Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
He was wrong about the war in Iraq but his real value (along with Cohen and Henri-Levi) was in questioning the Liberal-Left intelligentsia's all too easy opposition to it, and what the 'Left' might now mean as a consequence of the logic behind that opposition. Admittedly, Hitchens (along with Henri-Levi) could be a bit sensationalist in that critique but certainly a book like Cohen's 'What's Left?' asked some very poignant questions regarding the liberal ideology behind newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC. What's important is that none of them were attacking the Left in an effort to justify the actions and logic of the Right but were instead questioning (from their own Leftist standpoint) what they perceived as a liberal turn within a Left which they feel has betrayed a number of fundamental Leftist ideals in its knee jerk anti-Americanism as well as in its support (or more often refusal to criticise) any group (however reactionary or indeed ultra-Right wing) that also happens to share their anti-Americanism.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hitcho
I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view….I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost
|
I think the problem I have is that, while he's a good critic of the left, I don't think he's a good critic
from the left. Personally, while he may have been a firm critic of kneejerk leftisms, I think he fell into as many mindwrongs as the cosy (Graun) left does.
I quote the above to illustrate a point relating to yours - a lot of the anti-capitalist left (quietly) celebrated 9/11 as a deflation of vulgar capitalism; Hitchen celebrates it as a forbear to the dissolution of literalist cod-religion. Both positions are inadequate, to my mind (and of course, the problem with sublime acts is always their impossibility).
But he's a journo, a writer, not a philosopher - when he wrote provocative things, they're to be taken in that context. I don't think he's an amazing thinker but I think he was a necessary writer. And even so - that article Keep Poppin Pimples posted above is pretty vile, invidious and cheap. Not every writer shits gold, obvs.