Found this on the web ...
I am sure most of you will by now have heard of the recent death of Marxist journalist Christopher Hitchens, that supposed 'great polemicist' of our age. He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he had, at a Texas hospital on 15th December.
Funnily enough, I first heard about his death after sampling a miniature bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label, as I had heard it was Christopher's favourite tipple ('accept no substitute... the best blended scotch in the history of the world' he once exhorted to an audience, according to Wikipedia). So I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.
So I took a quick sip - remembering to spit it out, as I do not drink these days - and needless to say, this particular brand is a powerful blended whiskey that would no doubt bring out the nasty side - or 'evil twin' - in even the most mild-mannered individual. No wonder Hitchens was always so eager to mercilessly spit venom at his opponents with such cruel relish and apparent ease. No doubt this particular brand of whisky was a major contributor to that - and it would certainly have contributed to his spectacular decline in health.
However, that very night, a Friday as it happens - as I was writing a small review of the whisky in my iPod - I was sent a text message: 'Chris Hitchens has bit the dust'. What a coincidence.
On checking out the Daily Hitchens website, I found a number of tributes to the man from his friends and colleagues. His brother, Peter Hitchens, had already dedicated an article to him (which he repeated on his blog), describing him as a 'courageous' man. I see that there were many hundreds of responses to that particular post, many of which were messages of condolence.
There was also a 'memoriam' to him in Vanity Fair, which praised him as one of the greatest minds of our time.
We then got a video from TheAnalCoprophile (aka, TheAmazingAtheist) praising him as a man of such great intellect that he 'went unchallenged' intellectually. Excuse me!
Obviously due to social norms, good taste and ones desire to be a gentleman at such times, there is a certain reluctance for us to speak ill of the dead. But in the case of this individual - despicable archenemy of White people and the Leadership Principle if ever there was one - I believe it is more than warranted. For would this individual be inclined to refrain from speaking ill of a White Loyalist in the wake of his or her death? Certainly not. If he wasn't able to hold back his venom after the death of a certain Christian preacher (Jerry Falwell if I recall), there is little chance that those of our persuasion would fare any better. However, regardless - though we would not wish this particular disease that he suffered from on anybody - we have an obligation to call out those that seek our destruction. So we shall proceed.
Hitchens' brother, Peter, claims that he was 'courageous' from a young age. With exception perhaps to his willingness to name and shame such a high flyer as Henry Kissinger for alleged war crimes in his 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' (perhaps one of the few things he should be commended for), I don't really see it. Was it demonstrated when he allowed himself to be subjected to water-boarding interrogation, lasting a mere couple of seconds?
One thing is for sure, it took little courage for him to jump on the anti-White bandwagon (in the form of 'humanism'), along with his social-marxist comrades. In fact, there was no time that brought out his passion as when he was bashing what he narrowly referred to as 'fascism'. In this regard, he certainly kept his 'chosen' masters contented. Or more accurately, he felt a kindred spirit with them that was no doubt due to his own partial 'chosen' ancestry, of which he was openly so proud. For if he was not wholly 'chosen' by descent, he more than compensated for it with his actions. As can be seen by the many tributes in Vanity Fair and other publications - and the 'chosen' names of those leading those tributes - they are eternally grateful to him.
White Loyalists should make no mistake, with his influence and rabid anti-white rhetoric, disguised in grandiloquent platitudes of his distain for 'totalitarianism', 'fascism' and a crusade against religion, both he and his ilk have helped to fuel some of the most unreasonable hostility towards White Loyalists. This can be seen so often in the news media, in the bile that is spewed by so many 'educated' individuals - in particular the impressionable young students that have been taught to look up to and emulate such despicable people.
So often do we hear these same racial traitors casually talking about how 'racists' are evil, deserve to be killed, locked up indefinitely or even placed under the care of lunatic asylums. Take the recent case of Emma West as a good example. Remember the sickening comments on that viral YouTube video (My Tram Experience) and the treatment she received by the authorities. Or how about the TheAnalCoprophile, who loves nothing more than to rant and rave that 'White people are ****ing stupid!' and attacks White Loyalists at every turn with an unreasonable hatred that one would expect to be reserved for somebody who had raped or murdered a family member.
These are just a few examples of the brain pollution in progress. The likes of Hitchens - despite his hollow drivel - would no doubt raise a gleeful crooked smile after witnessing this kind of self-destructive poison. For Hitchens and his comrades have raised a vicious brood that any back alley dog fighter would be proud to call his own.
As for TheAnalCoprophile's claim that Hitchens was so far ahead of the field intellectually and went so long going unchallenged, that is news to me. I have viewed a number of debates featuring Hitchens. Yes, he was indeed an impressive orator. But despite usually having audiences largely in favour of his positions on atheism, etc. (remember, he is *so* radical and controversial!), seldom did I see him actually destroy his opponents. Yes, indeed, the man had quite an impressive - flamboyant, glib and grandiloquent - grasp of the English language which would often wow his audiences. But aside from regurgitating the usual social-marxist cliches in his own impressively articulate manner, he did little better than most others that I have seen in terms of actual substance. In fact many of his debates that I recollect were either too close to call, or he failed miserably. And each time, when the chips were down, he fell back on his favourite weapon - his biting wit and flowery vocabulary. That is where he was in his comfort zone. Now that is what I call 'courageous'!
In his debate with George galloway for example, he failed miserably in his attempt to persuade the audience that the Iraq war and subsequent occupation was justified (though I think the 'chosen' must have had to fork out a small penny to have such a prestigious 'intellectual' on board).
The showdown with his brother Peter in the American Midwest - he won on (Semitic) religion (wow! Difficult!) but, if I recall, lost again when it came to the vote on Iraq and Afghanistan. However, regardless of the vote - I care little for such things - at no point did Christopher wipe the proverbial floor with his brother.
Then we had the most recent debate with Tony Blair on religion. Even with one of the most unpopular men of the century as an opponent, he was still barely able to sway the majority of the 'don't know' voters, even though they should have naturally gravitated towards his position given the education that these people have been subjected to. Is this really what an 'unchallenged' intellect looks like? I think not. But what can we expect from a grotesque, biased and self-obsessed coprophile as TAA?
Christopher hitchens always struck me as a hideous, sinister looking individual with a face like a bulldog and malice in his eyes. Just pure ugliness. A man with a sonorous British speaking voice, eloquence and literary powers that most would be envious of - though a right thinking person would dismiss him as a poor mans Winston Churchill. He did, however, use these gifts to great effect in order to capture, confuse, confound and ultimately misguide his impressionable fan base.
No thoughtful and right minded person would believe for a moment that Hitchens was a good person with benevolent intentions. Rather his intent was both malevolent and purely self-serving. He was an eristic individual whose aim in life was to prove that he was able to beat others down with his rhetoric, undermine traditional White values and simply debate others solely for the sake of it. A true narcissist. A degenerate piece of excrement cloaked in robes of respectability. No, there was nothing good about him - and he was certainly not a person deserving of widespread praise and commendation. Rather he is deserving of our utmost contempt. Good riddance is what we should all be saying. May the Marxist-humanist ideology that he so ardenty championed quickly die along with him, for all our sakes.
I just read on Wikipedia that he had jewish origins..(I don't think I ever gave this person a thought before- to be honest). I heard of his brother Peter Hitchens though .. a writer I had actually admired quite a bit. I hear the two never saw eye to eye.
I always liked this article by Peter Hitchens.
In it he explains how White rule in Africa was benevolent wereas Chinese rule will pretty much lead to the extermination and enslavement of the blacks and the seizure of Africa as living space for the mongolians. a great pity the White race never had a will to life....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html)