Christopher Hitchens was a complete one-off – a gargantuan intellectual who combined extraordinary thinking with the sharpness of a boxer’s sting. An inspirational thinker and rhetorician, one whose calibre we are unlikely to see again.

Armed with a spectacularly quick wit and a never-ending hunger to do battle with anyone morally suspect – whether God, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, or Henry Kissinger – it simply did not matter to Hitchens, who or what you were. Through his expert peroration or ink-swordsmanship, he relished the opportunity for political and moral fisticuffs. Thus, making him a most formidable enemy to dare make – whether religious believer, or Ba’athist regime apologist.

Originally a Trotskyist, he began a slow and painful divorce from the left and ‘The International Socialists’. Arguably this began as early as 1982, when he supported the response of British forces to the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Island. Correctly believing a British response would lead to the collapse of the fascist regime in Argentinian and thus lead to an adoption of democracy.

Whilst many aspects of his politics could be described as a Catch-22 at times, one element always remained the same – his fierce battle against any form of totalitarianism. It is this which led to perhaps his most well-known battle: his rage against God. Indeed, in a debate with his Conservative younger brother, Peter Hitchens in 2005, Christopher described the notion of religion in no uncertain terms, describing it as a ‘totalitarian belief’, and the notion of believing in a deity as:

“The wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you – who must, indeed, subject you – to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life – I say, of your life – before you’re born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you’re dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? (…) But at least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!”

After witnessing the threat of ‘Islamofascism’ to Western civilization, when in 1989 his friend; Salman Rushdie had a fatwah placed on him by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ( because of Rushdie’s supposed blasphemy in The Satanic Verses), Hitchens’ rage turned and focused on the Islamic world.

The threat of ‘Islamofascism’ to Western civilization led to Hitchens supporting intervention in Iraq, believing the removal of Saddam Hussein to be of paramount importance. Indeed, throughout his career, Hitchens had reported widely on the plight of the Kurdish people, and thus was left appalled by Saddam Hussein’s ethnic cleansing. He was particularly sickened at the deployment of chemical weapons by Hussein’s cousin, General Ali Hasan al-Majid (‘Chemical Ali) – who once famously claimed:

“I will kill them (Kurds) all with chemical weapons (…) who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them”.

Having, seen the horrors of the Kurdish massacre first-hand, and the oppression of Iraqis at the hands of the Ba’ath party, as well as the hosting of Al Qaeda in the form of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hitchens decided enough was enough. The only method to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi population and the plight of the Kurds was military intervention. But this was nothing new for Hitchens – since he had previously supported the intervention in Bosnia, and Blair’s removal of Charles Taylor in Liberia.

Indeed, like a true dogmatist, Hitchens correctly stuck to his principles, and refused to back down. He continued to rigorously, ferociously and articulately defend the war in Iraq. In an interview in The Guardian in 2006, he discussed how significant his principles were in supporting the incursion:

“There are a lot of people who will not be happy, it seems to me, until I am compelled to write a letter to these comrades in Iraq and say: ‘Look, guys, it’s been real, but I’m going to have to drop you now. The political cost to me is just too high.’ Do I see myself doing this? No, I do not!”

His argument with those on the left regarding the threat of radical Islam and the menace of totalitarianism is best described by Machiavelli’s instructions to Raffaello Girolam:

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But this must happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand, to be produced immediately”.

Hitchens saw the left and his former comrades (and co-authors) such as Norman Finklestein, Alexander Cockburn, Noam Chomsky and co. supporting Islamic fascists and criticising America and Israel for the existence of an ideology that predates the Balfour declaration and the emergence of US neoconservative foreign policy. So incensed was Hitchens that former comrades’ dared attempt absolve the murderous forces of jihad that he did everything in his grasp to highlight the left and their veiling up of facts.

Many who argued against intervention often point to the resulting death toll; to answer those, Hitchens turned to Orwell and questioned what someone is actually saying when they claim to be a pacifist. Indeed, Orwell wrote in Notes on Nationalism, May 1948:

‘The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.’

Politics aside, one seismic aspect of Hitchens’ greatness was his vast literary knowledge. Indeed, he wrote a monthly book review in The Atlantic, where his exhaustive wisdom and “Rolls-Royce mind” (as described by his friend, Ian McEwan) was conveyed beautifully and eloquently. It was Hitchens who introduced me as a young boy to the beautiful poetry of Pindar, Byron, Auden, Khayyám, and to the novels of Koestler, Kafka, and Bellow, as well as to the philosophy of Voltaire, Strauss, and Spinoza (and this is to name but a few).

Furthermore, through his continuous referencing of literary greats, Hitchens was also able to convey his message in a truly unique polemical style, whilst encouraging his readers to themselves discover such sources. Thus whilst it was (and always will be) a pleasure to read Hitchens, it was also an invaluable education as a young man.

Indeed, this Christmas I was given by my dear Godfather a limited edition 50th anniversary copy of Catch-22. Included in the back is a selection of reviews. Contained within, unsurprisingly is a Hitchens piece which he wrote for The Nation in 1999. I was amused to read the following:

“Having endless times been asked, by schoolmasters, military cadet instructors and other purveyors of the literal and banal: ‘Look here, Hitchens, what would happen if everyone thought like you?’ I came across Yossarian’s riposte to this eternal interrogatory (which was roughly, why then, I’d be a damn fool to think any other way, wouldn’t I?) and sent the book hurtling skywards with a yell of triumph. Yes! That’s the stuff to give them!”

Well, Hitchens certainly always gave ‘them’ the stuff, whoever his target was – he never held back from telling the truth, and continued till the end to unveil the covering up of facts – and he did this so with great style, vigour, and much gusto.

I can remember the morning when I find out about his passing, I was sat at my desk reading Voltaire, when I received a text from my godfather relaying the news that rendered me somewhat numb. Bizarrely enough, having sat frozen for several minutes, I looked at the page in front of me where a single sentence seemed to scream out. Only after reading it, did I quite fully comprehend what a seismic loss his passing was – ‘All styles are good except the tiresome kind’.

Hitchens was never the ‘tiresome kind’ – But neither could his writing style nor expert peroration be described in conjunction with anyone or anything else. This is when it hit home what the world has lost – a truly unique intellectual – who as a result will always be remembered alongside other literary giants such as George Orwell and William Hazlitt – And on this prediction, you know what – I hold Hitchens’ true dogmatist certainty.