Peter Hitchens and I discuss Brexit, Europe, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, nationalisation and licenses. Enjoy. Support me on patreon: / notsoobvious Support me via paypal: paypal.me/nots...
Imagine spending your entire life watching everything you know and love being destroyed by the people you used to hang out with, then forty years later the most common question asked of you is, "Why do you seem so sad?"
Nowadays, men who actually think about something are not attractive to the young, default leftist, selfish, trend slaving, virtue signalling deluded modern young woman
@@thewrastler I made a gross generalization about young women. Obviously not all young woman are actually like that, just as not all men think about that much. Increasingly now the young women I meet fit my above description unfortunately.
@@sebastianbooth5659 I had meant your assumption that I am male. Either way it just shows how many fiddly words the are these days... Yes it sounds like we're both looking for slinky young leftist girls in all the wrong places.
Peter has the extraordinary ability to make the other person in the conversation not realise if he's being a twat or whether he's joking. I love it lol
He shares that with his departed brother. Whilst the two were often in disagreement about many topics, they both had a wondrous ability to speak in a way that makes you want to listen, leaving you unsure if they're being facetious or serious.
Glad to see everything went ahead fine with the interview! Was more like a Rubin style conversation, which I liked, letting the interviewee speak for themselves and get their thoughts ordered instead of constantly interrupting. Conversation interviews tend to be far more informational, at least for me. Edit: After more viewing, you did tend to stick to your questions, you often waited for him to finish so you could ask the next one. Although I can understand this so you can get through all the questions, it may be better to have less questions but explore more deeply. Still fantastic though!
I suspect that I have found myself in a predicament familiar to fans of Peter’s brother Christopher. I loved Christopher even though I disagreed fervently with many of his conclusions he arrived at. In absence of Christopher’s presence I find satisfaction in listening to Peter, with whom I agree on many more topics, but I find myself hearing what I imagine Christopher’s rebuttals to be. Their respective informed resoluteness and supreme fearlessness, so eloquently externalized, vis a vis their stances regarding any given topic have elevated whatever intelligence I might possess. RIP Christopher May God Bless his family, friends and fans.
Congrats on landing the interview! I'm sure it was both nerve wracking and rewarding. Maybe try to work out the interviewee's answers prior to the conversation so you can push back and get them to expound on their ideas. Good job. I hope to see more interviews!
Standard, just asking him about his Marxist/Leninist past, conversion to conservatism and Anglicanism. He gets asked this all the time, so it’s nice to hear him answer some different and nuanced questions.
"Have you had that misfortune?" "No, unfortunately not" "Well try and keep away" Utterly hilarious and he's not even trying to be. Genuinely believe PH will be held in a similar regard to Chesterton in just a few short decades. The man is on another planet.
Peter is still one of the best journalists in England, and obviously he has the huge advantage of being the sibling to one of the most powerful polemicists in the 20-21st C - Christoper Hitchens. It does give him significant leeway and he can get away with faults in logic because we all know he is well educated, well experienced (jobs) and he has lived a long and fruitful life for an academic, then a journalist and finally as a pundit for politics, it's better to listen to him than others yes, I often just put this on while I'm having a coffee, better than junk radio or pseudo-polemic entertainers I call them ;)
George Galloway is, by a long stretch, the greatest orator and debater from the UK. He is always 100% on the mark, and his handling of hostile opponents is both fair and just - he's a star.
@Sooth Sayer If he disagrees (which happens alot) he does so with good reason and that is because he thinks carefully about matters. Many people accuse him of being a contrarian, which he despises. It's just that many people really don't think and simply follow learnt concepts and assume they have arrived at those conclusions off their own bat. So when he is in constantly disagreement with people they assume he is doing it for the sake of it or for his own ego. The fact that he may take some pleasure in doing so is neither here nor there. I understand the common perception of him in that way but I honestly believe if there was an idea that he hadn't thought of and it was perfectly logical I think he would graciously take it on board. When he talks about Peterson's book in disparaging terms and admits that he has studied it, it doesn't surprise me. Hitchens isn't the first person to say that Peterson's work lacks real substance and is abstract. It would be an interesting debate to observe and I think even if the two didn't come out it, any wiser for the encounter, I think it would be extremely fascinating for the observer. I would love to see an hour long discussion with those two.
@Sooth Sayer He commented on one book that he didn't get, that is all. He praised Douglas Murray's book and doesn't Murray share many of the same opinions and ideas (except maybe religion) that Peterson espouses? If he doesn't value Peterson's book why does he have to regard Peterson in a way you would prefer?
Foggy's Friend Peter’s bitterness is a shame but I must admit having read two of Jordan’s books and a good few of Peters Peter is the considerably better writer
When Hitchens says what is wrong with Norway? From 2016-2017, he was against this option, for the same reason that other brexiteers are. Read his columns from then. It’s extremely embarrassing for him, as he now portrays his position as if he’s been *for* the Norway option the whole time. Actually, it looks like his friend Christopher Booker warned him that leaving the single market has big repercussions. And he changed his mind. *fine*. Changing mind is good. But he cannot wave his hands around saying “what’s wrong with the Norway option, why don’t people like it?” When he KNOWS why, because it was his exact position for years. It’s frustrating to watch.
yington he pats aside “trade”, like it’s beneath him, Norway can’t negotiate its own trade deals, but has to get EFTA to do that on its behalf, and trades under those terms. Also EFTA has free movement, I very much doubt the good people of the UK would see continued free flow of Euro folk (many more wishing to come to the UK than wish to go to Norway), and constrained trade, as leaving the EU. It’s a non starter.
poison and shite Well said , and agreed. He’s just looking to be different, craves to be listened to , and frankly was so in the shadow of his brother than it still drives what he is like now.
Spread the word far and wide, brothers and sisters: From this day henceforth it is immoral to do up the top button of your blue collar or any other colour collar! *cheering voices in the background*
I love how much like a schoolboy mark looks like in this interview. He's taking in every word of professor Hitchens 😂 Seriously though well done Mark getting this interview
A pleasant interview. PH always a pleasure to listen to whether you agree with him or not. Not sure why he got flustered with the interviewer's use of "equity". It seemed perfectly correct in the context. Can anyone explain?
Hitchens writes for the Daily Mail (on Sunday) that almost had an aneurysm when May's treasonous Brexit proposal was defeated by the biggest majority in parliamentary history... I thoroughly recommend his film, 'This Sceptic Isle' to everyone, but recently it seems, he too has had an aneurysm.
I agree with Hitchens on Brexit. Sovereignty is the most crucial issue. Extricating ourselves on trade and immigration is best done as you should extricate yourself from a loud pub: one step at a time and with (confident) respect towards the people around you.
Top work matey. keep it up! Looking forward tot he Douglas Murray interview :). Comments On the EU: The reason for the 'extreme' view on the leave side is directly related to the lack of acceptance of the result of the referendum on the remain side. By losing the argument, but still pushing to stay in the EU, the only possible opposition to this is to argue for the 'extreme' no deal option - otherwise, the centre position (e.g. ultimate compromise position) shifts closer to remain. When one side refuses to give ground, the only way to maintain balance is to be uncompromising in the other direction. So moderate leavers HAVE to become hard-line Brexiteers. On Porn Licencing: Hitchins says there is no rational argument against CP - this is incorrect. the argument is that children are not fully developed human beings - neither physically, emotionally or rationally, and involvement in sexual activity is proven to have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing and health for the entirety of their lives. In short, kids need to be protected until they can be functioning adults or they will be broken adults. On Privatization: Wow, I guess that response from Hitchens wasn't entirely unexpected, though I have to say misses the point of privatisation - keeping govt out of running things (which they do very badly). Where I'd agree is that foreign ownership of essential utilities is a very dubious idea. Other than that though, govts should regulate, not 'do'. Incidentally, having watched closely the Blair govt go from wanting diversified energy production, through to foreign-built nuclear plants (and the further narrowing down of the options since 2010) I despair at even basic competence of policy, let alone regulation and action, on the part of govts. On the third Biscuit: Well, you NEARLY managed to ask it...
On extremism: it's worth noting that one can be firm without being extremist. One says "these are the lines, that's what we will do, and we'll not respect attempts to subvert that"; the other says "We're right and anyone who disagrees with us is a bad person!" (the latter usually in rather less polite terms) On CP: the argument however seems to end at CP production, which obviously is a capital crime. Yet works that don't involve actual children (e.g. cartoons or artificial 3d renderings) have no such issue. We'd generally still oppose that though... generally through an argument that amounts to degeneracy. Privatization: I do think govt might take a stronger position there. Probably the best of both worlds is that govt decides exactly what the company should achieve, and private companies can bid for the contract. Should they fail the contract (with some margin or error, of course), there'll be consequences. Simple privatization does not work however if there is an effective monopoly. For instance with railways, using infrastructure that can't reasonably be duplicated nor easily shared.
@@sorsocksfake I don't disagree with your position on Brexit, it is rather more subtle than mine, but essentially what I am suggesting is slightly different - that is a push in one direction necessitates a push in the opposite to keep the keel even. As we know, left-wing extremists create right-wing extremists (I would say the opposite is also true, but I haven't observed that in recent times), and hardened remoaners create hardened brexiteers (and I would count myself in the hardened brexiteer camp for that reason). On CP, I think my position is probably more liberal - I really don't care if someone wants to masturbate to anime, since that is not real, I am only interested in preventing creation and dissemination of CP (and child molestation in general) when real kids are being used to produce it. There is plenty of consensual degeneracy around already, and that is no one's business but the people involved - and the same is true for waifu-wanks. Even if there is evidence that anime is a gateway to CP (but somehow I doubt that, except in rare cases), I would still not ban anime version - it is akin to arguing that sometimes people shoot other people in video games, therefore, there should be no guns for anyone. Yes I know we live in the UK and we don't have anime porn or guns or indeed licence free porn at all, and I don't doubt they'll get to computer games in due course too, but hey-ho.
@Foggy's Friend I agree entirely, but everyone knows the ultimate outcome will be a kludge. Once we are 'out', hopefully in April, we will be in a position to start the slow disentanglement, but alas, I think it is going to be like having a shave by pulling out one hair at a time.
a bit of constructive critism i have is that around 20:00 you were introducing a lot of new terms to the conversation without really defining them first. it seems to me that hitchens could've added more before you gave your take. i may be wrong though.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. You started off very strongly (first question was great), but by the end began to flounder a bit jumping from topic to topic (which happens if the answers take you by surprise). I creased when he described himself as having hacked his way through Jordan Peterson with a cutlass
Change has been misconstrued as a virtue by progressives. Change doesn’t occur as a singular event as it creates ripples that alter many other things in a cascade; and this sequence is what routinely appears to surprise progressives, they never seem to anticipate the negative consequences of change for change’s sake. The lack of consequential preparation is why they exist from crisis to crisis, that ALWAYS demands more ‘change’. I agree with the power of positive pessimism. It IS a ward against misery. Interesting interview and insight into the nature of how Hitchens converses on topics. His beliefs may be different, but he reminds me a great deal of his brother.
Presumption of innocence doesn’t really exist, and to be honest I think English common law is greatly exaggerated for being something it’s not. People claim it to be liberal and protective of individual rights but in reality people are completely at the mercy of the courts in this country.
Wonderful chap Peter Hitchens, his views, intelligence and his demeanour. I disagree with him about Jordan Peterson - he and his 12 Rules for Life bring crucially decent morality to the attention of generations much younger than Peter, and I, who have not had our privilege of living in times when traditional mores were the everyday norm.
My primary problem with the Norway model is as soon as we leave, our establishment will start plotting how to take us back in and if we remain in the single market and customs union, it will make it far easier for them. Plus when our economy fails to collapse, they will be able to pin this on our ties to the EU while blaming any turbulence on our leaving the EU proper. On top of that, an emergency brake on immigration is not enough (like our diversity-obsessed politicians would even use it!) and our businesses would continue to be subject to EU laws even when not trading with Europe.
Why those that voted Remain, transitioned to (staunch) Leave....? Could not it be something to do with the haughty, supercilious manner of Juncker and Barnier in the negotiations - the invention of the Backstop and the insistence of a HUGE down-payment promise before anything meaningful at all was discussed? And we have not yet got onto ANYTHING about Trade, which will go on..... and on.?
