Skip to main content

The Guardian - Christopher Hitchens on the Arab Spring and 9/11, a response

Christopher Hitchens, supporter of imperialist wars. Oh the horror, the horror.

In reading Hitchens in the Guardian today (9/11/2011) we read a specious apologia. He is ridiculous, and yet the Guardian, drawing inspiration perhaps from its own Janus faced support for interventionism, exhibits Hitchens vulgar self justification on the anniversary of 9/11 as if his words were pearls.

Hitchens presents his mental puppetry to us as insight. It isn't. He 'illumines' us, or does he? Atta was a cold hearted loveless zombie. Mohamed Bouazizi was sick of tyranny. We know that zombie does not accurately describe Atta. He was not a zombie. To call him a zombie sheds no light. Sound and electronic letters signifying absolutely nothing. Puppet play.

In second place we also know that despite the fact that he was a catalyst for the events he sparked off, Mohamed Bouazizi was in fact suicidal long before he decided to politicize his suicide. If he did ever politicize it. Hitchens need not mention this; cavalier with facts and the motivations of his dramatis personae.

Moreover, to claim that the hodge-podge fighting against tyranny in Tunisia and Libya were fully paid up democrats and that the majority of fighters were people longing for western freedoms is a also a convenient lie. The moral backbone for the rebellions came from Islam. The insurrection in Syria has been catalysed by the story of a soldier slapping a young man around the face and saying to him: 'For you there is only one God and his name is Bashar-al-Assad.' This is the rocket fuel of rebellion, and it is hardly Saul Bellow.

What over-weaning presumption of Hitchens; presenting his autistic geopolitical puppet play to us as our reality.

Along come the ridiculous parallels with Czechoslovakia - ridiculous to a Marxist anyway. Ernst Gellner might have drawn some parallels, but no Marxist. Hitchens claims he is 'non totalitarian left'. Apparently this makes him a Blairite. He, like so many Trotskyists and lapsed Trotskyists before him, worked as ideological hit-men against socialism and were paid well for it. He offers no other explanation and simpers in the general direction of the American public. He admires their constitution and their 'variety'.

Hitchens is 'non-totalitarian' enough to support US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some anti-imperialist! An anti-imperialist lauded and lionized in the liberal and right wing British press; in the US and the UK. If Christopher Hitchens rhetoric held then it would also have justified the Vietnam War and the Korean War and the war against Frelimo and the MPLA.

He observed the different strands of rebellion and gave them his papal benediction. Without saying so Hitchens implies that he predicted the Arab Spring. Show me the article or speech he gave where he predicts it. Moreover, the 'Arab Spring' is not as he defines it as.

Hitchens ends with co-option and a not so subtle allusion to his own impending 'martyrdom'. He co-opts Nadine Gordimer. I wonder if Nadine Gordimer took his position on the war in Iraq; on the intervention in Libya; on the continuing war in Afghanistan. We can find out if we ask her.

Finally, we end, not with an argumentative bang, as Hitchens promises in the title of his book, but with apologetic whimpering. I am going to die, so please believe me. Well I am sorry that you will die. And I am sorry that at least 250,000 Iraqis; men, women and children; had to die in a war that you supported.

An earlier Christopher Hitchens would have ripped the corrupt, self indulgent roue he became to shreds. He reminds me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse now, a man troubled by his actions and incoherent. A man who has made bad decisions and is excusing himself to us, expecting that we will go along with his nonsensical, ridiculous, self defense and that we will see things from his point of view.

Hitchens, in supporting Blair and Bush's wars went into intellectual bankruptcy a long time ago. The only people who see and saw things from his point of view were the are neo-cons and the neo-imperialist liberal interventionists make believing they are 'progressive. The hypocrites who run the Guardian and Fox News, hand in hand with Christopher Hitchens.

Comments

  1. Jay from Philly02:54

    Amen. No one ever held that scumbag Hitchens feet to the fire for his blatant hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov