What does Sup Forums think of Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens seems to be the most redpilled opinion columnist in the mainstream.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=q2JuZWEWzkE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A principled man from what I've seen, one of the only people calling out the trories for the right reasons.

I found his argument against legalisation of drugs very interesting. I'd been a supporter of drug legalisation, though I personally think it is an abhorrent practice. His articles pursuaded me to re-evaluate and soften my stance there.

He is best when he argues against drugs, particulary canibis and drug given to children like ritalin, his reasons are pretty solid.

He also redpilled me on skimmed milk!

>dude weed will kill you and we have to save people from ruining their lives by ruining their lives by putting them in jail lmao

youtube.com/watch?v=q2JuZWEWzkE

(((cucklick))) Kike.

Drug take doesn't effect just them it hurts the families who have to deal with the broken people drug taking produces.

Your action DO effect other people.

He's said that if one is not religious there is no point supporting his stances. Therefore I don't support his stances.

My Friday nights would be infinitely more enjoyable if we started jailing binge drinkers.

His book on war against God helped me on my path back to Christendom immensely.

His book on drugs would probably be considered controversial in normie circles, but I thought he made lots of sense in that as well.

All in all he's a great example of how to spread traditionalism without getting accused of racism, he did it by converting from communism, which probably fascinated the brainwashed leftists, he also had a substantial background in academia and because he was a commie when he signed up, they never bullied him out of the system, he also hates the mainstream conservative party and agrees with the left on economics.

So, just do all that, and traditionalism can become a valid political option.

legend

A national treasure

His definition of religion is more like traditionalism. His belief seems to be a something necessitated to preserve traditions.
He does not seem to be some evangelical christofag. I think that's an acceptable balance. As a person with kids, I've had to strike a similar balance to prevent my kids from becoming degenerates.

>His definition of religion is more like traditionalism.
I think I remember that he specifically said that morality could only be derived from religion. And since all of his arguments are appeals to morality, it follows.

It's not about saving lives of drug addicts. It's about deterrence to others from taking drugs.
That's even more important in places like the UK with universal healthcare where the taxpayer will have to pay for the consequences degenerates face due to their degeneracy.

Discouragingly blackpilled, but not wrong.

That is one thing I disagree with him on is that he is to pragmatic in his faith. Also renewable energy.

His argument is that morality can only be derived from non-scientific axioms (like rights and duties).
Most of these come from religion, or quasi-religions like Communism or Atheism.

The wrong Hitchens emigrated to the US!!

It's true, both he and is famous brother Christopher were technically Jews - Jewish mother. Still, I'd take them as Englishmen.

What moral axioms can be derived from atheism?

I've not read his stuff on renewable energy.
As someone who sees faith as mainly as a vehicle to prevent the over-enthusiastic and idiotic youth from becoming complete degenerates, I'm pretty much with him on pragmatic faith.

None from Atheism. I meant to write SJW-ism!

You play games that other people will want to play, and continue to play, with you, over extended periods of time. No-one wants to play 'be murdered' or 'be raped', so, you can derive the basics.
t. Jordan Peterson

Their mother seemed to have been a total degenerate.
And the cuck Christopher seemed to celebrate it.

I'm legitimately an SJW and Libertarian Socialist but I love this guy.
I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he's one of the few people who will argue his points excellently and absolutely destroys his opponents with a mere scoff and roll of the eyes.
I prefer him to his brother.
Great INTELLIGENT guy, he isn't reactionary and he doesn't appeal to the simply left-right politics that most people associate themselves with.
I think it's because he was a Trotskyist in the 70s so he sees things from both sides, something most people can't do.

Vote for Corbyn.

>Libertarian Socialist
Schizophrenic detected.
Seriously, there is no such thing as libertarian socialist. It's equivalent to being a humanitarian mass-murderer.
> I prefer him to his brother.
agreed.
> Vote for Corbyn.
hahahahahahaha
For all her faults, May >> Corbyn.

What's a libertarian socialist?

>muh drugs

The pragmatism is good but after a while I began to feel like it wasn't good enough any more. If I reason faith as a means to an end (traditionalism good healthysociety) as apose the unchangable word of God I might argue myself out of it and ingore some doctire and become a lukewarm Christian.

Pargmatically speaking one ought not to be pragmatic about religon if he wants to see a better world.

You could be a humanitarian mass murderer. If you believe that overpopulation will eventually lead to the destruction of the earth and the end of mankind, you may orchestrate a human cull to preserve mankind.

You should try becoming more informed and thinking out of the box, but you are an American so I don't expect much t b h.

Google it. We essentially believe in the destruction of national and supranational governments.
We believe that businesses should be owned by the workers, with workers making major decisions and controlling how money is spent.
We are fundamentally pure democrats who believe in direct democracy, something that is perfectly achievable as most people have access to the internet.
We no longer need politicians making decisions for us, when we can simply have a civil service which implements decisions made through referenda.
I find the capitalist economic system we currently have in our private sector is built on the exploitation of the majority of workers for the benefit of shareholders who have no involvement in the business other than a cash injection at whatever period during the business' life.
We are socialists because we believe in equality of opportunity and businesses being run for the benefit of the workers, as opposed to shareholders. This does not mean that we want a large government to control industry.
We want the opposite, we do not want any government.
Hence why we are libertarian socialists.

I find the 'unchangable word of God' a little self-defeating attitude of any religion. The most useful part of religion is the prescriptions it gives wrt how to live one's life.
The 'unchangable word of God' will be used to undermine the life-prescriptions through the more useless (utility-wise) comments made in the text which science can falsify.

> We are fundamentally pure democrats who believe in direct democracy, something that is perfectly achievable as most people have access to the internet.
> We want the opposite, we do not want any government.
You're just delusional evolution-deniers!

I say this as someone who would have described myself as a libertarian socialist around 5 years back. Understanding evolution and evolutionary psychology showed me how stupid the ideology was.

Explain.

Athiests will argue themselves into justifing genocide.

>But! I don't need a god to be moral! I'm not >killing anyone right now!

I'm Catholic, not atheist.

he's kind of a prick on twitter. He has this principle he goes by which is basically that he assumes everyone is intelligent until they prove otherwise so he'll pretty much debate anyone on any subject but then If someone says something stupid he pretty much just roasts them

Evolution of societies depends upon the incentive structure that is enforced. If workers own the business, then there is no personal responsibility on the workers. Each worker will try to 'steal' a little believing that it does not matter. And the company goes bust. This is called 'Tragedy of the commons' in game theory terms.
Liberty can only come with some responsibility. Liberty without responsibility (or very little responsibility) which a libertarian socialist wants will quickly degenerate into a system either without liberty or without equality.

What's not to love about that?
He'd be great over here on Sup Forums!!

Pete would side with the kikes and the muzzies on the day of the rope because they believe in the same space dad.

You are right. The spriptures cannot be treated as stone tablets which fell from heaven because they are not.

But I am loathed to contextualise or read in something which isn't there and end up removing an instruction which was put in for reasons, we on a mortal understanding of time, cannot understand and end up doing great damage.

>Google it. We essentially believe in the destruction of national and supranational governments.
>We believe that businesses should be owned by the workers, with workers making major decisions and controlling how money is spent.
>We are fundamentally pure democrats who believe in direct democracy, something that is perfectly achievable as most people have access to the internet.
>We no longer need politicians making decisions for us, when we can simply have a civil service which implements decisions made through referenda.
>I find the capitalist economic system we currently have in our private sector is built on the exploitation of the majority of workers for the benefit of shareholders who have no involvement in the business other than a cash injection at whatever period during the business' life.
>We are socialists because we believe in equality of opportunity and businesses being run for the benefit of the workers, as opposed to shareholders. This does not mean that we want a large government to control industry.
>We want the opposite, we do not want any government.
>Hence why we are libertarian socialists.

Sounds like anarcho-communism to me.

Love him, both him and his brother are/were national treasures.

Drugs are just a symptom (or even a proxy) for the larger problem of increasing number of degenerates though!
And degeneration of society is directly related to the impending collapse of Europe.

So are alot of people and many of them not very Christ like. If you describe yourself as a socialist you must on some level hold the state as some kind of god. And a man cannot have two master or he ends up hating one and loving the other.

I say this as a friend and not out of meaness.

His brother was a turd. Degenerates followed him like rats followed the pied piper.

Owning the business would give them more personal responsibility. What are you talking about?
We have laws preventing people from stealing from company's already, those same laws would be in place and probably improved.
There is more incentive when a worker feels he is respected in the work place and a necessity than when he feels like a disposable resource.
Workers controlling companies would lead to more job satisfaction and more company loyalty.
Your theory simply doesn't comply with human nature, actually.

I don't get where you're coming from with this liberty requires some responsibility, lol.
The libertarian socialist views puts more responsibility on the community than they currently have.

I don't think you've thought through your ideas very clearly because they're horrifically flawed.

No, it doesn't.

Socialists are not supporters of the state, we are advocates for the community.
You do not have to believe in an authoritative government to be a socialist.
A simple google search of the definition of a socialist would tell you this.

Removing instructions and traditions without humility, I'm opposed to! Some may have to be removed, but we should not look upon them with disdain like leftists do. The ancients put it in there for reason. They were not complete idiots.
But holding on to any comment justifying the prescriptions as truth is counter productive.

>Owning the business would give them more personal responsibility. What are you talking about?
Owning a business with 10000 other people does not put any personal responsibility.
>We have laws preventing people from stealing from company's already, those same laws would be in place and probably improved.
Pray, who will enforce the laws? And why will those people be incorruptible? In the present system those at the very top of the company are incorruptible (wrt stealing the company money). They can enforce systems to make sure that people under them are not corrupt and so on.
> There is more incentive when a worker feels he is respected in the work place and a necessity than when he feels like a disposable resource.
It is completely unproductive for a company in a capitalist place to treat a skilled worker without respect. As for unskilled workers where supply far outweighs demand, these people will be treated like shit whether the own a company with 10000 people or are employed with 10000 people.
> Workers controlling companies would lead to more job satisfaction and more company loyalty.
It may, but it will also lead to the company making massive losses.
> Your theory simply doesn't comply with human nature, actually.
You seem to have a romanticised version of human nature. Read up a bit more and in a few years you'll be laughing at this paragraph you wrote.
> The libertarian socialist views puts more responsibility on the community than they currently have.
But community is no one. It basically is equivalent to saying remove responsibility from the individual and not expect degeneracy.
> I don't think you've thought through your ideas very clearly because they're horrifically flawed.
Think through my ideas I have, whether they're flawed or not are debatable. But your libertarian socialism is just the ignorance of youth.