Friday, 21 October 2016

How to Abuse Children for Fun and Profit

Abusing children is immoral, but in our Liberal society that doesn't mean it's illegal. Sure the more obvious abuses are illegal, for example it is illegal to murder, rape, molest, beat or starve children to death. Which is a very good thing. However there are just so many ways to abuse children and many of them come with great financial rewards. Don't believe me?

Well lets have a look at some of the ways.

Do you want to abuse children but you don't actually like to be around them? Then the Abortion industry might be what your looking for. Here you can make a decent wage just by counselling women to get an abortion. You might be on the medical side carrying out the abortions. Either way you can tell people how you work in health care and how you fix great moral problems like helping girls who have been raped by their Fathers. No need to tell them that 90% of the women you "help" are there because they've been lead to believe this is a legitimate form of birth control. You know like the contraceptive pill but with surgery.

But it's not just medicine were you can abuse children, while it's not as profitable it's much easier to get into, what industry is that? Childcare, now many people will complain, childcare is a great and noble career they will say. How is separating children from their parents, in this particularly case their Mother, noble? No it is no such thing. Childcare is simply another way to get people used to the idea that parents are disposable. That we are all just random individuals. Children don't cry for their childcare worker, they cry for their Mother and Father, the people that mean the whole world to them. Childcare is a sad substitute for a real family.

Of course in Childcare they can control everything that should be the sole responsibility of the child's parents, discipline, nourishment, culture, beliefs. Non of that should be mandated by the Government, however in Childcare it all is. Here you get to abuse Children, the institution of the family and still tell everyone how much you love children!

How about if you don't want to deal with children too much but your not interested in a medical career? Well fortunately for you there is the Law, today the Law has a section that hardly existed before the 1970's, Family Law. Divorce is a great way to abuse children. Family Law specialize's in smash families to pieces. Childcare separates Mothers from their children. Family Law specializes in separating Fathers from their children. And the entire time you are helping to smash a family to pieces you can tell people how your performing a community service, so many of these men are no hopers, they are angry and violent, irrational and so very mean they don't even want to pay for their children to be raise by someone else. Your not to blame, all your doing is carrying out the Law, which says smashing families to pieces is legal.

Divorce leads me into another form of child abuse, when children are denied a parent. It might be through divorce, or their parents may never have been married or today it may be by being adopted by a Homosexual couple. No matter, the effect is all the same. A child is denied their birthright to be part of a family with both male and female influence. Now anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see that a child, whether it is a boy or a girl, needs both the masculine and the feminine. Neither is superior because both are needed.  

One thing this often leads to is back to the medical profession, "Doctor, I've tried everything, except discipline and consistency, to bring my child under control is there any way you can help me?". Well of course the medical profession can help, firstly they can provide one of their patently made-up diagnosis like ADHD. The best way to cure ADHD is with discipline and consistency, but the medical profession can't make any money from common sense so instead they hand out drugs. Drugging children to get them under control when simple parenting can achieve the same result, surely must be child abuse. Whether it is or isn't, drugging children is legal, all praise Liberalism!

And a final one, Identity, here you can work in a whole range of professions to destroy children's sense of Identity. You might be a Teacher, or you might work for the Government in Immigration for example or you might be a counselor or a Minister of Religion or work in Advertising. Destroying a child's sense of Identity can be achieve in so many ways. You might tell them about how fluid gender and sexuality is, after all growing up isn't confusing enough without Authority figures doing their best to harm your peace of mind. Maybe sexuality is not your thing, maybe you'd rather destroy their ethnicity and tell them that race doesn't exist. That their own eyes are lying to them and they should trust you instead. That they should love everyone in the world, you know except themselves and those closest to them. Yes there are so many ways to destroy a child's sense of well being.

Ohhh I nearly forgot one final but absolutely brilliant, and lets admit important, way to abuse children. One of the best ways is to become a Politician. Abortion, Childcare, Family Law, funding Single Parenthood, allowing Homosexuals to adopt children, allowing children to be drugged because of bad parenting, teaching about gender fluidity and to always hate your own people. Now non of that would have been possible without the dedication and hard work of our Politicians.

Liberalism has provided so many ways to legally abuse children for both fun and profit. Sadly.

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Taxes, Budgets and the Economy

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Looking For New Links

Hello All

I have decided to increase the number of sites that I link too. However there is only so much of the internet that one man can search and then I thought about all of you. While it may be gratifying to think I'm the only Conservative site you read, realistically that's probably not the case. So please send me any interesting sites you read, no more than three.

I'm looking for Traditionalists, Paleo-Conservatives and Alt-Right sites.

Please post below in the comments

Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?

Thursday, 13 October 2016

The Middle Ages & Our Future

Conservatives are often accused of living in the past and in fact we do look to the past to provide answers for the future. We do this because we do not believe in the "tyranny of the living", in other words we do not accept that only those people alive today have all the correct answers and everyone who came before were wrong. We accept that the people of the past often did things better, not always of course, but we give them more weight because in the past things worked.

Most Conservatives are not kind to the Enlightenment, most believe that was a major turning point in world affairs, and not for the better. In many ways Conservatives past and present have looked to the Middle Ages as our inspiration. But we need to look at what it is about the Middle Ages that we can use in the future.

So what is it that we find so admirable about the Middle Ages?

Hierarchy, that each person had a place.

Royalty, that we give our loyalty to a real person and not to abstract ideas which change.

Nobility, in both senses of that word.

God, that there is a place for faith, for public faith.

Family, family was everything, the past, the present and the future.

Human sized, that even the big things still had a place for people.

Decentralized, no one group controlled all of the power

Permanence, people believed not in progress but that things would last.

Now many will point out that there were many bad things that happened during the Middle Ages and of course they would be right. But that does not change the fact that there was also much to admire. Conservatives do not believe in everything that happened in the past, that would be impossible. What we believe in is in taking those things from the past that worked and having them work again. However much of what we admire about the Middle Ages doesn't exist anymore. So let us look at each of these in turn.

Many will complain that in the Middle Ages we were Serfs and today we are free. The Middle Ages that Conservatives admire is when there were no Serfs but when every man was a Freeman. To use the English word, a Yeoman. Every Yeoman knew he was not a Slave or a Serf but he also knew he was not a Lord. He was free to live his life and free to make his own decisions. He was the backbone of the Kingdom. He fought it's wars and he worked it's fields but he was his own man. Not alone but part of a class that knew it's own worth and was not interested in taking from any other class. This is the class we want to recreate. In all human societies there is a hierarchy, but ours pretends that isn't true. Yet another lie.

In every Conservatives heart there is a soft spot for the idea of Royalty. That there is someone worthwhile to look up to and serve. That to serve is honourable and will preserve permanence. However, Royalty has a paradox, a Good King is one of the best forms of Government, but a bad King is one of the worst. And such rule can last for decades. But a Medieval King was not an absolute Monarch. He was the first amongst equals. He had to share and balance power between himself, his council, his nobles and the church. He was not all powerful, even though he was more powerful than most, there were limits to his power,

We want there to be more Nobility in life, more honour, more of the finer qualities that we posses being advanced, so often we see only the baser qualities being put on display, even admired. We do not want that at all. We also think about that other Nobility, the Aristocracy, we want to look up to the powerful instead of looking down at them. We admire the idea of the Aristocracy because it is permanent, because it is decentralized, because it is about Family and because it is Human sized. Although I would caution that in the Middle Ages the Nobility were tied to the wealth created by the land and this kept them in check. But once that tie to the land was broken and they sought to find other sources of wealth their usefulness declined considerably.

Today faith is still allowed but only in private, as if it is shameful. While I would never seek a Theocracy, it does seem that we have gone too far the other way. During the Middle Ages they built Cathedrals and they were more than tourist traps, God had a place. You really must wonder, as I do, if that will be true in the future.

For as long as there have been Conservatives we have warned that the thinking that came out of the Enlightenment would destroy the family. And for all of that time we have been thought of as scaremongers. But here we are seeing the Family being destroyed right before our eyes. Even so many still cannot work it out, they instead think that everything will be alright as long as we change the definition of what constitutes a Family. In the Middle Ages Family was everything, it was the basic building block of society. We want to return to that, to Family being everything, our past, our present and our future.

Human sized
Modern life is very impersonal, both Government and Business treat us as just a number. We hold no importance, how can we when we are unknown, when we do not know them and they do not know us. So little of our life seems to be human sized and we miss it, we know we should not be anonymous. In the Middle Ages nearly everything was human sized. Everything was more personable, good things and bad things.

Today power has been concentrated, Governments and Corporations live in each others pockets, protecting each other. And you and I are not really important. In the Middle Ages power was not concentrated in the King, it was shared with his Council, with the Nobility and with the Church. Today there are data bases on everyone of us, our secrets are not ours. And the reason they stay secret is because we are regarded as unimportant. Centralization is bad and increasing, in the Middle Ages things were decentralized.

It seems like something that doesn't exist anymore, everything seems designed to destroy any sense of Permanence. The Middle Ages believed in Permanence and ours does not. Instead it believes in progress, in the idea that nothing is permanent, that nothing is sacred and that everything is up for sale. This I want to return, the idea that things are permanent, that some things are too special to be changed.

The Middle Ages were like all other times, not all good and not all bad. But there were things that were better then, things we still want and that we still need. When we think about how we want the future, don't forget to include the past.

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Homes Not Houses

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

The Forty-Third Month

Another good month, although not as good as the month before, but still good. There was also  another meeting of the Melbourne Traditionalists which was a great success. So things are moving, slowly, but still moving.

This month my best day was two days ago on the 9th October, when I had 251 visitors, a great deal of whom were from Poland. My worst day was the 17th September when I had only 40 visitors, although I only had one other day under 50. I also have five countries over 100 this month, which I always enjoy!

I also had a link from Mr. Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative to my post The End of Any Consensus, which is always nice.

United States
United Kingdom

United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand

The United States, Australia, Germany, France are all up and all in the hundreds!

The United Kingdom and Canada are both down.

Poland, Ireland, Brazil and China are all in the top 10.

The Philippines, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the Ukraine have all left the top 10.

I have also received visitors from thew following countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYROM), Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Pakistan, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Botswana, South Africa, New Zealand.

I thank you all for visiting and I hope to see you again.
Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?

Thursday, 6 October 2016

The Death of Tolerance

Today we are told we must be Tolerant, that we must not judge. Tolerance is held up as being one of the higher virtues. However we do not Tolerate things we like, we only need to Tolerate things we do not like. In fact it is absurd to say you Tolerate ice cream if everyone knows you love ice cream.

But the Tolerance we are told to embrace and use is not Tolerant, because we are not asked to put up with things we dislike. No, we are instead told that Tolerance means we must love and embrace the very things that we dislike. It is the complete opposite of Tolerance. If we were really being asked to be Tolerant we would put up with things that we dislike or disapprove of, to put aside our personal feelings for the greater good.

And while this is going on and we are told that we must be Tolerant, views which do not match this vision are not Tolerated. They are condemned, banned and in some cases even made illegal, all in the name of Tolerance. Intolerance is used to enforce Tolerance.

So Tolerance today really means submission, submit and think as you are told not as you believe. There is no need for you to do your own thinking as all of that can and will be done for you, all you need to do is submit. When in your job interview for a Government job, or at the bank or school you tell them you don't agree with their vision of Tolerance, it won't take long before you see their intolerance. Until you submit there can be no Tolerance.

However if that is the new definition of Tolerance, that I must love the things I hate, what happens when I refuse to submit? Well at first they try to excommunicate you from their group. Then they try to use the Law to make you submit. But will that really work? Will you really submit?

It seems many people submit on the surface but not in reality, they still hold to their own opinions. Some do not even go that far, they are willing, even wanting, to be excommunicated. They do not want to be part of any consensus. And once you have rejected their idea that you must submit, you find that you are intolerant of their version of Tolerance. That you cannot put up with things that you once might have done. If, for example saying that criticism of Immigration is regarded as racist, even mild criticism, then why be mild? Why not go the whole hog and be extreme and in this case say no immigration?

In the future this will increasingly be how it is, for better or worse the middle ground will be lost. People will increasingly move to extreme positions, Tolerance is dying because it has been corrupted, because like so much in the modern world, it has become meaningless.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
14 of 20 Pattern in History

Saturday, 1 October 2016

Domestic Violence: A Conservative Approach

Communism invented the idea of Class Warfare, that there are different classes of people and that they are in constant and unrelenting conflict with each other. That idea was picked up and distorted by Feminism and Left Liberalism. They adopted the idea of privileged classes of people and that there also existed victim classes. The Domestic Violence Industry is part of that Class Warfare. Men are regarded as the privileged class and women as the victim class. But Conservatives reject Class Warfare, so what should our approach be towards Domestic Violence?

First let me expand on the problems with the current approach. The current approach assumes that someone of the privileged class, in others words men, are always guilty. That goes against a basic tenet of Western law that people are assumed to be innocent. The current approach is also an invasion of privacy, An argument or fight between a Husband or a Wife should be there business, instead it is regarded as the business of the Police, the Courts and Social Workers. The current approach means that Police can press charges on someone else's behalf, even if they are against such charges being laid. What business do these people have being involved in a marriage that they are not a part of! 

The result is that men are arrested for normal human behaviour. It is not unnatural for people to argue or to fight, it may be regrettable but it is not unnatural. The idea that a man's home is his castle has been destroyed by laws that assume that agents of the Government have a right to intervene in disputes between a married couple. Men are routinely denied access to their home, their property and to their children. Because they are regarded as the privileged class, how is being denied access to your home, property and/or children a privilege? 

All current Domestic Violence laws are based on the theory of Class Warfare.

So what should a Conservative approach towards Domestic Violence be?

Firstly we must acknowledge that Domestic Violence is real and that it affects real people. That people who need protection should be protected. 

Secondly that Domestic Violence should actually involve violence. It should not have any wider definition.

Thirdly that most Domestic Violence is an event, something that happens not something that is ongoing. Sometime it is ongoing and that should be dealt with differently to a one time event that spiraled out of control.

Fourth that one of the most important tasks of the Police is to maintain the Queens peace. Persuasion, calm authority, deescalation and restoring order are more important than making arrests.  

Fifthly that neither Police, the Courts, Social Services nor any other authority should have the task of destroying or disrupting families. They should be doing their best to protect both individuals and the family. 

Sixth that there are often external forces that push things over the edge, money worries, frustration, hopelessness, etc. While it is not possible to fix Human nature it is possible to let people know that there are resources and coping strategy's that they can learn or have access too.

Seventh we should be practical, things that work should be used and those things that do not work should not be used.

Eighth murder is not Domestic Violence, it's murder.

The idea that men are always guilty means that people are encouraged at every level to destroy marriages and to separate families. Conservatives should never support this, we should always support families and law and order, as well as justice. Justice is never served by saying that one class of people are always guilty because they are privileged. That sounds to me as the very definition of injustice.

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

The End of Any Consensus

When I was in my twenties I thought something that I no longer believe. I believed that while I disagreed with others politically, basically we were still on the same side. But in truth I no longer believe that at all. Now I wonder was it a different time or was I just naive?

Actually I think both were true, the times were different. The 1990's were right after the Cold War. The Depression of the 1930's, the Second World War and then the Cold War encouraged the idea that we were all in this together. That differences of opinion were merely that, a difference of opinion. That each person was entitled to their opinion and that no opinion was really better than another. While in reality each person held that their own opinion was correct. There was even a name for this, it was known as the Post-War consensus.

And in truth there was a consensus, but as the Cold War went on and Liberalism split that consensus began to break down. In the 1940's there was hardly any dispute about what constituted a family, about whether people could decide their own sex, about whether single women should have children to multiple fathers all funded by the taxpayer, that each nation belonged to it's own people and they had a right to protect that. But by the 1990's how much of that was disputed? Why, all of it was disputed. Things that were once unquestioned were now viewed as expendable and as of no value.

Over time it has become harder to see those who disagree as merely having a difference of opinion. It is also obvious that this new opinion is not one sided either. To hold the wrong opinion about homosexual marriage is forbidden in many circles, including many workplaces. Actually I'm just as intolerant as they are. How can they live in the world we want? How can we live in the world they want? Because what is becoming increasingly obvious is that we have very little in common.

 What do I have in common with those who believe I am merely an economic unit?

What do I have in common with those who believe that I have no sex, race or ethnicity?

What do I have in common with the foreigners who are flooding into my country?

What do I have in common with those that believe a family is anything they decide?

What do I have in common with those who believe that marriage is disposable and redefinable?

I have next to nothing in common with these people, they are not on my side. They sell me out at every step. They don't understand or respect me, Actually I return their lack of respect, I despise them. And I think more and more people are doing the same. How is this going to end?

Very very badly, that's how!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?