By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Any other admirers on here? I'm about fifty or so pages from finishing a re-reading of Why Orwell Matters and seriously considering going back to the start and doing it all over again for the third time. I've read any number of commentaries on Orwell, any that have come up over the years, really, but Hitchens is in a class all his own.
You may not agree with everything he has to say, I certainly haven't on many occasions, on any number of themes, but you can't but help admire the way he put his views across. It's such a shame he was taken before the Trump Presidency he would have made for compulsive, hilarious reading.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
3
Christopher Hitchens on 13:58 - Jan 19 with 3380 views
I'm a big fan of Hitch. Free, creative, lucid thought based on study and real world experience.
He wasn't always correct but boy did he contribute to popular debate, questioning the status quo and various orthodoxies rigorously.
Would he be banned from speaking at our University Campuses now?
interesting final question there, mate. I'd never pondered that.
Yes. Yes he would have been. The hayrick-haired SJW mob would have got their freak on screaming and crying that he was some sort of an 'ist' or guilty of some sort of 'phobia,' no doubt.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Christopher Hitchens on 14:18 - Jan 19 with 3360 views
I am a massive admirer of Hitch. One of the most erudite orators in history. His destruction of religious constructs is perhaps his biggest achievement. Shame he had to find his biggest audience in The States rather than the UK.
His brother, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish.
He'd definitely be labelled a dangerous radical right wing fanatic and kept away from any sort of main stream media which would probably make him laugh a lot.
His brother winds a lot of people up but Christopher always went much much further.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Christopher Hitchens on 14:20 - Jan 19 by Highjack
He'd definitely be labelled a dangerous radical right wing fanatic and kept away from any sort of main stream media which would probably make him laugh a lot.
His brother winds a lot of people up but Christopher always went much much further.
His demolition of Shirley Williams and the QT audience was a joy to behold.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
2
Christopher Hitchens on 14:24 - Jan 19 with 3351 views
I'm a big fan of Hitch, the funny thing about him is that in these times he'd probably be classed as a bigot .
His book on Bill Clinton really turned me onto what those people are all about, i don't think he'd be the darling of MSM in America in this time like he was in the past. His thoughts on Islam in particular are chilling, "resist it while you still can " said back in 2003, well nowadays your not allowed to have any thought on the subject!
I often wonder if he were alive today what his thoughts would be . A sad loss to freedom of thought and freedom of speech .
I will also add that i believe Hitchens would probably be a defender of the Trump administration more than people suspect, like the contrarian he was ,he was a fierce defender of the constitution and the american system, and while Trump may be not everyones cup of tea i think Hitch would have redressed the balance of fakenews and negative media coverage. One of the main reasons he moved to the USA was that he thought the system/constitution and right of reply was a lot more fair than it is in the UK, where the establishment had dummed down the people to a watching brief only . His documentary on Diana was an example " Where was i when i heard the news? who cares ? " freedom of speech that would be classed as horrifying in the present snowflake climate.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2018 14:46]
4
Christopher Hitchens on 14:42 - Jan 19 with 3317 views
“Funny? He wouldn’t know a joke if it came served on a bed of lettuce with sauce béarnaise.”
Fantastic writing and a quote I have stolen in the past Loved the guy, but as mentioned above by many, he would be the devil incarnate in current climate (and not devil's advocate as he was in the sainthood of the charlatan mother Theresa)
Christopher Hitchens on 14:04 - Jan 19 by Lohengrin
interesting final question there, mate. I'd never pondered that.
Yes. Yes he would have been. The hayrick-haired SJW mob would have got their freak on screaming and crying that he was some sort of an 'ist' or guilty of some sort of 'phobia,' no doubt.
I'm surprised you think that Loh, given how much of his stuff you've read.
He'd have been on the side of your so-called SJW mob on very many issues.
Not least on the subject of Trump :-)
And he would have hated most of the darlings of the alt-right so beloved of certain posters on this board, and dismissed them as unthinking morons.
0
Christopher Hitchens on 14:51 - Jan 19 with 3304 views
“Funny? He wouldn’t know a joke if it came served on a bed of lettuce with sauce béarnaise.”
Fantastic writing and a quote I have stolen in the past Loved the guy, but as mentioned above by many, he would be the devil incarnate in current climate (and not devil's advocate as he was in the sainthood of the charlatan mother Theresa)
[Post edited 19 Jan 2018 14:43]
It was said by many after he died, the world will miss Hitch more than we will ever know. Imagine him at the USA campus nowadays, his comment on why women arn't funny, religion inparticular Islam, Mother T , the Clintons, there was nobody safe with Hitch ,and i loved him for it .
This summed him up nicely ."breakfast of champions"
1
Christopher Hitchens on 14:56 - Jan 19 with 3295 views
Christopher Hitchens on 14:51 - Jan 19 by londonlisa2001
I'm surprised you think that Loh, given how much of his stuff you've read.
He'd have been on the side of your so-called SJW mob on very many issues.
Not least on the subject of Trump :-)
And he would have hated most of the darlings of the alt-right so beloved of certain posters on this board, and dismissed them as unthinking morons.
The SJW 'mob' are devoid of the spirit of enquiry. Why? Because in essence they are fundamentalists, and like fundamentalists of whatever stripe they believe their 'truth' is the final word, the final revelation, if you prefer. They brook no counter-argument and resort to any measure to close one down. They'd have tried to close Hitch down too. Do you doubt that he had a real flair for upsetting just about everybody with his scatter-gun rhetoric, Lisa?
He'd have torn me to shreds as well, but it would have been an elegant dismantling.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
3
Christopher Hitchens on 15:09 - Jan 19 with 3272 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:03 - Jan 19 by Lohengrin
The SJW 'mob' are devoid of the spirit of enquiry. Why? Because in essence they are fundamentalists, and like fundamentalists of whatever stripe they believe their 'truth' is the final word, the final revelation, if you prefer. They brook no counter-argument and resort to any measure to close one down. They'd have tried to close Hitch down too. Do you doubt that he had a real flair for upsetting just about everybody with his scatter-gun rhetoric, Lisa?
He'd have torn me to shreds as well, but it would have been an elegant dismantling.
Nonsense.
As with all things, there are a small number of idiots who take it to the extreme, but the underlying theme is one of social tolerance and individualism. Non conformity to the accepted norms of society and an unwillingness to allow that society to compound those norms through discrimination, the use of law, or the excuse of religion. Hitchens would have agreed with all of that.
People make the mistake of assuming him to be a step further right than his idiot brother. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On the flair for upsetting everyone - I agree - it was his raison d'être. He was deliberately provocative. It's a shallow reading of him that makes some think he believed much of it.
-1
Christopher Hitchens on 15:16 - Jan 19 with 3254 views
Christopher Hitchens on 14:51 - Jan 19 by londonlisa2001
I'm surprised you think that Loh, given how much of his stuff you've read.
He'd have been on the side of your so-called SJW mob on very many issues.
Not least on the subject of Trump :-)
And he would have hated most of the darlings of the alt-right so beloved of certain posters on this board, and dismissed them as unthinking morons.
When Hitchens died I remember SJW cockwomble Jonathan Mcintosh tweeted
"He was a despicable, vile, warmongering, hateful human being. Good riddance"
(on the day he died mind) This was roundly applauded by his SJW followers.
I have no doubt Christopher would have thought Trump to be a buffoon. I also believe he would have thought members of the Alt-right were. I suspect that you actually mean people like Milo (who I agree that Hitchens would have thought a clown...as do I) who the Alt-right hate. TBH, I think you, like other members of this forum have no clue what the Alt-right is today, because you let the Guardian define who is Alt-right and what they stand for (basically anyone who disagrees with SJW nonsense seems to be the idiots take on it). We have already seen members of this forum watch 8mins or less of an hour long video this morning and declare it to be bullshit, FFS. If this is how they judge opposing arguments no wonder they're so easily duped by the gutter press.
And yes Hitchens may have disliked the views of these people...but he would have let them speak. And this is why he would hate SJW's. He would also not support a violent gang of fascists just because they call themselves 'Anti-fascist'. Unlike certain members of this forum he was far to smart to fall for that nonsense
Good luck, Mr Cooper
3
Christopher Hitchens on 15:18 - Jan 19 with 3248 views
Christopher Hitchens on 14:30 - Jan 19 by icecoldjack
I'm a big fan of Hitch, the funny thing about him is that in these times he'd probably be classed as a bigot .
His book on Bill Clinton really turned me onto what those people are all about, i don't think he'd be the darling of MSM in America in this time like he was in the past. His thoughts on Islam in particular are chilling, "resist it while you still can " said back in 2003, well nowadays your not allowed to have any thought on the subject!
I often wonder if he were alive today what his thoughts would be . A sad loss to freedom of thought and freedom of speech .
I will also add that i believe Hitchens would probably be a defender of the Trump administration more than people suspect, like the contrarian he was ,he was a fierce defender of the constitution and the american system, and while Trump may be not everyones cup of tea i think Hitch would have redressed the balance of fakenews and negative media coverage. One of the main reasons he moved to the USA was that he thought the system/constitution and right of reply was a lot more fair than it is in the UK, where the establishment had dummed down the people to a watching brief only . His documentary on Diana was an example " Where was i when i heard the news? who cares ? " freedom of speech that would be classed as horrifying in the present snowflake climate.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2018 14:46]
Excellent post, Icey.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
Christopher Hitchens on 15:18 - Jan 19 with 3248 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:03 - Jan 19 by Lohengrin
The SJW 'mob' are devoid of the spirit of enquiry. Why? Because in essence they are fundamentalists, and like fundamentalists of whatever stripe they believe their 'truth' is the final word, the final revelation, if you prefer. They brook no counter-argument and resort to any measure to close one down. They'd have tried to close Hitch down too. Do you doubt that he had a real flair for upsetting just about everybody with his scatter-gun rhetoric, Lisa?
He'd have torn me to shreds as well, but it would have been an elegant dismantling.
Perfect.
London Lisa, put down the outrage and step away from the fruitcakes...you're far too smart a woman to be buying into their bullshit, tbh.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
Christopher Hitchens on 15:28 - Jan 19 with 3228 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:16 - Jan 19 by Mo_Wives
When Hitchens died I remember SJW cockwomble Jonathan Mcintosh tweeted
"He was a despicable, vile, warmongering, hateful human being. Good riddance"
(on the day he died mind) This was roundly applauded by his SJW followers.
I have no doubt Christopher would have thought Trump to be a buffoon. I also believe he would have thought members of the Alt-right were. I suspect that you actually mean people like Milo (who I agree that Hitchens would have thought a clown...as do I) who the Alt-right hate. TBH, I think you, like other members of this forum have no clue what the Alt-right is today, because you let the Guardian define who is Alt-right and what they stand for (basically anyone who disagrees with SJW nonsense seems to be the idiots take on it). We have already seen members of this forum watch 8mins or less of an hour long video this morning and declare it to be bullshit, FFS. If this is how they judge opposing arguments no wonder they're so easily duped by the gutter press.
And yes Hitchens may have disliked the views of these people...but he would have let them speak. And this is why he would hate SJW's. He would also not support a violent gang of fascists just because they call themselves 'Anti-fascist'. Unlike certain members of this forum he was far to smart to fall for that nonsense
The only time I read the Guardian is following a link from this site or sometimes a link from social media, so it really doesn't influence my definition of anything.
And I could equally say that you describe anyone that doesn't agree with any alt-right commentator as a SJW.
I'd personally let anyone speak. It's entirely their right to do so unless they are inflicting or advocating harm to anyone. It is equally entirely my right or anyone else's to roundly ignore them.
Wasn't it Hitchens who said something like an argument without reason doesn't require anything more than disagreement without reason? Something along those lines anyway.
0
Christopher Hitchens on 15:29 - Jan 19 with 3220 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:16 - Jan 19 by londonlisa2001
Nonsense.
As with all things, there are a small number of idiots who take it to the extreme, but the underlying theme is one of social tolerance and individualism. Non conformity to the accepted norms of society and an unwillingness to allow that society to compound those norms through discrimination, the use of law, or the excuse of religion. Hitchens would have agreed with all of that.
People make the mistake of assuming him to be a step further right than his idiot brother. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On the flair for upsetting everyone - I agree - it was his raison d'être. He was deliberately provocative. It's a shallow reading of him that makes some think he believed much of it.
Individualism? What? have you heard of intersectionality where people are ranked by their groups? Everything they do is about the group and nothing is about the individual. "White people must shut up and let black people speak because black people are marginalised".
SJW's are collectivists that see everything through group power dynamics.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
1
Christopher Hitchens on 15:31 - Jan 19 with 3218 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:16 - Jan 19 by Mo_Wives
When Hitchens died I remember SJW cockwomble Jonathan Mcintosh tweeted
"He was a despicable, vile, warmongering, hateful human being. Good riddance"
(on the day he died mind) This was roundly applauded by his SJW followers.
I have no doubt Christopher would have thought Trump to be a buffoon. I also believe he would have thought members of the Alt-right were. I suspect that you actually mean people like Milo (who I agree that Hitchens would have thought a clown...as do I) who the Alt-right hate. TBH, I think you, like other members of this forum have no clue what the Alt-right is today, because you let the Guardian define who is Alt-right and what they stand for (basically anyone who disagrees with SJW nonsense seems to be the idiots take on it). We have already seen members of this forum watch 8mins or less of an hour long video this morning and declare it to be bullshit, FFS. If this is how they judge opposing arguments no wonder they're so easily duped by the gutter press.
And yes Hitchens may have disliked the views of these people...but he would have let them speak. And this is why he would hate SJW's. He would also not support a violent gang of fascists just because they call themselves 'Anti-fascist'. Unlike certain members of this forum he was far to smart to fall for that nonsense
Rather well put that, Mo. I enjoyed reading that.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
1
Christopher Hitchens on 15:31 - Jan 19 with 3217 views
Christopher Hitchens on 15:28 - Jan 19 by londonlisa2001
The only time I read the Guardian is following a link from this site or sometimes a link from social media, so it really doesn't influence my definition of anything.
And I could equally say that you describe anyone that doesn't agree with any alt-right commentator as a SJW.
I'd personally let anyone speak. It's entirely their right to do so unless they are inflicting or advocating harm to anyone. It is equally entirely my right or anyone else's to roundly ignore them.
Wasn't it Hitchens who said something like an argument without reason doesn't require anything more than disagreement without reason? Something along those lines anyway.
I DISAGREE WITH THE ALT-RIGHT, LISA. I AM NOT ALT-RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ME DESCRIBE MYSELF AS AN SJW?
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
Christopher Hitchens on 15:34 - Jan 19 with 3215 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
. 
