Tim Stanley is a historian by trade, and the author of Whatever Happened to Tradition? — a book subtitled History, Belonging and the Future of the West.
It was something of a surprise, then, to hear him tell attendees at a Conservative Party conference fringe event last week that “the country has changed”, and that “you are not going to reverse that”. Stanley went further still, declaring himself “pleased to see that the right accepts that change and has changed with it”; in his view, “it would be regressive and immoral to try to reverse what has happened.”
He was, of course, talking about the seismic demographic changes which have taken place in this country over the past few decades, against the express wishes of the British people. Indeed, the changes which have taken place over the past few decades represent the biggest demographic change in these islands since the migration of the Anglo-Saxons a millennium and a half ago.
Which in turn causes me to recall a remark made by Chesterton:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.
– G.K. Chesterton
Yes Perry – good post.
I remember being denounced as a “reactionary” many years ago – for wanting to reverse bad things. I welcome change if it is for the better – but not only oppose change when it is for the worse, but want that change reversed (good buildings that had been destroyed rebuilt – the family restored, and so on).
I was told, in blunt terms, that this was NOT Conservative – that a Conservative accepted change (whatever the nature of that change) once-it-had-happened – and did not seek to reverse it.
It was NOT Tim Stanley who said these things to me – but it might as well have been, it is the same attitude. The same sort of waste-of-space person.
Literally a waste-of-space – as the Progressive has a function, creating Hell on Earth, and the “Reactionary” has a function – trying to roll back moves in the direction of evil, but the “Conservative” who just accepts what the Progressive does – has no function at all.
There is no point in voting for someone who does not want to roll back “Progressive reform”.
“But Paul – as George Baker makes clear, Tim Stanley was specifically talking about race – you are not a racist are you?”
No it was NOT just about race – someone like Tim Stanley is never going to reverse any “Progressive reform”, because they will never even try to do so.
Can things such as DEI (sometimes called EDI in Britain) be reversed?
Yes they can – because, for example, the Trump Administation has done so.
Ditto getting rid of Net Zero, and ditto securing the borders.
Now all these roll backs of Progressive Reform may be reversed in January 2029 – but the very fact that they happened at all, shows that it is possible to roll back Progressive Reform.
For example, the Progressive Reform of the 1940s in Eastern and Central Europe, the Marxist conquest of these areas, was rolled back – at the end of the 1980s.
Prague (to take one example) is a less Collectivist (i.e. less Progressive Reform) place now – than it was 60 years ago, or 70 years ago.
Decline is not inevitable – it can be rolled back.
Specifically on demographic change – note the slight-of-hand, the trick, that Tim Stanley is using.
He is saying, in effect, that the country “has changed” – but that you (the English Tory in your shire town or rural village) is basically O.K. – indeed if you do not visit certain areas of the cities and big towns, you will really not notice the country being, fundamentally, a different country.
But it is NOT “has changed” – it is “is changing” – the process has not stopped (“oh dear, Birmingham has fallen – but I do not live anywhere near Birmingham – so it does not matter to me and my family”), the process is continuing.
Even Nigel Farage (an ultra moderate on this matter – remember “we must not alienate Islam” and other comments) noted last night on his G.B. News programme, that the family names of newborns are now often not English names – that clearly foreign names are now some of the most common names for newborns, and it is not just a name – this new population do not regard themselves as English (because they are not English) any more than the Anglo Saxon tribes regarded themselves as Romano-Britons (because they were not Romano-Britons). So saying “Farage is a foreign name” does not answer anything. There is a vast difference between a few people coming to join a nation – and a vast number of people arriving to, in effect, replace a nation. Via their own natural increase – and the (deliberately pushed) decline in native fertility.
The folk in the shire towns and rural villages will also be hit – and it will not be many decades before they end up being outnumbered in what was once their own country.
This generation may get by – as Richard Tice (MP for Boston in Lincolnshire – I remember when Sir Richard Body, a great man, was Member of Parliament for Boston) said, England “would last me out” – i.e. the English would still be in the majority when he dies, and that may well be true.
But what about his children – what about the next generation? Are their people going to go the way of the Hittites and so many other peoples – into oblivion, into the “dustbin of history”?
“Demography is destiny” as the French used to say – before they were put in prison for saying such things.
I read or heard Stanley say this.
I queried chatgpt about Badenoughs political position measured against Scrutonian conservatism. It appeared to believe she is fairly well aligned.
Chatgpt told me Scruton was for the preservation of institutions. Why hasn’t Badenough announced the abolition of the supreme court and reinstatement if the House of Lords for that purpose?
There is another trick here. Reversing a change is not the only option. A new conquest to oust the newcomers is another option. It is not restoration, not conservative per se, but a firm belief that “we can take them” if we make the attempt.
That’s what’s coming. It will be mistaken for multiple things it is not.
Do many people define “conservatism” as, “we can never change from where we are today”, no matter where we are today? Are conservatives always captive to whatever radical changes were accomplished yesterday – must we preserve those changes simply because they were accomplished?
I always thought that conservatism was anchored on some point in past time when things pleased us, and so we strive to emulate THAT time. We are not beholden to preserve “yesterday” if “yesterday” sucked.
I submit, indeed have submitted years ago, that there are at least 2 kinds of conservatism.
The first kind is based on the assumption that there is, or has been, some point in time the perfection of which cannot be questioned. This is dogmatic conservatism, and it is often associated with absolutism.
The second kind is based on skepticism about change. Some societies are/were so sick that almost any change is likely to be an improvement, but the latter kind of conservative tends not to live in such societies. This is skeptical conservatism, and it is often associated with constitutionalism.
Stanley arguably belongs to a third kind.
The Anglo Saxons did not all arrive within a fifty year period.
A third kind of conservative knows that polite gentlemanly behaviour seldom delivers meaningful reaction, but they prefer ineffective politeness to effective reaction delivered by unruly oiks.
Sadly, in the USA, our Republican Congresscritters seem to be evenly divided amongst those three sects, leaving us with three distinct parties “on the right” and no possibility of support for Trump’s agenda. Which is why everything that he can do can only be done through EO’s. Which is why it all goes away as soon as we have a Democrat government.
Which is why I’m basically accepting of what Trump has not been able to accomplish. Our fault – the voters’ fault – more than his.
bobby b
I agree that Congress has been useless – although Democrat control of Congress would be vastly worse (indeed demonic).
But this is not really the fault of the voters – the voters delivered a Republican House and a Republican Senate, the voters are not to blame for the weakness of the people sent to Washington.
I am reminded of the British voters – and their betrayal over 14 years, on immigration, net zero, and other matters.
Paul M: I believe that the voters ARE to blame for who is elected. In the primaries in many jurisdictions, we had candidates who would have supplied Trump with support. They did not win.
Sure, we technically have a Republican Congress. But, as I said, the Republicans are fractured into several opposing groups. We elected many of the wrong people.
The good news is, if R’s lose seats in the midterms, there won’t be a huge difference for Trump’s final 2 years, except for the noise of impeachment attempts and some judicial appointments. He still won’t be able to pass bills, but neither can the D’s.
It will remain an EO-dominated stalemate.
bobby b – the Primary election point is one I did not think of (clearly my brain is going a bit soggy with age).
I stand corrected Sir.
However, I think you underestimate the harm the Democrats can do with control of Congress – all Hell would break lose. And they are likely to take Congress – due NOT to the campaign against the IRI regime, but the failure to win that campaign.
Whilst Americans, and Israelis, think in terms of “if they do this, we will do that – we will make them pay a Heavy Price (TM), and then at the negotiating table….” they will continue to FAIL.
Understanding Islam is necessary when fighting the followers of Islam – without a basic understanding of Islam all the fancy weapons the West has will NOT produce victory.
People such as the IRI regime live to kill (they regard the slaughter of infidels as a morally wonderful thing to do) – and they are happy to die for Allah – for they believe that means enternal bliss in Paradise. Even after all this time – no Western government (not one) seems to grasp this.
Instead they just carry on sending food aid – even to Yemen, where the people who get the food aid do not love the people who send it – they hate and despise the people who feed them. The Houthis are armed by the IRI – but they are FED by the West.
“But we must help the civilians” – in Islam everybody-fights (that is why even Primary School, Kindergarten, children in Gaza are taught that they should kill – the IRI, in the Iran-Iraq war, sent young children over minefields, so that the explosions would clear the minefields – the little childen were given symbolic “keys to paradise” which is where they were told they were going), someone who claims to be a follower of Islam but who will not fight to expand its power is a “hypocrite”, according to Muhammed – and, again according to Muhammed, should be executed.
This is the great strength of Islam – it is why it is successful. Muhammed was a genius – he worked everything out, created, from nothing, an entire legal and political system – which, by the time he died, had conquered all of Arabia, exterminating or enslaving all non-believers, and then proceeded to conquer most of the known world.
It is now expanding – in Africa, in Europe, in Australia, and in North America.
Even in Japan – when the forces of Islam burn Shinto shrines (under Islamic jurisprudence Shinto would be counted as polytheism – polytheism carries a death sentence, it is a capital offense), the government (and media) pretends it was a series of accidents – just as the government and media of France (and other nations) do when churches are burned.
For me, much has developed through experience. I think conservatism values that whereas progressives will throw everything away because they feel they know better. They believe everything can be achieved by pure logic. They have a rose coloured view of humans.
I believe one of the 17th century documents, maybe the bill of rights, spoke of the threat from the Roman Catholic Church, from experience. Experience! Today, progressives would be shouting about discrimination.
Stuart Noyes – experience is indeed vital.
For example, Americans do not have to write a new Constitution (as some people, incorrectly, believe) – they need to look at the last two centuries and see which words in the existing Constitution, words ripped from their proper context, have been abused to do terrible harm.
Those words are “general welfare” and “regulate interstate commerce” – remove those words, or pass an Amendment declaring them void. Act on the experience of centuries.
But also logical reasoning is important – for example the lawyer John Adams was better than theorist Thomas Jefferson when it came to the French Revolution.
The lawyer noticed that the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was about the rights of “the people” NOT the rights of individual persons AGAINST “the people”- as the American Bill of Rights was (was about the rights of individual persons).
That makes a rather large difference – it meant that, in practice, individual persons had no rights against those who purported to act for “the people”, that individual persons could be robbed and murdered – which they were, in very large numbers.
And the vast majority of victims of robhery and murder were quite ordinary people – not aristocrats.