100%

Well it's time to be Hitchens instead of simply miss him. Impossible to achieve his wit and character, but being courageous like him is possible.

Spot on !!!

Hitchens probably would've been pro censorship

Freedom of speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Hitch gets that, the other guy doesn't. He's arguably advocating book burnings (dejavu anyone)

Bravo

Don't feel so good! KZfaq has been taking controversial speeches by David Irving off it's site for no other reason than public pressure which is the worse sin against the 1st amendment anyone can make, even against a Nazi apologist like David Irving. To me, that is worse than anything David Irving could write.

Yes, KZfaq is creating safe spaces and erasing discussion of history. Try it yourself. Leave a comment in the main thread saying Adolf, Goebbels, *Trucker Carsloan* and some American companies like F0Xy news. Then refresh the comment section few minutes later and it's gone.

Agreed

KZfaq banned Oliver Stones 2014 documentary, Ukraine on fire. Banned anybody who went against the Biden covid narrative. FJB!

@Black Lesbian Poet Don't know. He died 2 years later.

Agreed. But I saw Hitchens be part of the problem a few times. (But granted not always.)

It’s a hell of a lot more respectful and it’s not just everyone yelling or even trying to shit on each other.

Hitchens was one of the greats never afraid to voice his opinion no matter the subject

I think a big problem is that they have these time limits. "Make your point in 15 seconds, time starts now, until the bell rings." This forces people to read talking points. In that short time, nobody can formulate an intelligent thought. Also, this is a problem of the audience. People's attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. Another problem that forces people to read talking points is cancel culture. Everyone errs on the side of caution, lest twitter finds a reason to be offended. But thought-provoking ideas need to be just that: provoking, and therefore offensive.

Exactly many people are waking up, but still have so many brainwashed people, they see people skinny and hungry and get all emotional.

That's a soundbyte, nothing to actually rest your ideas upon. Lying shouldn't be covered by free speech laws just as calls for violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater or libel aren't covered as protected speech. It doesn't take much to get the ignorant masses to act on scapegoating and next thing we know we've got another of many historical pogroms on our hands.

@AiGodSoul Interesting. Although there is the problem of giving certain dichotimies equal 'air time'. Like, for example, Bill Nye giving a platform to Ken Ham.

​@@matthewphilip1977How is that a problem, exactly? I put on Ham or Hovind or Flat Earth Dave or any other dummy of the sort when I wanna laugh. I need a damn good reason why I shouldn't be able to.

@@alexmckelvey3768 I think it's a problem in that it can look to the uninformed (I include myself there, to some degree anyway) that both sides of the argument are on an equal footing. And with most debate formats each side's position is not given sufficient scrutiny; there is little cross examination for example. Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind, spend their 10 or 15 minutes at the lecturn spouting a Gish gallop that is hard to fully rebut given time constrictions. Those not versed in geology, or primatology, etc, etc, can be impressed. If instead one side cross examined the other point by point we would have much more light and much less light shed on things. As for being entertained; I do find Kent Hovind entertaining. He has a way about that, for me, makes it hard to dislike him, even though he is, I think, talking nonsense. Ham, not so much, for me anyway. He's humourless, dour, tedious. But he's got his spiel down pat and can be persuasive to those not versed in the arguments, or when his points are not properly scrutinized.

@Generic Name You could always find people on TV who were merely "smart." This is one person with no integrity and one person who occaisionally displays some, like here. That is, one of them is advocating censorship in theory, and practicing it by constanly interrupting - and the irony is - while criticizing Irving for being too sympathetic to other censors (the book-burning Nazi's . I was interested in this because David Irving is an archtype. He is Orwell's Goldstein. Irving is routinely and falsely accused of being a so-called "Holocaust Denier," and yet has suggested that Himmler (for whom there are smoking-gun documents) may have misled Hiter (for whom there are no smoking-gun documents) about the mass killings. It is absur to claim that someone who is assigning responsibility for a crime is somehow denying that the crime occured. But they hate Iriving, and do so, again ironically, in the name of opposing hate. Another irony is that those who would censor, often use the pejoratice "conspriacy theory." And yet, it is literally a "conspiracy theory" that Hitler was - in the absence of direct proof - the head of the conspiracy. It is a theory that I believe, but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. So, they lambaste Irving for "denying" a "conspiracy theory."

This was a closer call than that.

@@lukechopper22 Irving has never been proven wrong. If he had, there had been no reason to censor him

@@lukechopper22 according to Britannica, between 25,000 and 250,000 were killed in Dresden so Irving is probably not very wrong when he says 100,000. I agree with you that he could self-publish his book, and we can only speak of censoring if he is not able to sell it. This is, by the way, what we see today, since just a few resellers dominate. We do have a few alternative publishers, though, which would be happy to publish his books.

@@stigcc Irving was proven wrong in court. He can be proven wrong by anyone who reads the documents he misrepresents. And if the last 25 years have proved anything it is that we aren’t the grown ups Hitchens hoped we were. We don’t, as a collective, possess the skills or discernment necessary for charlatans and frauds to be reliably branded as such.

@@lukechopper22 As you say, 'Except that that wasn't what the debate was about.' - It was abojt a publisher accepting a manuscript, signing a contract, getting to the point of publication, but then drawing back from publication not because of any qualms about the book being 'factually inaccurate' but because they might be a furore about it. There was no question of 'factuallly inaccurate' but on the grounds of the way Irving interpreted those facts. Historical writing is interpretation and the arguments between those interested in history are about that. I think perhaps you should watch the discussion again.

No one was disclaiming Hitchens' right to read anyone he wants. That doesn't mean a private publisher must (or should) publish them.

@@burnerlife It's not about that. It's that they agreed to publish it at first, then became scared and bowed to outside pressure. It's a phenomenon that's only gotten worse in recent years. These days, many publishers don't even dare to touch certain topics anymore. Islam criticism for example is one.

Lmao

🤣

I mean, we can read Mein Kampf. We can read anything, and should. But how we treat the authors and what they use their speech to accomplish does not exist without consequence.

@@candicefrost4561 Hitchens was arguing against censorship. And against 1 group telling another what ideas they can hear and cannot. If we censor unpopular ideas, how can any progress ever be made? Or innovation succeed? Or orthodoxies be challenged. And who gets to decide? It seems to me the utmost arrogance that some people think they know what can and cannot be considered by others. And how should we treat an author whose work we cannot read because it has becomes unavailable (because of this type of censorship)?

@@candicefrost4561why shouldn’t you be allowed to read mein kampf.

@@brightonduder “because of this type of censorship” and what type of censorship is that? No examples of censorship were being presented in this debate

​@candicefrost4561 but that's the whole point. If every publishing house says david Irving is a holocaust denier therefore we will not publish his book. Then, we can't "read ANYTHING", can we?

what heart?

They have none

Nonsense.

Lol thanks for that. His awful voice kind of gave it away.

His early life and his death both give us some insight.

That doesn't come as surprise....

@@paristo Michael Chertoff much?

@@buttafan4010 Don't know who He is.... What you mean?

i get the point, but thats not an argument.

@@GebreMMII Yes, it is an argument. Or, at least valuable information.

@S R I guess you are right. Also interesting to know that none of the biographies written after the war mentioned any holocaust

@@stigcc It would be, if he was putting forward testimony, rather than arguments.

Argument from authority. Have you actually read much else on the topic? Maybe some primary sources even? The guy is clearly biased in favor of Hitler. I guess that's fine since most of the literature is the opposite, but it's certainly not a great account of what actually happened.

​@@ramdas363In which way was he biased? I could easily say you're also biased and a product of ally propaganda.

Jesus, of countering? He has a weasely way of everything

I mean everything the guy said is right though

@@Labneh9102 He made a few good points (so did Hitchens) but I agree the way he talked is insufferable. Like his highest goal isn't understanding or speaking truth, but to "win" the argument.

Well he is a member of the tribe.

David Irving calling Anne Frank’s diary a hoax and claiming the Jews goaded Goebbels into mass extermination is not inquisitive...it’s anti-Semitic.

@@Mdk2730 It doesn't matter. What you do with that situation is you find out what the person says, namely read his material, and then find out the veracity of the claims. My point is that it should not be up to the publishers but up to the readers. There are anti-anything views all over the place and yet the material gets published.

Except AF diary is a fiction. Just because Yewllywood made a movie based on it doesn't make it true.

@@Mdk2730 It was written by her father. It has been proven. Hint: Ball point pens did not exist

@@Mdk2730 Anne Frank's diary has been confirmed to have been written post 1951, due to the fact that a big part of it has been written in ball point pen ink. Also, the entries are in the same hand writing as all the insertions and foot notes. Do you honestly think a young girl would put that in her diary? That would be very weird and theatrical for a normal kid writing down its thoughts.

I love Hitchens, but this is one of the rare examples of him stretching a bit IMO. Individual publishers deciding not to publish a work (even if it’s a reaction to boycotts) is not outright censorship. I don’t agree with caving to public pressure, but this decision was a business one, not a pro-censorship one.

I love Hitchens and his work but I strongly disagree with him here for the reasons that the comment above me posted. If the government prevented the publishing of the book, that censorship, but a private publisher has the right to decline any book it deems unworthy for whatever reason. I'm a ww2 buff and a free speech advocate and I would not publish this book if I had the power to.

Lying shouldn't be covered by free speech laws just as calls for violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater or libel aren't covered as protected speech. It doesn't take much to get the ignorant masses to act on scapegoating and next thing we know we've got another of many historical pogroms on our hands.

The thing is, even censoring lies does not prevent them being spoken and shared and even thriving, it just commits them to the shadows where their proliferation and escalation can go unchecked and unchallenged..i can see how this example may be more of a financially motivated decision, but I tend to agree that anyone should be allowed to say, publish and read anything. It’s patronizing to suggest people can’t be expected to recognize for themselves which information is or isn’t of value or merit and it is precisely by putting all ideas out in the public arena that the bad ones can be recognized, refuted and dismissed.

@@pfftwhut7638Yeah, like a pogrom against liars.

And cringing.

He had jaundice and was dying of liver failure at this time.

@@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboys being an alcoholic can do that to ppl

Couldn’t be anymore of a racial stereotype if he tried

👃

Agreed. In fairness, he was dying of AIDS at the time.

SkeptiSketch Aha, I suppose his twitchy behaviour makes sense then.

Really? That's great news!

@@SkeptiSketch Eric Breindel was dying of aids? Very sad. I wasn't aware of that.

- Joseph Oh fuck off. The man he’s arguing with was also a Jew.

Dude is a bigot and cherry picks everything in order to strengthen his agenda.

Gulf War Syndrome conspiracy theory? Turned out to be fact: radiation poisoning caused by used uranium from nuclear power plants turned into artillery shells. Given how much of the official line consists of hoaxes and lies, I give the benefit of the doubt to doubters.

Shut it down!

You mean current nazification of western societies so clearly exposed during this Covid Regime reign and its clampdown on basic human rights?

Too bad Charlie is still here. So is Kissinger

​@@arriuscalpurniuspisoHa, no longer mate. One disgraced and one finally shoved off the mortal coil. A bit late on both, but we can't have it all. . .

You owe it to the laws of the country,one of those being The Consitution. It applies to everybody.

It's like he's trying to crush a walnut with his sphincter all the time.

True, but theres an understanding that Hitler is a bad guy already, few people read Hitler as an objective view of the war. Irving would appear an objective historian and his views might go unchallenged

@@britishnerd3919 That is a point. But I dont think his thesis is all that offensive - Hitler didnt know about the camps. Thats fascinating to me. Personally, I think he knew well about die Endlösung but I dont think he was particularly interested. I think the extermination "project" was all Himmler. Idk

Fellow Aussie here - I support this comment 100%. The majority of the population here haven’t had an original thought in their lives

@@JMMM1986 I thought it was just me who considers most Australians rather boring and uneducated

Exactly. Regardless of what people think about the Holocaust or whether they believe it happened or not, it's not the only topic related to WW2 or NS Germany. The "Non-Holocaust" history of WW2 is far more interesting.

I believe the revisionist people lowering the numbers of dead by the millions, says more than Irving ever did. It is also very interesting, that the many fans of Irving, who read his books, based on him being honest and quite diligent with his findings, suddenly dropped him when he touched the H word. What changed beside the topic ?

@Blank who? Me? Jesus, I didnt mean any offence by that. I dont deny the Holocaust at all. Its widely accepted that 75% of European Jews were exterminated this is not up for debate. When Mr. Irving talks about die Endlösung I tune out. When he talks about Hitler's political and military career I tune in. I believe the great Mr. Hitchens did likewise so I find myself in good company :)

@Blank History fears no investigation.

@Blank "Revisionism" should not be a dirty word. History (all History) should be permanently open to revision. It is the only way of gaining new insights (provided, of course, they are backed by facts). By declaring certain parts of History to be "off-limits" to revision, we are moving away from History and into the realm of mythology. By those standards, even Yad Vashem would be labelled as "Holocaust deniers", given that they estimate 4.5 million instead of 6 million Jewish dead.

And many people would’ve have bought Irving’s book

He had long-term liver failure. He died 2 years after this video.

​@@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboysbadness begets badness. Or should i karma hurts

You're a parody.

@@lsobrienand you’re glib.

@@javimiami92 Glib? If you don't know what to say, you needn't say anything.

@lsobrien no, but I like the way Tom Cruise said it to Matt Lauer, and so I did an homage in his honor. I don't even know what glib means.

'Eric seemed so nervous.' - Perhaps he was still using heroin.

they are desperate to maintain the sacred jew narrative. it is the key to everything else.

Maybe his handle wasn't on the pan in the first place.

I’d like to agree but there ought to be consequences for intentionally stoking the fires of Nazis in the modern world, which is clearly what has happened with authors like him. Ideally those consequences are social and financial in the sense that no one in a civilized world will want to publish it because it’s disgusting drivel. I think Hitchens has too much faith in people to immediately see through the dog whistles and subtle manipulation tactics of anti-Semitic authors. Let them show off their little conspiracy theories and betray their bigotry in interviews, but they are not being oppressed when decent people are disgusted with them.

@@candicefrost4561you see this is the problem - you assert that he is intentionally stoking nazi fires. What is the evidence that this is what he intended? This is what you’ve been told - nothing more. Maybe his logic re: the number of dead at Auchwitz is wrong or right. Let him make his case and I can then decide for myself without people giving themselves permission to block his arguments. Bandying the term conspiracy theories at things you don’t like isn’t an argument - it’s lazy and flawed and convinces no-one anymore. I’m perfectly happy for you or others to declaim their disdain for Irving. But I’m interested in what he has to say. Or maybe I’m not. But either way - I agree with Hitchens: I don’t need or want any self appointed filters

He barely interrupted him, both were given a fair chance to make their points. Also, the New York post guy won the debate pretty handedly. It was Christopher’s view that it would be better for the publisher to publish any and all works, which is his opinion which he has a right to, but it is also the right of the publisher to decide what they publish, which negate’s Hitchen’s opinion as it’s their company and not his, which was the position the other guy took. So the debate goes to this Eric fellow.

No, he doesn't. The argument Hitchens is (rightly) making is that a reputable publisher, having gone through all its standard procedures to evaluate whether a book was worth publishing, had accepted it and then got cold feet when faced with what amounts to censure by some who can and would create a scandal to restricte a wide audience to their version of things.

​@@sichelgaito I agree. The problem Hitchens (and we) faces is that the obvious resolution of this censorious behaviour - the path of least resistance for publishers - is to be more risk averse in their standard procedures, or more likely their due dilligence of the authors past works at the outset. The outcome is the same, and yet a form of censorship has been ratcheted up by stealth.

@@kqxp I personally fear the fact that if one does not like an author personally, it is perfectly OK to condemn their work. Irving's books (and the same should apply to any other author) should be judged on their content. So far, I have not seen any criticism of Irving addressing what is IN his books, but rather what his personal political positions stances are.

My thoughts exactly. I don’t get the people who just blindly agree with everything Hitchens ever said. One of my favorite things about him is that even on matters that I disagreed with him on, he always presents a fascinating and convincing case for the opposing view. I wouldn’t want to agree with him on everything. That would be boring.

@@Badtown1988 Why don't you agree with Hitchens here? He makes a good point, it seems to me, that he, like others, including Raul Hilberg, learn more from arguing with those with whom he disagrees than he does from those he agrees with. Yes, we don't want to listen to holocaust deniers who are unthinking trolls or thugs but listening to, and arguing with, erudite historians, even if they are antisemites, can sharpen our own take on the history of the holocaust.

Really? What is the merit of standing in front of a fast-approaching semi-trailer truck? Hitchens was a couple of intellectual and moral leagues above Breindel and he should have stayed well out of his way.

I agree.

I agree about censorship, but no, he's far from being a brilliant historian

@@fafolaw And that's fine - as long as those who think he is are not censored and vilified!

Historians deal in FACTS NOT BARE FACED LIES UNlike the individual calling themselves irving!!!! How do you account for all the graves at Auschwitz?!?!?!!!! The thousands of prisoners within the confines of the camp decide to commit suicide in a gas chamber and put their bodies either into a grave or onto the flames to be cremated did they?!?!?!!!!! How do you account for all the footage of the remaining prisoners when the Russians freed the camp in August 1945?!?!?!!!!! Are you going to try and say that the people there decided to starve themselves until they looked like famine victims and so close to death they could barely stand, you TOTALLY worthLESS PIECE OF LYING, nazi loving, ANTI-SEMETIC, RACIST EXPLETIVE?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!! Due to the fact that I am unable to say this straight to your face (a fact that RIGHTLY REALLY EXPLETIVES ME RIGHT OFF because whenever it is possible, if I have something to say, I will ALWAYS say it STRAIGHT to the relevant person/s face/s!!!!) I am going to post my personal details online now because I RIGHTLY REFUSE to take the coward's way out by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet!!!! Postal address: Julie Gill, Flat 15/4, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Knightswood, Glasgow, Scotland, Britain (NOT u k!!!!!!!!!!!! Due to the way in which the hanovers/royal family and their associates choose to treat other creatures, I RIGHTLY REFUSE to acknowledge their existence!!!!) Email Address: juliegill4444@gmail.com Mobile Number: +447845 921 549

@@JulieKernit1 post your birthdate and bank details too so I can confirm your real. This is why old people fail at the internet.

You know Hitchens was Jewish too.

@Jay Bee Don't know about the hungover lol but know it hardly ever was an obstacle for him to present his opinions in an intellectually impressive way. Would be great to have him today.

Jay Bee..more than I bit hungover I'd say,but that never made him less amazing in the least.

His alcohol use made him great

Oh, he was seriously ill. He died a couple of years later. Liver failure. Suspected AIDS. Heroin user. OK.

He was, he had liver failure here and died 2 years after this video.

@@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboys are you related to him I see you commenting this under every comment

@@budgibson185 Have I? I thought I wrote it under 2 or 3 comments out of the ~500 on the channel, just wanted to give more context to why his skin has a yellowish hue.

Bro was unfairly metooed

Barf evey time a Maga says Woke

Eric Briendel was a conservative

​@@trini4204Neo conservative. And from NY. Where did they all end up today? Don't play fast and loose with the terms just because you want to ignore to obvious point that this sort of bitching about ideas has really snowballed into an era of stagnated thought, where you try to cut out tongues rather than read a fucking book and develop an argument.

Look another conspiracy thinker. That dude's shown his bigotry and bias in his supposed "research" over and over

@@pfftwhut7638 You clearly know nothing

@@richardlawes2697and you do....SMFH

@@pfftwhut7638nice argument…not

@@Azoria4what are you, twelve? LOL

Demons look like lizards

It's rude to tell an adult what to say or believe. Pronouns or authors, I'll decide for myself what I'm going to read or write.

Fully agreed. The wrong people won that war.

Comes with the gifts of being the chosen ones didnt you know ? 😂

@@liannblack2427Chosen for what? You made up a whole religion and put yourselves as the main characters “The chosen ones” lmao

The problem with the bad guys was they tried to silence people and force a way of life on them. Now the self proclaimed good guys want to silence you and force a way of life on you.

Screw free speech we want more Shoa.

Chiang Kai-Shek drowned 200,000 of his countrymen by knocking down a levee on the Yellow River. Perhaps 2 million eventually died from homelessness, hunger, and disease. Of course we know how China turned out. It's just really hard to say any of the belligerents acted well at any turn.

Hid voice makes me vomit. Sounds like he's being rammed up the ass while talking.

The painter was right about them.

See again not their documents, they burnt Marxist literature and degenerate books of sexual ideologies. Which guess who had written such books.

Fuck me that's spot on.

Really wish I could hear Hitchens views on how falsehood is spread online via mediums such as Twitter and Facebook, given that recent studies that supposedly show falsehoods spread wider and faster than truth on these platforms

Research into the holocaust isn't illegal. European do have laws against hate speech, which holocaust denial is. Denial is the opposite of research.

@@4tommie So you're saying doing research about the holocaust is legal as long as you don't orally articulate it? Or enter it into a keyboard? It's illegal to question the holocaust? Something spoken can land a person in jail in Germany. I'd call that "hateful legislation". That's not much different than some of the things the NAZIS allegedly did.. Nothing spoken should be illegal in a free society especially something so historically significant.

@@ANTI-AIPAC that's not much different? I mean... it's a bit different, isn't it?

@@4tommie It is not illegal as long as you come to the accepted conclusion. Anybody who dares to step outside of that orthodoxy is violently suppressed. I suggest you look for the story of one Joel Hayward and his Master's Thesis in New Zealand.