Robert's Virtual Soapbox

(or, The Sanctimonious Professional Leftist's Blog)
DECEMBER 17, 2011 12:28AM

Hitchens was an overrated gasbag

Rate: 1 Flag

Posted Friday, December 16, 2011 

Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of his new memoir

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.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Ron paul voted for gays in the military and yet he's a homophobe? That doesn't make sense. He is the only one to come and defend Bradley Manning (he called him a patriot) and doesn't want to prosecute whistle blowers. He is also a staunch anti-imperialist and was against the patriot act and indefinite detention.

Something tells me you've been spending too much time on reading neo-lib propaganda about Paul.

I'm not saying Paul is perfect but he is FAR better than anyone else in the political race.
Ron Paul very seriously used the term "queer" in the movie "Bruno" when actor Sacha Baron Cohen pretended to be a gay man hitting on him.

If a presidential candidate were caught using the word "nigger" on film, that would be the end of his or her presidential aspirations. The word "queer" to me is just as disqualifying, and you can't tell me that Ron Paul is pro-LGBT when he apparently routinely uses the term "queer." (His past newsletters apparently indicate that he's a racist, too, and since he's a white male Texan, it's unsurprising that he's a white supremacist/racist homophobe.)

We could bicker, but Ron Paul doesn't have a chance anyway. He's only a U.S. representative and U.S. representatives never make it to the White House. Besides, his own party treats him like their crazy old uncle. Because he is.
P.S. Ron Paul sometimes arrives at the right conclusions, but usually for the wrong reasons. If he supports gays in the military, that's because his libertarian philosophy calls for not getting into people's sex lives -- not because he wuvs gays and lesbians. (Except, of course, Paul feels perfectly comfortable outlawing abortions, which is a violation of women's privacy -- go figure.)

Ditto regarding the Bradley Manning affair; if Paul supports Manning, it's not because of Manning's sexual orientation, but because Paul opposes the U.S. military-industrial complex like Manning apparently does.

And yes, Manning is a patriot. We can agree at least on that much...