opens doors for women, which would obviously include femicunts. What an idiot.

Owen Moss said...

Biblical and Koranic morality have no greater moral authority than Owenic morality. In fact I'd say my philosophy has greater moral weight as it has never caused the death, disfigurement or persecution of anyone else. And I'll admit that P. Hitchens sounds like a bit of a dick when he talks about Christianity. If you cornered him and told him that, according to his religion, his mother is burning in hell I would take no issue with it as your statement would be incontrovertibly factual!

snork maiden said...

He won't engage with you because you're an irrelevant nincompoop with a weird obsession with the sex lives of other women.

Tell me, did your late husband cheat on you? All this hatred must come from somewhere?

Claire Khaw said...

I am just saying that even Peter Hitchens is morally compromised. All the WASPs are. None of them are up to the job of denouncing SSMs.

Even the thought of doing so brings them out in a rash, for the British male has been socially engineered into a knee-jerk deference towards sluts that is akin to a kind national neurosis pitiful to behold.

I am the only person in the land uniquely suited to the job of denouncing SSMs and their running dogs since I neither have a wife who might disapprove of my attitude towards SSMs nor am I anxious to avoid offending sluts in the hope that one or some of them might deign to have sex with me.

Those who think lashing these SSMs 100 times per illegitimate offspring is a bit harsh should ask themselves what would make these sluts stop breeding bastards.

I really think stoning them to death is a bit harsh.

Claire Khaw said...

Snork, Peter Hitchens won't engage with me because he finds it deeply embarrassing to discuss sexual morality, like most liberals.

Most British women are sluts, most British mothers are SSMs, and this must make most British men MCSFs (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers).

MCSFs refuse to discuss sexual morality or refuse to call for the raising of standards of sexual morality. They cannot bring themselves to explicitly support marriage as an institution or ask themselves what this means in practice.

Peter Hitchens fears to discuss sexual morality because he feels he cannot do so without at some stage having the death of his disgraced mother being mentioned.

This perfectly illustrates how the morals of British women have compromised their men, even men like Peter Hitchens who probably sincerely do wish to do something constructive.

His wife probably forbids him from taking a harder line on SSMs too.

However you speculate about my sex life, the fact remains that the British are neurotically fearful of discussing sexual morality, whether you think I have not had enough sex, had too much sex.

If my husband had been a virgin when he married me, it would not make what I have said untrue.

Whether he was absolutely faithful or a philanderer would not make what I have said about the British reluctance to sexual morality true or untrue.

This is a common liberal tactic used to intimidate me into an embarrassed silence, and I have so got over that so long ago.

Leon said...

If all WASPs are afraid of denouncing SSMs, then Hitchens's alleged fear is nothing out of the ordinary and most likely has no relation to his mother's adultery.

He is a Christian, so he must oppose fornication. He has written many articles lamenting divorce rates and advocating the traditional, married family. He obviously wants to promote the benefits of marriage directly, rather than promote them in a very roundabout, unclear way by gratuitously attacking single mothers.

You believe all publicity is good publicity, but bear in mind that not everybody shares this view.

Claire Khaw said...

He clearly does not understand this:

"The people are the grass and the law the wind. When the wind blows, the grass will bend."

He is the most influential Conservative columnist and it is an abdication of sorts to continue beating about the bush.

Leon said...

He actually described himself in a recent interview as a social democrat. He is socially conservative, but his economic views look rather on the Left; he supports the welfare state.

Claire Khaw said...

Then there is no one else but that doddery old coot Roger Scrotum.

Lucas said...

I have no time for Peter Hitchens. Peel back his traditionalist outer shell and you will find a dogmatic left-winger underneath. He still asserts that Enoch Powell was wrong, that ethnonationalism is "sick" "bigoted" and "immoral" and that Hitler was worse than Stalin. At least Christopher Hitchens stuck his neck out to defend David Irving.

Matt said...

Bismark set up a welfare state. Were his economic views on the left?

Free market liberals were on the left originally as they were part of the liberal constituency that sat on the left hand side of the chamber in the National Assembly.

Then again Joseph De Maistre is believed to have been broadly in favour of Adam Smith's economics and he is the father of Throne & Altar conservatism.

Speaking of which, Cowling wrote that 'doddery old coot' Scruton, back in the 70s & 80s, attempted to (re-) introduce a form of that type of conservatism into Britain.

Claire Khaw said...

Scrution discredits Conservatism, in my opinion.

Owen Moss said...

Reality discredits Conservatism.

Claire Khaw said...

How is reality at odds with Conservatism?

Owen Moss said...

Supply-side economics. Free markets. Privatization creates competition which increases efficiency and lowers costs to consumers. Reality has proven all to be myths.

Matt said...

That's not conservatism. That's Manchester Liberalism.

Confusingly now known as conservatism in Anglophone nations.

Owen Moss said...

Fair comment Matt, but on here everyone refers to liberalism as anyone that doesn't support dumb arsed biblical interpretations as laws and gives a fuck about anyone else. Conservatism nowadays seems to have changed it's meaning also, as has feminism.

Matt said...

Yes but I felt it needed pointing out since P. Hitchens and Scruton have been mentioned and the former is certainly not in favour of 'free trade', as with most paleo-cons and the latter says that such a thing doesn't even, and cannot ever, exist.

Owen Moss said...

I agree with Scruton, they don't and can't exist, however Claire used Conservative with a capital "C". And they certainly do believe in free markets which takes us back to my original point that reality disproves Conservatism.

Claire Khaw said...

If you are saying no one practices Conservatism, not even the Conservative Party, I would agree with you.

Owen Moss said...

I am saying that the policies they espouse as being good for the country and the people have been proven wrong. But I am talking about capital "C" Conservatism.

Leon said...

Scruton and Hitchens are not Conservatives (with a capital ‘c’); they are conservatives (small ‘c’).

Owen Moss said...

I'm aware of this Leon, that is why I'm right! As usual:)

Jonathan said...

Haven't British women always had low moral standards?

Claire Khaw said...

We are in danger of confusing ourselves with all this talk of Big C Conservatism, small c conservatism, paelo-conservatism, Classical Liberalism etc.

I suggest we just re-base our ideology on Secular Koranism.

What I propose is that people should just read the Koran to find the commandments of God that they dislike.

If you really can't find anything wrong with it, like me, you are a perfect 0.

If there is one verse you dislike your score becomes -1.

If there are two, your score becomes -2 etc.

Leon said...

A Conservative (big ‘c’) is just someone who is a member of the Conservative Party; a conservative (small ‘c’) is someone who adhered to conservatism.

David Cameron is a Conservative, but not a conservative; Roger Scruton is a conservative, but not a Conservative.

Claire Khaw said...

Explain the ideological differences.

Leon said...

A big-‘C’ Conservative is a member of the Conservative Party. It describes partisan affiliation, not an ideology. A Conservative believes whatever the Conservative Party happens to believe at a given time, irrespective of whether it matches conservatism.

Sean Gabb the Director of the Libertarian Alliance is a liberal (he adheres to the philosophy and ideology of liberalism), but he is not a Liberal (a member of the Liberal Party).

Claire Khaw said...

Is he a liberal or a libertarian?

Leon said...

Both, since classical liberal is interchangeable with libertarian. I have seen him identify as a liberal, as did Friedrich Hayek.

Claire Khaw said...

What is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?

Leon said...

None, if by liberal you mean classical liberal.

Claire Khaw said...

What is the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Liberal?

Leon said...

No need for the capital letters, since we are not referring to political parties of those names.

The policies a classical liberal or libertarian supports will often be the polar opposite of what modern (social) liberals support. This is because classical liberal philosophy only recognises rights based on negative freedom, while social liberals advocate positive freedom, i.e. the freedom of the State to interfere with property rights and privacy to rectify ‘inequality’ and pursue liberal goals.

Claire Khaw said...

Give an example of a negative freedom.

Leon said...

Negative liberties = freedom from EXTERNAL restraints and coercion, e.g. freedom of speech.

Positive liberties = freedom from INTERNAL restraints and coercion, e.g. ‘right’ to a basic education and healthcare.

Positive liberties involve infringing upon negative liberties, which is why libertarians and modern social liberals hate each other, despite both being branches of the philosophy of liberalism.

Negative rights are usually those that involve the freedom OF or FROM something, while positive rights are the freedom TO something.

Freedom of association is a negative liberty; the ‘right’ to gay marriage in church is a positive one (and violates the negative freedom of association).

As you can see, positive freedoms are made up as they go along and are basically used to justify government intervention as and when the State fancies it.

Hobbes believed that monarchical systems best protect negative rights, as does Hoppe.

Claire Khaw said...

My view is that Liberty is what you ought to have after all the necessary laws are in place.

Leon said...

That definition is meaningless and you have no authority to mess with meanings, just as you claim liberals ought not to have the authority to change what marriage means.

Which laws are necessary is subjective and without an underlying philosophy, completely on a whim; in democracies, laws change with new governments, so which laws are necessary will change, as will liberty, i.e. what we ought to have after these ever-changing necessary laws are implementing.

Here, you make precisely the same failures as the modern social liberal democrat. Laws should be objective and liberty inalienable. This can only be achieved by classical liberal conceptions of negative rights.

Claire Khaw said...

Not at all. I am of course claiming that Secular Koranism constitutes the necessary laws that need to be in place.

Leon said...

That is the problem: what is necessary is tied in with the ‘package’ that is Secular Koranism. Abandon that package, and you abandon the Secular Koranist conception of which laws are necessary. It is no different from a Liberal Democrat manifesto in this regard.

Inviolable property rights as natural rights, on the other hand, can be codified in law and survive all forms of institutional and systemic change if there is no legal power to alter them, although they would be best respected flourish best under a system of enlightened monarchy, as Hoppe points out.

Claire Khaw said...

I don't see what the problem is. You can go around examining the legal systems of different countries to evaluate how Koranist they are and compile statistics on how they are doing, eg crime rate, illegitimacy, divorce etc.

The *base* is Secular Koranism. You can adhere to or stray from it as your politics dictate.