Hitchens's inconvenient past
Stuart Reid 5:46pm
It is good for the soul to be reminded what a sharp and funny writer Christopher Hitchens was in the days before he collapsed under the weight of his own pomposity. Over the weekend, to take my mind off the excitement in Westminster, I picked up his 1988 collection, Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports, which contains among many other good things his reflections on the ‘pseudoscientific propaganda word’ terrorism. The essay is called 'Wanton Acts of Usage' and appeared in Harper's in September 1986. You can find it here (subscription required).
The piece makes hilarious reading today in the light of Hitchens's enthusiasm for the war on terror (and scorn for those who oppose it). Money quote: ‘What is frightening and depressing is that a pseudoscientific propaganda word like terrorism has come to have such a hypnotic effect on public debate in the United States. A word which originated with the most benighted opponents of the French Revolution; a word featured constantly in the antipartisan communiques of the Third Reich; a word which is a commonplace in the handouts of the Red Army in Afghanistan and the South African army in Namibia; a word which was in everyday use during the decline of the British, French, Portuguese, and Belgian empires. Should we not wary of a term with which rulers fool themselves and by which history is abolished and language debased? Don't we fool and console ourselves enough as it is?’
Uh-oh. The consensus is that Hitchens has changed his politics. He hasn’t. He still wants worldwide revolution, but now believes that imperial America is the best delivery vehicle. George W. Bush’s ‘global democratic revolution’ has all but destroyed Christianity in Iraq, which is more than the poor old atheistic communists were able to do in Poland. Now more than ever Sir Christopher Hitchens is driven by his hatred of the God he does not believe in. No wonder he is hot for the Prez and his war.
Previous
Alex
October 8th, 2007 7:33pm Report this commentThis constant need of critics to claim athiest writers like Hitchens are hopelessly angry and blinded by rage is quite pathetic. However much disdain Hitchens may have for religion he'd never advocate it's violent removal. Your example is especially stupid since the decline of Christianity in Iraq is a result of the rise of a more militant Islam, which Hitchens dislikes just as much. And I can't tell if this is simply you being wrong or you're trying to make him seem pompous, but he's not a knight either. If you're going to have a go with a writer that, despite what you think, is still at the top of his game is it too much to ask you get the basics right?
John Lang
October 9th, 2007 1:35am Report this commentCheap shots, Mr. Reid. You take it as read that grouping someone with Bush is the ultimate put-down. That's a bit odd, as is your suggestion that it is Hitchens' hatred of God draws him to Bush. That don't scan either.
Max Kaye
October 9th, 2007 10:13am Report this commentI really didn't understand what your rant was all about.
Well, well
October 9th, 2007 10:21am Report this commentHitch the flip-flopper. I love how those defending here probably thought he was the worst kind of radical ten years ago.
Philip Neal
October 9th, 2007 7:12pm Report this commentIt is very true that Hitchens is not what he was when he used for the Spectator. But then some of us remember a time when the Spectator, like Hitchens, was wittier, more intelligent and cooler towards American policy in the Middle East than either is today.
Finbar
October 10th, 2007 12:47am Report this commentThe stp[idist comment is that the Americans destroyed the Christians in Iraq. how about blamiing the Muslim fundamentalits, who have been attacking, hounding and destroying the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrains, Buddhists, Hindus, and yes, atheists, in their midst for some time. Saddam kept them in check, but not for altruistic reasons.
NJ Murdoch
October 11th, 2007 11:33am Report this commentAnother pathetic attempt to smear Hitchens. He's still the best polemicist writing today, by a mile. Christopher Hitchens:"One word that I think probably has totally exhausted its usefulness is terror or terrorism. Peter Robinson: On account of? Christopher Hitchens: On account of its in-definability. It's not just that you can find groups that you consider terrorists that the administration isn't combating, but you could find groups that it is combating that are not terrorists. And so I think it's a word that's practically--look to say that the killing of three thousand civilians in New York is an act of terror is very much to understate what you're talking about. You're talking about nihilism or theocratically inspired murder. Terrorism is much too weak a word to describe such a thing. It's practically a euphemism--practically a euphemism now, it's not--it used to be an overstatement or propaganda term used to describe guerillas you don't like, now it's a euphemism--we're fighting theocratic fascism." http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2994996.html He has made similar remarks elswhere, and has criticised the use of the word "insurgents" to describe Baathists, jihadists and fascists too.
Back to top