Brilliant John Gray interview in the New Statesman.

Gray has made some valid comments, although I do not agree with everything he said about post-liberalism and Starmer. The video was difficult to watch due to the advertisements that popped up, so I will quote from the ‘New Statesman’ article (18/10/25) to which he referred in the video.

… post-liberal fantasies of cultural restoration are a distraction. In any realistically imaginable future, this country will continue to encompass a variety of faiths and values. Not only in Europe but throughout the world, the age of mass migration is over. But there can be no going back to the monocultural nationhood of the past. The issue is not how to integrate minorities into an overarching culture, but how ways of life that will remain divergent can cohabit in some sort of modus vivendi.

The way forward is to constrain communities rather than to entrench them. Everyone should be subject to a rule of law enforced equally on all. Nobody should be denied freedom to exit their community or subjected to coercion by other communities. The tyranny of minorities in stifling free expression should be firmly resisted. Individual liberty must be reasserted against the invasive claims of collective identity. But can the political will be summoned to bring about such a radical change in direction?

 In the first paragraph, Gray summarises the state of a post-liberal UK. He goes on to propose a way forward, yet he does not say how this can be achieved. How does one constrain communities? How can the law be enforced equally on all? I am unclear as to what political changes might come about that could allow divergent ways of life to ‘cohabit in some sort of modus vivendi’.

Communities are already constrained by poverty, geography, politics, religion, and so on. At present, it seems that that the law isn’t always enforced equally on all. So what might Gray be thinking of?

HighToryPsychic said:

I am a High Tory, supporter of the Aristocratic High state being restored. So I support the overthrow of the Liberal managerial state and restoring Parliament, the common law, the Royal Navy so on.

I am wondering if your last two words would embrace ideas that could address the issue of unconstrained communities and divergent ways of life?  Perhaps you considered High Tory ideas such as neo-feudalism, patriarchy and the abolition of equality, the sort of things that are discussed at 55 Tufton Street?

I’m not drawn in by John Gray, and I do not wish to live in a patriarchal society ruled by unelected men who would not be subject to accountability.

Gray has made some valid comments, although I do not agree with everything he said about post-liberalism and Starmer. The video was difficult to watch due to the advertisements that popped up, so I will quote from the ‘New Statesman’ article (18/10/25) to which he referred in the video.

… post-liberal fantasies of cultural restoration are a distraction. In any realistically imaginable future, this country will continue to encompass a variety of faiths and values. Not only in Europe but throughout the world, the age of mass migration is over. But there can be no going back to the monocultural nationhood of the past. The issue is not how to integrate minorities into an overarching culture, but how ways of life that will remain divergent can cohabit in some sort of modus vivendi.

The way forward is to constrain communities rather than to entrench them. Everyone should be subject to a rule of law enforced equally on all. Nobody should be denied freedom to exit their community or subjected to coercion by other communities. The tyranny of minorities in stifling free expression should be firmly resisted. Individual liberty must be reasserted against the invasive claims of collective identity. But can the political will be summoned to bring about such a radical change in direction?

 In the first paragraph, Gray summarises the state of a post-liberal UK. He goes on to propose a way forward, yet he does not say how this can be achieved. How does one constrain communities? How can the law be enforced equally on all? I am unclear as to what political changes might come about that could allow divergent ways of life to ‘cohabit in some sort of modus vivendi’.

Communities are already constrained by poverty, geography, politics, religion, and so on. At present, it seems that that the law isn’t always enforced equally on all. So what might Gray be thinking of?

HighToryPsychic said:

I am a High Tory, supporter of the Aristocratic High state being restored. So I support the overthrow of the Liberal managerial state and restoring Parliament, the common law, the Royal Navy so on.

I am wondering if your last two words would embrace ideas that could address the issue of unconstrained communities and divergent ways of life?  Perhaps you considered High Tory ideas such as neo-feudalism, patriarchy and the abolition of equality, the sort of things that are discussed at 55 Tufton Street?

I’m not drawn in by John Gray, and I do not wish to live in a patriarchal society ruled by unelected men who would not be subject to accountability.

Accountability is a dream (and the only true form of accountability would be execution), it never existed. England wasn't feudal from the 1300's, didn't have slavery from the 1300's, women we a massive part of the work force during and after the black death in England. So the English Feudalism/Patriarchy was very different from what people think. The key aspects I would like restored are the Hereditary peers to the House of Lords, the removal of the politically appointed life peers, the restoration of the Lord Judicial of the HofL, the Supreme court abolished. The devolved Parliament abolished. The district councils abolished. Restoration of the old counties. The enforcement of marriage contracts by the state. Massively limited access to higher education, classical Christian methods of education restored and selection at 11-14-16. 

In terms of the communities stuff, the High Tory state enforce for about 120 years something known as the Bloody code, which would hang people from basically anything from rape to stealing bread. The High Tory state wouldn't allow criminal gangs to operate, it wouldn't allow the rape gangs to operate, people smugglers, drugs, it would start hanging people for it. Murders, serial rapists, pedo-philes, serial property and violent criminals would be hanged. I respect the Liberal view that the state doesn't have the right to kill people and innocent people will be killed, however prison doesn't work either. 

The High Tory state was really enforced by custom and deference, not by state power. Its about what Starkey called the Self-governing society. So obviously I would abolish state multi-culturalism, the race relations acts, the equality act, sexism acts so on. I would not intervene to stop the English culture-identity/Patriarchy being enforced within society. So racism/sexism/homo-phobia, disability discrimination would be allowed. This is why I think the Liberal state has done valid and excellent work in limiting racism/sexism/homo-phobia/discrimination against disabled people, helping society understand different people/communities within it. However the High tory state would do this differently. For example there is a disability theater company called 'The Chicken Shed' who's founding patron was a Aristocratic lady. This is rather how the High state seeks to uplift people and be kind to them within society. So you allow the English nation to assert itself over the new-communities imported by the low state since 1945. 

Lastly you abolish the current police force and restore the old one which existed before the 1960's. You also enforce the common law, you can allow Sharia law or whatever, but common law is enforced by the state and other forms of religious law outside of Anglican Cannon law aren't accepted as legal. If communities riot or have high crime rate, they get expelled from the country or aren't integrating into English society. Its basically a total inversion of what the Liberal state has tried to do. Also equality before the law is a lie too, the common law was common to all people, as in simple, known explainable. It wasn't equal or just. Also it could change over time too. I would also enforce speech laws against Anglican blasphemy, child protection laws and decency laws in public. Keep in mind High Toryism is inherently anti-freedom-anti-equality, it doesn't accept what Liberals want.