top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Conservatives and Tories

Updated: Jan 8



The basic divide in English politics amounts to Cavaliers and Roundheads—and this can be reduced to “blood and king” versus “belief and democracy”. It’s the belief in Christianity and brotherhood versus loyalty to king and blood, in essence.

Christianity is a left-wing movement, proto-Marxist, because it tells people that they belong to a universal brotherhood in which there is neither “Greek nor Jew, slave nor master”; and this sentiment is the same as Marxism in the end, which is why the two religions sound the same—both being “brotherly” or “comradely”, both being developed by the Jews.


So the left-right divide always finds the right in defence of “king, blood, and tradition” as opposed to “people, belief, and innovation”. The Roundheads were “believers” in a democratic Christianity, whereas the Cavaliers were for “blood” (and sympathetic to High Church Anglicanism and Catholicism—these being more based on ritual, not belief; just as the old pagan mysteries were elite initiations, not plebeian beliefs—before the Christians democratised them).


You even see the same in America, in an abbreviated way—the Republicans are basically for “the sovereign” which, in America, is not a man, the King, but rather a piece of paper, the Constitution; and, by implication, they are for the “posterity” that is connected to that sovereign—the descendants of those English, Dutch, and German colonists who declared independence. It’s attenuated because a constitution isn’t a dynasty or a man, it’s an idea at base, so the whole metacontext is more democratic—but still, in relative and situational terms, it’s the same.

The Conservative Party as we know it now was formed in the 1830s—that was when the name arose, but it really dated back to those Tories who were Cavaliers loyal to the King. It is the natural party of government because natural government is monarchical and aristocratic. The loyal Tories can date themselves back to the Cavaliers, but the left, naturally disloyal and fissiparous, has had many iterations—from Whigs, to Liberals, to Labour.


Hence it is likely that the Conservatives will outlast Labour (which has essentially ditched the belief, socialism, it was founded upon)—people who are disloyal, the left, fall out with each other more easily (hence the myriad far-left parties, splits from splits—the original split is to betray king and country).


Britain started to decline from 1830 onwards—this was when the status of women was elevated and mass enfranchisement began (remember, our Golden Age was in the time of Elizabeth). The 1830s was when “the Conservative Party” was formed.


The reason the Conservative Party never conserves anything is that it established a principle in the early 1800s under Wellington that “the King’s government must be carried on”. This is the unofficial dictum of the Conservative Party.


What does this mean?


It basically means that it’s more important to compromise to keep the state ticking along than to fight on principle. What this means is that the Conservative Party will always concede to the left in the end. It has been baked in the cake since the 1830s.


Indeed, it’s the reason why the Conservative Party is among the oldest continuous political parties in the world—other aristocratic and reactionary parties in Europe folded, because they didn’t compromise on their views.


It’s central to the Westminster system. As Balfour observed, other countries can copy the filibusters and obstruction from Westminster but they can’t copy the Westminster system because they don’t understand that the parties have a will behind their actions—and the will is really that they are in fundamental agreement, save a little bluster round the edges.

If you don’t have that basic agreement, there can’t be Westminster-style government.


So you’re saying the Conservatives aren’t conservative?


No, not since the 1830s at least—their view is that you make slow concessions to the other side; perhaps you could say that “Conservatives”, as they named themselves in the 1800s, make slow concessions but Tories are loyalists to king and country (notably, Enoch Powell considered himself a Tory, not a Conservative—he noticed the distinction).


This situation was augmented because the party in the early 1800s was heavily influenced, as many have pointed out, by Burke. But Burke started life as a Whig, his basic orientation was Whiggish—he was only ever like one of these people today who say “the woke have gone too far, we had real feminism and good race relations in the 1990s”.


The basic Burkean premise is that changes should be accepted and slowly “absorbed” into the constitution—which means not to conserve anything, in the end, since it is only a protest against sudden violent revolutions, like the French Revolution (but not change as such, so it’s actually to compromise with entropy).


So there you have it, the Conservatives are loyalists to the King—but in the early 1800s, as they became the modern party we know today, they decided to limit their loyalty and to accept certain compromises. This coincided with the start of Britain’s “Bronze Age”, the Victorian Age—and eventual collapse into complete democracy.


You could say that a certain right-wing electorate votes for Tories but gets Conservatives—and so always feels cheated.


At heart, the Conservatives are still Tories—but they have long, long ago moderated that out, so if you think they’ll actually resist any progressive developments you’re deluded. “The business of the King’s government must be carried on”.



153 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page