The War We Never Fought by Peter Hitchens – review

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Guardian

Jonathan Rée
The Guardian, Friday 26 October 2012 08.00 BST

With reader comments

Peter Hitchens's hysterical moralising fails to convince Jonathan Rée.

For most of human history, mind-altering substances have been regarded as a source of innocent pleasure, or perhaps something better than pleasure: religious rapture, aesthetic insight, or rushes of courage or love. But they can do obvious harm as well: occasional adventures may make you clumsy, reckless, deluded or obtuse, and if they coalesce into steady habits you could end up as an outcast or a helpless invalid.
Click to expand...

What happened next is the subject of the latest polemic by the conservative columnist Peter Hitchens. The story he tells, though it has some difficulty emerging from his tangled exposition, is meant to shock and appal. In the beginning there were the Beatles, scattering sinister references to drugs in their sweet-sounding songs. Then there were the celebrity drug-busts: Donovan and his naked girlfriend in 1966, followed by Mick Jagger and his rolling friends. To Hitchens's consternation, these criminals managed to escape the obloquy they deserved. In the first place, there were gaggles of teenage fans "voiding their bladders", as he puts it, in uncontrollable excitement. Then there was the louche coterie of lascivious libertarians who placed an advertisement in the Times in 1967, calling for complete decriminalisation of cannabis. And finally there was utter calamity in the form of the cultural revolution of 1968.
Click to expand...

I am surprised, however, to find that someone who claims to respect culture and discipline chooses to mock Reginald Maudling as a "Hegel enthusiast", as if habitual Hegel-reading were a wretched self-indulgence rather than an arduous long-term cultural investment. And I am astonished that he can base an entire book on a few cuttings from the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail and the News of the World.

But it occurs to me that I may always have been wrong about 1968. Perhaps it really did change the world – not by turning us all into junkies, but by unleashing the virulent strain of hysterical moralising that Hitchens appears to be suffering from. Like many other members of his generation – fogeys of the left as well as the right – he seems to be addicted to a form of self-righteousness so intense that it amounts to moral racism. His own instincts strike him as so self-evident that anyone who does not share them has to be dismissed with total contempt. If we are indeed surrounded by cultural ruin, then Hitchens is a fine specimen of it: one of those manic preachers who have been shouting so long that they can no longer hear any voice apart from their own.
Click to expand...

More...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/26/war-never-fought-peter-hitchens-review

Peter Hitchens in comments section...
Clockback
26 October 2012 10:55AM
This is Peter Hitchens. The funniest thing (and there are many) in this puce-faced, intemperate diatribe is the author's remark (of me) that ''His own instincts strike him as so self-evident that anyone who does not share them has to be dismissed with total contempt."

Does it cross Mr Ree's mind that this description might apply more accurately to him than to me?

Plainly not, which is an illustration of his problem.

I listen with great care to my opponents. My book is a response to those opponents. In many cases, I used to share their opinions and have abandoned them because, through experience and increased knowledge, I have found them to be mistaken. Anyone seriously interested in the book should look elsewhere, or even (here's a radical thought) read it. A far more serious and considered (though hostile) review is to be found in the current edition of Prospect Magazine.
Click to expand...
 
Hitchen's response to the article in the Daily Mail blog...

With reader comments

The Usual Abuse - Part Two in a Series

What is the left-wing version of the traditional caricature of the puce-faced, spluttering retired army officer of Tunbridge Wells, scribbling explosively about the outrages of the modern age? Why, it’s the puce-faced, spluttering ‘Guardian’ reviewer, close to apoplexy when confronted with any opinion different to his own, jabbing his delicate fingers onto the keys of his Apple Mac as he rages against the very existence of conservatives.

You’ve got to laugh.

Not long after the Observer’s error-packed attack on my book, here comes its sister the Guardian with a (website only) howl of rage against my book that is so empurpled it’s actually incoherent.
Click to expand...

More...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/10/the-usual-abuse-part-two-in-a-series.html
 
Every time that I see Peter Hitchens on TV he always drives me mad.
He is such a indignant self righteous idiot that refuses to listen to anything that goes against his personal beliefs.
The less air time this man is given is better for all of us forward thinking folk.
 
maxalfie said:
Every time that I see Peter Hitchens on TV he always drives me mad.
Click to expand...

If he has the same effect on everyone else then he's doing us a favour by being the ugly face of prohibition that everyone gets pissed off by.
 
empurpled??!?! if you use the word empurpled my respect for you (however microscopic) flys right the fuck out the window.. i mean, seriously, who's this guy kidding? if that's a word, im a college professor..
 
Peter Hitchens only does this for attention, wish people would just ignore him so he'd piss off and find something else to do with his time.
 
trees_please said:
empurpled??!?! if you use the word empurpled my respect for you (however microscopic) flys right the fuck out the window.. i mean, seriously, who's this guy kidding? if that's a word, im a college professor..
Click to expand...


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=empurpled


n. (v. Verbally masturbating)
Describes a person using (or trying but fails) extremely flamboyant, overelaborate, pendantic, overembellished, pompus, language seasoned with a lot of jargon from a certain discipline, sometimes to the extent that it has to be translated or deciphered to be intelligible for the common man
 
I can't help but think one of these days the man'll trip himself up and land in a dreadful place in life; I don't think his argument's 100% watertight enough for him to now be swimming with some seriously big fish in the world who have an opposing view on prohibition - I he's just so dwarfed and his kind (who seem to be a reclusive minority of journalists, trash tabloid readers and most unfortunately policy-makers) are so outnumbered by the numerous celebrities, media personalities, high level businessmen and ex/current politicians who do now openly question our societies attitudes towards drugs - Hopefully this is the pride before the fall.
 
I am certain it is a word, that wasn't my focus. The way I see it, in this context, his rhetoric places him in the same category as someone like Bush; nearly devoid of intellect and motivated by the attention that comes from idiots who support his views.

peterhitchens said:
You've got to laugh.
Click to expand...

I'll do no such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top