Uploaded July 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 days ago
EX-TROT THROWS TOYS OUT OF CRIB: Peter Hitchens is the prominent journalist, rhetorician, social critic, film reviewer, criminologist, war historian, literary pundit, former revolutionary Marxist βπ» of the Trotskyist (International Socialists β ) persuasion, daylight-saving time foe, naval & defence analyst, moralist, epidemiologist, pΕnologist, thinker, Russia expert, onetime aspiring Conservative parliamentary candidate, polemicist, radio & television personality, β theologian β, and educationalist. He has a regular column in the Mail on Sunday and is the author of many well-researched and highly-regarded books, including one on drugs. He is the go-to choice of the poll-tax-funded British βͺοΈ Islamist-socialist β state broadcaster when it needs someone to occupy the pariah 'Mussolini seat' in any round-table discussion. An opponent of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, Hitchens declined to back Reform UK in the 2024 general election and refused to vote in the referendum on EU membership.
π‘ 'SICK TO DEATH' OF DRUG-LEGALISERS π€
We see Hitchens here abruptly cutting short an interview with a proponent of recreational-drugs liberalisation, who he suggests is cunning and whom he brands 'dishonest'. He demands that the material that has been recorded not be aired under any circumstances.
SHAMEFUL AND π€₯ DISHONEST
Hitchens is aggrieved because, he says, it has become apparent that his interlocutor, who should be 'ashamed' of himself, issued the invitation to the celebrated author on FALSE PRETENCES. Hitchens finds himself in the unpleasant situation of having been lured into a drugs-legalisation-activism AMBUSH. Such conduct is a 'disgraceful and appalling' abuse of his very considerable goodwill in agreeing to do the interview in the first place, considering his eminence.
DRIVEL ABOUT π€¬ 'BLOODY PORTUGAL' π΅πΉ
A wide-ranging discussion was promised, Hitchens asserts, in which he was offered the opportunity to lay out his considered, well-argued opinions on a number of vital subjects. But he was TRICKED. The interviewer can speak of nothing for a whole hour but his pet subject, 'drivel' about drugs, with tedious reference to the drugs-legalisation experience of 'bloody Portugal', and exposes himself as a 'PROPAGANDIST' for narcotics decriminalisation.
πΏ 'I ACTIVELY DISLIKE YOU' π
Hitchens began the conversation with a neutral mindset but this has turned to 'active dislike' πͺ of his 'RUDE AND INCOMPETENT' interrogator, who, he alleges, is 'OBSESSED' with drugs. Hitchens says: 'If you want drugs decriminalisation, good luck, and enjoy the society you get as a result, but I'm sick of the subject, and I'm SICK TO DEATH of people who promote it.' He observes that his questioner, if he has bothered to read anything of Hitchens's Εuvre on addiction and other aspects of the human condition, has done so 'with the lights off'.
π DRUGGIE PALS π
Hitchens declares that although his inquisitor's 'druggie friends' are likely to consider the exchange 'great', broadcasting it on YouTube would be, to put it mildly, bad practice. It would be 'extremely bad manners', nay, an 'OUTRAGE'. Moral entitlement to publish the encounter on YouTube is lacking. The way the cannabis-and-cocaine enthusiast has carried on is 'genuinely ASTONISHING' and 'I don't see why I should have to put up with it'.
ππ» 'YOU KNOW NOTHING' ππ»
The host, to give him his due, gives the appearance of being under the influence neither of recreational drugs nor of alcoholic beverages on this particular occasion. He maintains that the matter of the urgent social and economic need to legalise recreational ingestion of, say, marihuana or lysergic acid diethylamide just sort of 'came up' in the course of the discussion. Hitchens corrects him: 'It didn't "come up". It didn't come drifting out of the scene. You chose it. it was your chosen subject β for an hour. On and on and on and on and round and round in circles, round and round and round and round. I don't want to be the meat in your sandwich. You know nothing about the subject of drugs and you understand less, and have been extremely ILL-MANNERED. My good nature was ABUSED. It's a very good example of my powerful self-restraint that I haven't sworn at you. I am so frigging bored of arguing about drugs with morons who want to legalise them.'
π ENDURANCE TEST π«
Asked why he is angered, Hitchens says: 'I've seldom in my life had a conversation that was more like an endurance test. I don't want to see you again and I don't want to hear from you again. I really don't like you at all.'
ππΎ PREROGATIVE OF THE HARLOT ππΌ
Alluding to the way in which many interviewers, throughout the YouTube age, have enjoyed power without responsibility, Hitchens avers that he is too polite, modest, and delicate a plant to disclose to the world the rather old profession or 'occupation' with which he 'equates' a disreputable drug-legalisation activist of this type.
Full version: youtu.be/VyMhZhwe3gc?si=9qBja9_qieoEOX6J
EX-TROT THROWS TOYS OUT OF CRIB: Peter Hitchens is the prominent journalist, rhetorician, social critic, film reviewer, criminologist, war historian, literary pundit, former revolutionary Marxist βπ» of the Trotskyist (International Socialists β ) persuasion, daylight-saving time foe, naval & defence analyst, moralist, epidemiologist, pΕnologist, thinker, Russia expert, onetime aspiring Conservative parliamentary candidate, polemicist, radio & television personality, β theologian β, and educationalist. He has a regular column in the Mail on Sunday and is the author of many well-researched and highly-regarded books, including one on drugs. He is the go-to choice of the poll-tax-funded British βͺοΈ Islamist-socialist β state broadcaster when it needs someone to occupy the pariah 'Mussolini seat' in any round-table discussion. An opponent of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, Hitchens declined to back Reform UK in the 2024 general election and refused to vote in the referendum on EU membership.
π‘ 'SICK TO DEATH' OF DRUG-LEGALISERS π€
We see Hitchens here abruptly cutting short an interview with a proponent of recreational-drugs liberalisation, who he suggests is cunning and whom he brands 'dishonest'. He demands that the material that has been recorded not be aired under any circumstances.
SHAMEFUL AND π€₯ DISHONEST
Hitchens is aggrieved because, he says, it has become apparent that his interlocutor, who should be 'ashamed' of himself, issued the invitation to the celebrated author on FALSE PRETENCES. Hitchens finds himself in the unpleasant situation of having been lured into a drugs-legalisation-activism AMBUSH. Such conduct is a 'disgraceful and appalling' abuse of his very considerable goodwill in agreeing to do the interview in the first place, considering his eminence.
DRIVEL ABOUT π€¬ 'BLOODY PORTUGAL' π΅πΉ
A wide-ranging discussion was promised, Hitchens asserts, in which he was offered the opportunity to lay out his considered, well-argued opinions on a number of vital subjects. But he was TRICKED. The interviewer can speak of nothing for a whole hour but his pet subject, 'drivel' about drugs, with tedious reference to the drugs-legalisation experience of 'bloody Portugal', and exposes himself as a 'PROPAGANDIST' for narcotics decriminalisation.
πΏ 'I ACTIVELY DISLIKE YOU' π
Hitchens began the conversation with a neutral mindset but this has turned to 'active dislike' πͺ of his 'RUDE AND INCOMPETENT' interrogator, who, he alleges, is 'OBSESSED' with drugs. Hitchens says: 'If you want drugs decriminalisation, good luck, and enjoy the society you get as a result, but I'm sick of the subject, and I'm SICK TO DEATH of people who promote it.' He observes that his questioner, if he has bothered to read anything of Hitchens's Εuvre on addiction and other aspects of the human condition, has done so 'with the lights off'.
π DRUGGIE PALS π
Hitchens declares that although his inquisitor's 'druggie friends' are likely to consider the exchange 'great', broadcasting it on YouTube would be, to put it mildly, bad practice. It would be 'extremely bad manners', nay, an 'OUTRAGE'. Moral entitlement to publish the encounter on YouTube is lacking. The way the cannabis-and-cocaine enthusiast has carried on is 'genuinely ASTONISHING' and 'I don't see why I should have to put up with it'.
ππ» 'YOU KNOW NOTHING' ππ»
The host, to give him his due, gives the appearance of being under the influence neither of recreational drugs nor of alcoholic beverages on this particular occasion. He maintains that the matter of the urgent social and economic need to legalise recreational ingestion of, say, marihuana or lysergic acid diethylamide just sort of 'came up' in the course of the discussion. Hitchens corrects him: 'It didn't "come up". It didn't come drifting out of the scene. You chose it. it was your chosen subject β for an hour. On and on and on and on and round and round in circles, round and round and round and round. I don't want to be the meat in your sandwich. You know nothing about the subject of drugs and you understand less, and have been extremely ILL-MANNERED. My good nature was ABUSED. It's a very good example of my powerful self-restraint that I haven't sworn at you. I am so frigging bored of arguing about drugs with morons who want to legalise them.'
π ENDURANCE TEST π«
Asked why he is angered, Hitchens says: 'I've seldom in my life had a conversation that was more like an endurance test. I don't want to see you again and I don't want to hear from you again. I really don't like you at all.'
ππΎ PREROGATIVE OF THE HARLOT ππΌ
Alluding to the way in which many interviewers, throughout the YouTube age, have enjoyed power without responsibility, Hitchens avers that he is too polite, modest, and delicate a plant to disclose to the world the rather old profession or 'occupation' with which he 'equates' a disreputable drug-legalisation activist of this type.
Full version: youtu.be/VyMhZhwe3gc?si=9qBja9_qieoEOX6J
