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.
How ironic that Hitchens went on to make exactly the same mistake with Iraq (believing the individuals in charge) that Buckley admits he made regarding Vietnam.
@@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.
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 .
Mate behind everyones backs new atheism were designing the thought crime models thats violated all our free speech. Has the penny dropped ? Exactly - first laws against what christians were allowed to say & do in public - then same for all. Stop being a self loathing self silencing fool and understand what his kind has done for goodness sake. Why wasn't he detected ? - due to the topics hes raise in PUBLIC !!!
@@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.
Who is "superior" or smarter, or has more of an edge??? I don't care. It's just refreshing to listen to them both. These types of discussions are longer broadcast, as. Our media is pathetic.
When the topic is history and politics, they flow smoothly and eloquently in the same current. If it shifted to religion, Buckley’s Catholicism and Hitchens’ atheism would be flint and steel in a gunpowder factory.
"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.
@@zeitakulobusta 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.
Being brazilian, I heard about Hitch only in the last twelve years and heard about Buckley even more recently - maybe the last five years or so. The way both of them calmy and eloquently and respectfully argue (I have heard they got along well) and how weel informed and cultured they were is just mind-blowing. At the time of the recordings maybe they weren't given the proper attention or reverence. Looking back, it seems something from another planet. That is true journalism, and true civil argument, not the gibberish we are currently being entreated to.
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 .
Greatly enjoyed this. I met Buckley in 1981 in Edmonton, Alberta at a luncheon with my father. I went after the lunch to ask more questions and found him extremely likeable and quite willing to have a long geopolitical talk with a 21 year old. He was sure the KGB was behind the attempted assassination of the Pope, I remember that. Very nice man.
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
Makes me proud to be part of humanity when I listen to these great men .. just excellent interaction and interesting conversation. The ability to communicate and listen to each other is what makes us ✌️
@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
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.
In a time where public intellectuals were actually that - public intellectuals. You could (with exceptions there ofcourse) fairly soundly trust their knowledge, you'd know they'd be passionate about the subject purely for the sake of the complexity of the issue and to inform rather than coerce. How extremely rare that is 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.
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
@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.
im not sure i agree with that framing, and I know that on at least one other occasion Hitch lists about 10-15 occasions on which it was said the US had 'lost its innocence', and made a joke about it. The US was a plutocracy from the founding, dependent on slavery and then wage slavery and prison labor/debt peonage, treated natives rather poorly, and was rarely if ever explicitly non-expansionist.
@@MorphingReality There is no utopia in this life. But the United States did evil things and great things. It was at it's best from about 1945 to 1975. But it's too late to fix it now. I just hope and pray that the break up is peaceful.
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.
@@georgekilroy2670 "When the Civil Rights Movement began gaining ground in the 1950s, Buckley used the pages of The National Review to argue against democracy in the South, promoting the then relatively new re-packaging of racism by arguing that black people simply were not culturally advanced enough to be trusted with the vote. He would stick to this position throughout the 1960s, declining to even slightly reconsider his stance on civil rights until the last years of his life.[4] When it came to Vietnam, Buckley was the most belligerent of hawks, characterizing any criticism of America’s intervention with the failure to take the side of freedom. One could go on, but we’ll settle for the headlines of a lifetime of bad takes." I'll give you his exact quotes if you want. not pretty. Buckley was never as intelligent as he thought he was, a "legend in is own mind", but he became enormously influuential, sadly, and did great harm. Read my extensive critiques on this page instead of asking for evidence I have already provided. Here's his own words "Buckley himself had developed two arguments against civil rights, both of which were little more than disguised racism, both of which led the line at National Review. The first emerged early in his career. Since the 1950s, Buckley had argued that civil rights should be opposed not because black people were biologically inferior to white people, but because they were not yet “civilized” enough to take part in democratic government. Or, as Buckley put it in 1959, “There are no scientific grounds for assuming congenital Negro disabilities. The problem is not biological, but cultural and educational.” He didn’t stop there. In 1957, Buckley wrote National Review’s most infamous editorial, entitled “Why the South Must Prevail.” Is the white community in the South, he asked, “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?” His answer was crystal clear: “The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because for the time being, it is the advanced race.” Buckley cited unfounded statistics demonstrating the superiority of white over black, and concluded that, “it is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” He added definitively: “the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.” And what method should be used to enforce the maintenance of “civilized standards”? According to Buckley, it should be a no-holds-barred defense, even including violence. “Sometimes,” he wrote, “it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical [white] minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.” Enough for you?
Wonderful..love Buckley....isn't nice to watch these great intellects spar but with kindness and chivalry......I don't think we see that much anymore......
MY TWO ABSOLUTLE FAVOURITES ---- R.I.P. TO THEM. CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS & WILLIAM FRANK BUCKLEY . THEY WERE CALLED SOON TO INTERVIEW " HEAVENLY " MATTER'S . GREATLY MISSED . FROM U.K. (2022).
Kudos to Buckley for his willingness to have on a guest who was smarter, faster, better-spoken, and more knowledgable than he was, and to ask him back. The look on the Buckley toady's face at 8:22 when he realizes that Hitchens is about to slaughter one of his sacred cows without breaking a sweat is fantastically gratifying.
The look on Hitchens' face after hearing Buckley's comment @ 3:29 is priceless. It's as though he was invaded by the imagery of Buckley pleasuring himself and then pondering what it could be he was fantasizing about.
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.
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 :-)
An intelligent, passionate, eloquent debate is so beneficial to the individuals and society. You can see the destruction that arguing and intolerance has all around us. We humans are so limited in our understanding that we need to be able to share as many perspectives as possible to learn and grow at a pace that will keep up with life’s challenges. I have many friends throughout life that I “disagree” with on some or many things. I cherish these relationships. There is an affirmation of worth that cannot be gained or given by people who only mirror each other.
The lesson here is, it is not so much the meat of an argument, but rather how one articulates it. To conflate the idea, and its delivery, as wisdom, is a folly indeed.
Refreshing to see people using arguments to debate rather than just argue. One of the things that changed in the passing of the baton to America seems to have been the veneer of sportsmanship in dialogue, to be replaced by spectacle in the long term.
Lost some great minds when those two died. Sadder still is the lost of intelligent conversation and debate. I am so tired of the chest beating and angry style of today's commentators.
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
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
Its interesting to see the younger Hitchens vs the older version. Just looking at the older Hitchens, I sense a little less niceness, if you will, toward Buckley. Maybe it's because he is more experienced and knowledgeable. They younger Hitchens may have had a little bit more admiration or respect for Buckley than the older.
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!! 😃
My goodness, the knowledge, the presentation, the flow, the humanity...and all we are left with now is Trump. Definitely on different ends of the gene pool. Thanks for the post.
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.
The beauty of this conversation is evidence of the greatness of USA as a country. You can have two immensely brilliant individuals, with utterly opposing viewpoints on almost every topic imaginable, yet who are able to express themselves on National TV, and in a manner of the most charismatic intellectual chivalry and wittiness. I honestly wish I was born in that great country.
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.
The biggest difference between then and now is that the so-called “public intellectuals” of today are essentially professional opinion-givers. People like Shapiro gives an opinion on EVERYTHING, which is why we end up with his laughably bad takes on things such as rap music and other art. On the other hand, Hitchens and Buckley weren’t making 4 hour podcasts every day. They typically avoided speaking on issues they had little knowledge of. And while I don’t like gatekeeping, I appreciate the pre-internet days where it was tougher to make it as a “public intellectual.” Baldwin, Hitchens, and Buckley were all the best at what they did. Now, any idiot with internet access can spew some cliche right-wing/left-wing talking points, build a decent-sized audience, and secure some funding from people like the Koch brothers to get even bigger (I’m looking at you Dave Rubin). They become talking heads for corporate interests.
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)
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, TH-cam 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.
Both awesome men.. I agree and disagree with with both on various positions they discuss. Today it's like "Gerry Springer show" gone mainstream..sad. Shalom
Buckley at 18:50 "The presumption is that the state is in the business of aggrandizing its power and ought to be watched". How prophetic - I wonder what he would have made of Trump.
Who is the third guy who appears in the second segment? He seems utterly shocked by the mere suggestion that the US could ever be considered an aggressor or agitator.
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.
Ach you missed Hitch's come-back at 08:10 after Buckley says it shouldn't surprise him that Marx made that comment, to which he wryly replies: "it doesn't surprise me, but I guess I thought it might surprise YOU"
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.
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.
In the second segment, Buckley shows how detached/ignorant he was from/about what was going on in the 60's, and should've just saved his breath. But, being the lover of the sound of his own voice, he had to reply. And, reply he did. Unfortunately, his reply had absolutely nothing to with what he was asked.
Buckley sounds like he is here at the peak of his "I not only want to sound British-ish, but in the most smug, obnoxious manner possible." He really put in the work!
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.
Great exchange at the beginning with Buckley saying the 60s were listless and “masturbatory” and Hitchens says on the contrary the times were quite famous for “going the distance”. Hilarious.
9.25 Is one of the most interesting passages of Hitchens I've ever heard. Export the British NHS to bring real healthcare to the US, stand against the monarchy and the founding reasons of the constitution - I wonder if he would have thrown his weight behind Bernie Sanders in 2016.
There is sometimes a danger of intellectuals talking, whereby they talk more and more about less and less until eventually they are completely obsessed about absolutely nothing.
Smartest guy here is Peter Robinson. Nobody criticized Hitch better: "..he was a man of integrity." LOL Hitchens always most interested in being a big man with his wit, intellect, deadpan humor, and command of language, and as a result was a big man in his small world and he ended it small RIP. Peter always a small man in a big world always enjoyed a supernatural intelligence that Hitch could never see or enjoy.
It would be a great video to remember them by if it just didn’t back and forth from one conversation to another. Did I miss some good reason for the splicing?
+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.
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.
![Christopher Hitchens on American Politics [V498]](/img/n.gif)
If you like Hitch, check out the channel :)
Here's "The Portable Hitch" th-cam.com/video/_QsUmKGFE6k/w-d-xo.html
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 :)
The coolness in which they state their arguments is so great
How ironic that Hitchens went on to make exactly the same mistake with Iraq (believing the individuals in charge) that Buckley admits he made regarding Vietnam.
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.
Hitchens is missed. Such great speakers with unbelievable clarity of mind.
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.
Mate behind everyones backs new atheism were designing the thought crime models thats violated all our free speech.
Has the penny dropped ? Exactly - first laws against what christians were allowed to say & do in public - then same for all.
Stop being a self loathing self silencing fool and understand what his kind has done for goodness sake.
Why wasn't he detected ? - due to the topics hes raise in PUBLIC !!!
@@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
Who is "superior" or smarter, or has more of an edge??? I don't care. It's just refreshing to listen to them both. These types of discussions are longer broadcast, as. Our media is pathetic.
This is what is so desperately needed in television today; a vocal discussion and debate.
It died as a cultural form, what, in the 90s?
@@MellowWind The internet was the final nail in the coffin.
When the topic is history and politics, they flow smoothly and eloquently in the same current. If it shifted to religion, Buckley’s Catholicism and Hitchens’ atheism would be flint and steel in a gunpowder factory.
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.
@@zeitakulobusta 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.
@@zeitakulobusta”As iron sharpens iron-so one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17
Being brazilian, I heard about Hitch only in the last twelve years and heard about Buckley even more recently - maybe the last five years or so. The way both of them calmy and eloquently and respectfully argue (I have heard they got along well) and how weel informed and cultured they were is just mind-blowing. At the time of the recordings maybe they weren't given the proper attention or reverence. Looking back, it seems something from another planet. That is true journalism, and true civil argument, not the gibberish we are currently being entreated to.
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
I wish debate in American politics were this civil today.
Lol
They were debating within the same civilization, today’s debate is with different civilizations.😂
But we have to destroy our opponent and silence him, not debate him…
Greatly enjoyed this. I met Buckley in 1981 in Edmonton, Alberta at a luncheon with my father. I went after the lunch to ask more questions and found him extremely likeable and quite willing to have a long geopolitical talk with a 21 year old. He was sure the KGB was behind the attempted assassination of the Pope, I remember that. Very nice man.
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).
I always expect Buckley to fall asleep after every word but he keeps going. What a rollercoaster ride of suspense.
😂
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.
Amazing to reflect on the fact that there was a time where you could turn on the TV and see this. For free, no less.
Makes me proud to be part of humanity when I listen to these great men .. just excellent interaction and interesting conversation. The ability to communicate and listen to each other is what makes us ✌️
You should see the Chomsky / Buckley debate
Your brains are dearly missed, my beloved Hitch....
@@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.
That exchange over whether or not it should be surprising about Marx is just delightful. Genuine discussion like that is sadly shocking.
Yeah I miss conservatives and liberals with a healthy understanding and respect for Marx.
Everything is so dumb now
How I wish both were still living and active in public discourse.
My two favorite people I am thrilled to see these two exchanging thoughts, I could listen to them reading the phonebook
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
Buckley and Hitchens. Names of a finer time of public intellectualism.
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.
Much I disagree with Hitchens about (although posthumously he has persuaded me to some of his arguments) but I sure do miss him.
You're getting closer to the truth every day...he was only wrong on Iraq.
Wonderful. Yes bring on more Hitchens and Buckley!
There's more than 60 videos in my Hitchens playlist :)
Morphing Reality - Terrific. Thank you!
We can't: they are both dead
When I heard Buckley towing the Govt line about Vietnam I realized that what for all his inflection and bluster, he was definitely dead wrong .
What government line exactly? It changed numerous times….
In a time where public intellectuals were actually that - public intellectuals. You could (with exceptions there ofcourse) fairly soundly trust their knowledge, you'd know they'd be passionate about the subject purely for the sake of the complexity of the issue and to inform rather than coerce.
How extremely rare that is now
Rare I fear to the point of extinction
In Hitchens memoir, Hitch-22, he admits a deep an intimate friendship with Buckley. They both loved and respected each other.
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.
America was never the same after the Vietnam war. It wounded us in many ways literally and figuratively. We never will recover.
im not sure i agree with that framing, and I know that on at least one other occasion Hitch lists about 10-15 occasions on which it was said the US had 'lost its innocence', and made a joke about it.
The US was a plutocracy from the founding, dependent on slavery and then wage slavery and prison labor/debt peonage, treated natives rather poorly, and was rarely if ever explicitly non-expansionist.
@@MorphingReality There is no utopia in this life. But the United States did evil things and great things. It was at it's best from about 1945 to 1975. But it's too late to fix it now. I just hope and pray that the break up is peaceful.
I miss the days when both sides of an argument were presented with intelligence and calmness and respect
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.
@@kenkaplan3654evidence please…
@@georgekilroy2670
"When the Civil Rights Movement began gaining ground in the 1950s, Buckley used the pages of The National Review to argue against democracy in the South, promoting the then relatively new re-packaging of racism by arguing that black people simply were not culturally advanced enough to be trusted with the vote. He would stick to this position throughout the 1960s, declining to even slightly reconsider his stance on civil rights until the last years of his life.[4] When it came to Vietnam, Buckley was the most belligerent of hawks, characterizing any criticism of America’s intervention with the failure to take the side of freedom. One could go on, but we’ll settle for the headlines of a lifetime of bad takes."
I'll give you his exact quotes if you want. not pretty. Buckley was never as intelligent as he thought he was, a "legend in is own mind", but he became enormously influuential, sadly, and did great harm.
Read my extensive critiques on this page instead of asking for evidence I have already provided. Here's his own words
"Buckley himself had developed two arguments against civil rights, both of which were little more than disguised racism, both of which led the line at National Review. The first emerged early in his career. Since the 1950s, Buckley had argued that civil rights should be opposed not because black people were biologically inferior to white people, but because they were not yet “civilized” enough to take part in democratic government. Or, as Buckley put it in 1959, “There are no scientific grounds for assuming congenital Negro disabilities. The problem is not biological, but cultural and educational.”
He didn’t stop there. In 1957, Buckley wrote National Review’s most infamous editorial, entitled “Why the South Must Prevail.” Is the white community in the South, he asked, “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?” His answer was crystal clear: “The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because for the time being, it is the advanced race.” Buckley cited unfounded statistics demonstrating the superiority of white over black, and concluded that, “it is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” He added definitively: “the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.”
And what method should be used to enforce the maintenance of “civilized standards”? According to Buckley, it should be a no-holds-barred defense, even including violence. “Sometimes,” he wrote, “it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical [white] minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.”
Enough for you?
Wonderful..love Buckley....isn't nice to watch these great intellects spar but with kindness and chivalry......I don't think we see that much anymore......
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
hitchens describing james forrestal as being "in a lucid interval" made me laugh out loud
MY TWO ABSOLUTLE FAVOURITES ---- R.I.P. TO THEM. CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS & WILLIAM FRANK BUCKLEY . THEY WERE CALLED SOON TO INTERVIEW " HEAVENLY " MATTER'S . GREATLY MISSED . FROM U.K. (2022).
Intelligence and civility across a large gulf. Why can't we have this now?
Kudos to Buckley for his willingness to have on a guest who was smarter, faster, better-spoken, and more knowledgable than he was, and to ask him back. The look on the Buckley toady's face at 8:22 when he realizes that Hitchens is about to slaughter one of his sacred cows without breaking a sweat is fantastically gratifying.
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 ...
The look on Hitchens' face after hearing Buckley's comment @ 3:29 is priceless. It's as though he was invaded by the imagery of Buckley pleasuring himself and then pondering what it could be he was fantasizing about.
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 :-)
10:20 Hitchens was so witty.
An intelligent, passionate, eloquent debate is so beneficial to the individuals and society. You can see the destruction that arguing and intolerance has all around us. We humans are so limited in our understanding that we need to be able to share as many perspectives as possible to learn and grow at a pace that will keep up with life’s challenges. I have many friends throughout life that I “disagree” with on some or many things. I cherish these relationships. There is an affirmation of worth that cannot be gained or given by people who only mirror each other.
That is remarkably well put
And well thought out
To listen to the English language spoken at this capacity is truly a privilege.
Refreshing, isn't it?
The lesson here is, it is not so much the meat of an argument, but rather how one articulates it. To conflate the idea, and its delivery, as wisdom, is a folly indeed.
I miss them both.
Refreshing to see people using arguments to debate rather than just argue. One of the things that changed in the passing of the baton to America seems to have been the veneer of sportsmanship in dialogue, to be replaced by spectacle in the long term.
Check out the channel for more :)
I think that was more the effect of Television on society at large, rather than something specifically American.
Oh, I can only imagine this discussion taking place today if these two were among us.
Lost some great minds when those two died. Sadder still is the lost of intelligent conversation and debate. I am so tired of the chest beating and angry style of today's commentators.
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
Its interesting to see the younger Hitchens vs the older version. Just looking at the older Hitchens, I sense a little less niceness, if you will, toward Buckley. Maybe it's because he is more experienced and knowledgeable. They younger Hitchens may have had a little bit more admiration or respect for Buckley than the older.
I can never forgive Hitch for supporting the Falklands War.
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!! 😃
My goodness, the knowledge, the presentation, the flow, the humanity...and all we are left with now is Trump. Definitely on different ends of the gene pool. Thanks for the post.
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.
IIt´s almost never said, but Hitchens was also gorgeous, a treat for females, a ladies man.
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.
The beauty of this conversation is evidence of the greatness of USA as a country. You can have two immensely brilliant individuals, with utterly opposing viewpoints on almost every topic imaginable, yet who are able to express themselves on National TV, and in a manner of the most charismatic intellectual chivalry and wittiness. I honestly wish I was born in that great country.
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.
Holy crap I loved this
Thanks :)
Thanks!
First time I got one of those, thank you lots :)
The biggest difference between then and now is that the so-called “public intellectuals” of today are essentially professional opinion-givers. People like Shapiro gives an opinion on EVERYTHING, which is why we end up with his laughably bad takes on things such as rap music and other art. On the other hand, Hitchens and Buckley weren’t making 4 hour podcasts every day. They typically avoided speaking on issues they had little knowledge of.
And while I don’t like gatekeeping, I appreciate the pre-internet days where it was tougher to make it as a “public intellectual.” Baldwin, Hitchens, and Buckley were all the best at what they did. Now, any idiot with internet access can spew some cliche right-wing/left-wing talking points, build a decent-sized audience, and secure some funding from people like the Koch brothers to get even bigger (I’m looking at you Dave Rubin). They become talking heads for corporate interests.
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, TH-cam 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.
WFB met his match: CH has the edge.
great watch.
Check out the channel!
that was great
World class eloquence and education here. Wow
I always wanted to see them talk.
Buckley's comment on the 60's and Hutchens reply, priceless.
Always had the perfect words for the job.
I miss these two men so much !
Buckley was the only match hitchens ever had .
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 .
Both awesome men..
I agree and disagree with with both on various positions they discuss.
Today it's like "Gerry Springer show" gone mainstream..sad.
Shalom
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
I like this Hitch more than the later Hitch. Oscar Wilde must have talked somewhat like him.
I am glad you posted this comment. I couldn't agree more.
Wilde was actually born in Dublin.
what did you edit this with, a hatchet
What real intellectuals sound like.
Buckley is just sublime in this conversation
He was the most articulate person that was ever on television.
Buckley at 18:50 "The presumption is that the state is in the business of aggrandizing its power and ought to be watched". How prophetic - I wonder what he would have made of Trump.
Who is the third guy who appears in the second segment? He seems utterly shocked by the mere suggestion that the US could ever be considered an aggressor or agitator.
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.
WHY THE HELL DID HITCH OPPOSE THE VIETNAM WAR, BUT SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR?
Ach you missed Hitch's come-back at 08:10 after Buckley says it shouldn't surprise him that Marx made that comment, to which he wryly replies: "it doesn't surprise me, but I guess I thought it might surprise YOU"
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.
weird editing
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
Peter Robinson. GOAT interviewer
In the second segment, Buckley shows how detached/ignorant he was from/about what was going on in the 60's, and should've just saved his breath. But, being the lover of the sound of his own voice, he had to reply. And, reply he did. Unfortunately, his reply had absolutely nothing to with what he was asked.
8:34 great point. And should be revisit knowing what we know of Taiwan and China. Greetings from Bolivia 🇧🇴🇧🇴🇧🇴
You can feel the respect they had for each other. Respect that has been oh so lost
Buckley sounds like he's a mixture of the American south and England.
Buckley sounds like he is here at the peak of his "I not only want to sound British-ish, but in the most smug, obnoxious manner possible."
He really put in the work!
Two of my favorites!
Buckley was indeed a masturbatory pervert
The best part about Buckley is that on retrospective he was on the wrong side of history on almost every issue for 50 years. A lesson in conservatism.
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.
Great exchange at the beginning with Buckley saying the 60s were listless and “masturbatory” and Hitchens says on the contrary the times were quite famous for “going the distance”. Hilarious.
Yep, The Good Ole’ Days
British Imperial bluster - priceless
9.25 Is one of the most interesting passages of Hitchens I've ever heard. Export the British NHS to bring real healthcare to the US, stand against the monarchy and the founding reasons of the constitution - I wonder if he would have thrown his weight behind Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Oh boy now. We have Fox ugh and orange dear leader . How unhinged is the us
Wow Hitch was CUTE.
_even though it's been mutated in this slightly suspect way_
Bahahahah Hitchens backhanded compliments are the best!
There is sometimes a danger of intellectuals talking, whereby they talk more and more about less and less until eventually they are completely obsessed about absolutely nothing.
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.
Buckley puts the term "right wing" to it's literal max leaning in that chair as hard as he does.
YES!
Smartest guy here is Peter Robinson. Nobody criticized Hitch better: "..he was a man of integrity." LOL Hitchens always most interested in being a big man with his wit, intellect, deadpan humor, and command of language, and as a result was a big man in his small world and he ended it small RIP. Peter always a small man in a big world always enjoyed a supernatural intelligence that Hitch could never see or enjoy.
Would have loved to see the younger fiery Buckley debate Hitchens
2 Giants. May they both rest in peace.
I like Hitchens' slight smirk at Buckley's "masturbatory" line.
It would be a great video to remember them by if it just didn’t back and forth from one conversation to another. Did I miss some good reason for the splicing?
Oh how I wish I were more intelligent.
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.
Chinese expansionism is untrue Hitch? Cmon boy!
At 7:02 Hitch does the Buckley tongue thing. A homage?
Buckley had a thing for princess Di
Not unlikely
He was a good friend of Princess Grace of Monarco
A true Licker of Boots like all hierarchical conservatives
different times - different class
Buckley is held up by conservatives as one of their best and brightest, which is telling.
The glory days of television?
Was such a great point about France and nuclear weapons.
What was the date of recording?
Hitchens is the person who I most wished I had met. Tragic death. Plus, I was an admirer of Buckley, I can't now imagine why.
Yes
Amazing to see Hitchens make Peter uncomfortable 😂😂😂😂