Seems that Britain has lost Christopher Hitchens to America and while many lefties say 'good riddance' to the former Trotskyite, i have to admit the controversial figure was good entertainment.
Anyone who crosses the divide from left wing to right wing is going to get flack but i never considered him a real neo-con despite his support for American foreign policy.
Always critical of issues such as Israel, the nuclear bomb and religion, Hitchens is not your stereotypical neo-con and he will always frustrate as much as he pleases. Even when he and his brother were fixtures in the left wing media he never seemed to conform to the colours the liberal media attempted to paint him.
Hitchens no longer considers himself a Trotskyist or even a socialist, yet he maintains that his political views have not changed significantly.
He was famously described as a 'drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay' by George Galloway with reference to his alcoholism and i hope that now that he is an American citizen he continues to fire his barbs to all and sundry.
I think he will because we need people like him with his form of machine gun spray critiques even if we want to crown him or knee him in the swingers in equal measure.
4 comments:
Christopher is a funny one alright. I've enjoyed reading him on occasion throughout the years - even if I've disagreed with his point, which has been frequently.
I particularly liked his 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' book, which constructed a fantastic case for prosecuting that arsehole as a war criminal. A bit like shooting fish in a barrel perhaps, but it was still done with style...
Nowadays though, with Christopher's strange 'boostering' of the war on Iraq (which he must be quietly regretting now, I'd wager), I find his brother Peter the more intellectually coherent of the two (even though his stuff is very 'Daily Mailish').
PS: And much as enjoy how Galloway has got on Bliar's tits lately, I thought his remark about Hitchens' drinking was totally disgusting and uncalled for. The man is actually an alcoholic after all.
I've had an ambivalent feeling toward Hitch for a while now. While somewhat provocative, I always found him to be just a wee bit too in love with himself. Most things he's written have that overwhelming sense of self-satisfaction and pleasure at how clever he is compared with the rest of us.
However, that veneer wore very thin when he ignored reality and joined the march to invade Iraq. Suddenly he wasn't as clever as he desperately tried to seem, and instead of being amusing, he became just another jibbering dolt, regurgitating the same tired dogmatic pablum in place of anything of substance.
Kind of like Dennis Miller.
Ook ook
I may not always agree with him but i find him and his brother very good reading. Yep, they both do come across as arrogant SOB's but you cannot ignore either of them.
I agree Cheezy that Galloway was below the belt with his drink soaked quip but i also have a love/hate thing with Galloway.
I don't see why Gorgeous George was hitting below the belt. It's not as if Hitch is in recovery or anything. He is drink-soaked: it's a matter of record. Why should George not say so? People who only see Hitch in print might never know.
I think it's sad how his time has come and gone. He's a busted flush. He got right up close behind Bush, which is fatal to any thinking critic of anything. Now he has a new book jumping on the atheism-is-cool bandwagon. Too little too late, Chrissie baby. Some of us recall when you went after Mother Teresa. Now that was speaking out.
Post a Comment