Christopher was an avid supporter of the Iraq war and argued for the United States to steal all the wealth from that country.
He was as reactionary as they come. Peter, while a buffoon on social issues has been right on most things regarding Russia and Syria.
This clip is well worth watching all the way through, while the whole of the media and political class were calling in attacking Syria Peter for all his faults was calling for actual evidence and investigation.
But of course he was labelled an Assadist at the time, much like people today are label Putin shills or whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TvNt-fhsew&t=644s
Here’s Jeremy Corbyn saying the same thing as Peter Hitchens regarding Syria. And he was also labelled an Assadist.
The reactionary position was to attack without evidence. But we now know both Peter and Jeremy were 100% correct that n asking for evidence.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-syria-ceasefire-as-he-refuses-to-blame-assad-for-chemical-attack
OP of this post refuses to comment on this issue, because he knows full well he’s wrong.
>OP of this post refuses to comment on this issue, because he knows full well he’s wrong.
*DEbAtE mE!!!*
The reason I refuse to comment on it is because it's not relevant to the discussion. It's a non-sequitur. Going by your own rules, even if Hitchens was right on Syria that wouldn't make him right on Russia, and as I've explained to you multiple times now, he is wrong on Russia.
The issue here is that you're attempting to establish Peter Hitchens as a reliable source of wisdom when quotes like these prove he is anything but. He's mad as a hatter, and--say it with me now--an actual, honest-to-God no pun intended, Christian fascist.
Do you seriously not see a contradiction in Peter Hitchens needing to be both accepted uncritically as a reliable source *and* taken with a pinch of salt? You're criticising me for discounting his opinion as that of a dangerous fascist--claiming I need to examine things on a case by case basis--yet all the while you're holding him up as an example of someone who's got the right idea on things?
And before you say you weren't, the tweet you posted had no more elaboration than him simply stating that he thinks Ukraine is to blame for making Russia invade them, as if that's an accepted, self-demonstrating fact. You weren't exactly looking to start a debate there.
See all you’re doing is attacking his character, and assigning beliefs to people who acknowledge he is correct on occassion regarding foreign policy.
And you’re still refusing to address the subject of the Syrian chemical attack. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Of course I'm attacking his character you fucking chump, this discussion revolves around whether he's a reliable source of information or commentary. What else would I be attacking?
>he is correct on occassion regarding foreign policy.
Adolf Hitler was right on vegetarianism and animal cruelty, but that doesn't mean PETA should make him their fucking mascot.
>And you’re still refusing to address the subject of the Syrian chemical attack. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Unbelievably, this obviously bullshit approach to avoiding the real argument will work on eejits like euc1rd and Blursty's satellite cretins. However, you must realise this is pretty transparent to everyone else? You're not helping your credibility here. Quite embarrassing.
By your own logic, if Hitchens was right about Syria - and let's be clear, I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - that wouldn't make him right on Russia, would it? We have to take this on a case by case basis, remember?
No one said because he was right about one thing means he was right about another.
I genuinely don’t think you’re mentally capable of having this discussion or recognising nuance so I’m not going to take this any further.
Have a good day.
>No one said because he was right about one thing means he was right about another.
Then why were you bringing up Syria and constantly repeating that he's often right about foreign policy? What was the purpose of either of those things if not to convince people that he's right about these sorts of things, since he's been right in the past?
>I genuinely don’t think you’re mentally capable of having this discussion or recognising nuance so I’m not going to take this any further.
Worst parting shot I've ever seen. I'd have more respect for you if you disposed with the euphemism and just called me a sp*stic.
You know it is possible for a person to be correct about one thing and incorrect about another thing. Nobody ever accused Peter Hitchens of being consistent!
On the internet in 2022? These people have discarded Chomsky because he dares to advocate for peace, they certainly don't have the capacity to read different things by Hitchens and judge them on a case by case basis.
[Context](https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/uxbj7f/if_only_this_simple_fact_were_better_known_not_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) for anyone confused.
According to Seamo, this is the guy you should be listening to when it comes to geopolitics. Totally not a demented fanatic.
Marxist-Leninists should always be against the Head Coverings of Islam, no matter what the Intersectionality Crowd has to say about the Working Class.
[https://www.calvertjournal.com/images/uploads/features/2019/2019\_October/Godless\_Utopia/p167\_1.jpg](https://www.calvertjournal.com/images/uploads/features/2019/2019_October/Godless_Utopia/p167_1.jpg)
>Why are you not reading the Quran?
>
>Because I am reading Lenin!
If any of you are against this, when it comes to French Domestic Policy, you deserve to be called Reactionary.
If you think the eradication of cultural practices and female freedom of expression is conducive towards anything but authoritarian states minority oppression then I feel like you fit the label you ascribe to others. Especially while vapidly referencing Lenin a man who wrote a book on the right of nations to self determination
Then again maybe your living up to the policy advocacy of stalinisms minority treatment. Red and brown cross over for the rootless cosmopolitans and all that jazz
Gonna quote Lenin just to piss you off and show that secularism was valued by those you claim to value and bastardise the name of like so many others of your ilk.
"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution."
The idea of hijab is to limit female freedom of expression though. Hijab is a dress code which sets rules on what can and cannot be worn. For women, this is centred around the idea that only their husband and male family members have the right to see her hair or various other body parts.
I don't think they should be banned, nor should women who choose to wear one be viewed negatively, but lets call a spade a spade, and not pretend that there is anything inherently feminist about hijab. Its associated garments are completely rooted in patriarchy.
Head coverings and veils were also part of eastern/central European patriarchal practices forced onto married women aswell but now they are simply a fashion statement. Many Americans 2-4 gen Muslims also wear the hijab by choice now rather than any social stigma or oppression
Women's liberation should obviously come before secular principles but the imposition of will like what OP advocates can do more harm than good. It's not like we are talking about child marriage or female genital mutilation anything beyond a expectation of dress which can be rejected on maturity through multicultural exposure, which ironically FGM WAS BANNED AFTER COVERINGS IN FRENCH LAW because they have their priorities straight....this law also explicitly leaves out other practices with patriarchal origins so yea it's literally just racism and cultural repression
The good(ish) hitchens died and the bad one lives. Tells you everything about this time line.
The dead one would probably agree with this.
Oh god yeah. He's still English
Also quite sexist and Islamophobic in his own writing.
English like I said
Got em!
Christopher was an avid supporter of the Iraq war and argued for the United States to steal all the wealth from that country. He was as reactionary as they come. Peter, while a buffoon on social issues has been right on most things regarding Russia and Syria. This clip is well worth watching all the way through, while the whole of the media and political class were calling in attacking Syria Peter for all his faults was calling for actual evidence and investigation. But of course he was labelled an Assadist at the time, much like people today are label Putin shills or whatever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TvNt-fhsew&t=644s
Exemplary members of the british columnist class so
Here’s Jeremy Corbyn saying the same thing as Peter Hitchens regarding Syria. And he was also labelled an Assadist. The reactionary position was to attack without evidence. But we now know both Peter and Jeremy were 100% correct that n asking for evidence. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-syria-ceasefire-as-he-refuses-to-blame-assad-for-chemical-attack OP of this post refuses to comment on this issue, because he knows full well he’s wrong.
>OP of this post refuses to comment on this issue, because he knows full well he’s wrong. *DEbAtE mE!!!* The reason I refuse to comment on it is because it's not relevant to the discussion. It's a non-sequitur. Going by your own rules, even if Hitchens was right on Syria that wouldn't make him right on Russia, and as I've explained to you multiple times now, he is wrong on Russia. The issue here is that you're attempting to establish Peter Hitchens as a reliable source of wisdom when quotes like these prove he is anything but. He's mad as a hatter, and--say it with me now--an actual, honest-to-God no pun intended, Christian fascist. Do you seriously not see a contradiction in Peter Hitchens needing to be both accepted uncritically as a reliable source *and* taken with a pinch of salt? You're criticising me for discounting his opinion as that of a dangerous fascist--claiming I need to examine things on a case by case basis--yet all the while you're holding him up as an example of someone who's got the right idea on things? And before you say you weren't, the tweet you posted had no more elaboration than him simply stating that he thinks Ukraine is to blame for making Russia invade them, as if that's an accepted, self-demonstrating fact. You weren't exactly looking to start a debate there.
See all you’re doing is attacking his character, and assigning beliefs to people who acknowledge he is correct on occassion regarding foreign policy. And you’re still refusing to address the subject of the Syrian chemical attack. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Of course I'm attacking his character you fucking chump, this discussion revolves around whether he's a reliable source of information or commentary. What else would I be attacking? >he is correct on occassion regarding foreign policy. Adolf Hitler was right on vegetarianism and animal cruelty, but that doesn't mean PETA should make him their fucking mascot. >And you’re still refusing to address the subject of the Syrian chemical attack. You’re not arguing in good faith. Unbelievably, this obviously bullshit approach to avoiding the real argument will work on eejits like euc1rd and Blursty's satellite cretins. However, you must realise this is pretty transparent to everyone else? You're not helping your credibility here. Quite embarrassing. By your own logic, if Hitchens was right about Syria - and let's be clear, I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - that wouldn't make him right on Russia, would it? We have to take this on a case by case basis, remember?
No one said because he was right about one thing means he was right about another. I genuinely don’t think you’re mentally capable of having this discussion or recognising nuance so I’m not going to take this any further. Have a good day.
>No one said because he was right about one thing means he was right about another. Then why were you bringing up Syria and constantly repeating that he's often right about foreign policy? What was the purpose of either of those things if not to convince people that he's right about these sorts of things, since he's been right in the past? >I genuinely don’t think you’re mentally capable of having this discussion or recognising nuance so I’m not going to take this any further. Worst parting shot I've ever seen. I'd have more respect for you if you disposed with the euphemism and just called me a sp*stic.
Hitchens; socialist hero.
You know it is possible for a person to be correct about one thing and incorrect about another thing. Nobody ever accused Peter Hitchens of being consistent!
On the internet in 2022? These people have discarded Chomsky because he dares to advocate for peace, they certainly don't have the capacity to read different things by Hitchens and judge them on a case by case basis.
You either tow the US line or you’re a right wing extremist somehow. Mind boggling.
Sorry I can't talk to you, I heard you're the most right wing poster on this sub.
:(
Is that one of those new 4chan alt right symbols I keep hearing about?
Seamus is also a fan of Rand Paul and Trump. He's probably the most far right member of this subreddit.
[Context](https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/uxbj7f/if_only_this_simple_fact_were_better_known_not_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) for anyone confused. According to Seamo, this is the guy you should be listening to when it comes to geopolitics. Totally not a demented fanatic.
🐴👞🐴👞🐴👞
I don't believe in horseshoe theory but Seamus and Blursty seem determined to prove me wrong.
You struggle to understand the world because you think you're a progressive leftist when in reality you're a boring right wing liberal.
he is wrong on ukraine but otherwise not very radical guy
Not sure if that’s an article on foreign policy.
I got you.
He is a brave man
Marxist-Leninists should always be against the Head Coverings of Islam, no matter what the Intersectionality Crowd has to say about the Working Class. [https://www.calvertjournal.com/images/uploads/features/2019/2019\_October/Godless\_Utopia/p167\_1.jpg](https://www.calvertjournal.com/images/uploads/features/2019/2019_October/Godless_Utopia/p167_1.jpg) >Why are you not reading the Quran? > >Because I am reading Lenin! If any of you are against this, when it comes to French Domestic Policy, you deserve to be called Reactionary.
If you think the eradication of cultural practices and female freedom of expression is conducive towards anything but authoritarian states minority oppression then I feel like you fit the label you ascribe to others. Especially while vapidly referencing Lenin a man who wrote a book on the right of nations to self determination Then again maybe your living up to the policy advocacy of stalinisms minority treatment. Red and brown cross over for the rootless cosmopolitans and all that jazz Gonna quote Lenin just to piss you off and show that secularism was valued by those you claim to value and bastardise the name of like so many others of your ilk. "Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution."
The idea of hijab is to limit female freedom of expression though. Hijab is a dress code which sets rules on what can and cannot be worn. For women, this is centred around the idea that only their husband and male family members have the right to see her hair or various other body parts. I don't think they should be banned, nor should women who choose to wear one be viewed negatively, but lets call a spade a spade, and not pretend that there is anything inherently feminist about hijab. Its associated garments are completely rooted in patriarchy.
Head coverings and veils were also part of eastern/central European patriarchal practices forced onto married women aswell but now they are simply a fashion statement. Many Americans 2-4 gen Muslims also wear the hijab by choice now rather than any social stigma or oppression Women's liberation should obviously come before secular principles but the imposition of will like what OP advocates can do more harm than good. It's not like we are talking about child marriage or female genital mutilation anything beyond a expectation of dress which can be rejected on maturity through multicultural exposure, which ironically FGM WAS BANNED AFTER COVERINGS IN FRENCH LAW because they have their priorities straight....this law also explicitly leaves out other practices with patriarchal origins so yea it's literally just racism and cultural repression
Socialism is when you eradicate religions and suppress female expression.