Written by H R Shaw.
I was having a chat with a mate of mine at the start of the lockdown. He’s a Nordic bloke who’s over here studying. One of the people we talked about was Christopher Hitchens. While we both agreed he was a fabulous intellectual, we couldn’t quite agree on the degree to which his influence was a net positive or negative.
I wouldn’t have remembered this had I not been watching Millenniyule with Jared George “The Great Order”. The stream itself is well worth the watch, it was very much white-pilling in places, which I think we all need. The thing that stood out to me was when Woes mentioned, and indeed almost fondly quivered, when he reminisced of Liberalism in the 90s. Jared picked up on the point to make an argument straight out of 2016 about the usefulness of the word “liberal”, but I see what Woes’ point was.
There’s a Hitch
The Liberalism that Woes was warmly recollecting was what many see as the robust intellectual atheist liberalism of the 90s. I am reminded of Hitchens pretty much inventing the Hitchslap when debating the likes of Tom Metzger or whoever. This was the Liberalism that gave birth to the smug twats that we now see in comment sections the world over, people who are tricky to debate simply by virtue of their simply impossible conceitedness.
For me, this 90s phenomenon was an act in a long play. This play probably started in the 40s, and began with the detachment of the western individual from his race, and slowly crept into other aspects of identity. One of the key aspects of identity to be unseated was the connection to and the true institutionalism of Christianity.
Aspects of identity, for the masses at minimum, were rooted in religiosity. The result of this was that the western man wished to see himself as good. Regardless of whether we think people can be good of their own accord, everything that we know about was IS good, why we should be good and a jolly good basis from which to achieve goodness comes from our Christian religious foundation.
This is where Hitch comes in to say, in the ponciest possible way:
How can religion be good, when all of the wars that we can remember have been fought in their name. The morality of religion is fundamentally destructive and any sensible person should wish to have nothing to do with it
Admittedly, that was totally paraphrased, but bugger me if I didn’t read that in his voice!
When people think of Hitch, it’s this kind of argument that they remember. This is the argument that turned the western man on his head and finished off what was a half century of movement from the church and concrete morality, into this new age of moral subjectivism. Hitch paved the way for all the child sterilizing, Dog impersonating blue haired lunatics.
Burn the Hitch
After laying out an argument similar to this to my Nordic friend. He responded with something to the effect of “Hitch would have hated those people too.”
When 90% we know or commonly accept about morality has come from one source, traditional religious Christianity, to which you then set fire to and call the root of all modern evil. The next question becomes, ‘What do we replace it with?’ Without clear boundaries people then do what they want to do. People will resort to the Non-Aggression Principle or Lord only knows what in order to excuse their desires. When you leave it up to the individual, and you trust that the individual is good enough to navigate morality, which even there it was plain to see that people weren’t, then you open the door to Hell.
What did he think would happen? Either he was morally defunct, a woeful retard, totally naïve, not playing the long game or he just wasn’t that bothered. Don’t get me wrong, a lot had gone wrong to steer people from the Lords path before Hitch graced our presence, but his legacy, his contribution to the west and that of 90s liberalism, was to put one of the final nails in the coffin.
Christopher Hitchens: Opens mouth