Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky (1992) 

Matthewsavant, I'm listening in late April 2024 as Donald J. Trump is in Court on trial and, on weekends and evening, campaigning for a second term as President of the U.S. It's clear the words of Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky are yet more urgently in need of being heard than ever. I wonder at the nature of humans. We are more concerned about living more comfortably than our neighbors than we are concerned with the realities of living. I miss Christopher Hitchens and listen repeatedly to recordings of his words when he was still alive on Earth. I seek and strain my ears to pick up what Noam Chomsky, now 95 years old, is thinking and saying. Surreal is now the norm.

I liked reading that.

Interesting, missed it... But probably because he doesn't say anything about it ☮️

After all, what is a man without his faults? Makes them much more interesting!

Thom Harrison i agree i also love and admire both of them (warts and all) which is strange because they were mostly adversarial and would be on different sides of an argument. i think i agree most with chomsky but hitchens's anti religion views and debates are priceless

Hitchens is more entertaining and charismatic grandstander. Chomsky is lightyears smarter than Hitchens. The one thing that all these people have is the energy to research and the courage to tell us what they think, whatever it is. The point is that pointing out problems and flaws is not the same as criticism really. And criticism is not the same as activism. And activism really gets nowhere without an edcuated and aware popular support. So, in the US, I think people already intuit this and understand that absent some kind of disruption this system will not be changed, because there are always quick, easy and inexpensive ways to "correct" things back to the status quo, as outrageous as they might get --- police cracking skulls, assassinations or whatever. It is extremely rare in history that when a system fighting for survival cannot find some "leader" or strategy to take that short-circuit line that it doesn't happen. So, all of these guys, great, smart, enlightening as they are, are really educators that make those of us who are interested aware of what is going on an explain to us in order to fill in voids in our understanding how the system works. This is NOTHING about fixing, evolving, progressing, or whatever the system. This is social criticism, and I think the reason it rarely makes it to the mainstream is that no one wants to wander to close to the slippery slope where something might actually happen, because we all know that as the Pete Townshend said ... "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", absent some historical imperative or a real collapse, nothing is going to happen, but disruption that will mostly just hurt people and lose opportunities for business - which we all really do depend on.

justgivemethetruth I wouldn't say Professor Chomsky is light years smarter. Whilst, I agree that Chomsky is more intelligent, nobody can deny the astounding intellects of these two men. They were truly two of the greatest minds of the 21st Century.

Impractical maybe, but I don't think Chomsky is idealistic, unless believing in human rights is idealistic

>Hitchens >brilliant free thinker wew lad

@@brewbrewbrewthedeck4138 The dude was pretty intelligent.

Right after this exchange I instantly had to see if that struck anyone else as well. It was definitely one of those moments where the host likely immediately regretted passing the ball to someone who didnt have the same commitment of restraint as their guest speakers... 🤣

And second Hitches dissent of the cannonization of "Mother Teresa".

+knightofdreamz wtf is that comparison???

How is he a dreamer? He rather is the opposite, with almost cynical views on the American media and government.

knightofdreamz I haven't heard Chomsky say war is never justified. What I have heard him say is that the pretenses of war as presented in the media are vastly different from the actual motivations. This is not a dreamer's position but very realistic and down to earth.

knightofdreamz Could be, I'm not too familiar with his work.

knightofdreamz We didn't go to war against Iraq based on that pretense, We went to war because of "weapons of mass destruction".

The problem I have is that the patent system prevents distributive justice from occurring. The internet is an economic network where interpersonal communication takes place in the form of collective decision-making. Socialization thus increases climate sensitivity because of globalization. The supra-organic or macroeconomic environment is uneven because of the stock market that is hypnotized by IT companies, which is applying pressure on it; creating the requirement of the IPO environment for private tech companies.

+funnyfaceguy22 >implying Obama is of the Left Hah! Good one, bud.

+His Most Gracious Excellency Saxo Ungrammaticus I It is troubling to me when observing the frequency with which people attempt to see everything via the binary lens of Left and Right. Hitchens being a socialist for much of his life and then continuing to call himself a Marxist, plus consistently being for freedom, liberty, equal rights and secularism is exceptionally Left wing - but then the moment he disagrees with what the left's position was in regards to the war in Iraq, he's suddenly considered a right wing, warmongering conservative. Whether it's what the left think or what the right think, to blindly just go along with every single position your "side" thinks simply out of a strange sense of tribalism is utterly insane. It's strange how self-criticism, dialectics and doubt are virtues that are so often attributed to the left, and yet when one of them (Hitchens) says "Hang on a minute, my "team" seems to be promoting the wrong ideals here. I understand that I agree with them on a lot of positions and I consider these people to be my comrades, but I will not be afraid to stand up against them if I feel they aren't in the right or have been led astray for bad reasons" and becomes the embodiment of these virtues, leftists shake their head and say that Hitchens "lost his way". People hate nuance. They are so used to people being one thing consistently that, when Hitchens was able to promote Marxism and unions one second, but then compliment William F Buckley and other Republican intellectuals in regards to specific arguments another second, it left people scratching their heads, thinking that he was a hypocrite or a flip-flopper when, as any fan of Hitch or person aware of nuance would know, Hitchens agreed and/or disagreed with arguments based on their own merits - regardless of where the arguments came from, or how it would change people's perceptions of him politically. People aren't used to seeing people from the Left and Right being cordial and agreeing with each other on something. It's easier and more reassuring to see a leftist and a right-winger shouting and spitting at each other since there's absolutely not grey area.

well Hitchens defended torture and the Iraq war so I would say he was insane

He did not defend torture.

Triggered much?

I'm afraid Michael is correct. Hitch would correct ANYONE who called him Chris. His name was/is Christopher. ...and yes, he hated being called Christopher. He was the one who was triggered by anyone calling him Chris, eejit. You should know the truth before you criticize someone else. One tends to embarass oneself when one speaks about something they know nothing about. Typical American response.

@@kearl3490 He hated being called both Chris and Chrostopher?

@@cockoffgewgle4993 My mistake. It's Christopher. Sorry about that.

Hitch became a celeb by simply being "posh"...and in the last years saw that becoming a cheerleader for Bush was a money makerJust an plummy voiced alcoholic tbh

Yet another bold, freethinker crassly asserting Hitchens personal views as cheerleading for Bush.

I wouldn't write him off so cynically so quickly... Have you heard Hitchens talk about his experiences in Iraq, and describing the Baath party and what they did? I parted ways with many things with Hitchens, the biggest being the Iraq war. After hearing him talk about it, and about totalitarianism in general, I wasn't so sure anymore.

@@skyblazeeterno How was siding with the unpopular Iraq war a money-maker?

I mean Hitchens was much more charismatic than Chomsky but I wouldn’t say he grew up. I actually think he regressed politically. I think calling him a cheerleader for Iraq is somewhat crass but also not untrue. And I should point out that I love Hitchens, in many ways he was directly responsible for me becoming a political science major in college.

nope, John halcorsomethinberry

It doesn't sound at all like him lmao...

Michael Miranda you don't think so? I think if you slowed him down a little it would sound just like him imo. To me he sounds like Sam Harris on meth or something lol.

There are certain similarities to his vocal timbre but it's clearly not him

Sean Parrish well spoken

ridiculous.

One a brilliant rhetorician, good writer and entertainer, better informed than many people (which isn't saying much) and more than appropriately arrogant for it. The other the most important linguist of all time, lifelong activist, leading intellectual, probably the most knowledgeable person alive when it comes to politics and modern history, not a particularly compelling speaker and humble to the bone. Take your pick, if you must.

Depends on which war. He was in favour of the Falklands War a decade before this.

still with these memes...dude..Hitchens explained clearly why he was for REGIME CHANGE in 2003.. YOu clearly never read any of his arguements, you tool. You just want people to follow the party line. Hitchens was the only one with the BALLS to support the overthrowing of Saddam to support the Kurds while you poisonous idiots supported the Kurds only for CONVENIENCE in the 90s and didnt gave a fuck about them after the first gulf war. Shame on you.

+sinisa majetic you'd have to imagine not.

+sinisa majetic Yes! It's true. It's also true that the Pope's favorite movie is Brokeback Mountain.

I'm not surprised of pope

Do you know what descartes said? Also, dthbed conversion is all that is needed.

No it's not true. What is true is that many Christians have no problem breaking the 10 commandments including "Thou shall not lie" if it suits them. You can bet the other 9 commandments are also up to be disregarded by the mentally ill sociopaths among them as well. Of course those same sociopaths will swear up and down that they are so glad they aren't mentally ill and that the ones who are are no true Scotsmen. The truth that they don't want you to know is that religion attracts mentally ill people like moths to a flame. All without their awareness.

Why would they address one another? They weren't asked on to discuss each other. You don't understand why they managed to stay on topic during the interview instead of complimenting or arguing with one another, essentially?

don't you guys ever get tired of commenting the same fucking thing in every Stern video.

Neam Chunsky

It’s wasnt a second war it was a continuation of the same war that started in the early 90s

You should read his books.

nothing. he is useless

I never understand why hitchens matters at all. Really. What does he bring to the table?

Myles Geronimo lol, ummmmm, www.biography.com/people/noam-chomsky-37616 . wtf did Hitchens do other than bash the religious?!?

Hitchens brought singular, brilliant iconoclasm to a world where the most important issues were, and still are, debated through alternating salvos of talking points. Sam Harris noted today on his blog a sad milestone - the fifth anniversary of Hitchens' death. He didn't simply promote his positions. The very nature of how he took positions promoted thought. Who does that now?