Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anybody else note the Hitchens in the artical that 9/11 Investigator linked to was by PETER Hitchens, Not Christopher?






Yeah, this guy is a very careful researcher...........
 
Last edited:
Shame on me, it is indeed his brother Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

It was too good to be true that Christopher would have changed his mind so drastically since the interview with Hanson.

Nevertheless a remarkable article for somebody who started his career like this:

Hitchens studied politics at the University of York from 1970 to 1973. He was a Trotskyist member of the International Socialists from 1969 to 1975, and joined the British Labour Party in 1977, campaigning for Ken Livingstone's unsuccessful candidature for Hampstead in the 1979 general election. Hitchens left the Labour Party in 1983 when he became a political reporter at the Daily Express, thinking it wrong to carry a party card when directly reporting politics.[25] The period also coincided with a culmination of growing personal disillusionment with the Labour movement.
Click to expand...

The rest of the comments in my previous post remain valid.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Shame on me, it is indeed his brother Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

It was too good to be true that Christopher would have changed his mind so drastically since the interview with Hanson.

.
Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that Peter Hitchens is considered to be a barking mad hack of no particular importance. He denies evolution and global warming for example. If you ever read his column it was always a viscious rant against almost all aspects of British life (and anywhere else for that matter).
From the same WP article,
"He has said of his reputation: "I know a lot of people consider me to be disreputable or foaming at the mouth, but you have to learn not to care, or at least not to mind. I don't like being called 'bonkers' ...". And that is referring to what he knows is said about him.
Another dud you've chosen to offer up as some sort of "evidence".
 
Belz... said:
I was not aware that the "white race", however you define it, had a cause.
Click to expand...
Can't define "race", can't define "white". Other than that, he's fine. Not.
Folks, I suggest we ignore him. I don't think the lurkers need our guidance, on this one. His delusions are evident, and his conviction unshakable.
Click to expand...
There's a point where you have to stop talking to them and start talking about them.

I'm still thinking this is either "Wolfie" or his alternative personality, "David" from skeptic.com.
 
dudalb said:
I notice that 9/11 Investigator is pretending that Asian Civilizations (China, India, Japan,etc) do not exist,since those were not created by Nordic Whites.......
Click to expand...

This especially creates problems when looking at the historical period under discussion about Africa...at around 1100 AD, when Great Zimbabwe and London had about the same population and Rome was in serious decline, China was culturally and technologically way more advanced than either Europe or Africa.
 
SanityGap said:
From the same WP article,
"He has said of his reputation: "I know a lot of people consider me to be disreputable or foaming at the mouth, but you have to learn not to care, or at least not to mind. I don't like being called 'bonkers' ...". And that is referring to what he knows is said about him.
Click to expand...

Also from the same article:

After BNP party leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time in October 2009, Hitchens stated that the BNP are an embarrassment to "proper, patriotic conservatives like me who are not racially bigoted or prejudiced and do not care about the colour of people's skin".
Click to expand...

Peter Hitchens doesn't buy into 9/11-investigator's racism, it seems.

Davehttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/#cite_note-62
 
drkitten said:
Both. Agricultural societies can support larger populations. This creates both an opportunity for technological specialization (you don't need to be as self-sufficient) but also a need for greater output to support the population.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of the hunter-farmer theory by Thom Harmann? It states that people who are considered "normal" carry the attention genes that are adapted for farming, while people with ADHD carry the "hunter" gene. Farming requires focus, low distractability, and patience. Hunting requires high distractability (to be able to shift attention quickly to potential dangers and/or prey) and impatience (they must keep moving to cover a lot of ground). The only reason that "normal" people are more common today is that farming supports a larger population than hunting.

Our education system and culture (according to the theory) is strongly biased toward the "farmer" mentality. It requires sitting still and paying attention for long periods of time.

In one of his books, Hartmann explained the high academic achievement of Asian cultures by pointing to their mainly agricultural heritage, so a higher percentage of the population carries the "farmer" gene.

He didn't mention the African population. It might have been impolitic to do so. If the African heritage really is based on the hunter-gatherer paradigm, then the theory predicts that the African population will have a lot of "hunter" genes, and therefore would be less successful academically.

This doesn't mean they are any less intelligent. It simply means they would have difficulty fitting in to the Western system of education.
 
SanityGap said:
Never mind the fact that Peter Hitchens is considered to be a barking mad hack of no particular importance. He denies evolution and global warming for example. If you ever read his column it was always a viscious rant against almost all aspects of British life (and anywhere else for that matter).
From the same WP article,
"He has said of his reputation: "I know a lot of people consider me to be disreputable or foaming at the mouth, but you have to learn not to care, or at least not to mind. I don't like being called 'bonkers' ...". And that is referring to what he knows is said about him.
Another dud you've chosen to offer up as some sort of "evidence".
Click to expand...

The highlighted parts explain perfectly why the Lying Dutchman likes him so much. He himself isn´t noted for abundant sanity, either, he denies whatever he doesn´t like as well, he rabidly hated the British, and he thinks anyone considered disreputable by the mainstream NWO world conspiracy must be a good guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom