Freedom Rider: Christopher Hitchens, White Man


by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

There was nothing witty, cute, or endearing about the late Christopher Hitchens, a racist to the core whose association with the Left served only to discredit it. “Beneath his mutterings against ‘Islamofascism’ he was nothing more than an angry white guy who wanted brown people to be conquered or dead.” A man of many prejudices but no real loyalties or principles, he flowed with the money. “Why toil away as a left winger known only within that smaller group, when more money and media attention awaited a cheer leader for pax Americana and white supremacy?”


Freedom Rider: Christopher Hitchens, White Man

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

In the end all his words amounted to nothing more than fighting for the rights of white people to control everyone else in the world.”

The British born writer Christopher Hitchens died of cancer last week. The outpouring of grief and praise for a man who can only be called a propagandist for barbaric ideologies may seem curious at first glance, but there is an ugly and logical explanation for the reaction.

Mr. Hitchens was for many years known as a leftist, a self-described Trotskyite. He wrote a column in The Nation magazine during that time, and was known for excoriating the likes of Henry Kissinger for the carnage he carried out in Vietnam and Southeast Asia that killed millions of people.

In more recent years Hitchens took a sharp turn in his writings and public statements and in the process became far more famous, and no doubt a lot richer. After the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Hitchens came out of the closet and presented himself to the world as a full blown neo-con, an unconditional supporter of the Bush administration’s aggressions. So great was his love for the Bushites that he took the citizenship oath in a naturalization ceremony presided over by Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.

Hitchens became a favorite of pundits, and with a body of prolific work and glib statements in the media, he was rarely out of the spotlight. Yet in the end all his words amounted to nothing more than fighting for the rights of white people to control everyone else in the world.

Hitchens came out of the closet and presented himself to the world as a full blown neo-con, an unconditional supporter of the Bush administration’s aggressions.”

Hitchens’ descent into support for western imperialism was, as George Galloway put it, a metamorphosis “from butterfly back into slug,” but it wasn’t as sudden as it seemed. Like most criminals, Hitchens showed his true side earlier on. In 1992 he was invited to attend a protest opposing the quincentenary celebration of Columbus’ arrival in the western hemisphere. Hitchens made it clear that he was not at all put off by the genocide of Indians and enslavement of Africans. As he put it, "1492 was a very good year and deserves to be celebrated with great vim and gusto." According to him, the coming of the European and the barbarity which ensued is just the way things happen, and in fact all for the betterment of humankind.

But those who view the history of North America as a narrative of genocide and slavery are, it seems to me, hopelessly stuck on this reactionary position. They can think of the Western expansion of the United States only in terms of plague blankets, bootleg booze and dead buffalo, never in terms of the medicine chest, the wheel and the railway . . . But it does happen to be the way that history is made, and to complain about it is as empty as complaint about climatic, geological or tectonic shift.”

In other words, it is part of the natural order of the universe for the world and its people to be under the rule of whites, with people of color preferably under their control whenever possible.

The political ascension of George W. Bush and the beginning of the war on terror was all the opening that Hitchens, a leftist poseur, needed. Why toil away as a left winger known only within that smaller group, when more money and media attention awaited a cheer leader for pax Americana and white supremacy?

Once again we see that the endless aggression is not really opposed by most Americans, and they prove it by lionizing the likes of the late Hitchens.”

His fans may argue with the assessment, calling his unqualified support of the Iraq occupation a “mistake,” when it was no such thing. Hitchens decided to make a living, a very good one, as a professional white man. Beneath his mutterings against “Islamofascism” he was nothing more than an angry white guy who wanted brown people to be conquered or dead.

The liberals who swooned over his British accent and his media savvy may not want to admit it, but they also admired his openly imperialist and indeed racist point of view. He claimed to be sickened by Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, but what he really wanted was for the Arabs to be subservient, in no position to question or to oppose the powerful white-run nations of the west. As for tyranny, if people who looked like him were carrying it out, it wasn’t so bad after all.

The bizarre levels of admiration on display for this man are symptomatic of a much larger problem. Once again we see that the endless aggression is not really opposed by most Americans, and they prove it by lionizing the likes of the late Hitchens. They too think that powerful white people have the right to lay waste to entire regions of the world and to the human beings within them. In fact, they don’t think that non-white people are really human beings with the rights they assume for themselves.

Hitchens may have been in the minority in publicly proclaiming the rightness of mass murder but that doesn’t mean he was alone. Now that he has passed away, it is clear that his ideas were loved by many people, who also hearken back to a time when white was openly declared right, and with ample doses of “vim and gusto” too.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)


You are not alone on the scoundrel Hitchens

Let's just hope God is merciful, Chris

By George Galloway on Dec 19, 11 08:21 AM in

WELL, he kens noo. I hope that the deceased, unbelieving English man of letters Christopher Hitchens has discovered that God is not only great but merciful too.

I had taken a self-denying ordinance over his demise at the weekend from osophageal cancer on the grounds that one should not speak ill of the recently dead and there would be nothing good to say about him considering the circumstances.

Two things forced me to shorten my purdah. The first was the way in which almost every one of the eulogies and profiles, in which I had declined to be represented on grounds of taste, nonetheless managed to attack me in the process of praising him.

The second was the sight of his friend Tony Blair, his voice catching with emotion in the "death of Diana way", telling us what a great man he was.

This canonisation of the departed by some of the worst hypocrites operating in the English language must be halted before it slithers any further.

Hitchens was the only-known case of a butterfly changing back into a slug.

He wrote like an angel but placed himself in the service of the devils.

He was a drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjay, the Englishman in New York who discovered there were large bundles of right-wing dollars available for apostates like him. If they were prepared to betray their friends, their principles and sell the soul he didn't believe he had in the first place.

Easy. As Groucho Marx once put it: "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

Thus, the man who once praised Saddam Hussein in adoration and opposed the first Gulf War when the Iraqi tyrant was still occupying Kuwait, was transformed into the main literary cheerleader for the second war.

And he was still blowing the weapons of mass destruction trumpet long after its tinny notes were discredited.

The man who once championed the Palestinian cause became a little echo for Benjamin Netanyahu, denouncing the 10 Turkish dead on the ship Mavi Marmara as "Hamas-sympathisers" who got what they asked for.

Sure his ditties were witty, his parsing precise and, if you like your men drunk, slurred and slobbering, he could be charming no doubt.

But when you're slobbering in support of the re-election of George W Bush for his catastrophic second term, or backing Bush's handling of the clean-up operation after Hurricane Katrina (where he was the only man in the country other than Bush who thought the Federal Emergency Agency was doing a "heck of a job") and you have written the script for the most disastrous massacre since Vietnam, I'm afraid literary pretence must be put in its proper place. Down the lavatory.

Hitchens and I shared the ring in an epic "Grapple in the Apple" back in 2005 in Manhattan.

Thousands of people queued around the block for ringside seats paying top dollar for the privilege. You can watch it on YouTube or wait for the DVD, with commentary and my updates, which I will produce shortly.

Ultimately, the real reason for the ­tear-stained eulogies from the British media commentariat for the late Mr Hitchens is that, by and large, the writers and editors are weeping for themselves.

They share his guilt over the Iraq War and deep inside they know it.

But all the salty tears in the world will not out that damned spot. The next reason is class.

Hitchens was a toff, a Lord. And the English-speaking world, it seems, still likes to love a Lord. 

Hitchens Proves Atheist 'Leftists' can also be White Supremacist

Chris Hedges wrote a piece called 'I Don't Believe in Atheists' where he called out New Age Atheists 'Gurus' Hitchens, Sam Harris [both of whom he had debated] & to a lesser extent Rich Dawkins [who he hadn't personally met]- & where his assessment of both Hitchens & Harris basically concurrs w everything that Sis Kimberley has outlined here.

If you google Chris Hedges vs Sam Harris debate, you'll see just how xenophobic / anti-Islamic Harris is. He completely distorts history vis-a-vis Jews & Christians / Jews & Muslims [especially pre 1900] to actually suggest that ALL Islam [IE: ALL Muslims] is & always was  hopelessly backward / violent / fanatical - but that modern [IE: euro-centric] advances in [western] science-technology & learning has civilized the Judeo-Christian [IE: Euro-American westernized] World- Which ALL Islam now wants to destroy, For NO Reason [He would be challegend by people as diverse as Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, Sis Cynthia McKinney, to Ray McGovern, Ron Paul & Alex Jones- on that false claim]. He then suggested that Islam must be totally eradicated [FYI: There are at least 1.5billion+ Muslims in the World & the belt of Islam stretches almost continuously from NW Africa {Morocco} - to South East Asia {Indonesia- which has the largest Islamic Population} - Thus most Muslims aren't Arabs] & even hinted that the US & the West should be prepared to use nukes to do it! Hedges goes on to say that Hitchens expressed similar racist / Anti-Islamic notions - which he describes as just as dangerously racist as anything that so-called 'born-again' Bush Jr or 'Christian' Racist Jerry Falwell has expressed!

Hedges point is well taken because there is a false idea being circulated in many so-called 'enlightened liberal' circles that every evil in the World is all because most people have fundamental Spiritual beliefs / believe in God  [generally referred to as religious folk], & that 'enlightened' [as in so-called science & logic based] Atheism is the True Path to 'Peace & Harmony' [IMO: sounds like they're replacing one Euro-Centric 'faith' / idea w another]! But Guys like Hitchens & Harris prove that this debate between so-called 'religious' folk [generally Euro-Christian in the US & EU ] & atheists Who ARE ALSO White Supremacists - IS A DISTRACTINGLY FALSE ARGUMENT for Folks of African &/or non-white Ancestory! Harris & Christopher Hitchens prove that an avowed atheist can be just as much rabidly pro-US / UK / Euro imperialist & white supremacist as that Catholic Christopher Columbus or that Protestant Christian slave owning George Washington!!!  

I've said it before & I'll repeat- One can't find any significant Afro-centric scholar(s), institution, society prior to 1500ACE [the point that Europeans left Europe in droves to conquer / pillage / destroy non-Euro peoples, lands & cultures] that espoused Atheism [which is basically just another Euro-centric idea]! -&- One would be hard pressed to find any prior to 1900ACE! Thus atheism, just like slave-oriented Euro-Christianity, did NOT Originate w African / Afro-Asiatic people [historically we've always traditionally been a natural & a spiritual {NOT Spooky} people]- So atheism must be a relatively new YET never-the-less is Still a EURO-CENTRIC Concept!

100% correct!

Did anyone happen to see teh headline on Huffington Post when he died? One wordin large font LEGEND. "Legend'?!!! He was a piece of crap writer that like you said was promoted for his english accent, and his barritone voice and his irreverence. He was scum, and not nearly as smart as Huffington Post would have us beleive. I saw that debate with gallowey. Galloway destroyed him point after point.  I almost felt sorry for Hutc, almost.

I respectfully disagree.

“The evil that men do lives after them.       

The good is oft interred with their bones.”


Many of the men and women I admire were flawed human beings. As far as Christopher Hitchens is concerned, anyone who hated the Clintons, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, and God can’t be all bad.

Here is a funny article he wrote about the Christian holidays:

Most Americans didn't lionize

Most Americans didn't lionize Hitchens. The post mortum praise for Hitchens came mainly from the media elite. Liberals have scorned rather then admired Hitchens since his embrace of Bush and the Iraq invasion. 

A debate between Michael Parenti and Christopher Hitchens. 

Your Link to that Hitchens vs Parenti Debate is an Eye-Opener @: ]

 Hitchens was an apologist for the Bush / Cheney / NeoCON invasion of Iraq, who insisted that Saddam actually did have WMDs in 2003 & Saddam was in cahoots w Al-Qaeda & even the Taliban. Then he insisted that Iraq 'Greeted the US as Liberators' a quote straight from Dick {Darth-Vader} Cheney- YET Just a yr or two after this debate the Bushite slogan was 'The Surge Is Working...' Why the hell did they need a surge if the people of Iraq were So HAPPY about the US Invasion for regime-change in the first place??? I don't know if Hitchens actually believed that BS or if was he just a clever LIAR! Hitchens BS about the Biggest Threat in the World is 'Islamo-Facism' [I first heard this term from John {bomb, bomb- insane} McCain] & US mission to spread Secular Democratic Freedoms - is just a cover & excuse for US / Euro / NATO Imperialism. I know when someone is using noble sounding rhetoric / propaganda [IE: R2P] for a White Supremacist Agenda in the form of US Exceptionalism!!! And then Hitchens like soo many other arm-chair chicken-hawks [IE: fellow New-Age atheist Sam Harris, the so-called 'liberal' NY-Times' Tom Friedman, Bush / Cheney & most of the NeoCON cabal] used clever words to cavalierly talk about slaughtering folks who never personally did anything to him {them} & make it sound 'Chic' & even 'ENJOYABLE' [that's the rhetoric of pyschopaths]! 

Question: How & why would an avowed Atheistic critic of Islam [IE: Hitchens] get access to Muslim countries [even Islamic Fundamentalist] like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc??? That makes me quite suspicious!

Just Another Leftist Imposter

Hitchens was just another in a long line of celebrated so-called Leftist over many decades who in fact were just apologists and defenders of the "White Man's Burden" to "save" brown and black people by colonizing and lording over them.

It sad sometimes that many White Leftists are fooled by such imposters. 

Thank you for setting the record straight on this scoundrel.