Who is the smarter brother?

Who is the smarter brother?

the dead one :(

incorrect

peter

not only has god not killed him off yet, so clearly god's favourite, but also his brother never really got over the "pleasures of the flesh" and "muh communism"...

if you go back and watch chris's speeches on theism.
his arguments are more "playing for the crowd" than insightful.
he at times reminds me of a edgy teenager.

both are very good.

peter wins out for me overall, mainly from the raw power of his arguments.
chris is better at expressing himself and holding a crowd.
peter sometimes comes across as a complete social reject.

Never understood the obsession with Peter, He just sounds like a 15 year old calling everything shit and pointless.

>also his brother never really got over the "pleasures of the flesh" and "muh communism"...

Christopher also suffered and died precisely because of his shitty unhealthy lifestyle.

His whole "I'm definitely a European socialist! each according to his need etc" routine got old, especially after he had converted into an American neocon who talked about nothing but bombing the middle east and miraculously causing some sort of atheist socialist feminist revolution.

One of them smoked and drank himself to an early grave.

One did not.

Astral masterlord Peter Hitchens ofc.

Sometimes it takes a genius to call a spade a spade, especially when you're dealing with a country composed entirely of morons.

Peter has been a lot more consistent with what he is concerned about.

Christopher was apparently a socialist who riled against capitalism, but was for the Iraq war. He then, instead of keeping his attention on capitalism, where that pessimistic brain of his may have been of more use, he decided to attack Christianity, but then also Mother Theresa. Of all the things you could attack in the world, why waste your time on a religion that has already endured a pile on, and an individual who was involved in charity? Even if what he said was true, and it was shady stuff, was it really a priority? He just went for low hanging fruit.

He said it himself that had he cared enough, he would have been out there fighting like Che did, but he was too much of a fat fuck who liked his petite bourgeois comforts. Just another parasite middle class cunt who wanted to justify his existence by prancing on about fuck all of importance whilst his autistic fans thought he was the coolest thing ever.

Peter also changed over time and has stated, the fact he was practically a commie helped him know the dangers of it.

They're both fuckin ugly

> atheist
> christian
both were dumb

Well yeah that's natural, I knew Peter was a trot when he was younger but that's just part and parcel of growing up.

But since then he's looked at the problems that plague society and has been more consistent in pointing them out, whereas Chris was just "muh atheism" and "muh evil catholic lady" when there were much bigger fish to fry.

Chris: Ends up in hell forever.

Peter: Ends up in heaven forever.

Peter.

>Peter has been a lot more consistent with what he is concerned about.
>Peter also changed over time and has stated, the fact he was practically a commie helped him know the dangers of it.

This is one the main reasons why I've come to like Peter more. He actually changes his mind about things when new data comes in, in accordance with his principles. His comments about how the worst person he's ever known was himself as a teenager is a red pill that practically nobody is willing to swallow.

Christopher always felt like a weasely opportunist by contrast, who made excuses for every stupid thing he'd ever said or did rather than simply acknowledging that he was wrong.

Chris for sure

Peter is kind of a bitch sometimes, but hes more right than most UK denizens

Peter.

The other is a fat wannabe kikecon.

Christopher

They're both overrated dumbasses.

IIRC, morality man wasn't a Marxist before growing up at the age of 40.

>btfo Christians

To be perfectly fair, Christopher was also a self-described Marxist in his youth. To say he never changed his views at all is simply incorrect.

so was Thomas Sowell

They're both equally smart, but Peter has a better moral compass. Chris fell victim to his own success riding the nu-atheist wave all the way to the bank.

Christopher and it's not even close.

one is a globalist snarky alcoholic the other is a meme. smarts are irrelevant

Truly, kind sir, you have bested me this day! All shall repent due to your rhetoric!

>To say he never changed his views at all is simply incorrect.

No, he did, but he kept on pretending that he hadn't. He was doing the whole "I'm still a leftist!" routine right through his final years as a raging neocon. He had speaking appearances where he'd bang on about socialism and imperial conquests for oil in the same paragraph.

I don't mind him changing sides, I just wish he'd been more honest about doing it and the reasons why he did. That whole final chapter of his life didn't feel authentic or rational.

Peter was a Marxist until his 20's

Chris definitely felt more like a egomaniac to me than Peter and thus less honest when he makes a mistake, at least more than non communist Peter who clearly has negatives to say about himself in both past and present.

>His whole "I'm definitely a European socialist! each according to his need etc" routine got old, especially after he had converted into an American neocon who talked about nothing but bombing the middle east and miraculously causing some sort of atheist socialist feminist revolution.

It was fucking hilarious to watch this happen.

The one who took the warning about the link between smoking and cancer seriously.

Peter's blackpilled. Redpills see the black pill as giving up hope, but what it actually is, is an honest, dispassionate, accurate assessment of reality. Peter's just telling you the truth that you're not man enough to face.

Jew vs. Jew

He's still a filthy statist

This is the most accurate description of a black pill I've read on this board in a long time. Black pilled people are just realists who have stripped off all the romanticism and bullshit.

This. I guess this thread is over.

gaylord

I like them both.

Christopher is an orator who gets people to believe anything he wants. He made me atheist for example. But he has no arguments. It's all emotional for him. He riles you up and give you an idea that is not reasoned well.


Peter is half the orator Christopher is. His thing is to give you a rational argument and make you think about an issue. However he appears smug while his brother appears genuine. He made me Christian.


I love them both. I know God will forgive Christopher. He was doing what he thought was moral. There is no shame in that. May he rest in peace.

>That whole final chapter of his life didn't feel authentic or rational.

Nothing is more authentic than Hitch's scotch glass.

>Christopher is an orator who gets people to believe anything he wants. He made me atheist for example. But he has no arguments. It's all emotional for him. He riles you up and give you an idea that is not reasoned well.

Christopher Hitchens could argue anything. When the facts were on his side he used them. When the facts weren't he used feels. I think his legacy will be mixed as time goes on, but I still give him a measure of respect.

lmao this is why nobody buys into your shit religion any more, I'd rather be forced to convert to Islam at the sword than be a pathetic Christard who posts fedoras and wonders why nobody likes him.

I didnt see him as a neocon. I think his whole life he was politically torn between socialism and US traditionalism, look at his formative years spent in most of the cold war. He was won over at his later years by the US when he learned more about the history and even started writing about it. When it comes down to it I saw him as more of an american traditionalist, and his brother a british traditionalist. And we all know what is better. Who gives a fucking shit if we bomb the middle east and prop up democratic governments. History has shown that a power vacuum will form if allowed. Russia and China are both shit tier and in no circumstances should be given the reigns, so yes ill take US power over the alternatives. Hitchens spoke out quite a bit about aristocracy and the threat to the US, if you actually dig into his work regarding the founding of the US you can find quite a few parallels to today. I agree that he was unbearable as a socialist, but his best work was done well after that.

Christopher was definitely a formative influence on me. One of the first public figures I genuinely liked to demonstrate that you can break from leftist narrative and still be an intelligent, articulate person. Or at least that you can hold views simultaneously that are typically associated with opposing sides (atheism and conservatism / traditionalism, for example). I've come to appreciate Peter in recent years, though. I think his message is more important in the present day. Although, I do wonder from time to time what Chris would have to say about the Trump era and the alt-right. Not sure that he would've loved either, but it would've been interesting to read.