How does Veeky Forums feel about this man? Anyone miss him yet...

>new atheists
Like "scientism", where does this retarded attempt at a derogatory term originate from?

Christians consider themselves traditional so they instinctively associate new things as bad.

It refers to a literary movement in the early to mid 2000s where a number of public figures wrote anti-religion books and went on speaking / debating tours promoting them. The main figures were Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett.

This. I know this board hates him, because it's a Christian LARPing board; and I know Veeky Forums is still butthurt about him renouncing socialism, but he was incredibly intelligent and a great writer.

He was right about Clinton being a lousy, immoral, ineffective president with conservative leanings; who dismantled the last of the "Great Society" programs. Yet was still given credit for the 90s internet boom, as if he had anything to do with it.

He was right when he said Reagan was a fraud, who should've been removed from office for Iran-Contra.

He was right when he exposed Mother Teresa as a "compassionate conservative"; doing whatever she could to help the poor die a painless death while the cameras were filming, yet strongly opposing any socialist reforms or expansion of birth control/women's rights that might actually reduce poverty and suffering in their lives.

He was right about the rising danger of Islamic-fascism, though he was wrong in de-emphasizing the role international capitalism/globalism had to play in its resuscitation. Although he recognized that saying radical Islam is merely a "reaction" to capitalism and western aggression isn't historically founded, a half-truth at best, and is exactly what organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS want.

He was wrong about his support for Bush's war, but right about the Hussein family's probably inevitable collapse. Although we probably should've just let the thing break apart on its own, since our own intervention has only strengthened the Islamic narrative that America is behind all the catastrophes hitting the middle east at all times.

He was right to support Chomsky's work in exposing Nixon/Kissinger's war crimes in Vietnam and Cambodia.

He was wrong about his approval of unrestrained globalism, dismissing any opposition as "bigots" or "nativists".

He was right that Pakistan is an artificial state, a menace to civilized society, and should be dissolved and returned to India.

Overall I like him.

>"reformist" and "moderate" Muslims like the Kurds

Bro, Kurds are neither of those things. The commies you see on the news are an extreme minority but anyways...

I didn't mean to be insulting, just a term for atheists of the 2000s.

He went down a bad path before the end, still a great mind though. Anyone watch his debates with George Galloway (total cunt but an incredibly good debater). It's pretty legendary.

his brother is a statist cuck and should have died in his place

Nice to see there are other people that can appreciate good writers and orators on Veeky Forums without agreeing with everything they say.

This board is far too full of people who come out with shit like "I disagree with x therefore they are a smelly poo poo and I hate them!".

He never renounced Trotskyism. Like so many "neoconservatives" or "liberal interventionists", his support for the Iraq War or the bombing of Yugoslavia was based in a desire for world revolution that would establish a globalist, one-world government.

ok reddit

>le globalism meme
I wish /pol/ wouldn't come in here so much

Doubt it. I think he would be extremely outspoken against the LGBT and Democratic community embracing Islam and politically more in line with Assange and say the Clinton's absolutely could not be trusted but that Trump is the lesser of two evils that will earn everything that is coming to him.

>What would he say about today's current political trends?

Probably exactly what Douglas Murray is currently saying.

How is globalism a meme when globalists admit exactly what they are doing?

Just two random examples I came to know today, there are many more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Attali

>Jacques Attali advocates the establishment of a global rule of law, which will condition the survival of democracy through the creation of a new global order. He thinks the regulation of the economy by a global financial supervisory institution may be a solution to the financial crisis which started 2008. The financial institution is a first step towards the establishment of a democratic world government, of which the EU can be a laboratory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

>According to Nawaz, nationalism hinders the fight against Islamist extremism, and democratic states must adopt a transnational outlook to combat this challenge.[51] He also termed nationalism a corrosive ideology that led to two World Wars, and advocates a citizenship model for states which is based on allegiance, instead of race or religion.[51] Nawaz is also a critic of far-right movements that have emerged in Europe, and accuses them of harbouring disdain for ordinary Muslims.[52] According to him, far-right xenophobes and Islamists agree upon one thing: the impossibility of Muslim and non-Muslim cohabitation in Europe.[52] As a solution, he proposes the assertion of liberalism which can shine through the fogs of these extremes.[43]

Globalism is the best term to describe such ideology. I'm sure Christopher Hitchens would agree with them.

>Although we probably should've just let the thing break apart on its own

Leave an oil-rich vacuum of that size to be openly contested between the Middle East? Great idea.

Yeah because intervention worked out so well.

The inferior brother

His brother is far smarter

>He was right when he exposed Mother Teresa as a "compassionate conservative"; doing whatever she could to help the poor die a painless death while the cameras were filming, yet strongly opposing any socialist reforms or expansion of birth control/women's rights that might actually reduce poverty and suffering in their lives.
Hold up what if people learnt that sex should only be inside a marriage, and marriage should only occur when they are in a stable situation which can afford 2 children

>stairs cuck
>current year
>being an anarchist

speak for yourself.

That's probably the least of Calcutta's worries, but I'll bite.

There are far more effective ways of getting people to stop having so much sex. Opening women up to a path of life-long careers, refuting the ancient custom of treating them like reproductive cattle; methods more effective than telling people to "just say no" or that condoms seldom work. People will still have sex because that's what people do.

She wasn't resisting abortion because she felt their were more moral ways to reduce overpopulation, she resisted abortion because she believed that abortion was murder, and that most forms of birth control were in the grey-area at best. She wasn't trying to improve their lives by telling them to have less children they can't afford, she wasn't telling them to have fewer children at all.

It was never her intention to strike at the roots of poverty by telling Indians to resist their culture and only limit themselves to ~2 children; she didn't believe in doing that. Nor did she believe in berating wealth accumulation in the upper-classes, or pushing for labor reforms that may allow the poor of India to need fewer children to help around their slums.

If she wanted to help the poor by convincing them to have less sex, it was second to her desire to see them have as many children as possible.

Then why has Petey spent his entire career writing columns for tabloids aimed at the bottom 50% of the IQ table and unsuccessful books while Hitchens wrote a number of bestselling books and worked writing columns for high end publications?

Letters to a Young Contrarian was his best work by far.

His book on mother Teresa contained no references or footnotes but yet won awards. Saying that is books were well received is merely admitting that he sucked liberal cock to get it.

>His book on mother Teresa contained no references or footnotes but yet won awards.

That's not how original journalism works. That is just butthurt.

Condoms and birth control does not stop people droning having sex you retard. If nothing else it will lead to more people having sex outside of marriage or stable unions thus increasing the chance of single motherhood when the birth control fails or is tampered with.

Supporting sex within unions is the best option to have a stable society while also driving down infant mortality rates at childbirth.

Actually yes it does, if you give a fact in a book you have to give the source of where you got it from. If nothing else it proves that you did pull it out from your ass.

Which all things considering is fucking funny that an atheist that always wanted evidence and facts doesn't supply facts or evidence in his own book.

The fact it doesn't have academic footnotes or references doesn't mean it doesn't have sources.

If you are a journalist that flies out to a warzone and interviews a bunch of people on the ground and write a book about it then you aren't going to have a single academic footnote in the book.

Likewise if you conduct an investigation into Mother Theresa and write a book about it then it doesn't mean you have no evidence or sources just because you don't have academic footnotes.

You don't sound like you've read a book in your life.

Canservative Retarded: The Post

That's not close to anything I may have remotely implied.

Holy duck you are retarded, if you write a fucking book and give out numbers and facts to support what you are saying is true than yes you need footnotes and sources you dumb fuck. He wasn't zip lining his ass into a war zone he may or may not have gone to India to do a fucking hit piece on a popular woman at that time.

Phenomenal writer, and I think all his views on religion are A grade

Excellent rebuttal.