Hitchens was an overrated gasbag

Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of his new memoir "Hitch 22," poses for a portrait outside his hotel in New York

Reuters photo

And only Donald Trump has worse hair than he did.

On Slate.com’s home page right now I count no fewer than twentyfuckingfive pieces about the now-dead pundit Christopher Hitchens.

You know, when Hitchens made himself a prominent cheerleader for the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War, which unnecessarily has cost thousands and thousands of Iraqi and American lives and (at least) hundreds of billions of dollars, he totally lost me. He was dead to me then, already having lost all respectability.

In his later years, the overrated Hitchens tackled the topic of atheism. Oh, big fucking whoop! Doesn’t just about every pseudointellectual college freshman pontificate about atheism?

The fact that there is no God is self-fucking-evident. Why the need to expound upon it when many others already have done so over the past many decades?

It’s necessary to prevent the theofascists (be they “Christian,” Muslim, Jewish or whatever) from trying to shove their bullshit beliefs down our throats and from otherwise trying to infringe upon our freedoms and liberties (such as the freedom and liberty to marry whomever we please), but other than that, what’s to talk about? God doesn’t exist and neither do dragons, but we don’t write entire books about and otherwise discuss at incredible length the nonexistence of dragons, do we?

(This also goes for Brit pundit Richard Dawkins, who also has made atheism his bread and butter, although he’s much more likeable than Hitchens was.)

It is the fact that he was British-born that gave Hitchens (who became a U.S. citizen in 2007) the air of the intellectual here in the United States, from what I can tell.

Pundit Andrew Sullivan, who like Hitchens did writes in and about the United States, also apparently benefits from having been born in Britain, but he’s just as frequently clueless as was Hitchens. Like Hitchens did, Sullivan supported the obviously woefully misguided (to put it mildly) Vietraq War. (Maybe the British-born Sullivan and Hitchens primarily desperately wanted to demonstrate their Americanness by supporting whatever fucking war the treasonous members of the unelected Bush regime wanted to pull from their treasonous asses using 9/11 as a pretext?)

Sullivan’s latest cluelessness is having endorsed Texas U.S. Rep Ron Paul — another favorite of the pseudointellectual college freshmen — for president of the United States of America, even though Sullivan is gay and Ron Paul is a homophobe as well as a nutjob.

The real story in the death of Christopher Hitchens, it seems to me, is that Americans apparently don’t have faith that there are any homegrown American intellectuals, and that if you’re British-born or use an affected British accent (like the American-born late wingnut William F. Buckley did), a huge number of Americans are going to regard you as fucking brilliant, no matter what stream of fucking stupidity comes out of your mouth.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Hitchens was an overrated gasbag

  1. tobeforgiven

    I find this interesting. I have been told that Christians would be gloating, and would inevitably write awful things about Hitchens. Most Atheists think we are awful hatefull people. This is not true. I wanted proof to show that Christians would not be this mean. The first blog I have come accross that writes something so mean, is that of an atheist. That is interesting.
    Thanks for this. Thanks again, are Christians really the mean and awful ones???

    • Robert Crook

      I don’t know that all “Christians” are “mean,” but most of them are as fucktarded as you are.

      I mean, Hitchens pushed a bogus war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people and costs us hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to the things Jesus would have spent the money on (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, etc.), but you whine that I’m being “mean” by pointing this out.

      You apparently are just another “Christian” idiot who is so fearful of death that you believe that we have to act like someone who was a major asshole in life — someone who even was a cheerleader for mass murder — somehow became an angel simply because he or she died, when all of us mammals die.

      You, like Hitchens, are way too wrapped up in God vs. no-God. How about getting some morality instead of worrying about whether or not there is a Zeus? What you and your ilk and smug atheists like Hitchens have in common is that all of you are immoral.

  2. I was not happy to learn that Hitchens died any more than I am happy to learn anyone has died. I am a Christian, am not at all stupid, and even bought his book, “God is Not Good.” As a former atheist, I was wondering if there any new reasons for being an atheist (there were not-same old ones I used to use.) Hitchens’ support of Iraq was gross, and George Galloway really reamed him in a debate on that issue. Probably some “Christians” will spout crap-the same ones I’m always arguing with re: Jesus was an Anglo-Saxon Capitalist warlord. Peace.

    • Robert Crook

      Hitchens unrepentantly was pro-mass murder. While I can’t say that I am “happy” that he keeled over, I don’t see his death as any great loss to the world. The world needs fewer advocates of mass murder, not more of them. I suspect that it’s not love that makes you say things like “I was not happy to learn that Hitchens died…” — I suspect that it’s your own fear of your own mortality. That’s fear and selfishness, not love, although you probably think that it’s love.

      Yes, George Galloway rocks. I wonder what he’s been up to lately. Now, HIS death would be a loss.

      I agree with the majority of Jesus Christ’s moral teachings. If only “Christians” would follow them. But they’re not even aware of them, so expecting them to follow them is even a more impossible wish.

      While I believe that there very most likely was an historical Jesus, he was just a human being, not a super-man, and anyone who “on faith” believes such myths as an immaculate conception, the raising of the dead, and Jesus’ resurrection — and heaven and hell, Judgment Day, etc., etc. — is, in my book, stupid. Children believe in crap like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny “on faith” also.

      I believe in morality, because immorality does demonstrable damage. I don’t believe in God because there is no God any more than there is a Santa Claus. However, as I indicated, I can’t imagine spending great time and energy and maybe even money arguing with theists over the existence of a Supreme Santa Claus. What a waste.

      • Bill

        I agree with you again about Jesus Dude, as opposed to Jesus Christ, if you will. But I’d suggest that you give Hitchens another look. When I was first hearing Hitchens, many years ago, I could not stand him. I didn’t like his style, didn’t like much of his politics, and could not stand how he always had to be drunk. I think it was his debate with Dinesh D’souzah that turned me around. If you haven’t seen it, you can find it on Youtube. Then I bought his book, “god is not Great.” Loved it. Then I came to appreciate him for the solitary large voice who opposed magical thinking. I also came to understand how huge a problem it is. Hitchens was not an easy man to like, but he was a great mind to appreciate. Just watch him take D’souzah apart, while D’souzah plays to the crowd. If Hitchens seems arrogant generally, you will see that he is very humble with respect to reason. He subordinates himself to facts. It is a framework for agreement, compromise, and cooperation.

      • Robert Crook

        Hmmm. I just can’t get over Hitchens’ support for the Vietraq War, and having been an atheist since high school, I can’t imagine that Hitchens said much on the topic that would be new to me. (I saw his book “God Is Not Great” at a used bookstore just this past week, in fact, and I had no interest in even picking it up, truth be told.)

        That said, I’m sure that Hitchens wasn’t 100 percent bad. Just mostly.

        Dinesh D’Souza is such a stupid fucking douche bag that no one can claim that it’s a big feat for having brought him down. Even Stephen Colbert did it: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/80900/january-16-2007/dinesh-d-souza

        (Don’t get me wrong. Colbert is a faux wingnut, true, but he and his writers are pretty brilliant.)

  3. mazsmyth@hotmail.com

    I totally agree. Hitchen’s biggest strength was his British accent which impressed Americans and his arrogant, over confident speaking style that gave an undeserved weight to his, more often than not, painfully obvious points. He had a tone of wisdom that succeeded in fooling people into thinking he was saying something incredibly enlightening. No god? So what. I came to those conclusions when I was a child and used to argue about it. Then I turned 14 and got bored of it and moved on. Hitchens has never made me think about something in a new light, or revealed anything to me I did not know. He wasn’t ground breaking and he certainly wasn’t a genius, merely a rhetorician who made a living by arguing with unrelenting stubbornness and a closed mind. He was more interested in winning petty debates and establishing his intellectual supremacy over unequals than in coming to any true sense of knowledge. Just go watch some youtube videos…whenever he discusses anything besides religion you will see that his opinions are about as bland and thoughtless as the every man’s. He was a one issue man. Check out one in particular where he’s on the Maher show to discuss marijuana legalization, and he calmly arrives and starts explaining to the rest of the guests as if he’s imparting some great wisdom on ignorant children about how cannabis can aid glaucoma sufferers and chemo patients, as if that wasn’t the most obvious fucking thing in the world to everyone.

  4. CPB

    You are 100% correct with the exception of your claim that Richard Dawkins is likeable. Hitchens and Dawkins are cut from the same pompous, arrogant, academic cloth steeped in egotism. It’s just a shame that Hitchens couldn’t take Dawkins with him. Otherwise, great write up.

    • Robert Crook

      True, I don’t know much about Dawkins, but he is not widely known as being a prick, unlike Hitchens was, and from his write-up on Wikipedia, Dawkins sounds like someone I’d get along with. Per Wikipedia, Dawkins at least opposed the Vietraq War and the unelected Bush regime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins)

      That said, again, I can’t see that anyone’s book on atheism would be new material to me. I don’t need convincing that there is no Santa Supreme.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s