Hitchens on freedom of speech

[Publius]

Or why Christopher Hitchens is smarter than you, and a better 'Leftist', and why it makes you angry.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4lBw99RbEyA

From about 15:00 on he fucking kills it.

[black magick hustla]

hitchens is a neoconservative

[KC]

Get a text version. I'm not going to watch some stupid video.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

He simply uses his accent to make American's think he's smart.

Hitchens uses random Latin, and massive cherry picking of history.

And, i think most leftists favour freedom of speech.

Also, why does he call gay people "fags" all the time??

British people don't really use it often as a derogatory remark for gay people, so i suspect he's just using it to be controversial or something...who knows.

ah and ....stay cool.......LOL

[IcarusAngel]

Christopher Hitchens is a fat old drunk, completely unoriginal and uninspiring. He supports one of the dumbest moves in the history of western civilization, and has "allied" himself with the "neo-cons," who are hitler crazy. You know, there's imperialism to benefit a country (most of US's history), and then there is imperialism that actually is not only harmful to the victim countries, but even the "big boy" as well. And the war in Iraq fits into that category.

I think Hitchens isn't even serious sometimes, he's just pandering to the right-wing in order to make more booze money from publishes and the media.

Here is a *real* outlook on freedom of speech, by a *real* intellectual:


Some Elementary Comments on
The Rights of Freedom of Expression
Noam Chomsky
Appeared as an avis to Faurisson's Memoire en defense

The remarks that follow are sufficiently banal so that I feel that an apology is in order to reasonable people who may happen to read them. If there is, nevertheless, good reason to put them on paper -- and I fear that there is -- this testifies to some remarkable features of contemporary French intellectual culture.

Before I turn to the subject on which I have been asked to comment, two clarifications are necessary. The remarks that follow are limited in two crucial respects. First: I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs. I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge. Second: I will have some harsh (but merited) things to say about certain segments of the French intelligentsia, who have demonstrated that they have not the slightest concern for fact or reason, as I have learned from unpleasant personal experience that I will not review here. Certainly, what I say does not apply to many others, who maintain a firm commitment to intellectual integrity. This is not the place for a detailed account. The tendencies to which I refer are, I believe, sufficiently significant to merit attention and concern, but I would not want these comments to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope.

Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson's "freedom of speech and expression." The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to "do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson's] safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." I signed it without hesitation.

The fact that I had signed the petition aroused a storm of protest in France. In the Nouvel Observateur, an ex-Stalinist who has changed allegiance but not intellectual style published a grossly falsified version of the contents of the petition, amidst a stream of falsehoods that merit no comment. This, however, I have come to regard as normal. I was considerably more surprised to read in Esprit (September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition "scandaleuse," citing specifically that fact that I had signed it (I omit the discussion of an accompanying article by the editor that again merits no comment, at least among people who retain a commitment to elementary values of truth and honesty).

Vidal-Naquet offers exactly one reason for finding the petition, and my act of signing it, "scandaleuse": the petition, he claims, presented Faurisson's " 'conclusions' comme si elles etaient effectivement des decouvertes [as if they had just been discovered]." Vidal-Naquet's statement is false. The petition simply stated that Faurisson had presented his "finding," which is uncontroversial, stating or implying precisely nothing about their value and implying nothing about their validity. Perhaps Vidal-Naquet was misled by faulty understanding of the English wording of the petition; that is, perhaps he misunderstood the English word "findings." It is, of course, obvious that if I say that someone presented his "findings" I imply nothing whatsoever about their character or validity; the statement is perfectly neutral in this respect. I assume that it was indeed a simple misunderstanding of the text that led Vidal-Naquet to write what he did, in which case he will, of course, publicly withdraw that accusation that I (among others) have done something "scandaleuse" in signing an innocuous civil rights petition of the sort that all of us sign frequently.

I do not want to discuss individuals. Suppose, then, that some person does indeed find the petition "scandaleuse," not on the basis of misreading, but because of what it actually says. Let us suppose that this person finds Faurisson's ideas offensive, even horrendous, and finds his scholarship to be a scandal. Let us suppose further that he is correct in these conclusions -- whether he is or not is plainly irrelevant in this context. Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was "scandaleuse" because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.

For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions -- indeed, gone to far greater lengths -- on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson's civil rights, and for exactly the same reason. I do not read the Communist Party press, but I have little doubt that the commissars and apparatchiks have carefully perused these petitions, seeking out phrases that could be maliciously misinterpreted, in an effort to discredit these efforts to prevent the suppression of human rights. In comparison, when I state that irrespective of his views, Faurisson's civil rights should be guaranteed, this is taken to be "scandaleuse" and a great fuss is made about it in France. The reason for the distinction seems obvious enough. In the case of the Russian dissidents, the state (our states) approves of supporting them, for its own reasons, which have little to do with concern for human rights, needless to say. In the case of Faurisson, however, defense of his civil rights is not officially approved doctrine -- far from it -- so that segments of the intelligentsia, who are ever eager to line up and march off to the beat of the drums, do not perceive any need to take the stance accepted without question in the case of Soviet dissidents. In France, there may well be other factors: perhaps a lingering guilt about disgraceful behavior of substantial sectors under Vichy, the failure to protest the French wars in Indochina, that lasting impact of Stalinism and more generally Leninist doctrines, the bizarre and dadaistic character of certain streams of intellectual life in postwar France which makes rational discourse appear to be such an odd and unintelligible pastime, the currents of anti-Semitism that have exploded into violence.

A second comparison also comes to mind. I rarely have much good to say about the mainstream intelligentsia in the United States, who generally resemble their counterparts elsewhere. Still, it is very illuminating to compare the reaction to the Faurisson affair in France and to the same phenomenon here. In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack levelled against Faurisson. When the "no holocaust" historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois -- obviously, pure provocation -- the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated). As far as I am aware, much the same is true in England or Australia, countries which, like the United States, have a live civil libertarian tradition. Butz and the rest are sharply criticized and condemned, but without any attack on their civil rights, to my knowledge. There is no need, in these countries, for an innocuous petition such as the one that is found "scandaleuse" in France, and if there were such a petition, it would surely not be attacked outside of limited and insignificant circles. The comparison is, again, illuminating. One should try to understand it. One might argue, perhaps, that Nazism and anti-Semitism are much more threatening in France. I think that this is true, but it is simply a reflection of the same factors that led to the Leninism of substantial sectors of the French intelligentsia for a long period, their contempt for elementary civil libertarian principles today, and their current fanaticism in beating the drums for crusades against the Third World. There are, in short, deep-seated totalitarian strains that emerge in various guises, a matter well worth further consideration, I believe.

Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the public record to support such charges. I will not pursue the exercise, but suppose we were to apply similar standards to others, asking, for example, what their attitude was towards the French war in Indochina, or to Stalinism, decades ago. Perhaps no more need be said.


Cambridge, Massachusetts
October 11, 1980


Source (http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c12-s20.html)


The struggle for freedom of speech is an interesting case, and a crucial one, since it lies at the heart of a whole array of freedoms and rights. A central question of the modern era is when, if ever, the state may act to interdict the content of communications. As noted earlier, even those regarded as leading libertarians have adopted restrictive and qualified views on this matter.88 One critical element is seditious libel, the idea that the state can be criminally assaulted by speech, "the hallmark of closed societies throughout the world," legal historian Harry Kalven observes. A society that tolerates laws against seditious libel is not free, whatever its other virtues. In late 17th century England, men were castrated, disemboweled, quartered and beheaded for the crime. Through the 18th century, there was a general consensus that established authority could be maintained only by silencing subversive discussion, and "any threat, whether real or imagined, to the good reputation of the government" must be barred by force (Leonard Levy). "Private men are not judges of their superiors... [for] This wou'd confound all government," one editor wrote. Truth was no defense: true charges are even more criminal than false ones, because they tend even more to bring authority into disrepute.89

Treatment of dissident opinion, incidentally, follows a similar model in our more libertarian era. False and ridiculous charges are no real problem; it is the unconscionable critics who reveal unwanted truths from whom society must be protected.

The doctrine of seditious libel was also upheld in the American colonies. The intolerance of dissent during the revolutionary period is notorious. The leading American libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, agreed that punishment was proper for "a traitor in thought, but not in deed," and authorized internment of political suspects. He and the other Founders agreed that "traitorous or disrespectful words" against the authority of the national state or any of its component states was criminal. "During the Revolution," Leonard Levy observes, "Jefferson, like Washington, the Adamses, and Paine, believed that there could be no toleration for serious differences of political opinion on the issue of independence, no acceptable alternative to complete submission to the patriot cause. Everywhere there was unlimited liberty to praise it, none to criticize it." At the outset of the Revolution, the Continental Congress urged the states to enact legislation to prevent the people from being "deceived and drawn into erroneous opinion." It was not until the Jeffersonians were themselves subjected to repressive measures in the late 1790s that they developed a body of more libertarian thought for self-protection -- reversing course, however, when they gained power themselves.90

Until World War I, there was only a slender basis for freedom of speech in the United States, and it was not until 1964 that the law of seditious libel was struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court finally protected speech apart from "incitement to imminent lawless action." Two centuries after the revolution, the Court at last adopted the position that had been advocated in 1776 by Jeremy Bentham, who argued that a free goverment must permit "malcontents" to "communicate their sentiments, concert their plans, and practice every mode of opposition short of actual revolt, before the executive power can be legally justified in disturbing them." The 1969 Supreme Court decision formulated a libertarian standard which, I believe, is unique in the world. In Canada, for example, people are still imprisoned for promulgating "false news," recognized as a crime in 1275 to protect the King.91

In Europe, the situation is still more primitive. France is a striking case, because of the dramatic contrast between the self-congratulatory rhetoric and repressive practice so common as to pass unnoticed. England has only limited protection for freedom of speech, and even tolerates such a disgrace as a law of blasphemy. The reaction to the Salman Rushdie affair, most dramatically on the part of self-styled "conservatives," was particularly noteworthy. Rushdie was charged with seditious libel and blasphemy in the courts, but the High Court ruled that the law of blasphemy extended only to Christianity, not Islam, and that only verbal attack "against Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Government or some other institution of the state" counts as seditious libel. Thus the Court upheld a fundamental doctrine of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Stalin, Goebbels, and other opponents of freedom, while recognizing that English law protects only domestic power from criticism. Doubtless many would agree with Conor Cruise O'Brien, who, when Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in Ireland, amended the Broadcasting Authority Act to permit the Authority to refuse to broadcast any matter that, in the judgment of the minister, "would tend to undermine the authority of the state."92

We should also bear in mind that the right to freedom of speech in the United States was not established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but only through dedicated efforts over a long period by the labor movement, the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s, and other popular forces. James Madison pointed out that a "parchment barrier" will never suffice to prevent tyranny. Rights are not established by words, but won and sustained by struggle.

It is also worth recalling that victories for freedom of speech are often won in defense of the most depraved and horrendous views. The 1969 Supreme Court decision was in defense of the Ku Klux Klan from prosecution after a meeting with hooded figures, guns, and a burning cross, calling for "burying the nigger" and "sending the Jews back to Israel." With regard to freedom of expression there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it in favor of Stalinist/Fascist standards.93


Determing Democracy, pages 398-401. Available online for free here (http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c12-s19.html), and part two (http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c12-s20.html). Excellent book, well above Hitchens' level.


Also check out Free Speech in a Democracy (http://www.chomsky.info/letters/198509--.htm), and his essay "Language and Freedom," most likely available on JSTOR or online, somewhere.

[Publius]

hitchens is a neoconservative

Maybe. But he still refers to himself as a socialist.

[Publius]

He simply uses his accent to make American's think he's smart.

You're implying that he isn't intelligent?

:lol:

Presumably he was just as unintelligent when he wrote for Socialist papers and the Nation?



Hitchens uses random Latin, and massive cherry picking of history.

:rolleyes:



And, i think most leftists favour freedom of speech.


You'd have thought so, wouldn't you?



Also, why does he call gay people "fags" all the time??


Because he's a homophobe.

Can you really not figure it out?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:21 am


It's really very funny bringing up Hitchens in circles like this -- I of course do it on purpose -- because he's a person of essentially unassailable leftist credentials, except for one thing, the Iraq war.

Now I think he's just as wrong about Iraq as you do, but that doesn't make him unintelligent, or anything of the sort, just mistaken. It's almost like some people have an inability to differentiate ideas from people.



Christopher Hitchens is a fat old drunk, completely unoriginal and uninspiring.

Unoriginal? What Hitchens have you read?

Tell me, who was the person who outed Mother Theresa? Who fist brought to press Clinton's numerous follies? I believe it was Hitchens who first publicized the Clintonian terrorist act of bombing the Sudanese drug factory, for instance. I mean, you need only look at his literary criticism to see that he isn't 'unoriginal'.



He supports one of the dumbest moves in the history of western civilization, and has "allied" himself with the "neo-cons," who are hitler crazy. You know, there's imperialism to benefit a country (most of US's history), and then there is imperialism that actually is not only harmful to the victim countries, but even the "big boy" as well. And the war in Iraq fits into that category.

Oh, I agree with all of this.

But that doesn't make Hitchens wrong on other issues, say this one. It's really quite petulant the way you people fail to separate ideas from people, or even ideas from other ideas. It's really the saddest kind of groupthink that causes you to spit pure vitriol at a person who's been perhaps the greatest proprietor of Leftist values in the last 20 years.

I mean, it's clear most Leftists have no idea of any of the man's scholarship or credentials. See, I can disagree with Hitchens on the war (and I do), but I can at least understand where he's coming from. You have to understand his position of solidarity with the Kurds, and his relationship to Salman Rushdie to understand what he means in supporting the war. Again, this doesn't make it right, but it clearly shows that Hitchens THINKS he's defending enlightenment values from Islamic terror. Now he may be dearly mistaken there, as he is, but he's certainly not evil for having a different opinion.

It's really quite funny that a bunch of ignorant character assassins who probably couldn't pick the man out of a line-up think to call him a criminal or a 'conservative'. I don't know if it speaks more to your ignorance or lack of character.

[Invader Zim]

The most commendable action of George Galloway was to call Hitchens a slug.

[Publius]

The most commendable action of George Galloway was to call Hitchens a slug.

That doesn't say much for George Galloway, does it?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You're implying that he isn't intelligent?

laugh.gif

Presumably he was just as unintelligent when he wrote for Socialist papers and the Nation?


well, i imagine so. And im not saying he is not intelligent, but our news readers talk like Hitchens so he doesn't sound too special.

Whereas his popularity in America is partly because he is British, he literally holds no chops over here.



You'd have thought so, wouldn't you?

Err? don't we? :unsure:





Because he's a homophobe.

Can you really not figure it out?

well yes, hes doing the thing loads of posh little public school boys do. Pretending he's comfortable being "outrageous".

Or maybe he's just trying to get a rap for being controversial, and that means more money.




Maybe. But he still refers to himself as a socialist.

Not since 1989....

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:53 am







well, i imagine so. And im not saying he is not intelligent, but our news readers talk like Hitchens so he doesn't sound too special.

Whereas his popularity in America is partly because he is British, he literally holds no chops over here.

Well, even I must admit I'm envious of the accent.



Err? don't we? :unsure:

I'm just recalling my debate with the erstwhile leftist whose name I forget. He said it would be policy to restrict freedom of speech of the bourgeois and even send them to 'camps' (his word.)

So I don't know how representative of the left he really is, but I have my ideas.



well yes, hes doing the thing loads of posh little public school boys do. Pretending he's comfortable being "outrageous".

Or maybe he's just trying to get a rap for being controversial, and that means more money.

He's doing it in mock-imitation of Jerry Falwell and the 'God hates fags' crowd. Imagine, if you like, 'air quotes' around the word, in order to attribute it to another speaker.



Not since 1989....

Oh, I very much doubt that.

I've read recent interviews where he's pressed on what to call himself, conservative for example. He always shoots that down and then says he doesn't like labels, but if pressed he'll call himself a socialist, more based on his attitude than his actual policy, perhaps.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Publius+March 26, 2007 07:16 pm--> (Publius @ March 26, 2007 07:16 pm)It's really very funny bringing up Hitchens in circles like this -- I of course do it on purpose -- because he's a person of essentially unassailable leftist credentials, except for one thing, the Iraq war.
[/b]

Those of us who are not Stalinists, Trotskyists or any of the Russian variants of Marxism (imo, perversions of real Marxist theory) are able to disagree with him without being hypocritical, in much the same way a capitalist of the Smith-von mises-hoppe libertarian line of thinking is free to distance themslves from fascists. War, and property, are also two defining characteristics of the left-right line, with the left generally being "anti-war" in most cases. This is evident by the fact Hitchens opposed the original Gulf War and believed the US "tricked" saddam into the war (which is somewhat true, actually Saddam misunderstood US orders about the Kuwaiti border), but now says he would have supported removing Saddam. Hitchens simply fails to make not only a rational argument for the war from a leftist stance, but any kind of rational argument for the war at all.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:16 pm
Now I think he's just as wrong about Iraq as you do, but that doesn't make him unintelligent, or anything of the sort, just mistaken.

I didn't say he was unintelligent. I said he was a fat drunk (true, he admits it himself) who is looking for more booze money (may or may not be true, we don't know).


[email protected] 26, 2007 07:16 pm
It's almost like some people have an inability to differentiate ideas from people.

People generally don't want to "waste time" with autors and writers who are outside of their ideology or who disagree with their most passionately held belifs. So they see it more as coming from an opposing ideology, be it a person or a published paper from the Heritage Foundation. But most people do this.

Not me though, I prefer to read a wide range authors and intellectuals, esp. on fundamental questions such as "property" etc. It's interesting to see the varying opinions.


Unoriginal? What Hitchens have you read?

Tell me, who was the person who outed Mother Theresa? Who fist brought to press Clinton's numerous follies? I believe it was Hitchens who first publicized the Clintonian terrorist act of bombing the Sudanese drug factory, for instance. I mean, you need only look at his literary criticism to see that he isn't 'unoriginal'.


I've read a great deal of his opinions on Henry Kissenger and some of his essays. Never really been much of a fan, though I agree with his opinion. Just because I don't like somebody as an author doesn't mean I've never read them.

As for originality, if you replease "David Irving" with "Robert Faurisson" in part of Hitchens rhetoric, it sounds an awful lot like what Chomsky had said about the Faurisson affair. Hitchens does take it furter though and says that some "grain of truth" might be in there words and that he "learned a lot" from reading their literature. It's interesting that conservatives don't say anything about their partial ally, but Chomsky is attacked when he actually _distanced_ himself from Faurisson, who was far less extreme.

Shows what hypocrites the right-wing is, and proves my theory about they'll attack somebody for supporting a free-ideology.

Anyway, Chomsky also was writing about the bombing of the factor in Sudan in the 1990s and Hitchens was most likely influenced by it, and has said himself he was influenced by Chomsky's writing on Israel and East Timor as well (in a FPM interview).


Oh, I agree with all of this.

But that doesn't make Hitchens wrong on other issues, say this one.

Well, Hitchens is wrong to some degree.

He cites Paine, and some other founding fathers of America and claims they're the examples of people who believed in the right of everybody to speak to be heard and the right of the audience to listen blah blah blah..., but, as Chomsky correctly points out, they actually opposed speech for those disaffected with the revolution. And the founders were very careful about protecting the right only to "peacefully" assemble. In any case, it's obvious the founders didn't support the right of everybody to speak freely, i.e. blacks, they weren't truly human according to the founders, and when you say that you're not exactly supporting the right of _everybody_.

So the "scholar" made a historical error. I actually agreed more with the first 15 mintues than the last as well, where he starts talking about the worst thing in the world being Islam, when in all likelyhood the US (christian nations) has milled more people, etc. I won't go into the fact that the US wasn't exactly an "innocent victim" on 9-11, and that far more democratic nations aren't as hated as the US is in the Shia crescent of the world.

But Hitchens makes his viewpoints first, makes a few snide remarks, and then has some loose historical example. This is in contrast to chomsky, who takes the more scientific approach, as he gives you the evidence first and then comes to the conclusion: "Rights are not established by words, but won and sustained by struggle. " Well put.

Finally, I very much agree that religion is responsible for a great deal of the world's problems and should probably go. But I prefer Dawkins books and analysis more so than Hitchens.


You have to understand his position of solidarity with the Kurds, and his relationship to Salman Rushdie to understand what he means in supporting the war. Again, this doesn't make it right, but it clearly shows that Hitchens THINKS he's defending enlightenment values from Islamic terror. Now he may be dearly mistaken there, as he is, but he's certainly not evil for having a different opinion.


Then what does Hitchens think about Bush paying off Turkey as an "ally" when they had a war on the Kurds that was similar to Saddam Hussein's, but it wasn't talked about as much in the media?

That's a serious question, I really don't know, but it seems hypocritical. Lots of countries in this world are mean to minorities but a war really doesn't help, and it seems the war in Iraq has increased terrorism.

Of course, here it should be noted that the anti-Saddam, pro-freedom Iraqis, who don't get much coverage in the media, have NEVER supported a war against Iraq.

So that's just more Hitchens' BS.

[Publius]

Those of us who are not Stalinists, Trotskyists or any of the Russian variants of Marxism (imo, perversions of real Marxist theory) are able to disagree with him without being hypocritical, in much the same way a capitalist of the Smith-von mises-hoppe libertarian line of thinking is free to distance themslves from fascists.

Interesting you should bring that up. Hoppe seems to me to be a staunch advocate of something that's at least vaguely fascistic, a certain rule by society's 'betters' and a lack of democratic control.

But you're right on the main.



War, and property, are also two defining characteristics of the left-right line, with the left generally being "anti-war" in most cases. This is evident by the fact Hitchens opposed the original Gulf War and believed the US "tricked" saddam into the war (which is somewhat true, actually Saddam misunderstood US orders about the Kuwaiti border), but now says he would have supported removing Saddam. Hitchens simply fails to make not only a rational argument for the war from a leftist stance, but any kind of rational argument for the war at all.

He makes a rational argument. Maybe not a good one, but a rational one.



I didn't say he was unintelligent. I said he was a fat drunk (true, he admits it himself) who is looking for more booze money (may or may not be true, we don't know).

I doubt he needs the money. And I would say his tolerance prevents from getting too drunk most of the time.



People generally don't want to "waste time" with autors and writers who are outside of their ideology or who disagree with their most passionately held belifs. So they see it more as coming from an opposing ideology, be it a person or a published paper from the Heritage Foundation. But most people do this.

Not me though, I prefer to read a wide range authors and intellectuals, esp. on fundamental questions such as "property" etc. It's interesting to see the varying opinions.


I actually came close to picking up 'A Patriot's History of the United States' to complement Zinn's book. It'd certainly be an interesting contrast.



I've read a great deal of his opinions on Henry Kissenger and some of his essays. Never really been much of a fan, though I agree with his opinion. Just because I don't like somebody as an author doesn't mean I've never read them.

I thought his Kissinger book was kind of weak, overall. I agree with the premise, but it seems like the evidence doesn't always live up to the claims.



As for originality, if you replease "David Irving" with "Robert Faurisson" in part of Hitchens rhetoric, it sounds an awful lot like what Chomsky had said about the Faurisson affair. Hitchens does take it furter though and says that some "grain of truth" might be in there words and that he "learned a lot" from reading their literature. It's interesting that conservatives don't say anything about their partial ally, but Chomsky is attacked when he actually _distanced_ himself from Faurisson, who was far less extreme.

Well, to be fair, Hitchens has come out against Irving personally (he wrote an essay disparaging his character but supporting his right to free speech), and Irving himself, you may forget, was a very respected scholar at one time. It's really quite a sad tale that a scholar of such obvious talent, a producer of great works, turned into such a sad spectacle.

It's not as if his earlier works suddenly became tainted as Irving became a radical.



Well, Hitchens is wrong to some degree.

He cites Paine, and some other founding fathers of America and claims they're the examples of people who believed in the right of everybody to speak to be heard and the right of the audience to listen blah blah blah..., but, as Chomsky correctly points out, they actually opposed speech for those disaffected with the revolution. And the founders were very careful about protecting the right only to "peacefully" assemble. In any case, it's obvious the founders didn't support the right of everybody to speak freely, i.e. blacks, they weren't truly human according to the founders, and when you say that you're not exactly supporting the right of _everybody_.

Well, that's true, but it still doesn't change what they said, it doesn't make their words less true or less stirring, even if they didn't live up to them.

The founders, particularly Jefferson, wrote about how wrong slavery was, yet they owned slaves. But that doesn't make them wrong for arguing that slavery was bad.



So the "scholar" made a historical error. I actually agreed more with the first 15 mintues than the last as well, where he starts talking about the worst thing in the world being Islam, when in all likelyhood the US (christian nations) has milled more people, etc. I won't go into the fact that the US wasn't exactly an "innocent victim" on 9-11, and that far more democratic nations aren't as hated as the US is in the Shia crescent of the world.

But Hitchens makes his viewpoints first, makes a few snide remarks, and then has some loose historical example. This is in contrast to chomsky, who takes the more scientific approach, as he gives you the evidence first and then comes to the conclusion: "Rights are not established by words, but won and sustained by struggle. " Well put.

Finally, I very much agree that religion is responsible for a great deal of the world's problems and should probably go. But I prefer Dawkins books and analysis more so than Hitchens.

Dawkins is good, certainly.

There are really quite a few good atheist-scholars. Dennett, Pinker, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have all written eloquently on the issue. Chomsky has as well, probably, I just haven't read it.



Then what does Hitchens think about Bush paying off Turkey as an "ally" when they had a war on the Kurds that was similar to Saddam Hussein's, but it wasn't talked about as much in the media?

I'm sure he opposed it. I think Hitch made a grave mistake in coming out so strong in support of Bush, even if he did agree with his main premise, because it's clear that even if Bush were right (he isn't), that he's simply so incompetent and foolish that he'd fuck it up anyway.



That's a serious question, I really don't know, but it seems hypocritical. Lots of countries in this world are mean to minorities but a war really doesn't help, and it seems the war in Iraq has increased terrorism.

Of course, here it should be noted that the anti-Saddam, pro-freedom Iraqis, who don't get much coverage in the media, have NEVER supported a war against Iraq.

So that's just more Hitchens' BS.

Some of them did. Maybe not most, but some.

[Matty_UK]

I'm surprised to learn from this topic that Hitchen's is thought of as so influential in the states, I don't think he really has any bearing over the public consciousness in the UK.

Perhaps it's because.....

1) There are a lot of smarter and more interesting leftists in the UK and a recent history of mass socialist struggle, (late 70s, early 80s was pretty damn close to a revolution which I think would have happened had Thatcher not outsourced the industry) the USA has very few so random leftists are of interest.
2) His support of the neocons means he is given credibility and respect by conservatives, and is something of a curiosity to them.
3) His posho English accent is a novelty. Frankly unless you have a Scottish, Irish, northern or at the very least a cockney accent you have no credibility as a socialist in the UK.

But he really is a no-one here, I only know about him through Americans talking about him on the net.

[IcarusAngel]

He was voted as #5 in Prospects "top 100 intellectuals' which mostly had US and UK (Dawkins was number 3) respondents so he must have had some influence over there.

Over here he has been writing for the Nation for decades now and is one of the highest paid literary critics. He's often considered as brilliant as Orwell or someone like Churhill etc. His work on Kissenger was pretty popular and damaged his reputation, though you won't learn much about the wars in indochina from the book. He has written some Orwell biographies as well, and he wrote an introduction to a publication of "Brave New World" (needless to say I didn't buy that edition).

He also likes to talk about how "intelligent" he is and what an intellectual he is etc., even though he has a degree in journalism or something like that and no experience in fieds that require the highest cognitive effort.

In the US, you're often considered an intellectual if you're a popular political writer/journalist. David Whorowitz, Christopher Hitchens, Buckley, and even Ann Coulter are often considered intellectuals etc. (and they even refer to themselves as intellectuals).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:56 pm


The most commendable action of George Galloway was to call Hitchens a slug.

That doesn't say much for George Galloway, does it?
You should see that debate Galloway literally sweeps the floor with Hitchen's crazy head.

[Publius]

He was voted as #5 in Prospects "top 100 intellectuals' which mostly had US and UK (Dawkins was number 3) respondents so he must have had some influence over there.

But he's certainly not an intellectual, of course.



Over here he has been writing for the Nation for decades now and is one of the highest paid literary critics. He's often considered as brilliant as Orwell or someone like Churhill etc. His work on Kissenger was pretty popular and damaged his reputation, though you won't learn much about the wars in indochina from the book.

You won't? Didn't he devote an entire chapter to how Kissinger undermined the peace proposals in 68?


He has written some Orwell biographies as well, and he wrote an introduction to a publication of "Brave New World" (needless to say I didn't buy that edition).

'Needless to say.'



He also likes to talk about how "intelligent" he is and what an intellectual he is etc., even though he has a degree in journalism or something like that and no experience in fieds that require the highest cognitive effort.


He has an Honors degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from Oxford.

So yeah, he's got a feather-light degree.



In the US, you're often considered an intellectual if you're a popular political writer/journalist. David Whorowitz, Christopher Hitchens, Buckley, and even Ann Coulter are often considered intellectuals etc. (and they even refer to themselves as intellectuals).

Guilty-by-association is a logical fallacy.

[Publius]

You should see that debate Galloway literally sweeps the floor with Hitchen's crazy head.

I've actually seen it a few times.

And it wasn't much of a 'debate', it was insult-match, which Hitchens handily won.

For example, when he pointed out the redolent contradictory hypocrisy in Galloway's 'solidarity' with the insurgents and with Ms. Sheehan, he destroyed Galloway's personage. Now that's to say nothing of his arguments, but that's because really was said of arguments for most of the debate. Most of it was Galloway flailing around talking about how Hitchens was alternately a 'butterfly' and a 'slug.' It was disconcerting, really.

[IcarusAngel]

We all have different standards for what we consider an intellectual -- I at least believe someone should have a Ph.D before they could be called "intellectual." But intellectual is a loose term, certainly we wouldn't call Hitchens' books "scholarship," which is more clear. If Hitchens is an "intellectual," then there is no reason why Coulter etc. can't also be described as such. Not to say that people with Ph.Ds can't be pretty stupid even in their own subjects (i.e. a historian who denies the holocaust), but they at least present themselves in a reasonable manner. You don't see Ph.D level historians going on TV and telling audiences to "fuck off" and calling women "*****es" and "****s" etc. hitchens does.

A note on "American leftists": we have had some of the greatest thinkers on the twentieth century on our side, not just a bunch of journalists.

Finally, the Hitchens v. Galloway debate was mostly a shouting match and loose facts, but if you want to see Hitchens get owned look up the Scott Ritter/Hitchens debate. Ritter debunks Hitchens "four cases for soverignty" by pointing out that it's the UNSC that has to make that decision, not Hitchens, and also owns Hitchens by the fact that the Iraq libertarian did NOT give the US permission to invade.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:42 pm




We all have different standards for what we consider an intellectual -- I at least believe someone should have a Ph.D before they could be called "intellectual." But intellectual is a loose term, certainly we wouldn't call Hitchens' books "scholarship," which is more clear. If Hitchens is an "intellectual," then there is no reason why Coulter etc. can't also be described as such. Not to say that people with Ph.Ds can't be pretty stupid even in their own subjects (i.e. a historian who denies the holocaust), but they at least present themselves in a reasonable manner. You don't see Ph.D level historians going on TV and telling audiences to "fuck off" and calling women "*****es" and "****s" etc. hitchens does.

Are you sure you're referring to Hitchens, or to Jay Z? The 'fuck off' I can believe, but the rest...source?

And you don't need a Ph.D to be an intellectual. They're really quite separate things. There are numerous geniuses who, for one reason or another, didn't make make their way through academia, but that hardly means they aren't intellectuals.

Coulter could be an intellectual with the education she has -- she is a trained lawyer, for example. The reason she isn't an intellectual has nothing to do with her education. According to her official biography, Ann has a Doctor in Jurisprudence from the University of Michigan, but that hardly makes her an 'intellectual.' You need only look at her arguments to see that. Coulter has a graduate degree and attended Cornell and The University of Michigan, which is certainly impressive. But you look at her 'arguments' and her viewpoints, and they're laughable.



A note on "American leftists": we have had some of the greatest thinkers on the twentieth century on our side, not just a bunch of journalists.

Why are you so disparaging towards 'journalists'?



Finally, the Hitchens v. Galloway debate was mostly a shouting match and loose facts, but if you want to see Hitchens get owned look up the Scott Ritter/Hitchens debate. Ritter debunks Hitchens "four cases for soverignty" by pointing out that it's the UNSC that has to make that decision, not Hitchens, and also owns Hitchens by the fact that the Iraq libertarian did NOT give the US permission to invade.

I'd very much like to see the Ritter/Hitchens debate.

Edit: Scratch that, I found it. Listening now.

[IcarusAngel]

Edit: Scratch that, I found it. Listening now.

Yeah, I just listened to a Podcast of it again. I forgot how great it was: Ritter sticks to the facts whereas Hitchens goes off into irrelevant tangents about which political ideology has more power in Washington, his affiliations with irrelevant groups, etc. Ritter shows Hitchens that his four cases for the loss of sovereignty (if they don't apply a state is still sovereign) didn't apply, that Mahdi Obeidi and the supposed "bomb" he had wasn't a reconstitution of Iraq's Nuclear Weapon's program, etc. But even better at about an hour into it when he owns him on the Iraq Liberation Act:

"When you say the statements of the Secretary of State have no relevance of you, that the statements of the President have no relevance to you, you are saying the rule of law has no relevance to you. The rule of law is absolute. Yes, the United States senate did pass the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, but section 8 specifically prohibits the use of American force from removing Saddam Hussein in power so don't make a linkage between that policy and what occurred in 2003..."

Hitchens: there's no linkage...

"Section 8 certainly most certainly does.. It says that the United States has a policy of regime change, supporting an opposition, but it prohibits the use of American military power to achieve this objective. That is 180 degrees different from the policy taken by the Bush administration in 2003..."

That shut "Hitch" up. Hitchens tried to make the case for invasion from an international law standpoint, but Ritter rightly pointed out that this did not have approval of the UNSC, and that the US is bound by whatever international treaties it signs onto -- as specified in the US constitution. Ritter was also right to note that NSS documents calling for US "interference" at random without the approval of the UNSC are nothing more than strategies of global imperialism, and that life in Iraq was probably better under Saddam than the brutal, US dictatorship that has been established over there and the Civil War it has caused (not to mention it has become more fundamentalist, something I thought Hitchens opposed?), and that the US was playing games with inspections, but MI-6, the CIA, etc. were still clear that he likely did not have weapons.

Hitchens was up to his old tactics in that debate: using the "f-word" in a serious discussion, calling Saddam Hussein France's ***** and "bumboy," and, of course, his trademark attacks on the audience ("You can always tell where the morons are sitting"; "Who's cackling?" etc.).

Hitchens had some funny one liners, but Ritter walks away the victor.

Stick with Dawkins.

(For those interested in the debate, Google: podcast050106 and you should find the mp4 version.)

[IcarusAngel]

Dawkins is good, certainly.

There are really quite a few good atheist-scholars. Dennett, Pinker, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have all written eloquently on the issue. Chomsky has as well, probably, I just haven't read it.

Of course there are many. Chomsky is not known as an atheist scholar though because he is a political dissident, not a religious dissident, and his work is only vaguely connected with biology. I will say though that the same rational and logical analysis Russell, Dawkins, Gould, etc. applied to religion, Chomsky applies to the Untied States and corporations.

[Publius]

Yeah, I just listened to a Podcast of it again. I forgot how great it was: Ritter sticks to the facts whereas Hitchens goes off into irrelevant tangents about which political ideology has more power in Washington, his affiliations with irrelevant groups, etc. Ritter shows Hitchens that his four cases for the loss of sovereignty (if they don't apply a state is still sovereign) didn't apply, that Mahdi Obeidi and the supposed "bomb" he had wasn't a reconstitution of Iraq's Nuclear Weapon's program, etc. But even better at about an hour into it when he owns him on the Iraq Liberation Act:

"When you say the statements of the Secretary of State have no relevance of you, that the statements of the President have no relevance to you, you are saying the rule of law has no relevance to you. The rule of law is absolute. Yes, the United States senate did pass the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, but section 8 specifically prohibits the use of American force from removing Saddam Hussein in power so don't make a linkage between that policy and what occurred in 2003..."

Hitchens: there's no linkage...

"Section 8 certainly most certainly does.. It says that the United States has a policy of regime change, supporting an opposition, but it prohibits the use of American military power to achieve this objective. That is 180 degrees different from the policy taken by the Bush administration in 2003..."

That shut "Hitch" up. Hitchens tried to make the case for invasion from an international law standpoint, but Ritter rightly pointed out that this did not have approval of the UNSC, and that the US is bound by whatever international treaties it signs onto -- as specified in the US constitution. Ritter was also right to note that NSS documents calling for US "interference" at random without the approval of the UNSC are nothing more than strategies of global imperialism, and that life in Iraq was probably better under Saddam than the brutal, US dictatorship that has been established over there and the Civil War it has caused (not to mention it has become more fundamentalist, something I thought Hitchens opposed?), and that the US was playing games with inspections, but MI-6, the CIA, etc. were still clear that he likely did not have weapons.

Hitchens was up to his old tactics in that debate: using the "f-word" in a serious discussion, calling Saddam Hussein France's ***** and "bumboy," and, of course, his trademark attacks on the audience ("You can always tell where the morons are sitting"; "Who's cackling?" etc.).

Hitchens had some funny one liners, but Ritter walks away the victor.

Stick with Dawkins.

(For those interested in the debate, Google: podcast050106 and you should find the mp4 version.)

Ritter certainly does win this one. He is clearly more intimately aware of the facts, and though he isn't quite the speaker Hitch is, he has a much greater command of the facts and persuasive style.

Overall a much better debate than the Galloway one.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Ritter certainly did know his stuff.

Its also good that an ex military US Marine, a patriot and a republican is able to highlight the constitutional problems with the Iraq war.

I genuinely learnt a lot from listening to what he said, even if i didn't agree with it all.

I like also how he said it was not actually in America's national interest to be an imperialist power, which he says the US is.

LOL i wasn't aware patriotic republicans used such terminology. :o

[Publius]

Ritter certainly did know his stuff.

Its also good that an ex military US Marine, a patriot and a republican is able to highlight the constitutional problems with the Iraq war.

I genuinely learnt a lot from listening to what he said, even if i didn't agree with it all.

I like also how he said it was not actually in America's national interest to be an imperialist power, which he says the US is.

LOL i wasn't aware patriotic republicans used such terminology. :o

Well, I'd say he's far from the average 'Republican.' Certainly he's much more intelligent then average, and he's probably more knowledgable on most matters concering the US then we are combined with room to spare. That doesn't make him right on political issues, but it certainly gives him a much clearer perspective of the US's position in the world. You don't get to be what he did by being a fool and not being able to see through facades. Of course he knows when the US is being imperialist or what's really in the country's interest. That was his job.