Conservative Party strategy: the Conservative Party has a predictable strategy that has been used for decades—for over a century now, in fact. It runs thus:
1. there are calls to widen the franchise, Disraeli comes in and widens the franchise to a limited extent—though not as far as the radicals wish;
2. there are calls for “women’s lib” in the ’70s, so Thatcher becomes party leader—she implements free-market reforms as a woman, not the socialist reforms feminists want;
3. critical race theory dominates the 2010s—so the Tories put in Rishi Sunak as PM, with blacks and Asians in significant cabinet positions; as with Thatcher, they don’t implement socialist policies, as critical race theory demands, but rather conservative policies.
So the idea is that you get ahead of a development and then steer it into a benign channel. So the left cries about “women’s lib” and then you say, “Here you go, here’s your woman leader”. No, she’s patriarchal still! The left can cry about that but, so far as Joe Public is concerned, “She’s a woman, ain’t she? (well, barely)—what are you moanin’ about, it’s what you wanted, isn’t it?”.
So it’s clever, it blunts the rhetorical strategy from the other side—they have to stand up, as a white Labour MP, and call a black man “racist” for fronting Tory immigration policies. For the average voter, that’s enough to make a nonsense of the opposition.
“The organism continues the behaviour that has granted it success in the past.” This dictum is true about individuals and it’s true about parties—the Conservative Party is an organism too, and this strategy, this behaviour, has worked for it for over 100 years; so it defaults to it every time. Well, great, that’s really clever. Yes—really clever, too clever by half.
The problem with the strategy is that it’s actually short-termism masquerading as disciplined restraint. Because once you grant the franchise a bit, next time round everyone gets enfranchised; once you grant a woman PM, women are empowered everywhere; once you grant the key executive positions in the country will be held by non-whites, you grant all the positions will be held by non-whites in the future.
So all it does, really, is short-term stalling that actually “opens the door”. It’s because it’s centred on winning rhetorical battles in Parliament (“call our black foreign minister a racist would you??”) and not reality.
Now the rural hayseed who said, “I don’t think that Mr. Disraeli should go round en-french-chising those narsty citie folk,” and the white van man who said “I don’t think a bird as PM is quite right, if ya know wat I mean,” and the council estate man who said, “I voted for me Brexit and the Tories and now we ’ave a bleedin’ Paki as PM,” might seem like idiots to the sophisticated Conservative Party strategist (poor dears don’t have the intelligence to grasp the brilliance of the strategy).
However, the “bumpkins” have a raw point in wisdom—because in actuality you have enfranchised the masses, you have put girls on top, you have put racial outsiders in charge of us.
The point has been conceded in essence—we’re just negotiating how far it will go: full enfranchisement, women in all top positions, non-whites in all top positions. And, due to entropy, there’s one direction it will go.
This is the difference between wisdom and intelligence: wisdom just says, “Well, we’re ruled by an Indian now, ain’t we?”, whereas intelligence has this elaborate strategy based on what people notionally believe and on controlling the rhetorical environment but, ultimately, amounts to conceding the point to the left to buy a generation of peace—before we do exactly what the left want anyway.
It’s the difference between the theorist, who thinks himself very clever with his strategy, and the realist. The theorist thinks himself so much more clever than the “ignorant bigot” from the countryside who just says it as he sees it—can’t grasp the “master strategy”—but the rural hayseed who finds rhetorical schemes beyond him is much closer to the actuality.
Who does this strategy serve, ultimately, btw? Not Britain—rather, it serves the Conservative Party. It is the strategy whereby this organisation—this organism—lives to fight another day (and it works, has worked for over a century now). It defends the property of the Tory voter for a generation, it buys a generation’s respite before “full leftism” is applied in whatever dimension is under contention.
The wise position, the position which requires courage, would be to face it down: “We will not expand the franchise, it will end in the taxpayer being looted to pay for some hopelessly inefficient ‘British Health Service’ or some such notion”, “We will not be led by a woman, it will lead to pervasive feminisation and weakness in this society—it will end in a Prime Minister who wears leopard print high heels!”, “We will not be led by an Indian, it will lead to the dispossession and destruction of the British people in their own land!”.
All these positions, however, require courage and wisdom—but the Conservative Party has a clever strategy instead…
It seems to have come in with Disraeli, who was himself a racial outsider—and I’m not sure that it’s not the same group in the Tories who have run this strategy since then. Liz Truss, who couped Johnson, had parents who were actual Communists—was a Lib Dem as a youth. Politics runs in the blood, so Liz Truss is…a Communist. What’s she doing in the CP?
Indeed, I think the current Tory front bench was a conscious coup against the Johnsonites who are “real Tories”—put in a front bench of racial outsiders, “white men are out for good”. It may well be tied into Freemasonry, and I’m pretty sure it’s deliberate—it’s just that bit more than the usual Tory strategy. It feels like a message to me.