Christopher Hitchens at Freedom From Religion Foundation 6/7

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, Flirmy.

[mots35]

Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Hitch, Hitch Horray!

Thumbs up to that!

[SyKmGl]

OMG the Marxist guy is so annoying in a typically Marxist way.

[ZerqTM]

i really really really really dobt agree with hitchens on war...

if you wanna stabalize the middle east dont drop bombs drop schools!

and in tribal socites you'll meet opotion reguardless if you invade its often bettter to step back and let them fight each other and then mot up what remains afterwards X3

and a strong dictator could actually be a big benefit... i mean sadam was not exactly a proper muslim..the idiot wrote a koran in his own blood... he could just as well have dont it with shit!

[ZerqTM]

@ZerqTM if he hadent tried to attack kuwait he would still be americas best friend in the middle east (because unlike isreal he wouldent be asking for handouts all the time)

[VagianTuerous]

6:10 - 6:58 Made me think.

[321lawc]

Lol, Marxists are so stupid.

[thegreatestbak]

@321lawc

hitchens is a marxist

in fact as a youth he identified as a trotskyist.

Do you think Hitchens is a fool? He still claims to identify with the far left.

[tookaysevon]

@321lawc Hitchens is a marxist.

[numberonealcove]

This all may be true. But what it had to do with the overthrow of a secular dictatorship in Iraq is anybody's guess. The crowd is unconvinced, Hitchens, because you did not convince them. Neither did the Bush administration militarists and theocrats for whom you ran interference for the better part of a decade.

[joerob279]

Most Muslims are not radical Muslims just like most Christians are not fundamentalist . If most Christians radically believed in the Old Testament laws of genocide, they'd be no better than radical jihadists. When one reviews history, it's been the Western powers who've started the major world wars, not Middle Eastern nations. WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. Islam didn't mandate hatred of the West until the West became involved in Middle Eastern affairs.

[mots35]

@joerob279

They mandated the slavery and murder of American sailors, without any provoking of the west.

No, Islam IS precisely more radical than other religions. & more aggressive. Its leaders went from spiritual, to political, to militant. Most Christians DO believe the old testament is the word of god they just CHOOSE not to slaughter amalekites. I cant say the same for muslims towards infidels, and for no other reason than the hostility of the religion.

[anbu2]

@mots35 Ignorance of history will be our downfall (shame on Hitchens for this). Britain and the US have been meddling in Middle-eastern affairs for over 120 years now with virtually no benefit to the people in the region. We've toppled their democratically elected governments, raped and murdered their children and bombed their wedding processions and you claim its "the hostility of the region" for why they resent us? You should've just said they hate our freedoms :P

[TheLydianRocks]

@joerob279 they're radical enough not to speak out against those radical muslims, so i think its bullshit that most muslims don't secretly agree, the religion demands it at the end of the day and the fact is the big majority of (good) muslims you keep telling me about do NOT come forward and speak against those actions

[anbu2]

@TheLydianRocks Pure lies. Every Muslim diaspora representative and community leader I know of (I work with Zee TV BTW) routinely denounces terrorist acts but no-one cares, least of all the media - and worse non-muslims still demand that they somehow stop the radicals without ever explaining how they're supposed to do that.

I don't know anyone that supports the BNP yet none of them do anything to stop them from running in elections, so does that mean all white people are secretly racist?

[QuasiRandomViewer]

0:03 -- What was cut out? It is clear he is still answering the same question, but it skips from his discussing that particular ashram to being well into a critique of the more general philosophy. At first listen it sounds as if the wrong kind of aftershave is the source of their angst and anxiety.

Is the missing material available?

[BRtankbuster]

Not quite sure what you mean. Nothing was cut out. He talks about how it was essentially sex drugs and rock 'n roll and then he starts mentioning the annoying parts: the addresses in the morning, being sniffed on your way in, etcetera...

[QuasiRandomViewer]

@BRtankbuster

"... in case you were wearing the wrong kind of aftershave."

[fade to black and back, with a near seamless audio splice]

"... and the pain it brings them, the angst, and the anxiety, and the questioning, and the doubt."

At first pass it sounds as if he is discussing the pain brought on by the wrong kind of aftershave, but on second listening it is clear that the transition from the specifics of Osho's ashram to the generalities of eastern religions is missing.

[QwidgyboMan]

I personally would pay $10k to see Hitchens vs Chomsky on Iraq and Jihad.

[4thetruth401]

Why does he fight so hard against something he doesn't believe in.

Maybe I should start campaigning against unicorns or trolls....lol

[moleyn]

I can't answer for him but I can point out a problem with the logic of that question.

Who needs to ask why Churchill fought against the march of Fascism and a ridiculous pseudo-pagan theology?

I don't think that many people honestly struggle to comprehend why a person will fight hard against something they do not believe in. Surely it makes more sense than to fight against something you do believe in?

[4thetruth401]

Churchill--- affected in a great way if not standing against the dictates of a fascist regime.

Hitchens--Not affected in any significant way whether he believes in God or not.

Whats the point? If  you don't believe in God whats the big deal.... then don't believe.

[QwidgyboMan]

What a ridiculous question. Belief is not a pre-requisite of criticism or analysis, and it is actually quite often antithetical to it. That's what you're implying and it's absurd.

Do you believe in murder of innocent children? I hope no. Does that mean you ought not fight a law that says it's okay, if there were such a thing?

[4thetruth401]

Innocent children murdered or laws that support this can be proven. No question about that.

Fighting against something metaphysical? cant see God, cant touch Him, what's to fight against then?

[moleyn]

Let's be fair and accurate here. He isn't fighting against anything; he is speaking against something (and of course he often writes against it too).

I suppose that given the number of times he has appeared on T.V, radio, the internet and in print discussing this topic you could stretch to say that he campaigns against it. But, as far as I know, he has not once committed physical violence against religion.

I don't think he does speak against God, but religion which does have tangible effects.

[MopDMTBARTL]

Kissinger, the illuminati, the international bankers, rockefellers, rothschilds, they all FUND it. the instigate everything for their own power & gain.

its time we all wake up

truthknowledge. com

[sciencemile]

I trust nothing with "Truth" attached to it.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@sciencemile on youtube that's a very wise decision.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@MopDMTBARTL Yes yes the evil jews are at it again, its all in the protocols of the elders of zion which I'm sure you keep under your pillow every night for the Hitler fairy.

Why don't you do us all a favor and try to arrest the federal reserve chairmen like James Von Brun the Holocaust museum shooter did?

Keep your lies to yourself fascist!

[kadene2]

Hitchens should look at history and the outcome of past wars. It wouldn't hurt to try a different approach.

[randomjunglist]

i LOVE it when hitchens destroys people with stupid questions :)

[waltermh111]

he fails big many times though

Such as the question of how does bombing lessen fervor/number of enemies

Taking out Sadam did cause more bravery from neighbors who dont have such a threat anymore and arent afraid of the US as much now because they see how much we have weakened ourself in Iraq and afghan

Even then thats a different matter

Saddam was much more secular then the Shia, which is in power now, and not being a fundamentalist, it wouldnt make other fundamentalists mad that he went down

[waltermh111]

The point is that you kill a person, his relatives become angry.

1 death can raise 1+ enemies as his or her brother/sister decides to seek revenge, a parent might, or such a parents child might. Such people who may not have had the emotional ties to the fight become tied to it.

Its quite logical and well documented. That he can dismiss such acts so easily shows hes so in hatred of religion that he wont look past it.

[ratking8]

Hitchens addressed these objections in the speech. Just keep fighting them until they admit defeat. LRN2HEAR

[Brantinger]

Yeah so why argue aggressively against Falwell and ridicule him? His "moderate" environment could feel hurt about a christian bein humiliated and then join his campaigns... u state defeatism at its best! No wonder atheists have no say in politics, they usually lack the guts. Hitchens is a sadly an exception.

[waltermh111]

You fail at debate

You make up strawmen to knock down

I never said dont fight criminals or fanaticism, but Hitchens is a militant and calls for people to go too far, seemingly to or close to the lengths the enemy does and he refuses to understand that not all relgiious fanatics fight "only" for their religion

If you refuse to understand why people fight, you never stop the fighting

The worst part of your response is killing angers loved ones of moderates. Insulting the fanatics, not so much

[waltermh111]

Basically, if their Jihad is bad, why would ours be so good?

Because we are right? Does might make right or wisdom?

Yeah, you need both sometimes. Hes quite wise about alot of things, but then hes too blinded by his hate of religion, likely based off his own life issues, to see all of reality.

I am an anti-theist but i refuse to be ruled by emotion, and have no interest in genocide in the name of peace, and thats really what hes asking for because muslims stick by their own for the most part.

[Brantinger]

"why would ours be so good?"

Well thats ur problem indeed u dont know whats good, post-modernism seems to be ur own nirvana. Have a good time there, for the others, the real world is waiting....

[VarialProductions]

Well... Ours is good because its predicated on freedom, social mobility and equality. Theirs is bad because its predicated on incredulity, inequality and superstition.

Anything deeper then that would require a deep submersion into epistimology which I would love to do.

[TheReturnOfStephan1]

Not only that, but, also, they, then, will use the bombings as recruitment propaganda, which will appeal to those there whose lives are basically crap, anyway, & feel they have nothing to lose by fighting, which, of course, is funded by the Saudi royal family, from oil revenues from sales...to us.

[waltermh111]

Its a tool, and one that we need to stomp out, but not the originating reason for every act. Its a tool to bring about acts a people/person wishes to have happen.

Find out what the act is that they need the tool for, and give them a better tool.

[Lion117]

stupid, aren't there scientific alternatives to oil ..?

[lord69z]

Would take over a few decades to implement them everywhere they are needed.

You see it happening?

[Lion117]

But they exist.

Do you really think All Nasa's activities and a bunch of other money investment are going all the place are so Pragmatic and Practical?

No.

it simply isn't.

[Lion117]

Why play Innocent and ignore all the other places, why not invest in a vision that supports Balance and Inner empowerment to our civilization and not Stone Age disgusting and complicated Technology that is based on oil.

Imagien how many of the earth is just Highways and concrete just for stupid cars rushing to somewhere.

its just senseless and for me its insane to imagine. but its true. thats the unreal reality we have made in the name of "Progress".

[lord69z]

Earth is just highways for stupid cars?

You want dirt roads with horse drawn wagons again?

You guys are hilarious - tell me, what transportation method will not require routes and fuel for the machines?

If you are for - i dunno solar or some other fuel - i am too.

But your hyper hatred for oil is quite ridiculous.

[Lion117]

i don't have an hyper hatred for oil.

[lord69z]

So why not say what you were saying about other sources of energy without demonizing oil.

Oil is a resource of the 20th century.

Yes wars and conflicts result from it.

What you think has changed?

During ALL of history man has fought over resources.

[Lion117]

why must we fight? if we are all human beings.

unless you think war is natural and so and so- ok.

at least come out to the open and say you want oil.

but governments sometimes if not usually, it would seem, speak of high ideals and high behind them for their actions.

[randomjunglist]

what a naive thing to say. if china has all the oil are THEY going to just give it to us? absolutely not and you are stupid to think they would. and war IS natural. animals struggle over resources, materials, mates, territory, and so on. yes, it's nice if everyone loved everyone, but it doesn't work like that sad to say. oil is life. period.

[baalChrist]

He is quite Machiavellian, but Machiavelli was concerned with what worked, not with what was right. There is an interesting dichotomy with Machiavelli in that he was a staunch republican, though his most famous work was in furthering absolutist power. If you read the Discourses, you can find his real beliefs, though he would use the Prince to achieve them. Hitchens, I think is advocating a similar course. Its a shame that so many of the audience take for granted their freedoms.

[killerbandit]

I think what Hitchens understands is the problem of motivating people that only respond to fear and violence. How do you rationalize with a person that has an imaginary friend?

[strungout7777]

Man, Hitchens is an asshole, eh? I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I don't think I'd have the guts to ask him a question. He has such hostility to those who waste his time with stupid questions.

[hackenbollox]

But you should see his demeanour when someone asks him a good question. Just make sure your question is good.

[soloman81]

That's McCain at 7:11.

[toolie42]

Fantastic. I've only recently stumbled upon Hitchens but I've been reading and watching him fervently. Although I must make one point on his support for the war in Iraq. If the Bush Administration hadn't lied so much about the reasons about going into Iraq, then I and I think most of the country would have been on board. To free a people of theocratic oppression. But they didn't say that. They lied from the start and continue to lie until we can't possibly or rationally believe what they say.

[meiitbe]

Most of this country WAS onboard. It was only when things went south (now much better) that people began to reexamine their convictions.

[Hirnlego999]

It's too bad that Hitchens doesn't see that people like the neocons need terrorism to succeed with their military agenda, a more permanent presence, occupations and this infact will continue to motive them as long as "we" are there. The neocons needed 9/11 (the new pearl harbor) and they DO need terrorism, already said it won't end in out lifetime. 'Cos they do not want to end it.

[tcrb2]

As long as 'we' are where? We're still the infidels no matter where we are - the Koran mandates warfare against the unbeliever irrespective of us trespassing. If you can't see that 'they' are the ones looking for a fight then your head is truly buried down a dark hole indeed.

Should we just give up and show indifference to the existing conflicts whilst feebly playing the neocon-card to discredit the people who really care?

[Hirnlego999]

Do you know what PNAC is? Do you know about the downing street memos, the office of special plans, full spectrum dominance plans are?

When it comes to Iran the west are those who seek the war. And this agenda pre-dated 9/11. Operation Ajax of 1953 backfired immensily and now some of you want to repeat its mistakes? Stupid and Hitchens has it all wrong.

[tcrb2]

Yeah everyone loves a conspiracy. It's precisely this obsession for self critisism that will let 'them' walk all over us. You don't see the arab world gripped in such an internal spiral of insecurity. Remember what Bin Laden said after they got rid of the soviets after the cold war?

[Hirnlego999]

No conspiracy. PNAC own blueprint for the middle-east can be found online, it's called rebuilding americas defences.

Truth is most arabs don't give a F about what we do in the west. They cannot walk over us.

[tcrb2]

They're already walking over us in Britain. Islam is completely untouchable and uncritisable. A third of UK muslims want sharia law here, and barely any make an effort to openly critisise the extremists or distance themselves from their woman-beating, child-marrying, fashion-policing, totalitarianist bretheren.

[Hirnlego999]

If they begin to change laws, then I agree. And sure, people should not allow them to do that. We've had some similar demands here in Sweden. That would never be accepted by our governemnt, itleast not the former leftist governemnt. But we'll see, politicians can be very lame.

[anbu2]

@tcrb2 Just a minor correction. A 1/3 of young muslim men want Sharia Law, not a 1/3 of all British muslims (who only make up 3% of the population). We're talking about a minority of a minority of a minority that want Sharia Law in the UK.

[tcrb2]

@anbu2 You probably havn't seen the most alarming of the surveys - in 2006 an ICM poll in the the Telegraph said it was 40% of ALL muslims in the UK.

[anbu2]

@tcrb2 The poll you cite states that 99% surveyed said they thought the 7/7 bombers were wrong despite 20% having sympathy with their motives and that 40% want Sharia Law in "predominantly Muslim" areas. In other words we're still talking about a minority of a minority (Muslims only make up 3% of the total UK population).

The survey results are alarming but understandable considering the demonisation of ALL muslims, not just the radicals, by the media (and yourself I might add) since 9/11.

[tcrb2]

@anbu2 You do realise that 40% of UK Muslims is still about 1 million people, all of whom allegedly want to undermine one-law-for-all. You ok with this?

And 1% of UK Muslims who think the 7/7 bombers were right equals 24000 people. And it only takes 1. You ok with this?

Lastly, 70% of young UK Muslims think that homosexuality should be a criminal offence. This is the next generation. Imagine the pressure gays in Muslim communities have to put up with. Does this bother you?

[anbu2]

@tcrb2 So you believe in prosecuting for thought crimes? OK then, how do we go about enforcing a thought-crime law? What's the punishment - jail-time, community service, deportation?

It only takes '1' to do what? Blow themselves up? Its a threat to be sure but its a threat I can live with, the chances of getting killed by a drunk-driver or just a random lout are far greater and yet I don't worry about it.

If its as much of a problem as you say then what's the solution?

[tcrb2]

@anbu2 Who said anything about prosecuting? Obnoxious opinions need to be identified before they can be debated and discredited. Tell me you understand this. Whether out of naivety, denial or dishonesty, we can't fix what we can't admit is broken.

Cars are a greater imminent danger than terrorism and indeed almost everything else. I hardly think our societal discourse should limit its scope to discussing speed limits - ultimately our future depends upon integration.

[Vaynous]

fuckin owned that Q&A

[lollygager3664]

I love this. I really believe that Hitchens hit the nail on the head at this conference.

[faraz1729]

Many great very thought-provoking points made by Hitchens.

Agree or disagree, the man is a brilliant speaker.

[firesteel1]

hitchens is great

[godfree2canada]

hitchs own q&a

at 4 mintues he blows away questioner

"why are you here...."

[Ellesime89]

Really, why was that man there? Was he at the wrong conference?

[tcrb2]

Notice the sound from the audience. Awed silence with occasional tentative applause.

Its the sound of people changing their minds.

[firesteel1]

i completely agree

[Hirnlego999]

No they disagree one some points.

[akallabror]

@tcrb2 well said

[nicolethebean85]

@tcrb2 no - it's the sound of people reflecting on their own positions, not necessarily changing them

[SanguineBullet667]

@tcrb2 he didn't convince me

[dmlled]

cut out?

[belzondium]

I love the way he alluded to the Greek myth of Antaeus to mock the pitiful cliche about Islamism getting stronger the more it is resisted. "Every time you throw him down he draws strength from the soil. Unbeatable". So apt.

This must be my favorite Hitchens vid.

[johnclavis]

I will say that that last guy who asks a question -- the "fellow Marxist" -- sounds like an over-the-top stereotype.

I'm in favor of intellectualism, and you know what? Some people have too much education and too little understanding. Fuck that dope.

I've made my point. It's not what direction you want the car to go, it's whether the guy driving is drunk or suicidal!

[johnclavis]

Look, the question is not whether fighting back against a bully or just curling up in a ball will piss off the bully more...

...the question is whether the corrupt, incompetent, imperial Cheney Administration is a suitable counterattacker. Get it?

If Hitch were President, that'd be one thing. his oratory truly is inspiring. But Cheney is in charge, and he's been looting and befouling the executive branch. War or peace, he's no Lincoln!

[baresolid]

Mr Hitchens is very correct in his strive to fulminate against his fellow atheists who are also liberals with their live-and-let-live "let the terrorists and genocidal maniacs rule the Middle East as long as we don't get involed" views.

[voiyour]

Hitchens has a profound misunderstanding of jihadists. They WANT to die for the cause. Many radical islamic mothers sincerely WISH to have their children die for the cause. The more the west prosecutes and occupies them, the larger the numbers of these radicals become.

[theinquisitor]

That's doublethink. You acknowledge that desire for martyrdom comes from their religion, and then in the next sentence you say that actually this isn't why they are violent, it's because they are being attacked. They are motivated by their religion, not retaliation. Do you propose beating them by not fighting them? Do you want the kind of people who WANT to die for their cause to get nuclear weapons? Our only choice is to fight.

[voiyour]

I never said their religion isn't a [huge] factor. Believe it or not, there isn't a single reason behind this. Yes, they are motivated by religion, and yes, they are motivated by the US's foreign policy. Read "The Looming Towers." I can't explain this to you in 500 words. But Hitch is dead wrong if he thinks the west can literally "kill" islam.

[theinquisitor]

I don't think he's suggesting "killing" islam, but we can destroy Iran's nuclear weapons. Even if killing their soldiers brings up two to take their place, the same doesn't apply to their nukes. Blow up their uranium enrichment facilities, and they will stay blown up. The kind of people who want their children to die in suicide attacks must not have nuclear weapons. It's a matter of survival, they've made it clear there's no discussion to be had and what their intentions are.

[voiyour]

I definitely agree that nucs in the hands of these crazy bastards would be extremely dangerous, but even General Abizaid said that scenario could be "manageable." And what keeps them from simply buying already enriched material on the black market. After the USSR broke up, there's a lot of that stuff unaccounted for.

[theinquisitor]

Perhaps, but it occurs to me that if they could just buy it so easily, they wouldn't be trying to enrich it themselves. In any case, the less they have the better.

The point I want to get at is that their hatred of the west has a lot to do with how we are a land of infidels that must be converted or destroyed because their crazy book says so. They would want to kill us whether or not we retaliate.

[voiyour]

Take a look at this video and tell me if you still think this is about "their hatred of the west." Or, is it REALLY about our foreign policy; primarily our unfailing support of israel.

=D7EB1FxENxQ

[Giles20]

Were the 7/7 suicide bombers persecuted or oppressed? I dont think so! What is written in the Koran is the problem. How can you take a verse such as "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them" metaphorically? It means what it says, its an order for murder. It doesnt matter if a jihadist is oppressed or not, if he/she truely believes in Islam, then he/she will blow herself up never the less!