What caused him to regress into a right-wing imperialist war monger?

You sound intelligent

>national identity

American national identity is very clear. It is:
>Ignorance
>Greed
>Corruption
>Arrogance

This emerged as a new identity after the two world wars destroyed christian identity (which was the previous american national identity- god, land, family, individual; in that order).

you sacrificed for the individual for family, the family for your land, your land for your god. and landowners were synonymous with citizenship and nationhood.

but rapid industrialization, the rise of city slums and urban sprawl, the interstate highway system and large building projects as make work government aid (hoover dam is a good example) in the post depression era as well as uncontrolled migration from the destroyed western european states and then later everywhere else in the world forced the new american identity to emerge, which i described above as a type of attitude centered about those four major themes.

You need to either read turn of the century writers or try to put yourself back into a time period where 90% of people were working in agriculture or related industry.

I always wondering about this too. My guess is that despite his power with the English language, in a lot of ways the man was highly impressionable. Once he moved to Washington and started socializing in Georgetown and Bethesda, he stopped seeing the neocons as so bad. How can their policies be so disastrous and imperialistic if the people pushing them seem so pulled together and aware? The man opposed the Gulf War but then supported the invasion of Iraq in '03 ffs.

It's also weird he was so soft on George W. Bush, but then so hard on Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton; they all carried out the same foreign policy.

The Africans currently squatting in America are more than 2% white; believe it's over 10%. The squatamalans are mostly part-breeds, averaging half and half. But whites in America are 99% white because judeo-multiracialism is new and whites breed out at low rates, and it's predominantly lower class whites anyway so minor losses.

>There is no semblance of national identity in the USA
Not since forced judeo-multiracialism and mass white shaming over "racism" became the tools of the Zio-American Empire ... but the paradigm can't hold.

>regress

Attached: IMG_2528.jpg (750x504, 55K)

Surprisingly, United States is rather lenient actually. They wage war culturally and they are winning overwhelming unfortunately. So many countries try so hard to replicate.

If they were as war-hungry as some claim, Canada and Mexico would have been claimed many years ago and then Central and South America along with it. Nothing could really stop there military from sweeping through like hot knife through butter.

>regress

Attached: 1425071175020.jpg (719x646, 37K)

I don’t know anything about Hitchens, but if he hung around the fringes of the establishment, he probably thought that supporting the Iraq War would be the perfect way to come out of the cold and earn himself a place in The Club. It is hard to remember now, but the establishment assumed Iraq would be a cakewalk and the US would begin marching across the Middle East and North Africa, toppling unfriendly regimes from Libya to Iran. Hitchens no doubt wanted to be on what he assumed would be the winning team.

/thread

That's not how it works anymore. Canada, Mexico, and just about every other country are vassal states easily controlled by judeo-debt-finance-capitalism headquartered in New York City. The CIA/Mossad pulls a color revolution if a vassal state gets uppity and the good-old-goy boots on the ground troops are reserved for destroying Israel's neighbors.

If America annexes them they will have to give them civil rights. Instead is more in their interests to let corporations rape those countries through free market capitalism and globalism, so they can reap the full economic benefits of an occupation without any of the negatives like giving 150 million mexicans the right to vote.

Yes, as in degenerated.

You're an idiot. "Civil rights," or anti-white policies, are far worse in Canada. And please explain how would it negatively affect the jewish ruling elite to give non-whites currently residing in Canada the ability to outvote the white population when jews are pushing population-replacement policies in every white nation?

He was a leftist until he died. The only thing that changed was his views on the wars.

This may come to a surprise, but the Jews ruling over you don't give a shit about your Melanin. They only want their shekels, and to destroy Christianity as revenge because they're still butthurt after 2000 years, and they want their third temple because they think it will hasten turning all gentiles into slaves.

Jews don't give a shit about your meme race or meme conflicts between gentiles except how they can use them to their benefit. If they get whites, blacks, and hispanics to all hate each other, that's a win for Jews, and you're just a willing participant in that.

Everything is about race, to jews and generally. Jews are the most tribal people alive and view the tribe they live among, whites, and not the religion they imposed on whites two millennia ago, as their foe.

Here is the loose sequence of events that led to him being in favour of the Iraq invasion of 2003.
Step one: Ayatollah Khomeini issues fatwa against his friend, novelist Salman Rushdie.
Step two: certain members of the British press are wishy-washy/defensive of Muslim's ridiculous reactions to the novel, even suggesting that Rushdie deserves the fatwa for "offending and entire people."
Step three: from the 80s and into the early 90s, Saddam Hussein commits 3 or 4 acts that constitute war crimes according to the Geneva conventions.
Step 4: US congress passes a law in 1998 making it the official position of the government that Saddam must be removed from power.
Step 5: 9/11 happens, rapidly increasing the degree of threat that Islam represents to the freedom of the western world.
Hitch was a great admirer of free speech and the US constitution. Every single position he held from about 1981 onward (when he got to the US) is consistent with those values and beliefs. To call him a war monger or imperialist is actually really absurd (I know it's probably just bait).

based and correct-pilled

No, this:

Doesn't make sense. He found out about his Jewish roots in 1973 when his mother killed herself. Why was he not a "right wing war-monger" between 1973 and 2003?

Because academia is 99% a psyop. If you pull any weight at all you're going to get approached by glownigs, whether you know it or not.
This should be common knowledge after those marxist professors were caught working with the police and writing studies to control riots.

He always knew. The Oded Yinon Plan was kicked into gear after 9/11.

Attached: 673993672.png (1080x1120, 1.92M)

No, he didn't. He learned of his Jewish ancestry in 1973. He was a left-winger his whole life except for TWO issues: the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars. Do you happen to know what arguments he made in favour of the 2003 invasion?

A lot of bad was done in the name of God too, bud.

>why, yes, we are in fact left- or right-wing and so believe that a revolution can be successfully carried out against

Attached: leftright.jpg (1990x2506, 1.65M)

yes using terminology spouted from a schizo unironically really helps you point

The war in the Balkans in the 90s also made him change his mind. He describes in his memoir how disappointed he was with Chomsky and other left allies at the time because of their opposition to US intervention in the region.

What schizo?
Any schizo is better than ASS though.

Because he was a Trotskyite and that's what they (the smart ones at least) do/did.

Attached: le blood god has arrived.jpg (1200x1200, 211K)

>Canada and Mexico would have been claimed many years ago
But the US stole like half of Mexico and tried to invade Canada but failed.

This is nowhere close to the truth. He remained critical of Zionism throughout the war in Iraq. You'll have a hard time finding in his columns anything nice about the Israeli leadership. You'll find plenty of abusive stuff against American foreign policy for being too yielding to the demands of the theocratic hardliners there. In one article in Slate, he called Obama "Israel's Shabbos Goy" after news had come of an exorbitantly generous deal that the US had made with Israel. It's because of this and other related reasons - his admiration for Israel Shahak, his hatred for Elie Wiesel, the way he attacked Judaism in God is not Great - that when Hitchens died, several Jewish periodicals went after him and said he was an anti-semite.

That's jews arguing between themselves about what strategy is good for jews, none of which are good for white people. What jews think and want and believe is not our problem. We helped them establish a country so they could move there and they haven't held up their end of the bargain so we're going to have to make them go.

>actually being this pedantic

Attached: self-portrait-1914.jpg (1531x1782, 310K)

He was never right-wing. He was just a war-hungry liberal.

sorry, should've signified im writing from a post-religious atheist country, so we see religion as a type of historical curiosity rather than a contemporary political or social force.

He was a Marxist till the end.

>atheist
>right wing
Pick one and only one.

This is fucking dumb, the majority of Saddam's warcrimes in the 80s were carried out while he was still on the US's payroll. And the media was often caving into the fatwa, but the majority of serious people on the left saw it as stupid.

And I hate to point out the obvious again, but 9/11 happened as a response to 50 years of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Not because Islam posed a "threat" to freedom and civilization. But people like Hitchens can't point out the difference between stating the obvious and apologizing for it. The US was long opposed to democracy and governments that supported civil freedoms in the Middle East, which is why reactionary Islam reemerged in the late 20th century. When democracy and popular autonomy are repressed (as they were by the US's most important allies), all sorts of anti-social trends and movements emerge.

His beliefs shift considerable after the late 90s. He writes articles about how Reagan was somewhat of a genius (whereas before he called him "dumb as a stump"), how the quality of politicians has declined because there's too much public scrutiny of them, how the United States should step up the pressure on Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea whereas the Vietnam war was a criminal act by the US trying to bend a region of the third world to its will.

>majority of crimes...while on US payroll
What's your point? Some weren't, and even the ones that were are still war crimes.
>the majority of serious people
He was absolutely disgusted that anyone in a western country could even *consider* siding with the fatwa.
>50 years of foreign policy
No shit.
>not because Islam poses a threat to freedom and civilization.
That's wrong. They both, clearly, can co-exist, because they do right now. Foreign meddling caused blowback, regime change causes power vacuums, arming rebels causes destabilization, and destabilization causes radicalization. Doesn't undermine Hitch's disdain for the way Islam manifested itself in the western world throughout the nineties and early 2000s.
>called Reagan a genius
Can you link me that or tell me the title. I've read a lot of Hitch's work and don't recall him being particularly flattering or complimentary to Reagan ever. He most often referred to his later senility, from what I recall.
>step up pressure on Iran, Pakistan, NK
Yes. he's fundamentally opposed to theocracies. (And yes, he characterized Kim Jong Il's dictatorship is essentially a theocracy.

But back to the point:
-Saddam violated the Geneva conventions, which bound all signatories to enfore/take action.
-it was already the official policy of the US to seek regime change in Iraq.

Wrong. America's most prominent conservative writer, George Will, is an atheist.