This is High-Tory-Shane's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following High-Tory-Shane's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
High-Tory-Shane
London
22 year old conservative.
Interests: politics; music; history; philosophy; anthropology; art
Recent Activity
As you well know, you're barred from this site for being rude to other posters, not to mention the moderator. Your further posts will be deleted without comment - PG
1 reply
You've been warned before not to be rude to other posters. So you're on notice that a further offence will result in all your comments, past and present, being deleted. A gentleman of such distinguished appearance ought to do better - PG
1 reply
If you can make your points without being rude to other posters, they won't be deleted - PG
1 reply
Deliciously ironic, given the authour of One Nationism, Disraeli, wrote extensively on his contempt for pure pragmaticism.
1 reply
This is a sloppy article, but then I don't think you can do anything but generalise when discussing such a complex topic. A few points though: You start your essay by quoting the origin of the terms 'left' and 'right' - this is an anachronism. It was Thomas Carlyle who introduced the terms in his description of the French Revolution: I personally don't believe these terms fit the political discourse of this country in the 19th century. A classical liberal position was a traditionally left wing position, says who? No liberal of the early part of the 19th century would have said they're left wing: that's your own ideological understanding being imputed erroneously to the past. No Tories of this period would have supported 'state coercion', this isn't the 17th century: do you think the ministries of Liverpool and Wellington encapsulated that idea? What about Peel? And even later, what about Derby and Disraeli? Spencer, and you, are wrong. Your quotes from Spencer are anachronistic - it'd better to cite a modern historian when discussing the antecedents of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party; suffice to say, no modern scholar would accepts Spencer's definitions of the two opposing parties: the 'Liberal' mission was to displace the power of monarchy and aristocracy? Yeah right, no historian would accept that - from what strata of society do you think the Liberal Party was constituted? The men of the Conservatives and Liberals were one and the same, up until the era of Gladstone/Disraeli - which was, incidentally, round about the time the mercantile classes began switching to the Conservative Party - there was hardly any difference between the two: Robert Peel was a Whig in disguise, it's no coincidence that the Peelites were absorbed into the Liberal Party; infact, it's common knowledge that Peel struggled immensely to position his party on a different footing to the dominant Whigs, Robert Blake points out that he struggled to be heard as a 'voice' rather than an 'echo'; I doubt he would have held office if the Whigs hadn't split over the constitution of Jamaica. The major causes of contention was religion and Ireland, but even positions on that topic weren't universal within the parties: the Whig, Derby, famously broke away from Melbourne's ministry over reform of the Church of Ireland; Wellington was the one who emancipated the Catholics. Spencer's essay alludes to the dominance of social-liberalism in the 1880's, but he erroneously believes this sort of liberalism is analogous to an older more traditional form of Toryism: it isn't, and on this matter he is wrong. Disraeli, who is the most traditional of Tories, subscribed to the same laissez-faire style of governance as the older classical liberals, as did Lord Salisbury - can you honestly say that these blends of Toryism is comparable to the emergence of social-liberalism? You'd be hard pressed justifying that claim; certainly the intellectual fuel of social-liberalism - Nonconformist Christianity - is an antipode to Toryism. Let me finish by saying, quite firmly, that you are profoundly wrong if you think the 'Liberals' of yore wanted to empower the PEOPLE against the state. My God, you couldn't be more wrong; 'democracy' wasn't viewed as a panacea - even the Advanced Liberals like Woodhouse and Bosanquet had deep reservations about 'democracy'.
1 reply
Christian ethics isn't relative. Read some literature on Natural Law and any exegesis on Divine Command theory/ or ethical non-naturalism . Such a moron it beggars belief at times.
1 reply
I'm not going to humour your stupidity, Jack.
1 reply
Who's this Howard Wilson fella? Harold, I think you'll find...
1 reply
Stick to the topic why don't you, Nonny. I'm not discussing the validity of moral realist positions, I am, however, pointing out that the moral universalism of the Church was riled against by Counter-Culture ideas. Any notion of tradition and authority was systematically attacked. Most laymen do think morality is subjective, that is a typical response from someone who's never read any ethics - this a untenable view and the vast majority of ethicists aren't relativists. This is where we differ, Nonny, my ideas on history and ideas aren't formulated capriciously by myself, they are the product of my learning and reading, as such I don't equate Victorianism with Christian evangelical morality because of a 'gut instinct' (which is what all your opinions seem to be based on), but rather I equate the two because that is the conclusion of intellectual historians. Evidently you don't know anything about the Great Awakening/Christian revival prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon world in the 18th century and continuing into the 19th century. The evangelicalism borne from within the Anglican Church manifested itself in the Methodism of Charles and John Wesley and also William Wilberforce and John Newton: various social reform movements (such as abolitionism) and moral reticence stemmed from the evangelicals; certainly Non Conformist Christianity played a central role in Whig/Liberal politics in the 19th century. Read the declarations of George III has he decrees that the monarch should be the guardian morality, or read about the enormous and profound effect Wesleyanism had on first the lower classes and then the Aristocracy. Compare and contrast the social commentary of the 18th and 19th century, with changing attitudes to drunkenness and fornication, borne directly because of the evangelicalism of the Dissenter Christians - there was a decrease in out of wedlock births and sottish behaviour in the 19th century. That evangelicalism became the defining feature of Victorianism: Victorianism was Christian morality. This isn't a tendentious statement and if you bothered to read about the subjects that you liberally proffer opinions on you'd see that. You're not a very critical thinker, that's for sure...
1 reply
You never fail to make such ignorant generalisations, do you? The degradation of the Church by left wing ideologies isn't exactly esoteric: infact anyone who bothers to do even a tiny bit of reading on the subject would become appraised of the Counter-Culture influence in undermining absolute moral principles as enshrined in Christianity. The Church as an institution didn't spontaneously become 'irrelevant', it became something detached from wider society because of shifting patterns in belief-structures, largely orchestrated from the Counter-Culture of the 1960's and 1970's: the Church, as an authoritative institution and bastion of absolute morality, didn't quite fit with the relativistic tone of the left wing. >>>The Church was a lot more accommodating to the desires of its congregation during the pre-Victorian times. It then became much stricter in moral terms as the Victorian politics changed it.<<< *Cringe*. Victorianism IS Christian evangelical morality.
1 reply
It is of course highly likely that I don't understand the word 'bemusement' (note the slight sardonicism). It's highly suspect and infantile that you and those of your ilk find the Pope 'bemusing'.
1 reply
And why would that engender bemusement? How moronic.
1 reply
Why 'detached bemusement' of enlightened one?
1 reply
I don't - if God transcends the laws of logic then quite obviously He is beyond our comprehension. None of the major faiths assert that, so if that is true then it's likely all the world religions are false.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
Wow, thanks for this oh so enlightening theory on the origin of 'religion'. Look up the 'genetic fallacy' - even if I were to humour you and state what you say is correct it says nothing on the veracity of the transcendent truth.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
500 years ago the intelligentsia thought the universe was eternal and only the Christians argued that there was an absolute beginning. Looks like a vindication for Christian belief derived from 'revelation'.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
Wrong. Science as a methodical system is metaphysical - you can't prove the validity of science. 'Faith' is essential for science to work: faith in the rational order of the universe so science can actually work and faith in the testimony of others as they communicate their ideas. Damn, my friend, you better read some philosophy of science.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
Wow. Where did you learn this interpretation of history? Marx? So called 'conservatives' never cease to amaze me.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
You can but let me hazard a guess: you've never actually read anything on the subject of God and yet claim He doesn't exist because you 'think' that's rational.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
If you can't prove God doesn't exist, or in other words, if you can't justify the proposition 'God does not exist' then you are irrational. Most atheists are agnostics. Oh Elaine, you are but another Whig in Conservative clothing.
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on On reasons for believing at CentreRight
1 reply
Absolutely disastrous: we're losing our sovereignty because of the inclinations of a few transnationals.
Toggle Commented Aug 16, 2010 on Why Kashmir's a British issue at CentreRight
1 reply
I think she says many things of value - so you're wrong.
Toggle Commented Aug 16, 2010 on A little summer reading at CentreRight
1 reply
Why? A private organisation can issue its own mandate.
1 reply
1) Mill's philosophy affords liberty to individuals to exercise their beliefs and values, to quote mill: "Any society that holds eccentricity as a matter of reproach cannot be in a wholesome state" (from his 'Political Economy'). Simply put, Mill, like all liberals of yore, recognised the necessity of freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of beliefs, and that the state cannot and should not curtail liberties unnecessarily for the sake of promulgating a particular and rigid social-view. Mill was at pains to stress the importance of difference of opinion, difference of belief and difference of value (hence the quote), his first books of political economy - which is a far greater exposition of his position than 'On Liberty' - make this point quite explicitly. 2) Temper temper my socialist friend, it seems you're becoming a bit hysterical: It isn't a bigoted or homophobic view if the belief is coherent and rational, there's nothing inherently wrong with the view. The owner of any enterprise fashions his business through his own liberty, and as such should be able to trade without the necessity of the state coercing him to trade with those individuals who he does not wish to trade with; the state does not have a monopoly on value and should not be compelling individuals to act against their conscious. You clearly don't believe in freedom of association, as such you're a totalitarian. 3) Why should a business service 'all or none at all'? If it's my capital that realises the business in the first place, that it is an exercise of my choosing and my liberty, why should the state dictate to me who I should trade with? That's autocratic. I can dispense with my properties and possessions how ever I choose: such things are private and sacrosanct, the state shouldn't be telling its citizens how it should act through such things - I don't think you'd take too kindly if the state compelled you to share your home with someone you didn't want to share with, why? Because private property as an institution is separate from the state insofar as the state exists as a protector of yours, and others', private property, the same concept is applicable to private enterprise: to trade with who ever one pleases to trade with is a fundamental right that all Englishmen have inherited and I resent the fact that in the last century government has expanded to such an extent that it dictates to people what to think, what to believe, and how to act through the medium of their private lives. Hayek pointed out in one of his early essays on socialism that the private sphere can never be separated from the economic sphere: they exist through a synergy, the episode with the B&B owner is a perfect illustration of that, and I believe Hayek would be the first to point out that the state has curtailed liberty unnecessarily and is, as such, acting in a totalitarian fashion. You're own blinkered socialist view reminds me of something the historian Robert Blake once said: "The progressives of any age and almost always conceited, doctrinaire, blinkered and intolerant." You fit that description to a 'T' - and you call yourself a conservative! 4) The law is wrong, I've already said that. You either believe in freedom of association, freedom of trade, and the sacrosanct of private property or you don't - what is my socialist friend? I also fail to see how simply refusing to trade with someone 'forces their moral code on others', if anything it's the most perfect example of someone exercising their freedom to its fullest - perhaps a homosexual couple would like to found a B&B that services only homosexuals? I'd have no problem with that - it's their freedom to do so. Do you honestly think that the only thing stopping heterosexual people from tearing homosexuals to pieces, or banishing them as pariahs of society is the presence of law? Deary me, you don't think much of people, do you. 5) Some may deny service, most wouldn't - perhaps homosexuals would like to set up their own businesses to cater to homosexual 'needs' (clearly a requirement because you seem to think the whole of the population differentiates in every facet between homosexuals and heterosexuals). And if someone didn't want to serve blacks or Irish it's entirely their prerogative: the law should, in such respects, only exist to stymie sedition 6) My socialist friend, science and 'medicine' has no bearing on moral questions. In conclusion, I unfortunately can't find any semblance of what we call 'conservatism' in your writing, infact, it's safe to say that you're a social-liberal (or 'soft-socialist') in that you are perfectly happy for the state to coerce people to act against their will, to countermine their conscious/moral beliefs, and to deny freedom of association. There is a party for you, it's called the 'Socialist Workers Party' - join it, you'd feel right at home.
1 reply