Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley Jr. - When Giants Collide 

Indeed. I already have. Thank you for posting these.

Most grateful for this post, as a great admirer of Hitchens intellect, tis is a wonderful treat. 👍 Salud! 🍻

I really appreciated your posting this. For the record, I worked with and knew Christopher for roughly 25 years[ both as a freelance writer and journalist and later as his graduate school assistant]. We shared the same birthday in April though he was 17 years my senior. He could be maddeningly annoying but I always appreciated the verbal sparring that he put me through and miss him every day like the adopted son he said that I was.

@@briankane6836 thats really cool, cheers :)

😂

SCTV did a Buckley skit,...played by Joe Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty just recently passed away sadly. His portrayal of him is pretty funny.

This is all I see now when I listen to him. Cant stop laughing. Thank you so much for this comment.

Buckley was spot on wasn’t he ? The anti war movement was in reality the anti draft movement. People were mainly interested in themselves. No one protests the Iraq war with much enthusiasm .

@@roughhabit9085 Deleted my reply because I misread your comment.

@@roughhabit9085 Because no one was interested in losing their job or their livelihood. plenty of people protested and objected to the war in Iraq, but they were not given much media attention. Do not conflate your experiences with a lack of interest in the anti-war movement. Remember that the US government had several decades worth of time to better prepare wartime propaganda for things like the Iraq war. Buckley was not spot on anything btw, pos glad he is rotting in the dirt.

Overrated drunkard

Well said :)

I'm a 65-year-old American. I can assure you that Buckley was accorded plenty of attention. An example is the fact that he had his own show on American public broadcasting. As for reverence, well, that depends on your political stance. Buckley was an intellectual conservative (as well as a devout Catholic) whose perfect foil was the left-wing intellectual Gore Vidal. Hitchens, being British-born was much less known in the USA among the average public, but was known to and appreciated by those who read his books or the magazines for which he worked.

Mike Phalen Thank you very much. I have been to the US a number of times since the 80's and have relatives over, but had never heard from him until recently. As I said, it is rare nowadays to have such intellectual and earnest debate journalism - including in my home country.

110%, I was saying to a friend of mine after watching this, on our current trajectory, 20Years from now you'll tune in to Cspan or CNN and congress will just be so many Punch and Judy puppets walloping each other with foam noodles .

You gotta watch noam chomskys debate with Buckley! It's a great watch

CH believed Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Sadam’s nuclear development chief. No WMDs but info & equipment for making them

"It's those who would have left a sadist, a Caligula and hood in charge (of Iraq) who have the explaining to do." - Christopher Hitchens

@@SunsetStarship we put Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. And there were much worse despotic leaders we could have removed if that was the reason.

@@nickc6429 Nerve and Mustard gas is classified as WMD's. Both were found and stockpiled in Iraq along with the ability to produce them.

@@jasonwiggins6137 you dont invade a country because they have mustard gas. So they had to lie and say they were making nukes. Big difference between mustard and a nuclear bomb.

that's the ideal idea of debates for me, the same two guys agreeing on a Monday, opposed on a the tuesday, going to a bar on the wednesday

"I don't think I'll be able to convince you now". They respect each other's view point in spite of the differences, which allows them to continue to communicate and maybe even sharpen their understanding against the resistance of the other.

@@zeitakulobusta9708 I wish U.S. media and our own Congress were less mercenary on the one hand and less comfort-seeking on the other to discover how healthy open dialog is to further the understanding of UNcomfortable truths! For the media (for whom I lay 90% of the blame) they know it is CONTROVERSY that sells product and enriches their bottom line… but it is the viewing public that shells out the money in order to let them hear the kind of news that scratches their itch. The public is addicted to false heroin… regardless of whether your Republican or Democrat… conservative or progressive.

I have no doubt the Soviets were behind the assignation of the Pope. While there were many things that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, I have always felt that it was no coincidence that the Polish union dock workers found much of their courage from the Pope. I don’t know that it would have collapsed when it did without the Pope

​​@@daveh1869and Lech Walesa

Turned out he was quite right about the KGB (using the Bulgarian secret services as their cat’s paw).

@@augmentedkeys5971 everyone has two brains lol , although I won't be surprised if it turns out to be contrary in your case

You're making me cry😭. C.H. was light-years ahead then AND would be a force of nature today.

Not brains. Soul.

Well said haha

@Jazzkeyboardist1 Pretty much by definition all 'worshipers' are 'brainwashed'... on the other hand, those who appreciate valid, probing, intellectually honest thoughtful dialogue....

@Jazzkeyboardist1 Uh huh... and if you were a bit smarter and considerably more sentient you might sense why your foot isn't particularly tasty especially when garnished with that to which you likely refer

You should see the Chomsky / Buckley debate

There's more than 60 videos in my Hitchens playlist :)

Morphing Reality - Terrific. Thank you!

We can't: they are both dead

What government line exactly? It changed numerous times….

Don't be fooled. Buckley had a quiet contempt for liberals who he thought he could tangle up in words. Until people like Vidal and Chomsky took him apart. Vidal's sin in 1968 was calling him a Nazi. He was not a Nazi but a quasi fascist. Racist too.

I know you're a low effort troll but what in the British Iraq report was about Hitchens? And I know it's nothing but I just want to see you attempt mental gymnastics.

2. I know. No further arguments I need to address 3. I know. Hitchens never advocated for invading Iraq for WMD's. He was also of the idea that the world should've done it when Sadam had actually used WMD's in Kuwait. So from his perspective, it was long overdue. 4. Nonsensical ramblings that appear to reiterate a previous point. Are you losing it already? 5. Red herring 6. Obvious attempt at low effort trolling. I'm not a fanboy of Hitch and am not personally invested in this. Your remarks mean nothing to me. If putting down a deceased person in this manner is cathartic for you, you must have a very sad life.

LaLiLuLeLo That name... That name... Why are we still here without Hitch, JUST TO SUFFER? It's been nine years... NINE YEARS!!! Since I've seen something from the late Hitchens. He's gone, but I still feel his words... like a phantom intellectual pain. *THE CLINTON'S AND HENRY KISSINGER PLAYED US LIKE A DAMN FIDDLE* !!!!!!!!!!!!

Jazzy Again, Chrissy's reason to depose Saddam was not 9/11. I've explained that already but you're too dense to actually read anything and absorb the information. And since you're not actually making any arguments I'll just preempt any arguments you could and should've made: He also didn't approve of the way Bush fooled everyone, and how the war was waged. He called it a disastrous strategy and was shocked they were this stupid.

Alright. Why the hell not. Putting you down is as entertaining as seeing you devolve into repeating the same mantra over and over like some religious degenerate. The documentary focused on the hypocrisy of the press for the fabricated and newfound praise for Diana. Diana wasn't well liked, then she died, and all of a sudden everyone is fawning of her. That was what it was about. There is barely anything about Diana in it. Regardless. Hitchens wasn't dancing on her grave as you are on his. He didn't celebrate her demise. He was merely criticising others for heaping undeserved praise on an otherwise insignificant person. (She was a millionaire with nothing to do all day, yay for doing charity work? Fuck off.) Yes, Christopher and his religious brother Peter Hitchens' mother killed herself. This is well known and yet it seems that this is so enjoyable to you that you feel the need to keep pointing it out like some sadistic troglodyte. C. Hitchens didn't advocate for invading Iraq like Bush eventually did. And neither did he do it based on the supposed presence of WMD's, so the British report has absolutely nothing to do with it, as we had already established. Bush is to blame. This should be clear to anyone. The country supported a war based on 9/11, Hitchens did for reasons mentioned ad nauseam at this point, and Bush needed a reason after the UN/NATO refused to participate/green light his war initially, so he went back and had the CIA conjure up false evidence and then tricked the UN/NATO, together with Blair, into fighting his unfounded war. Again, you don't care about desert savages that have been fucked over and over by the US government. Neither do I. Hitchens did care because he remembered that it was the US who was responsible for the mess, and for putting Saddam in power, therefore he wanted to intervene and depose of Saddam. He never advocated for an all out war and occupying the country because he was fully aware of the implications. He just felt that the US had to take responsibility for the atrocities they committed and keep committing to this day. Which makes *you* the evil, sadistic, imbecile. Hitchens' only mistake was trusting the Bush government to do anything with competence.

Yeah I miss conservatives and liberals with a healthy understanding and respect for Marx. Everything is so dumb now

I wonder if Hitch ever watched the clip, or read a transcript, of Buckley debating Baldwin (Oxford Union, 1965) I lost quite a lot of my considerable respect for Buckley after watching that, together with a few other of his more sophistical efforts, all somewhat less judicious and defensible than anything on display here. But I sure do miss a time when people from radically different camps could respectfully consider each others' point of view, and concede those points which they found persuasive.

Hitchens spoke at Weymouth Buckley's memorial service in New York.

I haven’t read it but I doubt that very much . Maybe you’re confusing WFB with his son? Hitchens once lamented that Buckley would never have a drink with him after a show ...well maybe he shouldn’t have slagged off his buddy Kissinger

I've read it....I don't remember anything that could be called a 'friendship'. There was certainly respect and admiration in some regards.

@Stephen Your latter point is particularly relevant/concerning to me... and the left's hesitance in that regard I attribute to fear... fear of truth... and their incapacity to accept and deal with its consequences in a responsibly constructive manner.

Kindness & chivalry or great intellect...whichever it is I agree.

Buckley had his head up his ass. A lot of hot air wrapped in intellectual language. He was a painted turd so to speak.

Buckley a great intellect ,I don't think so . He was proven wrong by history . Gore Vidal was proven right . You are right about Hitchens .

He was probably weakened by diabetes which he had.

Hate the unctuous white supremacist Buckley

You're getting closer to the truth every day...he was only wrong on Iraq.

Rare I fear to the point of extinction

The latter interview looks to be around the era of dubya, not much of a wordsmith. Fortunately now we have perhaps one of the most erudite presidents of all time, Joe Biden.

Check out the channel for more :)

I think that was more the effect of Television on society at large, rather than something specifically American.

Whether I agree or not... your metaphor is highly amusing

emansnas It’s not @NaqoyqatZ’s metaphor, it’s _Buckley’s_ : 3:33 “... masturbatory relief ...”

Val Halla - Both were metaphorical... Buckley's "masturbatory relief" was amusing... NaqoyqatZ's (projected?) imagery escalated the amusement. I believe those who would characterize these two's relationship as somehow rancorous completely miss, intentionally or otherwise, the apparent largely amiable mutual respect.

@@emansnas Hey, not gonna hide my enjoyment of one of life's simplest pleasures! ;-)

NaqoyqatZ Thank You...! Obviously spoken by one of truly caring and rational sensibility ...and also again for observing what you previously did... these latter days I find 'that which is amusing' becoming my greatest gratification... oh well :-)

Intellectual honesty was a value back then.

Sean Rockwell- this is such an accurate, precise statement. So good, in fact, I wish I'd have made it myself.

👎 what a strange grasp of the language you have

Jeffy M8 I’ll take that for what it’s worth, coming from a guy named “Jeffy.”

Buckley held his own in this debate...he was just as intelligent and well-spoken ...

Peter Robinson, he wrote Raegan's 'Tear down this wall' speech, which might elucidate to some extent his bewilderment at Hitch's position on Vietnam. Despite this, I think he's a good egg and a solid (one of my favorites) interviewer. He has done 4 or 5 long form ones with Christopher, including one with Hitch and Victor Hanson on WWII, as well as many other interviews, the series is called Uncommon Knowledge, from the Hoover Institution.

Thanks :)

That is remarkably well put

And well thought out

Perhaps cable news networks aren't where we should be looking for intelligent political debate. There are productive conversations taking place in 2019 on campuses, conventions, other public debate platforms. It's just not on television for the most part.

Yes, and would seem to beg following questions.... Are there any in these times of similar caliber... and if improbably there are, why are they not being displayed (somewhere) with pride... and if there is not, why... what happened? Maybe minds like these only come along every fifty years or so... but improbably more or less concurrently? Hmm

Not that I necessarily agree with premise... but I find the apparent implication of interest

Thanks for clarifying... and I agree. Though I've not given it a huge amount of thought as I don't feel that kind of hostility is imminent. Seems to me escalation will likely be more of a gradual process primarily fought with words, demonstration, propaganda et al usual infamous tools employed by the forces intent on permanently destroying the country's traditional values, of all kind. They're no doubt aware that open armed conflict would likely be highly disastrous for them... but I get the metaphor. Ft. Sumter was a victory for the South, but not one that was prophetic. Also think there's still a lot of side choosing to take place. The U.S. has historically tended to be a sleeping giant... but when it awakes, truly awakes.... In any case, whether characterized as 'civil war' or 'enemy within', new ground rules will likely be the order of the day.

@michael boultinghouse Excuse me, don't want to misinterpret.... To ascertain, do you mean 'deplorables' facetiously or otherwise... if former, try quotes not capitalization. Or am I to take it you don't believe current president will prevail in election? In any case you seem quite passionate in your beliefs... do you have 'privileged' information not publicly available? Reply to other points pending

And look at that younger Hitchens answering back to the the "esteemed" Buckley without blinking an eye or missing beat. Same cocky son-of-a-bitch as always. Excellent. (and frankly never understood half the words that came out of Buckley's mouth)

Public intellectuals still exist, though I agree that too many are lack the minerals for it.

Most of the public "intellectuals" today know very little. Sure, they speak logically, sometimes even use words correctly--that is, when they're not abusing phrases such as: "in regardddsssss to", "really unique", or, my favorite idiot phrase: "in terms of ...."--but, as you said, they are all opinion "givers", and nothing more. The public intellectuals of previous generations displayed a masterful use of language, but they were also masters of synthesizing wisdom by combining their prodigious intellect with personal experience and learning and/or knowledge. Hitchens is a perfect example of this far-raging intellect, as he brings together disparate elements--i.e., the combination of an allusion to ancient Greece, a crude parlor joke from Eton and some current day political anecdote--and creates something altogether new and never before seen or thought about. This is/was the true power of the public intellectual; the ability to put this kind of intellectual synthesis on full display, in an impromptu fashion, unbidden and without rehearsal. The public "intellectuals" of today are pathetic by comparison, and yet they are all so full of themselves. In truth, they are woefully specialized (Peterson), hopelessly political (Shapiro), and usually full of cheaply-bought confidence provided to them from hordes of barely literate internet fans. None of them really know anything of import; they have no discernible breadth of knowledge; it's all personal opinion, editorialized nonsense, and regurgitated data from opinion polls, internet "articles" and slanted studies. On their pod casts, RU-vid channels, etc., they are mindlessly repetitive, unimaginative, and often sound like some ruminant chewing their cud over and over. And the theatrics: how many times does Ben Shapiro have to give that stupid-staring glower-face when his squeaky little voice hits its most shrill? But they sure do sound "smart"--at least, to your average non-reader and dip-shit denizen of the Western World. And this, friends, is why the human race is doomed.

@@boblozaintherealworld3577 Perhaps it is the accent. I personally understood almost all of what he said.

@@SamvedIyer No doubt it's the accent and his delivery. I was using hyperbole, of course. But thanks.

Always had the perfect words for the job.

America? This kind of discourse is mostly gone. Just illiterate people typing on the net.

Apolacyptic Skepticus Which is precisely why we need people like you, and the very reason Hitch was wonderful here and loved it. We are a nation of immigrants, but not of race (That's just a byproduct) rather of ideas, but because of moral soccer moms and the stagnation of great minds that are being repressed because something they say might have some really scary thing called Nuance in it or context and subtlety. The wonderful USA can only keep being a kick ass place if we Foster an environment that makes it the best place for kind-hearted well spoken people and contrarians and continue to encourage discourse and debate. So move Here! The melting pot of ideas welcomes you, even if the political regressives of the social justice hate you. Just bear in mind they are the minority.

Watching Hitchen's later appearances on TV should make it readily apparent that he forsook chivalry for vulgarity and mean spiritedness. Buckley, to his credit, refused to stoop to that level, even towards the end of his life.

My friend, you do not need to be born here. If your spirit is aligned with the USA, you are one of us.

Well said!

@@MorphingReality one should do a show on various previous guests speaking. "Where are they now" ? Especially hippies from 1968. Would be a hit

Check out the channel!

First time I got one of those, thank you lots :)

He was the most articulate person that was ever on television.

Peter Robinson is a good egg

Hitch would have been insulted at you calling him Chris !

Yes Buckley gave Hitchens his first gig on TV and he helped Peter score a job as a presidential speech writer.

Agreed. Very charming, very masculine, very flirtatious even at times! 10/10, would totally hit it.

Let me guess ... your favorite character from Batman was the Penguin....

That is a truly typical Olga comment. LOL.

Actually, that wasn't so much a "come back" as it was an admission of prejudice; that is, when you suspect something of another person that you then discover wasn't true at all, it should embarrass you. Buckley correctly recognized that Hitchens should not have been surprised and Hitchens concurred that he wasn't, Buckley was shown to have understood his colleague, but Hitchens' "come back" made it clear the understanding didn't go both ways. Indeed, Hitchens had operated under a false and almost cartoonish presumption of what he imagined a Conservative might think about Marx. I felt bad for Hitch in that moment.

Not unlikely

He was a good friend of Princess Grace of Monarco

A true Licker of Boots like all hierarchical conservatives

I am glad you posted this comment. I couldn't agree more.

Wilde was actually born in Dublin.

I think Buckley knew Hitchens had an edge, but he valued the debate and slipped a few good lines in.

CH was far superior to Buckley.

It’s odd that you should think that because Hitchens certainly didn’t.

Wrong.

I think Galbraith and Lowenstein were Buckley’s most competent rivals .

Lol..good one !

No danger of that happening with these two.

Yes Orwell said of intellectuals ,that they liked to play with fire , without realising that fire was hot! That doesn’t apply to these two

That is excellent food for thought.

I think it was on Uncommon Knowledge in 1998 discussing the 60s

Buckley was indeed a masturbatory pervert

I would say that about Hitchens….

@@ajp8941 the only thing he’s been proven wrong on was his bizarre stance on Iraq. But mother Teresa and Bill Clinton… spot on.

You’ve picked three issues out of hundreds, perhaps thousands, where Hitch took a stance. Certainly wrong on Iraq - and I think Mother T - probably right on the Clintons. There are a whole raft of British political issues where I believe he was on the wrong side. Internationally - to give just a few examples: Cyprus, Algeria, the Vietnam War, Chile, Paris ‘68, Northern Ireland - but then of course that’s back to the UK. I am saying this as an admirer of his erudition and debating prowess. His most fundamental error - shared by his brother - was to become a Trotskyite. Hard to forgive that - but I could probably do that given his principled stance on free speech and against campus wokeism.

He would have listened to your reasons and explained why he disagreed. I doubt he considered whether his point of view was forgiven or favored. Be Well!! 😃

Its a mix of his appearances with Buckley, mostly 90s and early 2000s

Don't be hard on yourself, everyone starts somewhere. Check out my other videos!

+Bas K One thing I'd like to make sure you're not thinking however is conflating knowledge with intelligence, especially when it comes to matter of trivia or random facts. Memory is but a small fragment of what constitutes intelligence.

lol right? Watching this thinking the same thing.

Bas K it comes easy although they study they probably enjoy that I to have slight envey as I do enjoy listening to them but them grass is always greener the smarter you are the more idiots your surrounded by

Best thing you can do to "increase" intelligence is to make yourself as healthy as you can to take advantage of your body and mind to the fullest it can be. Intelligence is from our Genes. The reason Christopher smoked and drank himself to death because the stress he put himself under, no need to do that and in many cases he probably missed out on great moments in some discussions due to being drunk. People strategically sound smarter than they actually are by learning all they can on a specific subject and later curve the discussion to what they learned. Debates are like a Chess game.

Yes. Totally screwed up editing. Why butcher two separate meetings of these men and stir them together like some haphazard dinner salad. Badly done, participants not withstanding.

TPH2010 o poo