top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Conservatives and Tories (II)

Updated: Jan 11



*


As noted, I said that the Conservative Party is at base composed from Tories—and a Tory, a descendant of the Cavaliers, is for “king, blood, and tradition”. However, around 1830, the Tories became “the Conservatives”; and a Conservative is governed by the dictum, coined by Wellington, that “the business of the King’s government must be carried on”—so that, in effect, the Conservative Party will always compromise with the left in the end.


But what about Thatcher? She didn’t compromise, did she? “The Lady’s not for turning”. That’s true—but Thatcher is the exception that proves the rule. The left is basically composed from feminine people, from fanatics—from the Christian who screams at the pagan statue until it’s torn down, from the Ranter who rants against the King in Stuart England, from the Extinction Rebellion protester who squeals in the road today.


The left has a fanatical belief that it pursues at any cost, against what reality tells them, even if it kills them—it’s a belief that levels, a belief that says “the end is nigh”, a belief that is dualist (good/bad; saved/damned; Christian/Pagan; proletariat/bourgeois). This is womanly—and it’s why Thatcher was a reactionary leader who pushed the left back, she had the fanaticism the left has but she used it to advance Tory policies. That was why she was different.


It’s actually legitimate to compare Hitler and Thatcher, not in a hysterical leftist way but as a fact about reality. Hitler wasn’t fanatical—he was a man with a reason for everything who understood that if you persevere and apply maximum pressure on a particular area you can succeed. Thatcher didn’t know that in an intellectual way, she just had a womanly instinct that if you push with utter unreasonable fanaticism you can get what you want.


“A woman scorned”. The left is “a woman scorned”—the Jews are tied up with it because they’re a feminine race who feel scorned and express this emotion with Christianity and Marxism, long howls of protest against reality.


This fanaticism is what the left has, even in its men, and it’s why it gets what it wants—it’s why Christians and Muslims get what they want (“Sinners! Satanists! devil-worshippers!” “Oh okay, okay, we’ll take down the statue…” “Climate emergency! Polar bears!” “Okay, okay…have your low-emission zones”). Anything for a quiet life.


So, once Thatcher went, the Conservatives returned to baseline (concessions to the left)—because that is what they are in essence; and, in fact, the state was only shrunk in relative terms under Thatcher and trade union regulations went back to where they were in the early 1900s (Conservatives granted trade union rights in the first place, even though from the start Tories said these constituted a breach with legality and private property—since pickets, for example, basically let you harass people legally).


So Thatcher was an Indian summer in a longer history of decline—an exception because the Conservatives conceded to militant 1970s feminism, appointed a woman leader, and accidentally got a harridan (see how, in the 2020s, they conceded to racial politics and appointed an Asian leader—the Conservative always concedes).


**


As an aside, about half the Conservative vote has always been working class and these working-class Tories come in two forms: firstly, very independent people who see themselves as individuals who want to better themselves and their families (read, difficult people); secondly, people who like the system of deference and hierarchy embodied in aristocracy—and also, historically, liked the empire and also have a racial outlook on politics.


The former look upon themselves as “little kings” of their own castle, a microcosm of the big King in Buckingham Palace (“an Englishman’s home”)—kingship and property go together, the king passes his throne to his son, it’s primogeniture that establishes the principle of property relations. Property can be transmitted—to be for “king and tradition” is to be for private property by default, and is then connected to blood because it’s about transmission of property to help your family succeed down the line.


“Class” is a chimera—in the 19th century the political divide was between non-Conformists (fanatics) and Anglicans, just like before it was “Puritan” Roundheads versus aristocrats; in the 20th century, a new belief, socialism, told people they had common interests based on occupational category (not true, just because I work with my hands making boots doesn’t mean I have the same interests as a coal miner—it’s a belief in “socialism and the labour movement” that makes it so). Today, we’ve moved on to another belief—a belief that you belong to some broad category “the marginalised” as opposed to “the system of white supremacy”.


Indeed, it was said that “the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism”—more to non-Conformism; so, in fact, it was the same dispute transmuted into secular language, “class” not “chapel”.


It’s all belief, all the way down—you’re either for tangible things like blood, king, and tradition or you’re for some belief like “Methodism”, “socialism”, “LGBT+” that someone has cooked up. So, yes, England is a class-based society, but it’s only in the 19th century that you get this idea “the classes are in conflict”—before then people thought they were in religious conflict; and, in fact, it always is a religious conflict.


Conservatives are often called “the stupid party” but empirical research shows them to have higher IQs than the left. It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that they’re not “intellectual”—they’re not “preachers”, often they’re smart technicians who aren’t articulate but are more clever than a fast-talking journalist or preacher (same thing). The left is good at saying things that sound clever but actually are very superficial (Puritanism, Hegelianism, Marxism, gender theory)—but those are just clever talkers who spin a story to delude narcissistic “good people” from their concrete interests.


The fanatical belief will force concessions from the reasonable man who just wants a quiet life.

106 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