The Three Levels of Liberal Consciousness

The Three Levels of Liberal Consciousness

When homosexuality was illegal people argued that once it was legal it was only a matter of time until they demanded that the law be changed again so that they could marry. Those who supported that homosexuality be legalised scoffed at the very notion. It’s interesting because it lays clear the three levels of Liberal consciousness.

1.     The Naive – "Their asking for so little, just to be legal, once they get it they will be satisfied, why would they want more?"

2.      The Muddleheaded – "I wouldn’t support such a radical idea, how could any right thinking person support such an idea?" Which works for awhile, but in time they find themselves on the wrong end of the progressive argument. They don’t want to be bigots or even worse be called bigots, so they get on board. Then they end up asking themselves, "How could I ever have had such backward views!"!

3.     The Radical – "Society is so backwards, keep pushing society will follow". Mostly it fails, sometimes it works. If the radical idea you support isn’t working, hop on board the radical idea that is working. They know the destruction that will be caused and many wouldn’t do it otherwise. They revel in destroying the past, they believe they are building the future. But the truth is they are much better at destroying than they are at building.

Now that this has been presented to you, it becomes clear that you’ve met all three of these Liberals, haven’t you? You see them in the media, in politics, at school and in the workplace, maybe in your own family or among your friends. 

Keep an eye out and next when you met a Liberal ask yourself which one of the above they are. Once you have worked out where they are arguing from it might make it easier to confront them and their views.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative vFuture

LAWRENCE AUSTER: JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013

LAWRENCE AUSTER: JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013

Reposted from: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024382.html

Lawrence Auster died today at 3:56 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, at a hospice in West Chester, Pennsylvania. His death came after more than a week of rapidly worsening distress and physical collapse caused by the pancreatic cancer he endured for almost three years.

On Monday evening, after arriving at the hospice in the late afternoon, Mr. Auster read and responded to a few emails. He then closed his battered and medicine-stained Lenovo laptop for the last time. “That’s enough for now,” he said, holding his hands over the computer as if sated by an unfinished meal.

He did not expect that to be the last.

But the blogging career that stands out on the Internet and in the history of American letters as a tour de force of philosophical and cultural insight is over. Mr. Auster entered a state of sedated and sometimes pained sleep the next day, after a night of agony. He spoke no more than a few words during the next two days and died peacefully this morning after about ten hours of unusually quiet and mostly undisturbed rest.

Only extreme incapacitation could have brought that career to a close. For many of us, it was a marvel, a form of essential daily food. No man gave more to his readers. No writer responded more energetically to the people who took in his words and either approved or rejected them. No thinker, except perhaps Plato, jousted more ably with his students or left such an elegant and finished record of philosophical conflict and resolution. He was philosopher, journalist, guru and cultural psychoanalyst in one. And no writer on culture and politics had sounder judgment about the world around us, or more brilliant observations.

The relationship between Mr. Auster and the hundreds of often-anonymous correspondents who wrote to him over the years was like that between a boxing coach and his fighters. He trained his followers in the art of intellectual combat — and the price was a staggering workload as he edited the debates that have appeared here over the years. He paid tireless tribute to the fight for truth. But, as he insisted, he wasn’t a hero. He was just doing what came naturally. He was doing what he had to do.

Sadly, as of today, View from the Right, except for an entry about his funeral and possibly more on his death, will become inactive. He wanted it that way. VFR could not continue beyond Mr. Auster’s death because it is the creation of an utterly unique personality and mind.

The site will, however, remain online permanently, as long as the Internet exists. There are also plans to collect his writings, both those found here and those unpublished, in book form. At the time of his final siege of illness, he was working hard to make that happen.

His work will continue to be read and appreciated. The number of “vile sycophants” will grow. Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster. I am certain of that.

Readers will note the synchronicity of Mr. Auster’s death. He died on Good Friday. He said repeatedly that becoming a Christian believer was the most important event of his life. Born a Jew, he was baptized as an Anglican on Holy Thursday 15 years ago. And, he was received into the Catholic Church and took the sacraments, including Holy Unction, in his hospital room on Monday.

There is much more to be said — about the man and the ideas. But today is a day for grief, as well as for gratitude. His almost unimaginable suffering is ended.

Soon we can feel wonder too. We can sit back and marvel at what we had — and still have. The loss of this great fighter invites us to love even more the ideas, principles and heritage that Lawrence Auster loved. It behooves us to love America, even a deceased America, as much as he did; to love Western civilization; to love the written word and unfettered intellectual discourse. His combativeness sprang in part from an internal wellspring of affection.

But we cannot help but also love less. For the world is less without him.

Laura Wood

The Thinking Housewife

Feminists versus Women

Feminists versus Women

Feminists like to treat the words Feminist and women as if they are the same word. As if they are interchangeable. But women are flesh and blood human beings and Feminism is a political ideology!

They are not the same thing, they are not even a little bit the same thing.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Feminism, just Another Branch of Liberalism II

Feminism, just Another Branch of Liberalism II

Feminism answered a second question, a question that had baffled men throughout the ages and Feminism wasn’t coy about it they gave an answer, the question? 

What do women want? 

Liberal men loved the answer, it cannot be stressed enough how much Liberal men loved the answer. Feminists told men that they wanted the same things that men wanted. To a man that makes perfect sense, why wouldn’t a women want to be free to be sexually autonomist, why wouldn’t a women want a high powered career, why wouldn’t a women want political power, why wouldn’t a women want an abortion, no man ever wanted to be pregnant. While a man might not have any of those things he knew that he would like them, so to be told straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, seemed to make life easier. 

If women get what they want from life, life will be easier, how could it not be. The idea that Feminist women might be Feminist first and women second didn’t seem to occur to these Liberal men, they set about making life easier, better more equal. 

It wasn’t women who made it hard for men to get a fair deal in the divorce courts, it wasn’t women who passed sexual harassment laws, it wasn’t women who passed equal opportunity laws, men, Liberal men did all of that. Women, not even Feminist women, have ever had that power, they still don’t. In all of these areas it is men, Liberal men, who have betrayed us all.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Feminism, just Another Branch of Liberalism I

Feminism, just Another Branch of Liberalism I

Feminism is simply Liberalism as it applies to the lives of women. When Liberalism applies to the lives of men, or the lives of both men and women it’s simply called Liberalism. 

Yes, Feminism is a sexist word. 

But I don’t have that much of a problem with sexist words because I’m not a Liberal and I think there are much more important things to worry about.

 Feminism is to be quite frank remarkable, it is both one of the most successful and at the same time the most controversial aspect of Liberalism. How can it be that something that even many successful business women, women who owe a good portion of their success to Feminism, don’t want to be associated with. How can something that toxic be so successful? 

The answer is that it provided answers within Liberalism that Liberalism didn’t even know it needed answers too. If men are to be autonomist individuals what about women? It’s a perfectly good question, but Liberalism had never asked it, it had toyed with the idea but that’s all. Feminism gave Liberalism the question and the answer all at the same time, women will also be autonomist individuals. Liberalism loved it, there were many who felt that women held men back from achieving autonomy, that they were too traditional. 

Not any more, now women were in the vanguard of Liberalism, for the first time.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Lack of Perception

Lack of Perception

When I was a child I was smacked, I in turn have smacked children. It is a short, simple and in many cases effective form of discipline. According to some Liberals I am talking about assaults, I am both a victim and perpetrator of violence. To the rest of us we shake our heads in disbelief. Why is there such a great divide? 

It is because of the lack of perception of the Liberal.  They cannot tell the difference between a smack and a kick to the head! Most people would agree one may be appropriate but the other is never appropriate. To the Liberal it is all the same. This lack of perception is evidenced in domestic violence, child protection and hate crime laws. It is why they oppose capital punishment or other harsh sentences against criminals. All crime is bad why treat some crimes as worse than others, particularly if the crime isn’t against Liberalism. 

But if you cannot tell the difference between big and small issues or problems, how can you provide any answers with accuracy? 



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Too Much is Never Enough

Too Much is Never Enough

Do you remember when you had you first beer? 

How long was it before you thought to yourself, if 1 beer is good 50 beers must be 50 times better. If you've never thought that, I’d be surprised if you have never heard such a sentiment. But most of us grow out of that and realise that sometimes too much is really too much. We begin to see that moderation has it’s place. 

But for many Liberals that sense of moderation never arrives, there is a constant feeling that more is better, too much is never enough. If a concession is given then that is the start of a wedge and that wedge should be pushed in further. There is always something more to achieve. 

No concession we can make will ever be enough to satisfy them.




Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

The 15 year old Liberal

The 15 year old Liberal

When I have argued with Liberal’s I have discovered that if any event happened more than 15 years ago, in their mind, it is ancient history. 15 years is also the furthest most can project into the future. The ideas and policies that they advocate exist inside that vacuum of time. 

That is how they can say things like “Look you all said the sky would fall in if this became law but the sky hasn’t fallen”. The long view of history is hidden from them, that the effects of a law or policy may take years, in some cases decades to come into full effect doesn’t seem to occur to them. 

They are not people of the past and they are not people of the future, they are people of the present. That is both their gift and their curse.



Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Posting Comments

Posting Comments

Hello All

Until last week I was, like most of you, a reader not a writer of blogs, so my knowledge of the technicalities of how the site works is in it's infancy. If you would like to post a comment you need to either have a Gmail account or to sign up for one, it's free and doesn't take long to set up, I have 4. Once you have signed in you can post a comment. I agree it's abit of a bother, maybe in the future that won't be the case but until I work it out I'm afraid that is how it works.

The alternative is to send me an email and I will post the comment under your name or tag.

uponhopeblog@gmail.com

Just cut and past the above address into the address field of your email. Please let me know which post your referring too.

I look forward to hearing any questions, comments or constructive criticisms you may have.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff

Ideology Before Reality

Ideology before reality

Liberalism, like all Ideologies believes that it has the secret that will make the future grand. But when that comes up against reality, it can cause problems. For example equality between the sexes. Liberalism has come to believe that the two sexes are equal, not just before a judge or before God but in everything. In some countries it has gone so far that it has been decreed that woman may serve in combat. 

But men and women are not equal in all things, men are better at some things and women are better at others. But in Liberal circles that is akin to heresy. When the differences between men and women are pointed out there is always a call for that to change. 

How do you change Human nature and ability? You say it doesn’t exist. You insist that reality itself change, that reality is artificial, that belief is the new and better reality. You insist that reality stop being real. You insist that reality must surrender to ideology.

They then make their Ideology into law and we must now live our lives according to their belief, not according to reality. Most people aren't Liberals they simply want to get on with living their own life. But the Liberal law becomes their reality, it doesn't matter that people know it's nonsense, it should matter but it doesn't. To get through the day they must submit, sometimes willingly, sometimes unwillingly. 

How do you fix a problem when you cannot identify it? I often wonder that when I watch the news, how do you fix a problem when it goes against Ideology? Liberalism cannot fix this problem, in fact it doesn't even realise it is a problem.  

Anarchy and Libertarianism

Anarchy and Libertarianism

Some may say that I haven’t described Liberalism at all but Anarchy. Well at the extreme left of Liberalism resides Anarchy, the belief that people should not only be autonomist individuals but that it is the only moral way to live. On the other extreme of Liberalism is Libertarianism, the belief that people should not only be autonomist individuals but that it is the only moral way to live. 

There are two major differences between the two. 

Firstly, Anarchists belief that at heart people are good and that Government and Churches and the like make them bad, Libertarians say that’s rubbish people are at heart bad because they want your stuff and will do anything to get it. They also say Institutions shouldn’t exist because they want your stuff and your stuff is your stuff and true Libertarians don’t share their stuff. 

Secondly they bitterly disagree about whether you can own stuff, Libertarians say absolutely and Anarchists mostly say absolutely not, owning stuff is pretty much evil. But they are both Liberal philosophy’s and in a truly Liberal world it would be these two beliefs that would be fighting it out for supremacy.


Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Unified Liberalism

Unified Liberalism

Like the two sides of a coin the two sides of Liberalism seem opposed to each other. Their perspective is totally different, each facing a different way, but that is an illusion. One side of a coin cannot exist without the other side and so it is with Liberalism. Right Economic Liberalism and Left Social Liberalism are mutually supporting, one cannot exist without the other. They fight on different fronts for the same cause, the same belief  

The belief they share in common is freedom, they believe that you and everyone else should be free. Free from the social and economic conditions that hold you back, free to make your own decisions, your own future. It sounds lovely doesn’t it?

In a good many ways it is lovely, but it’s first great problem is that it recognises no limits. Freedom is absolute or at least should be absolute, total autonomy is the goal. The Institutions that make up your life that give it meaning are only allowed if they do not get in the way of your absolute autonomy. If it gets in the way it must be removed or changed, it has no right to tell you what to do, to give you the absolute Autonomist a commandment. You are free you have no master, no overlord, no one can tell you to stop or even to slow down, according to Liberalism you are absolutely free, or at least should be.

This applies to your Nation, your Church, your Parents, in fact anyone or anything that thinks it has the right to give you guidance, in any way, how dare they stand in the way of your total freedom. They have no right, only you have rights. The Autonomist stands alone. But I ask you is it a freedom to be alone? When you are alone and without support how free are you? Is it freedom to be completely detached from Society as an Autonomist individual must be to be free?  

All of the Political parties in the last two posts are fighting for the same cause, Liberalism and every time we forget that we hand them power.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Left or Social Liberalism

Left or Social Liberalism 

 

While Right Economic Liberals are concerned with the economy, Left Social Liberals are concerned with society. They both agree that progress is the greatest good that can be pursued. But what does progress mean? It means the idea that the individual should be freed of constraints, that no one should be able to tell the individual what to do. That the individual is the basic building block of society, not communities or families they obscure the individual. The individual is autonomous, free from the restrictions that other people put on them. It’s base is that we are rational creatures, that we act in our own best interest, our own selfish interest at all times and they say that is how we should act. 

To achieve this they support issues such as human rights, the individual doesn’t have responsibilities to others the individual has rights. What is good for the individual is important not what is good for society. The fact that society is made up of numerous individuals doesn’t matter. Only a society made up of all individuals would be a truly human society, the society we live in now, according to many Left Social Liberals is not fully human. Only a fully autonomous individual can be totally human. Of course most of us like our families, most of us more than like our families we love them. But many Left Social Liberals say that the family, all families, hold back the individual, stops them from being fully human.  According to them families stop personal growth, they require effort and money that should be spent on the individual. The individual is set at war against all authority, with the exception of their own thoughts and desires.

 While the Right Economic Liberal values the economy being free from limitations, so the Left Social Liberal values the freedom of the individual from limitations. 

In a great irony Left Social Liberals are interested in social issues because they wish for the destruction of society. They wish for it's replacement, a world were the individual can live the life that they desire without restrictions. They believe that once that is achieved then the Human race is on a new level, more evolved, better. 

Liberalism = Progress

Progress = Freedom

Freedom = Evolved

Evolved  = Perfection

The Left Social Liberals say look at how wonderful the prize, only a fool or the evil would stand in the way, after-all who doesn't want a better world? Give it a try, who knows you might enjoy it and what can it hurt to try? I'm afraid I'm just not that brave or stupid to fall for that one.

The Left Social Liberal parties:

Australia -The Australian Labor Party, The Australian Greens, The Australian Democrats

The United Kingdom - The Labor Party, The Liberal-Democratic Party

The United States - The Democratic Party

Upon Hope - A Conservative Future

Right or Economic Liberalism

Liberalism is an economic theory and it states that trade, money and the work force should be free from constraint, able to move around as it sees fit. Government has no place, no right to impose restrictions on how the economy should grow and in Liberalism it is a basic precept that economic growth means progress. To hold back economic growth is to hold back progress, both political and social. Liberalism basically comes down to the idea that merchants have the right to sell anything to anyone. Merchants and the social class that supports merchants are the power house of progress, the elite in economics, politics and society. Trade should be unrestricted, free-trade and open borders are what is needed to push forward Liberalism. They are also needed to push forward labour movement. Liberalism wants no restrictions on migration and immigration, people should move as freely as trade goods and money do. How often have you heard the phrase “trade Liberalisation” now you know what it means, that there should be no restrictions on movement. They believe that the same applies to money and the workforce, that they should be unrestricted and not held back by what they regard as artificial constraints. The fact that these things can be inhumane, that the costs and benefits fall upon different people and that they raise the making and acquisition of money up as the greatest of good, doesn’t seem to be a problem for right/economic Liberals.

If today a Political party is called Conservative that means that it is to the right of centre within Liberalism. It hardly ever means that it supports Conservative values, it means it supports some Conservative values and most of Liberalism's values. Thats why they start off opposing many left of centre positions and then in time come to support them as if they were always Conservative. Homosexual marriage is a prime example. At first it was rare to hear anyone argue in favour of the proposition, but now you will hear many Conservatives say marriage is something Conservatives support so we should support any marriage, even homosexual marriage!

Thats because they are Right or Economic Liberals, they are not Conservative's and that is why Conservatism loses so many fights.

It's also why they never repeal multiculturalism, or end mass immigration even when constant mass unemployment is here. To end immigration or unemployment would mean a restriction or artifical constraint on Labour. To end these things might be a Conservative value but they most certainly aren't Liberal values.


The Right/Economic Liberal Parties:

Australia - The Liberal Party

United Kingdom -  The Conservative Party

The United States - The Republican Party


....
Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future   

Hello my name is Mark Moncrieff, in life we are told it is what we believe that defines us. But it is often that which we refuse to believe that truly defines us. What do I refuse to believe? The defining political and economic belief of our age, Liberalism. I intend to show you why I reject it and I hope to show you why you should reject it too.

I also intend to show a way forward, a Conservative future!