Hitchens Unhinged

Wow! If even half of what Richard Poe claims in his “Hitchens Unhinged” piece over at Taki’s Top Drawer is true, what remains of the drink-soaked Trotskyist poppinjay’s reputation is shot. Here’s a hot excerpt:

“At the end of the event as he staggered, sweating and red faced, out of the room, he [Hitchens] advanced on Father Rutler in a threatening and physical manner, screaming that this beloved pastor and brilliant scholar whom he had never met was ‘a child molester and a lazy layabout who never did a day’s work in his life’. His behavior was so frightening that a bodyguard put himself between Hitchens and Father Rutler to protect him. Several of the event organizers then escorted Hitchens to the men’s room and when he emerged he continued his psychotic rant.”


Drunk on his own self-importance (and other things), reckless, violent, convinced he can get away with anything, Hitchens the personality seems to be the perfect reflection of the foreign policy he advocates.

Even Hitchens’ allies know what a dingbat he has become. The event, entitled “An Evening With Christopher Hitchens,” was sponsored by the “David Horowitz Freedom Center,” and took place at New York’s sedate Union League club, where Senor Horowitz no doubt had some inkling of what the out-of-control Hitchens was about to do when he opened the meeting with: “Welcome to what’s bound to be a stimulating and unpredictable events.”

I guess Hitchens was pretty well out of it by that time.

30 thoughts on “Hitchens Unhinged”

  1. Most drunks, recognize when they had a “jackpot” and do one of two things- pretend it never happened and hope no one remembers or go on an apology binge- seeking forgiveness and making promises of repentence.

    A small number of drunks do what Hitchens did. They deny the “jackpot” even occurred and justify their actions with lies and self deception. They actually think they would have acted the same way sober. These people have the unfortunate condition of being both alcoholics and genuine assholes at the same time.

  2. “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first drive insane.”

    It’s hard to know whether Hitchens is in the insane stage or the destruction stage. Although, given his atheism, perhaps he believes the gods will never destroy him, so he must destroy himself. More power to him. To adapt a favorite neocon battle cry: Faster, please, Christopher.

  3. The Empire finds Christopher Hitchens a serviceable dance man and so is happy to allow him as many public vomits as he wants; but does anyone take the man seriously? Has anyone ever? Giddier readers at the Nation once tried I suppose, even giddier anchormen might actually have succeeded, and doubtless more than one librarian has decided Hitch’s Biblical exegesis is as briskly no-nonsense as hers, but…
    Oh wait. I forgot the New York Post’s Page Six, which yesterday featured Hitch’s fondness for having his pubes shaved regularly, and I guess you have to include the philosophers who read Vanity Fair, and well, of course, short of Andy Sullivan, the most enthusiastic admirers of all if, shall we say, least reflective, are surely the Podhoretz wing of the neocon world, the NeoPods as it were.
    Doubtless they’ll love the piece Hitchens just wrote about some poor kid silly enough to take the prose so seriously he joined the Army because of it, and thus arguably got blown up and killed because of it too; but Hitch wants you to know he can’t but admire the guy for his admiration and thinks you should admire the dead kid for that too. Hitch also hopes you’ll understand how moved he was helping the family scatter the boy’s ashes into that oblivion Hitch insists was his end, but at least an end that, because he read Christopher Hitchens, he went out and fought for.
    Problem is, with apologies to dogs for the comparison, long has the world cautioned against lying with them if you expect to avoid fleas. Surely it is no exaggeration to say that David Horowitz, like Hitchens, is a NeoPod par excellance, and that Richard Poe has long, publicly, been a Podhead; and Fr. Rutler a – not hidden – Catholic auxiliary. Foul as all the belching was, there was nothing Hitchens did or said at that meeting that he hasn’t been known for doing and saying right along. If Fr. Rutler had the means to block Hitchens after the invite, so did he before it, and thus the umbrage seems a tad unctuous, don’t you think?
    Meantime though one of a Podhead’s favorite things is to holler anti-semitism – Hitchens so labeled the inestimable John Zmirak, who often writes for both Taki’s TD & AntiWar.com, due to Zmirak’s clearly Nazi proclivity in liking his Astoria neighborhood – but to accuse Hitchens of it because he pretends to protest ancient Israelite religious practices is almost as idiotic as Hitchens’s snarls at Zmirak.
    The brawl itself can be read at the link to the Horowitz site, though its tone is little different than anything else on that site, which Fr. Rutler could also have noted if he was interested of the dignity of his club – and, by the bye, if Poe’s eyewitnesses are reliable, doesn’t Horowitz, as the sponsor of the vomit, also have the obligation to apologize to Fr. Rutler? Instead, he continues to feature and lionize Hitch the NeoPod danceboy, but if Poe isn’t just posturing, it is to Horowitz he should begin his demands for an apology.
    The criticisms of Fr. Rutler aside, it sounded indeed like a high charity that motivated his post-meeting admonitions to Hitchens. Duty joined it, no doubt, when the Trade Center was obliterated, though Hitchens would scorn Fr. Rutler’s efforts there.
    One looks accordingly forward to Horowitz organizing a meeting with Hitch where people scorn the boy who died because he was too stupid to see through Hitchens’s posery, to see if the popinjay considers it as tasteful an expression of raillery as his own delicacies so regularly are.

  4. Hitchens was right about Mother Theresa, is right for the most part about circumcision and may have been quite justified in his haranguing of George Rutler and what he represents. For the most part Hitchens’ support for the Iraq war seems to stem mostly from his support for the Kurds although he’s quite wrong about that issue as a whole. But he’s completely right about one thing: religion is stupid and believers are for the most part imbeciles.

    George Galloway clearly kicked his ass in the debate I heard but I regained a LOT of respect for Hitchens when he went on TV and spat on Jerry Falwell’s dead body, something I would have been proud to do myself. These horrible religious people have been mostly running the USA since the Reagan Revolution and times need to change.

  5. “Hitchens was right about Mother Theresa, is right for the most part about circumcision and may have been quite justified in his haranguing of George Rutler and what he represents…But he’s completely right about one thing: religion is stupid and believers are for the most part imbeciles.”

    Are we in a competition for unjustifiably stupid proclamations here?

  6. I was at the Hitchens/Galloway debate.

    I have no particular reason to be nice to Hitchens, but he did not get his ass kicked.

    George Galloway is a corrupt oaf, and no friend to the anti-war movement. If Hitchens was drunk and ranting, that would not approach within one AU the embarrassment of Galloway on the British Big Brother.


    1. I didn’t see the debate, but I totally concur about Galloway.

      He has been an embarrassment to the antiwar movement.

      When Justin Raimondo and I spoke to a peace conference in Malaysia, Galloway went to the conference organizers to get them to stop Justin from speaking (after Galloway found out that Justin was going to attack attendee Robert Mugabe in his speech). Fortunately, the conference organizers had more integrity than Galloway: Justin spoke and Mugabe was consequently asked not to speak (when other speakers threatened a walkout following Justin’s appeal).

      Galloway was outraged that his good buddy Mugabe was snubbed.

      1. George Galloway is no more an embarrassment to the anti-war movement than Ron Paul. Paul may be right on the war, but he’s wrong on just about everything else. He is almost as reactionary a thug as Benito Giuliani. Paul supported Bush’s veto of the Stem Cell bill, has one of the worst records in Congress on environmental issues (voting for drilling in ANWR, against increased mileage standards and for increased offshore drilling), he received an “F” rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and is certainly no friend of Gays and Lesbians:

        “How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual deviance! It’s officials could have had their own float in the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade.” -Ron Paul, 1993

        …Not to mention that he regards Ronald Regan as his political role model (and ignoring the racist remakes he once made in his newsletter — that is, if you accept his unconvincing and self-serving denials). And that only skims the surface of Paul’s right-wing buffoonery.

        Given the choice, I’d pick George over Ron ANY day.

        “Ron Paul, In His Own Words”:

      2. Mugabe is scum but i think that he at least should be allowed to speka.

  7. Here he is in a topical opinion programme, drunk as drunk could be, asking just before the end tune why he could not talk about his new book. Turned out not to be a free publicity occasion.
    Is he being invited as a neocon or just because he is not able to soberly express any opinion – making a fool of himself and his ilk? And BTW, his seemingly left-wing invectives against Kissinger smell of rishes too.

  8. “These horrible religious people have been mostly running the USA since the Reagan Revolution and times need to change.”

    Your meaning of the word religion is unclear. You may mean the religion that is statism. But if you meant that the people running the US government are Christian in the New Testament sense, sir you sadly mistaken and need to read what Christianity is all about

    Jesus never advocated violence among his believers, and to suggest that the crimes of those who “claim” to follow him proves the faith is corrupt is fallacious. Genuine Christianity is based on love and charity.

    And whether one is religious or not does not in it of itself mean that they are barbaric!

  9. Ummmm….didn’t Hitchens claim Mother Teresa did her work out of blind religious faith. Meaning she had such an assurance that God would reward her in the afterlife that it became her primary motivation for taking care of dying, diseased, helpless people all her life.

    Didn’t the release of parts of Mother Teresa’s journal prove Hitchens wrong? That she had great doubts about the existense of God and often felt abandoned, alone, and hopeless? That she was often quite miserable…but felt she had sense of duty to these people after taking care of them for so long.

    That was a rhetorical question by the way…I’m not really interested in what some appologist for that slimebag thinks.

  10. Does anyone else find this genuinely sad?

    I had a lot of respect for the man once. I enjoyed his writing, criticism, and wit. The man is now a shipwreck. I don’t find anything here worth celebrating.

  11. BETTER HIGHLY FOCUSED VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS NEEDED. I was relieved that at least someone who apparently knows at least SOMETHING about Chris claims that he did NOT get his ass kicked. I find Hitchens’ religious ideas GREAT – but NOT his politics.

    It may be there somewhere but the URL cited by Joe Stepanek ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiN7xE8e4JY ) does not give much background helping a person with finite time to understand the nature of “drunk” Hitchens or EXACTLY what he did. Is associated audio or video available somewhere? I will admit that I care DAMNED little for pop culture ( Big Brother and that kind of mindless crap ). Above youtube URL does play but so what? I see nothing directly related to Hitchens or the man of the cloth that he supposedly nearly “attacked” or treated unkindly. I find it all to the good that those touting all the god stuff be faced with critics. Why should those recycling superstitions be treated with “respect” by anyone? Sam Harris covers this well.

    I agree that Hitchens did a great job in his Missionary Position and his newest God Is Not Great. Both were very inspirational. I continue to be deeply puzzled how a man that was so good with unmasking Kissinger could be SO WRONG with his Iraq War ideas.

  12. God is not great? Ah, see what happens when you talk trash about the Father almighty? The Lord will smite thee!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. So you are saying that God is a terrorist? He will harm someone for merely speaking ill of him?

      I don’t see how someone could admire someone who has stated that he will destroy those who don’t worship him. Oh, I forgot that GW Bush still has a 29% approval rating.

      1. Awesome! You responded to my message! I was actually being goofy. I don’t use the word smite seriously but you don’t know me from Adam (again with the biblical references!). I do think Hitchens is a total tool but I think any harm done to him was self-inflicted and not from a higher power. Excellent job with the site! You’re an American hero!

  13. I don’t know why all this the fuss is made about C Hitchens. Since his was not a reasoned debate but drunken name calling, I think his antics are not worth reporting except in the obituary columns.

    About George Galloway: I did not see him on the above mentioned debate but I did watch him on the BBC programme Hardtalk. He did very well. He has been consistent and does strike me as being direct and honest.In contrast, watch the Clintons do the snake dance every time they are cornered about sticky issues like Iraq, Al qaeda and Iran. Bill does it with hooded eyes and Hillary more amateurishly.

    Galloway was the one to draw attention to the wrongs of the Falkland War and the sinking of the Belgrano in 1982. He opposed the Iraq War from the begining, made monkeys of the American senators who tried to pin rubbish claims on his integrity and stood up against that British poodle Blair.

    Stephen Sackur (BBC) asked him if he was a patriot and his answer was something very close to what I believe is the right position for everyone. I cannot quote verbatim but this was the gist of what he said. “It is an accident of birth that made me a citizen of this country. There are some things of this country of which I am very proud but much that makes me ashamed”. I would say the same thing about my own country , India. I am more concerned that people everywhere be treated with dignity and equally, than that my country wins at wars and cricket matches.

  14. Jeez, I gotta hand it to Hitchens. The liberal bloggers are all the time talking about the “blood on the hands” of certain Bush supporting writers, but here’s one who not only embraces the honor, he know specifically whose blood is on his hands, and brags about it! What a guy!

  15. Hitchens is such a mixture of right and wrong (mostly wrong these days) that it is impossible to be for or against him; you can only be for or against pieces of him. Obviously an alcoholic, he needs help if he would use it. I saw him once on TV looking terrible, hung over, etc. and was astonished that he was allowed to be on the program.

  16. I actually volunteered with Mother Teresa at her Home for the Dying (Kalighat) in Calcutta, India. I also spent some time with her nuns in Agra, India, and at her leper colony near Calcutta.

    I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point. Mother Teresa had millions of dollars and who knows where they went because they were certainly not spent in these places.

    On the other hand, I heard the Hitchens/ Galloway debate on Democracy Now a few years ago, and Hitchens made so many factual errors I have to question why anyone could ever consider Hitchens a genius. Well, beyond Hitchens himself.

    He’s a vastly over-rated oaf, and I think his new found Jewish ancestry has made him both more self-pitying and arrogant. And, of course, it enabled him to find his inner neo-con.

  17. Seems like you can’t stand him because he was once a Marxist and now does not believe in that anymore and because he supports the war in Iraq.

  18. @ timmy ramone

    Maybe you haven't figure this out yet, but antiwar.com is a libertarian website. What you think is a scathing condemnation of Ron Paul, is, in fact, high praise. The man has a consistent Constitutionalist position and sticks with it, even when not politically advantageous to himself.

    Also last time I checked, the cultural Bolsheviks don't yet have the power to lock people up for saying unkind or unflattering things about certain "politically protected" classes of people, even though their commissars have unconstitutionally seized for themselves a lot of unofficial power to punish anyone who dares to defy their diktats, "freedom of speech" be damned.

    Go Ron Paul.

  19. I agree, Dave- here is a man temperate in speech and manner, a physician who has helped escort thousands into the world,
    rather than wrap himself in flags while sweeping thousands massacred under the rug, who is well-versed on the Constitution and could be trusted to balance a budget, and the same
    right-wing Yahoos who cannot see the connection between massive deficits and inflation attack his patriotism!
    The Axis-of-Evil has got nothing on the Axis-of-See-No-Evil

  20. Its a great pleasure reading your post.thanks for providing the full information I am looking for and I love to post a comment that "The content of your post is awesome"

Comments are closed.