Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Christopher Hitchens doesn't like The King's Speech

Turns out, the film doesn't spend enough time trashing the royals for their Nazi sympathies.  Despite the headline of the article, the primary source of anger appears to come from the man who lives in perpetual hatred and anger every day - Christopher Hitchens. Yeah, that Christopher Hitchens.  The one whose approach to historical accuracy makes Glen Beck look reputable*.  The one who, like most radical Leftists, sees everything in Western History as negatively as possible, thereby validating the need to burn every traditional foundation to the ground.  From there, of course, a glorious new world will be raised, based on a militarily enforced secularism and rabid neo-Marxist Leftism that models itself loosely on how the Soviet Union should have been - had it not foolishly treated Communism as a religion which, in Hitchens' and many modern athists' demented minds, is the primary cause of evil in the world.  Of course his own Nazi-like hatred for all religion and religious people is missed by him, as he chicken pecks those in history he can use to attack any root to the problem of religion.  And even though such hatred and loathing would, in most cases, be shunned by the media, its own impotence and secular blindness allows Hitchens to continue to be the darling of the secular left, giving a brief glimpse into what the world may look like if they ever assume control.

Anyway, I hadn't planned on seeing The King's Speech.  Just not the type of movie that appeals to me, where a historical person or moment is loosely used around which to build a story.  It can be done, but is seldom done well (the movie Amadeus being a glaring example of being done well).  Nonetheless, with anti-religious bigots and radical liberal publications like The New Republic trashing it, I'm almost to the point of signing up for a couple tickets. 

*My favorite Hitchensism came in an interview on MSNBC, when he was asked about the Founding Fathers.  He declared the ones who mattered were really atheists, but had to hide their true atheism because of the hordes of religious fanatics apparently prowling the countryside and burning such free thinkers at the stake.  Of course it never happened.  By the late 18th century such things were absent in the American Colonies, and there's absolutely no evidence at all that the Founding Fathers were atheists scared to death of dying for their unbelief.  But anyone whose basic world view is based on the hatred of a group of people, a little thing like facts won't matter. I doubt he even invokes conspiracy theory.  He's content with ignoring factual objections and continuing on with his sad, slow, decent into madness and whatever eternity awaits him.  I pray that he pulls out in time.


  1. 1st about the movie. I had not planned on seeing it because like you mentioned it is a moving loosly formed around historical events. A story within the story.
    What the article you refered to was lacking was much substance. Who really cares what Hitchens thinks. I know I don't
    The movie appears to have great acting and looks well done overall. Isn't that what really making a movie is all about. It is not a documentary where facts matter. So I guess I dont' see the issue and if it is such a big issue then why dont' they site several individuals.

  2. The fact that Hitchens is still quoted by the media demonstrates the media's own bias and anti-religious prejudice. After all, would they quote Fred Phelps in an article about a recent film? I doubt it. They don't quote Fred Phelps when it is a story about Fred Phelps. They find his views to be that offensive. Yet Hitchens, who has made statements almost as bad regarding religion and religious people, continues to be quoted as if his opinions matter.


  3. So your only argument is that Hitchens must be wrong because he's angry?
    Congratulations, you just debunked all of philosophy, a branch of thinking based primarily on angry, unhappy thoughts...

  4. Vicente,

    Who said 'Hitchens is angry, that's why he is wrong'? He does come across as angry all the time. And his hatred of religion and religious people is well documented. But that's not why he's wrong. He's wrong because he is wrong about facts. He continues to be wrong about facts because his blind hatred won't allow him to rethink his arguments, and many who might otherwise call him on such silly notions (like they do Glen Beck and others who make a joke of themselves), tend to ignore him because, I can't help but think, they share some of his biases.


Let me know your thoughts