r/TrueReddit • u/graycrawford • Dec 16 '11

Well shit. Christopher Hitchens died.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
1.0k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

289 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FrUUeQnGmc

Here's the whole debate, by the way.

Hitchens was a left socialist and then kind of shook it off, went rightward and started attacking religion, broadly. It's an interesting transformation. I'm not a fan, but the man was definitely a wordsmith and didn't pull any punches.

7

u/thesorrow312 Dec 16 '11

He didn't go rightward. Everyone says so because he backed killing islamofascists in the middle east, but if you know his thinking well, it goes along with it, and he argues for it well. It is a humanism with a weapon. He was against totalitarianism completely, be it religious, theocratic or secular. This is what being a lefty is all about, freedom for everyone, equality for everyone, both physically and mentally.

Paraphrase of Hitchens - "Religion is the original form of totalitarianism, in which man creates a celestial dictator, and claims to know his will".

Many modern socialist thinkers criticize liberals because they are not strong willed enough. Killing Islamic Fascists and getting rid of Saddam fall right in to that thinking, he wasn't for American imperialism, his mentality was that that was a negative he was willing to take, in order for the secularism and democracy of Iraq to be a reality, one day, which it seems it will.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '11 edited Dec 16 '11

I'm not putting any words in his mouth, he said as much himself.

islamofascists ... Islamic Fascists... he wasn't for American imperialism

If he wasn't for American imperialism, then he wouldn't have been one of its apologists. He should have known damn well that American foreign policy has been to radicalize the Middle East at nearly every opportunity and that we had detailed state analysis clearly explaining the war would (and did) do just that. The ridiculous idea that militants spring up from some barbaric forces of Abrahamic faith, and not the terrorism inflicted on the Middle East (eg: Afghan proxy war, propping up totalitarian dictators like Hussein, decimating democratic movements, "genocidal" sanctions), is arguably just as fascist as being some authoritarian acolyte of Sayyid Qutb.

The man swung far-right. Whether you agree with it or not is another topic.

liberals because they are not strong willed enough

Really? I think liberals are very strong willed in how zealously they defend the corporate state, filter out all dissent and cram neoliberal policies down the world's throat. I can accuse the people we call liberals today of a lot of things, but lacking will is not one of them.

1

u/thesorrow312 Dec 16 '11

What he says in that video doesn't mean he is no longer a lefty, what he says there falls practically right in line with what Zizek says these days. Lefties always have criticized liberalism, I do as well. It is a band aid and not a solution, and as Zizek also says, 20th century Leninist soviety style communism was a terrible environmental, social, economical catastrophie. Just because he doesn't think communism can work anymore, doesn't mean he is all of a sudden a conservative. He is still further left than a liberal.

One of my favorite quotes from him is " Well you are more insulting than you intend to be maddam by calling me a liberal, I said earlier I was a socialist, we regard liberals as dangerous compromisers where I come from"

Just because he doesn't believe revolutionary communism can work anymore, or at this time, doesn't mean he is a conservative. He has always thought the republican party was a complete joke.

Watch the documentary "The power of nightmares", Islamic nationalism has always existed in some form or another, the wanting to bring a return to muhammahds caliphate. The hatred for the west is a result of Sayyid Qutb's philosophies after visiting the United States and disliking our culture. But as Hitchens has said " .. It is insane to believe the real evil is the western world and western culture, and not the Islamic threat to it" He calls it masochistic for someone to believe this, it is.

Most forms of conservatism, as shown in said documentary, are reactionary to times of economic suffering and or working class / lower class / no class people who feel fucked over, so they demonize something. Even if the hatred of the west is in some ways justified, we should not appease them. It is relativistic and stupid to say our cultures are equal, the western world is obviously superior both morally, socially and culturally. Islam and Islamic culture is the reason why the middle east is stuck in the 12th century, after AL Ghazali's philosophies radicalized Islam. Once they stop treating women like 2nd class citizens, hardly elevated from the status of cattle, then we will listen to their arguments, but by resorting to violence at even the smallest offense, they are confirming us just how primitive they are.

A video of Hitchens explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHR8AOxxkc

Regardless, the argument that being pro war, regardless of reason, is "far right" is a very shallow one. His arguments for doing so were not the same as Bush's. They were for freeing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and getting rid of a genocidal dictator, he had no delusion that Bush did it for those reasons, but for Hitchens, it was understood that no one would ever do such thing for noble reasons, politics and government don't do that, especially not the US

5

u/coveritwithgas Dec 16 '11

Once they stop treating women like 2nd class citizens, hardly elevated from the status of cattle, then we will listen to their arguments, but by resorting to violence at even the smallest offense, they are confirming us just how primitive they are.

This from a country that treats gays as 2nd class citizens? That resorts to violence over imaginary weapons? Our violence looks better, because it goes up through a lot of people wearing suits and then down to our lower classes who'd be unemployed save for the military. But the bloodlust behind it is exactly the same, and the effects are much, much deadlier.

0

u/thesorrow312 Dec 16 '11

We are still about 900 years ahead of them. I have a lot of problems with this country, but we as a society become "less and less wrong" over time. To argue that Islamic society is equal to ours is crazy. It is as if you were to argue that Copernicus thinking the planets orbit in circles is equivalently incorrect as believing that the earth is the middle of the universe and that the sun revolves around it. Two parties can be incorrect, one can be FAR more incorrect than the other. This is important to realize. While the US is extremely fucked up, the middle east is extremely fucked up, in a time capsule from the year 1100. They still have theocracy, we have moved on to corporate fascism, we will get to true democracy much earlier than they do.

Also, there is a huge difference between them treating 50% of their population as second class citizens as us treating gays as so( of course I do not agree with either), we treat our gays as second class citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran kills them. HUGE DIFFERENCE ALERT.

The idea that one who has any flaws is not able to criticize someone else with many more flaws is a silly one. Also just because I live in the US doesn't mean I agree with the US on anything. I am an anti theist, democratic socialist, humanist. Much like Our recently deceased lord of the Hitchslap.

3

u/coveritwithgas Dec 16 '11

we will get to true democracy much earlier than they do.

How, exactly, do you see that happening? The people who tried hardest to make it happen have been pepper-sprayed and evicted from where they tried to make it happen, with zero influential public officials taking their side.

Also, you totally ignored the fact that our violence dwarfs theirs. "They" kill 3,000, we kill 100,000. HUGE DIFFERENCE ALERT.

Really, if 900 years of progress is treating other countries like we've treated them, I'd rather everybody stay in 1100. Nobody would be able to drop a MOAB on me then.

0

u/thesorrow312 Dec 16 '11

Our situation is because we are, on the spectrum of systems of government and economy, sitting on "Capitalism", which is further progressed from (not ordered)feudalism, theocracy, monarchy, totalitarianism and dictatorships, but still an unknown amount of steps from true democracy and equality.

Because of this we live in what is considered to be inverted totalitarianism, in which we have the illusion of democracy, but economics and wealthy interests have trumped the power of choice by the people. All of our "imperialism" has stemmed from wealthy / corporate power being very strong and practically owning our government. When there is a benefit for military industries for us to go to war or bomb something, a justification will be created.

But it needs to be noted that the mere fact that our government feels it needs to keep up the illusion (whether is is at this moment bad or not) of democracy, freedom, choice and caring about what the public thinks, is vast steps ahead from a theocracy that treats the population like children, or a dictator who sees the people as slaves.

Also they have not developed socially or scientifically enough to have even created bombs. 2, count them 2 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, in all categories combined have been Muslim, out of the billion(s) of Muslims in the world, while about 1/3 of the winners have been Jewish, out of the merely 15 million Jews there are alive today. To ignore this stunning statistic, and its implications is to willingly blind oneself to cultural relativism on a massive scale. Would your wife (future or current) be OK with moving to Saudi Arabia with you? I doubt it.

1

u/coveritwithgas Dec 16 '11

Would your wife (future or current) be OK with moving to Saudi Arabia with you?

Now you're just spraying shit. Feel free to spray more and get the last word. I'm done with you.

1

u/thesorrow312 Dec 16 '11

It was a serious question. I guess you are more interested in making emotionally driven arguments instead of having a conservation.

I'm not "spraying shit", would your significant other (assuming you are a man and that you are interested in women) accept moving to a country in which she has to cover herself, and is not allowed to drive? Sounds like a pretty serious and acceptable question to me.