It's the future, Jim, but not as we know it...

There's more to tomorrow than robots, flying cars, and a faster internet.
22C+ is all about Deep Futures, futures that matter. Welcome to futures fantastic, unexpected, profound, but most of all deeply meaningful...

Monday, December 19, 2011

The Intuitive Profiles: Christopher Hitchens

More intuitive profiles and intuitive reviews can be found here.

Author and social commentator Christopher Hitchens passed away on December 15th. As an intuitive I found him to be very interesting individual (besides being a futurist I am also a spiritual counselor). He represents a character archetype of the modern age: the fractured man. I saw an interview with him last night on BBC World news, and so was able to gain a stronger sense of who he was. I am going to share some of the insights I gleaned from his psyche, and why I think they are important to appreciate. You might note that I use the present tense when I write about his psyche. That is because death does not extinguish the record of that energy, and as far as I can tell it survives death.

Although he had a long career as an author and journalist, Hitchens became well known in recent years for his book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The book both attacks religion and champions science-based reason. It also rejects Eastern mystical traditions like Buddhism. Hitchens was a witty and often virulent rhetorician who made no attempt to steer down the middle road of political correctness.

The most notable feature of Hitchens’ consciousness is his bloody-minded refusal to surrender. The human impulse to fight is biologically wired into us. One of the unfortunate side effects of this is that it manifests in a negative way when it comes to transcending ego-based consciousness. The machinations of the ego tend to get projected out onto the world, and very strongly in Hitchens’ case. The essence of it is as follows.

No! I’m not going to do it surrender.. I am in control! You will not destroy me! I will destroy you! I am right! I know best. I am right, and you are wrong. I am the One! I am God! You are primitive! (to Muslims and fundamentalists). We have to fight! Fight them! Wipe them out! We cannot relax until they are all gone. Never let them win. This is a fight for reason, for freedom, for truth over lies! Fuck them!

The great irony is that Hitchens has the archetypal energy of the crusader on the march to drive out the infidels. He is playing the same game as the fundamentalists, just on the opposing them.

The image of Al Qaida comes up when I look at his psyche. He saw them as an anti-rational threat to civilisation and progress. This is true enough, but it had the effect of clouding his perceptions of Muslims in general.

The terror of letting go is actually the terror of death. Hitchens stated bluntly that he was not afraid of death, only the process of dying. But this was a case of denial. Fear of death is built into the ego, and Hitchens was no exception. In fact it was the central driving force within his psyche.

Hitchens’ obsession with freedom mirrors one of the prime issues of the Human Collective Oversoul at this time in our evolution. The human race is being asked to release power to a greater intelligence than its own (cosmic intelligence, or God if you prefer). Yet it is nonetheless true that people have a tendency to give their power away to those who abuse it: including lovers, parents, the media, teachers, governments, religious organisations etc. When we give our power away to false gods the lesson is a painful one. We become possessed, enchained. When this happens the next step in the evolution of consciousness of the individual is the rebellion stage. This is the “Fuck you!” stage, and to speak generally, it is the most common expression of consciousness in the Western world today. It is also culturally validated through popular media and literature. It is perhaps most notable in the disaffected, angry teenager. And this is precisely where Christopher Hitchens’ psycho-spiritual development left off. Like most people in the Western world, he never Transcended that level. It should also be pointed out that in many non-Western cultures the rebel phase has not yet been appropriately addressed at all.

It is also because his ego remained fully in control of his psyche that Hitchens was fearful of the concept of ‘unity’, and saw himself as a ‘divider’. This destroys consciousness of the prime objective of the spiritual journey: love through unity through the dissolution of the false boundaries of the ego. This is why the ego fears the spiritual journey. One of the strong themes within his psyche is the fear of being overwhelmed by “God”.

The fear is not without justification. The kind of “God” that Al Qaida and religious fundamentalists peddle emerges from an infantile understanding of Spirit. It would indeed be a regression to submit to it.

Another notable feature of Hitchens was his refusal to consider the idea of life beyond death. He openly stated that nobody can say what the conditions are for life beyond the brain. This is not correct, and meditators and mystics for thousands of years have been able to gain insight into the deeper nature of consciousness in a way the modern science has not. Hitchens ignorance is a reflection of the unnaturally delimited ways of knowing of modern science and education. His house in Washington is full of his beloved books, but also stands as a testament to way that he processed reality primarily through the left brain and abstract reason. You cannot analyse, calculate or ‘think’ your way to an awareness of consciousness. One has to be silent, listen, and be receptive. This is a feminine process, and modern science and education are heavily patriarchal in nature.

We can also note the reductionism of Hitchens mind as he attempts to grasps the idea of a brain-transcendent consciousness. In his interview he stated that after death “some reassembly of atoms would have to occur.” That consciousness might not be a simple emergent property of matter appears to have been beyond the scope of his consideration.

Hitchens is the apotheosis of dissociated consciousness – the limit that rationality can attain. But his life serves humanity.

The dissociated ego is never really present in the body, and so inevitably seeks ways to dissociate itself further, and deny the connection. He is unable to relax. When I connect with Hitchen’s energy, I sense his breath is caught high in the upper chest. There is a fear of allowing the breath to go any ‘lower’ into the chest, or to connect with the abdomen. The body is rejected because it houses the pain of repressed emotionality. His ‘disease’ thus manifested itself in the esophagus region at the approximate point of disconnection.

Hitchens quest for a ‘bohemian’ lifestyle – with heavy bouts of drinking and smoking – can appreciated in this light. His relationship with his body and his disease is most striking. There is an inherent dissociation or dualism there – he fighting against it. He feels he is being assailed by it. When his body finally rebelled against him, he was incapable of listening to it, of being receptive. He describes his disease as fighting against him, which is a projection on his behalf. It is Hitchens who was fighting. The disease is merely attempting to wake him up. Hitchens never understood his own Soul Issues and the projections which emerged from them. His life story thus became a ‘drama’ which recreated his worldview.

Christopher Hitchens calls religions texts “works of fiction”. He is correct in that they are symbols of enslavement. Their function and application ytpically reflects the issues Human Oversoul Template. But should we “fight” them as Hitchens suggests. Must we have conflict with fundamentalist Muslims and those with irrrational belief structures?

Hitchens was proud to be Anglo-American, but his perceptual limitations are reflective of the dominant expression of that culture. He was not easy to pigeon-hole in terms of political allegiance, but his Soul Issues in many ways reflect the dominant worldview of the West. He supported the war in Iraq, but also believed in the Marxian dialectic. And like Marx, he did not see far enough beyond the material, believing that it was the defining level of human life.

Of course there are numerous truths in what Hitchens writes and says. Large swathes of humanity are enslaved under false religion. Rationality and science does have a huge role to play in the emancipation of humanity.

Christopher Hitchens became an influential voice. He became a leader of sorts. His expression of ‘leadership’ reflects the time and culture that shaped his consciousness. It is my firm belief that we are now entering a time where we need a new kind of leader, what I call the “Leader-Sage.” This person will be far more aware of his or her connection with Spirit, and how one’s battle with the psyche can be projected out onto the word to create a story that is both self-limiting and self-destructive; and often simply destructive. I am going to write more about Leader-Sages in upcoming posts on this blog. I’d be happy to have your input, as this is a most important issue for the future of the planet.

I have not written as many intuitive profiles here on 22cplus as I first planned. The main reason has been a lack of time, but another reason is that I am a little reluctant to write definite claims about the living. There is a potential that people will misunderstand these profiles, and see them as harsh judgments, or condemnations of the relevant individuals. I just want to make clear that this is not my intention. Spirit passes no judgments upon humanity; but it does make discernments. Nor do I condemn in writing these intuitive profiles. I actually feel much compassion for Christopher Hitchens.

It might pay to reflect upon the following. My interaction with Spirit has made it very clear that every single thing that we think, say and do is seen by Spirit. We are one hundred per cent transparent.


  1. Trish and I met C.H. years ago on the set of Miami Vice. He was writing an article about the popular TV show and we were writing an 'insider' book. We only talked briefly, but I still remember the intensity of his character, how he stared at us as trying to see our souls--though I doubt that he would think of it in those terms. He carried about a sense of self-importance, but not arrogance. He was interested in others - what they were about - not just himself. That's what I picked up anyhow.

    Your intuitive reading on him sounds very accurate, a complex deep character, yet blinded to Spirit by his mostly on-the-mark views of religion.

    I look forward to your post about the emergence of a leader-sage, which we need. The challenge for such a leader will be to express a connection to spirit, but not to religion. He/she will also need to overcome a no doubt sizable ego, and yet not allow big money and political-corporate power to overwhelm his ideals.

    I think the latter is what Obama has struggled with over the past three years. Have you done a profile on him? - Rob

  2. Hi Rob,

    Interesting insights into Hitchens. He was a very bright man, so I'm sure he would have been interesting to meet. As for Leader-Sages, I have been moved to work in this area myself. I'm now putting together some workshops, and I hope I can get community leaders and those wishing to lead, to participate. I am basically teaching them how to develop Integrated Intelligence and to become more aware of how their Soul Issues can affect the way they see the world. I have just put together a book proposal on the topic. The book is entitled "Leading with Spirit". My agent seems keen on the project.

    And yes, I have done a profile on Obama - the only other one to date! (You can see all profiles and reviews if you click on the tab of the guy with the suitcase on the right hand side of the screen, scroll down). Or cut and paste this onto your browser:


  3. On the money as usual about CH, Marcus. There's an unflattering profile of him in Salon online ( which makes the point that he was essentially a celeb. Which of course, usually involves hypertrophication of the ego.

    I actually knew him when we were both students, and was suspicious of his claimed commitment to social justice (which of course later morphed into a fairly uncritical anti-Islamism).

    In writings, entertaining and well-written as they are, there's very rarely any sign of love or compassion. And it's only compassion that changes anything in the world (in oneself or in other people.)

  4. Wow, two comments from people who knew him! maybe you guys should have written the post! Interesting the point about love, Simon. I kept hearing that word as I was 'channeling', but didn't pay attention. So I just did a bit of a "check" on it, and what I sensed was an 'oral' issue with his mother. If a baby does not receive the breast, or nourishment, in infancy it can create addictive tendencies in the adult. There seems to be a strong sense of absence of love in his psyche. (I might just add this to the post, so thanks, Simon!)

  5. It will be interesting to find out in your leadership workshops if you can get the participants past any ingrained religious dogmas and/or commitments to mainstream science. Regarding the latter, we've just put up two posts in our synchrosecrets blog on studies of synchronicity published in the December issue of Psychiatric Annal. It's interesting and ironic to see scientists attempting to measure synchronicity. R

  6. I'll check out those posts on your blog, Rob. I haven't had much time for reading or writing blogs lately. BTW there have been studies done on synchronicity in the classroom- see TeachersCollege Review.