Hitchens was a liberal, not a leftist. He was against the Vietnam war and saw himself critical of Capitalist empire, and therefor a "marxist," but ultimately he was simply a liberal. You can't have "freedom" and "liberty" if you have capitalist monopolies who wield so much power that they in effect co-opt governments or become mini fiefdoms.
'saw himself critical of Capitalist empire, and therefor a "marxist,"' - Being a Marxist is quite specific. To be a critic of capitalism does not necessarily mean being a Marxist - there is a definite Anarchist critique of capitalism. Hitchens was for a time a member of the SWP, a Marxist party. Now I have to ask what you mean by 'leftist'. Do you mean revolutionary anti-capitalist?
No proponent of capitalism would ever justify the existence of monopolies where free market can efficiently operate. That being said, I don't think you understand the meaning of either of the words capitalism or monopoly
@@exextrovert hitchens reminds me of a college friend in the early 70s, national merit scholar , 1580/,1600 SAT, freshman with 28 hours of college credit from duke university while still in high school.he wrote a 5 page paper in 20th century American literature for Michael S Reynolds (foremost biography of Ernest Hemingway - 5 volumes (highly recommended reading), he received an A/F with a comment @ the end "well structured bullshit". exactly my sentiments towards hitchens
@@bbb8997 “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” -Christopher Hitchens
Everything he wrote should be taught in American schools. At least it would get the pupils to start thinking for themselves. A large part of the Americans has a staggering ignorance on all subjects.
@ CJ Ellsen, I couldn’t agree more with your statement, it is very sad that Americans are somewhat indolent in erudition, toppling everything off with a very weak and meek educational system and “guala” masses of poor chaps that cannot think for themselves.
I am not sure he is being fair to Chomsky, who, like Vidal, seems more disappointed in his country than actually dislikes it...the problem long term that has emerged is that the Founders gave us just enough government to suit their own needs and then conned everyone else into believing it was enough government for them. Well, perhaps that goes too far given we are talking about late 18th century...but the limited government theme has certainly been used and abused ever since. For the rest of it, since Lincoln we have been a central government run country giving a nod to the idea of federalism. But state power, once important, now exists merely to keep the federal government from taking on the onerous task of running everything.
@@treeamigo8447 s'igh....times have changed...the days when one could say, 'hey I am going off to the wilderness to make a life for myself and my family' that is long since over...
@@julianmarsh1378 There are plenty of people that go off the grid and make a life for themselves, but that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Sorry for assuming you're smart enough to understand that. If you like big government playing an outsized role in your life, there are plenty of other places you can go. Venezuela, Cuba, China just to name a few. Go spend some time in one of these places and you'll learn to appreciate small government.
We can deride the effects that social media has had on our culture, but I will say I've learned more about history on RUclips than I have in my entire life prior. This is simply becoming the new Library at Alexandria, IMO.
Sadly, this new library of Alexandria is wholly owned by a private company with no allegiance to anything but profit. The fire for this version of the great library is potentially something like, "meh, we're not making enough here, anymore. Shut it down."
Allow me: he provided apologia for the Khymer Rouge; he associates with holocaust deniers; he wrote the foreward for a writer who denies the Uyghur genocide. That's off the top of my head. I haven't read him since highschool, which is about the point in life at which he out to be abandoned by people who are serious about foreign policy.
@@econometrics469 "Allow me: he provided apologia for the Khymer Rouge" No, he didn't. This is a calumnious fiction commonly parroted by sophomoric dolts like you, and it will become very obvious very quicky that you can go n further than this naked assertion. You didn't even spell "Khmer Rouge" correctly. "...he wrote the foreward for a writer who denies the Uyghur genocide. " This is a new one. Or is It?... It sounds like you're confusing Faurisson with someone else. Please elaborate. Make me laugh.
@@econometrics469 He is one of the most prominent thinkers in the world (he is the 8th most cited man in literature just behind Freud btw) and you just do not read him. And in the same sentence, you imply that you are serious. Oh please, you just do not know how silly you sound. With regards to the Faurisson affair, he did not forward the book he simply wrote an article defending his right to free speech then it was used as a forward without Chomsky's knowledge or approval (which btw the same thing that Christopher Hitchens did defending David Irving's right). A quick note, what you did here is not a critique it is called an Ad hominem attack. Any "serious'' man would know that I'm sure.
I'm always mesmerized by Christopher ambiguity on many issues. He bashed on Jefferson so much but still considers him a sort of a hero that it's difficult to really come to grips with an objective assessment...
(5:23-5:43) It feels ambiguous because Jefferson’s legacy is complicated. Hitchens views Jefferson’s support for slavery as awful but his support for Enlightenment ideals like those in the Declaration of Independence negate his wrongdoing. He may believe this because those ideals were used to bolster the case for abolition of black slaves, one good example being Frederick Douglass’ remarks on the 4th of July.
He'd be "cancelled" now for a whole bunch of reasons: His comments on women (saying he's happy if they work but that they *shouldn't have to* in other words standing against them being forced to sacrifice family and happiness for wage slavery), his comments on the environmentalist movement (commenting in the debate with his brother when Peter mentioned it agreeing how he doesn't like how religious its language has become, which is true), his total lack of concern about religious sensitivities and demands for immunity and of course for his support for the Iraq war. It's not exactly unusual for leftists to be in favour of military intervention though and to have a sort of "white saviour" mentality. As much as I like him I do think he was guilty of that in many respects
@@chokin78 We lack truly good debaters these days. Both he and his brother are good at it, but even his brother doesn't quite match Christopher's eloquence and charm
@@Flike245 No, you didn't, because you have no way of evaluating its aptness, because it's entirely empty of content. It's just a "witty" quip to get seals like you clapping.
@@Flike245 It's not pithy, it's strictly vacuous. If it summed up your perceptions, your head is as hollow as that painfully witless witticism. Everything I could possibly need to fully warrant my conclusions - not my _assumptions_ - is right in front of me.
He casually contradicts his own book, in which he spends a good deal of ink explaining how Jefferson had tried (and failed) to get manumission included in the Virginia Constitution
Way to misrepresent Chomsky. He never said the US was a bad idea. He just holds it to its own high ideals and standards and finds it failing. Rightly so.
@@econometrics469 he sees his job to criticise the failings, not applaud the wins. Lord knows enough people do that. Your conscience: does it kick in when you do great things or only when you do something against your principles? Now you are closer to understanding Chomsky. But even then, you are wrong on the facts. Chomsky does applaud when the US does the right thing internationally, such as a nuclear deal with Iran. It just does not do these things often and never for the motives provided. Besides, can you name many great principled successes in US foreign policy lately? I struggle. Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Gw 2, Serbia, North Korea? How were any of these principled successes with good outcomes beyond criticism?
Intellectuals regularly misrepresent each other unfortunately. Especially on the left. But it makes for colorful discourse. Can't say quite the same for centrists or the right.
@@dionysianapollomarx this often happens when someone complains about an intellectual's opinions while also admitting to not following the very same intellectual's opinions... I mean, what could go wrong?
Such a strong and beautiful mind and with the possibility he might let you down easy if he saw you were trying. 'America' is banning books now... one state at a time. ..
Takes a cheap dig at Chomsky, without any substance. Interesting what he says about Marx and Lincoln though. You can appreciate the positive contribution that Marx made to politics and the development of society, without being a fan of Stalin. If you like Hitch, you should listen to Chomsky, and if you like Chomsky you should listen to Peterson. One thing that all of these people argue for is rational debate and freedom of speech, something that both extreme progressives and conservatives want to do away with.
“The enlightenment ideals persist in their own right, and…are the negation of some of these practices (meaning the hypocrisy of Jefferson, other Founding Fathers regarding slavery and such).” Very well said, I hope the left doesn’t forget this, perhaps due to being too caught up with Chomsky, a man whom I respect but one who’s not a pragmatist or realist. He has a wealth of knowledge and perspective, and is very right about most he says, but I think his intuitive understanding of human nature (particularly humans with political/economic/social power) is a bit too flawed to be a useful pragmatist (I refer you to his recent involvement with Venezuela), however I do think he knows more about important political issues/history than nearly anyone.
As someone from the UK, it's always interesting to watch Christopher Hitchens. He was a polemicist who loved the sound of his own voice, he found that nobody cared in the UK because he was a very familiar type of self seeking agitator from a privileged background (he's barely known outside journalistic circles) so he went to the USA to cash in on the culture wars.
I do think he was sincere about his beliefs but the many "activists" that came after him, in both Britain and U.S., are just career driven opportunists
You're telling me he loved the sound of his own voice. Why use a couple of sentences to explain your POV when you can bloviate to such an extent listeners forget the question that you were supposed to be answering
@@tarakb7606 massively overrated, he was a crowd pleaser. He knew which reactions to illicit to win over or provoke a crowd. His brother Peter is a far more honest commentator imo.
@@tarakb7606 same here. I don't think he's right on say something like Covid, but I think he's more sincere in the views he does hold. Christopher was chasing fame.
Mr Hitchens is the kind of guy who didn't get the girl he wanted, so in anger he switched sides lol What is this demarcation of "new left" and "old left". Is there an "old right" and a "new right" too lol?? It's one of those things you say to look smart, rather than being...
The old left was for the people, the working class, ensuring fair working conditions and wages. It very much holds corporations accountable for their wrongdoings. It is rather focused in its political ideals. The new-left is rather broader, but has lost its focus on things like workers rights, due to currying favour with big business at the same time and trying to be all things to all people.
Yeah this comment is simply BS unfortunately dude. Yes old and new left exist and are real and the same with old right and new right although the new right refer to is as alt. If you're gonna be checking out Hitchens maybe start with some basics in political philosophy or even try to google the terms he says because as it shows it leads to this level of misunderstanding. Your point isn't even wrong dude it's just a non starter...
I used to thing Hitchens was interesting, insightful, and provoked critical thinking. Then I found Thomas Sowell and Hitchens in comparison is a court jester.
Hitch who pretends to know the bible as he screws up on it over and over again including what faith means biblically. --"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”-- Christopher Hitchens Now, look at what biblical faith really means that Hitch the liar didn't even look at: Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith Hitchens always went into evasive word antics to avoid key questions like how we got the creation of the universe. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
sounds uplifting & encouraging until you start contradicting yourself. then it's obvious how much you steelman the biblical faith _"We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen"_ can you be any more contradicting? talk about "evasive word antics"
The real winner here is "Snapple"
Hitchens was a liberal, not a leftist. He was against the Vietnam war and saw himself critical of Capitalist empire, and therefor a "marxist," but ultimately he was simply a liberal. You can't have "freedom" and "liberty" if you have capitalist monopolies who wield so much power that they in effect co-opt governments or become mini fiefdoms.
His biggest blot, I never understood Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.
'saw himself critical of Capitalist empire, and therefor a "marxist,"' - Being a Marxist is quite specific. To be a critic of capitalism does not necessarily mean being a Marxist - there is a definite Anarchist critique of capitalism. Hitchens was for a time a member of the SWP, a Marxist party. Now I have to ask what you mean by 'leftist'. Do you mean revolutionary anti-capitalist?
No proponent of capitalism would ever justify the existence of monopolies where free market can efficiently operate. That being said, I don't think you understand the meaning of either of the words capitalism or monopoly
Calling Hitchens a liberal is a sure sign that someone doesn't know what they are talking about.
@@tomaskadlec9534 Either of the words or both? Perhaps you would like to explain the meaning of both the words.
What a delightful gorgeous bastard he was, I sorely miss Christopher Hitchens.
I do not miss this old windbag
@@bbb8997 He’s actually quite the opposite, as nearly everything leaving his lips is deliberate, relevant and articulate.
@@exextrovert hitchens reminds me of a college friend in the early 70s, national merit scholar , 1580/,1600 SAT, freshman with 28 hours of college credit from duke university while still in high school.he wrote a 5 page paper in 20th century American literature for Michael S Reynolds (foremost biography of Ernest Hemingway - 5 volumes (highly recommended reading), he received an A/F with a comment @ the end "well structured bullshit". exactly my sentiments towards hitchens
@@bbb8997 “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”
-Christopher Hitchens
@@exextrovert such a vulgar entity
One wonders how much further he would be debasing himself if he were alive today. What a contrast from the sharp Hitchens of the 80s and 90s.
lol you’re a goon
Everything he wrote should be taught in American schools. At least it would get the pupils to start thinking for themselves. A large part of the Americans has a staggering ignorance on all subjects.
Well, I'm not American or English.
It’s purposely hidden
@ CJ Ellsen, I couldn’t agree more with your statement, it is very sad that Americans are somewhat indolent in erudition, toppling everything off with a very weak and meek educational system and “guala” masses of poor chaps that cannot think for themselves.
That is by design. Ask yourself how many statesmen, to include our presidents, have the US produced in the last 40yrs?
True , half of all Americans struggle to define what a woman is.
I am not sure he is being fair to Chomsky, who, like Vidal, seems more disappointed in his country than actually dislikes it...the problem long term that has emerged is that the Founders gave us just enough government to suit their own needs and then conned everyone else into believing it was enough government for them. Well, perhaps that goes too far given we are talking about late 18th century...but the limited government theme has certainly been used and abused ever since. For the rest of it, since Lincoln we have been a central government run country giving a nod to the idea of federalism. But state power, once important, now exists merely to keep the federal government from taking on the onerous task of running everything.
The notion that more government equals a better system is wildly ridiculous
@@treeamigo8447 It is the quality of government that counts or aren't you up for taking on that responsibility?
@@julianmarsh1378
Independent men will say its lack of government that counts.. or aren't you up to being responsible for yourself?
@@treeamigo8447 s'igh....times have changed...the days when one could say, 'hey I am going off to the wilderness to make a life for myself and my family' that is long since over...
@@julianmarsh1378
There are plenty of people that go off the grid and make a life for themselves, but that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Sorry for assuming you're smart enough to understand that. If you like big government playing an outsized role in your life, there are plenty of other places you can go. Venezuela, Cuba, China just to name a few. Go spend some time in one of these places and you'll learn to appreciate small government.
We can deride the effects that social media has had on our culture, but I will say I've learned more about history on RUclips than I have in my entire life prior. This is simply becoming the new Library at Alexandria, IMO.
If you're not checking primary sources you've almost certainly learned a great deal that isn't true.
Sadly, this new library of Alexandria is wholly owned by a private company with no allegiance to anything but profit. The fire for this version of the great library is potentially something like, "meh, we're not making enough here, anymore. Shut it down."
He never provided a substantive critique of Chomsky.
Someone noticed.
Allow me: he provided apologia for the Khymer Rouge; he associates with holocaust deniers; he wrote the foreward for a writer who denies the Uyghur genocide. That's off the top of my head. I haven't read him since highschool, which is about the point in life at which he out to be abandoned by people who are serious about foreign policy.
@@econometrics469 "Allow me: he provided apologia for the Khymer Rouge"
No, he didn't. This is a calumnious fiction commonly parroted by sophomoric dolts like you, and it will become very obvious very quicky that you can go n further than this naked assertion. You didn't even spell "Khmer Rouge" correctly.
"...he wrote the foreward for a writer who denies the Uyghur genocide. "
This is a new one.
Or is It?...
It sounds like you're confusing Faurisson with someone else. Please elaborate. Make me laugh.
@@econometrics469 He is one of the most prominent thinkers in the world (he is the 8th most cited man in literature just behind Freud btw) and you just do not read him. And in the same sentence, you imply that you are serious. Oh please, you just do not know how silly you sound. With regards to the Faurisson affair, he did not forward the book he simply wrote an article defending his right to free speech then it was used as a forward without Chomsky's knowledge or approval (which btw the same thing that Christopher Hitchens did defending David Irving's right).
A quick note, what you did here is not a critique it is called an Ad hominem attack. Any "serious'' man would know that I'm sure.
@@econometrics469 ah! The Khmer Rouge trope. Provide the details for the calumny. Someone has been reading critics while ignoring the original author.
Marx and Lincoln as BFFs
this video makes me wanna drink a snapple
good vid, the first part is the seeds of what is going on now
I'm always mesmerized by Christopher ambiguity on many issues. He bashed on Jefferson so much but still considers him a sort of a hero that it's difficult to really come to grips with an objective assessment...
(5:23-5:43) It feels ambiguous because Jefferson’s legacy is complicated. Hitchens views Jefferson’s support for slavery as awful but his support for Enlightenment ideals like those in the Declaration of Independence negate his wrongdoing. He may believe this because those ideals were used to bolster the case for abolition of black slaves, one good example being Frederick Douglass’ remarks on the 4th of July.
He'd be "cancelled" now for a whole bunch of reasons: His comments on women (saying he's happy if they work but that they *shouldn't have to* in other words standing against them being forced to sacrifice family and happiness for wage slavery), his comments on the environmentalist movement (commenting in the debate with his brother when Peter mentioned it agreeing how he doesn't like how religious its language has become, which is true), his total lack of concern about religious sensitivities and demands for immunity and of course for his support for the Iraq war. It's not exactly unusual for leftists to be in favour of military intervention though and to have a sort of "white saviour" mentality. As much as I like him I do think he was guilty of that in many respects
@@TheGreatGodPan I concur with virtually everything you say. The Socratic spirit was no doubt alive within him
@@chokin78 We lack truly good debaters these days. Both he and his brother are good at it, but even his brother doesn't quite match Christopher's eloquence and charm
@@TheGreatGodPan I'm not sure we lack the debaters as we do lack the platforms to hold such debates. An age of censorship indeed.
Chomsky will live on for a hundred years. Hitchens was mostly forgotten soon after his death.
I dont think so. Chomsky is a old fool, even when he was young.
I read them all, you have too, however sometimes I wish I never started
"He calls himself an anarchist. He keeps forgetting he is one at the times when it might do him some good." Oof.
Absolutely empty and meaningless. This is how easily impressed Hitchens fans are.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I found it apt.
@@Flike245 No, you didn't, because you have no way of evaluating its aptness, because it's entirely empty of content. It's just a "witty" quip to get seals like you clapping.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 Nah, it pithily summed up my own perception of Chomsky. Stay super aggro with your misinformed assumptions tho.
@@Flike245 It's not pithy, it's strictly vacuous. If it summed up your perceptions, your head is as hollow as that painfully witless witticism.
Everything I could possibly need to fully warrant my conclusions - not my _assumptions_ - is right in front of me.
He casually contradicts his own book, in which he spends a good deal of ink explaining how Jefferson had tried (and failed) to get manumission included in the Virginia Constitution
Hamilton seemed to have had that effect on many people… like Burr
Lights Out Bright!
Way to misrepresent Chomsky. He never said the US was a bad idea. He just holds it to its own high ideals and standards and finds it failing. Rightly so.
Find me a time Noam wrote positively about American foreign policy. I'd say I'll wait but, I'd be here quite a while.
@@econometrics469 he sees his job to criticise the failings, not applaud the wins. Lord knows enough people do that.
Your conscience: does it kick in when you do great things or only when you do something against your principles?
Now you are closer to understanding Chomsky.
But even then, you are wrong on the facts. Chomsky does applaud when the US does the right thing internationally, such as a nuclear deal with Iran. It just does not do these things often and never for the motives provided.
Besides, can you name many great principled successes in US foreign policy lately? I struggle. Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Gw 2, Serbia, North Korea? How were any of these principled successes with good outcomes beyond criticism?
Intellectuals regularly misrepresent each other unfortunately. Especially on the left. But it makes for colorful discourse. Can't say quite the same for centrists or the right.
@@econometrics469 you didn't wait quick enough
@@dionysianapollomarx this often happens when someone complains about an intellectual's opinions while also admitting to not following the very same intellectual's opinions... I mean, what could go wrong?
Such a strong and beautiful mind and with the possibility he might let you down easy if he saw you were trying.
'America' is banning books now... one state at a time. ..
Banning any books that criticize the American State or talk about racism in schools lmaooo
Which books have they banned so far?
French colonialism continued because Truman supported the French returning to the area.
You do know Hitch was a Trotskyist right?
I think he was more like a Trotskyist left
Takes a cheap dig at Chomsky, without any substance. Interesting what he says about Marx and Lincoln though.
You can appreciate the positive contribution that Marx made to politics and the development of society, without being a fan of Stalin.
If you like Hitch, you should listen to Chomsky, and if you like Chomsky you should listen to Peterson. One thing that all of these people argue for is rational debate and freedom of speech, something that both extreme progressives and conservatives want to do away with.
Peterson is a fascist grifter. He doesn't belong in the same conversation with the other two.
Peterson doesn't belong in the same sentence as the other 2 & Hitch would have been annoyed by him
“The enlightenment ideals persist in their own right, and…are the negation of some of these practices (meaning the hypocrisy of Jefferson, other Founding Fathers regarding slavery and such).” Very well said, I hope the left doesn’t forget this, perhaps due to being too caught up with Chomsky, a man whom I respect but one who’s not a pragmatist or realist. He has a wealth of knowledge and perspective, and is very right about most he says, but I think his intuitive understanding of human nature (particularly humans with political/economic/social power) is a bit too flawed to be a useful pragmatist (I refer you to his recent involvement with Venezuela), however I do think he knows more about important political issues/history than nearly anyone.
Chomsky is more obsessed with the enlightenment ideals than any other leftist thinker
not in Jefferson's league on intellect & ability, Jefferson the founder of American architecture, not a pompous overweight windbag
#NoamChomskyChristopherHitchens
As someone from the UK, it's always interesting to watch Christopher Hitchens. He was a polemicist who loved the sound of his own voice, he found that nobody cared in the UK because he was a very familiar type of self seeking agitator from a privileged background (he's barely known outside journalistic circles) so he went to the USA to cash in on the culture wars.
I do think he was sincere about his beliefs but the many "activists" that came after him, in both Britain and U.S., are just career driven opportunists
You're telling me he loved the sound of his own voice. Why use a couple of sentences to explain your POV when you can bloviate to such an extent listeners forget the question that you were supposed to be answering
The Virgin Hitchens vs the Chad Parenti on American empire is a great debate worth watching.
who do you think won?
Crypto
Inject some f.ckin volume in2 it please!!!.
Part brilliant, part jackass, part show-biz...
He lost me when he supported the Iraq War.
Jackass. I certainly agree.
Brilliant? Somewhat overrated IMO.
@@tarakb7606 massively overrated, he was a crowd pleaser. He knew which reactions to illicit to win over or provoke a crowd. His brother Peter is a far more honest commentator imo.
@@naveed210 Absolutely. I'll always listen to Peter Hitchens even though I disagree with a lot of what he says.
@@tarakb7606 same here. I don't think he's right on say something like Covid, but I think he's more sincere in the views he does hold. Christopher was chasing fame.
Mr Hitchens is the kind of guy who didn't get the girl he wanted, so in anger he switched sides lol What is this demarcation of "new left" and "old left". Is there an "old right" and a "new right" too lol?? It's one of those things you say to look smart, rather than being...
Your ignorance hole is leaking ignorance. You should stuff something in it.
There’s very much a new left old left dynamic at work now . It’s very much more visible now than it than was back in 05 .
@@shawn6669 “ignorance hole”. Hahaha. I’m going to use that. Thank you How about “your ignorance hole is showing”
The old left was for the people, the working class, ensuring fair working conditions and wages. It very much holds corporations accountable for their wrongdoings. It is rather focused in its political ideals. The new-left is rather broader, but has lost its focus on things like workers rights, due to currying favour with big business at the same time and trying to be all things to all people.
Yeah this comment is simply BS unfortunately dude. Yes old and new left exist and are real and the same with old right and new right although the new right refer to is as alt. If you're gonna be checking out Hitchens maybe start with some basics in political philosophy or even try to google the terms he says because as it shows it leads to this level of misunderstanding. Your point isn't even wrong dude it's just a non starter...
Long live communism and freedom
I used to thing Hitchens was interesting, insightful, and provoked critical thinking. Then I found Thomas Sowell and Hitchens in comparison is a court jester.
Wait until you realize that Sowell is also a court jester.
@@justin6777 By this standard, what current public thinker is NOT a court jester?
Thanks for the laugh
Just get to the point will you
Hitch who pretends to know the bible as he screws up on it over and over again including what faith means biblically.
--"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”-- Christopher Hitchens
Now, look at what biblical faith really means that Hitch the liar didn't even look at:
Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/
www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith
www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust
www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass
www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith
Hitchens always went into evasive word antics to avoid key questions like how we got the creation of the universe.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
How many times are you going to copy and paste the same emotional reply. The only people screwing up on the bible are the people who believe it.
Within all your links, I do not see the evidence you claim. It isn't anyone else's fault but your own that you don't understand science.
Oh dear. You realise, don't you, that the repetition and length of your posts only confirms your absurdity?
sounds uplifting & encouraging until you start contradicting yourself. then it's obvious how much you steelman the biblical faith
_"We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen"_
can you be any more contradicting? talk about "evasive word antics"
I'm not reading all that crap