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.