🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:14 *🏛️ *Pall House* introduced as a new nonpartisan think tank focused on realigning Britain’s long-term foreign and domestic aims.* 00:29 *🌍 Focus areas include diplomatic strategies with key regional powers, trade promotion, and addressing demographic shifts and multiculturalism challenges.* 01:11 *📚 Peter Hitchens highlighted as a significant conservative voice, critiquing the left-right divide and British political decline.* 03:22 *🏴☠️ Hitchens argued that both Labour and the Conservatives lack distinct ideologies, with the latter primarily being an organization for "obtaining office."* 04:46 *📜 Major 1960s Labour reforms, such as no-fault divorce and abortion laws, were accepted by subsequent Conservative governments without reversal.* 07:09 *🎥 The cultural revolution of the 1960s shifted leftist strategies from traditional Marxist goals to capturing cultural institutions like media and education.* 08:44 *⚖️ The current political landscape is a choice between "active ideological change" from Labour and "incompetent management" by Conservatives.* 10:22 *🚨 Hitchens criticized terms like "war on terror" as meaningless rhetoric used to justify increased government power and reduced civil liberties.* 12:12 *🙏 Hitchens emphasized the importance of religious education in schools, linking it to societal cohesion and authority.* 16:38 *⛪ Hitchens predicted a potential religious revival in response to societal and economic challenges but warned Christianity might fail to lead it.* 19:26 *🇬🇧 Criticized British government efforts to impose "British values," calling them superficial and disconnected from authentic patriotism.* 21:53 *💼 Hitchens described modern British governance as "marshmallow totalitarianism," where nonconformity risks employment and education opportunities.* 23:44 *🔄 He highlighted the adaptability of leftist strategies, attributing their success to resilience and innovation post-defeats.* 24:12 *🕊️ The right's opposition to Islam was critiqued for lacking constructive alternatives and relying on implicit prejudices.* 25:22 *🌀 The cultural revolution in Britain resulted from Christianity's collapse, creating a vacuum filled by ideological movements like Euro-communism.* 26:33 *🙌 Individual Church of England clergy still do valuable community work, especially in disadvantaged areas, despite broader institutional decline.* 27:57 *⚖️ The Equality Act 2010 marked the formal loss of Christianity’s primacy in British law, reducing it to one religion among many.* 29:47 *📚 Religious education and daily worship in state schools have effectively been abolished through neglect, despite remaining nominal requirements.* 30:14 *🇫🇷 British secularism is likened to French militant secularism, with both erasing public acknowledgment of religious identities.* 32:06 *✝️ Hitchens argues that a Christian revival is possible outside the Church of England, potentially driven by grassroots movements.* 34:12 *🌍 Putin’s actions in Ukraine are driven by a mix of perceived provocations, such as NATO expansion, and historical grievances over territory.* 37:49 *🐻 Western perceptions of Russia are criticized as simplistic, with NATO expansion viewed by experts as a provocation fueling tensions.* 41:08 *🪖 Russia’s military is described as corrupt and inefficient, with limited capacity to achieve expansive territorial ambitions.* 45:26 *🚨 Hitchens criticizes the lack of debate on Western involvement in Ukraine, labeling prolonged war efforts as counterproductive and harmful.* 46:50 *💔 Hitchens calls for both the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts to end, rejecting inconsistent Western attitudes that prolong violence.* 47:15 *🕊️ Negotiated settlements, often labeled as "appeasement," are argued to have brought lasting peace in various historical contexts.* 48:53 *🌍 Hitchens highlights Western hypocrisy, citing the redrawing of borders in Kosovo and Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus as examples.* 49:46 *📖 Hitchens defends "whataboutery," invoking a biblical principle to expose hypocrisy in foreign policy debates.* 51:11 *🛡️ Contrasting responses to 1989’s events show Russia, despite allowing freedom in Eastern Europe, is a pariah, while China faced no significant consequences after Tiananmen Square.* 53:31 *🇺🇸 Hitchens predicts waning U.S. support for Israel, potentially leading to strong pressure for concessions Israel may be unable to resist.* 55:02 *🔥 Deep divisions between Israel's left and right complicate governance and contribute to political polarization.* 58:04 *🌍 Hitchens critiques the two-state solution as unworkable due to geography and security risks, suggesting alternative approaches were never fully explored.* 01:01:28 *🇬🇧 Hitchens calls Britain’s foreign policy "Walter Mitty fantasy," emphasizing its outdated self-image as a global power.* 01:02:09 *🚢 Criticizes British defense spending on symbolic but ineffective projects like aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrents, calling them wasteful and absurd.* 01:05:39 *🕌 Speculates on Europe’s potential Islamic revival, citing demographic growth and the simplicity of Islam compared to Christianity.* 01:07:16 *🤝 Suggests some Muslims in Britain desire a more Christian society, expressing discomfort with secularism and moral decline.* 01:11:25 *⚖️ Discusses the complex legal and historical basis for territorial claims in Israel and Palestine, emphasizing the legacy of the British mandate.* 01:12:45 *🕊️ The 1939 British White Paper restricting Jewish migration to Palestine during the Holocaust is described as a grave foreign policy failure.* 01:13:10 *🔫 Israel's early military forces were armed with Czech weapons, reflecting complex Cold War dynamics.* 01:14:06 *🚷 Millions of Germans, Jews, Greeks, and Turks were violently expelled post-WWII; such expulsions are grimly common in history.* 01:16:05 *🔄 Encouraging rights of return for displaced populations is criticized as impractical and counterproductive to peace.* 01:18:36 *✡️ Some early German Jews strongly opposed Zionism but reluctantly accepted its necessity after the Holocaust.* 01:19:43 *🏙️ Hitchens suggests Gaza has potential for prosperity, but political conflicts, particularly Hamas’ actions, hinder improvement.* 01:22:30 *📜 The Balfour Declaration promised respect for non-Jewish civil rights, but subsequent developments in Israel are seen as contradicting this condition.* 01:24:21 *🧱 British mandate policies reflected ambiguity, with Arabist and Zionist factions vying for influence in Palestine.* 01:28:05 *⚔️ The British-supported Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with Nazi Germany, exacerbating Jewish-Arab tensions in the region.* 01:29:29 *🇮🇱 Most Israeli Arabs reportedly prefer living under Israeli governance over an Arab-led government, despite ongoing complexities.* 01:29:58 *🏡 Hitchens emphasizes practical policies for improving British living standards but refrains from specific prescriptions.* Made with HARPA AI
Hitchens is a Brilliant Orator, his 20th Century knowledge is outstanding, with a great use of the English Language as the below contributor stated....Great Post Thanks.
Peter's analysis of the situation in Ukraine is something of a curate's egg. He, correctly in my opinion, does not think Putin is an ambitious tyrant like Hitler with designs on western Europe. However, I think he is underestimating the strength of the Russian military. They have annexed around 20 per of eastern Ukraine. And I wonder if the new Oreshnik missile has surprised him?
He makes a lot of valid points, and his factual recall of the second half of the 20th century is superb. But he is extraordinarily intellectually deceptive in his relaying of conjecture and personal bias as fact. Broad claims of the "new left" - despite one sentence earlier explaining the (very true) fact that such new ideologies were not in fact leftist - "capturing" institutions. Yet these were institutions that under 70-90's neoliberalism, e.g. television and art, became increasingly privatised and expanded in competition. They cannot be captured against the peoples will, if no one bought the service it would fail. There was certain elements of a transition to such targets, but he completely ignores the fact if these were not voluntarily consumed they would have died. Liberalism wasn't thrust on the population, the population chose it. But Hitchens needs the former to be true for his world view to fit. The same with his statement on the 97 election. They didn't "capture" government, they won a landslide election which they repeated twice. Hitchens still hasn't come to terms with that reality
On the 97 govt. You may remember - I can't even remember which New Labour figure said it, no doubt it's recorded on the web somewhere - but Labour's aim was bigger than just governing until they lost a general election. They said at the time their objective was to "put the Tories out of business for a generation". I laughed at this at the time but now that a generation has gone past, and we haven't actually had a Tory govt since 1997 I kind of see the point. It's not as simple as just putting placemen and women in important positions. It's a combination of that, treaty-based incursions on Parliamentary sovereignty such as the ECHR, the creation of the Supreme Court as an extra-Parliamentary body and so on. Cameron's 'Conservatives' couldn't reverse it because they didn't understand it. And it's now spread beyond govt to encompass Universities, large corporates, practically the whole of society. David Starkey is quite interesting on this
@@auto_stable a lot of this is untrue. Sure you can interpret that statement by New Labour as 'conspiratorial' if you want to, but it is far more likely they meant to shift the Overton window away from the right with effective governance. A lot of your examples are poor A - supreme Court. You just flat out infer that any extra-parliamentary body is politically damaging to conservatism. Yet an independent judiciary is the norm for the majority of the world as a check on the power of the legislative, and exists in some incredibly conservative nations. The supreme Court is currently one of the most Conservative aspects of the US system. Until you can show the supreme Court deliberately works for Liberal ideologists and against conservatives, it is just an independent body similar to 95% of all governments. B - ECHR. This is not as complex as you claim. We could leave it tomorrow- well, of course Labour won't, but we could have left it at any time under the Conservatives. And they had a mandate to do so. There is nothing complex about leaving it, it was just a choice not to. 3 - universities. The only point I agree with here. They have in fact become quite Liberal. They always have been relative to any existing Overton window, but particularly so now. But they are independent institutions, there is no evidence of a coordinated, deliberate creation of this situation by Liberal politicians 4 - corporates. Your weakest point. Like the above 3, no evidence. But it is also foundationally provably incorrect. Corporations only exist if they make money. They cannot make decisions that do not make money- well they can, but if they do they cease to exist. If corporations went Liberal, its because it was more profitable. The most likely explanation being Conservative customers did not vote with their wallets, having established buying practices, whereas younger, more Liberal customers were more likely to make spending decisions based on the portrayal of corporate ethics Everything I said about Hitchens applies to Starkey too, albeit with the Tudor period being his area of expertise as opposed to the 20th century
Bless the Indian guy trying to spout his ‘knowledge’ about Israel which he probably got from watching on tick tock ten mins before. If you’re going to try and lip sync the trendy Palestine uprage fad, you better know your history, esp if you’re going to argue with Peter
@@ben0298his first point institutions from the 70s onwards is one. Leftists "capturing" them - yet, other than the BBC, the Thatcher years were a period of intense expansion of the private sector in arts, television and journalism especially. These are institutions which are profit driven, and would have failed without consumer demand. You objectively cannot argue this was a capture, it was a choice through purchase of a significant amount of the population. Same with his identical claim of government in 97 - they didn't "capture" it, the population offered them a landslide result, repeated twice. It then rejected them in 2010. He portrays it as a deceptive and insidious conspiracy because it makes people angry and he needs it to be true to rationalise the reality of his form of Conservatism becoming genuinely unpopular with the majority - Labour voters never liked it, newer Conservatives (and increasingly working class conservatives concerned about immigration) dont identify with the aristocracy of it
Great video. Deserves more views. Hitchens is on top form here 👍
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:14 *🏛️ *Pall House* introduced as a new nonpartisan think tank focused on realigning Britain’s long-term foreign and domestic aims.*
00:29 *🌍 Focus areas include diplomatic strategies with key regional powers, trade promotion, and addressing demographic shifts and multiculturalism challenges.*
01:11 *📚 Peter Hitchens highlighted as a significant conservative voice, critiquing the left-right divide and British political decline.*
03:22 *🏴☠️ Hitchens argued that both Labour and the Conservatives lack distinct ideologies, with the latter primarily being an organization for "obtaining office."*
04:46 *📜 Major 1960s Labour reforms, such as no-fault divorce and abortion laws, were accepted by subsequent Conservative governments without reversal.*
07:09 *🎥 The cultural revolution of the 1960s shifted leftist strategies from traditional Marxist goals to capturing cultural institutions like media and education.*
08:44 *⚖️ The current political landscape is a choice between "active ideological change" from Labour and "incompetent management" by Conservatives.*
10:22 *🚨 Hitchens criticized terms like "war on terror" as meaningless rhetoric used to justify increased government power and reduced civil liberties.*
12:12 *🙏 Hitchens emphasized the importance of religious education in schools, linking it to societal cohesion and authority.*
16:38 *⛪ Hitchens predicted a potential religious revival in response to societal and economic challenges but warned Christianity might fail to lead it.*
19:26 *🇬🇧 Criticized British government efforts to impose "British values," calling them superficial and disconnected from authentic patriotism.*
21:53 *💼 Hitchens described modern British governance as "marshmallow totalitarianism," where nonconformity risks employment and education opportunities.*
23:44 *🔄 He highlighted the adaptability of leftist strategies, attributing their success to resilience and innovation post-defeats.*
24:12 *🕊️ The right's opposition to Islam was critiqued for lacking constructive alternatives and relying on implicit prejudices.*
25:22 *🌀 The cultural revolution in Britain resulted from Christianity's collapse, creating a vacuum filled by ideological movements like Euro-communism.*
26:33 *🙌 Individual Church of England clergy still do valuable community work, especially in disadvantaged areas, despite broader institutional decline.*
27:57 *⚖️ The Equality Act 2010 marked the formal loss of Christianity’s primacy in British law, reducing it to one religion among many.*
29:47 *📚 Religious education and daily worship in state schools have effectively been abolished through neglect, despite remaining nominal requirements.*
30:14 *🇫🇷 British secularism is likened to French militant secularism, with both erasing public acknowledgment of religious identities.*
32:06 *✝️ Hitchens argues that a Christian revival is possible outside the Church of England, potentially driven by grassroots movements.*
34:12 *🌍 Putin’s actions in Ukraine are driven by a mix of perceived provocations, such as NATO expansion, and historical grievances over territory.*
37:49 *🐻 Western perceptions of Russia are criticized as simplistic, with NATO expansion viewed by experts as a provocation fueling tensions.*
41:08 *🪖 Russia’s military is described as corrupt and inefficient, with limited capacity to achieve expansive territorial ambitions.*
45:26 *🚨 Hitchens criticizes the lack of debate on Western involvement in Ukraine, labeling prolonged war efforts as counterproductive and harmful.*
46:50 *💔 Hitchens calls for both the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts to end, rejecting inconsistent Western attitudes that prolong violence.*
47:15 *🕊️ Negotiated settlements, often labeled as "appeasement," are argued to have brought lasting peace in various historical contexts.*
48:53 *🌍 Hitchens highlights Western hypocrisy, citing the redrawing of borders in Kosovo and Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus as examples.*
49:46 *📖 Hitchens defends "whataboutery," invoking a biblical principle to expose hypocrisy in foreign policy debates.*
51:11 *🛡️ Contrasting responses to 1989’s events show Russia, despite allowing freedom in Eastern Europe, is a pariah, while China faced no significant consequences after Tiananmen Square.*
53:31 *🇺🇸 Hitchens predicts waning U.S. support for Israel, potentially leading to strong pressure for concessions Israel may be unable to resist.*
55:02 *🔥 Deep divisions between Israel's left and right complicate governance and contribute to political polarization.*
58:04 *🌍 Hitchens critiques the two-state solution as unworkable due to geography and security risks, suggesting alternative approaches were never fully explored.*
01:01:28 *🇬🇧 Hitchens calls Britain’s foreign policy "Walter Mitty fantasy," emphasizing its outdated self-image as a global power.*
01:02:09 *🚢 Criticizes British defense spending on symbolic but ineffective projects like aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrents, calling them wasteful and absurd.*
01:05:39 *🕌 Speculates on Europe’s potential Islamic revival, citing demographic growth and the simplicity of Islam compared to Christianity.*
01:07:16 *🤝 Suggests some Muslims in Britain desire a more Christian society, expressing discomfort with secularism and moral decline.*
01:11:25 *⚖️ Discusses the complex legal and historical basis for territorial claims in Israel and Palestine, emphasizing the legacy of the British mandate.*
01:12:45 *🕊️ The 1939 British White Paper restricting Jewish migration to Palestine during the Holocaust is described as a grave foreign policy failure.*
01:13:10 *🔫 Israel's early military forces were armed with Czech weapons, reflecting complex Cold War dynamics.*
01:14:06 *🚷 Millions of Germans, Jews, Greeks, and Turks were violently expelled post-WWII; such expulsions are grimly common in history.*
01:16:05 *🔄 Encouraging rights of return for displaced populations is criticized as impractical and counterproductive to peace.*
01:18:36 *✡️ Some early German Jews strongly opposed Zionism but reluctantly accepted its necessity after the Holocaust.*
01:19:43 *🏙️ Hitchens suggests Gaza has potential for prosperity, but political conflicts, particularly Hamas’ actions, hinder improvement.*
01:22:30 *📜 The Balfour Declaration promised respect for non-Jewish civil rights, but subsequent developments in Israel are seen as contradicting this condition.*
01:24:21 *🧱 British mandate policies reflected ambiguity, with Arabist and Zionist factions vying for influence in Palestine.*
01:28:05 *⚔️ The British-supported Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with Nazi Germany, exacerbating Jewish-Arab tensions in the region.*
01:29:29 *🇮🇱 Most Israeli Arabs reportedly prefer living under Israeli governance over an Arab-led government, despite ongoing complexities.*
01:29:58 *🏡 Hitchens emphasizes practical policies for improving British living standards but refrains from specific prescriptions.*
Made with HARPA AI
Even if I didn't agree with Hitchens I just like listening to someone who savours the English language, who uses his voice like an instrument.
Well done everyone; many thanks -- KCS
Hitchens is a Brilliant Orator, his 20th Century knowledge is outstanding, with a great use of the English Language as the below contributor stated....Great Post Thanks.
Peter's analysis of the situation in Ukraine is something of a curate's egg. He, correctly in my opinion, does not think Putin is an ambitious tyrant like Hitler with designs on western Europe. However, I think he is underestimating the strength of the Russian military. They have annexed around 20 per of eastern Ukraine. And I wonder if the new Oreshnik missile has surprised him?
He makes a lot of valid points, and his factual recall of the second half of the 20th century is superb. But he is extraordinarily intellectually deceptive in his relaying of conjecture and personal bias as fact.
Broad claims of the "new left" - despite one sentence earlier explaining the (very true) fact that such new ideologies were not in fact leftist - "capturing" institutions. Yet these were institutions that under 70-90's neoliberalism, e.g. television and art, became increasingly privatised and expanded in competition. They cannot be captured against the peoples will, if no one bought the service it would fail. There was certain elements of a transition to such targets, but he completely ignores the fact if these were not voluntarily consumed they would have died. Liberalism wasn't thrust on the population, the population chose it. But Hitchens needs the former to be true for his world view to fit.
The same with his statement on the 97 election. They didn't "capture" government, they won a landslide election which they repeated twice. Hitchens still hasn't come to terms with that reality
Good summation. 🌹
On the 97 govt. You may remember - I can't even remember which New Labour figure said it, no doubt it's recorded on the web somewhere - but Labour's aim was bigger than just governing until they lost a general election. They said at the time their objective was to "put the Tories out of business for a generation". I laughed at this at the time but now that a generation has gone past, and we haven't actually had a Tory govt since 1997 I kind of see the point. It's not as simple as just putting placemen and women in important positions. It's a combination of that, treaty-based incursions on Parliamentary sovereignty such as the ECHR, the creation of the Supreme Court as an extra-Parliamentary body and so on. Cameron's 'Conservatives' couldn't reverse it because they didn't understand it. And it's now spread beyond govt to encompass Universities, large corporates, practically the whole of society. David Starkey is quite interesting on this
@@auto_stable a lot of this is untrue. Sure you can interpret that statement by New Labour as 'conspiratorial' if you want to, but it is far more likely they meant to shift the Overton window away from the right with effective governance. A lot of your examples are poor
A - supreme Court. You just flat out infer that any extra-parliamentary body is politically damaging to conservatism. Yet an independent judiciary is the norm for the majority of the world as a check on the power of the legislative, and exists in some incredibly conservative nations. The supreme Court is currently one of the most Conservative aspects of the US system. Until you can show the supreme Court deliberately works for Liberal ideologists and against conservatives, it is just an independent body similar to 95% of all governments.
B - ECHR. This is not as complex as you claim. We could leave it tomorrow- well, of course Labour won't, but we could have left it at any time under the Conservatives. And they had a mandate to do so. There is nothing complex about leaving it, it was just a choice not to.
3 - universities. The only point I agree with here. They have in fact become quite Liberal. They always have been relative to any existing Overton window, but particularly so now. But they are independent institutions, there is no evidence of a coordinated, deliberate creation of this situation by Liberal politicians
4 - corporates. Your weakest point. Like the above 3, no evidence. But it is also foundationally provably incorrect. Corporations only exist if they make money. They cannot make decisions that do not make money- well they can, but if they do they cease to exist. If corporations went Liberal, its because it was more profitable. The most likely explanation being Conservative customers did not vote with their wallets, having established buying practices, whereas younger, more Liberal customers were more likely to make spending decisions based on the portrayal of corporate ethics
Everything I said about Hitchens applies to Starkey too, albeit with the Tudor period being his area of expertise as opposed to the 20th century
19:25 49:27
Bless the Indian guy trying to spout his ‘knowledge’ about Israel which he probably got from watching on tick tock ten mins before. If you’re going to try and lip sync the trendy Palestine uprage fad, you better know your history, esp if you’re going to argue with Peter
Deep breaths bro. You people have become nothing but conspiracists to the entire world this is why you are triggered. It must be exhausting.
Nice to see some tiny amount of Realist thought entering the British think tank scene.
Nice audience attendance. Mr hitchens is a draw
Just stick with deposing Sturmer re. The millions saying to him NO!
What an incredibly pompous, boring know-nothing-know-it-all liar-for-hire who I wouldn't trust with a discarded toe-nail clipping.
I’m sure he's so disappointed you feel this way.
@@deepzepp4176 I'm just disappointed so many gullible idiots pay good money to hear his quasi-lefty tosh. 1 born every minute, as the saying goes.
Such a childish rebuttal 😂 try dealing with the topics in question rather than personal attacks.
@@ben0298his first point institutions from the 70s onwards is one. Leftists "capturing" them - yet, other than the BBC, the Thatcher years were a period of intense expansion of the private sector in arts, television and journalism especially. These are institutions which are profit driven, and would have failed without consumer demand. You objectively cannot argue this was a capture, it was a choice through purchase of a significant amount of the population. Same with his identical claim of government in 97 - they didn't "capture" it, the population offered them a landslide result, repeated twice. It then rejected them in 2010.
He portrays it as a deceptive and insidious conspiracy because it makes people angry and he needs it to be true to rationalise the reality of his form of Conservatism becoming genuinely unpopular with the majority - Labour voters never liked it, newer Conservatives (and increasingly working class conservatives concerned about immigration) dont identify with the aristocracy of it