An Old Lie Resurfaces

When I published my first book 'The Abolition of Britain', the falsehood was spread ( in an attempt to make me out to be some sort of hopeless, fogeyish technophobe, living in the past) that the book contained an attack on central heating. This was just part of the stupid treatment accorded to anyone who tries to say anything conservative in this country. It was surprisingly effective. Many people who have never read the book come up to me and reveal this fact by telling me with a supercilious smirk: 'Oh, that was the book that attacked central heating'. Many, as a result, have a wholly false idea of what this book is about, and would be astonished were they actually to read it.

I had assumed that anyone who actually read it would see that it wasn't so. However, on the 'Never let me Go' thread, a person posting under the made-up name 'Hephaestion' actually quotes the relevant passage, and attempts to use it as justification for an attack on me for seeking to stand in the way of technology.

I have posted a reply to him on that thread, but thought I would also post it here (in a slightly longer version), partly to rebut, once again, this stupid falsehood, secondly to illustrate that, if you believe something to be true, you will continue to believe it even while actually studying the evidence that it isn't, in front of your nose.

'Hephaestion' posts: 'Instead of attacking the development of divorce, why doesn't he instead tackle things which actually are of use?

'Peter Hitchens ends up defending the indefensible, as evidenced by this quotation from The Abolition of Britain:
"The spread of central heating and double glazing has allowed even close-knit families to avoid each other's company in well-warmed houses, rather than huddling round a single hearth forced into unwanted companionship, and so compelled to adapt to each other's foibles and become more social, less selfish beings."
This is absurd,'

To which I reply: 'What is absurd? It is a statement of undoubted fact, not of opinion. I defy him to find any statement of opinion in it. I am amazed by the way in which this statement - which I am pretty certain originates in the works of one of the left-wing sociologists whose books I studied for 'A' level - has been characterised by silly people, determined to find fault with me, as an 'attack on central heating'. How is that so?

'Hephaistion' continues: 'You can't help the development of technology and neither can you help the development of divorce. What business has the state in forcing people to remain legally entangled with one another?'

Actually people often make efforts to help and/or limit the development of technology. Some are more effective than others. The gun laws which 'Hephaistion' almost certainly supports are an example of this, and I don't imagine that the Internet or the mobile phone network would function long without legal rules, contracts, licensing etc. The introduction of the Plimsoll Line on ships is another that comes instantly to mind, and the air traffic control system.

As for divorce, this is not, so far as I can see, comparable logically with technology. Legislation can make it easier or harder, and by doing so can make it a more or less attractive choice. If a society thinks its consequences are undesirable, it is surely entitled to make it harder. Divorced people seem to me to remain legally entangled with one another all their lives. But the real issue is in any case remarriage. Anyone may leave a marriage, and the state cannot prevent him or her from doing so. But if he is then, having promised to engage in a lifelong relationship, allowed to engage in another one (and quite possibly another one after that) then the words 'lifelong relationship' become devalued to the point of meaninglessness.

He should actually read the chapter on the subject in 'The Abolition of Britain', rather than just picking out little bits that he thinks he disagrees with.

As for divorce, does he actually understand what it entails for a party in a marriage who doesn't wish that marriage to end? Or for the children involved? What business has the state in tearing people apart who want to remain together?

Tick Tock

'Bert', who posts under another grandiose Greek name, is reminded that time is running out for him to withdraw and apologise for his unjustified and demonstrably wrong allegation that I had written words which were untrue.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click here and scroll down.