Underappreciated Prophet It goes without saying among the right wing dissidents that Christopher Hitchens is a (((mainstream))) left wing propagandist. DEAD WRONG! Here is what he said about orthodox Choosenites: "THESE PEOPLE MEAN US REAL HARM!" How about that?! How many of you, dear dissidents, DARE to utter this? Of course, he said exact same words about muslims and christians, because all these three statements are obviously true. But he uttered all three of them, explicitly, and separately, not only the officially allowed one about christians, not only the politically incorrect one about muslims, but most importantly THE ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN ONE about specifically the "settlers" in connection with the official Israel's policy, moreover, in connection with USA involvmenet in the conflict. Moreover, by "harm" in this particular context he meant the literal end of the world -- the belief that we all must die some horrible death for the few selected tribes of J-people would be tranformed into angelic beings or whatever they believe. Given the american military might and the level of involvement in the Middle East affairs started by Israel, this belief in the end of the world does not seem to you far fetched, I hope. The genius just put 2 and 2 together! Isn't it the essence of your own dissent? The universal struggle to put 2 and 2 together in spite of any propaganda? Naturally, Christopher held some dubious beliefs and perpetuated some (((mainstream))) talking points -- any one of us does, Isaac Newton believed in alchemy! -- but I am about to show you that he was a true right wing dissident, bravely speaking Truth, that would spell unemployment and incarceration for any of us today. Let's begin with the most dangerous and the most censored class of topics, those related to the Choosen people. Here's what Christopher Hitchens said: "It is a cardinal sin that a cent of taxpayers money is given to Israel. It should be stopped IMMEDIATELY." "...the alliance between [american] christian fundamentalism and j-ish fanaticism has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East." "Have you asked Henry K-ger, is there any country that is better off because of your attention than it was before you found it?" "K-ger was given a reputation of a great statesman and a peacemaker; I point out a long record of crime he committed, assassinations, covering mass murder, and I am sure he enjoys it." (Christopher refers to his article "For the sake of argument") "[if it was my descision] there would be no MAD settlers on the West BankBank." He emphasised "mad". That spells immediate black mark from ADL. His views on genital mutilation are indicative of a hardcore dissident: "What a disgrace! that we can not prevent genital mutilation, in the name of God. We have genital mutilation in our country, and we complacently sit here as if religion is no threat to us." "As a so called civilized nation, when are we going to ban genital mutilation of children?!" He said in the face of a rabbi: "You have no right to speak about any morality because you cut baby penises. And then you suck blood from it! An elderly man puts an infant penis in his mouth and sucks blood from it. How can you get any more sick than that?!" "I do not see genital mutilation of babies a good topic for your humour. It is fantastically painful! It is intended to repress your sexual relations. It dulls your feelings. And the procedure itself is life threatening -- I can give you actual statistics on baby boys died and severely incapacitated by circumscision. The very fact that you sit hear AN JOKE ABOUT IT, proves the point that the religion makes people cruel. SHAME ON YOU!!! And you made jokes about the mutilation of YOUR OWN SON! HOW DISGUSTING!" "Rambam Maimonides himself states that the point of circumscision is to dimish the <> of the relevant member and blunt it as far as possible while making it compatible with procreation, so it is explicitly given as the reason, and then ne says it must be done to a child, because someone older might be aware of the pain, and loss of sensation and not do it. So you wanna say we practice it on people of Africa instead, telling them they won't get AIDS... this is monstrous! From these people I won't take any lectures on morality." -- in another rabbi's face! He spoke against genital mutilation of baby boys in almost EVERY SPEECH OF HIS! This alone invalidates any attempt to bring up his J-ish mother (not to mention Christopher shares the same mother with his "christian conservative" brother Peter). And these are not "quote digging" products, here is a lengthy piece you can not suspect "contextless": "Since 9/11 it become my major preoccupation in my life to try and help to generate an opposition to theocracy and its depredations, internationally. To help people in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel to resist those who sincerely want to encompass the destruction of the civilization and sincerely believe they have a god on their side... This is what I find especially repulsive about the monotheistic messianic religions: in the large part of it they clearly want us all to die, they want this world come to an end. You can tell earning for the things to be over, whenever you read any of their real texts or listen to any real authentic spokesman -- not the pathetic apologists -- if you dont believe there will be Apocalipse, the separation of the sheeps and goats, you are not a real believer, the eschatological element is INSEPARABLE from christianity. The contempt for the things of this world shows through all of them, it is well put in an old rhyme of Exclusive Brethren sect: <>. You can see the same when muslims talk, they can not wait for the death and destruction, they can not wait for the FINAL SOLUTION. When you look at the Israeli settlers paid for by american tax dollars decide if they can steal enough land from another people and get all the jews into the promised land and all the non-J out of the land then FINALLY the J-people will be worthy of the return of the Messiah. And the christinas in USA consider it their job to help this happen, so that the Armageddon can occur! ... It is a hideous thing! Hateful idea! Hateful Practice! It must be opposed! There are people who want to ruin all good relations that could exist between different peoples, nations, tribes..." Speaking in such tone about (((our best ally))), equating the uncriticizeable to muslims? Mentioning the tax dollars? -- UNTHINKABLE! -- This is definitely impossible for his nominally "conservative" brother, who pretends to be on your side, but goes no furhter than whining about "muh Jesus", and "Darwin baaad". On a side note: the sectarian rhyme he cited is a very close translation of the original christian creed, of the so called "tzadikim" (the righteous) -- quoting it gets us really deep to the religious sentiment that existed before the schism between christians and the mainstream J-ism. Look, he mentioned "the civilization" that is under a real threat from Middle East (and from inside too) -- this is actually his leitmotif -- you are going to see it throughout the material I am presenting. I am sure this is exactly the same major problem that sparked the right wing dissent. But not the only one, here is an equally important issue of free speech and the liberal infringement against The Bill Of Rights. Christopher spoke about it much earlier than you: "I am a free speech absolutist." "I did not come to USA to learn how to keep my mouth shut." "The 1st amndment is my life." "If people are determined to be offended, there is nothing you can do about it." "I am OFFENDED by infringments against the 1st amendment! I am OFFENDED!" "Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it is for a person who thinks different." "Respect [that religions demand] should be mutual. Does Islam respect my right to unbelieve? Of course it does not." "People claim [in court] their feelings are being hurt, they do not have to prove that what I said is false. This is a secular variant of Blasphemy Laws." "It is wrong and always has been for churches and powerful secular institutions to claim exemption from criticism." -- Take that ADL!!! So, basically he already formulated the most principal talking point of your movement. But he goes deeper, perhaps less complimentary to many "conservatives": "It is impossible ever to infringe on anyone's right to free speech without arranging in a sense calling in advance for this to happen to you too." "Every time you decide to limit someone's speech, bear in mind at this very moment you in potentia limited your speech. The next quaesion is simply this: to whom do you trust the decision what is hate speech, and who is a harmful speaker, and who to decide IN ADVANCE what those <> would be? ... To whom are you willing to delegate the job to decide FOR YOU what YOU should read? Does anyone here have a nominee?!" At the same time he failed to realize that copyright itself is pure censorship (he made exception for copyright in his "absolutism") but how many of you can hold it against him with clean counsciosness? Are you now fully understanding the evil of copyright and its inherently censorious nature? Or maybe you are still thinking that YouTube is just "a bad apple", a misapplication of a benevolent concept? Here is your FaceBook drama in a nutshell: "You can not claim today that a government suppresses your speech, but every day your speech is being suppressed by the community, this is evil community." Unfortunately he fails to apply this statement to his own views about the "n-word", although he is not afraid of the word itself (that's perfectly consistent) he celebrates its "abolition", saying that the community "progressed" in this regard, and then emphasizes the fact that no govt ban of the word had been issued, "it is a community ACHIEVEMENT" -- magically, the community is not evil in this isolated case. Not earlier than yesterday Turd Flinging Monkey apologized for shutting down his chat on DLive: "An asshole came to the chat, flooded it with n-words, reported himself. The channel's owner got banned." Christopher, please, BE CONSISTENT, do not make stupid baseless exceptions for the evil. No one of you could possibly disagree with Christopher on islam and muslims: "Those people have no concept of truth, no concept of honesty at all!" Still funnier, he then stretched this statement to the Choosen. "Islam is nonsense. ...entirely?... Yes, ENTIRELY!" -- and he told it to a rabbi, who tried to argue against it!!! "It is true that the civilization is the cause of the terrorism, without us they would have nothing to attack, and nothing to envy." "They have every reason for their feelings to be hurt." "Excuse me? when are we going to build a christian church in Mecca?" He, was the hero who coined this favourite argument of yours before it was cool! "We have to be outraged by the daily slauther [done by muslims]! They threaten death to us and kill us -- we do not reply in kind." Isn't it based? He spoke more "hate" than many of us currently considering ourselves champions of "hate". This is almost a threat! A statement at least as powerful as your favourite preachers of "hate" produce. "Not all religions are equally dangerous, few centuries ago I would consider Catholicism my most dangerous most frightening enemy, today it is Islam." "Islam makes huge claims, it claims to be a universal solution to everything, this claim is not conducive of peace." Connecting his free speech views with his anti-islam views he spoke about the "danish cartoons scandal" (when a danish magazine published caricatures on Islam and recieved in return a wave of terror at ALL LEVELS from riots and random murders of white people, up to death threats ISSUED BY MUSLIM AMBASSADORS NO LESS towards Danish officials and towards the Danish AMBASSADORS from muslim officials). Christopher was not shy to highlight these specific death threats! In effect he tried to explain the islamic threat to the sheeple of Europe before it was too late! I can't help but comparing him to Mark Collett and No White Guilt, admit it, friends, Christopher had awaken earlier. "Our media are PARALIZED WITH FEAR -- this is disgraceful!" He said to a journalist on CNN: "Admit it, YOU ARE AFRAID of muslims." I am not sure he said it, but it feels and follows naturally: Whereas you are not afraid of evil nazis, nor "white nationalists". In order to move on to his views of European Identity, let's enjoy him putting down "Black Activists": "Should we have a debate on: transatlantic slave trade saved millions black people from HELL of remaining in Africa? Why not?! There are people claiming: I am happy my ancestors did not stay in Senegal. Oh! How can you say that?! Well, I can. You can not think straight if do not allow this thought experiment. There should be no taboos, especially taboos inflicted by one community onto another. ...Teaching of history is impossible." Read this again: "by one community onto another". I just can't emphasize enough how much your movement lost by rejecting your true hero (because Jesus? right?). And this remark about the impossibility of teaching history in presence of censorship -- this is outright holodenial if you ask me! "We can have our Parthenon and we can indeed recover it from what was done to it by Bizatine, Ottoman, Catholics and National Socialists... We need to defend OUR civilization, OUR culture, from those who say they only need One Book." Mark Collett could use this passage, I guess. This "our civilization" is not a random slip of tongue, in his critique of religions he ascends to the truly Nietzschian heights, and comes down Eurocentric as a nazi: "Despair is a good starting point. It is good to know that we were born into a losing struggle. The stoicism that comes from that is very useful." "I do not want your gift of eternal love and peace. Love and peace is grossly overrated. I offer you living without illusions." Isn't it pure Neitzsche, you admire so much? "It is IMMORAL to love your enemy. Do I love muslim suicide bombers? No I do not! They wish to be martyrs? I am here to help. It is IMMORAL, COWARDLY and SADOMAZOCHISTIC to love your enemy -- in three words the roots of christianity." "It is not my duty to love those people [enemies] it is my moral duty to destroy them." (put it in bold) "Christianity offers the worst kind of immorality yet, which is the WICKED idea of non-resistence to evil, and the DERANGED idea that we should love our enemy. Nothing! NOTHING! could be more suicidal and immoral like that. We have to defend ourselves, our children, our civilization from our enemies. We have to learn to educate ourselves in a cold steady dislike of them and the detrmination to encompass their destruction." (caps reflects stressed words in his speech) In addition to that, unlike your christian false allies, my dear friends, Christopher opposed overpopulation of Africa!!! While your "conservative christian" friends preach condom ban for africans and at the same time none other than "christian charities" supply Africa with food and mecicine!!! Further, I would like to explore the Christopher's mindset, in the following quotes: "Archbishop of Centerbury said: a nuclear war would hastened our transition to a blessed state. If I told you this remark and ask you to guess, you might have said Mahmud Ahmadinedjad said it, or some other verminous fanatic mullah. NO! The archbishop of Canterbury said it! and why shouldn't he? ...the sinister thing about a religion is that lurking under it at all times in any one of its version is the desire for this life to come to an end for this poor world to be over, the earning, the secret deathwish <>." Besides another perfectly Nietzscheanic condemntion of christianity (do you see the accusation of innate weakness in here?), there is a testimony of the Christofer's own mindset: he uses islam as A REFERENCE OF EVIL, he measures christianity by islam, and concludes it is almost 0.9 Islam which is way too much evil. It is top political incorrectness, I like it, and so should you. "A pious christian Woodrough Wilson dragged us into The Great War" This goes horribly against the (((narrative))), according to which you are supposed to celebrate the world wars, aren't you? Whereas Christopher uses the participation in the war as A CONDEMNATION in order to make his point against christianity, but his choice of the indusputible evil is even more important than his point aboit the piety -- for Christopher the evil of the (((mainstreamely))) celebrated war is not even a question! Equally unrespectfully he spoke about every other "bipartisan hero", such as: FDR, Eisenhower, Kissinger. He never tried to hide the fact that FDR was a real canonical fascist. He criticized universally worshipped presidents for political assassinations. You may not like the assassinated persons, that Christopher recalled, but it is irrelevant, the overtone window is relevant, if we dare to question the assassinations of minor marxists, we inevitably start asking questions about mysterious electoral victories agaisnt very popular conservative and specifically ANTI-WAR candidates. It is just one step away from questioning the entire WW2 narrative. Many blame Christopher for supporting the USA war against Iraq, but his reasons, as he explaned them are far from the reasons you are likely to suspect. First he supported Kurds, second he demonstrated that USA politics in Iraq was already guided by Israel without the war. In short he supported the war for his own not the mainstream reasons, and he never claimed he is happy about the results, he was only happy about the end of Saddam, whom he hated much (and no, Saddam was not anti-Israel). "We should have intervene much earlier, as early as possible." "Kurds who are falsely refered to as iraqi people." "Everything that USA did in Iraq [before the war] was imperialistic. In 1968 CIA installed the Saddam's wing of Baas Party, not only the Party but Saddam personally. In 1974 Henry K-ger promised the Kurds american support in their fight against Saddam with the backing of the Shah of Iran and Israel and didnt tell them the is about to sell them out when Saddam and the Shah are going to make a handshake over their dead bodies. In 1980 Jimmi Carter gave the green light to Saddam to invade Iran, CIA and Saidi suplied intel to Saddam, and promised him a swift victory. Today it would be just imperialistic not to intervene and to uphold the politics of Henry K-ger." That's quite anti-meainstream, don't you think? I am sure it is way right-wingier than many "conservatives" who are still holding delusions about "our" government, "our" brave intelligence, and thin blue line (pardon my french). And when he condemns the choosenites for occupation of Palestine, J-ish terrorism, and calls out the madness of the settlers, unlike David Duke he does not take the palestinian side, he calls out the madness of muslims just as fiercely! This is the true right wing -- not picking sides in foreign battles, the automatic rejection of any narrative that is being force fed to the sheeple -- this is what we all should do, or at least try to. Of course, Hitchens was not perfect, he perpetuated some bullshit narratives, such as anti-racism, feminism, perhaps global warming sometimes, he whiteknighted publicly at least once... But it only shows us that his christian opponents FAILED TO ATTACK HIM WHERE HE WAS WRONG! A cherry on top: he exposed and destroyed Princess Diana and Mother Theresa -- the holy cows of sissy liberals. And he was attacked by CNN too :) And he did "how dare you" much better than Greta: (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cwcw9FVHlQ&feature=youtu.be&t=2781)