Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Tories and toryism

Tories never change their spots. Said Tom Paine of the repellent breed in 1776:
"And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."
And in 1960 Ayn Rand observed:
Today's "conservatives" are futile, impotent and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country's uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.
And now? Nothing really needs to be said, except perhaps to observe the front bench of the National Party...


  1. I guess Ayn Rand never got to meet too many of the Marxism inculcated, liberal progressives who are in almost complete control these days.

    In the battle between 'proper' conservatives, you know, the ones who desire small Government, advocate personal responsibility and recognize the importance of the family, and dare I say it, faith .. versus big Government socialists, tell me, which end of the rope are Libertarians on?

    Proclaiming that both are equally wrong is a cop out. Which is the lesser of the two evils as far as a libertarian is concerned?

  2. Grant

    You are offerring a false choice.

    A choice between evils is not a choice at all. It is not a cop out to say that both alternatives are wrong. It's a statement of fact.

    Helen and John? Both wrong.

    Joe and Adolf? Both evil.

    If you want to take a choice, make it between real alternatives.

    Freedom or totalitarian. Both different.


  3. Boy, I wish my world was as simple as yours...Grant you may or may not have noticed that PC and his cohorts see no shades of gray, and to do so would be to become a 'softcock' (one wonders what neurosis drives the abundant references to potency on this and other similar sites).

    While this is all just peachy on paper it tends to get a little bogged down in self contradiction in the real world, though they are all rather good at playing word games which they think somehow proves their twisted points.

    In the common vernacular we call them 'haters', I agree with you Grant to take the stance of lgm achieves simply nothing in the real world.

  4. "In the battle between 'proper' conservatives, .. versus big Government socialists, tell me, which end of the rope are Libertarians on?"

    But that's just it, Grant. The old 'left' v 'right' is obsolete. LG's correct: both are pro-big govt, because both advocate some form/s of compulsion.

    The key 'component' of the totalitarian - of any stripe - is the desire to ban or compel.

    Softcock: Speaking for myself, I have no interest in playing word games, nor do I have any neuroses of which I'm aware ... :)

    But do I 'hate'? I'll tell you this for nothing: I have the utmost contempt & loathing for any bastard who would have no compunction in using force against me. It *is* a matter of freedom v totalitarianism. It *is* a matter of principle.

    Your so-called 'gray areas' are those in which principles have been compromised. John Key's shown that he's pretty good at that.

  5. PC, it would be quite helpful to use different labels for conservatives in the US and the so called conservatives in the National Party. And conservatives in Britain.

    All very different. And there is simply no definition of conservative that can apply to New Zealand's National Party. They are the party of anything for power, just like Labour.

  6. It's like she knew John Key was coming.

    If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.

    Margaret Thatcher

  7. Oh limp one, you really are soft!

    In the real world it is those who fail to stick to principles who achieve little or nothing- people who compromise because everything is "complex" and "grey" are, in essence, helpless. They drift along reacting; never controlling their own lives. Even dedicated socialists and communists do much better than that. They know what they want and what their principles are. The rest (people like you and your mate) are social ballast (or more bluntly, useful idiots).

    Think on this you soft headed thing, we are dealing with politics, which it's all a man made. How hard can it be? Not very. It certainly isn't impenetrable. Even for you.


  8. Sus

    The trouble with morons like Soft and also with Grant is that they expect you to do the equivalent of supporting either a Hitler or a Stalin. They say everything is complex and yet they want to force all individuals into a simplistic choice; left or right, socialist or conservative. What worthless hypocrits they are.

    Conservatism is a cursed thing, analogous to the smell of dog turd in the absence of anything real. Yup, all smell, no substance. No wonder Helen is happy.


  9. Hi Berend

    Perhaps conservatism seems different in various countries, but in the end what is it exactly? What are the unifying principles? What are the assumptions? Are they valid?

    I expect you'll find all that is common between conservatives in the differnt countries is the lust for the power to control other people. I'd not regard that as anything to be proud about. Certainly wouldn't vote for such people. Couldn't.

    At least helen is honest.


  10. God is not the author of confusion, Satan and his children are.
    Conservatism is inertia.
    Whoever is supportive of the status quo may be called a conservative and depending on the party of the local and day, determines the flavour.
    This conservatism is not a particular ideology but a position in relation to the status quo.
    This fluid relation has led to confusion.
    A Tory was a conservative because he resisted liberal reforms.
    Likewise the term Liberal. A true liberal is pro-change in the direction of freedom, but conservative in resistance to new compulsions. A libertarian might call himself a liberal, as in fact many early libertarians did.
    That these early saints were so successful and held in the highest esteem by the liberated masses that this popularity was coveted by the left and they adapted their propaganda to tap into liberal popularity.
    Also the nature of the battle between Whig and Tory made liberalism appeared in the minds of many to be anti wealth making many think of Liberalism as a Socialist philosophy because it fought for the poor against the Status quo.
    Thus by mistake and deception the term Liberal moved over to represent Socialism not Libertarianism. A complete reversal.
    This was when the enlightenment and Industrial revolution got cancer and Marx got his opportunity!
    In this situation the great Individualist Herbert Spencer abandoned the Liberals and joined the Tories!
    He wanted to conserve the ‘Laissez faire’ of the early 19th century against Liberal Socialist tyranny!
    Thus We Libertarianz are True original Liberals today in opposition to the phony socialist liberals and when we get New Freeland we will become conservatives.
    We use the term Libertarianism to avoid confusion, yet the left will never abandon the tactic of calling themselves liberals even though their politics is the exact opposite of the true meaning of the term. By this lie they steel power!
    That is not the whole story, but a good chunk of it!
    Tim Wikiriwhi


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.