Hitchens? Oh, he was a firebrand who thrived on provocation. I admire how he refused to be pigeonholed. One minute he’s tearing into Henry Kissinger, the next he’s backing the Iraq War—it drove people nuts. His atheism was central, but his politics were a mix of old-school leftism and post-9/11 hawkishness. He hated dogma, whether from religions or political movements, and that’s why he’s still quoted so much today. Love him or hate him, you can’t ignore him.
Christopher Hitchens was a fascinating figure whose political views evolved dramatically over his lifetime, and I've spent a lot of time wrestling with his contradictions. In his early years, he was a staunch Trotskyist, deeply embedded in the far left, even writing for socialist publications. His break with the left came gradually, but the Iraq War was a major turning point—he supported the intervention, which alienated many of his former allies. What I find compelling is how he never fit neatly into any ideology; he despised religious fundamentalism (famously calling religion 'the main source of hatred in the world') but also clashed with pacifists and anti-war activists. His support for free speech was absolute, even when it was uncomfortable, like his defense of cartoons mocking Islam. He had a knack for pissing off everyone at some point, which tells me he was more interested in principles than tribes.
Later in life, he called himself a 'Marxist' in method but not in belief, focusing more on secular humanism and anti-totalitarianism. His friendship with neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz confused a lot of people, but Hitch saw it as a marriage of convenience against what he viewed as greater evils. His debates on religion, like the one with William Lane Craig, are legendary, but his political shifts are just as gripping. I don’t agree with all his stances, but his fearlessness and wit make his legacy endlessly debatable—which is probably how he’d want it.
2026-04-22 11:56:15
1
Tingnan ang Lahat ng Sagot
I-scan ang code upang i-download ang App
Kaugnay na Mga Aklat
He Picked the Wrong Side
Peanut Butter
5.7
85.7K
My mother-in-law and I were traveling together. We'd just checked into the Solenne Hotel in Rivera City and decided to hit the pool.
Then this woman—dressed like money and attitude—pinched her nose like we stank. "This is a luxury hotel. How did you people even get in? Sneak in just for the pool? Ugh, I need a test after this."
Buzzkill.
I snapped, "It's a hotel pool. Guests swim. If that's a problem, go build your own."
Her face twisted. "Excuse me? Do you even know who I am? My husband owns this place. We always stay in the top suite. So get out. You reek of broke. You're contaminating the water."
Georgina and I traded a look. Ice cold.
This was her son's hotel. My husband's.
Since when did he come with a second wife?
Ivy was left to die with her mother in a burning room. When she thought it was all over, a handsome and fierce man barged through the flames. Vladimir. The Alpha of her rival pack.
Instead of killing her, he captured her and took her back to his pack, forcing her into a contractual marriage to secure his position as Alpha. Yet in a pack that despised her existence, only Vladimir stood on her side. No one had been willing to save Ivy. Even her own father had wanted her sold.
But Vladimir was willing.
He would die for her and kill for her. And when he finally finds those responsible for her suffering, he skins them alive without mercy, just as the ruthless Alpha he is.
"This is just a contractual marriage, so why are you being so protective of that bitch?!" a woman yelled.
"One more word about my wife," Vladimir snarled, "and I will cut off your tongue."
She bought the ring herself.
Ayesha Adams planned every detail which includes the venue, the words, even the dress her best friend picked out. She got down on one knee in front of every employee at Azul Corporation and told Chris, the man she had quietly loved for four years, that she wanted to spend her life with him.
He told her to get up. That she had embarrassed him. That she should leave.
Her dress ripped on the way out and Gemma filmed the whole thing.
The next morning, Ayesha found out her best friend was pregnant for him. So she did the only thing left with any dignity in it. She resigned, packed her life into boxes,
moved across the city, took out a loan, and built something of her own. She stopped being the girl no one looked at twice. She became someone men crossed rooms for.And Chris noticed. He calls but he ignores him. He shows up at her gallery. She smiles and asks him to leave. He
donates anonymously to her business but she thanks no one in particular. He follows her to galas. She dances with other men. He is losing his mind and she is just getting started.
But then her mother falls ill. And Chris does something that no amount of anger or pride or self-preservation can make
Ayesha ignore.
The novel is mainly about the forgotten British poet/writer named C. J Richards who lived in Burma/Myanmar in colonial times and he believed himself as a Burmophile. He served as I.C.S (Indian Civil Servant) and when he retired from I.C.S service, he was a D.C (District Commissioner) and he left for England a year before Burma gained its independence in 1948. He came to Burma in 1920 to work in civil service after passing the hardest I.C.S examination. He wrote several books on Burma and contributed many monthly articles to Guardian Magazine published in Burma from 1953 to 1974 or 1975. Though he wrote several books which had much literary merit to both communities, Britain and Burma (Myanmar), people failed to recognize him.
The story has two parts: one part is set in the contemporary Yangon (then called Rangoon) in 2016 context and a young literary enthusiast named “Lin” found out unexpectedly the forgotten writer’s poetry book and there is surely a good deal of time gap that led him into a quest to know more about the author’s life. The setting is quite different comparing to colonial Burma and independence Myanmar (Burma), early twentieth century and 2016 which is a transitional period in Myanmar.
The writer’s life is fictionalized in the novel and most of the facts are taken from his personal stories and other reference books. It is a kind of historical novel with a twist and it has comparatively constructed the two different periods in Myanmar history to convince readers, locally and abroad more about history, authorship, humanity, colonialism, and transitional development in Myanmar today.
The day before Chris Carter and I were supposed to get engaged, my parents sent me to prison.
Three years later, when I was finally released, Chris was the only one who came to pick me up.
I knew he despised me. I trembled, keeping my head down, hoping to slip away unnoticed.
But he blocked my path, frowning. “Emily York? You stink.”
He pinched his nose and told me to get in the car.
I fell to my knees, desperately begging him not to take me home. If he did, I would die.
He looked at me with chilling indifference and said, “Then go ahead and die.”
I agreed.
But later, he cried and begged me to stay alive.
Christopher Hitchens was one of those figures who could make you nod in agreement one moment and grit your teeth the next. His sharp wit and unapologetic stance on religion, particularly in his book 'God Is Not Great,' made him a lightning rod for debate. He didn’t just criticize religious institutions; he dismantled their moral authority with a blend of erudition and biting humor. For many secular folks, he was a hero, but for others, his tone came off as needlessly combative. His defense of the Iraq War further polarized opinions—even some of his longtime admirers felt betrayed by his support for what they saw as an unjust conflict.
What I find fascinating about Hitchens is how he thrived in contradiction. He could champion free speech while supporting controversial figures like Salman Rushdie, yet also align himself with neoconservative policies that seemed at odds with his earlier leftist leanings. His debates were legendary, not just for their content but for his sheer audacity—like when he drank whiskey onstage during a discussion about temperance. Love him or loathe him, he forced people to engage with uncomfortable ideas, and that’s a rare quality these days. The world feels quieter without his voice, though I’m sure he’d hate the sentimentality of that remark.
Christopher Hitchens' death was a significant loss to the world of letters and free thought. He passed away on December 15, 2011, after a brutal battle with esophageal cancer, which had metastasized to his lymph nodes and lungs. Diagnosed in 2010 while on tour for his memoir 'Hitch-22,' he faced the illness with characteristic wit and defiance, even continuing to write and debate until his final months. His essays during that period—collected in 'Mortality'—are some of his most poignant work, grappling unflinchingly with pain, faith, and the absurdity of death. Hitchens refused to soften his atheism or seek comfort in religion, famously quipping that if he heard about a terminal patient turning to prayer, he’d think, 'Good, that means they’re getting proper medical care.' His decline was swift but not silent; he left behind a legacy of razor-sharp polemics and a challenge to intellectual complacency.
What stays with me isn’t just the tragedy of his death but how he weaponized his final year. Every interview, every Vanity Fair column, became a masterclass in facing extinction without illusions. The way he mocked the 'celestial dictatorship' of religious consolation while enduring agonizing treatments—it was Hitchens at his most Hitchens-esque. Even critics who loathed his politics admitted his courage. I reread 'Mortality' sometimes when life feels fragile, and it’s like hearing his voice again: impatient, erudite, and utterly alive in the face of oblivion.
Christopher Hitchens was a writer who never shied away from controversy, and his books reflect that fearless intellect. One of his most famous works is 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,' where he dismantles religious dogma with razor-sharp logic and wit. It’s a book that sparks debate no matter which side you’re on—I remember lending my copy to a friend, and we ended up arguing for hours. Another standout is 'Hitch-22,' his memoir, which is as much about his personal journey as it is about the political and ideological battles of his time. His writing style is so engaging that even when you disagree, you can’t stop reading.
Then there’s 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger,' where he makes a compelling case for why Kissinger should be held accountable for war crimes. Hitchens had a knack for blending thorough research with a punchy, almost journalistic urgency. And let’s not forget 'Letters to a Young Contrarian,' a sort of guidebook for free thinkers. It’s like having a conversation with him—acerbic, insightful, and deeply motivating. His work always leaves me feeling fired up, ready to question everything.