Hitchens blasts Chomsky...

[Terminator X]

...and re-affirms his status as a reactionary Islamophobic warhawk. Why do people continue to give this guy the time of day?



It's no criticism of Chomsky to say that his analysis is inconsistent with that of other individuals and factions who essentially think that 9/11 was a hoax. However, it is remarkable that he should write as if the mass of evidence against Bin Laden has never been presented or could not have been brought before a court. This form of 9/11 denial doesn't trouble to conceal an unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society. After all, as Chomsky phrases it so tellingly, our habit of "naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk … [is] as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes 'Jew' and 'Gypsy.' " Perhaps this is not so true in the case of Tomahawk, which actually is the name of a weapon, but the point is at least as good as any other he makes.



In short, we do not know who organized the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or any other related assaults, though it would be a credulous fool who swallowed the (unsupported) word of Osama Bin Laden that his group was the one responsible. An attempt to kidnap or murder an ex-president of the United States (and presumably, by extension, the sitting one) would be as legally justified as the hit on Abbottabad. And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn't even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade.


http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/

[Robocommie]

At least he didn't wait till Chomsky died to start talking smack on him. That prick.

[Sir Comradical]

Next to Chomsky, Hitchens is an intellectual midget.

[Revolutionair]

Next to Chomsky, Hitchens is an intellectual midget.

Not really. Next to Chomsky, Hitchens is nothing, absolutely nothing. Hitchens just goes for the shock-value to get airtime.

[GPDP]

Hitchens is like the political equivalent of an internet troll.

[Terminator X]

Seems like the "New Atheists" are trying to out-stupid each other this week.

Dawkins is still ahead of Hitchens, but it's neck and neck. I guess the outcome all depends on whether Hitchens takes another hit off his medical marijuana and downs another half-bottle of scotch before burping up another half-assed abortion of an article consisting of nothing but tearing down strawmen.

But seriously, didn't Hitchens used to idolize Chomsky?

[~Spectre]

Hasn't Chomsky kicked his ass enough over the last decade? Anyway it's merely a cry for attention. When Hitchens went full Neocon, he started it in an article calling out Chomsky's initial 9-11 reactions.

Hitchens however is practically incoherent at this point. Seriously, that article was :|

1. "Moral equivalence" ---> In response to Chomsky asking how Americans would react to similar raid carried out against George Bush. Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see a moral question there.


2. "Chomsky thinks it's anyones guess who did it and the question of evidence against Bin Laden"

That's simply a lie and a strawman. Chomsky has stated that he personally believes in the allegations, but that surmise != due process.

3. Lacing in every other paragraph with 9/11 truther positions. It makes for a horrible read, but his intent with that is clear. Hitchens is trying to associate Chomsky with these imaginary positions in the minds of whatever 2 or 3 people might still take Hitchens seriously.

4. That Chomsky said "the U.S. is an incarnation of the 3rd reich". This is just a lie. One can compare Aspects of X with aspects of Y, without implying that X=y.

Other than that, I can't figure out what the rest of the article is about. Just a lot of shouting and word vomit.

I'm not sure what's more responsible for his decline as a writer at this point. The cancer, or the mental rotting that comes from writing a decades worth of neocon propaganda.

[~Spectre]

Seems like the "New Atheists" are trying to out-stupid each other this week.

Dawkins is still ahead of Hitchens, but it's neck and neck. I guess the outcome all depends on whether Hitchens takes another hit off his medical marijuana and downs another half-bottle of scotch before burping up another half-assed abortion of an article consisting of nothing but tearing down strawmen.

But seriously, didn't Hitchens used to idolize Chomsky?

Hitchens used to literally refer to him as "the great Noam Chomsky".

[csquared]

Hitchens is a marxist now, by the way

[Sir Comradical]

Hitchens admires both Orwell and George Bush. Talk about Orwellian double think. There was also a pretty good debate on youtube where Hitchens got his ass handed to him by Tariq Ali.

[RadioRaheem84]

Damn, Hitch is still trying to get Chomsky?

Is he still sore about the ass kicking he received after 9/11?

He is presuming so much right wing junk himself! He is literally saying that the US cannot be compared to anything except a moral, upstanding bastion of freedom.

He is out and out reactionary now. Plain and simple.

I know that Chomsky isn't going to reply but I hope he does, just to really give it to this idiotic bourgeois prick.

[Dumb]

Hitchens admires both Orwell and George Bush. Talk about Orwellian double think. There was also a pretty good debate on youtube where Hitchens got his ass handed to him by Tariq Ali.

I also enjoyed Hitchens' debate with George Galloway, in which Galloway called Hitchens "the first recorded instance in human history of evolution from a butterfly into a slug."

As for Orwell & Bush...there are a lot of people who mistakenly portray Orwell as a man of the right.

[bailey_187]

both of these articles seem pretty shit tbh, they dont really seem to say much

predictable "moral equivalence" from Chomsky, expectable attack by Hitchen

[bailey_187]

Hitchens admires both Orwell and George Bush. Talk about Orwellian double think. There was also a pretty good debate on youtube where Hitchens got his ass handed to him by Tariq Ali.

since when did he admire Bush?

[Sir Comradical]

since when did he admire Bush?

He said something once about how people who hate Bush are morons.

[Sir Comradical]

I also enjoyed Hitchens' debate with George Galloway, in which Galloway called Hitchens "the first recorded instance in human history of evolution from a butterfly into a slug."

As for Orwell & Bush...there are a lot of people who mistakenly portray Orwell as a man of the right.

That debate was good, but Galloway relied too much on rhetoric and emotion. I enjoy debates where our guy responds with facts. I like the Finkelstein approach to debate.

[bailey_187]

He said something once about how people who hate Bush are morons.

the "bush is so dumb hurr durr" jokes are kind of tedious now

[graymouser]

since when did he admire Bush?
Hitchens spent most of 2004 waffling around a critical endorsement of Bush, giving it and then taking an "in between" position, which had the effect of pushing his column from The Nation to Vanity Fair.

For folks who weren't in the thick of it at that time, the anti-war movement from 2003 to 2007 really viscerally hated Bush, and Hitchens really came out quite venomously against them. His move rightward was long and torturous, and involved a lot of bile spewed out against the left while trying to project the image of a "pro-war left."

[Obs]

I love it when two people I can't stand duke it out.

[Tim Finnegan]

Hitchens is a marxist now, by the way
Hitchens was a Marxist, but he drifted firmly into the camp of liberal interventionism- that pleasant suburb of bourgeois imperialism- a long time ago. He'll occasionally pull out some claim of "I'm sort-of-a-Marxist" to shock or impress, an attempt to make people think "*gasp* Who is this great magi, who can embody so many apparent contradictions?".There's no substance to it.

Niall Ferguson does the same thing, which should tell you all you need to know about the sort of personality that's drawn to it, .

[RadioRaheem84]

since when did he admire Bush?

It's his praise for Bush you needn't worry about, comrade.

It's his praise for Paul Wolfowitz and the Neo-Con cabal you need to worry about.

He lavished them with the upmost respect and kept on telling people of the left that they need to be more like them.

So in essence, he was telling people to swing right wing in order to be left wing!

[Chimurenga.]

Hitchens needs to just go ahead and die already.

[Robocommie]

Hitchens was a Marxist, but he drifted firmly into the camp of liberal interventionism- that pleasant suburb of bourgeois imperialism- a long time ago. He'll occasionally pull out some claim of "I'm sort-of-a-Marxist" to shock or impress, an attempt to make people think "*gasp* Who is this great magi, who can embody so many apparent contradictions?".There's no substance to it.

As I understand it, he feels that he's a genuine Marxist in the sense that Marx could not have predicted the developmental power of globalization... He's completely full of shit, though. He's a centre-left intellectual snob.

[L.A.P.]

He's a centre-left intellectual snob.

I wouldn't even say he's that.

[RadioRaheem84]

As I understand it, he feels that he's a genuine Marxist in the sense that Marx could not have predicted the developmental power of globalization... He's completely full of shit, though. He's a centre-left intellectual snob.

He is such an opportunist.

There is another Marxist who likes to say that shit. His name is Meghnad Desai, and he was literally almost booed off stage in a panel discussion with David Harvey for his reactionary denunciation of the ML States, the 60s movements and the left in general, and went so far as to say that we should look at globalization "development power" with reverent awe as Marx would.

I really hate this rank opportunism among some people on the left and their desperation to be accepted into the mainstream.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Hitchens comes across as a "new-age Stalinist" to me.

[~Spectre]

This guy destroys Hitchens over this piece: http://lhote.blogspot.com/2011/05/christopher-hitchens-is-full-of-shit.html


In this weird, weaselly attempt at a takedown of Noam Chomsky (http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/), Christopher Hitchens describes 9/11 Truthers as "impatient with innuendo." Here, I must confess, is something the Truthers and I share. I too am impatient with innuendo, which is why I find this latest execrable column so exhausting. The crux of the thing is that Hitchens wants to accuse Chomsky of being a) a Truther and b) an apologist for 9/11, so he dances and feints and hints and suggests, without actually accusing-- in short, he does exactly what he accuses Chomsky of doing.

He doesn't actually accuse Chomsky of these outright for the sensible reason that Chomsky is neither a Truther nor an apologist for 9/11. The problem is that he does not then do the responsible thing and refrain from intimating that Chomsky is one but rather undertakes one of the more cowardly and evasive performances of writing in recent memory. Hitchens is guilty of a whole panoply of sins, none more tragic than the utter absence of a self-critical process and none more glaring than being wrong about just about everything, but rarely before have I known him to be so guilty of cowardice. Say what you mean.



The public record, in which Chomsky has recorded his opinions on every political question imaginable-- because he is asked-- would quickly yield the perspectives Hitchens is looking for. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc) is Chomsky refuting 9/11 conspiracy theories in about the least vague terms imaginable. You might consider the entire book (http://www.amazon.com/9-11-10th-Anniversary-Noam-Chomsky/dp/1609803434/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1304972725&sr=8-3) that Chomsky published about 9/11 for repeated and consistent denials of the morality of killing innocent civilians on 9/11. This stuff isn't hard to find. Hitchens writes, "It's no criticism of Chomsky to say that his analysis is inconsistent with that of other individuals and factions who essentially think that 9/11 was a hoax." If this is his admission that Chomsky is not a Truther, it's as weird and awkwardly constructed as I can imagine, which I guess is the point. He then says "However, it is remarkable that he should write as if the mass of evidence against Bin Laden has never been presented or could not have been brought before a court." It's remarkable? I find it demonstrably unremarkable, considering that, well, the mass of evidence against bin Laden has never been formally presented in a legal setting-- the way we answer questions of crime and legality, or we did, when we were the society of our ideals.

[Obs]

Hitchens comes across as a "new-age Stalinist" to me.

Care to elaborate or are you just throwing around buzzwords?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Care to elaborate or are you just throwing around buzzwords?

His support for nationalistic military and foreign policy, the idea that he still holds, as he claims, some marxist views, his support for authoritarian domestic policy, all coupled with his "ex-Trotskyism". Makes me feel this way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hitchens was a Marxist, but he drifted firmly into the camp of liberal interventionism- that pleasant suburb of bourgeois imperialism- a long time ago. He'll occasionally pull out some claim of "I'm sort-of-a-Marxist" to shock or impress, an attempt to make people think "*gasp* Who is this great magi, who can embody so many apparent contradictions?".There's no substance to it.

Niall Ferguson does the same thing, which should tell you all you need to know about the sort of personality that's drawn to it, .

I don't think Hitchens was a Marxist to begin with. When your past history was in an organization that backed really, really reactionary groups for the sake of "anti-imperialism" and in effect giving cover to imperialist backers, well...

At best he was/is a New Leftist.

[~Spectre]

I don't think anyone ever really knew Christopher Hitchens. It's gotten to the point where I'd have to check with my i.d. card, if he ever called me by my name.

[Chicxulub]

Yeah, and Hitchens is a right-wing bigoted western-chauvinist piece of shit, not worthy to lick the heel of my shoe.


next.

[Chicxulub]

Hitchens comes across as a "new-age Stalinist" to me.

I don't even know how Stalin and Hitchens can even fit into the same sentence. You seem to have a strange obsession with Stalin, judging by your prattling in the last thread about Stalin.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't even know how Stalin and Hitchens can even fit into the same sentence. You seem to have a strange obsession with Stalin, judging by your prattling in the last thread about Stalin.

I have an obsession, yet your only example of me talking about him is in a Stalin thread.... Ok...

It's just the way he comes across to me. Maybe not labelling him a Stalinist, but an authoritarian, pro military, nationalistic leftist would not hurt your feelings for the mighty Stalin?

[Robocommie]

I have an obsession, yet your only example of me talking about him is in a Stalin thread.... Ok...

It's just the way he comes across to me. Maybe not labelling him a Stalinist, but an authoritarian, pro military, nationalistic leftist would not hurt your feelings for the mighty Stalin?

Dude I think the most concise term for you to use is "imperialist."

[Robocommie]

I don't think Hitchens was a Marxist to begin with. When your past history was in an organization that backed really, really reactionary groups for the sake of "anti-imperialism" and in effect giving cover to imperialist backers, well...

You mean he was Mao? ZING!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Dude I think the most concise term for you to use is "imperialist."

I'm not so sure. It comes down to an imperialist is an imperialist, but methods differ.

[#FF0000]

wait i thought hitchens was dead.

this ruined my day :(

[Robocommie]

wait i thought hitchens was dead.

this ruined my day :(

If you hate him enough, it's good news; it means he's still suffering.

[GPDP]

wait i thought hitchens was dead.

this ruined my day :(


If you hate him enough, it's good news; it means he's still suffering.

Guys, I hate to be a total downer, but given what we were arguing in the thread about prisons, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be wishing suffering upon a simple-minded schmuck like Hitchens?

I know it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek comment and all, but still.

[Robocommie]

Guys, I hate to be a total downer, but given what we were arguing in the thread about prisons, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be wishing suffering upon a simple-minded schmuck like Hitchens?

I know it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek comment and all, but still.

No, it is hypocritical, but my comment really was meant to be wholly darkly ironic. ;)

What would make me most happy would be to see Chris Hitchens make an amazing recovery and then become a hardcore, Castro-loving liberation theologian.

[#FF0000]

Guys, I hate to be a total downer, but given what we were arguing in the thread about prisons, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be wishing suffering upon a simple-minded schmuck like Hitchens?

I know it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek comment and all, but still.

i thought about this just before i posted.

still posted.

i'm a bad person ._.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You mean he was Mao? ZING!

No, he was a member of the SWP and a cheerleader for Islamists against the Soviet-supported Afghan National-Democratic Revolution.

[Tim Finnegan]

If you hate him enough, it's good news; it means he's still suffering.
Oh, mate, no, no, too far. :(


I don't even know how Stalin and Hitchens can even fit into the same sentence.
"I hate Hitchens and Stalin." Easy peasy! ;)

[Agnapostate]

Any impression that Chomsky believes "the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society" is a consequence of the nation-state-as-person metaphor that he reflects in his use of the possessive pronoun "our," despite the fact that Sam, Dick, and Harry had little influence on the creation of government policies. As Ward Churchill pointed out, certain "technocrats of empire" in the World Trade Center can be said to be partially responsible for infrastructural support of government policies, and the Pentagon, as the Department of Defense headquarters, obviously contains a considerable amount of people responsible for the creation and administrative implementation of certain military policies and practices.