/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17676488]

Has anyone else read this? I agree with about 75% ish of what he says, and the last 5 or so chapters feel very contemporary, but he's so myopic when talking about racism. At least he speaks with the same contempt for poc religious/sectarian conflict that he uses to speak about white v non white racism, but he doesn't even engage with anything. He's just hoity-toity muh genome discovery renders yer silly ideas false. And he never even gets into it, he just casually mentions it. He offers no solutions or even thoughtful reasons to think the way he does. It's like he thinks not being racist justifies itself to feel better about himself. The best he does is say he's been to darkest Africa (as an upper class British tourist lmao) so he's seen enough to talk about different races living together.

[Anonymous No.17676495]

If the book doesn’t hate niggers, well then I hate the book.

[Anonymous No.17676514]

>>17676495

[Anonymous No.17676705]

>>17676488
Dime store Camus. Look at that ridiculous cover photo. A Chaucerian fraud, just like Peter "Illegal drugs cause terrorism" Hitchens

[Anonymous No.17676720]

>>17676488
I read it. I don't remember anything except that the prose was fun to read

[Anonymous No.17676729]

>>17676488
That try hard pic gives off edgey middle school fedora vibes. What a joke

[Anonymous No.17676734]

>>17676705
This is what has always struck me about those fucking photos of Hitchens. He wants to be Camus SO badly. But his yearning to be as cool as this one cool guy just comes off as embarrassing. It's very cringy, and I thought this even before "cringe" became a major thing.

[Anonymous No.17676751]

The more you read milquetoast normie philosophers, whether conservative or liberal, the more you realize they are signal boosted by the mainstream media and turned into household names for a reason. They know where their bread is buttered and they know to be careful not to mention anything beyond the pale of contemporary liberalism. Hitchens and a thousand others like him will never mention race conflicts or the possibility of major fissures at the heart of liberal society. Supposed conservatives like Scruton and Peterson will never mention race, or Jews, or international finance. Their job is to present a just-less-than-rosy picture of things so that you focus on the just-less-than part while always feeling like pure rosiness is a few steps away.

That way you don't notice as your country is steered into race riots and eventually race wars, or immigrant crime being systematically covered up by the state, or the massive problem of ultra-sucessful minority groups parasitizing whole countries through their media, cultural and intellectual institutions, and lobbying. None of that. Focus on vague, soft issues instead, like not being able to say "fuck" on television (how irrational! it's just a word, man!).

[Anonymous No.17676808]

Christopher Hitchens was just a semi-educated whiskey receptacle who used his accent to lure in dumb Americans and rob them of their attention and money. Peter Hitchens is a dinosaur complaining about the asteroid. Both are irrelevant, especially Christopher since he's dead.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17678158]

>>17676720
Same.
Why does he have to justify not being racist?

>>17676808
There’s still no god

[Anonymous No.17678181]

>>17676729
This lol. Why do all these nu-atheists want to look like 20th century French existentialists so badly?

[Anonymous No.17678186]

>>17678158
Proof?

[Anonymous No.17678230]

>>17676729
>>17678181
Not saying the pic isn't cringe, but if anyone has walked the walk to be able to take a photo like that, Christopher Hitchens has.

[Anonymous No.17678291]

Didn't like the part where he outs himself for being a fag.