Yes, it’s great to see Aaron meet his senior, future self that is able to point out the folly of being in that spaceship of ideology.

Are you kidding? Peter utterly destroyed him here.

Lol. Peter was laughing at Aaron's childishness. This is why the left won't debate the right.

Could someone provide please the name of the 1990's film about the reality of the Soviet Union? Thanks!

​@@readsomebooks666exactly 🙂

The interviewer is in way over his head, another smirking liberal.

Total gold!

Give it ten years, these will all be 'I used to be a communist...'

Yeah hopefully it's another Dave Reuben/Larry Elder situation.

So the whole thing?

Agreed! However, perhaps Aaron should change his ideology before deciding to engage in another interview / debate with Mr Hitchens

Viva Commodore!

LOL more like bravo for being dumb enough to step out in front of an intellectual freight train...if that sort spectacle is desired.

I agree, it's a shame more conservatives aren't capable of being this rational.

He was happy because it would never be a debate knowing the interviewer was not in his league.

I think Peter was visibly staggered sometimes at how unread Aaron is. Especially for the quite ‘out there’ form of socialism he espouses. I think Peter maybe saw glimpses of himself as a student …

You needn't worry because Peter is right back to being his cranky self 😂

I like how the interviewer didn't spend half an hour on the same topic, unlike Alex O'Connor. A good interviewer should know when to move onto the next stage of the discussion.

​@@chrisjones3901By the way, how did Peter get on when debating, yes 'debating' Alex O'Connor?

I agree

I couldn't agree more with this. We should never simply sit and stagnate in our own ideas. We have to be willing to listen, engage with, challenge, and be challenged by opinions that aren't our own.

I agree

@@muntingianinja3210 didn't catch right wing media to have any debate with opposite views

@@muntingianinja3210 that’s bullshit lol you never see debates like this in right wing media, traditional or online

I was going to write a comment but you said it better than I ever could.

Douglas Murray next 👍

And poor Aaron got completely owned. He shouldn't of bothered uploading it to save himself the embarrassment

Calling yourself a communist does not make you a Communist. If you claim absolute power over other people's lives you are a dictator in a totalitarian state. That's about as far from communism as you can get.

@@ethelmini it is impossible to actually implement communism without totalitarianism, and even if it was implemented "correctly" (which will never happen) it would be an extremely fragile system that would collapse at the slightest crisis.

@@Viddaric Wrong

@@Gooseplan No, he's pretty well right. The main reason it will always collapse under its own weight are basically summed up thusly: 1) Those who impose communism on people always expect those people to respond to it in a way that matches their imagined utopia, and 2) those who impose the communism cannot accept that things have gone wrong because they are wrong about human nature, so they end up taking revenge on the people refusing to go along with their imagined utopia, and historically, millions of deaths result. And as people die off and the truth of the history is lost to younger generations and antiquity, the Monday morning quarterbacks will always be there to state that "communism has never actually been tried." The human nature that the communists always get wrong is at least twofold: They make assumptions that the politburo or the leaders at the top will not go radically off the rails idealistically and turn into paranoid, power-intoxicated maniacal tyrants who gradually end up suspecting everyone around them of plotting against them, or worse, they descend into utter corruption, and rot the whole thing from inside out, top down because of greed. And usually, these leaders end up going down both paths in some form as time goes by. The other human nature they constantly get wrong is that of the people they mean to impose the communism on. They assume that everybody is all about "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." They discount the notion of the lazy, the indolent, those who are only looking to make a fast buck, those who want to game the system, those who seek to create black markets and a hundred other nefarious impulses that people act upon. These people will always exist, and it always comes as a result when people realize they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury, so long as there are leftists in government who decide that the answer for these people is more public welfare. When you subsidize bad behaviour, it comes as no surprise to anyone that you end up getting more bad behaviour as a result. The people marry the government, and the government, in turn, keeps these people trapped in the lower quintile of the income distribution in various forms of dependency. In Stalin's Soviet Union, owners of establishments like restaurants got paid whether they had any customers or not. So proprietors often saw customers as a pain and a nuisance; a distraction from their other illicit money-making operations going on behind the scenes that the restaurant was a front for.

@@robh3007 He’s not

Isn't this platforming hate speech?

@@anniew4105 Which part of it was hate speech? I didn't hear any.

​@@maybepumpkins Unless it conforms to a mind-numbingly tiny Marxist inspired worldview, all common sense and hard evidenced data is condemned as "hate speech" these days.

You can't call everything you disagree with hate speach!

@@maybepumpkins but hate speech is totally a real thing, right?

Yep, but he will learn nothing from this until another 40-50 million bodies stack up.

That's all very well, but there needs to be some acknowledgement that neoliberalism is also a fantasy - it isn't working and it won't ever work. The bodies are stacking up, and those in charge have their fingers in their ears.

@@Bread_Media Populist from the other side of the political spectrum agree too. Neoliberalism is just a bunch of elitists trying to screw over the average person. You see it in everything they do, why do they want the masses to consume less? To save the planet? They say so but based on their actions, it's clearly so they can consume more. We need to get away from the dehumanizing focus on material and mind manipulation and get back to a state where individuals can can some semblance of determinism.

I don't know who said it, but it's a great quote: "The Right likes good systems that work. The Left likes better systems that don't work."

@@AlexReynard It's a great expression for people that summarize their views in self reinforcing quotes made for children.

Using "lefty" instead of "leftist" is sus.

@@jacobvasquez7862interesting - I tend to find “lefty” quite common parlance among actual working class left-wing people. “Leftist” on the other hand is more commonly uttered by middle class university educated performative socialists.

My dad, whose career was mostly spent as a bus driver - in which he was a union organiser - uses lefty to describe himself. That and Marxist. Lefty is fine.

I don't agree with his attitude towards cannabis, misguided imo.

"I'm a lefty but..." ? Name a couple of things (hitchens said) you agreed with, that you consider incongruent with being "a lefty" ? Not banal statements of the obvious, but actual points of contention that warrant the "I'm a lefty but..." qualification at the start of your comment.

Piers Morgan could take a leaf out his book eh!

and the worst thing is Mr. H never lets Aaron complete his question. You could see the frustration often.

I am a big fan of Peter Hitchens, but he has an annoying habit of waiting until his opponent/interviewer starts speaking before continuing his answer. His brother had the same habit funnily enough. Credit to Aaron for being so gracious and patient.

I'm glad he took the time to read Hitchen's books. That showed good faith and a genuine openess to engage and learn. Very rare in these circles.

@@Silphwave good faith goes a long way. More of this, less of the twitter styled spats would be fantastic.

Especially when both sides are prepared to engage.

@@GeoNeilUK ì

@@GeoNeilUK ì

Yes, it is a good example of "engaging with people who think differently" Unfortunately it wasn't a good example of testing whether the underpinning assumptions of those "differences" would stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Yes

To the radical left, dystopian novels, (vis-a-vis Fahrenheit 451, 1984, etc) are guidebooks, not advisories.

@@dustinliam7878 Which is why the right wing in the United States is banning books. I thought they considered Fahrenheit 451 to be advisory? Hahahahaha you have no idea what you're talking about, just living in fantasy land in your head

the poor will live in 1984 and the rich in brave new world.

​@@bluelanterns2982 1984: -State spies on its citizens -Denizens are divided into 2 categories, Party members (the actual "citizens") and the Proles (the lower class) -Party members are held to rigid standards of conduct, Proles are given much more leeway in debauchery (i.e., the Party must uphold noble virtues, but the base Proles can't help themselves and are savages) -Dissent is swiftly and cruelly "corrected" by governmental agencies (e.g., MiniLuv) under the guise of reformation -Statist propaganda leans towards the notion of the common good of all, vice the good for the individual Brave New World: -From the start (and most controversial point), children are introduced to sexuality at a very young age (early prepubescence) ---Not only introduced, but ENCOURAGED (erotic play is promoted and supervised by adults) -Promiscuity is also championed amongst adults, point in fact, no one is allowed to refuse any asking partner, eliminating monogamous relationships entirely -All children are vat-born, surrendered to State control -No person has personal agency in their employment, instead, they are manipulated (sometimes intentionally deformed) to becoming whatever profession the State NEEDS them to be ---All vat-born children are actually spliced inseminated eggs, producing hundreds of children from a single egg. Important with the previous point, in that although identical, a not-insubstantial portion of those children will be MODIFIED (through reduced oxygen during development) into becoming slave labor -Society as a whole (and can be seen as an argument against leftism) has devolved into pure consumerism (the State leader is even called the "Ford", after Henry Ford) -Society has also been medically placated with Soma, the wonder drug designed to keep everyone happy and compliant with State-mandated statutes Fahrenheit 451: -Society has begun burning books en masse, due to people being offended by the words ---Anything that is deemed offensive by anybody is culled, whether the print in newspapers or books, or even from the television is swiftly culled ---Anybody found harboring offensive material is labelled as anathema, and are themselves culled from the population ---The agency tasked with cremation of said materials is State-sponsored, and anybody that shows signs of dissent, are labelled traitors, and are again, culled

@@bluelanterns2982 I have some more additions to make, but that post I just made was already extremely long.

Yes, Aaron is at the wrong end and Peter is at the right end.

That's how it should be, i mean this for both sides, credible people from both sides

@@Jimmy-es8bc well Aaron is at one end, Peters somewhere in the middle

Are they at opposite ends of the spectrum? PH is on record on many occasions as being what we would consider today as far left in terms of the kinds of economic policies he supports (admittedly this isn't particularly far left in the great scheme of things) - he's broadly in the same camp as someone like Corbyn on those issues, and has indeed written nice things about Corbyn. Conversely he has been considerably less supportive of the economic policies of Thatcher (describing her as a Liberal - which is technically correct in a classic and economic sense). He was deeply sceptical of Thatcher's work as archiect in chief of Britain's relationship with the EU which PH never supported and found her rhetoric that "there [was] is no substitute" deeply suspect and dishonest. He's really only socially and culturally conservative - in other aspects he's still a leftie - just not a Trot

@@5ynthesizerpatel I'd be very surprised if Peter himself would use the label of 'Leftie' to describe himself!

They were both very brainy too.

I could listen to this man all day. He is incredibly thoughtful, freedom loving and experienced.

I agree, the days of full and proper interviews ended once Wogan started his TV show. It's about promoting the latest book/film/ TV series/Podcast or whatever, it is such a delight seeing two individuals of opposite opinions and views being able to discuss that difference in a polite and respectful way and to present their arguments rather to try to enforce them. It is such a pity our political masters can't run our country on similar lines. (Although Peter would disagree with that as he is a great supporter of the adversarial system).

Having seen the whole interview, I'm fairly sure this is the best interview with Hitchens I've seen. He's on absolute top form here.

Just out of interest, and this is a genuine question, not looking for an argument, what do you mean by 'culturally conservative' exactly?

@@thecriticalgamer8462 Ah sorry yeah, I probably should’ve written “socially and culturally”. I take a pretty strong small-‘c’ conservative position on many social or cultural issues: policing, crime and criminal justice; immigration; free speech and individual liberty; privacy rights and the size and scope of Govt in relation to them; national defence and foreign policy etc. I’ve revised my view on the interview slightly as well (not that it remotely matters, but your response to my original comment has reminded me). I’m still very glad Novara got PH on, but I’m not keen on PH’s approach for quite a bit of it (consistently interrupting Aaron, particularly not allowing him to properly ask follow up questions or express responses to PH’s points).

@@raddimusmcchoyber3362 that's interesting. So just for example, if you have the time, could you expand a little on your position around policing? Just as it was the first point you listed. What would be your view as a cultural or social conservative on the role of the police, how that has been enacted over the years and how it may provide some solutions to some of the problems we have seen over that time? It's a big question I know, but I'm interested to hear it if you have chance.

@@thecriticalgamer8462 Can you tell i’d had a terrible morning at work? Throwing “disgraceful” and “disgusting” about a bit much in my comment! 🤣 How foolish!

You're easily please then my friend

@@swampy1234Why’s that ?

@@swampy1234 He is not within your bubble, I take it.

My favourite is his interview with Alex O'Connor where he throws a temper tantrum

Novara would have more credibility if it ditched its religion like PH is hinting at all throughout this lol

They didn't exactly, they hoped his trotskyist links and past would lead to common grounds

Well they were wrong 👍 Hitchens' history with Trotskyism just gives him experience of how Communism does not have a monopoly on improving society.

@Utoobe Izkaka Much like most of socialism’s advocates s today, actual workers do not have time for political frivolities.

@@utoobeizkaka2737 99 percent of leftists come from wealthy families lol

Just a shame that he is so irrational when it comes to his core worldview.

Not always, alot of his views are seriously out dated. Especially his opinions on drugs. However you can't deny he is intelligent and true to himself and his ideals. As far as conservatives go he's intelligent and interesting to listen to.

@@eoghan375 Outdated? What does fashion have to do with it?

@@sanniepstein4835 The facts have long since overtaken his view.

@@eoghan375 facts and truths are never out-dated unless you think they should be ignored when inconvenient

@@BettBeat_Media I’m thinking of moving to the Netherlands what’s so bad about the media?

You don't understand what an interview is?

That was frightening.

"Portugese?"

Contrarian? In what way? That's demeaning.

@@Liam-yr4uf No, it's not.

Being a contrarian would involve not having a rational, testable argument on the subject. What you mean is you disagree with him on some things, why you feel the need for ad hominem attacks is only known to you.

@@Liam-yr4uf I would more say that they mean devil’s advocate here in that he will push people to stop and think about the opposite or diverging opinions.

@@182dunc no, not at all. Its in the way he struggles to agree with anyone in a conversation. For the sake of it some times. We've all met one.

So was a certain German leader in his views. Genuine in your hateful beliefs should not be respected.

@@DarrenBurgess1989 Godwin's law... Not sure I can detect much hatred. And the lack of agenda or ambition is also pretty laudable. We should be able to speak to authentic people who disagree with us without calling them hateful.

@@James-wy6qu it’s not godwins law as I wasn’t comparing him to a natzee so I’m not sure what purpose that was for apart from a demonstration of your intellect. He lies throughout. Perhaps that’s a me problem that I find lying that has real world consequences abhorrent.

@@DarrenBurgess1989 Sorry I assumed you meant *the* certain German leader, lol. Not so much an intellect thing, just shorthand for a longer point. Didn't catch any lies but maybe I wasn't listening closely enough. (Caught plenty of things that I would consider wrong/misinterpretations, etc., but no lies).

@@DarrenBurgess1989 They are not hateful beliefs.

I hope you are able to detect the obvious sarcasm in his tone when he said that

I agree with you, excellent upload by Navarra media we definitely need more of this.

Hard to argue with Peter

@@WiseOwl_1408 He's right on foreign policy, completely and utterly wrong on divorce and abortion

It makes for bad clickbait

Lol, do you watch many interviews? It was okay. I thought Aaron let him off the hook too much, and Peter ketp talking over Aaron. I found it a bit annoying.

@@mdaniels6311 Peter always talks until he finishes his point, and if that means talking over his interviewer, he does so. I find it annoying too, but that's how he rolls and everyone knows it.

@@mdaniels6311 I do and I enjoyed it, while arguments weren't always pushed to critical depths it was provoking and rare for this time. That is Hitchen's style, it's terrible but is best taken with humour if you can.

@@jeepis fair enough.

@@mdaniels6311 do u have any great interviews you'd like to point me to?

Agreed

Agree

could be way more interesting than the usual echo chamber effect. 😏

Novara is a welcome echo chamber for me as most of the media is a right wing echo chamber. I remember when the BBC used to do these sort of debates so it's great to see this. However I come to novara as a break from the MSM in which the left is barely heard. Sometimes it's great to know there are people with similar views to my own.

@@patcampton7163 I'd be interested to know where you believe the BBC is right wing, considering OFCOM's recent report.

That Blair was a clown is pretty much common knowledge?

then i guess you should say the anecdote about stalinism is having a stroke while having personal doctors on stand by but too scared to help you

@@hardinhp I'm not being funny, but I genuinely cannot understand what you are trying to say. Can you try rephrasing it more clearly?

I had the same experience of hearing Christopher, around the time of 911, and then looking back on videos that show him with William F. Buckley and so forth. I was annoyed by Chris' attacks on religion, odd since I am not religious in the least. I prefer Peter's manner. Still disagree with him on many things, but it is never unpleasant to listen to him and always educational.

it's the tried and tested slow lurch to the right as we get older. Wisdom and reality hit, things change.

@@kevinb9830 The original condescending attitude from the greedy, criminal Right-wing.

@@justgivemethetruth Nope, you get less greedy and less self centred with age.

And you have to give him credit for accusing his interviewer of not engaging with his arguments on abortion when the opposite was true with his “objective truth” bullshit.

Except he feeds the Daily Mail hate machine.

@@ceplondres I have to say, I think people often get caught in a trap when arguing for abortion rights. Never argue about a 'baby' or 'foetus' - it doesn't matter. the fact is a person has autonomy over their body regardless and a would-be/could-be birth-parent has every right to be a tyrant in determining life of death of that which grows inside them. There's no reason to apologise or to make any arguments about the 'right' of life. If something is inside you, growing from your body, you are god as far as that is concerned. The choice, and the personal consequences, of choosing to end that life or bring it into the world as an autonomous being, are that person's entirely, something no-one should interfere with. Of course a Doctor can refuse to help on their own grounds, but is not the place of a state or religion to make that decision. There are consequences regardless. Having an abortion can leave deep emotional scars, it hurts, it isn't always an easy choice, but those are *natural* consequences and its arrogant of anybody else to think they can take that choice away from the gestator. To an unborn child, Mother *is* God and that is right and as it should be. Only men, uncomfortable with that ultimate power of woman, or women, incapable of avoiding projecting their own feelings on the matter onto others, would say otherwise.

You arent describing hitchens. You are describing leftists.

@@queenvagabond8787 Thank you for your honesty. Few pro-abortionists will openly say "All societies condone killing people under certain circumstances, and we condone the killing of unborn people (and sometimes, those recently born)". That at least allows the real debates to begin.

Perhaps, but unfortunately people like Aaron will sleep and awake the next day having taken absolutely none of this onboard to becoming a better person.

I don't think Aaron represents conventional wisdom.

There is no conventional wisdom in Aaron. Only crazies think this way, the rest of us have a family to look after. Hopefully he'll have learnt alot but I'm doubtful. Peter knows first hand what Marxism brings. It brings death.

@@Yeeeooo The brainwashing is deep in that one...

@@Yeeeooo maybe not the day after but as he goes through his own life and experiences he will inevitably look back on parts of that conversation with different perspectives and understanding that only comes with experience. Its how life goes for most.

Yep it's called what happens when people get off twitter and facebook and start talking to people face to face in the real world (I don't use social media unless KZfaq counts, which I don't believe it does since you can't make "friends" or post silly pics of your dinner)

Hitchens couldn't school anyone except the likes of you. Sit down

@@Motownisyourtown Perhaps you need some schooling on self awareness?

Focus on the "wise" part of your review and ponder hard on which of the two debaters you attributed it to.

I don’t think it’s a debate

Oh, so he's Christopher's brother & not his son? Makes sense, given this guy's lack of tender age.

The Dark Lord is powerful

He definitely lived in the shaddow of his brother. I think the greatest loss from Christopher's passing is that we don't get to see them debate.

@@tcorourke2007 he’s debated him several times, the videos are on KZfaq.

He’s the superior Hitchens

@@joelharvey Christopher never had a chance to engage with this brave new world

Far more fascinating than his brother, actually.

LOL.

If you overlook the fact he is a nobheeed he's ok

So your pro war ? Pro killing Children in the Womb Interesting

So your pro war ? Pro killing Children in the Womb Interesting

So your pro war ? Pro killing Children in the Womb Interesting

Q

I agree with some of the things he poses, such as abortion where I do think he has a consistent viewpoint and he exposes that most just want it freely available mostly because of convenience. On other topics, he ranges from sane to bunkers, such as banning cars because car accidents happen. What about bikes? Seriously, what of bikes? Children fall off bikes too. And no question more biking accidents will happen if cars were to be banned. That might aid public health somewhat, but it would also send the UK back one century. If his argument is to ban cars because accidents happen, then what of alchohol? He argues against facism and the nanny state - see other interviews -, but too often when there is something he doesn't like the concept or aesthetic of, his reply is usually "it should be banned". So nanny state or not, what will it be Mr Hitchens? And he is not entirely consistent in that regard.

But he told at least 15 lies.

@@DarrenBurgess1989 name 10

@@Lotvk hyperbole little fella.

@@DarrenBurgess1989 name 3

@@Lotvk the reason why there’s no many Lenin statues is a good start. The feeling of Soviet’s after the collapse and the aftermath. He surrounds himself not with working class but like minded bourgeoisie who had ambitions for private property but claims these are people on the ground. I’d love to hear what you think was true separating from his opinions.

why?

@@louispearson8306 you can just tell

You must be the consequence of pregnancy drinking. Bless your damaged, delusional brain.

@@kevycanavan Based off the the decision to interview people who disagree with him?

@@louispearson8306 If you believed the earth was flat but you started interviewing people who study physics and astronomy and built satellites you would probably stop believing the earth is flat. The socialist viewpoint is definitely stronger because there's so many adherents, but most older people are conservative for a reason.

Really……..Aaron was on the back foot for most of this……unfortunately Hitchens controlled this ……thought the BBC gave these ‘journalists’ an easy ride smh

@@papajahko7121 You are doing exactly what Aaron is trying to avoid, which is seeing it as a game of one-upmanship. The aim was not to defeat Hitchens (a tall order - like him or not, he is well read and informed, highly intelligent and articulate), but to understand where he is coming from, even if you don't agree with him.

@@laurieharper1526 Nope !…..NM is supposed to be a critical thinking left leaning alternative to MSM….. especially BBC News & those so called journalists on brain numbing day time shows….. you know who I mean ! I agree that point scoring etc does nothing positive & proper debate n discussion,taking into account & trying to understand your guests position & thought process will always be best !………Where Hitchens spoke freely without a care of upset to any individual or group….even contradicting himself at times…. he still controlled the discussion……. Aaron though looked startled & lost for words… on the back foot so to speak….sort of scared to say the wrong thing that might not sit well with his ‘left’ doctrine & that of his peers …..Aaron needed time to think while Hitchens reacted…….. that’s all I’m saying & Ive been in that position myself many a time….lost debates discussion arguments etc trying to be fair & listening to others points of view. IMO interviewing people like Hitchens is fine although I think he’s got enough platforms to talk shite on , so I’d rather be interviewing people who are trying to make change at grass roots level…. people with differing Political stances need a platform more than this old hack n his like ! As for Aaron…… he’s the interviewer… he should be in control……that doesn’t mean point scoring etc… just means keeping some decorum in the proceedings No hate here…. Just my opinion ✊

@@papajahko7121 Why does the interviewer have to be "in control"? If you allow someone free reign, rather than attempting to control them, they often give away more (and even show themselves in a poor light) than they would if kept on a short leash. Yes, Hitchens did say some iffy things (I found his casual dismissal of the fact that capital punishment means some innocent people will loose their lives pretty appalling). Better to see people for who they are, rather than a carefully sanitised version of them.

@@laurieharper1526 The ‘interviewer’ role is like the chairperson at a meeting…..letting the interviewee speak freely within the allotted timescale is all good with questions put by interviewer !………you’re speaking as if this is some informal chat ….it’s not !…… it’s an interview ffs……… but this interview was made by Novara Media on KZfaq for public viewing to presumably show another side to their ‘progressive’ journalism & boost their viewing figures……by your thinking it might’ve been better to just give Hitchens an open platform where NM supply questions & he answers them in his own way if he can be arsed !…..because that’s more or less what happened here for the exception of Aaron staring into the headlights while we watched the Peter Hitchens show ! If you then like this style of interview I suggest you watch BBC news or any of the Political debate nights as they seem to follow this format…..hard hitting questions & no respect to guests seem confined for the likes of Mick Lynch or anybody speaking for Scottish Independence !….. Sorry if my reply seems a bit nippy Laurie…..not my intention to offend you Take care

Nah- it was a flush with logically falacy

@@Aarenby really what logical fallacy did he do? I'm no debate lord, so intrigued what he showed.

And moreover I'm always interested in arguements and I've never seen some counter 'killing of innocent victims' like he did. I may not agree but I can appreciate it. Plus I know Aaron wasn't there to debate per se but he did appear to have him stumped. I probably would have aswell

@everything is fine non sequitur was probably the most prolific along with false equivalence- comparing war to capital punishment for example. Some "is ought" fallacy too

@@Aarenby why do you think the War/Capital Punishment point is false equivalence?