Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video!
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)
I was 13 when this exchange took place. It would have seemed like incomprehensible gibberish to me at the time. So happy to live in an age where I can simply pull, seemingly out of the ether, great intellectual discussions of past ages and analyze them through a modern lens for the betterment of my own understanding. Thanks UA-cam 😊
Don't feel so good! UA-cam 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, UA-cam 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.
“I don’t have to defend his views, merely his right to hold them”, there it is folks. Hitch yet again the most eloquent modern defender of Enlightenment values.
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.
As this is now 25 years old, it would be easy to understand my claim that whenever such discussions occur, it is invariably the person I am trying to hear that gets interrupted the most.
@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."
Hitchens said the issue is not Irving's right to speak his ideas, but about my right to read them. I wish more people would understand that rights are a two-way street. This old video is quite relevant to the issue of private censorship of Internet speech.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@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.
@matthewphilip1977 So I can agree with all of that, if you agree to the basic point that it's up to me to decide what I imbibe, same as yourself. I understand how easy it is, especially when you meet a bunch of nitwits in day to day life, to believe that some ideas need to be at least curated, but I think the cure for being 'uninformed' is to get informed, and it really isn't anyone's business how I choose to do so. Also, I'm not comfortable believing I'm so much smarter or more moral, even if I feel that way sometimes, than the average person and their own compass. I've been wrong too many times to stop other people from being wrong, cuz what if I was just wrong again to stop them?
“It seems to me to be a perfectly simple point, that it is not incumbent upon me to defend anything Irving says or hypothesizes, in order for me to defend, not his right to say it, so much as my right to read it”
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)?
@@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?
I wouldn't buy books from a publisher that only publishes stuff they like or that sticks to their ideology. I prefer to have publishers that allow the readers to get various points of view and sources. It should be up to the reader to discern what's biased and what's factual or supported by evidence. In that sense, I agree with Christopher Hitchens. We need to stop calling every inquisitive action about certain topics anti-semitic. After all, we need to think for ourselves, even if we end up deceived.
@@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.
@@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.
Eric Breindel was a neoconservative (smash that "Early Life" button). Why would anyone think he could possibly be objective about a book written by David Irving?
David Irine called people like this. The traditional enemies of free speech. He is right. He has the right to publish his findings and views and I have the right to read them.
The vampire guy keeps harping about Irving's Holocaust-revisionism, but none of that, except the one Goebbels-reference, is in Hitler's War. I'm rather disappointed Hitchens didn't catch that. And Hitler's War, by the way, is not a crackpot book, it's Irving opus magnum and has been lavishly praised by the likes of Hugh-Trevor Roper, Basil Liddel-Hart and AJP Taylor, if any of those name rings a bell on the wrong side of the pond.
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.
@@ramdas363 He definitely *is* biased towards Hitler, yes but the danger there is that you automatically are inclined to dismiss what he may write because of his proclivities. The Dresden stuff is a case in point. Before that we never really accepted what we did as a country in terms of what was war crimes.
@@flammenjc I'm not dismissing anything, just explaining that it's not a good account of what happened. It doesn't mean he's not contributed anything (you mention Dresden) but he basically does the same thing the mainstream did, only in reverse. Whereas in their account everything Hitler did failed, everything was stupid and evil, in his account it was all genius, it was down to bad luck, etc. Ironically, you can get a more neutral account by straight up reading Nazi sources. Take Goebbels diary for example.
@@ramdas363 Well, I wasn't suggesting you were dismissing, I'm just saying that as a rule of thumb for a rhetoric to focus on someones bias means that no truth they ever speak will be taken seriously, I'm not in defence of Irvings work so much as Hitchens is, it's more like, let it all be open to scrutiny and even the "bad" makes the good even more strong to scrutiny. The guy [Irving] has more than a bee in his bonnet about Jews and protecting Hitlers image for certain, and you only have to read very few leaves of his work to get that sentiment. I'm just simply saying that even broken clocks are right twice a day and that truth *can* occasionally be beholden to a madman. I'm not suggesting for one second this guy is reviewing history in good faith, because I absolutely disbelieve that.
Breindel has no sense of common courtesy at all. Constantly interrupting and attempting to let the interviewed historian not get a word in edge-wise. Breindel does NOT gain credibility by doing this.
@@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.
I'm a huge fan of Eric opening with a list a truths with scorn on his face as if these truths are somehow abhorrent, and concludes that facts are antisemitic.
What an unpleasant voice and condescending tone did Eric Breindel have! Kudos for the late Hitchens' moral courage to defend intellectual freedom and those who would rather form their own opinion than acquiesce to have their opinion made up for them.
The point Christopher had always been so consistent on and that, as an adult, I now fully appreciate is anyone should be allowed to say, publish, or read anything. People crying foul and saying you shouldn't often say so from an altruistic and caring position, but fail to realize the metric for their censorship can just as easily work against them down the road instead of for them.
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.
In 2023 I really wish we stood by these principles of allowing the American public to read and decide for ourselves versus censoring and this protection racket of hate speech rules we are now governed by.
Sorry for spamming, but one more thing. The argument of an Irving book being published mainstream seems a bit redundant to me. After all, books like Mein Kampf and Helter Skelter are openly available at all major bookstores.
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
I think Mr. Hitchens' quick summation of David Irving is pretty spot on. Considering how talented a speaker and writer he is, it does seem a wee bit of a shame that Mr. Irving has spent long years pouring over the specifics of the Holocaust. His talents are better served focusing on the key individuals, namely Churchill, Hitler, Himmler and the like.
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 "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.
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
Christopher Hitchins a brilliant man not afraid to view opinions of others and defend the right of people to see to read from people we may or may not disagree with. They banned David Irving and David Icke from visiting Australia - I would never have thought it possible but Australia is a land of the sheep - no free thinkers - no one wanting to hear and make up there own mind. If Australians shouted down Irving and Icke fair enough but hear them first - it’s a crazy world.
It's nostalgic seeing Hitch argue against corporate cowardice in such a nuanced situation, when today a 6 people twitter mob can bring multi-hundred-billion market cap juggernauts to their knees and send them running with their tails between their legs - over pronouns, or some other vague disrespect of personal identity.
Eric Breindel's voice is one that I don't think I could listen to for more than 17 minutes and 33 seconds. I'm unsure if he's on the verge of tears or he has a marble up his nose, but it is torture to listen to.
I am a big fan of Hitchens - avid watcher of the back catalogue, read most of his books. This isn't nearly as decisive a win as the fanboys suggest. He does best when he sticks to the 'St Martin's backtracking' point; his opponent does manage to seriously unsettle him with the counterargument that that's not censorship in its full sense, and that Irving could still disseminate his research just as he did in the UK, without a publisher.
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.
Penguin Books prints and sells Mein Kampf. So, is Irwing's work a greater threat to the intellectual and moral integrity of the general public? I'll admit that Penguin does not appear to invest much effort in promoting this once best seller, but the idea that Irwing wrote something more terrifying, more damaging is perfectly absurd. Are we going to offer the public books for them to agree on? Irwing didn't publish his work as a children's book, it's not a popup. A grown, adult audience deserves books that challenge their views. And Irwing serves them marvelously well in that regard.
David Irving's main problem wasn't that he spoke German and rigorously researched every book of history on ww2. His problem wasn't the stalwart pursuit of searching for first hand sources and taking those accounts and looking at it and trying to understand where all the pieces fit in the puzzle of ww2. David Irving's main problem was that he couldn't find factual history that matched the propoganda and hysteria that has been peddled and fabricated to make the the ultimate untouchable victim of the 100 million ppl that unnecessarily died in ww2. He couldn't find exactly where to put the racial ethno supremacists version of history because how else would they justify taking reparations until this day from European nations and destroying Palestine and genociding the native population there. Call me antisemitic now and I will call satanic go ahead
I just want to hear and read and decide for myself, cencership makes a person hungry for the truth. It is wrong to be told what is correct and what is wrong. History is HIS STORY, not the true story.
“All of us on this show, and everyone in publishing, make their living basically by the idea of free expression and free trade in ideas and free exchange and everything that’s under the rubric of the first amendment. I’m in favour of extending this, especially to people whose opinions may be repulsive or unpopular. That seems to me to be elementary” -- Christopher Hitchens
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
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.
That guy was brave to get in the ring with hitch! I am sure he knew that hitch is a superior intellectual and formidable debating. So I guess this guy knew the only path reasonable not to get destroyed and hitch slapped was to keep talking over and interrupting hitch
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@ANTI-AIPAC you Nazis are pretty clever, playing the victim card, posing yourself as the silenced and oppressed underdog...you all know why you're in this predicament. You all lost WWII, but you all never lost hope in your messiah. Maybe you all will manage to make some noise in the near future, but that's all it's gonna be. Noise. And after you all made your noise, complete and utter silence. Which is what should have happened to you all back in '45, but G-d is patient, wanting you guys to use some of your senses and conscience to change your ways.
If the Jewish stuffed suit guy going on and on about publisher's "moral authority" and Irving's "antisemitism" doesn't make you want to vomit or fight, you might not understand the true nature of the debate here.
@@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.
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.
@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.
Hitchens set out his stall quite simply. Irving has a track record of expert investigative historical research in the specific field. That is why someone might wish to publish him again. Protecting constitutional freedom to print and read anything is the focal point of Hitchens’s take in this discussion. Every other factor brought up is secondary. Irving presents within his book certain surprising and objectionable views which the majority of the public would disagree with. This is not a reason to pull the book. As someone else has posted, Irving’s particular incendiary views are called out 5 years later and these specific views are then exposed as wrong. That was the right time and place for that to happen, and it ended his writing career. This does not negate the other good historical work Irving was famous for having previously done. It may well be that Irving is anti-Semitic, even a nut bag on this specific matter (I’ve never read his work). If he is, he was stopped in the right time & place, without the US constitution being undermined. Hitchens understands better than most how freedoms can be diluted, in innocuous looking ways, to protect parts of society from unpleasant views. It seems to me that is why he stuck to the single point in this discussion; it was the only one that seriously mattered.
No particular strong opinion on this, seems like St Martins can refuse to publish a book if they want. But boy, Mr Eric here has to be the most disturbing presence on earth. He seems to be seriously ill.
@@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.
Is WWII the first conflict in human history where the victors were perfectly fair and objective? There has to be debate so bad ideas are disproven rather than sink underground.
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.
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.
An important premise in that nobody should be the absolute decider of what is correct or acceptable. We have enough of that already in our schools. We are smart enough to weigh the evidence and arguments and decide for ourselves.
I loved Hitchens when I was a teenager and moved away from him as an adult. Exchanges like this make me realise the main reason: His verbal fluency, talent in live debates and extreme self-confidence make him very good at making observers think that surface level engagement with major philosophical questions gave his audience a deep and unique understanding.
if you believe in free speech not as something that only you like...then you MUST accept the speech of anything that is possible outside unlawful speech...it is as simple as that
I’ve always thought Breindel had the upper hand here. Hitchens’ criticism that the publisher caved to public pressure is valid but his claim that this is a free speech issue is spurious. As Breindel mentions, Irving could publish the book himself in the US just as he did in the UK and so the book would be made available. Publishing houses are not obligated to publish every submission they receive. Hitchens’ view that Irving is a “necessary” historian of fascism is misleading and overlooks Irving’s dangerously sensationalist and irrational views of the Holocaust and its root causes. The fact that the book uncovered new documents does not make him a necessary historian. I think the book deserved to be condemned and its availability to the public was never in question. Regardless, it’s a pleasure to see two fantastic minds battling... if only they were alive today to raise our discourse.
You miss the point. Hitchens did not say publishing houses are or ought to be obligated to publish. However if a publishing house received a submission, reads it, agrees to publish it, and then reneges on the deal because some people are going to be offended then we should err on the side of freedom of speech and the publishing house should publish it. Do you see the difference?
@@Bucketheadhead I’ve acknowledged that Hitchens’ argument about the publishing house caving to public pressure is valid. However, as Briendel mentions, this is not a first amendment issue and the availability of the book was never in question. Moreover, Breindel is right that Hitchens’ defense of Irving as a “necessary” historian because he “unearths new documents” is a strange description of an author who routinely uses holocaust denialism and sensationalism to raise his profile.
@@Mdk2730 Any censorship issue is a freedom of speech issue. Whether one considers a pro-Nazi historian to be necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Abhorrent person beliefs and quality of one’s work are not mutually exclusive. I may be mistaken but I think until around the time of his unsuccessful libel case against Lipstadt he was still respected for his earlier works.
@@Bucketheadhead Your post strangely omits to critique Irving for taking opposing scholars to court with libel suits, a strange oversight for such a staunch free speech advocate.
@@elision2407 We’re discussing censorship of Irving; that’s the topic. Why I would also need to critique Irving is somewhat baffling to me. My view on that is quite obviously inferred. If my position on free speech isn’t clear enough for you I’ll spell it out - censorship of anyone is wrong. The implication of what you say is not appreciated.
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
People don't get the problems Irving hinted to cause: he regularly stated, that the annual 'hand-off's' from the US and Germany towards Israel will drop from several billions to zero dollar, as soon as people realize that the whole 'Holocaust' was and is (I'm citing Irving not literally) a form of business-scheme, which was though out in the early 1970s. The specifics about Auschwitz, the gassings, the chambers and the numbers of atrocities are the points/facts, he put in question, are just the details of which a debate he wanted to be held openly - but it was the underestimation of the political impact Irving is to be blamed. Why? Because there's still no peace in Isreal & Palestina and one does not throw more fuel in such a fire. One cannot bother a political giant (as the USA undoubtedly is) and expect to suffer no consequences. Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Shoa was exactly that kind of a genocidal crime, it is commonly held to be, BUT I would not read a book by David Irving on that, because he never wrote about the phenomenon.
If you've read Irving, he doesn't write at all about concentration camps. He's addressed those subjects in a rather foolish way through interviews. The only valid condemnation of his books would have to stem from what is in the books themselves and not on the personal behavior of their author.
@@sichelgaito His premise is (a.f.a.i.k.): "I write history only from the sources" - which makes him more of a literary anthologist than a 'historian' in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless: all his faults, his idiosyncratic method of historiography and his active distancing from the predominating narratives won't take away anything from the archival quality of his published works. About any "condemnation of his books": a self-proclaimed culture of plurality and freedom of expression should be up to the task of handling any quality of books.
@@11Krallethe best kind of historian is a ‘literary anthologist’ or a archivist - what else do you want? for them to subtly sew their own ideology into the work?
@@Azoria4 I don't want anything. But I have to say, that I'd be way more comfortable with pointing out the worst kind of historian: "someone, who only compiles secondary literature"
Anything about them that they don't like they just call antisemitic, and we're all expected to stop thinking and bow down to these people who call themselves Jews.
Eric Breindel is J...ish so is obviously immensely biased on the topic and his fake outrage is quite tiresome, sadly predictable and childish. Facts matter.
![Christopher Hitchens on American Politics [V498]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rvmjgw8wxW0/mqdefault.jpg)
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
God, what a loss not to have Hitchens around in this era of censorious bulls**t.
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)
I was 13 when this exchange took place. It would have seemed like incomprehensible gibberish to me at the time. So happy to live in an age where I can simply pull, seemingly out of the ether, great intellectual discussions of past ages and analyze them through a modern lens for the betterment of my own understanding. Thanks UA-cam 😊
Bravo
Don't feel so good! UA-cam 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, UA-cam 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
UA-cam banned Oliver Stones 2014 documentary, Ukraine on fire. Banned anybody who went against the Biden covid narrative. FJB!
“I don’t have to defend his views, merely his right to hold them”, there it is folks. Hitch yet again the most eloquent modern defender of Enlightenment values.
David Irving came to conclusions on a firmer basis than most historians
It's shocking how low public discourse has stupped compared to 20-30 years ago.
@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.
As this is now 25 years old, it would be easy to understand my claim that whenever such discussions occur, it is invariably the person I am trying to hear that gets interrupted the most.
@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."
Hitchens said the issue is not Irving's right to speak his ideas, but about my right to read them. I wish more people would understand that rights are a two-way street. This old video is quite relevant to the issue of private censorship of Internet speech.
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.
I defend my right to read him !
That. Is the real point ! chris. You. Nailed it‼️✌️
It's like banging your head against a wall when arguing for freedom of expression with someone who simply wants to silence what they find abhorrent.
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.
The truth doesn't mind being questioned. Hitchens won that one.
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.
@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.
@matthewphilip1977 So I can agree with all of that, if you agree to the basic point that it's up to me to decide what I imbibe, same as yourself.
I understand how easy it is, especially when you meet a bunch of nitwits in day to day life, to believe that some ideas need to be at least curated, but I think the cure for being 'uninformed' is to get informed, and it really isn't anyone's business how I choose to do so.
Also, I'm not comfortable believing I'm so much smarter or more moral, even if I feel that way sometimes, than the average person and their own compass. I've been wrong too many times to stop other people from being wrong, cuz what if I was just wrong again to stop them?
You’re making a good point, Mr. Hitches, let me ask you an interrupting question before you drive it home straight through my heart.
what heart?
If Erics Voice was a Bridge I would Not Cross it 🙃
Lmao
🤣
You hit the nail 😂
“It seems to me to be a perfectly simple point, that it is not incumbent upon me to defend anything Irving says or hypothesizes, in order for me to defend, not his right to say it, so much as my right to read it”
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?
I wouldn't buy books from a publisher that only publishes stuff they like or that sticks to their ideology. I prefer to have publishers that allow the readers to get various points of view and sources. It should be up to the reader to discern what's biased and what's factual or supported by evidence. In that sense, I agree with Christopher Hitchens. We need to stop calling every inquisitive action about certain topics anti-semitic. After all, we need to think for ourselves, even if we end up deceived.
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.
Eric Breindel was a neoconservative (smash that "Early Life" button). Why would anyone think he could possibly be objective about a book written by David Irving?
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.
David Irine called people like this. The traditional enemies of free speech. He is right. He has the right to publish his findings and views and I have the right to read them.
The vampire guy keeps harping about Irving's Holocaust-revisionism, but none of that, except the one Goebbels-reference, is in Hitler's War. I'm rather disappointed Hitchens didn't catch that.
And Hitler's War, by the way, is not a crackpot book, it's Irving opus magnum and has been lavishly praised by the likes of Hugh-Trevor Roper, Basil Liddel-Hart and AJP Taylor, if any of those name rings a bell on the wrong side of the pond.
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.
@@ramdas363 He definitely *is* biased towards Hitler, yes but the danger there is that you automatically are inclined to dismiss what he may write because of his proclivities.
The Dresden stuff is a case in point. Before that we never really accepted what we did as a country in terms of what was war crimes.
@@flammenjc I'm not dismissing anything, just explaining that it's not a good account of what happened. It doesn't mean he's not contributed anything (you mention Dresden) but he basically does the same thing the mainstream did, only in reverse. Whereas in their account everything Hitler did failed, everything was stupid and evil, in his account it was all genius, it was down to bad luck, etc. Ironically, you can get a more neutral account by straight up reading Nazi sources. Take Goebbels diary for example.
@@ramdas363 Well, I wasn't suggesting you were dismissing, I'm just saying that as a rule of thumb for a rhetoric to focus on someones bias means that no truth they ever speak will be taken seriously, I'm not in defence of Irvings work so much as Hitchens is, it's more like, let it all be open to scrutiny and even the "bad" makes the good even more strong to scrutiny.
The guy [Irving] has more than a bee in his bonnet about Jews and protecting Hitlers image for certain, and you only have to read very few leaves of his work to get that sentiment.
I'm just simply saying that even broken clocks are right twice a day and that truth *can* occasionally be beholden to a madman. I'm not suggesting for one second this guy is reviewing history in good faith, because I absolutely disbelieve that.
Breindel has no sense of common courtesy at all. Constantly interrupting and attempting to let the interviewed historian not get a word in edge-wise. Breindel does NOT gain credibility by doing this.
As per usual, the pro-censorship person is incorrect. I've never heard an argument for it that wasn't just thought policing.
Publishers shouldn't have moral authority.
They have none
This show from 1996 was when real men had balls. Unlike today, these men do not exist in America today. Gone.
Nonsense.
Beautiful conversation and language exchange. More of this please.
The guy in New York has a weasley way of countering.
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.
I'm a huge fan of Eric opening with a list a truths with scorn on his face as if these truths are somehow abhorrent, and concludes that facts are antisemitic.
What an unpleasant voice and condescending tone did Eric Breindel have! Kudos for the late Hitchens' moral courage to defend intellectual freedom and those who would rather form their own opinion than acquiesce to have their opinion made up for them.
The point Christopher had always been so consistent on and that, as an adult, I now fully appreciate is anyone should be allowed to say, publish, or read anything. People crying foul and saying you shouldn't often say so from an altruistic and caring position, but fail to realize the metric for their censorship can just as easily work against them down the road instead of for them.
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.
Can we get an Early Life check on Eric real quick?
👃
In 2023 I really wish we stood by these principles of allowing the American public to read and decide for ourselves versus censoring and this protection racket of hate speech rules we are now governed by.
This was aired just 2 years before Eric Breindel's death in 1998: Wiki (and read the 1st 2 sentences about his early life in wiki)
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?
listening to Irving you realize not only has nothing changed regarding these issues but it has gotten magnitudes worse
Dude is a bigot and cherry picks everything in order to strengthen his agenda.
Currently reading the Goebbels book. What an awesome find this video was
David Irving is the only historian worth listening to. Well done Hitch for speaking out, against modern day book burning
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
Sorry for spamming, but one more thing. The argument of an Irving book being published mainstream seems a bit redundant to me. After all, books like Mein Kampf and Helter Skelter are openly available at all major bookstores.
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
Jesus christ, this Eric Breindel lad makes it almost unwatchable.
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.
I think Mr. Hitchens' quick summation of David Irving is pretty spot on. Considering how talented a speaker and writer he is, it does seem a wee bit of a shame that Mr. Irving has spent long years pouring over the specifics of the Holocaust. His talents are better served focusing on the key individuals, namely Churchill, Hitler, Himmler and the like.
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.
Erics voice says it all- fearful and broken and rude and interrupting. Backwards thinking.
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
Selective censorship is the most dangerous of all. David Irving is a brilliant historian, thorough in his research and analysis.
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.
Christopher Hitchins a brilliant man not afraid to view opinions of others and defend the right of people to see to read from people we may or may not disagree with. They banned David Irving and David Icke from visiting Australia - I would never have thought it possible but Australia is a land of the sheep - no free thinkers - no one wanting to hear and make up there own mind. If Australians shouted down Irving and Icke fair enough but hear them first - it’s a crazy world.
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
It's nostalgic seeing Hitch argue against corporate cowardice in such a nuanced situation, when today a 6 people twitter mob can bring multi-hundred-billion market cap juggernauts to their knees and send them running with their tails between their legs - over pronouns, or some other vague disrespect of personal identity.
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 Breindel's voice is one that I don't think I could listen to for more than 17 minutes and 33 seconds. I'm unsure if he's on the verge of tears or he has a marble up his nose, but it is torture to listen to.
He had long-term liver failure. He died 2 years after this video.
@@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboysbadness begets badness. Or should i karma hurts
It's the same argument as we have today with social media companys. we are a private business we don't owe you freedom of speech.
You owe it to the laws of the country,one of those being The Consitution. It applies to everybody.
How fleeting is this life. Both these men are now gone.
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. . .
Why don't they talk about the content of the book and debate it. This is a waste of time.
I am a big fan of Hitchens - avid watcher of the back catalogue, read most of his books. This isn't nearly as decisive a win as the fanboys suggest. He does best when he sticks to the 'St Martin's backtracking' point; his opponent does manage to seriously unsettle him with the counterargument that that's not censorship in its full sense, and that Irving could still disseminate his research just as he did in the UK, without a publisher.
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.
Brilliant polite conversation.
Are there any clips of Hitchens and Noam Chomsky engaged in discussion?
Penguin Books prints and sells Mein Kampf. So, is Irwing's work a greater threat to the intellectual and moral integrity of the general public? I'll admit that Penguin does not appear to invest much effort in promoting this once best seller, but the idea that Irwing wrote something more terrifying, more damaging is perfectly absurd. Are we going to offer the public books for them to agree on? Irwing didn't publish his work as a children's book, it's not a popup. A grown, adult audience deserves books that challenge their views. And Irwing serves them marvelously well in that regard.
Eric reminds me of the actor that didn't get the part in the untouchables. I was waiting for him to say : you think about that when I beat the rap 😭
Eric seemed so nervous. Why be so nervous when you hold the pan by the handle?
'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.
David Irving's main problem wasn't that he spoke German and rigorously researched every book of history on ww2. His problem wasn't the stalwart pursuit of searching for first hand sources and taking those accounts and looking at it and trying to understand where all the pieces fit in the puzzle of ww2. David Irving's main problem was that he couldn't find factual history that matched the propoganda and hysteria that has been peddled and fabricated to make the the ultimate untouchable victim of the 100 million ppl that unnecessarily died in ww2. He couldn't find exactly where to put the racial ethno supremacists version of history because how else would they justify taking reparations until this day from European nations and destroying Palestine and genociding the native population there. Call me antisemitic now and I will call satanic go ahead
Fully agreed. The wrong people won that war.
I just want to hear and read and decide for myself, cencership makes a person hungry for the truth. It is wrong to be told what is correct and what is wrong. History is HIS STORY, not the true story.
“All of us on this show, and everyone in publishing, make their living basically by the idea of free expression and free trade in ideas and free exchange and everything that’s under the rubric of the first amendment.
I’m in favour of extending this, especially to people whose opinions may be repulsive or unpopular. That seems to me to be elementary”
-- Christopher Hitchens
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
Long live freedom and democratic equality
Eric Breindel. Gee, I wonder where that name comes from.
You know Hitchens was Jewish too.
This robot doesn't blink.
It's like he's trying to crush a walnut with his sphincter all the time.
Hitchens has missed a major point , publishers exist to make money
And many people would’ve have bought Irving’s book
I don't know, I've got to give the mousey guy props for standing up to the greatest intellect of the later 20th century tho
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.
imagine claiming that something "open to doubt" is at all controversial?? that is NUTS.
Figure out who you can’t criticize and that’s who controls you
The new york guy is such a gaslighting weird man. Gives me crazy vibes.
That guy was brave to get in the ring with hitch! I am sure he knew that hitch is a superior intellectual and formidable debating. So I guess this guy knew the only path reasonable not to get destroyed and hitch slapped was to keep talking over and interrupting hitch
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.
I agree with David Irving. If it wasn't a hoax why criminalize research into it?
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.
@ANTI-AIPAC you Nazis are pretty clever, playing the victim card, posing yourself as the silenced and oppressed underdog...you all know why you're in this predicament. You all lost WWII, but you all never lost hope in your messiah. Maybe you all will manage to make some noise in the near future, but that's all it's gonna be. Noise. And after you all made your noise, complete and utter silence. Which is what should have happened to you all back in '45, but G-d is patient, wanting you guys to use some of your senses and conscience to change your ways.
why do jews think they are above criticism?
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
guy is gonna start crying
Hitchens completely outclasses the other two
If the Jewish stuffed suit guy going on and on about publisher's "moral authority" and Irving's "antisemitism" doesn't make you want to vomit or fight, you might not understand the true nature of the debate here.
The beginning of hysterical pearl clutching and wokeness.
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.
Every single issue or atrocious behaviours can be questioned and studied apart from one subject it's completely bizarre and a little suspicious TBF
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?
Hitch looks a bit hungover here. I miss him so much.
@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
It's hilarious how Eric Breindel loves RFK (his former college roomate and fellow heroin user) so much that he mimics his speech difficulties.
Hitchens set out his stall quite simply.
Irving has a track record of expert investigative historical research in the specific field. That is why someone might wish to publish him again. Protecting constitutional freedom to print and read anything is the focal point of Hitchens’s take in this discussion. Every other factor brought up is secondary.
Irving presents within his book certain surprising and objectionable views which the majority of the public would disagree with. This is not a reason to pull the book.
As someone else has posted, Irving’s particular incendiary views are called out 5 years later and these specific views are then exposed as wrong. That was the right time and place for that to happen, and it ended his writing career.
This does not negate the other good historical work Irving was famous for having previously done. It may well be that Irving is anti-Semitic, even a nut bag on this specific matter (I’ve never read his work). If he is, he was stopped in the right time & place, without the US constitution being undermined.
Hitchens understands better than most how freedoms can be diluted, in innocuous looking ways, to protect parts of society from unpleasant views. It seems to me that is why he stuck to the single point in this discussion; it was the only one that seriously mattered.
Who's this Charlie Rose character?? Oh, now I remember...🤣🤣🤣
Bro was unfairly metooed
No particular strong opinion on this, seems like St Martins can refuse to publish a book if they want. But boy, Mr Eric here has to be the most disturbing presence on earth. He seems to be seriously ill.
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.
Publishers are businesses. They have a profit motive, morals are optional.
Is WWII the first conflict in human history where the victors were perfectly fair and objective? There has to be debate so bad ideas are disproven rather than sink underground.
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.
Hitchens is spot in in this discussion
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.
What the J's can't do wrong? You think the backlash has nothing to do with such actions?
An important premise in that nobody should be the absolute decider of what is correct or acceptable. We have enough of that already in our schools. We are smart enough to weigh the evidence and arguments and decide for ourselves.
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.
That guy from the Times likes the word “Impramator” to much!
I loved Hitchens when I was a teenager and moved away from him as an adult. Exchanges like this make me realise the main reason: His verbal fluency, talent in live debates and extreme self-confidence make him very good at making observers think that surface level engagement with major philosophical questions gave his audience a deep and unique understanding.
Congrats you devolved.
This comment would've been more relevant on another video
This
Are you kidding?
if you believe in free speech not as something that only you like...then you MUST accept the speech of anything that is possible outside unlawful speech...it is as simple as that
I’ve always thought Breindel had the upper hand here. Hitchens’ criticism that the publisher caved to public pressure is valid but his claim that this is a free speech issue is spurious. As Breindel mentions, Irving could publish the book himself in the US just as he did in the UK and so the book would be made available. Publishing houses are not obligated to publish every submission they receive. Hitchens’ view that Irving is a “necessary” historian of fascism is misleading and overlooks Irving’s dangerously sensationalist and irrational views of the Holocaust and its root causes. The fact that the book uncovered new documents does not make him a necessary historian. I think the book deserved to be condemned and its availability to the public was never in question. Regardless, it’s a pleasure to see two fantastic minds battling... if only they were alive today to raise our discourse.
You miss the point. Hitchens did not say publishing houses are or ought to be obligated to publish. However if a publishing house received a submission, reads it, agrees to publish it, and then reneges on the deal because some people are going to be offended then we should err on the side of freedom of speech and the publishing house should publish it. Do you see the difference?
@@Bucketheadhead I’ve acknowledged that Hitchens’ argument about the publishing house caving to public pressure is valid. However, as Briendel mentions, this is not a first amendment issue and the availability of the book was never in question. Moreover, Breindel is right that Hitchens’ defense of Irving as a “necessary” historian because he “unearths new documents” is a strange description of an author who routinely uses holocaust denialism and sensationalism to raise his profile.
@@Mdk2730 Any censorship issue is a freedom of speech issue.
Whether one considers a pro-Nazi historian to be necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Abhorrent person beliefs and quality of one’s work are not mutually exclusive. I may be mistaken but I think until around the time of his unsuccessful libel case against Lipstadt he was still respected for his earlier works.
@@Bucketheadhead Your post strangely omits to critique Irving for taking opposing scholars to court with libel suits, a strange oversight for such a staunch free speech advocate.
@@elision2407 We’re discussing censorship of Irving; that’s the topic. Why I would also need to critique Irving is somewhat baffling to me. My view on that is quite obviously inferred. If my position on free speech isn’t clear enough for you I’ll spell it out - censorship of anyone is wrong.
The implication of what you say is not appreciated.
The fact Eric Breindel is a jew is hard to ignore here.
The truth is coming out.
Freedom of speech does not imply mandatory publication but if a publisher has agreed to publish, they should follow through.
Irving is right as has come to light.
Nowadays R.L. Stine books are being rewritten to remove words like "fat". The slippery slope is real
Lol hilarious this Eric guy
Hid voice makes me vomit. Sounds like he's being rammed up the ass while talking.
This was the beginning and battle of freedom of speech. Noe your opinion could get your arrested or branded.
"… arguing with people with whom I disagree…"
Sounds familiar😎
Well Said That Man 🌬💨💨💨🤍💜🤍💜🤍Love Christopher Hitchens 🕊🕊🕊
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
Publish it, discourse, confine it to the category it belongs in.
People don't get the problems Irving hinted to cause: he regularly stated, that the annual 'hand-off's' from the US and Germany towards Israel will drop from several billions to zero dollar, as soon as people realize that the whole 'Holocaust' was and is (I'm citing Irving not literally) a form of business-scheme, which was though out in the early 1970s.
The specifics about Auschwitz, the gassings, the chambers and the numbers of atrocities are the points/facts, he put in question, are just the details of which a debate he wanted to be held openly - but it was the underestimation of the political impact Irving is to be blamed.
Why? Because there's still no peace in Isreal & Palestina and one does not throw more fuel in such a fire. One cannot bother a political giant (as the USA undoubtedly is) and expect to suffer no consequences.
Don't get me wrong - I am sure the Shoa was exactly that kind of a genocidal crime, it is commonly held to be, BUT I would not read a book by David Irving on that, because he never wrote about the phenomenon.
If you've read Irving, he doesn't write at all about concentration camps. He's addressed those subjects in a rather foolish way through interviews. The only valid condemnation of his books would have to stem from what is in the books themselves and not on the personal behavior of their author.
@@sichelgaito
His premise is (a.f.a.i.k.): "I write history only from the sources" - which makes him more of a literary anthologist than a 'historian' in the strict sense of the word.
Nevertheless: all his faults, his idiosyncratic method of historiography and his active distancing from the predominating narratives won't take away anything from the archival quality of his published works.
About any "condemnation of his books": a self-proclaimed culture of plurality and freedom of expression should be up to the task of handling any quality of books.
@@11Krallethe best kind of historian is a ‘literary anthologist’ or a archivist - what else do you want? for them to subtly sew their own ideology into the work?
@@Azoria4
I don't want anything. But I have to say, that I'd be way more comfortable with pointing out the worst kind of historian: "someone, who only compiles secondary literature"
Anything about them that they don't like they just call antisemitic, and we're all expected to stop thinking and bow down to these people who call themselves Jews.
Eric Breindel is an American version of Kenneth Williams.
Fuck me that's spot on.
Eric lost the argument clearly!
Eric gonna go cry in his car after this 😭🤣 is he riding a vibrator? 11:47
Charlie said Gerbulz
Eric's voice just taught me Gods greatest curse isnt looks or intellect...but your voice...fingers on a chalkboard! Lol
Eric Breindel is J...ish so is obviously immensely biased on the topic and his fake outrage is quite tiresome, sadly predictable and childish. Facts matter.
The painter was right about them.