The Hitch is still fighting despite cancer
Christopher Hitchens, witnessing the Portugal 1974 revolution:
It was the last fall of the curtain on the last act of the 1968 style, with its “take your desire for reality” wall posters and its concepts of work as play. For me it was also the end of the line with my old groupuscule. I had developed other disagreements, too, as the old and open-minded “International Socialists” began to mutate into a more party line sect. But Portugal had broken the mainspring for me, because it had caused me to understand that I thought democracy and pluralism were good things in themselves, and ends in themselves at that, rather than means to another end….
… Conor Cruise O’Brien had phrased it better than I could then hope to do:
“Are you a socialist?” asked the African leader. I said, yes.
He looked me in the eye. “People have been telling me,” he said lightly, “that you are a liberal…”
The statement in its context invited a denial. I said nothing.
And yet, as I drove home from my interview with the leader, I had to realise that a liberal, incurably, was what I was. Whatever I might argue, I was more profoundly attached to liberal concepts of freedom – freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom, independent judgment and independent judges – than I was to the idea of a disciplined party mobilising all the forces of society for the creation of a social order guaranteeing more real freedom for all instead of just a few. The revolutionary idea struck me as being more immediately relevant for most of humanity than were the liberal concepts. But it was the liberal concepts and their long term importance – though not the name of liberal – that held my allegiance.
George Galloway during a furious debate about the Iraq war, in 2005, famously called Hitchens “a drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjay” (link). Drinked soaked, yes by his own admission, but a Trotskyite, not for long. Hitchens flirtation with the IS (International Socialists) may have served to prejudice him against Mao (how uncontrarian for such a contrarian to be against the Cultural Revolution without any analysis whatsover) but his far deeper attachment to freedom enabled him to break from the Trotskyite inclination of sabotaging united fronts. So he ended up supporting the liberation of Iraq (which required a very broad united front) and modernity in general. Hitchens is the iconic modern man. His warts and all bio, Hitch-22, is a mixed bag but contains some wonderful anecdotes and analytical gems.
Vale Christopher Hitchens.
Pity. I heard he was having an new experimental treatment so there was some hope but not to be. Anyway, from reading his bio I think his politics was all over the place but I’ll remember him fondly – as well as his stand on Iraq – for his audacity, humour and amazing debating / verbal skills. Check out some of his online videos for the latter.
Here is an old 2005 link which demonstrates his humouress side, a discussion with his brother: When Christopher met Peter
marx said:
epicurus said ’tis no misfortune for him how dies,
only for those left behind so vale hich be an expresssion of one being unable to deal with ones own imminent mortality
The late Christopher Hitchens posted by lenin
Don’t take this the wrong way, but the glowing tributes to Christopher Hitchens are both tasteless and incorrect. Have some decency. The boring wisdom has it that Hitchens broke the mould intellectually. He did not. For all the unique saleability of the Hitchensian idiolect (or intertext), he was a very conventional thinker, in addition to being a provincial.
source>> http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
The failure from “Lenin” Jim is that he’s trying too hard to say something original so has to make up a straw man:
If you actually read the obituaries (the positive ones, there is plenty of hate mail there too) that isn’t the main thrust at all. It’s more that he took on a variety of issues (death, religion, iraq war, clinton, kissinger) and argued them passionately and resourcefully / even brilliantly. He was a very good journalist and master of the written and spoken word. He was very widely read, had an excellent memory (which stood up to drink) and was a surprising and humouress man. He was a successful public intellectual, which is no mean feat. Also he was modest, at times, about his abilities and possibly had a good self knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses:
Most of us have lost friends or family to cancer so this article which mentions new experimental anti cancer technologies (admittedly without going into much detail) may be of interest:
With Death, Christopher Hitchens And Steve Jobs Showed Us The Limits Of DNA Sequencing
DNA sequencing cures is a step down the path of us humans mastering or conquering (choose your poison) nature.
b.k.i remember hitchens diatribe against his supposed just dead friend edward no link
seymour as form taking hitch down a peg or 6 which won’t appealhere
the Genocidal Imagination of Christopher Hitchens by Richard Seymour
The Lighter Side of Mass Murder
Picture a necrotic, sinister, burned-out wasteland — a vast, dull mound of rubble punctuated by moments of bleak emptiness and, occasionally, smoking. Those of you whose imaginations alighted instantly on the Late Christopher Hitchens have only yourselves to blame, for I was referring to Fallujah. The “city of mosques” was sacrificed in November 2004 during an all-American war movie: the MacGuffin, an obscure yet deadly figure known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who, predictably, “escaped” with his wily confederates into the deserts.1 Before the operation, the city was bombed to “encourage” its evacuation, and shortly thereafter sealed off — any male of fighting age (ten years old and upwards by present occupation standards) was prevented from leaving. During that operation, white phosphorus was used against civilians since, as one US soldier explained, anything that walked or breathed was considered an enemy combatant. It is reasonable to suppose that some of the melted bodies discovered had suffered agonizing deaths as the material sizzled their flesh to the bone. Others may have been more lucky — if they inhaled the substance, it will have blistered their mouths, throats, and lungs, suffocating them to death before they had to suffer the pain of flesh melting away both inside and outside. It is indeed hard to overstate what was pitilessly inflicted on Fallujah: a hospital deliberately bombed;2 another occupied;3 more than half of the houses damaged or destroyed;4 150,000 people obliged to flee to live in rough tents on the outskirts of the city as they were bombed and their water and electricity cut off;5 those returning to the devastated city were to be subjected to forced labor.6 While the US military only admitted to having killed 1,200 insurgents,7 initial civilian tolls were as high as 800.8 Lately, Iraqi NGOs and medical workers have estimated as many as 6,000 deaths, mostly civilians.9 In the face of all these facts, Christopher Hitchens remarked: “the death toll is not nearly high enough . . . too many [jihadists] have escaped.”10
source>> http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html
Don’t know about DNA sequencing but they ought to have tried DIM. Diindolyl methane. DIM has scientific data indicating it as a T cell regulator I use it – DR prescribed, as i have a pre-cancerous condition.
Sorry folks. Can’t find the research for DIM as T cell regulation, but found other as oestrogen balancer for men and women – thereby at least not giving the cancer/precancer the fast ‘growth hormone’. I’ll keep looking for a reference re. T Cell regulator. I suggest anyone interested google it further.
I might be wrong in saying that Hitchens didn’t break the conventional mould. He wasn’t the member of a tribe. No one can really claim him as theirs because he often was interesting and surprising whether right or wrong. I think his defining personal feature was how widely read he was combined with a retentive memory. Then he mixed that with a healthy gut reaction against totalitarianism. You are right Jim in that he was your enemy because he was genuinely anti totalitarian and prepared to wage war against fascism. He understood that aspect of the big picture. So, do your best and join the queue of those who are pissing on his fresh grave just as he pissed on plenty of fresh graves (http://prospect.org/article/christopher-hitchens-contradiction) Plenty of commentaries out there now saying where did he go wrong, how could a leftist have ended up supporting the Iraq war. Not only that but doing it in style and still remaining widely read and popular. What a puzzle, eh? How could a leftist support the removal of Saddam, the world’s worst fascist? Piss away Jim. It’s annoying that Hitchens influenced a lot of people to think outside the square, isn’t it.
Moving tribute from Ian McEwen, who incidentally in his novel “Saturday”, raised the question of the plastic goodness of those anti Iraq war “not in my name” demonstrations by inserting a character who had been tortured by Saddam.
Old habit die hard. Hitchens, while dying, was still anxious to meet deadlines and still absorbing new knowledge: Christopher Hitchens: ‘the consummate writer, the brilliant friend’
b.k. gude try but then you seem to like the yesteryearers who are in lockstep with each other. mcewen & hitch were plumb in the gob i.s. posh varsity gits.& sure he was prepared wage war with pen & ink & gob just so long as it we proletarians who kill & get killed in his own boozh-wah class interests when imperial fascism suits those interests he wefts & weaves like billyo
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/12/hitched-in-history-to-crimes-against-humanity.html#comments
Hitched In History To Crimes Against Humanity
by Maniza Naqvi source>> http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/12/hitched-in-history-to-crimes-against-humanity.html#comments
“How could a leftist support the removal of Saddam, the world’s worst fascist?” world’s worst fascist? Oh yes Hitler was just a pussy by comparison – FFS.
From the early 80′s untol 1990 (the Kuwait invasion) this “world worst fascist” was supported by the US tooth and nail. Did he suddenly become the “world worst fascist” in 1990?
Fascist he certainly was but why did we have to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis just to remove him?
The argument that we had to kill so many Iraquis to remove the “worlds worst fascist” is just total bullshit.
Dalec
dalec, you’re inability to comprehend astounds me. When he was overthrown, Saddam was the world’s worst fascist. Get it? Yes, the US propped him up for a long time – why is that supposed to make him a lesser fascist?
Culpability for the deaths and suffering in Iraq during the anti-fascist war there, rests squarely with the remnant Baathists and jihadists. Presumably you blame the British and Soviets for all those deaths in Germany during WW2 as well.
It’s amazing, but highly educational politically and philosophically, to see how you, dalec, have moved from someone who once supported the overthrow of fascist regimes, especially those created with US support, to someone who objectively supported them (to borrow Orwell’s and Hitchens’ use of “objective support”).
Hitchens was actually in the 1930s left-wing tradition of supporting united fronts against fascism, even when it involves uniting with imperialism. How much further to the Right can dalec go?
Some of us actually prefer US administrations that turn on the fascists they once propped up, and overthrow them, to those administrations that keep the tyrants in power. Meanwhile, those pesky Iraqis just keep on voting…. And other countries in the region fight for precisely what they have achieved in terms of inclusive electoral democracy (even down to the purple fingers, in Tunisia).
Barry I wouldn’t gloat so soon. WE are one day post the US withdrawl and we have seen the courts issue an arrest warrant for the vice President on the charge that he is running a death squad. Really? the Sunni Vice President is running a death squad? There are people who have been running death squads. Last time I looked they were key supporters of the government. I expect warrants for their arrests will follow shortly.
Dalek I think that the US never intended to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I think that they honestly believed that it would be the cake walk they said it would be. Even supporters like Arthur publicly estimated the death toll to be as low as hundreds.
These people or rather the Iraq people were the victims of the war parties optimism.
Hitchens supported the slaughter only to describe the politicians who came to power as pygmies. I think that we are about to find how short in stature they really are.
On reading obituaries of Christopher Hitchens
The author has gone to a lot of trouble in reading many obituaries of Hitchens and attempts an all round assessment of his contribution with some reflections under a variety of sub-headings such as Drink-Soaked Popinjay, Former Trotskyist Bushite, Bloodthirsty maniac, Traitor, Antisemite, Zionist, Parochial and provincial. ie. it’s a tribute worthy of an argument or real discussion.
I followed the links provided there to Peter Hitchens, the brother who argued, and Harry’s Place – oh, does anyone remember Harry’s Place
Barry,
You are a superb sophist.
When he was overthrown Saddam was hiding in a hole, he certainly was not the world worst fascist at that particular point in time.” When he was overthrown, Saddam was the world’s worst fascist.”
Historically I venture to say Saddam was not in the same fascist league as Hitler etc.
I would also say, partly from personal experience that the Saudi regime is largely Fascist. No doubt you will defend it until such time as it is no longer compliant and then it too will turn into the “world’s worst fascist”.
Dalec
dalec, (sigh), when Saddam was hiding in that hole – he was already defeated. Thanks to the Iraqi people and their allies who provided the necessary superior military force.
The region hasn’t been the same since but, hey, the overthrow of the region’s worst tyrant could not possibly have had any influence whatsoever on subsequent events, despite what Saad Eddin Ibrahim, one of the finest intellectual leaders of the Egyptian revolution, might say: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061404435.html
Barry, I note that Saddam has now been downgraded from ” world’s worst fascist” to “region’s worst tyrant”. I agree with that description of him when he was in power.
Now the elephabnt in the kitchen when it comes to Fascism in the ME is Saudi Arabia.
How come you never mention those really nice guys in the Saudi Royal family? Oh of course, they are buddies with the Bush family and thus beyond criticism.
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/05/fascism-in-the-gulf-%E2%80%93-an-analysis-by-dr-lawrence-davidson/
Dalec
dalec, I really think I’ve used the term ‘fascist’ often enough with Saddam Hussein – ‘tyrant’, ‘fascist’, ‘overthrown by the Iraqi people and their allies who provided the required superior military force’… you’d get the drift by now.
The Saudi Royal family opposed the US led war against the Iraqi dictator.
I think Nick Cohen has summed up the political Hitchens eloquently and fairly accurately, strengths and weaknesses, he has nailed it:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/354227
say no more
“say no more”, Hitchens would disagree there
> to see Mao Zedong relegated like a despot of antiquity
Yes, that is Hitchens too, but I’ve never seen any real analysis to back it, always just the throwaway line. I’ve always seen the cultural revolution as a fight against totalitarianism. I’d recommend Mobo Gao’s The Battle for China’s Past (review) for a comprehensive reply to most of Mao’s critics.
Via Marc Cooper.
http://platypus1917.org/2009/03/15/going-it-alone-christopher-hitchens-and-the-death-of-the-left/
The Platypus article is a good find Tom, that Hitchens remained at the relative high point of The Enlightenment but that somehow we need to transcend that. The Marc Cooper link is interesting too: http://marccooper.com/remembering-christopher/
There is a basis in the Platypus, Spencer A. Leonard piece, for anyone who still has the knowledge and energy to engage with this:
chimerical = existing only as the product of unchecked imagination
The above is said without supporting analysis but I did notice this from Marc Cooper:
My thinking, or the argument that initially helped persuade me to support the Iraq war was that if Mao could unite with Chiang Kai-shek against Japan (and retain independence), after Chiang’s forces had murdered 90% of the communist party in 1927, then, yes, it was possible to unite with Bush to defeat Saddam provided that Bush’s underlying motivation was to establish democracy in Iraq (and not a puppet regime). In turn, based on the analysis that previous US policy had failed, demonstrated by 9/11, and that it was very plausible that the neo-cons were initiating a new path, supporting democracy in the Middle East as the best strategy for the declining US imperialism. This analysis has been verified as fundamentally correct by subsequent events. As for retaining independence, Hitchens did that, his highly effective demonstration that water boarding was torture being one example of that. I’m sure this could be argued better, that Hitchens was not perfect, that we are not perfect, that the Iraq government is far from perfect, but the fundamentals of the analysis are sound and have stood the test of the unfolding of real world events.
“I knew that the Bush administration were the wrong people to trust on this matter and I wanted no part of it.”
I have always thought that this argument about not trusting X, (politicians the ruling class etc.) to carry out the policy/war as a justification for not supporting the Iraq intervention/united front policies is spurious at best. It is rather like refusing to look at a solution that is based upon actual circumstances thereby relegating one’s position to the ether, and irrelevance of whingeing.ie based upon idealism and not materialism and therefore cannot possibly serve other than to hamper proletarian interests.
Christopher Hitchens never outgrew his anti-Stalinism/Maoism, he would have been much greater if he had explored this rather than knee-jerking it. At least he had the guts to step away when it was unpopular over the Iraq mk2, but he never really worked out the wrongness of his position on Kuwait. It is a pity there are not more contrarians in the media and telling people what they don’t want to hear – Christopher Hitchens’ family can be proud of his legacy despite his flaws and the bleating of his critics.
Hitchens as several detailed pages (far too much to quote) in Hitch-22 about how his ideas changed in the course of the before and after of Saddam’s Kuwait invasion. I think he did work out that he was wrong about Kuwait. Reading his recollections reminds me that the decision of who to support then was complex and difficult. His for and against argument with himself makes interesting reading. To a degree it does revolve his growing realisation that Saddam was the world’s worst living fascist then.
Bill I find it strange that you would take comfort in the work of Mobo Gao. So you think it a defense of Mao that when his policies were in charge ie the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution that these were the only periods post revolution where the economy went backwards.
You think it a defense to say well at worst during the Great Leap the death rates only returned to pre revolution levels ie the Levels set by the loving care of the Japanese army and various war lords.
Gao is keen that we blame Mao no more than we would blame Yeltsin for overseeing a stagering rise in early deaths after the fall of the USSR but clearly the policies followed by Yeltsin were responsible. Why not blame them both?
In China during the Great Leap there was starvation and the Chinese leadership not only lied about it they were exporting basic food stuffs while it was happening and if anyone complained about the situation they could easily find themselves dead.
That is the type of socialism you endorse. It was the type of Socialism that Hitchens found so repugnant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Steve,
My point about Hitchens and Mao is that Hitchens condemns Mao not because he has studied Mao or what really happened in China but by extrapolation from an analysis he made about the Russian revolution, where he eventually came to the conclusion that Lenin’s whole project was doomed from the start. Hitchens just lost interest in the whole socialist project, the notion that a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the forms that might take, was necessary to overthrow capitalism became repugnant to him and so his bottom line became opposition to totalitarianism and fascism in general. I think the Platypus article (Hitchens and the death of the left) by Spencer A. Leonard in the section “Hitchens’s Marxism” makes a start in analysing these issues.
wrt Mobo Gao’s analysis of the Great Leap Forward. Mobo Gao says that the GLF was a mistake, that Mao bore the primary responsibility, that Mao criticised himself for the mistake, that Mao picked up the mistake and tried to correct it before other members of the leadership did, that he challenged the lies and statistical exaggeration and struggled against others who were promoting this. Your description of what Mobo Gao says is not accurate and I conclude that you have not read his book. You also say things about what the “Chinese leadership” did without acknowledging the struggle going on there, which did later lead to the Cultural Revolution as an attempt to overcome top down authoritarian leadership. You also seem to imply that the Chinese economy went backwards whenever Mao was in charge of it, which is just weird. Suggest you read Mobo Gao’s book Steve.
Bill I can do no more than quote Mobo Gao in my “weird” attempt to link Mao to economy going backwards. “except for the Great Leap Forward years of 1959 and 1960 and the Cultural Revolution years of 1967 and 1968, Chinese ecenomic growth was not only steady but also out paced most developing countries”
Bill when Mao was at his most influential the economy did go backwards despite his efforts to rocket the economy forward.
Bill you cant get past the fact that when people were starving China was exporting food. A system that does that is a totalitarian system.
Exporting food during a famine.
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=69&catid=2#400
Look Bill I understand your problem that being that the Chinese Communist Party has never acknowledged that there was a famine. Maoists have always skoffed at the idea that a famine could have occurred when the party was saying that no more than food shortages had occurred and that these were delt with. If you were to acknowledge a famine it well it would mean calling Mao a liar.
Well, Steve, the thread is about Hitchens.
Hitchens knew how to read a book, would notice that when quoting from a book that the quote in fact supported the argument of his adversary ( “except for the Great Leap Forward years of 1959 and 1960 and the Cultural Revolution years of 1967 and 1968, Chinese economic growth was not only steady but also out paced most developing countries”), he would have a better appraisal of what totalitarian means than you do, he would know better than to provide links to hate sites as evidence (especially when the book in question is devoted mainly to rebuttal of those of those sorts of distortions) and he wouldn’t place words in the mouth of his opponents and then deride them for things they have never said, he would rely on their actual arguments and respond to them. We’ll never know how Hitchens would respond to Mobo Gao but I do know that he would do a better job than you.
Bill one of us doesnt understand what Mobo Gao means.
Also I think that I have a clear understanding of what Hitchens means when he says that he is critical of totalitarians
To quote Hitchens “I have one consistency, which is [being] against totalitarianism- on the left and the right. The totalitarian to me, is the enemy- the one thats absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head….”
Bill Mao ran a totalitarian regimen. People who had bad thoughts were sent to re education camps. If re education failed execution could and did follow. This is exactly the type of totalitarian regimen that Hitchens described as his enemy.
back to Hitchens
http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/04/christopher-hitchens-endorses-chinese.html
Steve, I searched for those Hitchens quotes, which are not linked, on the web and couldn’t find them anywhere else. They are not really consistent with Hitchen’s general position of opposition to what he describes as totalitarianism. For all I know they could be fabrications and in the absence of further evidence I would regard them in that way.
Heres an article that contains the same quote. Its not the article I took it from as you can imagine I do a mountain of reading and where I origionally got stuff from is not always at my finger tips any how this article you can use to put it in the column on non fabricated
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/christopher-hitchens-in-interview-with-richard-dawkins-totalitarian-is-rooted-in-theocracy/12568.htm
Bill after knowing me for 30 years I thought that you would realise that I might make mistakes but I don’t make things up. Anyhow heres the article I took the quote from its the third blocked section.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/christopher-hitchens-final-interview-catholic-church-christian-charities-and-totalitarianism/
Steve, In the original link you posted http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/04/christopher-hitchens-endorses-chinese.html the following quotations are attributed to Hitchens. I can’t see them in the 2 subsequent links you have provided.
It’s just anti-atheist made up stuff from a weird religious site. btw I never accused you of making stuff up, rather you are just quoting from a site that makes stuff up. Hitchens wouldn’t say “Mao is right – religion is poison”. He was rather good with words and didn’t have to use the authority of someone he despised to make his point about religion. Your lack of understanding of Hitchens parallels your lack of understanding about Mao.
correction: not “you are just quoting from a site that makes stuff up.” but:
you are just linking to a site that makes stuff up.
Bill I cant find any cross reference for the Hitchens “quote” about Tibet. The other quote about Hitchens and totalitarians can also be found at the New Statesman.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/hitchens-amis-totalitarian
Full quote here I hope
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/dawkins-hitchens-catholic
Now Bill will you accept that the totalitarian quote is real even though you who “understand” Hitchens stated that “They are not really consistent with Hitchen’s general position of opposition to what he describes as totalitarianism.”
Steve, the link you initially provided was http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/04/christopher-hitchens-endorses-chinese.html
It does not contain the totalitarian quote and I never disputed that that quote came from Hitchens. I have provided you with 2 made up quotes from that article, which are the only quotes attributed to Hitchens there. The Dawkins quote in that article is obviously a crude fabrication as well.
Bill you stated that you had searched for the quotes that were not linked. Seeing that I had provided a link to the tibet quote I thought that you must be talking about the quote I gave without a link seeing that you mentioned the quotes that were not linked.
I am happy that you have exposed the linked quote as probably bogus and am also happy that you think that the totalitarian quote is genuine and reflect what type of totalitarian he was opposed to. The religious type and the left wing type ie Mao.
for those that get my popular culture asides, say no more.
Yeah my bad that link to Hitchens on Tibet was an April fools joke.
Bill you state that I dont understand Hitchens and that I dont understand Mao. You are correct. How could I understand Mao. He lead a peasant army in an attempt to transend feudalism and warlordism. My life experiences are light years away from this stuff. He supported the invasion of Hungary and I dont understand why. He ordered people to create thousands of useless steel furnaces with no metalurgical knowledge ad I dont understand why. He exported food during the great leap famine and I dont understand why. He imprisoned the second highest ranking communist in China and let him die of medical neglect and I dont understand why.
As to Hitchens my life experiences are much more similar. His father defended the empire during WW2, so did mine. His father was in the royal navy based at Scapa Flow as was mine. His father did it from the bridge while my dad did it from the boiler room with a shovel in his hand.
In Hitch 22 where he goes through the authors that influenced him I go dito. Orwell was and is my favourite, Owen, Sassoon, Heller, Hemmingway, Remarque, Fitzgerald and Graves. However he does leave me cold with Graham Greene and Oscar Wilde. Really does anyone get Wilde, I dont.
We were both members of the International Socialist Tendancy and both left for similar reasons.
So I have some contextual reasons to understand Hitchens and I do understand that his opposition to fascism trumps everthing else but my point of departure is that anti fascism doesnt trump good sense.
Argentina may have been fascist but the Faulkland Islands will eventually come under Argentinian sovereignty. Thatcher could and did kill many young Argentinians but its a struggle against history.
Iraq may have been ruled by fascists but an invasion was unlikely to result in a democratic society. Whatever the outcome, at the time decisions were taken a democratic outcome was not on the cards.
PS Hitchens and I are great fans of Bob Dylan. AS with Orwell I once owned most of his works.
Bill I was wondering where you stand on the Falklands war, a war that killed or wounded almost as many people as it liberated, was it worth it? I was in England shortly after and the jingoistic nationalism as Hitchens mentions in Hitch 22 was pretty sickening.
Looking forward to reading what was your position and what it is now.
I particularly liked the section in Hitch 22 where Christopher talks about road to Damascus conversions. His examples were good and his explanation plausable. He could have left out all that apparently hilarious stuff about him and his friends substituting words like cunt for words like man. That really was drivel and after all these years he still thinks it funny.
Decca Aikenhead did some interesting interviews with him although I didnt find the quote that Guy Rundel refers to in his piece
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/9081/
Its gut churning to hear that David Cameron is standing by the inalienable right of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. So if your in the Atlantic you have rights but if your in the Indian Ocean well just fuck off you dirty little foreigner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia