I'm fairly confident in saying there's no person living today who I've learnt more from than Peter Hitchens (though it's a close run thing with Thomas Sowell). Anyone who follows politics in this country will be aware of him from his occasional appearances on Question Time and the like, and also shows such as those dismal and weird Sunday morning BBC religion/ethics discussion programmes which jarringly combine topics such as whether crystals generate energy which makes guardian angels leave feathers on the landing, and then shifting on to whether we should bomb Syria. No small part of the reason Hitchens stands out is how bravely and eloquently he'll defy current orthodoxy to speak the truth as he sees it, putting him in a small group compared to the braindead, leftist, platitude-spouting clones found in all major parties and most of the media who are content to argue vociferously over a quarter inch crack in the Overton Window. For many, this defiance in the face of what most others will say makes it all the easier to dismiss him out of hand as an anachronistic relic of Victorian morality; for others, someone so confident and lucid in his reasoning is all the more important for his uniqueness.
This isn't to say I always agree with Hitchens on everything; there are significant things I differ on (principally economics, and we'll see some other areas a little later); but if I find myself in disagreement with him, as one who operates from the same Burkean principles, I make sure I think very carefully about it. One useful thing is that, if you want to know more about what Hitchens thinks and why, he's very prolific on his blog, helpfully archived by subject. It was commenting there that led to me meeting him.
I became involved with the Conservative Future (CF) society part way through university, partly by sheer accident, though (as much as I'd like to be able to) I can't deny I was genuinely a supporter of the Conservative Party itself. My support for them began before they entered office in 2010, and of course I'm not the same person intellectually now as I was then. By the time I'd finished university, it was completely clear to me that they were merely New Labour with blue ties, and I was certain too that this was a very bad thing indeed. Nevertheless, I'd stayed with CF to the end, partly because I'd made some good friends through it (who had also walked a similar intellectual path to myself), and it was an organisation where I could potentially have some influence on others who might be sympathetic to actual conservatism if they encountered it. After graduating I continued to live in the same city, and so still knew people in the society and occasionally went to its functions.
While perusing Hitchens' blog on one occasion during this immediately post-graduation stage in my life, I saw on a recent post that he'd given a talk to another university's CF branch urging them to abandon that wretched party. 'Well,' I thought, 'I know some people who could benefit from hearing that.' As a bonus, I'd also get to meet the great man himself, so I left a comment asking how one might arrange a visit from him for such an occasion. He very graciously e-mailed me, and after exchanging e-mails over a period of time, we settled on a debate format. I knew just the person for him to debate as well, a great chap named Rupert Matthews who occupies roughly the same political ground but was also still active within the Tory party, and having secured support from both the uni's CF society and Politics Society, it was all arranged.
I remember events quite well; meeting Peter at the railway station, and being something of a blathering fool initially (starstruck, you see), and proceeding to the university venue itself. No recordings exist of the debate, which suits me really because I don't think I did particularly well at hosting and moderating it (big night nerves, I guess), and it sadly wasn't as well attended as I'd have liked (the advertising aspect was out of my hands). It amused me to see members of Labour Students voting to support the motion that the current Conservative Party was fit for purpose upon hearing from Peter how a genuinely conservative party would be, but despite their support, the motion that the Tories aren't fit for purpose won. Following this, Peter, myself and a few select others went for some dinner, punctuated of course by interesting conversation. One thing Peter said which stayed with me was that the left wing didn't need the economic means of production when it had the young via the schools, and that's the real realisation of those goals (or words to that effect). It seems obvious now, but I was still learning, and indeed still am. This was a little under two and a half years ago.
I had no further contact with Peter after this, beyond the occasional tweet and response regarding some topic or another. I didn't expect him to remember me, being as he does these sorts of events and many others all the time, though as I found out during our final exchange, he did. I've continued to enjoy his articles and media appearances since, but while he may be the most significant living influence on my thought, I have reached some different conclusions. Which brings us to the blocking.
Below, tweets by myself are prefixed 'JH', from Hitchens 'PH', and from his previous and continuing interlocutor Hugh Beaumont (who seems like an interesting and decent guy, and is found at @beaves_dad) 'HB'. I start at the point where my attention was caught:
PH: It was a glorious revolution, as it happens.
HB: - Running out the best King England ever had, for not dishonoring his (Catholic) ancestors?
PH: Deposing a would-be autocrat, who wanted to sell his country to France.
JH: Did he? I'd like to know more on that point if you could explain further.
PH: Macaulay's History is good on subj.
HB: - would first recommend first H. Butterfield's "The Whig Interpretation of History".
JH: Is Macaulay reliable on it? GR is Resurrection equivalent for the Whiggish religion, of which he was high priest.
As ever with Twitter's format, things began to branch off in separate responses. I'll start following sections with italicised repeats of the tweets that spawned what followed:
PH: Deposing a would-be autocrat, who wanted to sell his country to France.
HB: Ha! Ha! Nice try. James II risked his life under his brother as Admiral to make GB rule the seas.
PH: Yes, his brother who took a large pension from Louis XIV and signed the secret Treaty of Dover
JH: Which surely would have helped England too, being as the Dutch were persistent threat
PH: Dutch were maritime rivals. France was global rival and threat, and
PH: ..Louis XIV's subsidies to Charles and James allowed them to govern without...
PH: ...summon Parliament, so pushing Britain towards French-style autocracy. And that's..
PH: ...not even to mention James's obvious desire to re-Catholicise Protestant England.
HB: - Horrors!! Back to "monkish superstition and ignorance"? Never!
PH: ...not even to mention James's obvious desire to re-Catholicise Protestant England.
JH: Is it obvious? Toleration was also extended to most Protestant nonconformists.
JH: If James was so bad and attempting to re-Catholicise, why was action only taken once he produced a male heir?
JH: That doesn't suggest an immediate need to remove a heinous tyrant, but action to prevent a Catholic succession.
Peter responded to separate parts in turn, and so it went on:
JH: If James was so bad and attempting to re-Catholicise, why was action only taken once he produced a male heir?
PH: Obviously, because that meant his changes would endure beyond his own reign.
JH: Is it obvious? Toleration was also extended to most Protestant nonconformists.
PH: A transparentdivide-and-rule manoeuvre. James's attitude towards Scottish ...
PH: ...Presbyterians had been very hostile.
JH: If James was so bad and attempting to re-Catholicise, why was action only taken once he produced a male heir?
JH: That doesn't suggest an immediate need to remove a heinous tyrant, but action to prevent a Catholic succession.
PH: Hard to separate the two. Declaration of Indulgence April 1688, threatened Anglican settlement.
PH: Arrest of Seven Bishops, and birth of heir, *both* in June 1688, bringing two crises together.
PH: AS for 'Action' Monmouth's rebellion, direct forerunner of 1688, took place in 1685
Forgive the continued repetitions of earlier tweets, but they are necessary for complete clarity on who's responding to what (such is Twitter):
PH: A transparentdivide-and-rule manoeuvre. James's attitude towards Scottish ...
JH: Are you sure? I'd be reluctant to ascribe such duplicity to giving liberty of conscience to his Christian subjects.
PH: Completely sure. As I said, look at his earlier treatment of Scottish Presbyterians. He despised Protestants.
HB: - So would have your ancestors for a thousand years.
PH: AS for 'Action' Monmouth's rebellion, direct forerunner of 1688, took place in 1685
JH: Not sure there were motives much more complex than Monmouth wanting to be king. And he didn't receive wide support.
PH: Ignorance. Many brave men died, and were horribly martyred, in his cause. He alone could have achieved nothing.
JH: I certainly don't doubt that. But can he really be said to have received wide popular support?
PH: Rupert Murdoch and BBC not around at the time to decide who got wide popular support. However...
PH: ... thousands of men genuinely risking their lives for a cause suggests something pretty profound.
PH: Bloody Assize which follows certainly suggests that the authorities were profoundly scared and intended to prevent
PH: any repetition, by the sue of what amounted to state terror. Have you ever studied this event?
JH: I've thought the Bloody Assizes were to quickly and loudly put down treason, and so...
JH: render the further devastation of potential civil war less likely. But I will freely admit to being no expert.
PH: ... thousands of men genuinely risking their lives for a cause suggests something pretty profound.
JH: It does. But something more than, at the core of it, not wanting a Catholic monarch?
JH: Did they have some advance knowledge that dastardly James was going to try to papalise England?
PH: No, they were just quicker to spot his true aims and nature than the establishment, who caught up in 1688.
JH: It does. But something more than, at the core of it, not wanting a Catholic monarch?
PH: That, in the England of 1685, *was* pretty profound. Do you really not grasp what a force Protestantism then was?
HB: - Force? Yes - a thousand or so "one true" churches. Quacks crawling out of the woodwork- like Praise God Barebone
PH: A transparentdivide-and-rule manoeuvre. James's attitude towards Scottish ...
PH: ...Presbyterians had been very hostile.
JH: No mystery there. As with his elder brother, he blamed them for initiating the conflagration which killed his dad.
PH: Well, quite. So why was he so keen to take their side against the C of E, which was utterly loyal to his father?
JH: Would you specify what you're referring to for me please?
PH: Your tweet saying James believed Scots Presbyterians responsible for overthrow of his father.
PH: Which you advanced, bizarrely, to explain his hostility to them. just after claiming he was genuinely tolerant.
PH: ..Louis XIV's subsidies to Charles and James allowed them to govern without...
PH: ...summon Parliament, so pushing Britain towards French-style autocracy. And that's..
JH: Absolute monarchy is no bad thing to me. Good Parliaments have been rare & accidental
PH: Oh. Well, that is what one might call a fundamental disagreement.
JH: I hope we can still be friends.
PH: Still?
JH: Ouch. Just being mildly jocular. We have met though, and did have a good conversation
PH: Indeed. Unaware you were fan of monarchical despotism at the time, though.
JH: I wasn't at the time, and 'despotism' implies tyranny which I of course do not favour.
JH: However I have come to believe that an absolute monarchy would be the best means to preserve this land...
JH: her culture, and the liberties of her people. I'm also fully aware this is mere theorising and we'll never know.
JH: I'd be glad to elaborate my reasoning on this if you're interested but chunks of 140 characters aren't the best way
PH: Thanks all the same, but maybe some other century.
We can see Hugh's perspective; that of a Roman Catholic, not bothered if James II did want to bring England back to communion with the Roman Church. Personally, I don't doubt he would have, of course, liked to have done so, but I don't think it likely he had real plans to do so, and his edicts of toleration rectified a horrible situation for English Catholics who had suffered for over a century because of sincere faith in the Christianity which had previously prevailed in England for 900 odd years. I think Hugh may have continued debating with Peter, but I was no longer tagged in.
It's perhaps a failure in my tweeting that I feel I ought to qualify my support for absolute monarchy there; not that I think French-style autocracy is its perfect form, but that James II being able to avoid calling parliaments is not in itself a bad thing to be added to his list of supposed misdemeanours. More on absolute monarchy later.
My asking what Peter was referring to was not to know what tweet he was replying to, but wanting to know how and when James II sided with the Scottish Presbyterians against the Anglican Church. Perhaps this event is common knowledge and my ignorance leaves me open to ridicule, in which case I'd be very happy to be enlightened. I did wonder if perhaps it was a reference to Charles II (James II's elder brother, also mentioned in that tweet) allying with the Scottish Covenanters in the Third English Civil War against Parliamentarian-dominated England and so the Church of England by extension, the Scottish also having repeated their Engagement demand of establishing Presbyterianism in England upon victory. This seems to me to be Charles II clearly doing whatever it took to recover his rightful throne and, as with Charles I, I doubt he had any real intention of establishing presbytery in England had he won. As mentioned among those tweets though, I'm no expert on these subjects, and always welcome the opportunity to learn more. However, operating with what knowledge I do have, I will defend my understanding if no new information is offered; of course, when it comes to James II, really this comes down to knowing the mind of a man 330 years ago, something Hitchens seems a lot more certain of than I think anyone can be.
Having met Peter previously and got on well with him, I was offended that he seemed quite rude in places during those exchanges, particularly after it was clear that he remembered me. I for one aim to assume goodwill against those I debate, until they breach it. After this point, it was a week before my next response; this in itself may well be why Peter just blocked me, seeing it as a bombardment of tweets continuing a conversation long since ended. That delay was because, next logging on to Twitter with a full set of Hitchens responses, I'd need time to put together an equal riposte to post at once, and that was held up by general busyness and a sometimes precarious internet connection. Furthermore, there was one fact in particular I used which it took me some time to confirm. See if you can figure out what it was.
Here then are my responses to Peter Hitchens, at which he opted not to respond, but just to swing the block-bat:
PH: Your tweet saying James believed Scots Presbyterians responsible for overthrow of his father.
PH: Which you advanced, bizarrely, to explain his hostility to them. just after claiming he was genuinely tolerant.
JH: What's bizarre about it? Pointing out why he was uniquely intolerant of presbytery.
JH: If sole cause of his toleration was to foment discord as you assert, why do you think he made such an exception?
JH: I'd be glad to elaborate my reasoning on this if you're interested but chunks of 140 characters aren't the best way
PH: Thanks all the same, but maybe some other century.
JH: If you're not interested in what I actually think, please at least do me the kindness...
JH: ...of not associating me with views I do not hold (supporting 'despotism').
JH: Favouring absolute monarchy is not same as saying Saddam Hussein should be supreme autocrat of the British Isles.
JH: I'd have thought you of all people would be careful to avoid misrepresenting the views of others.
JH: Meanwhile your favoured form of government has brought this country to point where you advise the young to emigrate
PH: That, in the England of 1685, *was* pretty profound. Do you really not grasp what a force Protestantism then was?
JH: What is it that you think I'm failing to comprehend? What even is your position here?
JH: First that supporters of Monmouth were willing to die means they uniquely were on to James' papist conspiracy...
JH: ...confirmed by the brutality of the Bloody Assizes (I suppose the Protestant Judge Jeffries was a useful idiot).
JH: Then you say just not wanting a Catholic monarch in itself was enough to be a profound realisation...
JH: ...which the rest of the country spectacularly missed without Rupert Murdoch working at the printing press.
JH: ...managed to build similar numbers to Monmouth, without an army headed by a duke marching around recruiting.
JH: Mary I in half the time of Monmouth was able to raise 30,000 volunteers to claim the throne from Queen Jane...
JH: ...very bravely facing down the dangerous Duke of Northumberland, who was effectively the master of England.
That was the end of it. Robust I thought, and more in the spirit of his later responses to me than resembling my initial diffident politeness, but not rude. The fact which took me time to find and confirm was Mary I's number of volunteers (John Lingard, A History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans Volume VII, and citing Antoine, the French first Count of Noailles). I fully accept I may be spouting off on subjects I know little about and am happy to be corrected, but it won't be Peter correcting me. Later, having received no response, I checked to see if he had been active on Twitter, and discovered he'd blocked me.
You should only be able to be genuinely offended by people you like and respect, and when it's someone I like and respect as much as Peter Hitchens, it was certainly saddening. It's not so much the blocking (though I'd have hoped for one time's sake he'd make allowances for the much delayed replies), but his somewhat mean-spirited rudeness , particularly to someone he remembers having met, and so presumably would also remember being a fan.
I won't go into too much detail on absolute monarchy here, as for me to enunciate my whole views on the subject and why I favour it as a form of government (not of itself I must add, but for a free and Christian society and as the best means of preserving one; no love here for Saudi Arabia) would need a long article all of its own. Readers may be aware of an online movement calling itself the dark enlightenment, or neoreaction; I do not necessarily count myself among them and have not read fully enough into its thinkers to be sure of matching it entirely. People have also alleged there's a racist element too, and judging people according to racial characteristics is abhorrent to me; whether this allegation is true, I again don't have the expertise to say, but I don't want to outright associate myself entirely with these people until I'm sure about these things.
Knowing though that there are people prepared to think and say things against democracy has been enough though to set me thinking, and following the logic where it leads me. This is much like Hitchens' influence on me. He's been bravely speaking out for a long time on other subjects where few others have expressed the same views. Sometimes it takes seeing someone else speak out on things which mainstream opinion considers to be settled to make you explore the possibilities for yourself. As I say, to fully explain why absolute monarchy is a better form of government in my view than democratic systems would take a long time, but if there's any demand from anyone reading this, I may do so in the future.
What is within the purview of this piece is Hitchens' view on Britain's parliamentary system. He detests the current so-called Conservative Party of course, but has also said that the Tory party has never been much good. This is further than I'd go, and I don't support the system. I think the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel were great men who accomplished good things and set the tone for conservative-minded reformism, being very much influenced by the Canningite faction (named for the philosophy of George Canning who was briefly Prime Minister but died in office, becoming the shortest-serving Prime Minister in our history). So I'm prepared to acknowledge that the Tory/Conservative Party were very good for a time, which is more than Hitchens does. And this is the party of the right wing (though this is a term retroactive in application for much of our history). Maybe he prefers Gladstonian liberalism, but I haven't heard him pay any great compliments to the Liberals or the Whigs.
On a more contemporary note, Hitchens has little time for Margaret Thatcher. I'm certainly not uncritical either, but I like her more than he seems to at least, and I'm the one who's concluded democratic politics is death by slow-slicing for civilisations. Flawed she certainly was, but it's a minor miracle someone of her quality was able to rise to the fore in our democratic system. I've never seen him with a good word to say for Ronald Reagan either, someone I genuinely admire. Hitchens also professes not to like UKIP. I do like UKIP, but again not uncritically. My like for them is based simply on the fact that they're right on some hugely significant issues (the European Union, immigration, tax simplification, academic selection, political correctness) which all the major parties are not only wrong on, but are unlikely to ever change their view on. These are issues on which Hitchens agrees, but even when someone has emerged in this wretched system to speak out at least on these wrongs, he says he doesn't like them. I disagree with UKIP on some things; I'm quite happy with the smoking ban and detest fox hunting, but I can still say that, on balance, they have my vote.
Hitchens speaks fondly of our parliamentary system and its adversarial nature, it's just that there are few governments which have emerged from it that he seems to like. If you do like this system, it naturally follows that the Glorious Revolution was a good thing; never mind the consequences for British Catholics or for poor Ireland, this power grab by the Whigs ultimately secured the sovereignty of Parliament over the Crown; this time the settlement was permanent, righting the lack of lasting success in the last attempt to steal power by parliamentary rent-seekers 40 years prior. The price of this was to sell out the monarchy to the Dutch; collude with Louis XIV and this is treason against England, but bring the country into personal union with the Dutch 'Republic' and this is glorious. A serendipity has befallen England on multiple occasions in preservation of her independence, including here. William III and Mary II didn't produce any offspring, which could have brought about a permanent personal union with the Dutch; a son could have been both King of England, Scotland and Ireland and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. Similarly, Mary I and Philip (later Philip II of Spain) didn't have any children, which would have brought England into the Spanish Empire. One more case is the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots to Francis II of France, any offspring of which would have been in line to the throne of England. Instead the personal union between England and Scotland eventually brought about the Kingdom of Great Britain, which a process beginning with unequal devolution (surely a constitutional repugnance) looks set to end within our lifetimes.
One further personal union, the result of parliamentary fiddling, gave the throne of Great Britain to the Elector of Hanover, becoming George I. Hanover would become an irritating union for the British. George II, superior at least to his father in that he actually bothered making some effort to fit in with the English (little things like learning the language, for example), was the last British monarch to lead troops into battle; sounds cool, except this was for the benefit of Hanover and not Britain, at the Battle of Dettingen. It was only when Queen Victoria acceded to the British throne that the link to what had become the Kingdom of Hanover was broken, as only males could become Hanover's monarch.
The most potent example of Parliament sacrificing Britain's independence is, of course, selling us out to the EU, and all major parties in Parliament have supported this treachery for 30 years. The same political system devastated this country and its Empire by embroiling us in 2 world wars. Why put any faith in said system achieving different results? As I mentioned in my tweets, Peter Hitchens advises the young to emigrate from this country and, what's more, suspects it may be doomed to fall to Islam in the long run. I'm not optimistic enough to believe he's wrong. Would this have happened under a patriotic Christian absolute monarch? Should I be condemned and smeared as favouring 'despotism' for wondering if perhaps this country might have done better (and still would, in theory) than being somewhere anyone in their right mind should flee if they're able? Maybe some other century.
Peter Hitchens is a great thinker and a brave man in putting his point of view across. I'll always like and respect him, but in an inversion of Winston Churchill's famous quote about Clement Attlee, I think he may be an arrogant man with much to be arrogant about.
By Jonathan Headington
Jonathan Headington can be found on Twitter at @IonathanRex
Hugh Beaumont can be found at @beaves_dad
Peter Hitchens can be found at @ClarkeMicah; Micah Clarke is the titular character of a novel by Arthur Conan Doyle, in which the protagonist participates in the Monmouth Rebellion and comes to believe toleration is the best policy. Make of that what you will.
The first image is an edited version of the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan with Peter Hitchens' face inserted; in Leviathan, Hobbes advocates, among other things, absolute monarchy. The image was found on the 4plebs Politically Incorrect board. Unfortunately it was posted by an anonymous poster and so I can't credit them. Hitchens is well liked on corners of the internet such as that, so I don't doubt the maker would happily accept Hitchens as absolute sovereign. I would too, but I don't suppose he'd want the gig.
The second image is James II of England, painted by Godfrey Kneller – and doesn't he look fabulous. People may believe government has progressed for the better, but surely no one would contend fashion has.
