It's pretty much impossible to have someone like Hitch in this political climate. You have to be outrageous to get noticed or your a serious mind and you get torn apart by the right, the left and the media.
proletariat needs "Barbie dolls" on TV: princess Diana, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian,... it's a form of religiousness: they're goddesses to look up to
@Nag Dasty I really liked him growing up because he knew how to articulate certain arguments against people who were bad (Book: the trial of H. Kissinger). I think that he dedicated too much time to religion in the last years of his life because it’s an easy formula to make lots of money. He knew that many Americans are not the brightest and that they are easy to rile up and debate with. He knew he could make money from that but in the process lost the shine he had ..... i wish he wrote and promoted books that held bad people accountable in his last years instead of attacking God or the imaginary God
@@CyprusHot interesting point but I have to say I loved his polemics against religion: it's a question of what you're interested in I suppose. Who would get the brunt of her ire today I wonder?
@@CM-eg3gl I liked his polemics against religion too at the very beginning but when you add all of them together - he would use the same arguments again and again- the same opening style …. I think if he was alive today he would be attacking these blasphemy laws and also creeping sharia into the western legal system
If you like Christopher Hitchens, consider looking at the channel, maybe start with 'The Portable Hitch', link below :) ruclips.net/video/_QsUmKGFE6k/видео.html
As much as I like Christopher Hitchens, I believe he’s misrepresenting Chomsky‘s position here. Chomsky has repeatedly said many good things about the people of the USA. From what I can tell, he has a problem with certain political leadership, but not with the people of this country. It seems Hitchens got a lot of mileage out of his dispute with Chomsky because it earned him a perceived centrist position when being a leftist was going out of style. In any case, he remains among the greatest thinkers of our time. Rip.
I found it very interesting when Hitchins said the he felt like he "had to have a fight with him (Chomski) about an insinuation no sometimes the assertion". This was a clear sign of Hitchins' careful articulation and choice of words when he speaks.
He really wasn’t! Anyone can find small or big things to point out and critique them and come across as otherworldly compared to so called mere mortals. He was a bog standard Trotskyist who didn’t get his own way and went full blown neo von until his neo con pals started laughing at him dying of cancer and tried to get back in with his own original cult and they didn’t want him anymore
RUclips Hitchens masochist liberals. He knew even before 9/11 in a feminist round table with Charlie Rose he talks about the rise of sjws and victimhood on campuses.
Obviously we can't ask him. I've absorbed just about everything the man produced, he was certainly against the spreading victim mentality, and I'm fairly sure he would be extremely upset with the people who call themselves Marxists today.
Agreed, though I would be confident in saying that his position would not be absolute or dogmatic. He wouldn't pull punches, but he would also give credit where it was due (picking Mattis for example).
The title is a bit of a bait and switch, I didn't hear him say anything about Trump, what he said about Chomsky seemed fleeting and unintelligible to me, I'll have to play it again and listen more closely. I love hitch and I'm discovering that what Chomsky says about his impression of other people should be taken with a grain of salt.
@gerard dearieLet us take what you say his friends say for the sake of argument. Hitch once said "I think that Hatred, though it provides often rather junky energy, is a terrific way of getting you out of bed in the morning." and on a later occasion was asked to expand on that. Hatred can be channeled without being dogmatic. Nor would giving credit where due negate hatred. Hitch says on a panel "You can be in a rage and be perfectly cold and controlled, at least you should aim to be." in response to the idea that having "that kind of investment" in a person renders one unable to stay detached. So he could have hated Trump and my points remain relevant.
Hitch was asked about Trump back in the 90s on a tv news program (it’s on RUclips..) and a possible bid for the presidency at the time and he shrugged him off as not even worth considering.. which I suspect we all felt at the time.. but think about how the left have arced up since then, and the platform they have (unknowingly) given him since..
@@justininfrance Then you haven't read enough Hitchens. He was attacking the word-salad-tossing, Postmodernists, it's figure heads and their infestation of the Universities over a decade ago precisely for the reason JBP had been: free speech. Your only experience with the Hitch must be RUclips videos if you think JBP's meek "religion is personal & metaphorical" approach would override the Hitch's logic as it has these new atheists. www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/transgressing-the-boundaries.html
@@AneTix101 Exactly, I've noticed that they often make the same points, and are interested in largely the same things (Totalitarianism, religion, science etc.). The difference between them would be once JBP starts talking about religion, and how he thinks Christianity forms the foundations of modern western thought. Hitch knew more about the enlightenment, and if they were to talk about Marxism, Hitch would again have the upper hand. The point they could agree on most strongly, though, is that the universities have been ruined by infantilisation.
Marcion of Sinope Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite, he is exactly the word-salad-tossing, postmodernists that he’s been criticising, he talks about free speech but when people criticises him he accuses them of attacking him and threatens to slap or hit or sue them, he even once said in his own words that “there is no evidence that atheists like Richard Dawkins are oppressed even though they should be.” That doesn’t sound like someone who supported free speech.
Even in the RUclips afterlife, Hitchens is popular for articulating what Bob Dylan sang decades before: “Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters.” We need Hitchens “now”? Why? Don’t make him a demigod. That was his whole point!
Sorry Hitch ... you're smooth talking used car salesman for a set of values that on the surface would suggest compassion, but if taken to their logical conclusion, results in Gulags.
"judging their actions by their reputations" briliant
this paradigm also occurs in perceptions of peoples belonging to group identities.
I wish there was a figure like him in our current situation
Objective Academic hahahahahahahahahaha
Give me a decade or so :p
Keith Olbermann
(Just kidding)
It's pretty much impossible to have someone like Hitch in this political climate. You have to be outrageous to get noticed or your a serious mind and you get torn apart by the right, the left and the media.
Srithor it describes pretty much any politicians supporters. You can say the same of Hillary supporters, Berry supporters, so on and so on.
proletariat needs "Barbie dolls" on TV: princess Diana, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian,...
it's a form of religiousness: they're goddesses to look up to
The irony .... people have turned Hitchens into a demigod
Lol the fawning on his videos is unreal. “Miss ya Hitch” as if anyone commenting knew the fucking guy 😂
@Nag Dasty I really liked him growing up because he knew how to articulate certain arguments against people who were bad (Book: the trial of H. Kissinger). I think that he dedicated too much time to religion in the last years of his life because it’s an easy formula to make lots of money. He knew that many Americans are not the brightest and that they are easy to rile up and debate with. He knew he could make money from that but in the process lost the shine he had ..... i wish he wrote and promoted books that held bad people accountable in his last years instead of attacking God or the imaginary God
@@CyprusHot interesting point but I have to say I loved his polemics against religion: it's a question of what you're interested in I suppose. Who would get the brunt of her ire today I wonder?
I think he did in some way addressed this in letters to a young contrarian
@@CM-eg3gl I liked his polemics against religion too at the very beginning but when you add all of them together - he would use the same arguments again and again- the same opening style ….
I think if he was alive today he would be attacking these blasphemy laws and also creeping sharia into the western legal system
"The rich world has a poor conscience."
Amen
Ironically, Mother Theresa said nearly the same thing.....
If you like Christopher Hitchens, consider looking at the channel, maybe start with 'The Portable Hitch', link below :)
ruclips.net/video/_QsUmKGFE6k/видео.html
He is so missed.
Doses of the fabulous hitch and visits to animal sanctuaries keep me going.
I hear that! :)
Christopher Hitchens vs Populism (Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, Noam Chomsky)
2017 3 21
As much as I like Christopher Hitchens, I believe he’s misrepresenting Chomsky‘s position here. Chomsky has repeatedly said many good things about the people of the USA. From what I can tell, he has a problem with certain political leadership, but not with the people of this country. It seems Hitchens got a lot of mileage out of his dispute with Chomsky because it earned him a perceived centrist position when being a leftist was going out of style. In any case, he remains among the greatest thinkers of our time. Rip.
chomsky is a derelic...an old marxists who never adapted to the modern world. Changing is good.
I found it very interesting when Hitchins said the he felt like he "had to have a fight with him (Chomski) about an insinuation no sometimes the assertion". This was a clear sign of Hitchins' careful articulation and choice of words when he speaks.
He was more precise with his language than most for sure :)
I got it ! Chomsky - is the odd one out !
FFS- Hitch. You were always so many steps ahead.
He really wasn’t! Anyone can find small or big things to point out and critique them and come across as otherworldly compared to so called mere mortals. He was a bog standard Trotskyist who didn’t get his own way and went full blown neo von until his neo con pals started laughing at him dying of cancer and tried to get back in with his own original cult and they didn’t want him anymore
The greatest mind of the last 100 years 💯
Morphing Reality, ThankYou for Posting & for ^v description/Footnotes etc! Best, dr bombay
My pleasure! Thank you! Check out the channel for more.
There is just no way Hitch wouldn't have become the most ardent hater of regressives in public right now.
RUclips Hitchens masochist liberals. He knew even before 9/11 in a feminist round table with Charlie Rose he talks about the rise of sjws and victimhood on campuses.
There's a video from that round table in my Hitch playlist.
LaLiLuLeLo This is retarded. I love how both sides are in all his videos. trying to claim hitchens as their own. Absolutely pathetic.
Amen
Obviously we can't ask him.
I've absorbed just about everything the man produced, he was certainly against the spreading victim mentality, and I'm fairly sure he would be extremely upset with the people who call themselves Marxists today.
Isn't Hitchens an icon himself?
Perhaps, there is a case to be made.
No, he is an iconoclast.
Of course and still relevant
I really wonder where this man would stand on Donald trump. Trump is such a contradiction its impossible to conclude a reliable perspective on the man
Agreed, though I would be confident in saying that his position would not be absolute or dogmatic.
He wouldn't pull punches, but he would also give credit where it was due (picking Mattis for example).
The title is a bit of a bait and switch, I didn't hear him say anything about Trump, what he said about Chomsky seemed fleeting and unintelligible to me, I'll have to play it again and listen more closely. I love hitch and I'm discovering that what Chomsky says about his impression of other people should be taken with a grain of salt.
Lord Sathanus you really need to wonder at that?
@gerard dearieLet us take what you say his friends say for the sake of argument.
Hitch once said "I think that Hatred, though it provides often rather junky energy, is a terrific way of getting you out of bed in the morning." and on a later occasion was asked to expand on that.
Hatred can be channeled without being dogmatic.
Nor would giving credit where due negate hatred.
Hitch says on a panel "You can be in a rage and be perfectly cold and controlled, at least you should aim to be." in response to the idea that having "that kind of investment" in a person renders one unable to stay detached.
So he could have hated Trump and my points remain relevant.
Hitch was asked about Trump back in the 90s on a tv news program (it’s on RUclips..) and a possible bid for the presidency at the time and he shrugged him off as not even worth considering.. which I suspect we all felt at the time.. but think about how the left have arced up since then, and the platform they have (unknowingly) given him since..
Brilliant
Indeed he was.
This is why I would've loved to see Christopher Hitchens and Jordan Peterson have a talk, not debate. This and their fierce defense of free speech.
It would have been interesting to put it mildly :)
Hitch would have hated Peterson, the 'people's intellectual'. No, he's a charlatan.
@@justininfrance Then you haven't read enough Hitchens. He was attacking the word-salad-tossing, Postmodernists, it's figure heads and their infestation of the Universities over a decade ago precisely for the reason JBP had been: free speech. Your only experience with the Hitch must be RUclips videos if you think JBP's meek "religion is personal & metaphorical" approach would override the Hitch's logic as it has these new atheists.
www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/transgressing-the-boundaries.html
@@AneTix101 Exactly, I've noticed that they often make the same points, and are interested in largely the same things (Totalitarianism, religion, science etc.). The difference between them would be once JBP starts talking about religion, and how he thinks Christianity forms the foundations of modern western thought. Hitch knew more about the enlightenment, and if they were to talk about Marxism, Hitch would again have the upper hand. The point they could agree on most strongly, though, is that the universities have been ruined by infantilisation.
Marcion of Sinope Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite, he is exactly the word-salad-tossing, postmodernists that he’s been criticising, he talks about free speech but when people criticises him he accuses them of attacking him and threatens to slap or hit or sue them, he even once said in his own words that “there is no evidence that atheists like Richard Dawkins are oppressed even though they should be.” That doesn’t sound like someone who supported free speech.
Even in the RUclips afterlife, Hitchens is popular for articulating what Bob Dylan sang decades before: “Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters.”
We need Hitchens “now”? Why? Don’t make him a demigod. That was his whole point!
He has a brother who is just as courageous.
Sorry Hitch ... you're smooth talking used car salesman for a set of values that on the surface would suggest compassion, but if taken to their logical conclusion, results in Gulags.