I don't know what you're talking about. I've met Eric before and seen him many times on video. Not only is he in person one of the most down to earth, kind, very likeable......nah,that's all bullshit. He's a douche.
Agreed. It was tedious waiting for him to get to the point. Let's face it, we're all here for Peter Hitchens, but the interviewer's ego and effort to make it about himself, hindered the process somewhat.
They're all the same, aren't they? Infatuated with the notion of their own importance. And oblivious to the fact that no one is there to listen to them.
This interviewer is terrible. He spoke more than Hitchens did and seems very self-satisfied and self-absorbed. I bet Peter was biting his tongue through a lot of that.
American interviewers are too often stupid, uncultured, uninformed, and embarrassing. I say that as someone unfortunate to have been born in America. Too many people here are proud of their vulgarity.
Peter Hitchens has taken sibling rivalry to a level 1000. His whole philosophy seems to be stretched to the opposite pole of his elder brother on purpose.
What absolute nonsense. He has his own conservative outlook and faith, to simply reduce him to the level of being a reflection of his brother is just insulting. He has published many books which are extensively researched and argued, and stand in their own right. The idea that he has done all this just to be the opposite of his brother is frankly silly.
@@reggie18b The video got lots of views and the low IQ Christopher Hitchens fans started flooding in, I can't exactly blame them, after all it was the whole point of uploading the video - i.e. to generate clicks
Christopher was a giant among men. His eloquence and intellect in the command of language, was unmatched. His real-world experiences to truly know what he was talking about was also unmatched. He is missed.
Don't get me wrong, Christopher is and shall continue to be my guy; but it's odd to see an interview where the tacit topic is "let's talk diagonally about your more interesting late brother."
Who let this Eric Mataxsmas interview the brilliant Peter Hitchens. Hopelessly out of his depth but Peter was civil towards him despite the inane questioning.
You did. He pointed out the "interviewers" pretentiosness with utter class. I dont really like Peter but this really was some of the best dialogue Ive seen that he has been a part of.
It was a delicate situation. Two brothers internationally renowned who did not get on very well. It required much more tact diplomacy and discretion as well as a great deal more of allowing his guest to speak than this interviewer displayed.
Yah well thanks for that Mr Freud. As a British man.....I kinda already know, and my statement above wasn't about Peter's 'british-ness'. @@Besthinktwice
Kind of a disappointing exchange. The question was obviously about the philosophical differences that led to their bad terms. Peter just muses on the commonality of family issues and Freud. Interviewer is kind of cringe though.
He’s a world famous radio host named Ronald Metaxas, so most people watching are more interested in hearing him speak. Peter Hitchens is just icing on the cake.
All he had to do was come up with some good follow up questions, but was not up to the task! He could have just said something like, now I think our audience might be quite surprised and a little intrigued by your answer, simply because you look and sound so much like your brother and you both had similar talents. Do you think that despite this, you were actually very different from each other? In what ways?
one can be dazzled by brilliance and articulation - it does not necessarily mean th orator is right - all they do is select material to promote their views
Oof, interviewer out of his depth. Peter lets him stumble on with cringy results, it was a missed opportunity to dig deeper. Christopher would have seemed nicer and helped him early on, but a verbal skewering would have been dished out as he lost his patience.
Christopher Hitchens is literally the man who finally set me free of the crippling influence of faith on the mind. Comedians, philosophers, so many with the same message, "Man is free the moment he chooses to be" _Voltaire. I discovered his videos posthumously and will be indebted to that great man for the courage to speak truth to power, to challenge the willing, cheerful ignorance of the masses who long to be sheep and share simple, unvarnished truth. No one who debated him ever successfully made their point that faith is superior to reason. Well, how could they? "Faith is the belief in what reason cannot" __Voltaire 'Atheist's Handbook', can't recommend enough.
You are never free of the cares of life though. The need to eat and find shelter the loss of health and the need to answer the calls of nature. The pain of loss of friends and everything else one holds dear in life. These things will affect believer and atheist alike. The theist's only hope is that there is redemption.
My experience with discovering Christopher Hitchens on youtube was similar to yours. Just opened up my perspective and clarified a lot of things. It is nice to find a person with the ability of thought once in a while.
"Logic" is associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, whereas "intuition" is associated with the right hemisphere. The more your two hemisphere work in tandem, the more you will begin to realize that all the religions are pointing to the same reality underlying the physical universe, although things get lost in translation over thousands of years.
I think the point he's making is that Christopher was very well-known in the USA and so they think of Peter as 'brother of chirstopher' whereas in the UK we know them both as separate people. So I think Peter is showing annoyance here that this is how he is to be understood - as the brother of somebody
I made that mistake onetime by referring to the person I was addressing as the brother of someone well known. He brusquely replied. No. He is a brother of mine! @@williamtoner8674
I feel sorry for Peter, he has lived and will live the rest of his life in the shadow of Cristofer, who was an outstanding writer, journalist and speaker, respected by people who had a similar vision and by detractors, unlike Peter. And to the believers reading this, especially the channel owner, DO NOT DECEIVE YOURSELF, most people watching this video are watching it because of Christopher Hitchens, not his brother.
Christopher Hitchens was the successful gangster boss of the Hitchens family. Supporting the illegal and disastrous Bush II invasion of Iraq, which has had catastrophic consequences and hundreds of thousands dead condemns him as a morally vacuous figure.
And much less talented than Christopher. Overcompensates by his insufferable arrogance. It is apparent that becoming a Christian did not improve him in that respect, despite his protestations to the contrary...
In my opinion Christopher was widely entertaining, extremely charismatic and unbelievably intelligent. Peter on the other hand… not so much. Just from watching this short clip I can see why they didn’t get along.
I was, during my Oxford Union years, always the liaison for Peter - several times, to the extent we became friends. I managed never to divulge that his brother was and is one of my heroes. It would have soured the atmosphere. But I must say he is very different from his media persona. He’s open-minded, sociable, and really quite liberal.
I must say, I did enjoy this from Peter Hitchens. He will always live in the shadow of his brother, funnily enough it was him I saw first on bbc Newsnight.
Peter Hitches can’t hold a candlestick to his late brother Christopher Hitches! Christopher was better in every way, better writer, better speaker, better debater, and better at humor than his brother Peter!
This was very intriguing. I'll be looking into more material from Peter. You can definitely see and hear Christopher in him. Both eloquent speakers with pleasant voices and witty, dry senses of humor.
Peter is a fantastic public speaker and a very thoughtful political commentator. And the best thing is he answers to no one. He is not part of any political party or group. He is fearless and honest.
@@jameshogan6142 you seem very simple, I guess religion has done it's work on you as well, simplistic minds are the first to fall, and you are the perfect example.
The interviewer missed the most obvious question, that I'm sure most of the audience wanted to hear: "How much of a factor did your religiosity play in the somewhat hostile relations between you and your brother?"
"How can this guy be related to Christopher Hitchens? -Same parents. Anything else I can help you with?" that's so simple and funny at the same time 😂😂
@@goodyeoman4534 Having never met a human being who isn't in some way biased (because such a creature does not exist) and not being any kind of sycophant, I'm curious as to know exactly where are you going with this.
Both blessed with the Hitch Gene albeit completely opposite sides of the same coin. I'm much more on Christopher's side but it's always a pleasure to hear from both brothers. Please Mother Nature concoct a lot of combinations like this: we need them.
Jesus, they really are two sides of the same damn coin. Both are incredible writers, both are among the most eloquent speakers in history, both are incredibly intelligent, and both are strictly no nonsense. But their ideological views are diametrically opposed. What an incredible family.
I felt that Eric Mataxas, the interviewer, was ingenuous, sensitive, and fascinated with what I also see as a thought provoking little mystery about the difference in views of the brothers (not that it needs to be solved). Eric’s genuine curiosity seemed to properly draw Peter out. The pause and Eric's face after Peter said "No" were amazing. Peter was relaxed, and I didn’t notice any condescension, snobbery or discomfort in him at all; he’s too much of a real deal human being for that rubbish. The audience enjoyed Peter’s dry wit, and when that happens, one should realize the interviewer is doing their job. Eric is talkative, so what? Sometimes the interviewer is just as interesting as the interviewee, and I was once surprised that a black British lady interviewer with an incredible laugh (forgot her name) who interviewed Harrison Ford - who had a rarely witnessed laughing spell 🤣🤣🤣 - was just as interesting as he was.
Hitchens, he simply asked if you were close, you answered "no". He then asked if you could elaborate which I'm sure you could have done. Instead you berated him for presuming things he did not presume, lecturing him on the purported frequency of estranged siblings in society. He said nothing about those things, he did not say you should be close or it was surprising you were close. Like your brother you are overly rhetorical and obtuse.
Not being liked by Peter Hitchens is more of a award than a flaw. Has he ever learned something in his life and changed his point of view? Has he grown up at some point, or is he just stubbornly and rigidly holding onto the beliefs he had at the age of 20?
I have two sons. They are half blood siblings. I tell them every day since they were little kids. People will come and go. Always. Always. Always stick together
I had four siblings. I only got on well with one of them, now deceased. I get on with one more, though that can get stressful at times. Two of them are bone idle and entitled, happy to hold out their hands for a living, and I rarely speak with them as I have little in common with them. I love them all dearly though
It's amazing how similar Christopher and Peter Hitchens are in *some* respects. For example, C. Hitchens had said the same exact phrase @6:44 in response to the same question, and both Hitchens also implied the same broader answer in regards to their expert wielding of the English language (eg, @6:55 and @7:04)
Christopher appealed to younger people who don't know anything and who make judgments only on superficial appearances, while Peter becomes more appealing the more you learn and the older you get. He's extremely pessimistic but basically correct. I cringe when I recall how "Hitch" once appealed to me.
What do you know now that changes your mind? I’m 51. Still think Christopher spoke his mind and told uncomfortable truths that people don’t want to face.
Christopher had more insight and empathy. I should align more with Peter politically but watching him illustrate his lack of perception when talking drugs with Russell Brand or how easily duped Peter has been with Kremlin narratives it makes me think he was not the smart one. Christopher was a bit left leaning for me, but understood people and life better. He questioned everything (god included) and was a different level on my opinion.
You have read my mind it seems. I have the exact same opinion. You can’t watch Peter Hitchens for entertainment whereas Christopher’s style was tailor made for that. Hitch was a showman and his persona was deliberately provocative to catch young minds who were basically empty canvases. He was a sound byte guy though very charismatic and charming. Peter is a more grounded, mature and acquired taste.
@@Daveyboyz1978Brand is a clown. He was just bullying and speaking his usual extempore of jargon by not allowing Peter to speak because he knew in a civilised debate he is without substance.
Peter Hitchens is a fine example of a religious apologist. Substitutes appeals to sophistication and an air of superiority for a cogent argument. Like all the cool kiddies on the right nowadays he promotes ludicrous "anti Western Imperialist" rubbish straight out of the Russian media pipeline and thinks he's casting pearls.
If you are unable to appreciate both brothers commentary, you've ceased being able to think for yourself and fallen for the intellectual partisan trap.
Both brothers are interesting, yes. However, only Christoper is _accurate._ Peter, on the other hand, cares mostly about the optics and utility of propositions, rather than their truth or falsity. Perhaps he doesn't even think that truth exists (some people don't). But it does, and it is important, and unless humankind starts to learn that, and soon, it will probably go extinct before this century is over.
The short answer "NO!" was a hint so the interviewer stopped talking so much. He didn't get it. There's more. With the intent to praise his voice (Hitchens) and the similarities to his brother, the interviewer took soooooo long to come the question part that he almost stoll our change to hear it. Get to the point!
It may be common but it’s unnatural to not be on good terms with your immediate family. Even so, I respect Peter for not enjoying his brother’s shtick.
@@stevendouglas3781You're free to to do what you please but be damned for eternity if you don't do as your told. Eternal slavery is the punishment. Of course it's all nonsense, but it does show the minds of those that proselytize it as such.
I get where he is coming from I’ve never been close with my brother, we haven’t spoken in 10 years, there’s no Freudian reason we’ve just never been close.
I have a feeling that Peter and Chris went down two separate paths after the loss of their mother to a suicide pact with a man who cheated with her on the Hitchens' father.
Eric Mataxas is far too pleased with himself to have a proper conversation with anybody. His podcast is unlistenable!
Pompous as heck.
"I like the one-word interview answers"
Yeah, when he's the one doing all the talking, sure.
I don't know what you're talking about. I've met Eric before and seen him many times on video. Not only is he in person one of the most down to earth, kind, very likeable......nah,that's all bullshit. He's a douche.
@@piesho Umm.. Mataxas was being sarcastic
He’s being nervously defensive.
Imagine having Peter Hitchens in front of you, and not being able to shut up...
Yes, the interviewer was a bit full of himself.
The less we hear from Peter the better.
I agree, but more annoying were the lengthy pauses and confused look on his face, as though it were a cat having the rules of chess explained to it.
@@wiseonwords Not surprising for someone who "speaks" for Socrates.
Imagine thinking Peter Hitchens has anything of worth to say anyway.
This is a great example of how not to behave as an interviewer. Never think you're more interesting than the interviewee.
Peter Hitchens has turned gentle condescension into an art form.
Ge got that from his bro
@@pieshoWeeeell...he does have his own agency.
@@tcrown3333 I'm sure his bro was more influential to him.
@@piesho Yes, Chris Hitchens is sorely missed.
I prefer Peter
This host needs to realise we are wanting to hear Peter, the interviewee. Not himself. Terrible pomposity.
That's the problem with most interviewers today. A far cry from Dick Cavett and Johnny Carson
Eric Metaxis is notorious for this. Every now and then I forget, or don't realize he's the interviewer, and have to be remidned.
I am rarely if ever embarrassed to be an American. Watching this American interviewer makes my toes curl.
True.
Yeah, he's a real smug prick.
You've seriously misunderstood the situation if you're not embarassed.
It's not that he's American. It's that he doesn't seem to know Peter well enough to hold this interview.
Eric is usually very good, but this one was indeed embarrassing.
The interviewer needs to learn the rudimentary legal skill of asking short, precise questions
Agreed. It was tedious waiting for him to get to the point. Let's face it, we're all here for Peter Hitchens, but the interviewer's ego and effort to make it about himself, hindered the process somewhat.
They're all the same, aren't they? Infatuated with the notion of their own importance. And oblivious to the fact that no one is there to listen to them.
Metaxas is always a bore.
@@elvisleeboyThe comments about Mataxas were spot on. Can't stand the guy.
@@elvisleeboyThe only thing I would disagree with in your comment is your use (presumably for reasons of politeness) of the word "somewhat". ;-)
That interviewer is more concerned with himself than getting information from Peter.
Yep. That was obvious in the first 10 seconds.
Christopher lived in DC. Even I knew that. You didn't do any homework?
Lol the idea that you can get information from Peter is hilarious
Sitting across from Peter Hitchens, it’s hard to live up to his expectations.
Yes, a jerk interviewing another jerk.
@@ErikPortlandHis name is Christopher, not Chris. He didn't like being called Chris.
This interviewer is terrible. He spoke more than Hitchens did and seems very self-satisfied and self-absorbed. I bet Peter was biting his tongue through a lot of that.
American interviewers are too often stupid, uncultured, uninformed, and embarrassing. I say that as someone unfortunate to have been born in America. Too many people here are proud of their vulgarity.
Peter Hitchens has taken sibling rivalry to a level 1000. His whole philosophy seems to be stretched to the opposite pole of his elder brother on purpose.
What absolute nonsense. He has his own conservative outlook and faith, to simply reduce him to the level of being a reflection of his brother is just insulting. He has published many books which are extensively researched and argued, and stand in their own right. The idea that he has done all this just to be the opposite of his brother is frankly silly.
disagree@@reggie18b
@@reggie18b The video got lots of views and the low IQ Christopher Hitchens fans started flooding in, I can't exactly blame them, after all it was the whole point of uploading the video - i.e. to generate clicks
No, it's because he realised that his brothers general views on life are nonsense.
@@reggie18b You are so right. We just have here a case of two famous brothers. In the same family. Like Jacob and Esau.
Christopher was a giant among men. His eloquence and intellect in the command of language, was unmatched. His real-world experiences to truly know what he was talking about was also unmatched. He is missed.
"Christopher Hitchens was a giant among men" Now come on, he wasn't THAT fat!
Christopher Hitchens looked and sounded like an english lower middle-class Sir Les Patterson
@@brucecombs3108 lol
No he is not. Toxic atheist.
Whereas Peter Hitchens is a self important opinionated "plonker" as we say on this side of the pond.
Don't get me wrong, Christopher is and shall continue to be my guy; but it's odd to see an interview where the tacit topic is "let's talk diagonally about your more interesting late brother."
Yeah irritating you interviewee is not likely to lead to a good interview
Less interesting late brother
Peter realised this and didn’t like it. I don’t blame him. Personally I respect them both.
90 minute interview. I'm sure it wasn't always about his bro
Who let this Eric Mataxsmas interview the brilliant Peter Hitchens. Hopelessly out of his depth but Peter was civil towards him despite the inane questioning.
We miss Christopher.
We all do!
@@baggerdave No we don't.
@@Albertanatorspeak for yourself.
Would have been nice to hear more from Peter Hitchens.
You did. He pointed out the "interviewers" pretentiosness with utter class. I dont really like Peter but this really was some of the best dialogue Ive seen that he has been a part of.
It was a delicate situation. Two brothers internationally renowned who did not get on very well. It required much more tact diplomacy and discretion as well as a great deal more of allowing his guest to speak than this interviewer displayed.
Not a sentence one reads often, and with good reason tbf.
The interviewer evidently was of the opinion that his contribution was the most important element.
Yah well thanks for that Mr Freud. As a British man.....I kinda already know, and my statement above wasn't about Peter's 'british-ness'. @@Besthinktwice
This interviewer seems like he's trying to be some kind of alternative comedian.
Yes he reminded me of Ben Elton just in the way he was supposed to be interviewing someone but he wouldn't shut up.
Kind of a disappointing exchange. The question was obviously about the philosophical differences that led to their bad terms. Peter just muses on the commonality of family issues and Freud. Interviewer is kind of cringe though.
Terrible interviewer.
Agreed. Not much meat here
Hitchens is always good value but the interviewer was very poor. Does he not understand that if you ask closed questions you invite a one word answer?
At least it wasn’t a hit piece in the manner of the BBC. Also Peter didn’t have to answer with one word that was his call.
He did struggle a bit but, personally, I think he did OK in the circumstances.
@@michaelmcgee335 I am sure he was enjoying watching the interviewer making a tit of himself.
He’s a world famous radio host named Ronald Metaxas, so most people watching are more interested in hearing him speak. Peter Hitchens is just icing on the cake.
All he had to do was come up with some good follow up questions, but was not up to the task! He could have just said something like, now I think our audience might be quite surprised and a little intrigued by your answer, simply because you look and sound so much like your brother and you both had similar talents. Do you think that despite this, you were actually very different from each other? In what ways?
it's like he wants to interview himself...
No one compares to Christopher. One of a kind, the most important public intellectual of the last 40 years
Not really ay . . .
All I can say is thank God there was only one of him
Not even close
I would say Camille Paglia was the most important public intellectual of the last 40 years, but Christopher Hitchens would be up there.
This comment section demonstrates the intellectual crisis of the American audience.
I still can't get over not having Christopher.
Be careful about cult figures. He was just a man
… try harder…
Weird how Christopher has these disciples. I never found him particularly intelligent.
Could he cope with the idea that we will always have God but not always have Christopher - he raged against it but now he knows
Fanboy alert.
Hitch was the ultimate brilliant & most articulate on the flaws of religion. Miss him always. No one can even come close!
I also thought this when I was in my early teens
one can be dazzled by brilliance and articulation - it does not necessarily mean th orator is right - all they do is select material to promote their views
His brother is
Brilliant when you're a kid
@@NaCreagachaDubha spot on like Haughey
There was little point having Hitchens there the way the interviewer prattles on
Both Peter and Christopher are very different, but brilliant men in their own rights
Imagine interviewing Peter Hitchens and not being up to speed on Christopher? Who is this guy?
I mean, it's clearly 10 mins from a longer interview
Oof, interviewer out of his depth. Peter lets him stumble on with cringy results, it was a missed opportunity to dig deeper. Christopher would have seemed nicer and helped him early on, but a verbal skewering would have been dished out as he lost his patience.
When the interviewer mentioned that Peter was a brother of Christopher. Peter should have replied "No. Christopher was a brother of mine."
Christopher Hitchens is literally the man who finally set me free of the crippling influence of faith on the mind. Comedians, philosophers, so many with the same message, "Man is free the moment he chooses to be" _Voltaire. I discovered his videos posthumously and will be indebted to that great man for the courage to speak truth to power, to challenge the willing, cheerful ignorance of the masses who long to be sheep and share simple, unvarnished truth. No one who debated him ever successfully made their point that faith is superior to reason. Well, how could they? "Faith is the belief in what reason cannot" __Voltaire 'Atheist's Handbook', can't recommend enough.
one more Epicurean, fantastic
You are never free of the cares of life though. The need to eat and find shelter the loss of health and the need to answer the calls of nature. The pain of loss of friends and everything else one holds dear in life. These things will affect believer and atheist alike. The theist's only hope is that there is redemption.
My experience with discovering Christopher Hitchens on youtube was similar to yours. Just opened up my perspective and clarified a lot of things. It is nice to find a person with the ability of thought once in a while.
"Logic" is associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, whereas "intuition" is associated with the right hemisphere. The more your two hemisphere work in tandem, the more you will begin to realize that all the religions are pointing to the same reality underlying the physical universe, although things get lost in translation over thousands of years.
@@BabaJeezthere is no such thing as a "left" and "right" side of the brain
I bet even as children, the Hitchens brothers were a hoot. I wish their parents had had about 5 more.
"That is, for American audiences, an important thing."
I feel roasted but I'm not sure why.
I concur
I think the point he's making is that Christopher was very well-known in the USA and so they think of Peter as 'brother of chirstopher' whereas in the UK we know them both as separate people. So I think Peter is showing annoyance here that this is how he is to be understood - as the brother of somebody
I made that mistake onetime by referring to the person I was addressing as the brother of someone well known. He brusquely replied. No. He is a brother of mine! @@williamtoner8674
Bro sounds exactly like his brother it’s scary 😂
Thanks for that bit of useless information.
That’s what similar upbringings get you … what utterly a stupid comment
I feel sorry for Peter, he has lived and will live the rest of his life in the shadow of Cristofer, who was an outstanding writer, journalist and speaker, respected by people who had a similar vision and by detractors, unlike Peter. And to the believers reading this, especially the channel owner, DO NOT DECEIVE YOURSELF, most people watching this video are watching it because of Christopher Hitchens, not his brother.
that's me
Me too! No interest in this brother at all! Hitch any day of the week. And this interviewer should go deeper into that point.
I'm here for Peter... Chris was a good speaker ....
Are you American?
Nonsense. Peter is a far more prolific author and speaker than Christopher.
His brother’s voice so, so alike…
When the interviewer is too self-absorbed this is the type of interview we always get. Thanks to the Hitch-bros thou.
“People would listen to you for two hours.” Yet he won’t let him speak for two seconds.
Who is the interviewer? He seems to think very highly of himself. People will say that that is the American disease. All mouth and no trousers.
This interviewer debated Christopher hitchens?!
That can't have gone well for him.
He referred to Christopher as a character that's something you call someone when you don't like them and you are trying to be diplomatic.
"Well, it was a question inviting a one word answer" really sounds like something Christopher would say.
I've got three brothers and five sisters. Apart from one sister I don't talk to any of the others. Can't stand em!
Cheaper too ( even more so if ignoring their offspring).
"Were you close?" "No" lol
Peter Hitchens: The "Fredo" of the Hitchens family.
Christopher Hitchens was the successful gangster boss of the Hitchens family. Supporting the illegal and disastrous Bush II invasion of Iraq, which has had catastrophic consequences and hundreds of thousands dead condemns him as a morally vacuous figure.
And much less talented than Christopher. Overcompensates by his insufferable arrogance. It is apparent that becoming a Christian did not improve him in that respect, despite his protestations to the contrary...
Loyalty, if nothing else, is why it’s important to keep communications open with siblings and family. Blood is thicker than water
Peter Hitchens is good at what he does, yet Christopher was the GOAT ! Sorely missed.
Thinking deeply comes naturally to Peter. It doesn't to most of the people who misunderstand him.
In my opinion Christopher was widely entertaining, extremely charismatic and unbelievably intelligent. Peter on the other hand… not so much. Just from watching this short clip I can see why they didn’t get along.
Well then he said no he wasn't close with Christopher and eric didnt just say why not, but instead spent the rest of the interview being offended
I was, during my Oxford Union years, always the liaison for Peter - several times, to the extent we became friends. I managed never to divulge that his brother was and is one of my heroes. It would have soured the atmosphere. But I must say he is very different from his media persona. He’s open-minded, sociable, and really quite liberal.
This man is interviewing himself and using Peter as a straight man.
Nabokov indeed had the right idea about Freud, breaking down the word “the/rapist”
dont stand so close to me.
Damn, I never thought of that.
Gotta admit, Freud seems like a secret nonce...
@@bfFAN221'secret' ?
@@johnwatts8346 Faaaaamous book by Nabakov 🎤😩😄
The narcissism of the "intellectuals" all the way from psychology to Bloomsbury writers, has always been off-putting to me.
Ok. Some guy sat Peter down to tell him what he and his brother are like.
That voice❤ we miss you hitchens RIP
He looks a lot like his brother, also his voice is very similar
The best thing about Peter Hitchens is his brother was Christopher Hitchens.
You clearly need to listen to Peter more then...his brother openly supported the Iraq lie
Agreed
That’s a comment only a hateful soul would make.
Metaxas obviously didn't even glance at Hitchen's book
I must say, I did enjoy this from Peter Hitchens. He will always live in the shadow of his brother, funnily enough it was him I saw first on bbc Newsnight.
In the UK I believe Peter Hitchens is at least as well know as his late brother, if not more so.
I was waiting for Peter Hitchens to get a chance to say something, alas it did not happen.
They have great voices
Christopher was awesome..... Peter on the other hand is a complete see you next tuesday
Peter Hitches can’t hold a candlestick to his late brother Christopher Hitches! Christopher was better in every way, better writer, better speaker, better debater, and better at humor than his brother Peter!
This was very intriguing. I'll be looking into more material from Peter. You can definitely see and hear Christopher in him. Both eloquent speakers with pleasant voices and witty, dry senses of humor.
Peter is the opposite of Christopher and writes for a right wing newspaper.
Peter is a fantastic public speaker and a very thoughtful political commentator. And the best thing is he answers to no one. He is not part of any political party or group. He is fearless and honest.
@@147sterling6 What is the opposite of stupid?
@@lucasrinaldi9909 Very smart, prudent, intelligent, mercurial, accountable.
Christopher was all of these.
@@147sterling6 Nah.
He sounds so like his brother! Straight to the point, beautifully spoken!
Sorry m8 he is 10% in the intellectual and narrative expertise culture, compared to the Great Hitch
@@albanianmmakid.9300 🤣
Don't mistake bombast and rhetoric for beauty!
Correct. Christopher was 90% bluster and belligerence. @@albanianmmakid.9300
@@jameshogan6142 you seem very simple, I guess religion has done it's work on you as well, simplistic minds are the first to fall, and you are the
perfect example.
Can you imagine if the interviewer was the 3rd brother? He would have been hung drawn and quartered.
I couldn't, he has none of the wit of either.
He loved his brother very much.
The interviewer missed the most obvious question, that I'm sure most of the audience wanted to hear:
"How much of a factor did your religiosity play in the somewhat hostile relations between you and your brother?"
"How can this guy be related to Christopher Hitchens?
-Same parents. Anything else I can help you with?"
that's so simple and funny at the same time 😂😂
I’ve always thought Peter was upstaged by Christopher and he still tries to be as good as he was.
They both wanted different things and saw the world in different ways, so it's not really a matter of rivalry between them, in my view
You mean you agree with Chris more
@@adrianlekay7715 On balance yes, but Peter (a) was right about Iraq, and (b) is more gentlemanly to his opponents (unless they get out of order)
Not at all. You're just biased. Probably because you're one of those "I miss him dearly" Christopher sycophants, but I could be wrong.
@@goodyeoman4534 Having never met a human being who isn't in some way biased (because such a creature does not exist) and not being any kind of sycophant, I'm curious as to know exactly where are you going with this.
Both blessed with the Hitch Gene albeit completely opposite sides of the same coin.
I'm much more on Christopher's side but it's always a pleasure to hear from both brothers.
Please Mother Nature concoct a lot of combinations like this: we need them.
The interviewer loves the sound of his own voice... !!
Its an important thing for British audiences
Jesus, they really are two sides of the same damn coin. Both are incredible writers, both are among the most eloquent speakers in history, both are incredibly intelligent, and both are strictly no nonsense. But their ideological views are diametrically opposed. What an incredible family.
I felt that Eric Mataxas, the interviewer, was ingenuous, sensitive, and fascinated with what I also see as a thought provoking little mystery about the difference in views of the brothers (not that it needs to be solved). Eric’s genuine curiosity seemed to properly draw Peter out. The pause and Eric's face after Peter said "No" were amazing. Peter was relaxed, and I didn’t notice any condescension, snobbery or discomfort in him at all; he’s too much of a real deal human being for that rubbish. The audience enjoyed Peter’s dry wit, and when that happens, one should realize the interviewer is doing their job.
Eric is talkative, so what? Sometimes the interviewer is just as interesting as the interviewee, and I was once surprised that a black British lady interviewer with an incredible laugh (forgot her name) who interviewed Harrison Ford - who had a rarely witnessed laughing spell 🤣🤣🤣 - was just as interesting as he was.
Opened the comments as soon as the video started. Thought, “it can’t be that bad.” It was WORSE. SO MUCH WORSE
Peter Hitchens is a great communicator, and I respect a lot of his views and arguments which I see as superior to his very gifted brother Christopher.
Hitchens, he simply asked if you were close, you answered "no". He then asked if you could elaborate which I'm sure you could have done. Instead you berated him for presuming things he did not presume, lecturing him on the purported frequency of estranged siblings in society. He said nothing about those things, he did not say you should be close or it was surprising you were close. Like your brother you are overly rhetorical and obtuse.
Not being liked by Peter Hitchens is more of a award than a flaw.
Has he ever learned something in his life and changed his point of view? Has he grown up at some point, or is he just stubbornly and rigidly holding onto the beliefs he had at the age of 20?
I have two sons. They are half blood siblings. I tell them every day since they were little kids. People will come and go. Always. Always. Always stick together
I had four siblings. I only got on well with one of them, now deceased. I get on with one more, though that can get stressful at times. Two of them are bone idle and entitled, happy to hold out their hands for a living, and I rarely speak with them as I have little in common with them. I love them all dearly though
Jesus. You sound like a Christian. Nobody else gets that confused with reality.
The interviewer seemed to speak for longer than Hitchens
Must be strange going around and one of the first questions being asked is "Are you Christopher Hitchens' brother?"
It's amazing how similar Christopher and Peter Hitchens are in *some* respects. For example, C. Hitchens had said the same exact phrase @6:44 in response to the same question, and both Hitchens also implied the same broader answer in regards to their expert wielding of the English language (eg, @6:55 and @7:04)
this would be amazing of the metexas guy disappeared
This interviewer is a solid example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
No, he isn't. Peter is like the Dr. Poppa to Christophers Dr. Pepper.
Christopher is like Peppa Pig? @@JoeeyTheeKangaroo
Look at the captivated young men in the audience towards the end of this video clip... a picture is worth a thousand words.
Captivated by what?
Peter will forever be jealous of the fact that his brother was better than he will ever be.
why, because he isnt an atheist?
Jealous? You know nothing… Peter is a Christian believer. Pity is markedly different to jealousy.
@@matthewstokes1608 Believing in an imaginary sky man is not a virtue.
Peter is more intelligent than Christopher but both have emotional issues due to their family history
@@zonkedmusician1502 Nobody believes in an imaginary sky man
Dear interviewer: Not good.
"I haven't spoken to my brother and my sister for twenty years", are not the words of a wise or happy man.
"Were you close?" "No." Eyes flicker.
I wish we still had Christopher to put Peter in his place on the war in Ukraine.
🤣
@@Fruity_White oh come on, don't be bitter, just because Cristofer took it upon himself to show the fraud that is the religion you profess.
Peter put christopher in his place on the war in Iraq and he didn't talk to Peter for years after that.
Christopher Hitchens was a lot less prone to magical thinking and beliefs.
And fully supported the illegal war in Iraq.
Yes, it was terrible helping the oppressed and all the families who had loved ones murdered. After all, Saddam Hussein was such a nice guy.
A gift of being compelling? All he does is moan about e-scooters in the Mail on Sunday 😂
Christopher appealed to younger people who don't know anything and who make judgments only on superficial appearances, while Peter becomes more appealing the more you learn and the older you get. He's extremely pessimistic but basically correct. I cringe when I recall how "Hitch" once appealed to me.
What do you know now that changes your mind?
I’m 51. Still think Christopher spoke his mind and told uncomfortable truths that people don’t want to face.
Christopher had more insight and empathy.
I should align more with Peter politically but watching him illustrate his lack of perception when talking drugs with Russell Brand or how easily duped Peter has been with Kremlin narratives it makes me think he was not the smart one.
Christopher was a bit left leaning for me, but understood people and life better. He questioned everything (god included) and was a different level on my opinion.
You are right and I guess you might be the only person brave enough to have made your candid opinion known.
You have read my mind it seems. I have the exact same opinion. You can’t watch Peter Hitchens for entertainment whereas Christopher’s style was tailor made for that. Hitch was a showman and his persona was deliberately provocative to catch young minds who were basically empty canvases. He was a sound byte guy though very charismatic and charming. Peter is a more grounded, mature and acquired taste.
@@Daveyboyz1978Brand is a clown. He was just bullying and speaking his usual extempore of jargon by not allowing Peter to speak because he knew in a civilised debate he is without substance.
Peter Hitchens is a fine example of a religious apologist. Substitutes appeals to sophistication and an air of superiority for a cogent argument. Like all the cool kiddies on the right nowadays he promotes ludicrous "anti Western Imperialist" rubbish straight out of the Russian media pipeline and thinks he's casting pearls.
“I’m an anti-Freudian. I’m of the Nabokov school.” Great. Nobody fucking asked you.
I'm so curious to hear Peter talk about Christopher but the interviewer doesn't facilitate that conversation
If you are unable to appreciate both brothers commentary, you've ceased being able to think for yourself and fallen for the intellectual partisan trap.
Both brothers are interesting, yes. However, only Christoper is _accurate._ Peter, on the other hand, cares mostly about the optics and utility of propositions, rather than their truth or falsity. Perhaps he doesn't even think that truth exists (some people don't). But it does, and it is important, and unless humankind starts to learn that, and soon, it will probably go extinct before this century is over.
The short answer "NO!" was a hint so the interviewer stopped talking so much. He didn't get it. There's more. With the intent to praise his voice (Hitchens) and the similarities to his brother, the interviewer took soooooo long to come the question part that he almost stoll our change to hear it. Get to the point!
“Let’s start with the most important thing about you, your brother”
😒
It may be common but it’s unnatural to not be on good terms with your immediate family. Even so, I respect Peter for not enjoying his brother’s shtick.
Well he's religious and his brother despised the idea of being slaves to a deity.
@@jasse85 “slaves” lol
@@stevendouglas3781Listen to me or burn forever, it's your own free willed choice
@@stevendouglas3781completely free!
@@stevendouglas3781You're free to to do what you please but be damned for eternity if you don't do as your told. Eternal slavery is the punishment.
Of course it's all nonsense, but it does show the minds of those that proselytize it as such.
I get where he is coming from I’ve never been close with my brother, we haven’t spoken in 10 years, there’s no Freudian reason we’ve just never been close.
The rake and the peace treaty stories made me instantly think on Frasier and Niles Crane 😂
The lunch with the Three Geniuses comes to mind!
I have a feeling that Peter and Chris went down two separate paths after the loss of their mother to a suicide pact with a man who cheated with her on the Hitchens' father.
Peter Hitchens is never more fascinating than when he’s talking about Christopher Hitchens