Posted on 09/30/2005 10:00:18 PM PDT by churchillbuff
How did this piece slip into the American Unconservative? For Pat Buchanan, neocon is nothing more than a code word for GOP Jews.
At least Buchanan has never written the kind of hateful bigoted anti-religious crap that Hitchens has written (and that is extensively documented in this article; yet Hitchens - an open bigot - is toated by many on freerepublic. I don't get it.
NAILED it! ping
If adversity to religion is considered, you can find a plethora of people right here at FR who are extremely hostile to Christianity. Therefore, this author would condemn them, too, like he did Hitchens, right?
Like David Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens knows the Left inside and out. Therefore I find him very useful.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
The words Hitchens had for President Reagan upon his passing were despicable. I haven't cared too much for his input since then.
A really good read, the Bolsheviks were really a sad lot.
Unlike Horowitz, Hitchens spat on Reagan's memory, the Pope's and Mother Theresa. He's a low-life communist (as if there were any other kind). This article also implies he's ok with the communists' mass murder of priests and religious. You may find such a person "useful," I find him revolting.
Hmm. I admit to not knowing much about Hitchens but his name.
But I admit, I watched him completely evicerate Galloway in that debate they had, and...I didn't know the guy was a Trotskyite...
Hell, I nearly thought of him as a personal hero the way he stuck a pin in that bag of obnoxious hot air, Galloway...
I know there are a few atheists on this forum. According to you, are they Bolsheviks too?
You beat me to that answer :)
I am a Reagan conservative and worked for him when he ran for Gov.
I will support Hitchens over Buchanan any day.
This is really quite a good and insightful piece. I have liked Hitchens ever since he came out slugging somewhere in the middle of Clinton's reign of terror. I was always aware of his Leftist "past" and how much of it he still carried/carries around with him, but this essay really dealt with it all comprehensively and chronologically. Hitch is so powerful a spokesman for "the Right" to some degree BECAUSE he still has within himself sizable quantities of Leftist conceit, duplicity, and wishful thinking. Leaving some of this baggage behind is a process Hitchens will go through as a way of dealing with himself as an engaged intellectual in the postwar European sense, alive in this moment of history.I have full faith that he will change and change some more, as the author also shows he does, in his final sentences. What I would really like to see is a debate between Hitchens and David Horowitz , also a former Leftist who has more thoroughly shed his bad habits of thought and mind than Hitchens has. It will probably never happen, because it would lapse into too much subtlety too quickly to be of interest to more than a few hundred people in the English=speaking world. For the time being, we will have to be content to see how Hitchens currently deals with the likes of George Galloway, with Galloway serving as a stand-in for the nearly dead Hitchens of the past, who remembers that some of his allegiances and judgements about the geopolitical scene were not always as "Right" as the ones he holds today.
How could I forget, last time Buchanan ran for President
he had for a running mate a known Marxist.
I saw your #9 after I wrote my #13. Imagine the current ( and probably OVER) Hitchens-Galloway matches as perfectly suited to Hitchens dealing with those parts of himself that are changing, in an ongoing dialogue "with himself".
You have a source for that bit of information, I'm sure. (And don't say, "Everybody knows that!"
And the sight of Pat Buchanan's mouthpiece calling someone "bigoted" is pretty hilarious.
And, by the way, the article is about Hitchens, not Pat Buchanan. As far as I know, neither is running for anything so you won't have to decide whom to "support."
Did you read the article? Hitchens is a true Bolshevik - an apologist for the Soviet Union, somebody who condemned Reagan for standing up to the communists. Also, he's not just an atheist, he hates christianity, and according to this article, he seems to sympathize or support the communists' mass murders of christians. IF that's ok by you, we'll have to agree to disagree (to put it mildly)
But Hitchens kept referring to his credentials as an Internationalist, which, since everyone here is into "code words", means Trotskyite.
So he admits it, and does so in an approving manner about aggressive war, as long as it's for "a good cause".
All doubts about what he really stands for were erased for me by that. No one should think that it's just name calling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.