Even in a short anecdote he had the use of language and the eloquence that copywriters and journalists would kill for...
u/Upbeat_Chest6731 — 17 hours ago
r/ChristopherHitchens
Human Consciousness is Now at the Last Stage of Christianity
It is incredibly strange how an ignorant Christian approaches the Bible. It is approached as truth, but also literature, but though it is approached as literature it isn’t approached as a kind of historical or fictional literature. In fact, the way in which the Bible is approached as literature, is idiosyncratic.
A Christian reads the Bible and finds comfort and hope in it. The reading he does is a literary reading of the text (because the actual historical study of the text would destroy the Christian’s reading of the text, if he was honest about the evidence he encountered).
Interestingly enough, I still read the Bible the way these ignorant Christians read it, except I do not share in their willful ignorance, or supernatural presuppositions.
As literature, the Bible is an astounding book, but as a historical document, it’s a compilation of deception and confusion— the ignorant reader assumes all kinds of premises that have nothing to do with its actual context or content. (This is perfectly acceptable if we’re reading it as literary fiction, or philosophically, but it’s not acceptable if we’re trying to comprehend its cultural context and meaning).
I find the topic of the Bible as literature utterly fascinating— because I find the Bible as literature entertaining and thought-provoking (in an idiosyncratic way). Just like one can innovate all kinds of insight through the interpretation of Greek myths, I find the Bible as literature to function exactly the same way.
It’s strange to realize that Christianity is entirely founded on humans reading the Bible as true literature (both of which are biased presuppositions). What this means is that all this exegesis that has exploded on the scene, isn’t actually what captivated the masses, what captivated the masses was and is the Bible as “true literature” (that it has been read as one uniform book with one theology— which is a false assumption on the part of the reader).
[This motions to the immanent destruction of Christianity (from within), something Luther never could have realized when he hyper-focused Christianity on a kind of rational approach to “the Word.” Because, you see, this leads Christians to rationally scrutinizing what they read. You will ask, “how is it rational?” The answer is because they use the law of non-contradiction (within the presuppositions of their theology) to stand as judge over their theological interpretations. They use one scripture to correct another scripture, not realizing they’re practicing reason’s exacting form. And, they believe that because “the Bible is absolutely true,” any scrutiny of it will only further affirm this. Thus they have primed themselves to fall right into the trap of Rational Critical Scholarship, which shatters their folk assumptions about the Bible, they very thing that Christianity as a religion is based on.]
Reading the Bible as literature is a very different experience from studying it historically. Christianity cannot survive the latter, and this new reformation of rational critical scholarship has now entered Christianity’s consciousness. Apologists have starting responding to it, which winds them ever deeper into the destruction of the authority of religious content, and the shattering of its folk form.
I think their only hope is to pivot back to the Bible as literature, and to embrace the epistemological relativism of modern philosophy, which thereby allows them to make their case pragmatically against a world collapsing into nihilistic despair. (Though this approach already surrenders the truth of Christianity from the outset).
But this nihilistic collapse is ideological, it’s not substantive, it’s created by philosophy and sustained by philosophy. Science knows nothing of this nihilistic despair, and shatters it at every turn.
Christianity, above all else, needs men to read the Bible as true literature. If this falters, which is now presently happening due to rational critical scholarship, then Christianity will collapse from within. Men will no longer be able to read the Bible as true literature, holding a set of folk presuppositions, but only as another form of mythology. This is great for the secular world, but it is a death sentence for Christianity.
Human consciousness is now at the last stage of Christianity, where it becomes just another myth in a pile of myths. Those myths represent this same process of sublated consciousness playing out in other civilizations. We are now at this stage in our civilization process— we are transcending the mindlessness of our own myths.
Does this mean new false Gods will be born? I suspect they are already born! But one thing that can save us from repeating this process, at least in the minds of a few, is not just to transcend the myth (content) of Christianity, but to identify and transcend the psychological, authoritarian form on which Christianity and all other myths have been based.
u/JerseyFlight — 5 days ago
What do you think is the best example of Hitchen's extreme eloquence?
When is he at his most erudite, in his intellectual pomp? Looking for YouTube video recommendations please.
u/Diamondbacking — 7 days ago
Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy
“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge— so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.” A History of Western Philosophy, Introduction
If philosophy is only separated from theology “because it appeals to reason,” then it had better f;cking appeal to reason, or else it falls into the category of theology.
And what exactly does it mean to appeal to reason? It cannot mean that one appeals to a philosophical narrative or premise that they just so happen to like or believe, or that they simply call “philosophical” in place of reason. It cannot mean that one merely asserts against reason, it can only mean that one’s premises are rationally and evidentially defensible.
Here Russell draws a line that casts philosophy into the domain of theology, if it cannot meet its burden of proof and demonstrate that its premises are more than just authoritarian premises.
Immediately the rational pressure pushes down. That which is contradictory is not and cannot he rational, therefore any philosophical premise or narrative which is shown to be contradictory, cannot qualify as philosophy according to Russell. And he is correct. But unfortunately, modern philosophy is hostile to reason, and after Hegel, embraced contradiction.
Russell’s standard is superb because it not only eliminates from philosophy all philosophies that cannot justify their premises or claims without collapsing into contradiction, but it also rightly classifies these philosophies as “theologies.”
Russell’s standard is easy to deploy: how does one justify their philosophical claim or premise? What do they appeal to to establish its truth?
If on examination, a philosophy’s foundational premises are found to be established through authority, then they are really theological premises, and the philosophy itself, though it might go by the name “philosophy,” is really a veiled theology.
u/JerseyFlight — 11 days ago
The Road to Baghdad: How American Intervention Built Its Own Enemy
I've been having conversations recently about the events leading up to the 2003 intervention/war in Iraq. I find diagrams helpful to digest information, so I created a gitgraph diagram to illustrate events, either led by or directly involving the USA, ending at the 2003 Iraq war.
Source dossier
(Summarised and collated by AI)
1953 — Anglo-American intervention against Mosaddegh
>
Context: Iranica summarises the documentary record surrounding Operation AJAX, the British-American effort to remove Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. (Iranica Online)
Why it matters: This is one of the strongest points in the chain where direct U.S./British intervention in Iranian regime politics is established, rather than inferred.
Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/coup-detat-1953/
1953–1979 — Iranian memory of the coup and U.S. support for the Shah
>
Context: The article traces Iranian revolutionary anti-Americanism partly to the 1953 coup and subsequent U.S. association with the Pahlavi monarchy. (IRDC)
Why it matters: It establishes the Iranian revolutionary interpretation of the U.S.–Shah relationship rather than merely Washington's retrospective description of it.
Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/2158/
1958 — Qasim overthrows the Iraqi monarchy
For this node I would currently use the historical record rather than the illustrative Qasim quotation we discussed earlier. I have not verified that quotation sufficiently to include it as a primary-source quote.
Encyclopaedia Iranica records:
>
Context: Brigadier Abd al-Karim Qasim and the Free Officers overthrew Iraq's Hashemite monarchy on 14 July 1958. (Iranica Online)
Why it matters: Qasim's government becomes the regime overthrown in 1963, where the question of U.S.–Ba'ath contacts arises.
Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/
1963 — U.S. contacts with Iraqi Ba'athists
>
Context: Iran cautiously welcomed Qasim's overthrow partly because Tehran had received reports of CIA contact with the anti-communist Ba'athists. (Iranica Online)
Why it matters: This supports contact/cultivation, but does not establish that the CIA designed or controlled the February 1963 coup.
Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/
1963 — The Shah's own reaction to the Ba'ath coup
>
Context: The Shah explained that Iran initially welcomed Qasim's overthrow because the new Ba'athists immediately purged communists. (Iranica Online)
Why it matters: It demonstrates that Iran's own anti-communist interests overlapped with Western interests; this was not simply a U.S.–Iraq bilateral story.
Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/
1968–1979 — Saddam's consolidation inside the Ba'ath state
The strongest archive here is the surviving Iraqi Ba'ath collection:
>
Context: These are records created principally by the Iraqi Ba'ath Regional Command and Iraqi administrative/security agencies during Ba'ath rule. (Hoover Institution)
Why it matters: The archive shows a vast indigenous Iraqi party/security bureaucracy underpinning Saddam's power. It is therefore evidence against reducing his ascent to “the CIA installed Saddam.”
Limitation: Most records are Arabic, but the archive is not openly full-text searchable online; researchers generally access the scans onsite. (Wilson Center)
1970 — Iran attempts to destabilize Iraq
Asadollah Alam recorded the Shah's fury over the failed Iranian-backed coup attempt:
>
Context: Iran under the Shah was itself covertly trying to destabilize the post-1968 Ba'ath government. (Iranica Online)
Why it matters: It strongly complicates a simple “Western bloc created Saddam” narrative: Iran, Iraq, Britain, the U.S., Soviet Union and different Iraqi factions were pursuing overlapping and conflicting agendas.
Link: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iraq-vi-pahlavi-period-1921-79/
1978–1979 — U.S. involvement during the Iranian Revolution
>
Context: The Iranian source portrays Gen. Robert Huyser's mission as an attempt to preserve/manage the existing military-political order, with contingency planning if Bakhtiar failed. (IRDC)
Why it matters: It establishes direct U.S. involvement in managing the collapse, but cuts against the stronger claim that Huyser was simply sent to install Khomeini.
Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/8270/
1979 — Iranian disagreement over what Washington intended
>
Context: The same Iranian source notes that Shah supporters suspected essentially the opposite—that Washington was facilitating revolutionary succession. (IRDC)
Why it matters: Contemporary Iranian actors themselves disagreed about U.S. intentions, which should reduce confidence in claims that Washington straightforwardly “installed Khomeini.”
Link: https://irdc.ir/fa/news/8647/
1980 — Iraq invades Iran
A later U.S. statute states the historical fact directly:
>
Context: The legislation summarises the Iraqi invasion and subsequent chemical warfare when explaining later U.S. regime-change policy.
Why it matters: Iran did not initiate the full-scale Iran–Iraq War; Saddam's Iraq did.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ338/PLAW-105publ338.htm
1982–1988 — U.S. strategic tilt toward Iraq
The National Security Archive summarises the declassified documentary collection as showing:
>
Context: After Iran regained the strategic initiative, Washington increasingly sought to prevent an Iranian victory and improved its relationship with Baghdad. (National Security Archive)
Why it matters: This is the strongest documentary basis for saying Washington knowingly helped Saddam survive when geopolitical interests aligned.
Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/iraq-project
1983 — Washington knows Iraq is using chemical weapons
>
The National Security Archive identifies the memo and its date directly. (National Security Archive)
Context: This predates the most infamous Kurdish chemical attacks and coincides with the period of improving U.S.–Iraqi relations.
Why it matters: It establishes that continued U.S. engagement cannot simply be explained by ignorance of Iraqi chemical warfare.
Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2019-12-19/documenting-iran-us-relations-1978-2015
1983 — Rumsfeld meets Saddam during rapprochement
>
Context: Donald Rumsfeld travelled as President Reagan's special envoy and met Saddam Hussein while Washington was seeking improved relations. (National Security Archive)
Why it matters: The famous handshake is not merely symbolic; it belongs to a documented policy of rapprochement while Washington knew chemical weapons were being used.
Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/iraq-project
1987–1988 — Anfal against the Iraqi Kurds
Human Rights Watch's investigation was based heavily on captured Iraqi government documents.
>
Context: Kurdish forces captured approximately eighteen tons of Iraqi Ba'ath Party and secret-police records following the 1991 uprising. (Hoover Institution)
Why it matters: Evidence for Anfal is therefore not principally based on Western accusations—it includes the Iraqi regime's own bureaucracy.
1987–1989 — Ali Hassan al-Majid's authority
Arabic HRW material describes him as:
>
Context: Saddam granted Ali Hassan al-Majid extraordinary authority over the northern region during the period in which Anfal was conducted. (Human Rights Watch)
Why it matters: It helps establish centralised state responsibility, rather than treating Anfal as uncontrolled battlefield violence.
Link: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/arabic/docs/2006/08/14/iraq14009_txt.htm
1988 — International confirmation of chemical warfare
>
Context: UN investigative work had established repeated chemical-weapons use during the Iran–Iraq conflict. (Digital Library)
Why it matters: By 1988, chemical warfare was not merely intelligence known privately to governments; it was formally before the Security Council.
Link: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/161154
1990 — Iraq invades Kuwait
>
Context: The Security Council condemned Iraq's invasion on the same day and demanded withdrawal. (United Nations Peacekeeping)
Why it matters: This is the key strategic reversal point: Saddam moved from a brutal but useful counterweight against Iran to an aggressor threatening another sovereign Gulf state.
Link: https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unikom/background.html
1990 — Military force authorised against Iraq
>
Context: The Council authorised member states cooperating with Kuwait to enforce the previous resolutions if Iraq did not withdraw. (Digital Library)
Why it matters: The 1991 Gulf War had explicit Security Council authorization connected to expelling Iraq from Kuwait—an important distinction from the controversy surrounding 2003.
Link: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/102245
1991 — Why Saddam remained after the Gulf War
>
Context: The postwar settlement imposed disarmament and inspection obligations but did not authorise overthrowing the Iraqi government. (United Nations)
Why it matters: This explains the seemingly strange historical fact that the coalition defeated Saddam's forces but left Saddam himself in power.
Link: https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf
1998 — Regime change becomes explicit U.S. policy
>
Context: Congress formally shifted policy beyond pure containment toward supporting Iraqi opposition groups seeking Saddam's removal.
Why it matters: Regime change did not originate after 9/11. It was already formal U.S. policy by 1998—although the Act expressly did not itself authorise a U.S. invasion.
Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655/text/pl
2001 — Iraq and 9/11
>
Context: The Commission found contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda but not evidence of Iraqi cooperation in attacks against the United States. (9/11 Commission)
Why it matters: This is essential to your diagram: 9/11 altered the strategic environment leading toward Iraq, but Iraq did not perpetrate 9/11.
Link: https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
2002 — The public case for war
>
Context: Bush's speech combined Saddam's previous aggression, alleged WMD programs, terrorism concerns and post-9/11 risk reasoning into the public case against Iraq. (George W. Bush White House Archives)
Why it matters: This is one of the clearest primary sources for understanding how intervention against Saddam became rhetorically connected to the post-9/11 security doctrine.
Link: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
2002 — Final UN inspection confrontation
>
Context: Resolution 1441 gave Iraq what the Council called a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament obligations and re-established strengthened inspections. (United Nations)
Why it matters: It supports the claim that Iraq had a genuine history of conflict with UN disarmament requirements; the separate issue is whether 1441 itself authorised the March 2003 invasion, which remained legally disputed.
Link: https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Post-2003 — How good was the WMD intelligence?
>
Context: The Committee reviewed roughly 100,000 pages of intelligence material and interviewed more than 200 people. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
Why it matters: This is stronger than merely saying “no WMD were found.” It establishes that important prewar intelligence judgments themselves were analytically defective or overstated.
Evidentiary hierarchy
From strongest to more interpretive:
- Captured Iraqi/Iranian government records, contemporary diplomatic records, statutes and UN resolutions
- Declassified intelligence/diplomatic memoranda
- Contemporary speeches and official transcripts
- Major archival scholarship using those records
- Human-rights investigations based on captured records + witness testimony
- Later interviews/memoirs
- Journalism
- Advocacy/editorial interpretation
Methodological caveat:
The nationality of a source and its evidentiary weight are separate questions. An Iranian government historical institute gives valuable Iranian perspective, but a contemporaneous Iraqi Ba'ath order can carry substantially greater weight for what Saddam's government actually ordered.
u/recentlyquitsmoking2 — 9 days ago
David Frum Saw Trumpism Coming. He Wanted to Stop It. – The Fifth Column
David Frum of The Atlantic joins the Fifth to talk about the world that emerged from 1989, the collapse of the conservative future he once expected, Trumpism, immigration, fascism versus communism, and why American political life feels more fragile than it did a generation ago.
(0:00) Cold Open
(0:25) David Frum Joins the Fifth
(5:00) Spy Novels & Bill Buckley
(10:36) Frum’s Conservatism
(15:20) A Man of 1989
(23:05) Never Trump & Betrayal
(28:48) The Anti-Trump Coalition
(34:46) The Michigan Senate Race
(50:03) Midterm Madness & Polymarket
(54:40) Polling Is in Crisis
(1:01:59) Politics as a Consumption Good
(1:08:16) Immigration & Trumpism
(1:15:03) What the Atlanticists Got Wrong
(1:24:51) Fascism vs. Communism
(1:28:45) Unpatriotic Conservatives
(1:32:41) What Does Trump Love?
(1:35:15) What Frum Got Wrong
--
Hosted by journalists Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch, The Fifth Column provides a weekly rhetorical assault on the news cycle, the people who make it, and occasionally themselves.
u/palsh7 — 13 days ago
Comment best words of christopher that you know.
It's just yesterday that I was listening to Chirstopher & Rabbi's Debate on "Great God" and it was my first time listening to him speak. His thoughts and clarity stayed on my mind and I want to explore more of his work.
If you have any best concepts or reasoning of his, please let me know.
u/samishere28 — 11 days ago
Testing Philosophy Against the Form of Theology
If philosophical belief isn’t established differently from theological belief, then what’s the difference?
Philosophy’s (p) must be justified differently from religion’s (p).
If this isn’t the case, then the two have the same form.
If a theologian tells me that God is the foundation of all truth, and a philosopher tells me that dialectic is the foundation of all truth, these had better have different processes of justification, if they’re not the same isomorphic form.
We ask the philosopher, “how do you know that dialectic is true?” If his answer doesn’t rise above the authoritarianism of a philosophical assertion, then how does it differ from the authoritarianism of theology?
If both forms are traced back to unfalsifiable authoritarian premises, then both have the same epistemological form.
u/JerseyFlight — 13 days ago