Author Peter Hitchens has continued his campaign against David Cameron’s government today, with a scathing piece in the Mail on Sunday declaring Mr Cameron as the Prime Minister “who will destroy freedom in order to save it”.
Discussing the PM’s anti-extremism speech from last week, Hitchens blasts Cameron for his hypocrisy, an element of the speech which didn’t go undetected here at Breitbart London.
Hitchens writes:
If Mr Cameron doesn’t like terrorism, then he wouldn’t have met Mr McGuinness and the even ghastlier IRA mouthpiece, Gerry Adams, at Downing Street last week. But he did. How can that be if, as the Prime Minister says, ‘British resolve saw off the IRA’s assaults on our way of life’. Oddly, you only saw the pictures of this pair meeting Jeremy Corbyn on the same day. The Downing Street meeting was not, it seems, filmed.
The article raises an interesting question about the establishment media focusing on Mr Corbyn’s meeting with Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, while they totally ignored Mr Cameron’s summit with the pair. It is almost as if Mr Corbyn is finally seen as a genuine contender, and is under the same political establishment attack we’ve seen in the recent past. If only someone would have pointed out that Corbyn’s path to victory wasn’t so unimaginable.
And Hitchens blasts the political establishment and what is has achieved in Britain recently, stating:
Votes are bought by billionaire donations and incredibly expensive marketing. Democracy is surely not respected by the growing legions who don’t vote. And, as Mr Cameron acknowledged, there are now areas of this country where votes are rigged and voters intimidated for the first time since the days of Dickens.
Freedom of speech, for those who don’t accept multiculturalism or the sexual revolution, is increasingly limited, mainly by threats to the jobs of those who speak out of turn.
Mr Cameron is also plain wrong when he says our freedom stems from democracy. Democracy these days involves agreeing with whatever slogans the Murdoch press is shouting.
I think, in closing, Hitchens gives too much credit to Mr Cameron, ending with the idea that the Prime Minister has realised what he has done with state-sponsored multiculturalism, and how he is now desperately trying to fix Britain. I disagree, but here’s what Hitchens wrote:
Mr Cameron and Mr Blair, and their predecessors over decades, have gone a long way towards Islamising this country through uncontrolled immigration and state multiculturalism. They have begun to panic, because they at last realise what they have done, and rightly fear they cannot stop it.
I never thought I’d see the day when I was more cynical than Peter Hitchens, but I believe the Prime Minister’s positioning on this issue to be almost entirely political, and not at all ideological or existential.
Cameron wants us to think he’s “tough” and “cracking down” so that when he wants public support for a new war – which he will try to drag us into in Syria, no doubt – he’ll get it.
Not just this, but there was a very clear message in his speech about the Left, including the National Union of Students, but more importantly an undertone about those who have supported groups like CAGE (including him of course) but I reckon he’s laying a marker down for a Jeremy Corbyn Labour leadership victory – because of his support for all kinds of nasties. We’ve seen it in the papers already this week.
This is no moment of realisation for Mr Cameron. It’s a purely political battle, and one he’ll probably end up winning.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.