This is Mr Hitchens at his best. He is eloquent and thoughtful speaker. When he is allowed to speak for any length he is engaging and people listen in these talks, and he knows when to stop when he has answered the question (which does not take long). This is why television is so frustrating - the constant interruptions ruin the speech, and this is why the media do it. Although I was not there, I get the strong suspicion that on this occasion, those students came away learning something new, and no doubt some of them with changed or changing minds. He may not be as popular as his brother now, but I do think he will prove to be more influential probably after his death.
Indeed, I'm really not a fan of his late brother's opinions and beliefs. Peter's views are broadly less popular but are infinitely more wise than his intelligent but misguided older brother Christopher.
I’ve been to a good many public events he has spoken at. The last one I attended at York university, a ‘debate’ on marijuana (in which no one would oppose him), began with roughly 75:25 of the audience against him before he spoke, then not quite the exact opposite but certainly 35:65 afterwards.
I always get more worried when I hear him talking about current affairs and himself in past tense. That's the clear indicator of how pessimistic he actually is and that's just freaks the hell out of me...
How true My mother got sent to Coventry as the saying goes by her grown up children Except for this daughter She was cut out of life itself She died young Dad lived on for another 24 years
Dad never loved a thing after the awful war Nor did mother After the deaths of three of her babies Two by birth One through a cot death after the together inject when Roberta our s😢ister was 4 months old
There were five surviving siblings Me the third survivor Of the Howard line there were none but Jews from Lewisham Two were considered Londoners The other three children were born in Nottingham My mother met father just after the war She was a Wren Dad not a soldier though did serve in their navy Anne to think he had served on markets Billingsgate Covent garden To end his life down mine to him was absolutely horrendous So keep your ear a listening They need to end it yet they Fzoh enn in fear Never as we all warred against her Our mother A Anne Marie Howard a Braisby though not for long when they need to cut they slash
My dad died when I was nine in 1963. I wish I'd known him longer. But I still do through memory. I dont know whether I'd prefer it if my parents had seperated, yes to keep him alive.
@@jessicaramer6630 Its all about stability I think - my dad died when I was 13, and it was definitely sad but not profoundly so, since my mum and family were always stable and still are. Long term instability, which divorce surely tends to cause more than a death, I'm sure is generally more profoundly impactful than a tragic event.
He didn't leave it at what the title says, though. He says it is better *in a way*, because the breakup of the family is not a voluntary act, as it would be in a divorce. He also explicitly mentions he doesn't speak for individual experiences, only the overarching theme.
There are many variables to consider. If your parent dies, you might not feel betrayed in the way you might if your parent abandoned the marriage. (Unless your parent commits suicide of course, which is coincidentally exactly what Hitchens mother did.)
I have to say those were a bunch of very well thought up questions from an intelligent group of students at the University of Warwick. P. Hitchens is a fantastic speaker, he is an honest intelectual, not like a lot of these pathetic fakers we see on the BBC nowadays
He can't be ignorant of the demographic changes in Britain since the 1950s. Where does he address their effects on declining trust and morality. The euphemism “Asian grooming gangs” should be a powerful point for him.
Personally I think this video should have been entitled, 'Please don't ask where to emigrate. If you need to ask, you're too wet to make it.' Had a good chuckle when I read that. And people claim Peter Hitchens doesn't have a sense of humour! 😂
its also a cop out of which he has not very good answers for.. this is where Peter starts to lose credibility for me. I fear he is just a paid complainer
Yeah, Peter has common sense oozing out of his ear holes. Damn, if only the politicians were half as intelligent as this man, society would be all the better for it. It's nothing short of disgrace how this country has been let go.
5 years after her death i walked back in to my family home to find my elder sister in charge with her order sheet for me to stop right there she said i had no right to be in my father's home
Yep I'll go with that. Parents that divorce, are de facto saying that they dislike each other more than they love their children. Parents that stay together when the going gets tough are saying that the lives of their children are more important.
Couldn't you argue that in some situations that the person who gets the divorce is doing it because their spouse already broke their oath. Part of the oath is to "love and to cherish" so If your spouse treats you badly by being physically or mentally abusive or by committing adultery that person has already broken their oath. If your spouse intentionally commits themselves to making your life miserable then they have broken the oath. "Till death do us part" is part of the oath to love someone, since love is consensual then if your spouse means you harm then they are the wrongdoer not the one who seeks restitution in the form of divorce. Divorce to some extent existed to put a price on bad behaviour.I think the current view that you should be legally able to divorce someone for almost any reason is insane, but think a oath goes both ways and many times the person seeking divorce can be entirely justified. A divorce is supposed to make a legal penalty for the party who is at fault in breaking their vow, if a person breaks an oath then the other party need not uphold their side of the oath since the agreement has already been broken by the other spouse's bad behaviour. Also it appears to me that the first states existed partly as a way to enforce oaths like marriages since that is why we have witnesses of marriage vows. I think the denigration of marriage is a way in which government exists but no longer has any responsibility to protect anything and instead only appease those who they wish to appease.
The system in many modern countries is so backwards though, it rewards the guilty party who broke the vows. Wether or not guilty party starts to divorce or gets served with divorce. Happened to me. Couldn't afford to divorce my abuser and was and still am forced to live with him after he divorced me. He treats me even worse and i feel like a prisoner. I moved for him to usa and am not eligible to get financial assistance and was intimidated by him not to show up to court. He lied about when we separated etc for his financial gain. The most pathetic thing is he doesn't have nothing, his parents paid his divorce... People lost all morals and i am kinda glad the world is now paying for their stupidity. The present is literally the result of generations who morally died long time ago. Truth and peace no longer matters to most people. Unless it benefits them personally. Its a satanic selfish society kinda.. 😭
Why would British planes not be able to fly into the EU if Britain left the EU - or is the rest of the world inside the EU but we havent been told about it?
Hitchens is incredibly weak on Brexit. He's good at things like the breakdown of society and the dangers of certain political movements, but he's just dense when it comes to Brexit.
I've followed him for years now, I remembered in the interview 'The House I Grew Up In' for the radio... Interviewer: Do you think it was a happy marriage? (his parents') Peter: Well it plainly wasn't in the end, because it broke up in rather unhappy circumstances. Later on the interviewer tells the listeners "Peter won't go into the exact details of his [religious] rebellion, nor is he prepared to discuss the death of his mother which followed the collapse of his parents marriage." ua-cam.com/video/P11sM92VoFQ/v-deo.html The discussion about marriage is around 15:30 if you wanna have alisten.
I haven't watched the full video. But does Peter mention his familial bias considering his Mothers suicide to escape her loveless marriage? No ? Didn't think so. By that time he was an adult, so he can't exactly claim it ruined his childhood. Though I don't mean to belittle such tragedy. But is he seriously suggesting that it was better for his family for his mother to commit suicide rather than divorce his father ?
His mother commited suicide following the couple's divorce, which surely contributed to her suicide. Regardless, it isn't a question of bad marriage v. divorce, it is making a commitment from the outset and working at it. Peter Hitchens clearly made that commitment, his brother didn't. And he is right about studies proving that divorce damaging children.
@@halasipipacs Perhaps the funniest yet most frustrating is that Peter is a stalwart member of the Church Of England. A church that owes its very existence to divorce itself. Yet he complains of Britain's lost culture... Maybe he never really understood it in the first place. I have no doubt when parents separate it CAN be very difficult for everyone, children included. Though I would say this is hard to measure and people being individuals makes it impossible to truly quantify. Anyone who claims to know is lying. There will be cases when it is better for children post separation.
@@boppincloud2125 Yes well Henry VIII wasn't really into marriage counselling, and there are only so many wives whose heads you can chop off before it gets rather unseemly. Oh please, Peter Hitchens is not saying that divorce should be banned, although no fault divorce is questionable, he is saying that people are not committed to marriage. One gets married primarily for the children and if you are married and have children you should do your best to stick at it because divorce is not simply difficult for children and the parents, it is traumatic, it carries with it numerous negative emotional and financial consequences and the trauma lasts for a lifetime. As far as Peter Hitchens never really understanding Britain's lost culture, I can't even go there on that one.
@@halasipipacs "Yes well Henry VIII wasn't really into marriage counselling, and there are only so many wives whose heads you can chop off before it gets rather unseemly." It was the divorce to his first wife. The wives beheaded were ```after``` he had set up the CofE. In regard to marriage, I think your opinions are rather shallow. I disagree with your wording. If you change 'marriage' to procreation then I am more inclined to agree with the premise. Having said that, I'm more inclined to trust the people within the relationships judgement. It's a somewhat voyeuristic subject. Don't you think? Marriage means many different things in different cultures, has vastly different outcomes that transcend religion. It's very arrogant for Peter, CofE stalwart to lecture society and blame its failures on divorce. Considering the CofE may well be the only religion on earth founded to enable a divorce.
You cannot do right of centre politics in the UK, not since the Blair/Brown reforms of 1997-2010. We would have to reverse the Blair/Brown reforms, starting with Blair's american Supreme Court, and all his single-issue committees which sit above Parliament and whose rulings squeeze the sovereign power of Parliament and with it the value of your vote and of mine.
I haven't watched this video. I am a middle aged man. my parents divorced when I was 7 and I think it was an improvement. a divorce is better than one or both parents being miserable.
The title is disturbing (I know that it's a bit of a clickbait, but he actually says it), especially since Hitchens lost his unhappily married mother due to suicide... I think he takes his argument a step too far to say it mildly.
When i came to live here she said I wilp not travel anywhere near her hedge I called in to her home Her husband said hello Her vendetta again began through my elder sister eho now could not stand her own Dab However i forgave her Anne
Hitchens may or may not be correct on all these points, but we’ll never know because nobody will try seriously to argue against him. Perhaps that does answer the matter 🤔
Thank you Peter the most dangerous problem as said by David Davis at the leave campaign was that the E U will have military control of our armed forces by next year this was backed up by Mr Marcon yesterday with a call for an EU army to counter the Russian non threat this is part of the Franco British partnership signed by our Military leaders in Paris not in uniform to deflect attention from the act of treason we will cease to be a country by next year and I can not get any response from our MPs Kindest of regards F
Quite apart from the fact that Muslims are required to believe things equally impossible, if not more so. In any case, if you can believe in a god (which is the starting point for all religions) you can believe in anything.
The questioner on Religion around the 40min mark has a very poor understanding of what religion is & seems to think it merely & most importantly exists as ideas in people's heads, quite the opposite it is in actions in a community that a religion predominantly exists.
@@GodsOwnPrototype He despairs of the particular Protestant imperial Britain of his childhood's irrevocable absolution, and that may very well be the case.
@@athulfgeirsson He has said we are living in the wrong future' & on that I do agree with him. He has WWI as the Rubicon for the decline of the Church & whilst I think he's right, I do think it was salvageable absent repeating the mistake shortly after with WWII. He is obtuse or tactically dishonest regarding the current bio-cultural problems of the UK...along with the rest of the media; though they present all the dots that make the picture, they refuse to connect them to make it clear.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Mind elaborating (genuinely interested)? While I too agree with him for the most part, I find his pessimism a bit irritating. True, Peter might be gone when the whole thing falls to pieces, but like he said our utmost responsibility is ensuring the future of the next generation.
When o worked in a library we were course worked He called it The raw campaign Thr PLT asked me what i mesnt by my suggestion that it was as all ways another serious breech of sanity Meaning Say what you have to War was on their heads And all the rest All the best Kst Owen I asked you if you wanted the librarybkey back You said yes That was the very end of a long and mostly happy period of 18 years Mainly in charge Full of gutsy ideas until i got ditched for s peter gaw a sweetheart of a man to her lover Joanne huh Plus another who took my job
I usually disagree with Peter, but find that he argue points better than most of the waffling Tories. However, I don't need to watch this video to know that his position is incredibly close minded. The parent that died may have been an amazing parent, the other parent could be a terrible parent and find another terrible parent as a partner. Same in reverse for divorce, the divorce may stop a child from growing up with constant shouting, argument or even abuse. Both parents could also find partners who are better at looking after the kids. I am in no way saying that divorce is a good thing, but the point he is trying to make is invalid because of how situational it is.
Of course it's situational, but if I recall his mother commited suicide so this might be where his view of selfishness as being the catalyst of the destruction of modern family life. Maybe, long-term the sense of abandonment and rejection is indeed more harmful to most kids than the death of a parent.
There are just too many ironies in Peters philosophising. Perhaps the funniest yet most frustrating is that Peter is a stalwart member of the Church Of England. A church that owes its very existence to divorce itself. Yet he complains Britain lost it's culture... Maybe he never really understood it in the first place. When it comes to society, children and a way of life. It is probably best to approach politics at arms length. The far left and the far right have much more in common than they really understand. Did people not have affairs when marriage was seen as Peter sees it ? Sins of the father were almost certainly more common though statistical evidence is very difficult to find around taboo subjects. Ultimately Peter ignores all the bad stuff that can be accounted for when marriage was "sacrosanct".
While divorce is the most commonly cited reason for the British exit from the Papacy, the actual reason was because King Henry VIII was looking to become a genuine absolute monarch. It has very little in practice to do with divorce and considerably more due to the irrelevance of the Pope.
I don't disagree but it certainly helped him grant his own divorce or technically speaking, his own annulment. His most successful offspring. Widely regarded as the countries greatest monarch never married. I'm not suggesting that the modern populous take its moral cues from centuries dead monarchs...
@@boppincloud2125 people not living up to standards they set themselves is not reason enough to abolish them altogether. Also, Peter Hitchens is not far right. He is socially conservative, but I guess if mainstream political leaning is so drawn to one side everyone looks extreme.
He’s often spoken of the frustrations of dealing with smears and any reference to such a subject will result in smears of being called racist. He’s been through that already after he made his case against gay marriage (homophobe) and even daring to ask questions about climate change (Climate Denier). I’ve heard him say the time for such conversations were 20 years ago but it’s too late now. Hence why he’s so pessimistic.
He's brilliant, and many points he puts across as a true luminary. But I can't help feeling he's somewhat piggy backing off the legacy of our true intellectual giant, brother Christopher, who at the very least recognised the pernicious folly of believing in something which doesn't exist. Peter makes a good case about morality, but why doe s it have to be underpinned by a supernatural power. Sorry Pete, you lose in the wisdom stakes on this one.
He was an athiest just like you and his brother. He has seen the damage of secularism. Your child will convert to Islam because you have rejected Christainity.
@@gideondavid30 No, that can't happen. You see, my child has been taught not to believe in things which don't exist. We let him believe in Santa Claus for a while, but he actually says he's grateful we did not prolong the deception.
@@Pensivata What can't happen? I don't care about your atheist talking points . What matters is the the culture that is created when a society becomes increasingly secular and there is no moral system to replace the one that previously existed. Christianity, whether true or false, created a moral framework that has existed in Europe for 1500 years. The problem with the modern left is that preaches multiculturalism and tolerance. How can you tolerate ideologies like Islam and not expect a paradigm shift in the UK? So Peter Hitchens is right in saying that when the UK goes under due to bankruptcy and moral decay, people are going to have to search for meaning. And it turns out, religion provides that meaning. The problem is, Christianity has been so thoroughly dismantled that the only viable option is Islam.
I understand your point but I think something that a lot of intellectuals miss, including the likes of his brother Christopher, is that if you strip people of religion which provides community, cohesion, self-respect and meaning in their lives, you essentially leave them with nothing other than their material conditions. If you look at the working classes and the underclass in Britain, it's hard to say they have anything left - no community, no self-respect, no cohesion or meaning. Working class areas in Britain are truly dystopian. The middle classes are increasingly depressed and neurotic - mental illness is at an all-time high despite us having more access to food, education and pleasure than previous times. Religion has been replaced by addiction to technology, sex addiction, porn addiction, drug addiction, mindless materialism. My question is - what can we offer people that is better than religion? materialism and political ideologies are far, far more destructive. Do we require a new spirituality - one designed for the modern age?
He was that superior to Peter he supported the disaster that was Iraq. Christopher stated one of his hero’s was Orwell but unlike George he didn’t back his convictions and go himself he sent others sons and daughters. He admired Trotsky until his dying day and believed in perpetual revolution He supported immigration but only for intellectual elites Christopher publicly stated Britain had been turned into the Lebanon His so called Razor Slap when objectively looked at was really just an opinion His claims of Religion causing most wars is pathetically wrong and woeful Yes he was clever and very intelligent and I briefly followed him but I realised he’d argue with himself in a phone box.
A bit harsh. He's an interesting voice - certainly relevant to the times. His brother was a genius - one of the great journalists and speakers of our times.
@A. Fox It's a good question. He's talking about the decay of society - certainly it matters. All I have to do is take a look at what has happened in my city over the last five years to see there is something very dark going on here. Morality is almost non-existent at any class level. The death of the institution of marriage is one issue among many - there is the increasing addiction, mental health problems, a lack of opportunities for young people. I personally find these debates important - it is valuable to have these voices in society.
@A. Fox I live in Sheffield, UK. It's been in a process of regeneration since the industry was swept away in the 60s. Fortunately it has managed to re-build somewhat. The West side of the city has become a center for two booming universities and there has been growth for the educated classes in those areas but the rest of the city has been very impoverished for a long time. The homeless problem is the most shocking thing at the moment - it has increased visibly year on year over the last five years. I can remember a time not long ago when there were only a few homeless on the streets - now there are hundreds, maybe thousands - it's dystopian.
This is Mr Hitchens at his best. He is eloquent and thoughtful speaker. When he is allowed to speak for any length he is engaging and people listen in these talks, and he knows when to stop when he has answered the question (which does not take long). This is why television is so frustrating - the constant interruptions ruin the speech, and this is why the media do it.
Although I was not there, I get the strong suspicion that on this occasion, those students came away learning something new, and no doubt some of them with changed or changing minds.
He may not be as popular as his brother now, but I do think he will prove to be more influential probably after his death.
Indeed, I'm really not a fan of his late brother's opinions and beliefs. Peter's views are broadly less popular but are infinitely more wise than his intelligent but misguided older brother Christopher.
GOODBYE TELEVISION
I’ve been to a good many public events he has spoken at. The last one I attended at York university, a ‘debate’ on marijuana (in which no one would oppose him), began with roughly 75:25 of the audience against him before he spoke, then not quite the exact opposite but certainly 35:65 afterwards.
influential? he is a moral monster and will rightly be completely forgotten
Wyn Williams Yours sincerely, local idiot.
I never understood how they could fight so hard to get religion out of the classroom, etc but then fight so hard to have prayer rooms for the Muslims.
It's absolute woke madness
As someone who was once very socially liberal, Peter makes sense of the utter madness that is the modern socially liberal age.
Thank God for Peter Hitchens, rip Chris
I always get more worried when I hear him talking about current affairs and himself in past tense. That's the clear indicator of how pessimistic he actually is and that's just freaks the hell out of me...
That's why you should continue to listen to him.
One of my most favorite if not my favorite journalists/speakers/critics ever!!!
Thinking about the way England is today always makes me sad.
I’d like to hear him talk with Jonothan Haidt and Jordan Peterson
A talk with Peterson would be great.
Volcanic47 A hit piece taken wildly out of context. Try again.
Volcanic47 I thank you but no thank you
I’m not interested in edited hit pieces
Volcanic47 You’re bias ?
Vox 🤦♂️ I like too be made to think
Indoctrination No !
I’d like to hear him talk without people coughing constantly.
How true
My mother got sent to Coventry as the saying goes by her grown up children
Except for this daughter
She was cut out of life itself
She died young
Dad lived on for another 24 years
Dad never loved a thing after the awful war
Nor did mother
After the deaths of three of her babies
Two by birth
One through a cot death after the together inject when Roberta our s😢ister was 4 months old
There were five surviving siblings
Me the third survivor
Of the Howard line there were none but Jews from Lewisham
Two were considered Londoners
The other three children were born in Nottingham
My mother met father just after the war
She was a Wren
Dad not a soldier though did serve in their navy
Anne to think he had served on markets
Billingsgate
Covent garden
To end his life down mine to him was absolutely horrendous
So keep your ear a listening
They need to end it yet they
Fzoh enn in fear
Never as we all warred against her
Our mother
A Anne Marie Howard a Braisby though not for long when they need to cut they slash
My dad died when I was nine in 1963. I wish I'd known him longer. But I still do through memory. I dont know whether I'd prefer it if my parents had seperated, yes to keep him alive.
I have wondered if Hitchens had underestimated the effects of parental death on children, which are profound.
@@jessicaramer6630 Its all about stability I think - my dad died when I was 13, and it was definitely sad but not profoundly so, since my mum and family were always stable and still are. Long term instability, which divorce surely tends to cause more than a death, I'm sure is generally more profoundly impactful than a tragic event.
He didn't leave it at what the title says, though. He says it is better *in a way*, because the breakup of the family is not a voluntary act, as it would be in a divorce. He also explicitly mentions he doesn't speak for individual experiences, only the overarching theme.
There are many variables to consider. If your parent dies, you might not feel betrayed in the way you might if your parent abandoned the marriage. (Unless your parent commits suicide of course, which is coincidentally exactly what Hitchens mother did.)
@@jessicaramer6630 He's quite close-minded so yes
Well done Mr Hitchens!!
Sad that the latest video from a pop star would get more views in 10 minutes than this has in 3 years
Entertainment is a drug
It’s rare to find such a fluent and intelligent public speaker
Here here
I agree
Whole heartedly
I have to say those were a bunch of very well thought up questions from an intelligent group of students at the University of Warwick. P. Hitchens is a fantastic speaker, he is an honest intelectual, not like a lot of these pathetic fakers we see on the BBC nowadays
An honest intellectual who now writes columns for Daily Mail?!
He can't be ignorant of the demographic changes in Britain since the 1950s. Where does he address their effects on declining trust and morality. The euphemism “Asian grooming gangs” should be a powerful point for him.
Thanks for uploading this! The university talks he does seem to be his best ones.
One of his best ever talks, utterly sublime.
Personally I think this video should have been entitled, 'Please don't ask where to emigrate. If you need to ask, you're too wet to make it.' Had a good chuckle when I read that. And people claim Peter Hitchens doesn't have a sense of humour! 😂
its also a cop out of which he has not very good answers for.. this is where Peter starts to lose credibility for me. I fear he is just a paid complainer
Warwick Politics Society sure does have an awful lot of smokers in the classroom..
Yeah, Peter has common sense oozing out of his ear holes. Damn, if only the politicians were half as intelligent as this man, society would be all the better for it. It's nothing short of disgrace how this country has been let go.
"The Blair Creature"! Good title for a horror movie!
5 years after her death i walked back in to my family home to find my elder sister in charge with her order sheet for me to stop right there she said i had no right to be in my father's home
Yep I'll go with that. Parents that divorce, are de facto saying that they dislike each other more than they love their children. Parents that stay together when the going gets tough are saying that the lives of their children are more important.
Good talk. Sensible questions. The light side of you tube.
i agree with Mr Hitchens 100 persent
Japan is like the UK in 1972. The UK is like America in 1989. America is plain and simply, fucked.
Let’s keep Respect but jettison bigotry.
These students need to lay off the weed judging by the amount of coughing going on.
October is the month of freshers flu
Absolutely hilarious - "its going to be a race - him dying before the county!" Ha!
Couldn't you argue that in some situations that the person who gets the divorce is doing it because their spouse already broke their oath. Part of the oath is to "love and to cherish" so If your spouse treats you badly by being physically or mentally abusive or by committing adultery that person has already broken their oath. If your spouse intentionally commits themselves to making your life miserable then they have broken the oath. "Till death do us part" is part of the oath to love someone, since love is consensual then if your spouse means you harm then they are the wrongdoer not the one who seeks restitution in the form of divorce. Divorce to some extent existed to put a price on bad behaviour.I think the current view that you should be legally able to divorce someone for almost any reason is insane, but think a oath goes both ways and many times the person seeking divorce can be entirely justified. A divorce is supposed to make a legal penalty for the party who is at fault in breaking their vow, if a person breaks an oath then the other party need not uphold their side of the oath since the agreement has already been broken by the other spouse's bad behaviour. Also it appears to me that the first states existed partly as a way to enforce oaths like marriages since that is why we have witnesses of marriage vows. I think the denigration of marriage is a way in which government exists but no longer has any responsibility to protect anything and instead only appease those who they wish to appease.
The system in many modern countries is so backwards though, it rewards the guilty party who broke the vows.
Wether or not guilty party starts to divorce or gets served with divorce.
Happened to me.
Couldn't afford to divorce my abuser and was and still am forced to live with him after he divorced me. He treats me even worse and i feel like a prisoner. I moved for him to usa and am not eligible to get financial assistance and was intimidated by him not to show up to court. He lied about when we separated etc for his financial gain.
The most pathetic thing is he doesn't have nothing, his parents paid his divorce...
People lost all morals and i am kinda glad the world is now paying for their stupidity. The present is literally the result of generations who morally died long time ago.
Truth and peace no longer matters to most people. Unless it benefits them personally. Its a satanic selfish society kinda.. 😭
I didn't even get past 15 seconds before 'liking' this video. A man apart.
Why would British planes not be able to fly into the EU if Britain left the EU - or is the rest of the world inside the EU but we havent been told about it?
Hitchens is incredibly weak on Brexit. He's good at things like the breakdown of society and the dangers of certain political movements, but he's just dense when it comes to Brexit.
Ive viewed this twice and peter is so right
36:55 there was never any petrol rationing although petrol coupons were printed.
WILKSVILLE What about the oil crisis in the seventies?
Great man, wise words.
I believe this man's rationale is accurate.
I would like to have asked Peter how much his views on the sanctity of marriage were informed by the dissolution of his parents' union.
I've followed him for years now, I remembered in the interview 'The House I Grew Up In' for the radio...
Interviewer: Do you think it was a happy marriage? (his parents')
Peter: Well it plainly wasn't in the end, because it broke up in rather unhappy circumstances.
Later on the interviewer tells the listeners "Peter won't go into the exact details of his [religious] rebellion, nor is he prepared to discuss the death of his mother which followed the collapse of his parents marriage."
ua-cam.com/video/P11sM92VoFQ/v-deo.html
The discussion about marriage is around 15:30 if you wanna have alisten.
Thanks for your reply, Victoria. I will take a look. :)
I haven't watched the full video. But does Peter mention his familial bias considering his Mothers suicide to escape her loveless marriage?
No ? Didn't think so.
By that time he was an adult, so he can't exactly claim it ruined his childhood. Though I don't mean to belittle such tragedy. But is he seriously suggesting that it was better for his family for his mother to commit suicide rather than divorce his father ?
He is clearly an idiot - he makes a living at being contrary - a sad man indeed!
His mother commited suicide following the couple's divorce, which surely contributed to her suicide. Regardless, it isn't a question of bad marriage v. divorce, it is making a commitment from the outset and working at it. Peter Hitchens clearly made that commitment, his brother didn't. And he is right about studies proving that divorce damaging children.
@@halasipipacs Perhaps the funniest yet most frustrating is that Peter is a stalwart member of the Church Of England. A church that owes its very existence to divorce itself. Yet he complains of Britain's lost culture... Maybe he never really understood it in the first place. I have no doubt when parents separate it CAN be very difficult for everyone, children included. Though I would say this is hard to measure and people being individuals makes it impossible to truly quantify. Anyone who claims to know is lying. There will be cases when it is better for children post separation.
@@boppincloud2125 Yes well Henry VIII wasn't really into marriage counselling, and there are only so many wives whose heads you can chop off before it gets rather unseemly. Oh please, Peter Hitchens is not saying that divorce should be banned, although no fault divorce is questionable, he is saying that people are not committed to marriage. One gets married primarily for the children and if you are married and have children you should do your best to stick at it because divorce is not simply difficult for children and the parents, it is traumatic, it carries with it numerous negative emotional and financial consequences and the trauma lasts for a lifetime.
As far as Peter Hitchens never really understanding Britain's lost culture, I can't even go there on that one.
@@halasipipacs "Yes well Henry VIII wasn't really into marriage counselling, and there are only so many wives whose heads you can chop off before it gets rather unseemly."
It was the divorce to his first wife.
The wives beheaded were ```after``` he had set up the CofE.
In regard to marriage, I think your opinions are rather shallow. I disagree with your wording.
If you change 'marriage' to procreation then I am more inclined to agree with the premise. Having said that, I'm more inclined to trust the people within the relationships judgement. It's a somewhat voyeuristic subject. Don't you think?
Marriage means many different things in different cultures, has vastly different outcomes that transcend religion.
It's very arrogant for Peter, CofE stalwart to lecture society and blame its failures on divorce.
Considering the CofE may well be the only religion on earth founded to enable a divorce.
No volume as per usual .
You cannot do right of centre politics in the UK, not since the Blair/Brown reforms of 1997-2010. We would have to reverse the Blair/Brown reforms, starting with Blair's american Supreme Court, and all his single-issue committees which sit above Parliament and whose rulings squeeze the sovereign power of Parliament and with it the value of your vote and of mine.
10:05 passage in Kingsly Amis novel 'Russian hide and seek'
I haven't watched this video. I am a middle aged man. my parents divorced when I was 7 and I think it was an improvement. a divorce is better than one or both parents being miserable.
It's hard for me to believe Britain ever had a strong moral-social fabric.
Compared to what we have now? Sheeeesh.
I want to know why so many lectures in front of college or university students are littered with coughs and splutters.
The title is disturbing (I know that it's a bit of a clickbait, but he actually says it), especially since Hitchens lost his unhappily married mother due to suicide... I think he takes his argument a step too far to say it mildly.
When i came to live here she said
I wilp not travel anywhere near her hedge
I called in to her home
Her husband said hello
Her vendetta again began through my elder sister eho now could not stand her own Dab
However i forgave her
Anne
Hitchens may or may not be correct on all these points, but we’ll never know because nobody will try seriously to argue against him. Perhaps that does answer the matter 🤔
What's with all the coughing?
It's like a Covid convention before Covid was even invented!
What if you get both?
Thank you Peter the most dangerous problem as said by David Davis at the leave campaign was that the E U will have military control of our armed forces by next year this was backed up by Mr Marcon yesterday with a call for an EU army to counter the Russian non threat this is part of the Franco British partnership signed by our Military leaders in Paris not in uniform to deflect attention from the act of treason we will cease to be a country by next year and I can not get any response from our MPs Kindest of regards F
41 m warns Richard Dawkins that Islam will likely replace Christianity
Peter > Chris
@@hallerd Chris and you are gay.
40:39 When did Peter say this to Richard Dawkins and Has anyone heard Dawkins mention this? Thanks.
Read: 'The Impact of Science on Society'
51:34 this!
Interesting , disturbing and hope suppressing!
39:35 onwards. Islam does not deny virgin birth.
Quite apart from the fact that Muslims are required to believe things equally impossible, if not more so. In any case, if you can believe in a god (which is the starting point for all religions) you can believe in anything.
what does it say at the back?
It is a bit late, but in case you meant the blackboard: "Please don't ask where you should emigrate - if you need to ask you're too wet to make it."
The questioner on Religion around the 40min mark has a very poor understanding of what religion is & seems to think it merely & most importantly exists as ideas in people's heads, quite the opposite it is in actions in a community that a religion predominantly exists.
I doubt they draw much of an ontological distinction therebetween.
The Blair Creature! Sounds a bit David Icke
With what's happening in front of your eyes in march 2020, say either didn't predict accurately. Put up or shut up.
Nice question Dominic 48:00
Thank you Sean Darcy
38:49 I think that the gentleman should look up conversation to Islam that happens in the prison system, particularly in the US.
new sub XCX
gary the snail - would you please translate your comment for me? Thank you.
So what was christianity for
Especially Christmas
I like Peter for many reasons, I disagree on a few points but foremost is his utter pessimism, which he should know is a sin.
Despair and presumption are sins. Pessimism prevents disappointment.
@@myleshagar9722
Fair correction, but he has despaired of the Nations & Native Cultures of the British Isles being salvageable.
@@GodsOwnPrototype He despairs of the particular Protestant imperial Britain of his childhood's irrevocable absolution, and that may very well be the case.
@@athulfgeirsson
He has said we are living in the wrong future' & on that I do agree with him.
He has WWI as the Rubicon for the decline of the Church & whilst I think he's right, I do think it was salvageable absent repeating the mistake shortly after with WWII.
He is obtuse or tactically dishonest regarding the current bio-cultural problems of the UK...along with the rest of the media; though they present all the dots that make the picture, they refuse to connect them to make it clear.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Mind elaborating (genuinely interested)?
While I too agree with him for the most part, I find his pessimism a bit irritating. True, Peter might be gone when the whole thing falls to pieces, but like he said our utmost responsibility is ensuring the future of the next generation.
When o worked in a library we were course worked
He called it
The raw campaign
Thr PLT asked me what i mesnt by my suggestion that it was as all ways another serious breech of sanity
Meaning
Say what you have to
War was on their heads
And all the rest
All the best
Kst Owen
I asked you if you wanted the librarybkey back
You said yes
That was the very end of a long and mostly happy period of 18 years
Mainly in charge
Full of gutsy ideas until i got ditched for s peter gaw a sweetheart of a man to her lover
Joanne huh
Plus another who took my job
I think his views on the 1950s are tosh.
I usually disagree with Peter, but find that he argue points better than most of the waffling Tories. However, I don't need to watch this video to know that his position is incredibly close minded. The parent that died may have been an amazing parent, the other parent could be a terrible parent and find another terrible parent as a partner. Same in reverse for divorce, the divorce may stop a child from growing up with constant shouting, argument or even abuse. Both parents could also find partners who are better at looking after the kids. I am in no way saying that divorce is a good thing, but the point he is trying to make is invalid because of how situational it is.
Of course it's situational, but if I recall his mother commited suicide so this might be where his view of selfishness as being the catalyst of the destruction of modern family life. Maybe, long-term the sense of abandonment and rejection is indeed more harmful to most kids than the death of a parent.
30:00
There are just too many ironies in Peters philosophising.
Perhaps the funniest yet most frustrating is that Peter is a stalwart member of the Church Of England. A church that owes its very existence to divorce itself. Yet he complains Britain lost it's culture... Maybe he never really understood it in the first place.
When it comes to society, children and a way of life. It is probably best to approach politics at arms length. The far left and the far right have much more in common than they really understand.
Did people not have affairs when marriage was seen as Peter sees it ? Sins of the father were almost certainly more common though statistical evidence is very difficult to find around taboo subjects.
Ultimately Peter ignores all the bad stuff that can be accounted for when marriage was "sacrosanct".
While divorce is the most commonly cited reason for the British exit from the Papacy, the actual reason was because King Henry VIII was looking to become a genuine absolute monarch. It has very little in practice to do with divorce and considerably more due to the irrelevance of the Pope.
I don't disagree but it certainly helped him grant his own divorce or technically speaking, his own annulment.
His most successful offspring. Widely regarded as the countries greatest monarch never married.
I'm not suggesting that the modern populous take its moral cues from centuries dead monarchs...
@@boppincloud2125 people not living up to standards they set themselves is not reason enough to abolish them altogether.
Also, Peter Hitchens is not far right. He is socially conservative, but I guess if mainstream political leaning is so drawn to one side everyone looks extreme.
38:50 Dodged mentioning demographic replacement with a deftness that Cameron would be proud of.
He’s often spoken of the frustrations of dealing with smears and any reference to such a subject will result in smears of being called racist. He’s been through that already after he made his case against gay marriage (homophobe) and even daring to ask questions about climate change (Climate Denier). I’ve heard him say the time for such conversations were 20 years ago but it’s too late now. Hence why he’s so pessimistic.
He's just a moaner. No ideas, just moans that he isn't listened to. Why does this guy get air time?
Why assume moaning a negative?
What crappy sound
How could your brother be such an amazing force of intellectualism and you fall so far from the tree?
You are probably just too stupid to understand what he is saying.
Yours sincerely, local idiot.
Rather unfortunate to say that about a dead man...
Utter bollocks.
He's brilliant, and many points he puts across as a true luminary. But I can't help feeling he's somewhat piggy backing off the legacy of our true intellectual giant, brother Christopher, who at the very least recognised the pernicious folly of believing in something which doesn't exist. Peter makes a good case about morality, but why doe s it have to be underpinned by a supernatural power. Sorry Pete, you lose in the wisdom stakes on this one.
He was an athiest just like you and his brother. He has seen the damage of secularism. Your child will convert to Islam because you have rejected Christainity.
@@gideondavid30 No, that can't happen. You see, my child has been taught not to believe in things which don't exist. We let him believe in Santa Claus for a while, but he actually says he's grateful we did not prolong the deception.
@@Pensivata What can't happen? I don't care about your atheist talking points . What matters is the the culture that is created when a society becomes increasingly secular and there is no moral system to replace the one that previously existed. Christianity, whether true or false, created a moral framework that has existed in Europe for 1500 years.
The problem with the modern left is that preaches multiculturalism and tolerance. How can you tolerate ideologies like Islam and not expect a paradigm shift in the UK?
So Peter Hitchens is right in saying that when the UK goes under due to bankruptcy and moral decay, people are going to have to search for meaning. And it turns out, religion provides that meaning. The problem is, Christianity has been so thoroughly dismantled that the only viable option is Islam.
I understand your point but I think something that a lot of intellectuals miss, including the likes of his brother Christopher, is that if you strip people of religion which provides community, cohesion, self-respect and meaning in their lives, you essentially leave them with nothing other than their material conditions.
If you look at the working classes and the underclass in Britain, it's hard to say they have anything left - no community, no self-respect, no cohesion or meaning. Working class areas in Britain are truly dystopian. The middle classes are increasingly depressed and neurotic - mental illness is at an all-time high despite us having more access to food, education and pleasure than previous times. Religion has been replaced by addiction to technology, sex addiction, porn addiction, drug addiction, mindless materialism.
My question is - what can we offer people that is better than religion? materialism and political ideologies are far, far more destructive. Do we require a new spirituality - one designed for the modern age?
He was that superior to Peter he supported the disaster that was Iraq.
Christopher stated one of his hero’s was Orwell but unlike George he didn’t back his convictions and go himself he sent others sons and daughters.
He admired Trotsky until his dying day and believed in perpetual revolution
He supported immigration but only for intellectual elites Christopher publicly stated Britain had been turned into the Lebanon
His so called Razor Slap when objectively looked at was really just an opinion
His claims of Religion causing most wars is pathetically wrong and woeful
Yes he was clever and very intelligent and I briefly followed him but I realised he’d argue with himself in a phone box.
He is living proof that God does not exist - otherwise Christopher would be the one still alive....
A bit harsh. He's an interesting voice - certainly relevant to the times. His brother was a genius - one of the great journalists and speakers of our times.
@A. Fox It's a good question. He's talking about the decay of society - certainly it matters. All I have to do is take a look at what has happened in my city over the last five years to see there is something very dark going on here. Morality is almost non-existent at any class level.
The death of the institution of marriage is one issue among many - there is the increasing addiction, mental health problems, a lack of opportunities for young people. I personally find these debates important - it is valuable to have these voices in society.
@A. Fox I live in Sheffield, UK. It's been in a process of regeneration since the industry was swept away in the 60s. Fortunately it has managed to re-build somewhat. The West side of the city has become a center for two booming universities and there has been growth for the educated classes in those areas but the rest of the city has been very impoverished for a long time. The homeless problem is the most shocking thing at the moment - it has increased visibly year on year over the last five years. I can remember a time not long ago when there were only a few homeless on the streets - now there are hundreds, maybe thousands - it's dystopian.
How needlessly unkind.
@@oldjt How so?