Christopher Hitchens Is Dead

[Humphrey Bogart]

Two days ago actually. A little surprised I haven't seen it addressed here. The man was probably the most prolific writer and intellectual of our time.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, Christopher Hitchens was obviously a very talented writer who possessed a rapier wit. His defense of atheism was intellectually rigorous and his prose was always fascinating. I admire the fact that he was once a Trotskyist.

Unfortunately, all of that is counteracted by the fact that in the last decade of his life he became everything he had once despised: a vicious proponent of imperialism, state violence and endless war (one of the last columns he ever wrote was actually called "In defense of unending war"). As one of the most influential voices siding with the Bush Doctrine, Hitchens helped turn the Middle East into a killing field, unapologetically cheering on wars in which hundreds of thousands of people died. He described how thrilled he was on 9/11 because he realized that the U.S. would now take the fight to "Islamofascism", an anachronistic term he helped popularize. Hitchens described these wars as "exhilarating".

And that's probably the worst aspect of the man, for me. If there's one thing I despise, it's a chickenhawk - someone who enthusiastically cheers on wars that other people's children go off to fight and die in, while the chickenhawk maintains a comfortable distance. By vicariously cheering on wars that other people fight, the chickenhawk feels that he too is Brave and Strong. Hitchens was one of the worst examples of this kind of public figure.

The always-great Glenn Greenwald has a must-read column up on how the tradition of not speaking ill of the dead shouldn't apply to public figures. Using the example of Ronald Reagan as someone who was intensely political and controversial in life, Greenwald points to how Reagan's death was greeted by an outpouring of propaganda that erased from memory all the controversy and dissent that accompanied his presidency, leaving only a mythical cartoon character. The same thing, he argues, happens to Hitchens if we forbid criticism of him in death when he was so controversial in life. And it's worth noting that Hitchens himself never had any problem speaking ill of the dead (Jerry Falwell, Mother Theresa, Princess Diana).

Some highlights:

I rarely wrote about Hitchens because, at least for the time that I’ve been writing about politics (since late 2005), there was nothing particularly notable about him. When it came to the defining issues of the post-9/11 era, he was largely indistinguishable from the small army of neoconservative fanatics eager to unleash ever-greater violence against Muslims: driven by a toxic mix of barbarism, self-loving provincialism, a sense of personal inadequacy, and, most of all, a pity-inducing need to find glory and purpose in cheering on military adventures and vanquishing some foe of historically unprecedented evil even if it meant manufacturing them.

[...]

Hitchens was obviously more urbane and well-written than the average neocon faux-warrior, but he was also often more vindictive and barbaric about his war cheerleading. One of the only writers with the courage to provide the full picture of Hitchens upon his death was Gawker‘s John Cook, who — in an extremely well-written and poignant obituary – detailed Hitchens’ vehement, unapologetic passion for the attack on Iraq and his dismissive indifference to the mass human suffering it caused, accompanied by petty contempt for those who objected (he denounced the Dixie Chicks as being “****s” and “****ing fat slags” for the crime of mildly disparaging the Commander-in-Chief). As Cook put it: “it must not be forgotten in mourning him that he got the single most consequential decision in his life horrifically, petulantly wrong”; indeed: “People make mistakes. What’s horrible about Hitchens’ ardor for the invasion of Iraq is that he clung to it long after it became clear that a grotesque error had been made.”

There’s one other aspect to the adulation of Hitchens that’s quite revealing. There seems to be this sense that his excellent facility with prose excuses his sins. Part of that is the by-product of America’s refusal to come to terms with just how heinous and destructive was the attack on Iraq. That act of aggression is still viewed as a mere run-of-the-mill “mistake” — hey, we all make them, so we shouldn’t hold it against Hitch – rather than what it is: the generation’s worst political crime, one for which he remained fully unrepentant and even proud. But what these paeans to Hitchens reflect even more so is the warped values of our political and media culture: once someone is sufficiently embedded within that circle, they are intrinsically worthy of admiration and respect, no matter what it is that they actually do. As Aaron Bady put it to me by email yesterday:

I go back to something Judith Butler’s been saying for years; some lives are grievable and some are not. And in that context, publicly mourning someone like Hitchens in the way we are supposed to do — holding him up as someone who was “one of us,” even if we disagree with him — is also a way of quietly reinforcing the “we” that never seems to extend to the un-grievable Arab casualties of Hitch’s favorite wars. It’s also a “we” that has everything to do with being clever and literate and British (and nothing to do with a human universalism that stretches across the usual “us” and “them” categories). And when it is impolitic to mention that he was politically atrocious (in exactly the way of Kissinger, if not to the extent), we enshrine the same standard of human value as when the deaths of Iraqi children from cluster bombs are rendered politically meaningless by our lack of attention.
​

That’s precisely true. The blood on his hands — and on the hands of those who played an even greater, more direct role in all of this totally unjustified killing of innocents — is supposed to be ignored because he was an accomplished member in good standing of our media and political class. It’s a way the political and media class protects and celebrates itself: our elite members are to be heralded and their victims forgotten. One is, of course, free to believe that. But what should not be tolerated are prohibitions on these types of discussions when highly misleading elegies are being publicly implanted, all in order to consecrate someone’s reputation for noble greatness even when their acts are squarely at odds with that effort.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think "do not speak ill of the dead" is a bunch of sentimental PC crap. Just because someone dies, as everyone does sooner or later, does not change a single thing about what kind of person they were. Jerry Falwell was a fat slug who didn't give a flying **** about God except for how spouting his own hateful version of "the Word" could amass wealth for himself.

Reagan cared more about his corporate CEO buddies who showered him and Nancy with gifts every Christmas than he did about American workers, and thought everyone on welfare was a lazy mooch.

I think Hitchens was an intelligent man, but describing 9/11 and the war crime invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as "exhilarating" is perverse, especially when it wasn't his ass signing up, it was young people with their whole lives ahead of them losing arms and legs and dying pointlessly for lies.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I hate to break it to you, Axl, but the Middle East has been a killing field since... well, before Christ. A lot of people seem to forget about a certain genocidal madman named Saddam Hussein, who directly and indirectly killed millions. Including hundreds of thousands of his own people.

As for Hitchens, if nothing else, he gave Jerry Falwell a great eulogy.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think "do not speak ill of the dead" is a bunch of sentimental PC crap. Just because someone dies, as everyone does sooner or later, does not change a single thing about what kind of person they were. Jerry Falwell was a fat slug who didn't give a flying **** about God except for how spouting his own hateful version of "the Word" could amass wealth for himself.

Reagan cared more about his corporate CEO buddies who showered him and Nancy with gifts every Christmas than he did about American workers, and thought everyone on welfare was a lazy mooch.

I think Hitchens was an intelligent man, but describing 9/11 and the war crime invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as "exhilarating" is perverse, especially when it wasn't his ass signing up, it was young people with their whole lives ahead of them losing arms and legs and dying pointlessly for lies.

Great post.

I hate to break it to you, Axl, but the Middle East has been a killing field since... well, before Christ. A lot of people seem to forget about a certain genocidal madman named Saddam Hussein, who directly and indirectly killed millions. Including hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Whaaat? I'm shocked, shocked to hear that the Middle East has a history of violence and Saddam Hussein killed lots of people! Thank you for clearing this up for me, Thundercrack.

It's funny how the fact that the United States was allied with Iraq throughout the 1980s, and supported Saddam's war against Iran by selling weapons to and lavishing money on that "genocidal madman", slips through the memory bank. But I would appreciate it if you could try a more nuanced argument than resurrecting those tired old "if you're anti-war you must be pro-Saddam!" Republican propaganda lines from 2003.

So by pointing out that America's wars in the Middle East have caused enormous bloodshed and unspeakable human suffering, I must be ignorant of historical violence in the region? What an insulting and illogical strawman argument. That's like me saying, "So you're upset that you got mugged on your trip to New York City? I hate to break it to you, but people have been getting mugged in New York City for hundreds of years."

How does that history excuse the latest crime? Answer: it doesn't. Your logic has more holes in it than Qaddafi's corpse.

As for Hitchens, if nothing else, he gave Jerry Falwell a great eulogy.

Ditto. Regardless of politics, Hitchens had a devastating rhetorical arsenal and I loved watching him make mincemeat out of that disgusting charlatan.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well you said that the Americans turned the Middle East into a killing field, I'm simply point out that it's been that way (and worse) for quite some time.

Having said that, I can't deny the hypocrisy of the 1980's. However, there's a difference between a dictator's genocides and American invasion of Iraq. The American-led coalition at least tried to accomplish something constructive. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen. But the imperialism rhetoric is ridiculous. You think a 19th century European empire would put up with Karzai? Iraq has been under British rule, they were not given sovereignty.

 

[SV Fan]

Well you said that the Americans turned the Middle East into a killing field, I'm simply point out that it's been that way (and worse) for quite some time.

I blame the Crusades. lol

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

You think a 19th century European empire would put up with Karzai?

Yes..yes they would have. He has a 19th century equivalent: Shah Shujah.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Ditto. Regardless of politics, Hitchens had a devastating rhetorical arsenal and I loved watching him make mincemeat out of that disgusting charlatan.

He was hilarious on Fox News after his 'eulogy'. He put Hannity and Colmes in their place:

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Well you said that the Americans turned the Middle East into a killing field, I'm simply point out that it's been that way (and worse) for quite some time.

Having said that, I can't deny the hypocrisy of the 1980's. However, there's a difference between a dictator's genocides and American invasion of Iraq. The American-led coalition at least tried to accomplish something constructive. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen. But the imperialism rhetoric is ridiculous. You think a 19th century European empire would put up with Karzai? Iraq has been under British rule, they were not given sovereignty.

On the first point: this is a commonly held and very erroneous viewpoint on Near Eastern history. Prior to the 20th century, the Near East had no more of a history of violence and war than Europe did. In fact, during the Middle Ages the Near East was relatively stable compared to the constant religious and territorial wars in Europe between their various dynasties. Conflict was more often than not something that came from an outside source rather than an internal conflict. I'm thinking of the Crusades, launched by European Christians and I'm also thinking of the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Compared to the Pogroms and violence Jews were subject to in Northern and Eastern Europe, the Islamic Near East(and Arab-controlled Spain) was a sanctuary for Jews. You also have this popular myth that Muslims and Jews have been at each other's throats for centuries. It just isn't true. Muslim powers offered a safe haven for Jews compared to persecution they faced in Christian Europe.

The Arab-Israeli conflict was promoted by the British in the mandate of Palestine, playing both populations against each other in typical colonial ruling fashion. Middle Eastern Jews lived in peace in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe. Look up the names "Irgun" and "Stern gang". Even in the case of Jews making aliyah to Israel, you had an example of clearly non-Near Eastern forces entering the region and initiating hostilities.

As for your stated question about Karzai: Your ideas of imperialism and colonialism are outdated. They are, as you put it, "19th century". One of the great lies of modern, post-World War II history is that there was an end to Western colonialism. Western colonialism NEVER went away. It simply changed forms after World War II. The former rhetoric espoused by the imperial powers of Britain and France about "civilizing" savage natives for their own good, the "White Man's Burden" as described by Rudyard Kipling was abandoned. In it's place, the new preeminent Western imperial power, the United States, adopted a uniquely American twist on imperial rhetoric. This new rhetoric was fantastic for propaganda in a post-World War II, post-Holocaust, post-UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights world that frowned on open racism. Rather than trying to "civilize savages" the United States was merely trying to "bring freedom to oppressed peoples". Since World War II, that "freedom" that the U.S. has brought has included overthrowing more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected(look up Patrice Lamumba, Mohammed Mossadegh or Salvador Allende) and working to crush more than 30 liberation movements. The entire post-World War II history of U.S. foreign policy has been propping up and supporting dictatorships who work for our interest and deposing democratically elected and popular governments that do not. It's hardly an aberration of the 1980s.

So to directly answer your question about Karzai and his alleged corruption, within a post-World War II context(comparing post-World War II and pre-World War II western intervention in the East and South is pointless, it's apples and oranges)...the U.S. put up with Diem in South Vietnam. They put up with Augusto Pinochet in Chile. They put up with Mubarak in Egypt.


We are the Empire. The fact that you can't swallow that because we're somehow 'different' from the British because we proclaim to be proponents of liberty and we don't have a monarch is a testament to how affective the propaganda of U.S. exceptionalism(you know, the Shining City on a Hill line) really is.

 

[Thundercrack85]

delete

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Two days ago actually. A little surprised I haven't seen it addressed here. The man was probably the most prolific writer and intellectual of our time.

I liked you in The Maltese Falcon.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

On the first point: this is a commonly held and very erroneous viewpoint on Near Eastern history. Prior to the 20th century, the Near East had no more of a history of violence and war than Europe did. In fact, during the Middle Ages the Near East was relatively stable compared to the constant religious and territorial wars in Europe between their various dynasties. Conflict was more often than not something that came from an outside source rather than an internal conflict. I'm thinking of the Crusades, launched by European Christians and I'm also thinking of the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Compared to the Pogroms and violence Jews were subject to in Northern and Eastern Europe, the Islamic Near East(and Arab-controlled Spain) was a sanctuary for Jews. You also have this popular myth that Muslims and Jews have been at each other's throats for centuries. It just isn't true. Muslim powers offered a safe haven for Jews compared to persecution they faced in Christian Europe.

The Arab-Israeli conflict was promoted by the British in the mandate of Palestine, playing both populations against each other in typical colonial ruling fashion. Middle Eastern Jews lived in peace in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe. Look up the names "Irgun" and "Stern gang". Even in the case of Jews making aliyah to Israel, you had an example of clearly non-Near Eastern forces entering the region and initiating hostilities.

As for your stated question about Karzai: Your ideas of imperialism and colonialism are outdated. They are, as you put it, "19th century". One of the great lies of modern, post-World War II history is that there was an end to Western colonialism. Western colonialism NEVER went away. It simply changed forms after World War II. The former rhetoric espoused by the imperial powers of Britain and France about "civilizing" savage natives for their own good, the "White Man's Burden" as described by Rudyard Kipling was abandoned. In it's place, the new preeminent Western imperial power, the United States, adopted a uniquely American twist on imperial rhetoric. This new rhetoric was fantastic for propaganda in a post-World War II, post-Holocaust, post-UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights world that frowned on open racism. Rather than trying to "civilize savages" the United States was merely trying to "bring freedom to oppressed peoples". Since World War II, that "freedom" that the U.S. has brought has included overthrowing more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected(look up Patrice Lamumba, Mohammed Mossadegh or Salvador Allende) and working to crush more than 30 liberation movements. The entire post-World War II history of U.S. foreign policy has been propping up and supporting dictatorships who work for our interest and deposing democratically elected and popular governments that do not. It's hardly an aberration of the 1980s.

So to directly answer your question about Karzai and his alleged corruption, within a post-World War II context(comparing post-World War II and pre-World War II western intervention in the East and South is pointless, it's apples and oranges)...the U.S. put up with Diem in South Vietnam. They put up with Augusto Pinochet in Chile. They put up with Mubarak in Egypt.


We are the Empire. The fact that you can't swallow that because we're somehow 'different' from the British because we proclaim to be proponents of liberty and we don't have a monarch is a testament to how affective the propaganda of U.S. exceptionalism(you know, the Shining City on a Hill line) really is.

A lot of what you said is explicitly written in the NeoCon bibles: Project for the new American century and Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.

 

[Pagan]

Say what you want about Saddam but he kept a lid on some very intense sectarian animus in his country for the most part. Sometimes it takes an iron hand. What we did was no different. We allowed genocide to happen. The *****es who were oppressed under Saddam were given the power over the other sects and performed ethic cleansing in Baghdad and other places where the groups were tightly populated together. It was only after that did the violence abate somewhat.

The thing is there are always going to be bad guys. But we can't afford to go and remove everyone we don't like. First off we don't have the authority. Bush never got UN authority. He wouldn't wait on the vote nor the inspectors to finish. This was not about Saddam Iraq was about oil and defense contracting money. This was about projecting power. And it was about doing what Israel wanted us to do.

As soon as those long term oil contracts were signed we were ready to start pulling out.

 

[redhawk23]

Can someone please explain to me the whole "its all for oil" argument? Because never in all this time have we gained control of their oil.

Also it should be noted that a majority of the foreign oil that we use comes not from the middle east but from Canada.

 

[LOBO3315a]

I've come to realize "It's all for oil" means we wouldn't have a stake in what happens if they didn't have any. Whether we control it or not is irrelevant. Instead of helping a country because "it's the right thing to do", we get involved because of their oil reserves.

And even though we mainly use Canada's oil, what OPEC does with its oil has affect on the prices of others. If they flood the market, prices go down, if they cut production, prices go up. This has ramifications worldwide for all industrial countries.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

On the first point: this is a commonly held and very erroneous viewpoint on Near Eastern history. Prior to the 20th century, the Near East had no more of a history of violence and war than Europe did. In fact, during the Middle Ages the Near East was relatively stable compared to the constant religious and territorial wars in Europe between their various dynasties. Conflict was more often than not something that came from an outside source rather than an internal conflict. I'm thinking of the Crusades, launched by European Christians and I'm also thinking of the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Compared to the Pogroms and violence Jews were subject to in Northern and Eastern Europe, the Islamic Near East(and Arab-controlled Spain) was a sanctuary for Jews. You also have this popular myth that Muslims and Jews have been at each other's throats for centuries. It just isn't true. Muslim powers offered a safe haven for Jews compared to persecution they faced in Christian Europe.

The Arab-Israeli conflict was promoted by the British in the mandate of Palestine, playing both populations against each other in typical colonial ruling fashion. Middle Eastern Jews lived in peace in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe. Look up the names "Irgun" and "Stern gang". Even in the case of Jews making aliyah to Israel, you had an example of clearly non-Near Eastern forces entering the region and initiating hostilities.

As for your stated question about Karzai: Your ideas of imperialism and colonialism are outdated. They are, as you put it, "19th century". One of the great lies of modern, post-World War II history is that there was an end to Western colonialism. Western colonialism NEVER went away. It simply changed forms after World War II. The former rhetoric espoused by the imperial powers of Britain and France about "civilizing" savage natives for their own good, the "White Man's Burden" as described by Rudyard Kipling was abandoned. In it's place, the new preeminent Western imperial power, the United States, adopted a uniquely American twist on imperial rhetoric. This new rhetoric was fantastic for propaganda in a post-World War II, post-Holocaust, post-UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights world that frowned on open racism. Rather than trying to "civilize savages" the United States was merely trying to "bring freedom to oppressed peoples". Since World War II, that "freedom" that the U.S. has brought has included overthrowing more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected(look up Patrice Lamumba, Mohammed Mossadegh or Salvador Allende) and working to crush more than 30 liberation movements. The entire post-World War II history of U.S. foreign policy has been propping up and supporting dictatorships who work for our interest and deposing democratically elected and popular governments that do not. It's hardly an aberration of the 1980s.

So to directly answer your question about Karzai and his alleged corruption, within a post-World War II context(comparing post-World War II and pre-World War II western intervention in the East and South is pointless, it's apples and oranges)...the U.S. put up with Diem in South Vietnam. They put up with Augusto Pinochet in Chile. They put up with Mubarak in Egypt.


We are the Empire. The fact that you can't swallow that because we're somehow 'different' from the British because we proclaim to be proponents of liberty and we don't have a monarch is a testament to how affective the propaganda of U.S. exceptionalism(you know, the Shining City on a Hill line) really is.

Superb post. It's always refreshing to read someone who really knows what they're talking about.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Christopher Hitchens was a dick. He talked down to people, drank too much and spawned a large group of "reporters" whose writing basically amounted to whining insistently about anything that bothered them without any thought to something that could be better. As a person he loved to annoy his friends and helped keep alcoholism cool in the literary world as something any artist must do.

Best case scenario following his death involves him being right and now he is simply nothing never to matter again, any other case involves him in one of any of the hell's should some religion be proved right.

But this world needs, no craves, in contradictory ***** to keep most people in line and on that note he succeeded in his nitch calling to great effect. It's important to have someone like him in the world, and most importantly to have someone that can communicate his message of general superiority with actual wit, which so few of his clones can grasp. Shame he's dead, he'll be missed, hope he's not burning in hell or at least if he is I hope they've got alcohol there.

^I think that's about the kind of eulogy he would write for himself and more apt then all the sappy crap I've been reading about him, which I'm fairly sure he would despise.