Right. So the innocent people that died in Iraq were resurrected just as quickly were they ? NO. But hes have liked you statement given he was a radical marxist who was dedicated to post truth.
I think, Hitchens was more against Islamic fundamentalists then the Neo Confederate Christian nationalist southern Bush administration. To claim he was a right winger is presentism of the highest order. Literally ALL politicians on the left or right (accept one great black lady legend) supported this War initially. Democrats, Republicans....so at best he took a centrist position AT THE TIME. Presentism= The tendency to see the past only from a present-day perspective, and to ignore or underestimate its difference from the present.
He was, however, a contrarian, and he seemed to delight in subverting the expectations of others. He was personally opposed to abortion and said if there's any chance we are destroying a human being, then we shouldn't be doing it. He was part Jewish, ethnically, while also a fierce critic of Israel, Zionism and the horrific treatment of Palestinians. And while his views on religion were quite clear, he was also an admirer of religious architecture, championing a view that separates the faith from the art so we can appreciate beautiful cathedrals, mosques and temples like the Parthenon.
@@samuraijosh1595that’s true, but I do think he liked to keep people on their toes, surprising the expectations of many… Which I completely understand and admire.. To see the face of someone Who thought they had you figured out, adopt that expression of absolute surprise is just pure pleasure
@@scotthullinger4684 Actually quite vindicated. He predicted Putin's desire to recreate the USSR and coming Black Sea war, he predicted American Right's flirtation and jealousy for fascism when discussing why GOP loved Palin despite her being dumb (the proto Trump), predicted a new generation of left making a religion of vanity and empathy (now called Woke). By 2023, Hitchens is still proven to be very wise. He didn't just guess things but had long explanations for each.
@@kayaphus4303 - If the title here says Hitchens destroys both arguments on each side, then I can only assume that Hitchens claims that NOBODY has a claim to the land mass occupied by Israel. Think about it - Sane people are both pro Israel and simultaneously against Israel's enemies. Israel has an ancient established claim and history regarding the land which they occupy. ALL claims against Israel are wrong, not to mention totally illogical. Hmm ... Hard to believe that it's STILL fashionable in this day and age to be anti-Semitic even a half century+ after World War 2.
@@kayaphus4303 Surely those are all reifications as on the whole the man was full of it & nothing he stated was ever shown to be correct! Anyone would have stated right out that should the EU move near Russia via Ukraine then russia with move in before them = more of a common knowledge than special hitchens thing. Which is the trouble with the world affairs mercenary. His stock & trade was to be bankrolled by anyone hence his 'Apolitical' standpoint. But that only caused his sociological style option to be inspired by politics. Really Hitchens was just a meaningless a stand up comedy act that was taken seriously because he sat down & because his sycophants were far more stupid than even he was.
@@scotthullinger4684 Balderdash. Gods can't claim rights. So what do you use as the criteria? Actual possession? War gains? History? Majority population? Through most of the 20th century before Israel received infinitely more military and financial aid than Palestine, the Palestinian claims would have been at least equally strong. And let's not forget, Palestine NEVER accepted the 1947/1948 international declaration. Israel's claim to land is their's and their's only. Their god can say anything she wants, but nobody's god can overrule anyone else's. To think otherwise is silly. Also, you can't accept "war-gained" advances into the West Bank in one breath while denying that the region was predominantly Muslim for centuries, including the time immediately preceeding the post-war creation of the Israeli state when Palestine begrudgingly started to accept Jews into the region. Palestine's claim is equally ambiguous, but let's look at population trends in the region during the early 20th when Palestines vastly outnumbered Jews by over 10 to 1. Also, long before the Islamic jihadists decided to push all Jews into the Mediterranean, the Jews were trying to do exactly the same to the Palestinians... and they're doing it again! Most importantly, for the 10 millionth time, it is NOT anti-semitic to believe that a two-state solution wherein one state doesn't control the other is the only equitable option.
The very fact that he changed his mind proved that he was a true intellectual. He dealt with the facts as he saw them, not as the zeitgeist dictated. His swing to the right of politics was, as I see it, set against his disgust of theocracy and totalitarianism in all it’s ugly forms rather than any contemporary political trend.
To me its more so that he wasnt a pascifist. He had his mindset and directed it to everyone and every movement that he disagreed with. Hitchens only seemed like a neo con cuz the zeitgeist changed. He didnt. He was always against the fundamentalist crowds. So a conflict where 2 sides wielded it he was primed to fire at both. And he did.
Hitchens didn't just change his mind. Any normal person changes their mind if the facts change. And Hitchens was with the zeitgeist. He was with 70% of the American public. He defended a war based on lies. He defended the mindless slaughter of women and children. He called the left glib for talking about Iraqi deaths. He defended torture. Hitchens wasn't stupid. He knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait and that Saddam was no threat to anyone in 2003. He knew that Iraq was a secular country. At least more secular than the United States. "Theocracy" and "totalitarianism" are weasel words. The United States became essentially fascist under Bush and remain so today. Media lined up behind Bush. Those who didn't toe the line were fired. Phil Donahue, anyone? Donahue was the radical. Hitchens was the bootlicker. Media loved Hitchens because he was the most politically correct voice in America at the time. Hitchens loved ganging up on the weak. "Sherry Johnson was raped, pregnant and married by 11. Now she’s fighting to end child marriage in America" edition.cnn.com/2018/01/29/health/ending-child-marriage-in-america/index.html That you can legally rape children as young as 10 in the United States didn't bother Hitchens. That you can do the same in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi vassal state of Yemen did. (The only three countries where you can legally rape children.) The Taliban emerged largely as an opposition to pedophilia. Hitchens doesn't seem to have minded the pedophiles "we" support in Afghanistan. You know, the warlords and criminals that were/are branded as the Northern Alliance and National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. To Hitchens, child rape and other atrocities are judged only on who carries them out. More specifically, whether the perpetrator is democratic or theocratic/totalitarian. Hitchens dick rode the U.S. Constitution, except when it came to torture. If torture was justified or not was for the American people to decide, Hitchens argued. Hitchens was the ultimate utilitarian. If Hitchens hadn't existed and you described a utilitarian just like him, you would be accused of creating a straw man. People would say that no utilitarian like that exist. That no utilitarian thinks the end justifies everything. While not using Hitchens words, he defended the genocide of the indigenous American people because it resulted in the glorious republic known as the United States. The following is from Wikipedia and Hitchens view on Columbus Day. _Historian David Stannard interpreted an essay by Hitchens:[55] as follows:_ _Anyone who refused to join him in celebrating with "great vim and gusto" the annihilation of the native peoples of the Americas was (in his words) self-hating, ridiculous, ignorant, and sinister. People who regard critically the genocide that was carried out in America's past, Hitchens continued, are simply reactionary, since such grossly inhuman atrocities "happen to be the way history is made." And thus "to complain about them is as empty as complaint about climatic, geological or tectonic shift." Moreover, he added, such violence is worth glorifying since it more often than not has been for the long-term betterment of humankind, as in the United States today, where the extermination of the [Native Americans] has brought about "a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation."[56]_
I think it had more to do with government and capitalist propaganda becoming more prevalent among his trusted sources of information and he bought into it like many people have.
@@unclebobboomergames I would hardly say that being an on the ground reporter in one place for a time gives you a full perspective or that it makes you immune from disinformation that could align with whatever opinion One could be traumatized into changing
Hitch was hammered in that first clip and still casually cruising through complex ideas on that episode. His skillset was completely wasted with his regression to backing American Imperialism after 9/11.
Judging by his appearance, and the C-SPAN logo is pre C-SPAN3 which launched in January of 2001, I'm pretty sure this clip was way before 9/11. I remember Dennis Miller being quite funny until 9/11, after which he became a right wing-nut partisan hack. I guess you had to be there? Also, Hitch was NEVER political, only sociological, and ANTI- religion in any form. His debates with politicos were the germ for the term "Hitchslap". RIP, Man. You were one of the best.
Hitchens was no-wing. If at any stage his beliefs aligned with the right, it wasn’t due to any core agreement between him and the so-called right wing.
I think it's a mischaracterisation to think that Hitchens was ever right wing or islamaphobic. It's understandable to thinks so, since he was in support of the Iraq war. But it was because he genuinely thought Iraqi democracy could be restored. Hitchen's ideological north star was support for democracy and opposition to authoritarianism - especially from the religous right, no matter if it was Christian, Islamic or Jewish. He would have been sick at the idea of Trump packing the supreme court with religious ideologues.
@@Not_Even_Wrong The waterboarding thing is definitely a point in his favour. He put his money where his mouth is and then immediately did 180 and publically came out against it. To this day, that video proves waterboarding is torture beyond all possible reasonable doubt.
@@LeftReckoning I didn't know about that, but it's true. A lot of people carry water for the right while claiming to be leftists and I wouldn't trust them either. That said I watched a lot of Hitchens when I was younger and secret rightwinger wasn't my read on the guy, he said a lot of stuff and IMO he doesn't fit the profile. May be wrong, but idk
@@Not_Even_Wrong No, in that section he is paraphrasing the pro torture position - he is stating it, not endorsing it. Afterall he does 'indict' the US for torture in the same article - he'd be calling himself out for what he'd just written.
@@Not_Even_Wrong Easy mistake to make in fairness, I reread it and I was suprised by how nationalistic some the sentiment in that article was. I can see see why people assume he's a neocon or something.
I was 23 when he died unaware of his existence unfortunately. I discovered him a fee years after his passing. If there was a request god was willing to give, id say bring Hitchens back in the condition of him being a college professor lol let him teach us how to be as lethal of a debater as he was.
Hi mate, just recently discovered your channel. As a '50-something' Australian male, I'm well removed from all problems pertaining to the middle-east, but I've been trying to tease apart the situation there. I've watched a lot of the talking heads ( Bill Maher, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris et.al ) but I'm always left with this feeling of an unscratchable itch, like they're all missing something, or boiling it down to an intractable religious problem. I find myself now more allied to the likes of an early Hitchens viewpoint that this was/is a humanitarian problem rather than a religious one. It seems clear now that the Palestinian people have been struggling ( to say the least ) under an apartheid regime imposed by the state of Israel. The fact that this situation seems to be overlooked or ignored is confounding. Keep up the good work
Even when Hitchens had bad politics at the last inning of his life he was always good rhetorically. But as our late comrade Brooks said, this isn’t complicated. This is an apartheid state and a fundamentally right wing project of making an ethnostate rather than a state where Jews could live in peace and safety. Appreciate you and Matt as always
I have a theory that Hitch was pro-Afghanistan War in his last years, because he was applying for citizenship during the Bush administration. Other prominent figures, like Donahue, were blacklisted for opposing the war. Hitch wouldn't have stood much chance getting his citizenship application approved if he hadn't towed the line. Politics!
In the end his rhetoric was atrocious what do you mean? The last decade of his life was him just firing the same bad faith arguments back at religious zealots basically.
@@dudeman5303 Bad faith? That's a literal description of the Catholic Church. If anything, he probably could have gone harder if he were more aware of the full extent of the pdf files scandal.
I call BS. Hitchens never moved to the right. I did not agree with his views about Iraq but he was soundly left wing on almost every issue. I am appalled that you would impugn his reputation by claiming otherwise.
This was the Hitchens I admired and learned from. It was sad to see him cower to the USA, Israel and other far right pressure tactics. Nice to be reminded of the real Hitchens.
He didnt cower to anybody. You don’t know what your talking about and have never read him on this topic or you wouldnt have said some so ignorant. It actually took balls to be honest about Saddam and Al Qaeda when the left was making ridiculous excuses for them or just straight up spreading lies like their were never WMDs in Iraq.
@@disregardthat yes there were. Saddam had them and used them. There just werent any when we invaded. We dont know where they went. He had those weapons. He used them on the kurds. READ A FUCKING BOOK
I'm going to respond here both to the vid and some comments. I don't think it's fair to say that after 2001 Hitch simply became a neo-con the same as any other. He moved the right for sure in terms of hawkishness but he was never intellectually aligned with the right. He still spoke out against things like state sponsored torture (unlike Sam Harris who justified it), he was consistent about being against every religion (including America's evangelical Christianity), and his solidarity with the Kurds gave his pro-Iraq position at least some semblance of moral rectitude. He even supported reparations for black Americans, which some leftists including Bernie don't seem to want to commit to. He was also in full support of LGBTQ rights. I'm certain if Hitch were still around he would've hated Trump and MAGA for its blatantly fascistic tendencies. The real question is whether he would've sided with Bernie's progressive movement or with the so-called centrist Dems between 2016 and 2020 when the movement seemed to have a real chance of transforming the party. 2016 would've been especially interesting with Hillary, Bernie, and Trump. As for right wingers claiming him (and I haven't seen this, actually), right wingers today also try to claim George Carlin just because of George Carlin's defenses of free speech, while they completely ignore all of the anti-capitalist and anti-conservative arguments Carlin also made. Personally, I don't think the Hitchens who defended the Iraq war and heavily criticized Islam in particular should define his entire legacy, though it will always be a part of it. Was he a bigot? Maybe a little, though outside of advocating for killing Islamic militants (which may or may not be racially motivated), what I noticed sometimes were more...subtle forms of disrespect like he when he referred to Mos Def as Mr. Definitely and cracked a smile. But to be frank, there are a lot of whites (leftist or otherwise) who can sometimes give that vibe, so I think it's just a cultural bias that even otherwise decent whites may struggle with. Cornel West recently suggested that the same thing existed in the Green Party, so it is what it is.
I saw his last interview before he died (or one of his last interviews). He was asked if he still considered himself a leftist, and without hesitation he said, "Yes".
Hitchens was anti-totalitarian left. Harris did not just outright justify torture, you need to read his essay. The complexity of the subject is framed quite well by Harris.
@@hawkerdooI don't think we need to pretend there's a ton of nuance to the torture discussion the way Harris did. He used ridiculous hypotheticals to justify the use of torture, period. ETA: He loved using out of pocket hypotheticals. One of his faves was built on the assumption that a Muslim-majority nation with nukes would use them in a first strike because Islamists do suicide attacks. I distinctly remember that. Absolutely insane take, and it demonstrates the attitude he had toward Muslims.
@@SouthCom1917 Toward Islam is what I think you meant to say. Yes, hypotheticals based on real world events. You are ignoring the reality of the conversation.
Not sure how “right wing” hitchens got? He was on the side of conservatives for 1 big issue, but not even for the same reasons. Also, “new atheists” are the ppl i hear most saying that hamas does not equal Palestinians
When are we going to see one day a President or Prime Minister who has the fierce intellect as the late Christopher Hitchens possessed. You see , to me that is the mind and intelligence that a typical political head of state should have themselves . A country's commander in chief should always be it's scholar in chief too ..don't you think ?
Not really. I'd rather have a plain-spoken communist over someone with a dazzling intellect whose politics are garbage. He's genuinely fun to listen to though.
Not practical to have such lofty expectations of a politician. Besides, they wouldn't get elected to high office if they hold views which are contrarian to the population or corporations.
@@jikkh2xto strawman a position, you have to misrepresent it, this person and I agree with them has just chosen his own values and not inherited them.
Really? Do you have family? Does the bum on the street mean as much to you as a family member? If you're like a typical no-borders, citizen of the world, your country of domicile is European or settled predominately by Europeans. Within that country, you probably live in the chief metropolis or one of the major metropolises. Furthermore, you are likely insulated - by class, by expendable income (viz. rent money), by barriers like walls, guards, or physical distance - from the lower orders, and from black and brown people.
He was a pointless stirrer who took cash from anyone who wanted something stirred whence morals no longer mattered and entire hitchens thing a shambles. Thats why he agreed with Iraq and sided with Blair and Bush. Even more behind everyones backs this is also why though crime models of new atheist design, only briefly attacked christianity ( inflicting first thought crimes since the witchcraft trials ) before being unleashed on everyone in europe. New atheist followers surely are the more stupid people in existence for giving consensus and permission to such heresy and misanthropy. These were never going to be restricted to anti religion any fool would know that. And look at the great founding father of modern thought crime himself = Dawkins. So much contempt for the ordinary person ( thats his secret its not just religious people ) - that the first thing his model attacked outside of religion was ? YES BIOLOGY. We are not allowed to consider humans as defined by their biology its a crime. New atheist fans have to be the most idiotic breed in existence ? Who else would have been stupid enough to cheer liker mad banshees for their own free speech to be removed chunk by chunk ? Look at you all praising Jesus Dawkins even now having not twigged what has happened !!!
I’ve never thought of myself as oblivious but I’ve never heard Hitchens described as a neo-con. What is a neo-atheist??? As a Gen Xer….i guess I’m old now?!
You've said a few times in the comments that Hitchens voted for Bush, but I'm confused. Hitchens became a US citizen in 2007, so when could he have voted for Bush?
He was right about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank at the time, but he did accept the right of Israel to exist. For the current situation a bit of background might help. In the 1920s after Britain kicked out Turkey there was a partition proposal. The Jewish leadership at the time agreed saying they would accept a land "the size of a tablecloth". The Palestinian leaders refused absolutely and demanded the expulsion of all Jews. Their leader declared "It is impossible to live alongside the Jews" and threatened "A river of blood". In 1937 there was another proposal in which 'Israel' would have been the small region from Tel Aviv north to the Lebanese border. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand. In 1948 the Palestinians were granted considerably more land than they have now for their own independent state, but refused partition as unacceptable. Five Arab nations attacked Israel with the intention to destroy it completely. The leader of the Arab League, who personally orchestrated the attack declared the intention of the war was "An extermination and a momentous massacre". This was the context in which the expulsions of Palestinians you refer to took place. Jordan and Egypt annexed the West bank and Gaza for the next 2 decades during which the Palestinians had no political rights or freedoms. The Palestinian leaders never pushed for the formation of an independent state during this time, and Israel took both regions during the Six Day War. So if we include the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been offered an independent state of their own four times, and every time they have rejected it completely as unacceptable. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" literally means free of Jews. Over and over, the Palestinian leadership have made that crystal clear. An independent state of their own alongside Israel in any shape or form, in their own statements and openly declared intentions has always been, and remains unacceptable to them. But that's just the Palestinian leadership right, what about the people? In a 2023 poll 57% of Gazans said they support Hamas, which has declared many times that the only Palestinian state they consider acceptable includes the entire territory of the current state of Israel. They also played a pivotal role in wrecking the Oslo peace process, which they considered an utter betrayal by the PLO for even engaging in talks.
You wrote this to people who think that Hamas are romantic heroes of liberation. And that math textbooks have secret, magical, invisible racism in them.
thank you thank you thank you. I have been radicalized by the past week's events in Gaza. i was already a big supporter of Palestine, but seeing how the international community cares so little for the people of Gaza sickens me. The left must uphold our principles and there's not been as big a test as this in a long time.
with Hitch cult followers, they just go where the Hitch Spirit blows them; CH was a red-dyed socialist all his life - of course he was against Jews & Israel, those bearing the DNA being the greatest minds historically behind commerce, capitalism; Nobel winners, peace, science, lit. - more than any other nation, pro-rata, as even Dawkins admitted - yes more that Athe-Trotsky-ite commies like Hitch & friends who take a minute number. Current 'Palestine' is actually northern Syria. There is no DNA even relating todays palestinian arabs to the Philistines of Roman times - they were wiped out
No one treats the Palestinians worse than Hamas in this world! Please consider that? FYI, if/when, the religious zealots behind Hamas care for the people there, they would put down their weapons and sacrifice themselves for all Palestinians. For them, they are sacrificing to a god taking them to paradise, along with the innocents of Gaza. Peace
@@Brian-os9qj Utter nonsense. Hamas is a militant organization and there's plenty to not like about them, but Palestinians are being killed by Israeli weapons. Murdering innocents is a choice Israel continues to make. This is on them.
I don't think Hitchens was right wing even at the end. He just had a variety of opinions, not all match current liberal thinking. How horrible. I don't think he would embrace Trump or Evangelicals or DeSantis.
He was a force in the past. Never quite a Gore Vidal or a Chris Hedges as these last two never changed. But still a great journalist. I use to wade through all those underwear ads in Vanity Fair to read him.
*HITCH:* "I think it’s a bad idea. I think it’s a messianic idea, I think it’s a superstitious idea. I think that-” *ROSE:* “So the idea of Israel’s right to exist is-” *HITCH:* “Many states are founded on injustices or foolishness and bad ideas, *_that doesn’t mean that anyone can just come and evict or destroy them._* I’m not saying that. But I think I have to say, so as not to seem shady, I’ve always thought it’s a silly, messianic superstitious nationalist idea and it’s a waste of Judaism." _Charlie Rose,_ November 6 2001. Emphasis mine.
Well done compilation. Watching it again after reading/seeing more debates. As to CH rightward turn -- less so than some folks think. He was always very adamant about religious fundamentalists being a danger to society/civilization (no matter the belief). His 'neo-con' seeming support is due directly to some states being run by religious fundamentalists and their more active role in supporting violence.
Yorkers ago back in the day a friend of mine said, imagine being at home one day doing some house chores and with a knock on the door some guy sez... hey it sez here in this book that your in my house get out, and it sums up everything I have come to know about this conflict
Thanks for sharing these clips along with your thoughts at the end of the video, David. I totally agree, we need to have a Litmus tests for human rights within leftist/left-leaning organizations
The UN had no right to donate land which is not theirs. The truth is that it is convenient for the West to have an ally within this region. There is no historical or religious right, if there was the USA would have to be run by indigenous tribes, but we are where we are at this point in time.
Israel only has influence bc Israel aligns with America's imperialism and is their outpost in the Middle East. As Joe Biden said "if there wasn't an Israel, we would have created one"
I clicked on this clip to hear Hitchen speak as he does in a simple way that requires no interpretation by a narrator who does now what the breeze sounds like in the forrest because he doesn't know what a tree is...
The land of Transjordan was given to the League of Nations by the Ottoman Empire. The League of Nations had a mandate to create a Jewish state on that land after the Holocaust. The land was not Arab land. Arabs got the vast majority of the land (all of what is now Jordan and most of the other land). Jews just got a small bit of shitty land (that they legally were allowed to have). Arabs didn't want to make *any* concessions and tried to commit the second Holocaust. They lost. Being pro-Palestinian is insane. They have been rejecting two state solutions and promoting genocide ever since.
Hitchens was not in the habit of speaking on issues he knew little about. He clearly thought long and hard on the subject of Israel, its right to exist, its actual borders, and how this relates to the Palestinians, etc. Most other people, including the interviewer at the beginning of this clip, have no business leading any discussion they are not familiar with. Hitchens did in fact know his subject, but also knew what others might know or pretend to know. At the end of the day, Hitchens was a contrarian and a superb stylist, on the order of, say, Oscar Wilde. By the look of things, he took some pride in clearing the field of self-righteous morons, and dullards. He left us too soon. I would have traded him for that long-lived bastard Henry Kissinger any day.
That was Hitch. In a nutshell. And I think he loved discussion, challenging anyone to participate in an intelligent, well informed and intellectual debate. It’s not about left or right. It’s a question about factual issues. Whatever topic. Remember, Hitchens’ mother had Jewish roots. First of all Hitchens was committed to scepticism.
Did anyone else get an ad from ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry? It was asking for monetary support or their occupation. I already give them more than I would care to through taxes. I immediately blocked them.
Good point there & thats how i feel. Hitchens fans are mainly marxists who true to their marxism would like that fact to be rubbed out because Hitchens far from being the deluxe intellectual the all say he was, instead was inadequate duplicitous metaphysical pig who has mastered marxist reification and playing meaningless contradictions.
Hitchens stand on Iraq war was based on his solidarity for Kurdish people which Sadam Hussian was oppressing and also the fact that Saddam regime was proving threat to other neighbouring countries. His reason was not same as the right wing war mongers. His stand was against islamic religious fundamentalists and he was not islamaphobic like right wings. He was a mild communist as he always uses the word 'comrade' and he hated religion and Monarchies. he was always on left.
What if you were forced out of Los Angeles but the state of Colorado would NOT take you because they can't be certain whether of not your an extremist?
It's ridiculous to call Hitchens a neocon....he was pro Iraq war (because he believed there was true evil that needed to be hunted down), but liberal on every other policy of the day.
He only supported one of the most consequential and devastating human disasters of the 21st century because he believed it is not the argument you think it is. He wrote extensively about leaving the left and replaced Marx with Thomas Jefferson explicitly in his work!
@@LeftReckoningHow does that make him a neocon though? Because he happened to agree with the neo-cons on one aspect of their foreign policy? Do you even know what the dictionary definition of neo-conservatism is? But 'muh Iraq' means he's a neocon lol. He never repudiated Marx by the way, he said as much in interviews towards his last days despite bringing the attention of people towards Jefferson.
@@LeftReckoningI am astonished that you think that appreciation for Thomas Jefferson immediately silos someone onto the right. Jefferson's ideas were radically revolutionarily lefty lefty lefty. A couple hundred years' time can bring about talk of updates, but can't change the undeniably liberal heart of his project.
The less said about Hitchens, the better. He was one of the most vicious islamophobes on earth, a pathological liar and cheerleader for Bush's massacre in Iraq.
That adage about living long enough to become the villain isn't exemplified in many as much as it is with Hitchens. What good ideas he use to espouse doesn't measure to the incalculable harm his rationalizing bigoted ideas did.
2/3 of the Palestine mandate in 1922 became a Arab state called Transjordan. 1/3 became a Jewish state, in 1948 after the Arabs rejected the 1947UNGA proposal. The ottoman empire was divided up into mandates which created five Arab states including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan. if you claim one state was illegal then you must say the other states which incidentally left out a number of minority peoples including the Kurds are all illegal states.
@@latinexus That's why the Israeli government armed and funded Hamas to take over form the more secular PLO, because they knew lazy people like you who can't be bothered to understand these issues would have less sympathy for the Palestinians.
Ugh! "Destroys" in a video title tends to have the opposite effect these days. It only has the effect of letting us know who the maker is in aggreement with.
Who thought of Hitchens as a “Neo Con”….? I dont think ive ever seen him say anything “right wing” outside of being against islam. At the same time he was against christianity so idk where you get that fromZ
I've always attributed his right turn to Wernicke-Korsakoff. It used to be called wet-brain. You simply can't drink heavily all your life without sustaining a very strange kind of brain damage. It can make you certain of things that are not real. A brilliant person could easily hide the bizarre effects. Perhaps I'm delusional. Perhaps I have it myself. But I just can't let go of his earlier life largely due to clips like this. I have read and watched almost everything he did. When he tacked from just being a rational and humorous but compassionate atheist to the man that condemned the religion, and very culture, whatever the flaws, of over a billion people, I was shocked.
dude the guy had his own opinions. who cares if went a little right for you at the end of his life. his whole philosophy throughout is life was free discussion. get over it dog.
Watched Hitch when he was a good person, then 9/11 slowly pushed him into Islamophobia. I miss him. What a writer and speaker. Here's a snippet of Hitch from the Guardian Sept 13th 200. "With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo."
@@post_hit_invincibility9940 "Christopher Hitchens Ripping Islam Apart is a compilation video of some amazing moments of our beloved and dearly missed Christopher Hitchens." Search youtube for this video. Christopher Hitchens Ripping Islam Apart
0:24. What, 'horrifying right-wing' turn? Hitchens wasn't a right-winger, far from it. And who are Matt and Ben? More to the point, who are you? 1:04. 'People who tend to hold his legacy tend to be more on the right?' Really? Where are you getting this from? Have you spoken to all of those people? No, you haven't so don't make sh*t up to support your narrative. I'm a huge fan of Hitchens and am so far on the left I'm nearly coming round on myself. You can't use hyperbolic language to support your view. Use facts. 1:11. Atheists supporting Israel. Where is your evidence for this? 1:28. Hitchens wasn't a Neo-con. Far from it. Have you read his biography? 7:12. It seems to me impossible for any US politician to get elected unless they give unwavering support for Isreal. That, in and of itself, needs to be raised and questioned. As for the actual events from 7October I wrote below the day after and have cut and pasted it probably over 300 times on various videos. I’ve seen hundreds of videos on this, from both sides. The torrent of claims and counter claims combined with clear and obvious Israeli propaganda is evident. However none of it is relevant. None. The fact is that in 1947, after Allied remorse, the Palestinians were removed from their land so that Jews could have it. Over 700,000 Palestinians were instructed to leave the homes their families had lived in for hundreds of years. And it continues to this day as Jews evict Palestinians from their homes on the west bank using their army. That, and that alone, is the root cause of the problem. It really is that simple. Jews 'believe' that the land is historically theirs - it isn't. The Jews (Israelites) were a small tribe and hadn't been in Canaan, as it was then called, in any great numbers, for thousands of years. They claim the Romans displaced them and that may be true but if it is then that’s happened throughout history to many people of all races and religions with too many examples to quote here. The demonym "Canaanites" serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations-both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups-throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan. There has never been any period of time since then that the land was exclusively Jewish - it’s always been shared by either other tribes or other religions. Additionally these claims are based on the Old Testament part of the Bible - hardly a fact-based source of historical accuracy. The only resolution is a return to the two-state solution. Israel ceases immediately settling in the West Bank and Gaza is allowed self-autonomy. The UN should have troops in the area to ensure compliance. Jerusalem should become a UN protected enclave to all people. There are, again, many examples where the UN has sent troops to both ensure peace and protect civilians. However if the western powers, who enable Israel, truly believe that the Jews have a right to their 'homeland' then every single non-indigenous person in the US should leave and the Indigenous Indians take their land. As should all the white people of Australia and New Zealand to the Aboriginals and Māori’s. All those of Spanish descent should leave Central and South America too. There are many other examples. And every single Jew should support that. If it works one way it works all ways. I reject Hamas but I stand with Palestine.
Claiming that Hitchnes was a neocon is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Hitchens was more of a free agent who made up his opinions with no regard to what other people might label it as.
On people checking you for claiming he turned right: how many times are you gonna say, "He voted for George Bush!" in these comments? As if that *one thing* means anything. He didn't even vote for Bush; he wasn't a citizen until 2007. He (tepidly) preferred Bush because he thought Bush would better counter islamic extremism. When he *could* vote, he voted for Obama. Holding a "right-wing" position on *one* topic doesn’t mean he changed all his other opinions.
Exactly. Also as far as I'm aware you can't be a dictionary definition neocon if you don't staunchly defend Israel, something he never did. Not to mention that despite his long criticisms of Islam and Islamism, he would still defend the notion of multiculturalism. Something I'm sure doesn't fit neatly with American neoconservativsm. If people are going to critique Hitchens, you'd hope they'd at least have read his arguments.
@@marufahmed3416 Hitchens had first-hand knowledge of Iraq from having visited there that most other people lacked. He felt very strongly that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown. I disagree with his assessment but to call him a neocon on this single issue is nonsense.
Great 😔 I am trying to find this guy - and you said, "He was..." and mentioned 'legacy'. I need desparately to weigh in on this sitiation over 'there'. I don't know 'who to call'... and please hold the 'ghost busters' jokes, I've had - as many have - enough 'write offs'. Thanks in advance.
0:20 "horrifying right wing turn"; he moved to the right but it was hardly a "horrifying right wing turn". I believe it's in the following interview (not long before his death) where he says he's still either a Marxist or a leftist - I can't remember which term he used: czcams.com/video/LIVEsa2g4ag/video.html
Hitchens was not a politician, and he didn't feel compelled to form his opinions based on a list of "left" or "right" documents. Rather than "aging into different opinions", I think Hitchens actually used his brain and decided different issues by using his own research and reasoning.
It happens to "other people" whom they do not know or favour so they do not consider as they would consider for themselves their kind or allies, This week Isreal issued more armes to the already well-armed Jewish illegal settlers in Palestinian land,, A Palestinian olive farmer was threatened with such weapons by his Jewish illegal settler neighbours and they took the sacks of his day´s harvest!
You have two choices of cultures in which you may choose to live for the rest of your life - the Palestinian culture or the Israeli culture. Which would you choose? Discussion is over no matter what your intellectual capacity.
Hitchens' image doesn't need sanitizing. He was a contrarian, and consistently intellectually based. People tend to forget that his stand on Iraq was related, at least in part, to his deep relationship and affinity for the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Hitchens never had a right-wing turn, he took one position which happened to be popular on the right, once. That's it.
Right. So the innocent people that died in Iraq were resurrected just as quickly were they ? NO. But hes have liked you statement given he was a radical marxist who was dedicated to post truth.
I think, Hitchens was more against Islamic fundamentalists then the Neo Confederate Christian nationalist southern Bush administration. To claim he was a right winger is presentism of the highest order.
Literally ALL politicians on the left or right (accept one great black lady legend) supported this War initially.
Democrats, Republicans....so at best he took a centrist position AT THE TIME.
Presentism= The tendency to see the past only from a present-day perspective, and to ignore or underestimate its difference from the present.
He was, however, a contrarian, and he seemed to delight in subverting the expectations of others. He was personally opposed to abortion and said if there's any chance we are destroying a human being, then we shouldn't be doing it. He was part Jewish, ethnically, while also a fierce critic of Israel, Zionism and the horrific treatment of Palestinians.
And while his views on religion were quite clear, he was also an admirer of religious architecture, championing a view that separates the faith from the art so we can appreciate beautiful cathedrals, mosques and temples like the Parthenon.
@@GozerTheGozerian thats just called being a sane nuanced person, its not subverting anything. The world doesnt live in extremes.
@@samuraijosh1595that’s true, but I do think he liked to keep people on their toes, surprising the expectations of many…
Which I completely understand and admire..
To see the face of someone Who thought they had you figured out, adopt that expression of absolute surprise is just pure pleasure
Hitchens, regardless of leaning, was always one of the most lethal debaters and intellectual giant.
"Intellectual giant" ... but UNWISE -
@@scotthullinger4684 Actually quite vindicated. He predicted Putin's desire to recreate the USSR and coming Black Sea war, he predicted American Right's flirtation and jealousy for fascism when discussing why GOP loved Palin despite her being dumb (the proto Trump), predicted a new generation of left making a religion of vanity and empathy (now called Woke).
By 2023, Hitchens is still proven to be very wise. He didn't just guess things but had long explanations for each.
@@kayaphus4303 - If the title here says Hitchens destroys both arguments on each side, then I can only assume that Hitchens claims that NOBODY has a claim to the land mass occupied by Israel. Think about it -
Sane people are both pro Israel and simultaneously against Israel's enemies. Israel has an ancient established claim and history regarding the land which they occupy.
ALL claims against Israel are wrong, not to mention totally illogical. Hmm ... Hard to believe that it's STILL fashionable in this day and age to be anti-Semitic even a half century+ after World War 2.
@@kayaphus4303 Surely those are all reifications as on the whole the man was full of it & nothing he stated was ever shown to be correct! Anyone would have stated right out that should the EU move near Russia via Ukraine then russia with move in before them = more of a common knowledge than special hitchens thing. Which is the trouble with the world affairs mercenary. His stock & trade was to be bankrolled by anyone hence his 'Apolitical' standpoint. But that only caused his sociological style option to be inspired by politics. Really Hitchens was just a meaningless a stand up comedy act that was taken seriously because he sat down & because his sycophants were far more stupid than even he was.
@@scotthullinger4684 Balderdash. Gods can't claim rights. So what do you use as the criteria? Actual possession? War gains? History? Majority population? Through most of the 20th century before Israel received infinitely more military and financial aid than Palestine, the Palestinian claims would have been at least equally strong. And let's not forget, Palestine NEVER accepted the 1947/1948 international declaration.
Israel's claim to land is their's and their's only. Their god can say anything she wants, but nobody's god can overrule anyone else's. To think otherwise is silly. Also, you can't accept "war-gained" advances into the West Bank in one breath while denying that the region was predominantly Muslim for centuries, including the time immediately preceeding the post-war creation of the Israeli state when Palestine begrudgingly started to accept Jews into the region.
Palestine's claim is equally ambiguous, but let's look at population trends in the region during the early 20th when Palestines vastly outnumbered Jews by over 10 to 1. Also, long before the Islamic jihadists decided to push all Jews into the Mediterranean, the Jews were trying to do exactly the same to the Palestinians... and they're doing it again!
Most importantly, for the 10 millionth time, it is NOT anti-semitic to believe that a two-state solution wherein one state doesn't control the other is the only equitable option.
The very fact that he changed his mind proved that he was a true intellectual. He dealt with the facts as he saw them, not as the zeitgeist dictated. His swing to the right of politics was, as I see it, set against his disgust of theocracy and totalitarianism in all it’s ugly forms rather than any contemporary political trend.
To me its more so that he wasnt a pascifist. He had his mindset and directed it to everyone and every movement that he disagreed with. Hitchens only seemed like a neo con cuz the zeitgeist changed. He didnt. He was always against the fundamentalist crowds. So a conflict where 2 sides wielded it he was primed to fire at both. And he did.
Hitchens didn't just change his mind. Any normal person changes their mind if the facts change.
And Hitchens was with the zeitgeist. He was with 70% of the American public. He defended a war based on lies. He defended the mindless slaughter of women and children. He called the left glib for talking about Iraqi deaths. He defended torture.
Hitchens wasn't stupid. He knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait and that Saddam was no threat to anyone in 2003. He knew that Iraq was a secular country. At least more secular than the United States.
"Theocracy" and "totalitarianism" are weasel words. The United States became essentially fascist under Bush and remain so today. Media lined up behind Bush. Those who didn't toe the line were fired. Phil Donahue, anyone? Donahue was the radical. Hitchens was the bootlicker. Media loved Hitchens because he was the most politically correct voice in America at the time.
Hitchens loved ganging up on the weak. "Sherry Johnson was raped, pregnant and married by 11. Now she’s fighting to end child marriage in America" edition.cnn.com/2018/01/29/health/ending-child-marriage-in-america/index.html
That you can legally rape children as young as 10 in the United States didn't bother Hitchens. That you can do the same in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi vassal state of Yemen did. (The only three countries where you can legally rape children.) The Taliban emerged largely as an opposition to pedophilia. Hitchens doesn't seem to have minded the pedophiles "we" support in Afghanistan. You know, the warlords and criminals that were/are branded as the Northern Alliance and National Resistance Front of Afghanistan.
To Hitchens, child rape and other atrocities are judged only on who carries them out. More specifically, whether the perpetrator is democratic or theocratic/totalitarian.
Hitchens dick rode the U.S. Constitution, except when it came to torture. If torture was justified or not was for the American people to decide, Hitchens argued.
Hitchens was the ultimate utilitarian. If Hitchens hadn't existed and you described a utilitarian just like him, you would be accused of creating a straw man. People would say that no utilitarian like that exist. That no utilitarian thinks the end justifies everything. While not using Hitchens words, he defended the genocide of the indigenous American people because it resulted in the glorious republic known as the United States.
The following is from Wikipedia and Hitchens view on Columbus Day.
_Historian David Stannard interpreted an essay by Hitchens:[55] as follows:_
_Anyone who refused to join him in celebrating with "great vim and gusto" the annihilation of the native peoples of the Americas was (in his words) self-hating, ridiculous, ignorant, and sinister. People who regard critically the genocide that was carried out in America's past, Hitchens continued, are simply reactionary, since such grossly inhuman atrocities "happen to be the way history is made." And thus "to complain about them is as empty as complaint about climatic, geological or tectonic shift." Moreover, he added, such violence is worth glorifying since it more often than not has been for the long-term betterment of humankind, as in the United States today, where the extermination of the [Native Americans] has brought about "a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation."[56]_
I think it had more to do with government and capitalist propaganda becoming more prevalent among his trusted sources of information and he bought into it like many people have.
@@BemkyWatchesBuffy he was an on the ground journalist. He WAS a source
@@unclebobboomergames I would hardly say that being an on the ground reporter in one place for a time gives you a full perspective or that it makes you immune from disinformation that could align with whatever opinion One could be traumatized into changing
Post 9.11 did a number on the best of us.
Hitch was hammered in that first clip and still casually cruising through complex ideas on that episode. His skillset was completely wasted with his regression to backing American Imperialism after 9/11.
Know what they say: No junk, no soul.
He was working through a lot of misinformation. He also condemned torture. A mixed bag doesn't make his correct takes any less correct.
Judging by his appearance, and the C-SPAN logo is pre C-SPAN3 which launched in January of 2001, I'm pretty sure this clip was way before 9/11. I remember Dennis Miller being quite funny until 9/11, after which he became a right wing-nut partisan hack. I guess you had to be there? Also, Hitch was NEVER political, only sociological, and ANTI- religion in any form. His debates with politicos were the germ for the term "Hitchslap". RIP, Man. You were one of the best.
@@MrDavidKordafter having to personally experience waterboarding did he call it torture. I'll take the win though.
Yeah his take on 9/11 really dissapointed and baffled me
I miss that dude so much. How is it that I can so deeply miss someone that I never met?
Because you fancy him.
Low shot @ default… maybe you are the one that’s a closet sausage fan…what about his free thinking
Hitchens was no-wing. If at any stage his beliefs aligned with the right, it wasn’t due to any core agreement between him and the so-called right wing.
I think it's a mischaracterisation to think that Hitchens was ever right wing or islamaphobic. It's understandable to thinks so, since he was in support of the Iraq war. But it was because he genuinely thought Iraqi democracy could be restored. Hitchen's ideological north star was support for democracy and opposition to authoritarianism - especially from the religous right, no matter if it was Christian, Islamic or Jewish. He would have been sick at the idea of Trump packing the supreme court with religious ideologues.
He voted for Bush & would continue to pen essays about how only the right seems to care about democracy
@@Not_Even_Wrong The waterboarding thing is definitely a point in his favour. He put his money where his mouth is and then immediately did 180 and publically came out against it. To this day, that video proves waterboarding is torture beyond all possible reasonable doubt.
@@LeftReckoning I didn't know about that, but it's true. A lot of people carry water for the right while claiming to be leftists and I wouldn't trust them either. That said I watched a lot of Hitchens when I was younger and secret rightwinger wasn't my read on the guy, he said a lot of stuff and IMO he doesn't fit the profile. May be wrong, but idk
@@Not_Even_Wrong No, in that section he is paraphrasing the pro torture position - he is stating it, not endorsing it. Afterall he does 'indict' the US for torture in the same article - he'd be calling himself out for what he'd just written.
@@Not_Even_Wrong Easy mistake to make in fairness, I reread it and I was suprised by how nationalistic some the sentiment in that article was. I can see see why people assume he's a neocon or something.
Hitch was a fucking legend. The world is poorer without him.
I'd say Hitch was a masturbating legend the world is far better off without.
I was 23 when he died unaware of his existence unfortunately. I discovered him a fee years after his passing. If there was a request god was willing to give, id say bring Hitchens back in the condition of him being a college professor lol let him teach us how to be as lethal of a debater as he was.
@@xray4deathhe has authored many books, you can still buy them.
Hi mate, just recently discovered your channel. As a '50-something' Australian male, I'm well removed from all problems pertaining to the middle-east, but I've been trying to tease apart the situation there. I've watched a lot of the talking heads ( Bill Maher, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris et.al ) but I'm always left with this feeling of an unscratchable itch, like they're all missing something, or boiling it down to an intractable religious problem. I find myself now more allied to the likes of an early Hitchens viewpoint that this was/is a humanitarian problem rather than a religious one. It seems clear now that the Palestinian people have been struggling ( to say the least ) under an apartheid regime imposed by the state of Israel. The fact that this situation seems to be overlooked or ignored is confounding. Keep up the good work
Even when Hitchens had bad politics at the last inning of his life he was always good rhetorically. But as our late comrade Brooks said, this isn’t complicated. This is an apartheid state and a fundamentally right wing project of making an ethnostate rather than a state where Jews could live in peace and safety. Appreciate you and Matt as always
RIP Micheal, you were the realest. 🙏🏾
Beautiful Michael, an incredible soul, never forgotten 🙏
I have a theory that Hitch was pro-Afghanistan War in his last years, because he was applying for citizenship during the Bush administration. Other prominent figures, like Donahue, were blacklisted for opposing the war. Hitch wouldn't have stood much chance getting his citizenship application approved if he hadn't towed the line. Politics!
In the end his rhetoric was atrocious what do you mean? The last decade of his life was him just firing the same bad faith arguments back at religious zealots basically.
@@dudeman5303 Bad faith? That's a literal description of the Catholic Church. If anything, he probably could have gone harder if he were more aware of the full extent of the pdf files scandal.
I call BS. Hitchens never moved to the right. I did not agree with his views about Iraq but he was soundly left wing on almost every issue. I am appalled that you would impugn his reputation by claiming otherwise.
This was the Hitchens I admired and learned from. It was sad to see him cower to the USA, Israel and other far right pressure tactics. Nice to be reminded of the real Hitchens.
He didnt cower to anybody. You don’t know what your talking about and have never read him on this topic or you wouldnt have said some so ignorant. It actually took balls to be honest about Saddam and Al Qaeda when the left was making ridiculous excuses for them or just straight up spreading lies like their were never WMDs in Iraq.
Quite the biased slanderous representation of his arc.
You do get more wise with the years. If you know what I mean.
@@scottstorchfan certainly wasn't wise about Iraq.
@@1984isnotamanual bro, there *weren't* any WMDs in Iraq... we've known this for nearly 20 years at this point
@@disregardthat yes there were. Saddam had them and used them. There just werent any when we invaded. We dont know where they went. He had those weapons. He used them on the kurds. READ A FUCKING BOOK
I'm going to respond here both to the vid and some comments. I don't think it's fair to say that after 2001 Hitch simply became a neo-con the same as any other. He moved the right for sure in terms of hawkishness but he was never intellectually aligned with the right. He still spoke out against things like state sponsored torture (unlike Sam Harris who justified it), he was consistent about being against every religion (including America's evangelical Christianity), and his solidarity with the Kurds gave his pro-Iraq position at least some semblance of moral rectitude. He even supported reparations for black Americans, which some leftists including Bernie don't seem to want to commit to. He was also in full support of LGBTQ rights.
I'm certain if Hitch were still around he would've hated Trump and MAGA for its blatantly fascistic tendencies. The real question is whether he would've sided with Bernie's progressive movement or with the so-called centrist Dems between 2016 and 2020 when the movement seemed to have a real chance of transforming the party. 2016 would've been especially interesting with Hillary, Bernie, and Trump.
As for right wingers claiming him (and I haven't seen this, actually), right wingers today also try to claim George Carlin just because of George Carlin's defenses of free speech, while they completely ignore all of the anti-capitalist and anti-conservative arguments Carlin also made. Personally, I don't think the Hitchens who defended the Iraq war and heavily criticized Islam in particular should define his entire legacy, though it will always be a part of it.
Was he a bigot? Maybe a little, though outside of advocating for killing Islamic militants (which may or may not be racially motivated), what I noticed sometimes were more...subtle forms of disrespect like he when he referred to Mos Def as Mr. Definitely and cracked a smile. But to be frank, there are a lot of whites (leftist or otherwise) who can sometimes give that vibe, so I think it's just a cultural bias that even otherwise decent whites may struggle with. Cornel West recently suggested that the same thing existed in the Green Party, so it is what it is.
I saw his last interview before he died (or one of his last interviews). He was asked if he still considered himself a leftist, and without hesitation he said, "Yes".
I've seen multiple right wing social media accounts use Hitchens clips talking about Islalm.
Hitchens was anti-totalitarian left. Harris did not just outright justify torture, you need to read his essay. The complexity of the subject is framed quite well by Harris.
@@hawkerdooI don't think we need to pretend there's a ton of nuance to the torture discussion the way Harris did. He used ridiculous hypotheticals to justify the use of torture, period.
ETA: He loved using out of pocket hypotheticals. One of his faves was built on the assumption that a Muslim-majority nation with nukes would use them in a first strike because Islamists do suicide attacks. I distinctly remember that. Absolutely insane take, and it demonstrates the attitude he had toward Muslims.
@@SouthCom1917
Toward Islam is what I think you meant to say. Yes, hypotheticals based on real world events. You are ignoring the reality of the conversation.
Not sure how “right wing” hitchens got? He was on the side of conservatives for 1 big issue, but not even for the same reasons. Also, “new atheists” are the ppl i hear most saying that hamas does not equal Palestinians
He voted for Bush lol
@@LeftReckoningthis isn’t true. He supported him but couldn’t vote. I know it’s not very different but you’re spreading falsehoods.
Don't think he was a US citizen then.
When are we going to see one day a President or Prime Minister who has the fierce intellect as the late Christopher Hitchens possessed. You see , to me that is the mind and intelligence that a typical political head of state should have themselves . A country's commander in chief should always be it's scholar in chief too ..don't you think ?
Not really. I'd rather have a plain-spoken communist over someone with a dazzling intellect whose politics are garbage. He's genuinely fun to listen to though.
A atheist.... Never.
Not practical to have such lofty expectations of a politician. Besides, they wouldn't get elected to high office if they hold views which are contrarian to the population or corporations.
As always, my commitment to humanity goes beyond any notion of boarders, nations, or creeds.
Cool. Are you straw manning borders nations and creeds?
@@jikkh2xto strawman a position, you have to misrepresent it, this person and I agree with them has just chosen his own values and not inherited them.
@@jikkh2x Someone learned a new word today
@@jikkh2xquit using terms you don't understand. It makes you seem stupid.
Really? Do you have family? Does the bum on the street mean as much to you as a family member? If you're like a typical no-borders, citizen of the world, your country of domicile is European or settled predominately by Europeans. Within that country, you probably live in the chief metropolis or one of the major metropolises. Furthermore, you are likely insulated - by class, by expendable income (viz. rent money), by barriers like walls, guards, or physical distance - from the lower orders, and from black and brown people.
Great listen. Keep doing what you're doing. Hitchens was a brilliant thinker and his views are still relevant.
He was a pointless stirrer who took cash from anyone who wanted something stirred whence morals no longer mattered and entire hitchens thing a shambles. Thats why he agreed with Iraq and sided with Blair and Bush. Even more behind everyones backs this is also why though crime models of new atheist design, only briefly attacked christianity ( inflicting first thought crimes since the witchcraft trials ) before being unleashed on everyone in europe. New atheist followers surely are the more stupid people in existence for giving consensus and permission to such heresy and misanthropy. These were never going to be restricted to anti religion any fool would know that. And look at the great founding father of modern thought crime himself = Dawkins. So much contempt for the ordinary person ( thats his secret its not just religious people ) - that the first thing his model attacked outside of religion was ?
YES BIOLOGY.
We are not allowed to consider humans as defined by their biology its a crime.
New atheist fans have to be the most idiotic breed in existence ? Who else would have been stupid enough to cheer liker mad banshees for their own free speech to be removed chunk by chunk ? Look at you all praising Jesus Dawkins even now having not twigged what has happened !!!
In Hitch in Washington, Christopher Hitchens states he holds no allegiance to any party.
Saying Palestinians=Hamas is like saying Americans=MAGA.
Thank you 👊🏻
As an Australian. America does indeed = maga.
Saying MAGA = Hamas is actually saying You are an absolute fool! Insult fully intended!
Perfectly said!
100%
I’ve never thought of myself as oblivious but I’ve never heard Hitchens described as a neo-con.
What is a neo-atheist???
As a Gen Xer….i guess I’m old now?!
Know thy Enemy is how I saw Hitchens approach to islam.
You've said a few times in the comments that Hitchens voted for Bush, but I'm confused. Hitchens became a US citizen in 2007, so when could he have voted for Bush?
Supported, not voted. People get confused.
@@BenjaminWalburn Even "support" can be confusing. Judging from an article he wrote about it in 2004, it seems like his support is barely lukewarm.
He was right about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank at the time, but he did accept the right of Israel to exist. For the current situation a bit of background might help. In the 1920s after Britain kicked out Turkey there was a partition proposal. The Jewish leadership at the time agreed saying they would accept a land "the size of a tablecloth". The Palestinian leaders refused absolutely and demanded the expulsion of all Jews. Their leader declared "It is impossible to live alongside the Jews" and threatened "A river of blood".
In 1937 there was another proposal in which 'Israel' would have been the small region from Tel Aviv north to the Lebanese border. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand.
In 1948 the Palestinians were granted considerably more land than they have now for their own independent state, but refused partition as unacceptable. Five Arab nations attacked Israel with the intention to destroy it completely. The leader of the Arab League, who personally orchestrated the attack declared the intention of the war was "An extermination and a momentous massacre". This was the context in which the expulsions of Palestinians you refer to took place.
Jordan and Egypt annexed the West bank and Gaza for the next 2 decades during which the Palestinians had no political rights or freedoms. The Palestinian leaders never pushed for the formation of an independent state during this time, and Israel took both regions during the Six Day War.
So if we include the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been offered an independent state of their own four times, and every time they have rejected it completely as unacceptable. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" literally means free of Jews. Over and over, the Palestinian leadership have made that crystal clear. An independent state of their own alongside Israel in any shape or form, in their own statements and openly declared intentions has always been, and remains unacceptable to them.
But that's just the Palestinian leadership right, what about the people? In a 2023 poll 57% of Gazans said they support Hamas, which has declared many times that the only Palestinian state they consider acceptable includes the entire territory of the current state of Israel. They also played a pivotal role in wrecking the Oslo peace process, which they considered an utter betrayal by the PLO for even engaging in talks.
You wrote this to people who think that Hamas are romantic heroes of liberation.
And that math textbooks have secret, magical, invisible racism in them.
thank you thank you thank you. I have been radicalized by the past week's events in Gaza. i was already a big supporter of Palestine, but seeing how the international community cares so little for the people of Gaza sickens me. The left must uphold our principles and there's not been as big a test as this in a long time.
with Hitch cult followers, they just go where the Hitch Spirit blows them; CH was a red-dyed socialist all his life -
of course he was against Jews & Israel, those bearing the DNA being the greatest minds historically behind commerce, capitalism;
Nobel winners, peace, science, lit. - more than any other nation, pro-rata, as even Dawkins admitted - yes more that Athe-Trotsky-ite commies like Hitch & friends who take a minute number.
Current 'Palestine' is actually northern Syria. There is no DNA even relating todays palestinian arabs to the Philistines of Roman times - they were wiped out
No one treats the Palestinians worse than Hamas in this world! Please consider that? FYI, if/when, the religious zealots behind Hamas care for the people there, they would put down their weapons and sacrifice themselves for all Palestinians. For them, they are sacrificing to a god taking them to paradise, along with the innocents of Gaza. Peace
@@Brian-os9qj Utter nonsense. Hamas is a militant organization and there's plenty to not like about them, but Palestinians are being killed by Israeli weapons. Murdering innocents is a choice Israel continues to make. This is on them.
I don't think Hitchens was right wing even at the end. He just had a variety of opinions, not all match current liberal thinking. How horrible. I don't think he would embrace Trump or Evangelicals or DeSantis.
He was a force in the past. Never quite a Gore Vidal or a Chris Hedges as these last two never changed. But still a great journalist. I use to wade through all those underwear ads in Vanity Fair to read him.
Agreed, except Chris hedges is nuts now though.
You enjoyed the underwear ads thoroughly.
Chris Hedges?
100% correct that people do tend to make this complicated situation simplistic.
Yes this is the Hitchens I admired 🇵🇸
*HITCH:* "I think it’s a bad idea. I think it’s a messianic idea, I think it’s a superstitious idea. I think that-” *ROSE:* “So the idea of Israel’s right to exist is-” *HITCH:* “Many states are founded on injustices or foolishness and bad ideas, *_that doesn’t mean that anyone can just come and evict or destroy them._* I’m not saying that. But I think I have to say, so as not to seem shady, I’ve always thought it’s a silly, messianic superstitious nationalist idea and it’s a waste of Judaism."
_Charlie Rose,_ November 6 2001. Emphasis mine.
Hitch was a masterful intellect w an uncommon gift to bite to the undeniable core of an issue
Important.
Well done compilation. Watching it again after reading/seeing more debates. As to CH rightward turn -- less so than some folks think. He was always very adamant about religious fundamentalists being a danger to society/civilization (no matter the belief). His 'neo-con' seeming support is due directly to some states being run by religious fundamentalists and their more active role in supporting violence.
Yorkers ago back in the day a friend of mine said, imagine being at home one day doing some house chores and with a knock on the door some guy sez... hey it sez here in this book that your in my house get out, and it sums up everything I have come to know about this conflict
Thanks for sharing these clips along with your thoughts at the end of the video, David. I totally agree, we need to have a Litmus tests for human rights within leftist/left-leaning organizations
Absolutely.
Hitch is neither right or left, he's just a truth seeker. You're the one putting the labels on him.
Great video, thank you for sharing
Being Left means you critique ALL injustices. EVEN IF injustices are perpetrated by Israel.
The UN had no right to donate land which is not theirs. The truth is that it is convenient for the West to have an ally within this region. There is no historical or religious right, if there was the USA would have to be run by indigenous tribes, but we are where we are at this point in time.
Hitchens never changed his views on Israel being an intolerant apartheid state.
His "Hitch Slap" compilations are legendary.
Only in the warped marxist minds of his fawning disciples.
Never heard Hitchens be naive! That Israel doesn't have a lot of influence on American mideast policy is laughable, even back when then. I
Israel only has influence bc Israel aligns with America's imperialism and is their outpost in the Middle East. As Joe Biden said "if there wasn't an Israel, we would have created one"
Our maybe you and the boogeyman people are just wrong. I know, crazy thought.
I clicked on this clip to hear Hitchen speak as he does in a simple way that requires no interpretation by a narrator who does now what the breeze sounds like in the forrest because he doesn't know what a tree is...
Thank you David.
The land of Transjordan was given to the League of Nations by the Ottoman Empire. The League of Nations had a mandate to create a Jewish state on that land after the Holocaust. The land was not Arab land. Arabs got the vast majority of the land (all of what is now Jordan and most of the other land). Jews just got a small bit of shitty land (that they legally were allowed to have). Arabs didn't want to make *any* concessions and tried to commit the second Holocaust. They lost. Being pro-Palestinian is insane. They have been rejecting two state solutions and promoting genocide ever since.
Hitchens was not in the habit of speaking on issues he knew little about. He clearly thought long and hard on the subject of Israel, its right to exist, its actual borders, and how this relates to the Palestinians, etc. Most other people, including the interviewer at the beginning of this clip, have no business leading any discussion they are not familiar with. Hitchens did in fact know his subject, but also knew what others might know or pretend to know. At the end of the day, Hitchens was a contrarian and a superb stylist, on the order of, say, Oscar Wilde. By the look of things, he took some pride in clearing the field of self-righteous morons, and dullards. He left us too soon. I would have traded him for that long-lived bastard Henry Kissinger any day.
That was Hitch. In a nutshell. And I think he loved discussion, challenging anyone to participate in an intelligent, well informed and intellectual debate.
It’s not about left or right. It’s a question about factual issues.
Whatever topic.
Remember, Hitchens’ mother had Jewish roots.
First of all Hitchens was committed to scepticism.
Did anyone else get an ad from ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry? It was asking for monetary support or their occupation. I already give them more than I would care to through taxes. I immediately blocked them.
Really appreciate your acknowledgement of Christopher Hitchens rightwing switch. It was sad to see his change.
Good point there & thats how i feel.
Hitchens fans are mainly marxists who true to their marxism would like that fact to be rubbed out because Hitchens far from being the deluxe intellectual the all say he was, instead was inadequate duplicitous metaphysical pig who has mastered marxist reification and playing meaningless contradictions.
As an Italian I feel like you could have spared us the line about wine, dude…
Hitchens stand on Iraq war was based on his solidarity for Kurdish people which Sadam Hussian was oppressing and also the fact that Saddam regime was proving threat to other neighbouring countries. His reason was not same as the right wing war mongers. His stand was against islamic religious fundamentalists and he was not islamaphobic like right wings. He was a mild communist as he always uses the word 'comrade' and he hated religion and Monarchies. he was always on left.
I like my Hitchens like I like my wine: 13% alcohol by volume
No country has a right to exist. It either exists or it doesn't. It's a pragmatic issue, not a moral issue.
When Hitchens cut an opponent, it was done so deftly the victim didn't know they'd been cut until it felt warm.
What if you were forced out of Los Angeles but the state of Colorado would NOT take you because they can't be certain whether of not your an extremist?
One thing I have never gotten to any level of understanding with was the eventual disconnect between Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky
This came up my feed twice already. I guess the algorithms working 💪 😅
Change, growth and development should be seen as a mark of personal honesty and true to thine own self. The man was ahead of his time
Hitchens was way more based when he was younger.
he used to be a trotskyist
They say people get more conservative as they get older.
It's ridiculous to call Hitchens a neocon....he was pro Iraq war (because he believed there was true evil that needed to be hunted down), but liberal on every other policy of the day.
He only supported one of the most consequential and devastating human disasters of the 21st century because he believed it is not the argument you think it is.
He wrote extensively about leaving the left and replaced Marx with Thomas Jefferson explicitly in his work!
@@LeftReckoningHow does that make him a neocon though? Because he happened to agree with the neo-cons on one aspect of their foreign policy? Do you even know what the dictionary definition of neo-conservatism is? But 'muh Iraq' means he's a neocon lol.
He never repudiated Marx by the way, he said as much in interviews towards his last days despite bringing the attention of people towards Jefferson.
@@LeftReckoningI am astonished that you think that appreciation for Thomas Jefferson immediately silos someone onto the right. Jefferson's ideas were radically revolutionarily lefty lefty lefty. A couple hundred years' time can bring about talk of updates, but can't change the undeniably liberal heart of his project.
The less said about Hitchens, the better. He was one of the most vicious islamophobes on earth, a pathological liar and cheerleader for Bush's massacre in Iraq.
That adage about living long enough to become the villain isn't exemplified in many as much as it is with Hitchens. What good ideas he use to espouse doesn't measure to the incalculable harm his rationalizing bigoted ideas did.
@5:32 Its not a covert hand but a overt hand in the form of the AIPAC and the ADL.
Well it was gonna be somebody so might as well be the jews
2/3 of the Palestine mandate in 1922 became a Arab state called Transjordan. 1/3 became a Jewish state, in 1948 after the Arabs rejected the 1947UNGA proposal. The ottoman empire was divided up into mandates which created five Arab states including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan. if you claim one state was illegal then you must say the other states which incidentally left out a number of minority peoples including the Kurds are all illegal states.
Anything with "DESTROYS " in the title typically has no destruction at all.
Nice to see Hitchens not bashing Muslims for existing like he normally does
Gazans would garner more sympathy if they were not so fundamentalist
@@latinexus i don’t think they want sympathy they want to not be murdered for being Palestinian.
@@latinexus That's why the Israeli government armed and funded Hamas to take over form the more secular PLO, because they knew lazy people like you who can't be bothered to understand these issues would have less sympathy for the Palestinians.
@@latinexus Damn Warsaw ghetto uprising extremists!
@@bke8073 whatever man. I will listen to Christopher hitches instead. i don't need to be lectured by you about sympathy.
Hitchens a Neocon is laughable .
Ugh! "Destroys" in a video title tends to have the opposite effect these days. It only has the effect of letting us know who the maker is in aggreement with.
Palestinians have more personal freedom in Israel than just about any Arab state, so in what sense are Palestinians in Israel oppressed?
I really enjoy watching Hitchens' videos from the 80's and 90's.
He also supported Iraqi invasion. He was fascinating and fun but not always right. Rip. God is not great.
Who thought of Hitchens as a “Neo Con”….? I dont think ive ever seen him say anything “right wing” outside of being against islam. At the same time he was against christianity so idk where you get that fromZ
I've always attributed his right turn to Wernicke-Korsakoff. It used to be called wet-brain. You simply can't drink heavily all your life without sustaining a very strange kind of brain damage. It can make you certain of things that are not real. A brilliant person could easily hide the bizarre effects. Perhaps I'm delusional. Perhaps I have it myself. But I just can't let go of his earlier life largely due to clips like this. I have read and watched almost everything he did. When he tacked from just being a rational and humorous but compassionate atheist to the man that condemned the religion, and very culture, whatever the flaws, of over a billion people, I was shocked.
Miss Hitch. He was the tip of the spear. Fought for humanity.
dude the guy had his own opinions. who cares if went a little right for you at the end of his life. his whole philosophy throughout is life was free discussion. get over it dog.
Watched Hitch when he was a good person, then 9/11 slowly pushed him into Islamophobia. I miss him. What a writer and speaker.
Here's a snippet of Hitch from the Guardian Sept 13th 200.
"With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo."
*200 sb 2001
Maybe you should look up Richard Dawkins' comment on the concept of 'Islamophobia'.
@@post_hit_invincibility9940 "Christopher Hitchens Ripping Islam Apart is a compilation video of some amazing moments of our beloved and dearly missed Christopher Hitchens." Search youtube for this video.
Christopher Hitchens Ripping Islam Apart
Bin Laden said it was revenge for bombing the middle east
He was always a good person. Wether he aligned with your narrow political views or not . What a awful way to judge a man's life & morals
Pearls amongst swine... we didn't deserve him
0:24. What, 'horrifying right-wing' turn? Hitchens wasn't a right-winger, far from it. And who are Matt and Ben? More to the point, who are you?
1:04. 'People who tend to hold his legacy tend to be more on the right?' Really? Where are you getting this from? Have you spoken to all of those people? No, you haven't so don't make sh*t up to support your narrative. I'm a huge fan of Hitchens and am so far on the left I'm nearly coming round on myself. You can't use hyperbolic language to support your view. Use facts.
1:11. Atheists supporting Israel. Where is your evidence for this?
1:28. Hitchens wasn't a Neo-con. Far from it. Have you read his biography?
7:12. It seems to me impossible for any US politician to get elected unless they give unwavering support for Isreal. That, in and of itself, needs to be raised and questioned.
As for the actual events from 7October I wrote below the day after and have cut and pasted it probably over 300 times on various videos.
I’ve seen hundreds of videos on this, from both sides. The torrent of claims and counter claims combined with clear and obvious Israeli propaganda is evident. However none of it is relevant. None.
The fact is that in 1947, after Allied remorse, the Palestinians were removed from their land so that Jews could have it. Over 700,000 Palestinians were instructed to leave the homes their families had lived in for hundreds of years. And it continues to this day as Jews evict Palestinians from their homes on the west bank using their army. That, and that alone, is the root cause of the problem. It really is that simple.
Jews 'believe' that the land is historically theirs - it isn't. The Jews (Israelites) were a small tribe and hadn't been in Canaan, as it was then called, in any great numbers, for thousands of years. They claim the Romans displaced them and that may be true but if it is then that’s happened throughout history to many people of all races and religions with too many examples to quote here. The demonym "Canaanites" serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations-both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups-throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan. There has never been any period of time since then that the land was exclusively Jewish - it’s always been shared by either other tribes or other religions. Additionally these claims are based on the Old Testament part of the Bible - hardly a fact-based source of historical accuracy.
The only resolution is a return to the two-state solution. Israel ceases immediately settling in the West Bank and Gaza is allowed self-autonomy. The UN should have troops in the area to ensure compliance. Jerusalem should become a UN protected enclave to all people. There are, again, many examples where the UN has sent troops to both ensure peace and protect civilians.
However if the western powers, who enable Israel, truly believe that the Jews have a right to their 'homeland' then every single non-indigenous person in the US should leave and the Indigenous Indians take their land. As should all the white people of Australia and New Zealand to the Aboriginals and Māori’s. All those of Spanish descent should leave Central and South America too. There are many other examples. And every single Jew should support that. If it works one way it works all ways.
I reject Hamas but I stand with Palestine.
I got into Hitchens through atheism but i'm pro Palestine myself.
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Claiming that Hitchnes was a neocon is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Hitchens was more of a free agent who made up his opinions with no regard to what other people might label it as.
Criticizing Israel's government and the criminal, Netanyahu, is not antisemitic.
sorry you can't say he had a right wing turn... thats completely incorrect
What athiest movement is all about israel ? Where tf ?
All I heard in the intro was 'I used to favor logic, but now I feel different.'
On people checking you for claiming he turned right: how many times are you gonna say, "He voted for George Bush!" in these comments? As if that *one thing* means anything. He didn't even vote for Bush; he wasn't a citizen until 2007. He (tepidly) preferred Bush because he thought Bush would better counter islamic extremism. When he *could* vote, he voted for Obama. Holding a "right-wing" position on *one* topic doesn’t mean he changed all his other opinions.
Exactly. Also as far as I'm aware you can't be a dictionary definition neocon if you don't staunchly defend Israel, something he never did. Not to mention that despite his long criticisms of Islam and Islamism, he would still defend the notion of multiculturalism. Something I'm sure doesn't fit neatly with American neoconservativsm.
If people are going to critique Hitchens, you'd hope they'd at least have read his arguments.
I like my Hitchens like I like my wine, young + red🍷
End the Occupation ✊ End the Apartheid
Back when Hitchens was cool.
Hitchens was cool until the day he died. We need more like him but they are in short supply.
@@grahamhodge8313 Hitchens become the top supporter of Iraq invasion and war on terror, later.
@@marufahmed3416 Hitchens had first-hand knowledge of Iraq from having visited there that most other people lacked. He felt very strongly that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown. I disagree with his assessment but to call him a neocon on this single issue is nonsense.
@@grahamhodge8313 and the death of million Iraqis, torture, and destruction of entire country doesn't matter, got it.
As opposed to thinking less of him for his turn to the "right" maybe you should evaluate your own misguided views.
"there are 49 American states"? What year is this from?
Great 😔 I am trying to find this guy - and you said, "He was..." and mentioned 'legacy'.
I need desparately to weigh in on this sitiation over 'there'.
I don't know 'who to call'... and please hold the 'ghost busters' jokes, I've had - as many have - enough 'write offs'.
Thanks in advance.
I don't believe Christopher changed his mind on Palestine/Israel problem.
His uncanny intelligent well informed voice is like Shakespeare in a way. Like Honey in the ear and so often fun.
0:20 "horrifying right wing turn"; he moved to the right but it was hardly a "horrifying right wing turn". I believe it's in the following interview (not long before his death) where he says he's still either a Marxist or a leftist - I can't remember which term he used: czcams.com/video/LIVEsa2g4ag/video.html
Good video. Love my Hitchens.
It is incredibly ignorant to label Hitchens as "right wing".
He did go full neocon at the end of his life though
No he didn't. He was a free thinker....you cant label him left or right. You do him a disservice
Guy destroyed his own credibility at the start by claiming Hitch took a 'right wing turn'. In what universe?
Hitchens was not a politician, and he didn't feel compelled to form his opinions based on a list of "left" or "right" documents.
Rather than "aging into different opinions", I think Hitchens actually used his brain and decided different issues by using his own research and reasoning.
It happens to "other people" whom they do not know or favour so they do not consider as they would consider for themselves their kind or allies, This week Isreal issued more armes to the already well-armed Jewish illegal settlers in Palestinian land,, A Palestinian olive farmer was threatened with such weapons by his Jewish illegal settler neighbours and they took the sacks of his day´s harvest!
You have two choices of cultures in which you may choose to live for the rest of your life - the Palestinian culture or the Israeli culture. Which would you choose? Discussion is over no matter what your intellectual capacity.
Well put
Hitchens' image doesn't need sanitizing. He was a contrarian, and consistently intellectually based. People tend to forget that his stand on Iraq was related, at least in part, to his deep relationship and affinity for the Kurds in Northern Iraq.