When Christopher Hitchens Was A Socialist ft. Joshua Kahn Russell (TMBS 133)

[@JosephSchocker]

I still listen to Christopher Hitchens, even as a Socialist who is an atheist. I like his early debates/lectures like these while he was at his best. It’s a shame that during the later part of his life he was drawn towards pro war and conservative views. I still listen to him though, proof that you can listen to differing opinions and views while discarding the bad/harmful ideas. R.I.P. Hitchens.... you are missed!

[@glouconx983]

He joined the attack on Muslim fundamentalism after 9/11 but continued to attack the Christian Right. The attack on Jerry Fallwell on Fox News is pretty awesome. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqCunIKJgsaHoZY

[@iamasickman]

@@glouconx983 I think he just hated religion so much that he couldn't help himself, but then he failed to comprehend that the War on Terror was a kind of religion itself.

[@uncletom356]

Gloucon X Like all thoughtful leftists, I have issues with Hitch. But when he went on Hannity and triggered him with initial comments, then triggered him further at the end when saying, “If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox,” there was justice in the world for one small moment. One of the greatest lines ever. Then, hearing Hannity cry was music to my ears. Apparently lobbing a football once in your show doesn’t make you manly.

[@JosephSchocker]

Uncle Tom That was hands down one of the finest moments in news history. I still respect Hitchens to this day despite his flaws, and I think that he was just misinformed in his later days. I’m not too sure what contributed to his political shifting or his alignment with harmful U.S. foreign affairs with the Middle East, but I still choose to look past these. I think for every bad thing you can find about Hitchens, you can definitely find more good. It was very sad to see his falling out with Noam Chomsky though, as Chomsky was one of Hitchen’s biggest influences. In the end though, their disagreements seemed to be a matter of focus. You could find Noam Chomsky denouncing fundamentalists, whereas you could also find Christopher Hitchens denouncing U.S. foreign affairs. It just seemed that the two split when Hitchens sympathized with America’s response to 9/11, and Noam continued to cite the true reasons for the attack.

[@uncletom356]

@@JosephSchocker I know Hitchens and Chomsky had a falling out. What was their relationship before that? Since this video has spurred my Hitch "itch" that hasn't been there in years, I may want to ask him about it, in order to try to understand how Hitch went from radical anti-imperialism to radical pro-imperialism with unbelievable bigotry to the Middle East and Muslims writ large.

[@BradSamuelsPro]

Hitch always gave the best arguments for the positions he took, even if those positions were sometimes wrong.

[@rubblesr877]

Bradley Samuels I only love his arguments and works against religion and how it’s screwed and shortchanged people from the true reality of life. His views on politics wasn’t all that great especially when he became an apologist for the neocons after 911.

[@diego67hd94]

Rubbles R sure, but is not true that he was probably the best or most talented proponent of neoconservative policies?

[@seanmoran6510]

@@rubblesr877 He let his loathing of Religion/Meta Physical Faith get the best of him. He virtually wanted perpetual war in the Middle East If you you tube him on Question Time he actually says we Must go to the Deserts and fight for as long as it takes ! He never admitted he was wrong about the Iraq War. He was no Orwell Who put his money where his mouth was and went into conflict himself. Pity Hitchens didn’t go I say ! Give me his better younger brother every day of the week

[@AceofDlamonds]

@@seanmoran6510 The Iraq War was defensible. Stop acting like it wasn't a judgement call and absolutely wrong. Brooks and friends are always knee jerk about war, even against totalitarians which Europe and America agreed after WWII "never again".

[@CephalicMiasma4]

Thank you guys for your intellectual honesty. I am the son of an Iraqi immigrant, born and living in the US, and I am until this day still a huge fan of Hitchens despite his leanings later in life. Hitchens was pure wit, but also carried deep analysis into several areas of his writing.

[@thedoctor.a.s1401]

later leanings ?

[@emoryotott2055]

David is bad ass. I'm so glad he's been more involved in speaking lately

[@uncletom356]

What's his accent, though? I know he's from Texas, and incredibly smart/informed. It just sounds like a mixture between Finnish, German and English. But maybe people in Texas talk like that..? I've never heard one, though. Not a big deal, as his content is all that matters. Just curiosity that's been eating at me for as long as TMBS has had David on the air. And yes, great he's "in the gang" instead of one five-minute segment per show.

[@nachomanrandysauvage8257]

David is so knowledgeable, and low-key has an ASMR-quality cadence to his voice.

[@babyfactory587]

I love Christopher hitchens. He said immaculate conception was a young girl telling a little lie haha

[@Philbert-s2c]

I loved Hitchens right up to the early 2000's. These days I'm largely indifferent to him.

[@uncletom356]

Shadowman4710 Yep, his 9/11 hysteria, blatant Islamic bigotry and cheerleader for the illegal, imperialistic invasion into Iraq (alliteration!) made his post-2001 takes pretty terrible. Though, he remained true to being morally against any torture. Still, though. However, to add to the original commenter, the absolute best Hitch moment was when he was on bitch ass Hannity’s program after Jerry Falwell (finally) died. At the very end of the segment, he said of the morbidly obese Falwell, “If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox.” Like, technically, that was post-2001, but absolutely perfect and hilarious Hitch at his finest.

[@uncletom356]

I love Hitch videos like this. Shows him at his absolute best. Sure, it’s easy to find a “Hitch Slap” one of him debating a nonsensical theocrat. For all intents and purposes, though, that never really accomplished much. Except when calling out right-wing evangelicals. If only Hitch stayed as a socialist and his anti-torture “campaign” during the height of Iraq. Still, it’s so depressing that he supported that illegal invasion.

[@uncletom356]

David Wang I agree with almost all of what you wrote, and it’s well put. Genuinely. The only (slight) problem I have is saying “rightful criticism of religion.” He went too far at times, and maybe that’s how you’re phrasing it in your second paragraph. I just never understood his fixation on Islam. Did he go after moronic Christian theocrats? Yes. But when you put an entire religion in a basket and label it “evil by definition,” that’s bigotry. I think if Hitch never got cancer, he’d realize his mistake and go on Maher’s show to shut him up. However, we can only judge what he did in his life. The overwhelming majority was great. Yes, watching the Twin Towers fall was emotional for all of us. Why his brain went from despair to hatred for an entire religion, I’ll never understand. They don’t “hate us for our freedom” or because “we’re a Christian nation.” It’s way more complex than that. I’m sure I don’t have to spell it out for you, as you seem to have a good grasp on what I’m referring. Regardless, fun video of the best of Hitch.

[@jendoubinour6902]

@@uncletom356 The reason he was focused on islam is because of its nature : a political religion. It has laws, and rules for an entire society, which happen to be extremely toxic. When a muslim majority country starts falling, islamism (political islam) will rise instead of fascism. Islamism as a political movement is extremely fascist and dangerous. It is even more dangerous than standard fascism because of its theological part. Obviously, as you said "they don't 'hate us for our freedom' or because 'we're a christian nation'", but islam plays a role as a tool of the state, an identity, a religion and a dogma. That's what makes islam more dangerous than most religions.

[@uncletom356]

David Wang Don’t waste your time on guys like Dilahunty. You don’t need them. Being an atheist isn’t a fringe “movement” anymore. I went to Catholic private schools my entire life, and no one cared that I’d sleep during mandatory mass. If it were 1920, I’d say you have a point. Why care so much? My mom believes in her heart of hearts that everything the Catholic Church teaches is true. Do I bother her? Of course not. Does she bother me? No. Our only enemies re: religion is right-winged evangelical theocrats. If Dilahunty is discussing that instead of just going through the Bible and finding its obvious flaws, then there’s value. I just think there’s better use of time. Especially since you seem sharp. But I’m sure as shit not gonna tell you what to watch and not. Take care.

[@henkthefrisian5257]

From what i gathered he had a lot of empathy for the kurds, and naturally absolutely abhorred the tyrannical Saddam dictatorship, as seen in his narration of Saddam's purge of the Ba'ath party. Which in part led to his support for the Iraq war imo.

[@uncletom356]

Henk the Frisian Right-wingers in this country have empathy for the Kurds too. It’s just, Trump is too stupid to understand how to treat them. That’s not saying much. Why is it our/his business to care about Saddam’s dictatorship? There were plenty of other dictators. How many were overthrown? Seems like we focus squarely on Middle Eastern countries who cannot defend themselves from a U.S. invasion, as we steal oil fields from them then proceed to use tax payer funded soldiers to guard the fields for private oil/gas companies. To back the Iraq invasion, there’s just no excuse. Hitch got it wrong. He was right on many issues. It’s that simple. Have you ever wondered why we’ve never gone to war with Iran? Would be much too expensive for the corporations who own this country. Has ZERO to do with tyranny. There are tyrants all over the world. And for all his terrible flaws and murders, Iraq was clearly in infinitely better shape under him than when we “took over.” Give me a break, man. Addendum: I’m not sure what you edited, as I’ve been replying to several commenters. If your comment is merely trying to explain HIS rationale, it’s pretty innocuous. The first time I read it, though, it seemed like you were advocating for the same.

[@jaelunar9791]

Is someone going to tell Matt there's a poltergeist going on in his house????

[@niksatan]

Ayn Rand

[@DMJ1978]

Where are all the libertarians during a pandemic?

[@alij7047]

Where they always are: doing isolation and social distancing in their mom's basement.

[@jpweezy1]

@@alij7047 I think you're describing the Marxists w/ liberal arts degrees (see video above)

[@icecreamjesse6549]

Reading books, learning things, and becoming socialists.

[@euanreid6682]

Twas sad he being swooned by the Empire and he died an Imperial apologist.

[@uncletom356]

I didn’t like what Hitch turned into post-9/11 hysteria. He was at his best before the attacks, simply by watching old videos like this one on KZbin. But “twas”..? Seriously? If you’re trying to bring “‘twas” back, have at it. Just a little taken aback. Also, for all his faults regarding Iraq and his fixation (possible bigotry) on Islam, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call Hitchens an imperialist apologist. Tis a bit of a reach, I’d posit.

[@trelkel3805]

No he just hated religion more than empire.

[@charliekowittmusic]

Like the rest of the neo cons, he was willing to ally himself with all kinds of nasties in order to feel the wrongs of 9/11 had been righted. He had been developing a strong sense of American Nationalism throughout the 90’s though, so 9/11 just sealed the deal, in my opinion.

[@euanreid6682]

From the Kissinger book to an absolute apologist for war crimes committed by Cheney and Bush... that was an epic fall from grace... the irony of him bemoaning religions his entire career only to become a staunch American Nationalist which is a religion onto itself.

[@lesspam6601]

@@euanreid6682 I've always sad Hitchens was a religious zealot. His religion was atheism.

[@deanrao4805]

I still like to listen to 1980's KZbin videos of Hitchens on CSPAN

[@danbrown5736]

Sam Harris fan boys: visible confusion 👎👀

[@uncletom356]

You’re telling me. Idk why I respond to Harris-ites on here, but their arguments are so dumb, I feel compelled. Was doing it for like an hour today. But had to stop before their moronic “arguments” gave me an aneurism. Stupid quarantine. As horrific as the virus is for our physical health, it’s taking its toll on our collective mental health, too, by relying mainly on technology/social media/TV to get through this.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

Why would they be confused?

[@uncletom356]

Purgatori Prytania Hitch is one of the “horsemen” or whatever their nickname was of atheism. Many of Harris fanboys idolize his “allies.” Yet, they can’t see the irony that fixating on one topic and idolizing one (or a select few) figure is pretty much the same as theocrats. For all of Hitch’s faults, Harris could never hold a candle to Hitchens. Not to mention, being an absolute douche and racist constantly on Rogan and Maher. Plus, publicizing private emails of himself and Chomsky because Chomsky didn’t feel like dealing with Harris’s BS. Total douchenozzle.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@@uncletom356 I can't tell if this is actually an answer to my question, or just a screed against Harris. For my part, I like both Hitchens and Harris, though I wouldn't go as far as 'idolising' either of them, given that I find plenty of things about both of them to be flawed/troubling. On a side note, on what grounds do you classify Harris as a racist? Is it just because he refuses to spare Islam and Muslims from the same intensity of critique that people happily (and justifiably) launch against Christianity and Christians all the time? Or, is he actually on record as affirming the inferiority/superiority of certain races above others?

[@uncletom356]

Purgatori Prytania A bit of both. Harris sucks. If you like him, I hope you’re still in school and evolving. He’s a scumbag. I don’t want to get into a Harris back-and-forth, so I’ll just leave it at that. I don’t respect trust fund babies who try to hide racism under the guise of faux “science.” Take care.

[@encephalophiliac]

Please please do a really in-depth podcast series on the Trot > neocon pipeline, starting with Hitchens. I've been waiting for the left to reckon with this guy's huge talent and crazy heel turn for like a decade.

[@Dhumm81]

It's necessary, but not very difficult, to understand why faux-cialist counter-revolutionaries, traitors, terrorists, opportunists, careerists, and otherwise self-serving psychopaths inspire more of the same. Hitchens, ironically, became more of a bona fide Trot after he began denying it.

[@SpiderWick12]

We love you, Michael Brooks.

[@chrisbennett606]

Sad again to hear about Michael brooks yesterday His voice and work was so important ,I really hope his work continues ,the world is a lesser place for his passing ,I really carnt believe it

[@bearclaw007]

That etymological explanation of economy and ecology and his interpretation of their interplay was fucking brilliant.

[@chrisbennett606]

So glad and greatfull to have come across Michael prescience through his shows on the Internet Just watching the brilliant work of Michael and finding out he's passed is truly bad You be truly missed rip

[@PurushaDesa]

I remember him, I think it was on one of his Washington Journal appearances, taking exception to being called a liberal since liberals were considered dangerous appeasers round his way. How right he was.

[@johnthepalm]

The downfall of Hitchens came about honestly if not predictably. He was maligned by the establishment left over Clinton, especially by the corporate class of feminists who booed him at his own book signing for calling Clinton a serial rapist (ironically he was the supporter of victims while Gloria Steinem wrote against the victims in the NYT). He was a supporter of the Kurdistani national movement when most journalists didn't know who they were and he thought the anti-war movement had no intelligent answer to defending them. He aligned himself with the Orwell style POUM fighters and drew a parallel to the fight against Hussein. Being aligned with the Bush administration began to strain his powers of reason. I think rock bottom came for him when he attempted to de-emphasize the responsibility of of Bush and co. for Abu Gharib, suggesting it was the opposite of a conspiracy, but merely a question of some low pornagraphic-like morality from low level soldiers. A truly sad ending to a brilliant career.

[@pascalswageslave979]

G L.C Mortality (2011)

[@grisflyt]

Hitchens' infatuation with the Kurds was like that of the conservatives and the Mujahideen. The Iraqi Kurdistan is the home of honor killings in Iraq. Hitchens' blind defense of the Kurds and things like Abu Ghraib was especially hard to swallow. He once wrote that what the Americans did at Abu Ghraib was an improvement to what Saddam had done. That made it OK. To me, Hitchens looked almost disillusioned. He heaped praise on military leaders, seemingly being the last heroes left for him to hold on to. Hitchens met with Wolfowitz and allegedly was surprised he was such a decent person. We ridicule Bush for doing the same with Putin. We all agree that Bush was either naive or simply ignorant. The latter meaning stupid. You don't learn anything about somebody from a single meeting. Chamberlain was the only European leader to meet with Hitler. That one meeting made him blind to all the things the other leaders knew and said about Hitler. Hitchens held on to the position that everything Bush and the neocons did was in good faith. Ulterior motives were out of the question. And we recently learned that the war in Afghanistan went wrong virtually on day one and they kept us misinformed ever since. The saddest part of all this is that we haven't learned a single thing from Afghanistan or Iraq. We have never learned anything from war and never will. Because war is always right. It's people who are wrong. Iraq failed because of our handling of the war. Next time we aren't going to make those mistakes. And it's going to be a marvelous war.

[@johnthepalm]

@@grisflyt Regardless of Hitchens being wrong about the Iraq war it's not unethical to defend a people's right to self-determination. Things like honour killings are common in many countries and it's a poor excuse for denying a people sovereignty or human rights.

[@johnthepalm]

In general people are very resentful of Hitchens' position on the war. He believed his position was ethical and he was wrong about the value of intervention, but he was not corrupt. The difference is significant.

[@grisflyt]

@@johnthepalm My point isn't that Hitchens supported honor killings, which he never did. But that he seemed to have a blind spot when it came to things he supported. The self-governed Iraqi Kurdistan has been hell for women there. I don't remember if I said it in my previous post, but I think that if you supported the war, you also had to be its fiercest critic. By that I mean things like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, as well as the Kurds he supported. That said, nobody is going to convince me that there's anything remotely ethical about the Iraq War. A decade of killing and maiming women and children is nothing short of evil by my standard. It wasn't just indifference from the likes of Bush and Hitchens, but the entire Western world. Assad had an open border policy toward Iraq to help as many refugees as he could. The West didn't do a thing, aside from complaining about refugees. A child could predict all of this, and we didn't even care.

[@neebomb2511]

Thanks for this. Hitchens' is such a tragic story. I didn't know about his mum and class origins. Makes sense.

[@Retrieverman1]

Hitchens's last words were "Capitalism...downfall." I think he returned to socialism in the end.

[@davidnorris166]

Source?

[@comradetj5149]

@@davidnorris166 Right-wing journalist Andrew Sullivan I believe

[@glouconx983]

WE as workers must set conditions of society, NOT capitalists. We, the 99%, must refuse to let capitalists set the conditions and practices of society. It's called making society it all its aspects work for the vast majority. We demand a broad social democracy that secures the basics needs of all and encourages human flourishing.

[@GlobeHackers]

I'm so happy you guys are talking about Hitchens. I grew up with that man. ;-) I enjoyed watching his views evolve over the years. An intellectual always develops in his or her thinking. Bless you, people, the geezer sitting here thinks he's found, new friends. Ain't that great? Well, the plumber who used to kick my backside in eight ball at the pub in SFCA was the greatest thinker and speaker I knew back then because we used to talk about people who wrote books and he knew these writers cover to cover. We watched people speak live, and poets read at the Spaghetti Factory. Well, KZbin is good for something. It's a pity I can't play eight balls with ya. ;-) I can't wait to see the all caps comment to this tiny little post.

[@glouconx983]

It's important to remember that most of the corporate leadership and most Republican leaders, including Trump, have read Ayn Rand and view her nonsense as a sacred text.

[@Willowdog08]

Gloucon X if you think they have actually read any of it, you don’t know the level of their ignorance.

[@Kloutkulture]

Trump didn’t, it’s above his reading level.

[@glouconx983]

I think I heard Trump say one of her books was his favorite. He might have paid someone to read it for him.

[@mini-t2348]

Gloucon x trump has never read a book let alone one written by rand

[@glouconx983]

Paul Ryan said he read her books. What makes you people think her novels require any kind of effort? They're teenage reading level.

[@uncletom356]

Put Krystal Ball in the middle and you have the *Brooks Bunch* (of Socialists).

[@rini6]

Uncle Tom Now I have the theme song in my head. 😂😂😂

[@zachflame123]

why is Michael the leader ?

[@calebh6115]

Idk about what the guy said at 6 mins lol. But I love you Michael! Rest in power

[@mattkenney77]

This was perfect. Also -- i'm going re-join the patreon soon

[@penguininasuit4451]

I always wondered if Hitchens was still alive today would he have been one of those IDW types? Would he be one who said the left is no longer the left I grew up in and he would identify as a classical liberal or even a centrist. Would he be like Sam Harris and go on the Rubin report and talk on and on about bad faith actors on the left? I always looked up to Hitchens and other secularist leftist figures but seeing how he became more conservative at the end of his life and how leftist figures like Sam Harris and bill Maher have fallen from their once beloved positions, I don’t have much hope that he would have been different.

[@barbarajohnson1442]

Good insight on Hitchens. Our beloved contrarian

[@drayewilson2]

joshua kahn russell is like a nice guy vincent gallo

[@patavinity1262]

Well to be fair, Karl Marx also said that colonialism was the best thing to happen to India.

[@sahelichowdhury]

He did not; he was not someone who used absolute terms like 'best', 'worst', etc. He even wrote about the wealth drain from India.

[@missyrogers7098]

Great topic, thanks

[@johnhart6920]

Why did it take Matt so long to fix his lights

[@sheriffroscod.collins3204]

John Hart, I thought he was trying to trigger a seizure.

[@zachflame123]

When Hitchens started writing for Vanity Fair, it was the beginning of the end. And he came to crave entry into the DC world

[@MattSingh1]

Babbling nonsense. Typical anti-Hitchens bullshit.

[@Muskieangler]

Vanity Fair wouldn't be kind to Hitchens today.

[@nabeelwork2747]

911 broke Hitchens he turned into a smiley neocon toad

[@rubblesr877]

Nabeel Work Christopher becoming the neocons apologist after 911 became the only dent in his stellar moral and intellectual record.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

"I'm a student of nature" LOL Brooks has the right take on this anti-progress narrative.

[@pascalswageslave979]

Uhh... realizing humans are but one species that needs to and does have traditions of using its intelligence to live in balance isn’t a fetish. Sorry.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@@pascalswageslave979 "Humans are but one species [among many]" - Trivially true. "Does have traditions of using intelligence" - using our intelligence isn't a 'tradition,' it's an adaptation. "to live in balance - What does this mean? If it means "not causing damaging/modifying the environment or wiping out other species" then this is never something that any human population has ever achieved.

[@theswoletariat3479]

this is the clip i included in my Steven pinker video!

[@xtralimit]

Bunch of nice guys, and you know what they say about nice guys

[@NeoRipshaft]

omfg I've not heard Hitch debate as a Marxist before, except in little exchanges. Gonna go listen to this immediately then finish vid lol

[@rc7625]

R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens

[@masonkerr8359]

Wow just when I thought I'd seen every Hitch video on the net

[@zachflame123]

funny to see Michael Brooks, who considers Zizek insightful, criticizing Hitchens for "going astray".

[@frenchfree]

The American people who even know who Hitchens is is less than 1%. A tragedy . His pivot from the early years to his appologies for the Iraq war was always intellectually devastating for me, because I believed in his truth. When I watched him debate Galloway I felt sad for Hitchens but George said it all and still keeps saying it. Hitchens memory is his ability to debate both sides. Private school education in the UK wasted. What do people think about his brother Peter and his stance on Brexit. Good speech at Keele university on German dominance.

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

Brexiters are terrorists and should be treated as such.

[@pascalswageslave979]

A passage in The Round House by Louise Erdrich pretty much blows The Return of the Primitive by Ayn Rand out of the water without specifically mentioning it by criticizing the Doctrine of Discovery because that was pretty much a predecessor of Rand’s ideology of “ justifiable”dispossession of those she deemed inferior. Wasteful , cut-down-all-the-redwoods capitalism is the real stupid and barbaric way to approach life.

[@simonmcnamee619]

'oikos' means 'house', not 'home'. Economy means 'household management'. It is Greek, ancient Greek, it has no resonance with ecology. The word 'ecology' was coined by a German zoologist in the 1800s. The '-logia' (-logy) means 'study of' not knowledge (its root is the Greek 'legein', meaning 'to speak').

[@blackedmirror5073]

One of the funniest authors ever.

[@LucreDenouncer]

KZbin lightmode DansGame

[@the1onlynoob]

I remember George Gelloway against Christopher's support on the Iraq invasion and he dropped this line: This is first time in history, folks, we are witness a butterfly metamorphosis back into a slug. Christopher's later years became a joke and an entertainment, by personal opinion, he ceased to be relevant in the real political discussion past 2010.

[@blueguitar4419]

I’m so glad he rejects standpoint epistemology and understands the universal functions of all societies

[@frasermartin4621]

David Runciman's review of Hitch 22 catches much of Hitch's personality and the directions his life took. I love his pre-GING output and I thought H22 was, taken in the round, a bloody good read. www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v32/n12/david-runciman/it-s-been-a-lot-of-fun

[@frasermartin4621]

And, yes, never underestimate the latent and innate power of class stratification in the UK. It is the crux of our culture.

[@j.6623]

So they really think everyone is going to just cooperate?

[@Tychoxi]

huh. ecology. economy. eco. never noticed that.

[@lotoreo]

9:45 Michael mentions a name I couldn't properly hear or google. Lynn Margolez? something like that. Does anyone know who he's talking about?

[@NOcap-Cassandra]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis?wprov=sfla1

[@lotoreo]

@@NOcap-Cassandra Thank you!!!

[@epitherex]

He reminds me of House in House MD

[@barbarajohnson1442]

Brian Eno is planning an exhibit of artists addressing future design of our relationship with the planet, I think called Back to Earth, see Diem25 interview with Varoufakis (?)

[@ornos3133]

It’s hard for me to picture hm as lefty for I was exposed mostly through all of his static neoconservative thought.

[@parkercushingable]

Same here, I heard he was a trotskyite and rejected that to become a free speech warrior.

[@pilates68]

Straight guys love Hitchens. The gay guy is like....eh. I think Hitch would have found Joshua Khan Russell insufferably annoying.

[@alexxa5584]

Ex-Troskyist to be specific.

[@birdworldist]

Hug

[@GlobeHackers]

It's no excuse but the booze; we lived in different times. We grew up with lushes.

[@seanmoran6510]

Was ? He never stopped being one. As was his right to be so.

[@Bolaniullen]

he had a boner for washington partially for class reasons but also for the american ideal, city on a hill that kind of stuff not just the nice dinner parties

[@jpfrssnv]

Objectivism is the result of the collision of reality with one's unrealistic ideals...nothing more

[@trelkel3805]

Think he was always a socialist/trotskyite it was just that he got caught up in debating religious types more and more as the years went on which i felt was a mistake.

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

Oh no, bored, rich, white men, smarty pants, capitalism is the crisis!!!

[@pascalswageslave979]

Red Alert by Dr. Dan Wildcat

[@joemurray4205]

Yada, yada,yada...

[@Bolaniullen]

Rand is abit low hanging, how about next episode you listen to Hitchens saying why he is no longer a socialist? Maybe come up with some counters why he is wrong and lost the plot etc

[@tib7777]

George Galloway's line about Hitchens de-evolving into a slug is amazing. I wish George didn't do the same :(

[@antivaushistscheaktion1148]

Y'all going to talk about competition versus mutual aid in ecology and not even mention Kropotkin?

[@zachflame123]

the real weirdness is the respect and admiration Brooks has for Zizek, the right-wing, incoherent poser

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

Brooks likes to pretend that he's brighter than he is, so he resorts to being pretentious.

[@zachflame123]

@@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter --- i agree with his general worldview and politics. I'm a Leftist, too

[@adrianobulla7875]

Socialism has to detach itself from materialism. Laicism is a necessity of a social structure that involves different views, but materialism cannot be a diktat. There is a huge gap at the moment within the socialist universe, and while most are coming to understand that spirituality in itself is not a challenge to socialism (on the contrary), there are still those that take Marx and the tradition that follows it uncritically, and on this point, they make a colossal mistake. They confuse the institution of religion with the personal spiritual dimension and conflate the two. I am not asking for anyone to be spiritual, but this is a big discussion socialism needs to have. As, especially in Europe, the socialist establishment (as we do have one, actually the biggest in any big Democracy in the world) needs to reimburse alternative views, and open to "conspiracy theorists" (at least listen and not tag them as flat earth drunkards). Maybe in the U.S. the picture of European socialism is not too clear. But in many countries (Italy for example) the would be socialist party (now in power) is not opening even to discussions on 9/11 etc... Socialism does not need either attitudes, this is a deamon of socialism (in the literal sense) or of some of its ideologists. We have, and actually the party I am talking about is the heir of the biggest communist party in the west (it did do the biggest self-critique in modern history, with the biggest participation I a democratic debate possibly in recorded history), I was saying, we have seen some issues and corrected them, but the idea that the socialist ideology depends on martial ism is wrong. It depends on a universal value, put simply Justice. EDIT: as I see this post has received responses that do not distinguish, I am talking about materialism in its pure and ideological sense (the belief that nothing outside matter and it's processes exists) and not historical materialism (the belief that socko-economic situations cause change and new ideas), and how the former has become (and History proves it) a mainstream (and let me tell you at times intransigent) position among many socialists (especially in the early stages, in Europe we have mostly gone past it) on the back of the latter. And I am not saying that the first is not a valid position, but that it should accept a dialogue with the other position, and to do so, we need to understand that ideological materialism is NOT a conditio sine qua non of socialism, but a later acquisition.

[@glouconx983]

Take away any animal's material wellbeing and security and the result is not pretty. A certain spiritual leader said: give us this day our daily bread. Spiritual degradation follows material degradation.

[@adrianobulla7875]

tiglath pileser I am actually a an anarco-ecososiclaist and I have been since before the U.S. actually knew anything about socialism, dear.... I am actually speaking from the LEFT OF THE LEFT OF THE LEFT OF THE LEFT of socialism. And you should: First don't you swear, swearing does not make you right and does not actually look well on other people who share your ideas. Especially without even understanding what the person is saying and not knowing the person. Respect is at the core of socialism and you are not showing it here. Second, I am sorry but you are wrong on many levels. Maybe you do not understand that there is a large sector (huge) of socialists and anarchists with a spiritual belief. Third, I am making an IMPORTANT point which you do not even understand. Fourth, the socialist party is the second biggest party in Europe and together with two other parties on the left, it is in government. As is the former Communist Party in Italy, as the socialist party is in government in Spain and many other countries in Europe. And, will I add, Europe has many socialistic countries. Read the Italian Constitution and you will notice great socialist principles (by the way it was also and in key parts written by the communist party, actually by a woman I had the HONOUR to vote possibly even before you were born). You tell me what materialism is, and then I will reveal to you that I was Professor of Philosophy in London and even have published a book hefty on socialism. Ok... Calm yourself down. You do not seem to understand what materialism is because you confuse it with historical materialism.

[@adrianobulla7875]

Gloucon X No one here is actually suggesting we should give up on "wealth". But these comments prove a point. People don't even distinguish between spirituality and religion (in particular the other guy, not referring to you) and while there are clear distinctions between socialists (there is even Christian socialism, for example,mans we have, in Italy even whole "protostates" that are spiritual socialist communities). Materialism though, as an ideology is the belief that only the physical world exists. There are two issues here: lost of Marxism and the tradition following Marx (that was challenged by Italian Communists back in the day, I am talking about Margherita Hack) make two mistakes, and these are not even due to correct ideological reasons, but to historical reasons and, once again, a confusion between religion and spirituality. The second point is that basing socialism on materialism (and it actually isn't) and I am not talking about historical materialism, even that can be discussed anyway... I was saying, doing so (and actually materialism is taken as a "necessary tenet" from some socialists, but in historical reasons, not ideological ones) actually stops the discourse between different positions in socialism. Socialism has to be founded on Justice, as I said, which of course cannot exist without social justice, and Justice is not a materialist "point" but a universal value. If socialists don't get together to smooth out this question, socialism will never reach its full potential. I know that from the U.S. saying spirituality may look like Bible bashing, but they really are two completely different things. And here in Europe it is a bit clearer not only, because Europe has a long experience of socialism, it has also developed many, many different strands, and certainly a large part (maybe even the majority but this is not the point) of European socialists have a spiritual belief (mostly out of any canonical religion or along the lines of Buddhism etc) What we are experiencing in some European countries is the convergence of Christian values (not the institution of the Church, even if Pope Francis makes a lot of scotia list statements), but the VALUES with socialism. And I am talking about the real values: share, love thy neighbour, do not judge.... I actually find it quite prejudiced of some people (not talking about you) that when socialist with a different experience from the canonical mainstream who still seem to pursue not laicise but state atheism speak there is a closure of doors (PS one of the most staunch movements on that line, of the neomarxist school, is actually full of extreme right wing infiltrates and even CIA members, and never fails to attack the left when the right most needs a little divisive help). Never mind, a bit of a stream of consciousness. Here I see many people in the US turning to socialism, I am overjoyed with it, but this is a topic that socialism needs to discuss. In all civility and without dogmatism. We have had socialism in different forms for, well, depending on what level... More than 100 years in Europe... Now the point is that there have been mistakes in Europe but mostly they are sorted on this side (the staunch state atheists are a small minority), we would not like (as I have noticed in a comment just above yours) a similar problem as that which took decades to solve in Europe to arise in the U.S., also because you have the very same old fashioned religiosity we had (still have to some extent) here. The distinction needs to be clear: spirituality is a personal experience, it is not institutionalised religion. And if you read the comment above you, you will see for sure a reaction like: someone mentions a spiritual experience, he must be a Bible brasher... Seen the response, I was told to F off, the person did not even look at what I said, I never even mentioned where I stand on that divide... Just mentioning it is met with prejudice. On the other hand, we had in Milan the one that was meant to be Pope instead of Ratzinger, Maria Martini, who campaigned for socialist even massive squats (the biggest in Italy) and... He even saw Jesus as a socialist... That opened the Christians to a different vision of THEIR faith, but also brought back that idea of Jesus Christ Superstar (if I can say so) as a nomadic communitarian hippy who preached equality for all. You see the convergence across divides? Do I care if someone is a Christian? No. I care if someone is a Christian OR an atheist but does not respect others, does not want equality, does not want to challenge the monster that is capitalism etc...

[@uncletom356]

Adriano Bulla Christ almighty. I’ve been known to write novellas in comment sections, but you take it to a new level. You’re not nearly as smart as you’re attempting. Just write what you’re trying to get across because you’re all over the place. I’ve spoken and written to Noam Chomsky many times. Obviously, one of the most intelligent and respected linguists, philosophers and writers in the last couple hundred years. He’s been known to be a tad dull during speeches and dry in our exchanges. Even still, his writings are infinitely more interesting than whatever you’re trying to accomplish or get across.

[@missburn]

"Open to conspiracy theorists". But why? You don't explain yourself well at all, just repeat religious vs spirituality. What does that have to do with religion?

[@MartinJames389]

Try Peter Hitchens!

[@jpweezy1]

Nice how we found 4 guys who don't have jobs / pay taxes to ponder about economic theory. Watch the Peterson video on how "Communism hasn't been done right yet"

[@willshogren1987]

No one is going to do that because Peterson is a thoroughly unserious and uninteresting character.

[@WanderingIdiot81]

Didn't watch the video. Who is Christopher Hitchens and why should I care?

[@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter]

You're a fucking moron.

[@Plant-Free_RN]

We need more Jimmy Dores. Speak to the hurt your viewers are experiencing ad nauseum ( as they lose jobs, homes, and an entire way of life) by speaking truth to power. You guys seem so out of touch. I JUST UNSUBSCRIBED

[@Willowdog08]

Amber Mitchell hilarious!

[@Philbert-s2c]

@@lisaw150 It's a troll...ignore.

[@missburn]

"An entire way of life". Aha.

[@neskmadran570]

Credit where it is due, even at his worst, you could be sure that he was sincere&had integrity. Unfortunatly, road to hell is paved with... you know. Still, I admire him. He was more than a neocon. He was a science enthusiast, a charismatic ex-leftist with good arguments. A strong figure against despotism.

[@uncletom356]

Of all the people to get swept up in the 9/11 hysteria/propaganda, I’m still floored Hitch was on board for the Illegal Invasion Into Iraq. Yes, he was sincere, but just befuddling. Especially since he was so outspoken regarding W. era torture. He always mentioned being in NYC and said action needed to be taken against “religious extremists.” Now, I think most rational leftists are atheists, but Hitch was so fixated, it clearly clouded his judgment. Kicking a theocrat evangelical in a debate is nice, however, there really isn’t much to gain from it. Of the outspoken atheists, he was clearly the best, but he used that as a justification to support the war. In his head, Islam = Immorality, so he just wasn’t able to see straight. Unfortunate, to say the least, as he was great in his “prime.”

[@rc7625]

@tiglath pileser Go back to further shitting your diaper, tankie toddler.

[@uncletom356]

Atheos B. Sapien And the Bible advocates slavery. You have to realize all these books are simply stories written by average people of the day. The next time your Uber driver is from a majority Muslim country, ask how many times he’s blown up buildings. I’ve gone to mosques out of curiosity. An imam talked to me and let me observe a service. It was just as peaceful and loving as my Catholic upbringing. Maybe more, as they don’t try to start an entire movement to elect radical Republicans because they cry every time an abortion happens. White male Christians, by far, commit the most terror in the U.S. Guess that makes Christianity a violent religion. Read a book. Your farcical arguments fall apart quite easily. Think of any terrorist group as a massive onion. Peel back every layer until the last one. Inevitably, you’ll find 99% of the time, it starts out by American and/or British imperialism, usually there to steal their natural resources. When a country systemically kills your family, I imagine you’d be mad too. Are they overly religious? Maybe. However, without religion, they’d be just as mad and wanting revenge. The religion just gives them affirmation. It’s the exact same rational extremists in the U.S. use when they carry out mass shootings or bombings. Though, we are more secular. Albeit, last time I checked, if a country has nothing to do with a massive terror attack (9/11) and we invade and kill millions of their citizens, I’d consider the U.S. the terrorists. But keep living in your bubble. You seem safe there to never question your primal thoughts. You’re simply trying to advocate bigotry by using arguments from known liberal racists like Maher. Am I saying every terrorist is an angel at heart? Fuck no. Some are just demented assholes. But to think a religion of 1.6 billion are all inherently violent due to how they practice their beliefs, that’s the definition of bigotry. Lastly, Christians ignore the most horrific parts of the Bible and try to harp on the loving parts. I know a very large population of Muslims, and that’s pretty much how they view the Quran. Here’s a pat on the back, though, for listening to it. How enlightening.

[@uncletom356]

tiglath pileser It’s so cute how you guys never have any rhetoric or logical comebacks. You just say “libtard” and move on. Not only is this channel full of socialists (I.e., not liberals), you couldn’t put together two coherent sentences as to why you hate “the libs.” Keep advocating for policies that screw you over financially and compromise any moral judgements you may have - as all Republican actions are horrific. That is, if you had any moral/empathetic characteristics before you outsourced your brain to propagandists who make millions and billions of dollars off your incompetence and stupidity.