The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Preview: Richard Dawkins interviews Christopher Hitchens

Exclusive extracts from the writer's final interview.

By George Eaton Published 13 December 2011 14:11

Exclusive extracts from the writer's final interview.{C}

Update: Christopher Hitchens has died of oesophageal cancer at the age of 62. This was his final interview.

As we revealed earlier this week, this year's New Statesman Christmas special is guest-edited by Richard Dawkins (copies can be purchased here). Among the many highlights is Dawkins's interview with his fellow anti-theist Christopher Hitchens, who began his Fleet Street career at the NS in 1973.

The great polemicist is currently undergoing treatment for stage IV oesophageal cancer ("there is no stage V," he notes) and now rarely makes public appearances but he was in Texas to receive the Freethinker of the Year Award from Dawkins in October. Before the event, the pair met in private to discuss God, religion and US politics. The resulting conversation can now be read exclusively in the New Statesman.

I'd recommend pouring yourself a glass of Johnnie Walker Black Label and reading all 5,264 words but, here, to whet your appetite, are some short extracts. As they show, though physically frail, Hitchens retains his remarkable mental agility.

"Never be afraid of stridency"

Richard Dawkins One of my main beefs with religion is the way they label children as a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child". I've become a bit of a bore about it.
Christopher Hitchens You must never be afraid of that charge, any more than stridency.
RD I will remember that.
CH If I was strident, it doesn't matter - I was a jobbing hack, I bang my drum. You have a discipline in which you are very distinguished. You've educated a lot of people; nobody denies that, not even your worst enemies. You see your discipline being attacked and defamed and attempts made to drive it out.
Stridency is the least you should muster . . . It's the shame of your colleagues that they don't form ranks and say, "Listen, we're going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements."

Fascism and the Catholic Church

RD The people who did Hitler's dirty work were almost all religious.
CH I'm afraid the SS's relationship with the Catholic Church is something the Church still has to deal with and does not deny.
RD Can you talk a bit about that - the relationship of Nazism with the Catholic Church?
CH The way I put it is this: if you're writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word "fascist", if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with "extreme-right Catholic party".
Almost all of those regimes were in place with the help of the Vatican and with understandings from the Holy See. It's not denied. These understandings quite often persisted after the Second World War was over and extended to comparable regimes in Argentina and elsewhere.

Hitchens on the left-right spectrum

RD I've always been very suspicious of the left-right dimension in politics.
CH Yes; it's broken down with me.
RD It's astonishing how much traction the left-right continuum [has] . . . If you know what someone thinks about the death penalty or abortion, then you generally know what they think about everything else. But you clearly break that rule.
CH I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian - on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy - the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do.

To subscribe to the New Statesman or purchase this special issue, click here

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Christopher Hitchens

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

189 comments

Sun, 2012-08-05 15:53 — Stephen Verges (not verified)

WED, 2012-04-11 01:38 — NEIL HANLON (NOT VERIFIED) Newton ... was stuck reading the bible, just as if everyone is stuck with the theme song or jingle of a tv commercial that That's all that was advertised, and Newton would be in trouble when he read other subjects, used the subjects for experimentation and wrote on them with much caution. Surely he couldn't read on Onesicritus and the Gymnosophists of India because he was so engaged at being a bib lit man, I can see you've done very poor honework on the matter because you would agree with Hitchens upon realizing Newton was an anti-trinitarian ... So no scarface Padrino, no typhos and no chosen fascist son for Newton.

By submitting this form - I fight Morloks ...

Stephen Verges

Sun, 2012-08-05 14:43 — Stephen Verges (not verified)

FRI, 2012-05-04 11:30 — ELPENOR DIGNAM (NOT VERIFIED) ... never too late to read a book on the account of your conclusion, no, but absence of your historical premise you may want to take up homelessness and retire to a public library.

By submitting this form - I hereby agree with the Morlok policy.

Stephen Verges -

Sun, 2012-08-05 14:22 — Stephen Verges (not verified)

(... poor pope ...) please subtract poor from pope ... my mistake ...

Sun, 2012-08-05 14:16 — Stephen Verges (not verified)

Who can argue with the idea that Catholics sided with facsism, during the age of Girabaldi - the pope thought (and this was the prior poor pope to Leo XIII) Jewish ghettos were where Jews belong. Leo XIII was very uptight at the success which Giribalidi made and went on to write encyclicals suggesting the master - proletariat relationship should be neo-Aristotelian but profits ... should still favor the "master" ... in terms of equality. Both Dawkins and Hitchens fail to address fascism is not something which the Catholic church supported but may have very well helped shape, sculpt, paint.

If Hitchens was worried about the giant pachyderm which is dressed in papal gown and Gestapo riding boots, there is a great contradiction here regarding Hitchens only a few acknowledge. Last century there was a friend of Bernays, a public relations pioneer by the name of Ben Sonnenberg. Ben Sonnenberg had many clients who paid grotesque amounts of money for PR advice as well as PR emergencies. Henry Kissinger was one of those PR emergencies. Money went from Kissinger to Sonnenberg and then to Sonnenbegr's son and daughter; Ben Sonnenberg, Jr. and Helen Tucker. Tucker would take funding from her fathers last client and stored it in a non-profit called 'The Gramercy Park Foundation'; while the son of Sonnenberg used Kissinger funding to support a very young Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens can't argue this and when he was alive he made zero effort to assert facts which though he earns every penny at the OTB for his wagers on fascism, Hitchens cheated a world of followers and readers into thinking he was a better man than Kissinger. A Hitchens/Kissinger team would be as shameful of an idea if one was to find out Betrand Russel financed 'Mein Kampf' or if Chomsky was secretly a CIA agent whose original mission was the 'Bay of Pigs'. Kissinger money would even fund W.S. Merwin and Ted Hughes through Sonnenberg, if one checks the list of writers and poets under 'Grand Street', everyone listed took hard money from Kissinger.

The Royal Society of Literature would accept Sonnenberg as a distinguished member of their society despite the only real attribute of Sonnenberg having possession of ... daddy's dirty money; I don't have the body count for the dirty money but it is in the millions. NVAM.org
By submiting this form, I agree with the Morlok privacy policy.

Stephen Verges - stepson of Ben Sonneberg

Sat, 2012-07-28 16:17 — Ritch Rip (not verified)

RIP Hitch. You will be missed sir.

Sat, 2012-07-28 01:47 — kvzmses (not verified)

mojixxsa

Sun, 2012-06-24 15:36 — Phill (not verified)

This is a great story endeed. Hitler was the "product" of the people from economical austeridad.
___________
Guaranteed education tuition

Sat, 2012-05-05 01:35 — TN Pas Cher (not verified)

Nike TN
Nike Tn Pas Cher
Nike TN
Nike Tn Pas Cher
TN Pas Cher
Nike tn 2011
Tn foot locker

TN Requin
TN Pas Cher
Nike TN
Nike air max
TN REQUIN
Puma Pas Cher
TN Pas Cher Nike tn 2012 tn foot locker

TN REQUIN
Nike TN
Nike Requin
Chaussure Requin
Air Max Requin TN Pas Cher Puma Pas Cher

Fri, 2012-05-04 11:30 — Elpenor Dignam (not verified)

Hitchens was a cheerleader for the war on Iraq, he is was imperialist as is Dawkins with his new university for the wealthy. Also the idea of eviscerating the boundaries between the left and the right into some uniform belief system is exactly what fascism was about. Whatever about the Catholic hierarchy it clear from anyone who has studied history that fascist parties offered the Catholic church protection from the fear of communism as a means to gain power, as soon as they were in government this all changed, Catholics and clergy were persecuted, many sent to the death camps. Dawkins and Hitchens are very clever at manipulating history to push a WASP anti-Catholic anti - Muslim agenda. Some of us see through it however, there is nothing left wing about either of these men.

Fri, 2012-05-04 21:35 — Malt (not verified)

Jan, Haven't you learnt anything I've said in my past comments? If you look up one of the Murdoch articles, someone has put it very well about reviewing your life on earth.

Fri, 2012-04-20 17:38 — RossE (not verified)

Great comment. This sums up the whole "atheism vs religion" debate in my opinion! I, too was one of the lucky ones.

Fri, 2012-04-20 17:35 — RossE (not verified)

Great comment. This sums up the whole "atheism vs religion" debate in my opinion! I, too was one of the lucky ones.

Wed, 2012-04-11 01:38 — Neil Hanlon (not verified)

erm....evolution at it's core...? Just name me ONE medical advancement that truly helps people that relies upon evolution...? You also seem to forget that many of the best scientists did not believe in evolution and/or believed in God...Isaac Newton...christian...(spent most of his time studying the bible actually, not much of his life was spent on Physics), James Clerk Maxwell...christian...Albert Einstein...certainly a deist of some sort...
Something else I've noticed...most of the top atheists you get in the media, are NOT scientists...they are writers, actors and programme makers...just saying...

Wed, 2012-04-11 01:31 — Neil Hanlon (not verified)

Why do you guys hate religeon soooo much? If its all b*** then why would you care? Is it not that...maybe...deep down inside you're afraid that there might well be a God out there...? Just wondering...

Thu, 2012-05-31 03:06 — Scriptorium (not verified)

I, too, have wondered about atheists continually railing about a nonentity.

Fri, 2012-04-20 17:30 — RossE (not verified)

Neil, we care because religious leaders actively use their position of power to negatively influence peoples lives on a day to day basis. The Pope telling people in Africa that if they are a christian they are not allowed to use condoms, is killing millions and millions of people and making many more's lives a living hell.

If all religious people did was got on with it in private then that would be fine, we would have no need to argue. But when religion wrongly forces people into poverty and suffering, thats what we (atheists) won't stand for.

Wed, 2012-04-11 01:24 — Neil Hanlon (not verified)

erm...well curiously enough, Hitler actually hated the church...if you watch the World at War series, one of the episodes shows archive footage from christmas 1936, Germay, in a large cathedral carol concert. Above the choir is a huge cross. Above that, is a swastika about 3 times the size. I think we can guess who Hitler really thought was God! The man loved himself too much to really believe in somebody above him...he posed as a christian and a believer in God to keep the church on his side until after the war...so...read up on your facts mate!

Mon, 2012-04-23 13:19 — Chambo (not verified)

I think you're twisting the world to fit with how you'd like it to be. If anything, a giant swastika in a church amplifies the connection between the catholic faith and the Nazi party.
Aside from this there are plenty of records suggesting Hitler was at least a theist, so I’d recommend a bit more research than what you’ve seen in one episode of World at War.
The fundamental issue with religion, the reason passivism should be abhorred, is indoctrination. The fact that only a twelfth of people escape the religion of their parents, almost universally forced upon them at birth or in early life, is testament to the power of brainwashing and conformity rife in religious communities

Mon, 2012-04-23 13:18 — Chambo (not verified)

Sun, 2011-12-18 10:41 — jankaas (not verified)

"I'm glad to see you're coming around."

been there for ages, 'if' is the best argument for God. and on the 'if' issue i already posted this to you about that;

"sorry, too many ifs and thens etc. you seemed far more sure of yourself in your original statement."

and so i must repeat; still not a clue just exactly what you 'know' is being 'endured' by the deceased?

is there any chance you could answer that, or do you not really have one?

thanks.

Tue, 2011-12-13 20:00 — Observer (not verified)

Most of the atheists are rich and powerful(looking at the view!!!) and I feel like they don't really care about the people at the bottom. If evolution is right atheism should become dogmatic in order to replace religion. Also, the self proclaimed big time atheist need to sharpen their preaching style I don't think its a good idea irritating people after all if people convert to atheism the first thing in their mind is not to be grateful but rather to respond to all the insults they received. Unless and of course if its because of a personal experience that made them change their path. ch doesn't like when people bother him for spiritual reasons but he is huge advocate of freedom of speech but doesn't want his family to be exposed to religious views.

Wed, 2011-12-14 17:09 — Dan Brown (not verified)

Also

Martin Bormann:

"When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not understand by God, like naïve Christians and their spiritual opportunists, a human-type being, who sits around somewhere in space . . . The force of natural law, with which all these innumerable planets move in the universe, we call the Almighty or God.

.S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945 (Vancouver 1968), pp. 383-384.

Fri, 2011-12-16 23:17 — jankaas (not verified)

@Joe

" If I'm wrong, I apologize."

oki doki, thanks.

"not a formalized theory of ontology."

which are the only ones we could ever discuss, and i haven't met one yet i like very much.

"at least laughable"

exactly. it did just that, made me laugh. your claim that there is something for the deceased to experience (you say 'endure') is funny. end of.

and it's funny because you say it as if it is a matter of fact. how do you get such a profound insight into the afterlife? as you put it to me; you would be on the cutting edge of philosophical frameworks.

well?

Tue, 2011-12-13 20:07 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

Am I the only one who things that Dawkins is a professional athiest?

Does it make me troll?

Are Dawkins children "athiest children" or does he not believe in indoctrinating his kids?

Fri, 2011-12-16 23:32 — Joe Private (not verified)

@ jankaas
Well, if I'm right, then it is a matter of fact. And if I am convinced that souls are eternal, what would you have me do, check my presuppositions at the door when I'm in conversation with someone who believes otherwise? As to how one gets "such profound isight," it is from none other than God Himself via His written revelation.

I appreciate the exchange and again apologize for any hasty conclusions to which I might have jumped.

Mon, 2011-12-19 21:54 — Fraziel1

Here is what George galloway has to say about him in the Daily Record 19th December

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2011/12/lets-just-hope-god...

Tue, 2011-12-13 20:11 — Don Michael (not verified)

Hmmm, Hitchens and Dawkins. Awesome.

As for the comment from M. Johnson: it almost always comes down to how we were raised - with or without faith. I was one of the lucky ones. There was no discussion about relgion, god or faith. There was no discussion about atheism. Our home's neutrality allowed me to formulate my own beliefs by observing, reading, watching, being aware, and being logical. By the time I was a young adult I was convinced that religion, in general terms, poisoned everything around it. It still does and always will. Those who support religion usually had it hammered down their throats, with no hope of escape, and now they are its prisoner.

Fri, 2011-12-16 00:41 — Philby (not verified)

Rich, ignorance is not bliss

Thu, 2011-12-22 18:36 — Ian5

Peter, maybe you could list these great academic works that you talk of. Also as you assure us religion is not tabloid, please tell me the facts that should be taken seriously.. I mean I know we must not take the bible literally, but surely some parts need to be taken at face value (by believers that is )

Wed, 2011-12-14 17:35 — Joe Blogs (not verified)

The very first treaty the Nazis created was with the Vatican which allowed the RC Church control over children's education. Would an atheist do that? I don't think so. For all you ignoramuses out there who think Hitler was an atheist, please read Prof. Coel Hellier's blog at:http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

Sat, 2011-12-17 00:22 — jankaas (not verified)

@Joe

"Well, if I'm right, then it is a matter of fact. And if I am..."

sorry, too many ifs and thens etc. you seemed far more sure of yourself in your original statement.

"it is from none other than God Himself via His written revelation."

same as before; this is a bizarre thing to write. still not a clue just exactly what you 'know' is being 'endured' by the deceased.

it's the only bit i'm at all interested in. sorry.

Thu, 2011-12-22 20:23 — Ian5

Sory Peter, one book? I asked you to list these "academic works", obviously you were to busy in you studies to take on board the concept of plural. One work or two, but the bible is only a single work.

I knew god and the concept of a deity was trash long before I encountered either Dawkins or Hitchens. so just name two great academic works there are not many that can claim to be both great and academic.

Thu, 2011-12-22 21:24 — jankaas (not verified)

" I really don't have the time to explain"

great news. so piss off already Peter. i'm sure you have far more important matters to attend to. don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

Fri, 2011-12-16 06:20 — sank (not verified)

rest in peace hitch

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:02 — Karla Wachsmann (not verified)

To Marcus

I started to read Mein Kampf yesterday and... hmmm... according to Hitler`s writings, he was not atheist at all. He wrote that he was doing "work" for Almighty Creator and this work was killing Jews, Gypsies, Slavs (what pleasure for me as Slovak)! Maybe he was not devout Catholic, but he believed in God. Just read his stupid book and you will see. KW

Fri, 2011-12-16 06:26 — JD (not verified)

Welll...one thing is a certain. If Hitch is wrong in his belief it's too late to change his mind now. Every man place his bet...good luck!

Fri, 2011-12-16 07:14 — Hugh Beaumont (not verified)

The fact that these guys argue only about Catholicism, (not Methodists, JW's Quakers, Hindus, Buddhists or Jews) only Catholics, is a testament to its truth. This is the stumbling block that they could not get beyond (nor will anyone else).

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:26 — Kevin Colquitt (not verified)

It looks as if ol' Joe Pub has severe problems with definitions.

Those divine dictators (Hitchens, Dawkins and those of like minds) didn't stop him from commenting-twice nonetheless! Therefor, one has to wonder who he's babbling on about when he repeats his accusations of dictatorial censorship "by those who will not allow expression of opposite beliefs to theirs on the matter of religion"? He makes accusations with no evidence. Who, exactly Joe, is keeping you from expressing your beliefs about religion? You have commented twice. Your comments have not been scrubbed from the site. These dictators must be as impotent as the one that you worship!

Wed, 2011-12-14 18:13 — Abeba (not verified)

Athiest are delusional and dawkins just confirmed it.

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:39 — Joe Public (not verified)

Thank you, Kevin. But you've missed the point. Comments were made before mine that were treated with disdain and that reaction prompted my comments. The expressions of disdain amount to a form of censorship (ineffective perhaps but intentional nonetheless). I'm trying to make the point that all comments ought to be allowed, including mine, including yours, including theirs, and treated with respect a least as valid. So I am exercising my right to comment and not excluding anyone else or discouraging them with unpleasant, unnecessary or unkind responses. And you're welcome to respond.

Sat, 2011-12-17 02:57 — Jim Mauch (not verified)

Life with a vengeance. A gallant finish. He would wish the battle to continue.

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:56 — Bert (not verified)

Hitchens = a cold bucket of water over the head of the drunken masses.

Religion can not, and will not, survive in an environment where it faces open critique. The emergence of science as a predictable and empirical system of explaining the natural world was the first dagger in the heart of religion. The second, and current, influence of modern communication (internet, mobile phones) which allows this information to be made increasingly accessible to a larger (and getting larger) portion of the planet will be the ultimate death knell.

Expect 'Christian mythology' and 'Islamic mythology' to be the common terminology for our present day religions before this century comes to a close.

Wed, 2011-12-14 18:28 — jankaas (not verified)

@Karla Wachsmann

"But who "invented" circumcision?"

pls note that i am not trying to defend circumcision. i merely proved that people have mutilated the genitalia of males despite being religious, and also despite not being religious.

the accusation had been that only those who are religiously motivated did this, and this was used to 'prove' that religion is bad and absence of religion is good. no evidence has been provided to prove this conclusively.

Tue, 2011-12-20 05:45 — Ron Knox (not verified)

The harm that religion does is undeniable. We are living in the 21st century, but still fighting wars over primitive tribal superstitions that should have been consigned to the waste bin centuries ago. And it is not just primitive, tribal societies that are the problem. Both Bush and Blair claimed divine guidance in their decision to wage war.

Tue, 2011-12-20 07:50 — Joe Private (not verified)

I'm not sure how, but somehow it still surprises me when the likes of Ron Knox try to pretend that "religion" is the source of the world's problems. From where I'm sitting, it isn't the "religious" that commit infanticide and call it an act of mercy on the so-called mother. It isn't the "religious" who fight tooth and nail to have children in the public school indoctrinated (at an increasingly earlier age) into believing that homosexuality is a-ok. Make no mistake that awful acts have been committed "in the name of God." It's called false religion. True religion seeks to preserve life and marriage and benevolence. Anything short of that is a perversion of the only legitimate religion.

Sat, 2011-12-17 04:18 — Earthling (not verified)

@Cbus

I agree with you "black people rock" however the comparison of religion and racism doesn't. No one can change the colour of their skin, even if a lot of us try by worshipping solariums (the incarnation of the sun), hence it would be meaningless to discuss wether someone suck or not on that basis. To discuss wether a standpoint is fundamentally wrong however does actually make sense.

Tue, 2011-12-13 22:11 — BR (not verified)

Indu Pendent - Probably not...but you wouldn't be in good company.

Atheism is (typically defined as) a rejection of god claims for lack of evidence. If anything, I'd surmise he indoctrinated his children as rationalists an/or skeptics and let them make their own decision about the supernatural. Just guessing.

Sat, 2011-12-17 04:42 — Jim (not verified)

I'm one of the lucky ones who never had to debate the religious matter, but have seen the obvious influence of the two main current religions on the whole planet. I've written an overview with a timeline that can be freely downloaded from www.daretoreason.info. I hope it finds its way to young people. With great respect for the great mind of Hitch. Reason to All.