Why do Conservatives believe in different social classes?
I received the following message for the post What do Traditional Conservatives believe?
Dear Mark,
Can you explain why you (or conservatives generally) believe in different social classes?
I come from a working class family and without access to tertiary education, something my parents were denied, I would not enjoy the middle class lifestyle that I do, nor the capacity to engage with our national and political conversations.
Do you realize how enriching, to a poorer boy, that can be?
JJ
That's an excellent question, why do Conservatives believe in different social classes? Here's why.
It is fashionable and has been for a long time to talk about eliminating social classes, to have a classless society, in fact some countries do claim to be classless. The most famous is the United States where everyone, it is often claimed, is middle class. A society in which it is possible to change social class very rapidly. It is claimed that as people can change social classes so quickly that means that the United States is classless, a society in which class is so fluid that it doesn't matter, therefore in effect it doesn't exist. It's a nice story but it's not true.
The truth is that most people will die in the exact same social class they were born into. There are many reasons for this, intelligence, ability, education, opportunity, money, location, family, environment, values, desire, ambition, drive, circumstance, etc.. This ties into another fashionable idea, that everyone is equal. The argument goes something like this, if only enough places were opened in elite schools everyone could be successful. Yes if the system is rigged enough, but in reality not everyone has the aptitude to succeed in such a school, even if enough positions were made available. It is a false equality, it is not based on people's real ability, they are simply proclaimed as being equal. If everyone is equal why can't I be a brain surgeon? Well when I look at the list above I think the problem is confined to the following intelligence, ability, education, money, desire, ambition and drive. Only a short list but still big enough to stop me from being a brain surgeon, fortunately.
But some people do change social class and it gives the illusion that because it can be done that it is easy. It's often forgotten that if your born wealthy and you die poor, your an exception. Actually the same in reverse, if your born poor and you die wealthy, your an exception. Of course most people who change social class do not have such radical changes, they go into or out of the middle class. Much more modest but still life changing. Actually Conservatives are not against people having opportunities or of someone taking advantage of the abilities they have to change social classes. We do not hold anything against the exception but we do not think society should be based around the exceptions either.
In short different social classes exist and there is no evidence that any society past or present has not had them. You might argue that hunter/gather societies don't have social classes and you may be technically correct. But they do have hierarchies and that's not much of a difference. Maybe a technical difference but not an actual difference. If all human societies have social classes it's a simple fact, social classes exist so we must accept that fact. Of course not all political philosophies agree, they are quite prepared to put their desire for a level or equal society in front of the reality. But we are not.
Secondly not only do we accept the reality of different social classes but we think they are good.
What!
How can someone think that different levels of wealth and success is good?
Because people are different, if the only jobs available were for brain surgeons, or accountants or meter readers we would find in each case that there would be large numbers of people who could not work, in fact might never work, because they do not have the ability to carry out the tasks required. In fact such a society could not exist because we need people to perform different tasks. A society of only accountants would be an extremely dysfunctional society and the reason no such society exists or has ever existed is because it cannot exist. It isn't even really a society because a society is the bringing together of people with different talents and abilities to provide mutual support to each other. In other words different social classes are vital to the very existence of society as it allows people of different talents and abilities to work and co-exist together, in cooperation, instead of being external enemies with no other option but to prey upon each other.
Finally I should point out that while we believe in different social classes that does not mean one class should exploit any other class. Traditional Conservatives do not find that acceptable as each social class is a vital chain in the life of the community. Breaking the chain destroys the chain, making it useless. We are totally against destroying society as we are against anyone who attempts to destroy a portion of it.
PS
Most people who you hear described as Conservatives are not Conservatives, most are right-Liberals. They are called Conservatives because they are more Conservative than the other fellow. If you are the most Liberal person in the room that doesn't make you a Liberal it only makes you the most Liberal person in that room. If you are the most Conservative person in a room it doesn't make you a Conservative it only means you are the most Conservative person in that room. So when two Liberals disagree the more Conservative one will be called a Conservative, he's not a Conservative, he is simply the most Conservative Liberal in the room.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Friday, 26 July 2013
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Communism, why we are not Communists
Communism, why we are not Communists
Not many people would confuse Conservatism with Communism but I want to show why Communism cannot work, ever.
When most people think of Communism they think of a Political system, but Communism is in fact an Economic system, and basically it states that economic life is unfair. Some people are very wealthy and some people are very poor and that it would be better if society was more equal or level, as Marx wrote "to each according to his need". They then asked what creates wealth, why are some people rich and others poor?
The answer was that the rich owned things that created wealth, farms, factories, mines, shops and transport. Those who didn't own these things tended to be poorer, often much poorer than those who did. So they decided that "the means of production", the things that created wealth, shouldn't be owned by individuals but should be owned by everyone more or less equally. But while it is possible for everyone to own a portion of a factory for example, it wouldn't be possible for them all to manage it, so the question was who should?
They decided that they needed a disinterested party to look after everyone's interests and they further decided that that disinterested party was the Government. The Government would control and manage the "means of production" on behalf of everyone. But that left them with another problem, in a Free Enterprise system or Capitalism as they called it. Prices were decided by competition, companies competed with each other and that help determine the price of goods as well as wages. But Communism said that one of the great evils of Capitalism was competition because it drove workers into both the poor house and an early grave. It forced workers to work faster and in unsafe working conditions to achieve profits, which they didn't get a fair share of. The answer they came up with was Central Planning.
Instead of thousands of companies competing with each other, now a group of economic experts could decide using facts and logic and arrive at a better and fairer answer. But it turned out that there was a flaw, a fatal flaw in Central Planning and that was that while it was a fantastic idea, it didn't work. In fact it had not one, not two, but three fatal flaws all wrapped up in the Central Planning scheme.
All Eggs in One Basket
In Free Enterprise economies both the Government and the Business sector have their own money and if one makes a mistake it can be bailed out by the other sector. But under Communism there is only one sector, only one pile of money, so when things go wrong there is no where to turn for help. You cannot bring in an independent expert to get different ideas, because no such person exists, everyone has the same boss.
The Fantasy Economy
The major problem with Central Planning is that everyone and everything must be honest and above board when reporting to the Central Planners. No one can lie, be mistaken or gilt the lily, because if they do the Central Planners are not designing the real economy they are designing a fantasy economy. That really becomes a problem in the long term, short term it can be covered over or simply ignored, but long term the effects become magnified. Because there is no correction to the mistakes, only the Central Planners can correct the mistake and if they do not realise or accept the mistake it simply cannot be fixed. Instead of individual companies making adjustments, the Central Planners are the only ones allowed to adjust things and if they don't fix it nothing happens.
Didn't Create Wealth
Communism is against private wealth but it's not against wealth creation, it is against the unequal distribution of wealth. That means that the Communist economy is still supposed to create wealth, but often it didn't. The example that I think of is the Ukraine, before the Russian Revolution it was called the bread basket of Europe, as it produced so much food, mainly wheat and other grains, but by the 1970's the Soviet Union imported wheat from Australia, Argentina, Canada and the United States. It wasn't that population had increased as that had happened everywhere, it was mismanagement. Food isn't just life, it is wealth and that wealth wasn't even being created.
Now magnify each of these problems over the entire economy and let it stew for decades, it's no wonder Communism collapsed. I do not for a second believe that the Communist states that exist today will survive, by the end of this century, non of them will be Communist. The rules of economics will demand it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Not many people would confuse Conservatism with Communism but I want to show why Communism cannot work, ever.
When most people think of Communism they think of a Political system, but Communism is in fact an Economic system, and basically it states that economic life is unfair. Some people are very wealthy and some people are very poor and that it would be better if society was more equal or level, as Marx wrote "to each according to his need". They then asked what creates wealth, why are some people rich and others poor?
The answer was that the rich owned things that created wealth, farms, factories, mines, shops and transport. Those who didn't own these things tended to be poorer, often much poorer than those who did. So they decided that "the means of production", the things that created wealth, shouldn't be owned by individuals but should be owned by everyone more or less equally. But while it is possible for everyone to own a portion of a factory for example, it wouldn't be possible for them all to manage it, so the question was who should?
They decided that they needed a disinterested party to look after everyone's interests and they further decided that that disinterested party was the Government. The Government would control and manage the "means of production" on behalf of everyone. But that left them with another problem, in a Free Enterprise system or Capitalism as they called it. Prices were decided by competition, companies competed with each other and that help determine the price of goods as well as wages. But Communism said that one of the great evils of Capitalism was competition because it drove workers into both the poor house and an early grave. It forced workers to work faster and in unsafe working conditions to achieve profits, which they didn't get a fair share of. The answer they came up with was Central Planning.
Instead of thousands of companies competing with each other, now a group of economic experts could decide using facts and logic and arrive at a better and fairer answer. But it turned out that there was a flaw, a fatal flaw in Central Planning and that was that while it was a fantastic idea, it didn't work. In fact it had not one, not two, but three fatal flaws all wrapped up in the Central Planning scheme.
All Eggs in One Basket
In Free Enterprise economies both the Government and the Business sector have their own money and if one makes a mistake it can be bailed out by the other sector. But under Communism there is only one sector, only one pile of money, so when things go wrong there is no where to turn for help. You cannot bring in an independent expert to get different ideas, because no such person exists, everyone has the same boss.
The Fantasy Economy
The major problem with Central Planning is that everyone and everything must be honest and above board when reporting to the Central Planners. No one can lie, be mistaken or gilt the lily, because if they do the Central Planners are not designing the real economy they are designing a fantasy economy. That really becomes a problem in the long term, short term it can be covered over or simply ignored, but long term the effects become magnified. Because there is no correction to the mistakes, only the Central Planners can correct the mistake and if they do not realise or accept the mistake it simply cannot be fixed. Instead of individual companies making adjustments, the Central Planners are the only ones allowed to adjust things and if they don't fix it nothing happens.
Didn't Create Wealth
Communism is against private wealth but it's not against wealth creation, it is against the unequal distribution of wealth. That means that the Communist economy is still supposed to create wealth, but often it didn't. The example that I think of is the Ukraine, before the Russian Revolution it was called the bread basket of Europe, as it produced so much food, mainly wheat and other grains, but by the 1970's the Soviet Union imported wheat from Australia, Argentina, Canada and the United States. It wasn't that population had increased as that had happened everywhere, it was mismanagement. Food isn't just life, it is wealth and that wealth wasn't even being created.
Now magnify each of these problems over the entire economy and let it stew for decades, it's no wonder Communism collapsed. I do not for a second believe that the Communist states that exist today will survive, by the end of this century, non of them will be Communist. The rules of economics will demand it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Nazism, why we are not Nazi's
Nazism, why we are not Nazi's
Most political discussions rely on the old left/right spectrum, your either on the left or on the right of a political question. Most people would say that Conservatism is on the right, now what do most people regard as the extreme right of the spectrum, Nazi's. So if Conservatives are on the right and Nazi's are on the right they must be the same!
I know I've heard that said, but in general there are two types of people who say that, the ignorant, who don't know any better and the malicious, who do know better but who don't care because they want to cause harm. It is important that we can counter both types as it is simply untrue.
Nazi's are Fascists so everything I wrote in the last post is true here, but Nazi's are a specific type of Fascist, different enough both in history and ideology to warrant their own entry. They are much more ruthless than fascists, they believe in the supremacy of force over reason and that war is an advanced state of being, superior to peace as the Nation works as one in a way it does not during times of peace. They believe in the "big lie", the truth is not simply a casualty, the truth is an orphan that may be disowned at any time. This is different to spin or normal political lying, this is something that is built into the very structure of Nazism. The greatest of all the "big lie's" is the Jewish World Conspiracy, there is no evidence for such a thing but Nazism is built upon this. It is the thing that truly divides Nazism from Fascism, Fascism is no more Anti-Semitic than any other political philosophy, it may or may not be but it is not built upon it. Nazism is, and it is this that sets it apart from every other political philosophy.
So what is the Jewish World Conspiracy?
It is the idea that all, most or some Jews are involved in a global and long running conspiracy to control everything. The theory says they secretly either control or seek to control Governments, business and culture. The problem for the theory is that there is next to no evidence for it, but in typical conspiracy theory modus operandi the lack of proof is used as proof of the effectiveness of the conspiracy!
How is Conservatism different?
We believe that the Government should be loyal to the people, no system of Government that imprisons or kills it own citizens for belief instead of action is Conservative, it is immoral. Simply belonging to a particular segment of society should not mean that you risk imprisonment or death. It should be actions that put you at risk of censure and that the rule of law should prevail and not simply whim or force. We also believe that war and peace are things that can and do occur and that we should prepare for both not simply for one. We are not Pacifists but we are not war-mongers either, we fear defeat not war and we do not fight wars simply for glory as nothing in war is certain. Wars should be fought because they are vital to the security of the Nation and it's interests. We further do not believe in the "big lie", while conspiracies exist that is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory, we do not believe that the world is a web of conspiracies, we believe that the world is mostly rational and that we should be as well. That truth is superior to lies as lies lead to a view of society that can be very much in conflict with reality.
The person who is ignorant and believes that everything on the "right" is the equivalent of the Nazi's should be told a historical truth and that is that Conservatives were sent to concentration camps, for most that will be enough. For the malicious there isn't much hope as they aren't interested in the truth, they are interested, ironically, in spreading another, "big lie".
Conspiracy Versus Conspiracy Theory
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Fascism, Why we are not Fascists
Fascism, Why we are not Fascists
When many people think of Fascism they think of Nazi Germany, but I am not talking about Nazism here, I will do that in a later post.
Charles de Gaulle, General, Leader of the Free French during WWII, and later President of France fought against three Fascists states, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Petain's Vichy France. But that didn't stop him from being being called a Fascist by his political enemies. In fact being called a Fascist is something most of us can expect at some point. It shows both an ignorance of Fascism as well as an ignorance of Conservatism. I am going to show you why and how we are different, but first I must point out were we are the same.
We do share some beliefs and it can confuse people because they think that political philosophies are all distinct when in reality many will overlap at some point. The beliefs we share in common are, Patriotism, the Traditional family as well as respect for Traditional authority. We also share many of the same enemies, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Crony Capitalism. But our differences are quite pronounced.
Fascism believes that the State, the Government, is the embodiment of the Nation, that makes it not a thing that is required because it is functional but something that is mystical, nearly divine. Because the Nation is divine or nearly divine it is special, that means that those institutions that serve the Nation are also divine. The Armed Forces are not simply the protector of the Nation but semi-divine itself, it protects something most sacred. You would think that this kind of thinking would put the Nations people at the centre of things, but quite the opposite. The Nation is divine, not the people, the people must worship what is divine, the Nation, the Government and the protector of the divine, the Armed Forces.
One thing that many notice about Fascism is that it can say what it is against very easily, but it finds it much harder to explain what it believes. Much of it sounds like mysticism. It shares a number of features with Communism, it believes in a strong Government but in a weak people, the people serve the State not the other way around. It claims to be a protector of Traditional authority and values, but like Communism it is at heart a revolutionary, seeking to destroy the old to create a new Fascist society. A society in which they are the new Aristocrats, they like that Traditional authority. They are tolerant of Traditional authority when it agrees with them, but it does not like or accept criticism from these authorities. They are not the rulers, they are decoration and they do not understand the Fascist order. Unlike Communism, Fascism is a bit confused as they cannot totally decide if they want to destroy the old order entirely or whether they wish to build upon it.
Fascism also claims to be dynamic, to desire action over words, deeds over intellect, but Fascism is in reality not very active at all. I would contend that it is because fascism is a reaction, an extreme reaction to Communism and general disorder, more than a genuine political philosophy and while it does have real beliefs it is really a grab bag of thoughts in search of stability. It craves stability more than anything.
Conservatism does not believe that anyone should worship the Nation, or the Government, or the Armed Forces. We should respect them but never worship them, they are not more important than the people of the Nation. At times they may be but that time should pass, the Nation should not be in a perpetual self created crisis. Conservatives are not revolutionary's we believe in order, and when things must change in ordered change, not in violent or extreme change. While we love our country, we believe that like our family it is special because it is a part of us, not because we believe it is divine any more than we think of our beloved mother as divine. We believe in the Government being loyal to the people and the people returning that loyalty, a complete reversal of Fascism.
Finally do not let the few things we have in common confuse you into thinking we are the same, we are not.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
When many people think of Fascism they think of Nazi Germany, but I am not talking about Nazism here, I will do that in a later post.
Charles de Gaulle, General, Leader of the Free French during WWII, and later President of France fought against three Fascists states, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Petain's Vichy France. But that didn't stop him from being being called a Fascist by his political enemies. In fact being called a Fascist is something most of us can expect at some point. It shows both an ignorance of Fascism as well as an ignorance of Conservatism. I am going to show you why and how we are different, but first I must point out were we are the same.
We do share some beliefs and it can confuse people because they think that political philosophies are all distinct when in reality many will overlap at some point. The beliefs we share in common are, Patriotism, the Traditional family as well as respect for Traditional authority. We also share many of the same enemies, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Crony Capitalism. But our differences are quite pronounced.
Fascism believes that the State, the Government, is the embodiment of the Nation, that makes it not a thing that is required because it is functional but something that is mystical, nearly divine. Because the Nation is divine or nearly divine it is special, that means that those institutions that serve the Nation are also divine. The Armed Forces are not simply the protector of the Nation but semi-divine itself, it protects something most sacred. You would think that this kind of thinking would put the Nations people at the centre of things, but quite the opposite. The Nation is divine, not the people, the people must worship what is divine, the Nation, the Government and the protector of the divine, the Armed Forces.
One thing that many notice about Fascism is that it can say what it is against very easily, but it finds it much harder to explain what it believes. Much of it sounds like mysticism. It shares a number of features with Communism, it believes in a strong Government but in a weak people, the people serve the State not the other way around. It claims to be a protector of Traditional authority and values, but like Communism it is at heart a revolutionary, seeking to destroy the old to create a new Fascist society. A society in which they are the new Aristocrats, they like that Traditional authority. They are tolerant of Traditional authority when it agrees with them, but it does not like or accept criticism from these authorities. They are not the rulers, they are decoration and they do not understand the Fascist order. Unlike Communism, Fascism is a bit confused as they cannot totally decide if they want to destroy the old order entirely or whether they wish to build upon it.
Fascism also claims to be dynamic, to desire action over words, deeds over intellect, but Fascism is in reality not very active at all. I would contend that it is because fascism is a reaction, an extreme reaction to Communism and general disorder, more than a genuine political philosophy and while it does have real beliefs it is really a grab bag of thoughts in search of stability. It craves stability more than anything.
Conservatism does not believe that anyone should worship the Nation, or the Government, or the Armed Forces. We should respect them but never worship them, they are not more important than the people of the Nation. At times they may be but that time should pass, the Nation should not be in a perpetual self created crisis. Conservatives are not revolutionary's we believe in order, and when things must change in ordered change, not in violent or extreme change. While we love our country, we believe that like our family it is special because it is a part of us, not because we believe it is divine any more than we think of our beloved mother as divine. We believe in the Government being loyal to the people and the people returning that loyalty, a complete reversal of Fascism.
Finally do not let the few things we have in common confuse you into thinking we are the same, we are not.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Thursday, 11 July 2013
The Fourth Month
The Fourth Month
Only two weeks after my last monthly update, here is the next. I didn't want to disrupt the 20 Conservative Principles series so I left off the monthly update until I finished the series. But this currently series is more ongoing so I don't have a problem with putting up this monthly update. I have had some really interesting comments posted which I was thrilled to receive even when we didn't agree.
My worst day this month was the 2nd July when I only received 7 visitors, later that day Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative linked to my article on "What do Traditional Conservatives believe", the next day I received 126 visitors followed two days later by 119. The article has now overtaken the two that were competing for first place as the most read article on the blog. The series on the 20 Conservative Principles wasn't popular but it was important and it saw the number of visitors quite low, averaging under 20, now it's over 30.
What I am finding interesting is that writing for the blog has helped sort out my thoughts more. The fact that others are reading it is also very nice, but the most interesting thing is that now it is out there for anyone to read.
July-June
May - June
Only two weeks after my last monthly update, here is the next. I didn't want to disrupt the 20 Conservative Principles series so I left off the monthly update until I finished the series. But this currently series is more ongoing so I don't have a problem with putting up this monthly update. I have had some really interesting comments posted which I was thrilled to receive even when we didn't agree.
My worst day this month was the 2nd July when I only received 7 visitors, later that day Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative linked to my article on "What do Traditional Conservatives believe", the next day I received 126 visitors followed two days later by 119. The article has now overtaken the two that were competing for first place as the most read article on the blog. The series on the 20 Conservative Principles wasn't popular but it was important and it saw the number of visitors quite low, averaging under 20, now it's over 30.
What I am finding interesting is that writing for the blog has helped sort out my thoughts more. The fact that others are reading it is also very nice, but the most interesting thing is that now it is out there for anyone to read.
July-June
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
310
|
Australia
|
235
|
Russia
|
105
|
United Kingdom
|
32
|
Ukraine
|
32
|
Romania
|
23
|
Germany
|
20
|
Canada
|
15
|
Latvia
|
13
|
Indonesia
|
12
|
May - June
Entry
|
Pageviews
|
United States
|
512
|
Australia
|
421
|
United Kingdom
|
90
|
Canada
|
82
|
Russia
|
52
|
Romania
|
42
|
Germany
|
31
|
Slovenia
|
25
|
Czech Republic
|
21
|
Ukraine
|
21
|
As I said above numbers dropped very badly, but once the link was put in it jumped up again, just not as high. That can be clearly shown by the numbers from the United States and Australia, still very high but not as high as last month.
The United Kingdom fell by 1/3rd, Canada's fall was even greater at 4 in 5.
Others to fall were Romania and Germany.
With Slovenia and the Czech Republic falling out of the top 10.
Russia bucked the trend and doubled in numbers, with the Ukraine having more modest gains.
Latvia and Indonesia are the new countries in the top 10, Latvia was here for two days and then left, Indonesia is much more constant.
This month I have also had visitors from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (which nearly made it into the top 10), Iceland, Austria, Bulgaria, India, China, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil and Peru.
Thank you all for visiting and I hope to see you here again.
Mark Moncrieff
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Liberalism, why we are not Liberals
Liberalism,
why we are not Liberals
Conservatives
are not Liberals although you will find many Liberals who call themselves
Conservatives. What they really mean, even if they do not know it, is that they
are more conservative than other Liberals. As a definition it is not very good,
Liberalism has ideals and it is whether you believe in those ideals that define
whether you are a Liberal or not. Not whether you are slightly less Liberal
than the fellow sitting next to you.
So what are
Liberalisms ideals? Well first I must point out that modern Liberalism is
divided into two broad camps. Right or Economic Liberalism and Left or Social
Liberalism, what divides them can make them seem as if they have nothing in
common, but this an illusion. What divides them is that Liberalism is both a
political and an economic idea. They share much in common, but not everything.
They disagree on the importance of business and how much control the Government
should have over the economy. They disagree on how much speech should be
allowed (normally termed political correctness) and they disagree on other
issues which seem much larger in speeches than they are in reality.
What they
agree about is the idea that Human nature is primarily good and rational,
therefore they support a world without consequences (light sentencing, an end
to corporal and capital punishment, abortion on demand, no fault divorce)
because consequences are not needed in their opinion. They believe in equality
and tolerance, that two random people are equal and that nearly any behaviour
should be tolerated as long as it doesn’t offend Liberalism. They believe that
the individual is the basis upon which society is built and that the individual
must have as much freedom as possible. Freedom from their family, from their
religion, from their Government, in fact freedom from any commitment. Only the
commitments they themselves make mean anything. They believe in a world without
borders, no tariffs, free-trade, no population barriers, no national ties. They
have moved from the modern to the post-modern and while they might make
unprincipled exceptions, that doesn’t change what they believe.
Nearly every
political party in the Western world is a party of Liberalism. We hear that
such and such is a conservative party. All that means is they are more conservative
than the other parties, it does not in any way make them conservative.
So what do Conservatives have a problem with here?
Conservatives do not believe that Human nature is primarily good, we believe in people being a mixture of good and evil. That we are capable of both great good and great evil as we are complex creatures. Therefore we believe strongly in a world of consequences, even if we do not all agree on exactly how much consequences every action should have. We know that two random people will rarely if ever be equal, that they will have different temperaments and abilities, that equality is a fine thing in a court of law but in the rest of life it is chimera, an unreal or fanciful idea. Just as tolerance is not absolute because we all have limits to how much we can tolerate. We do not believe that the individual is the basis upon which society is built but that the family is the basic building block of society. We are not born alone but from a Mother and a Father, we are born into a family. We further believe that while freedom is good it is not the only social good, it is not even the only individual good. Commitment is very important to Conservatives, to family, to marriage, to our Nation, to our religious beliefs. Without commitment we are adrift without any hope of landfall. We believe in ideals but we also accept that if something is practical it can out way an ideal, so if tariffs or free trade are good we may support them, but if they are not we might not support them.We have no commitment to either because the practical is what we regard as important. Lastly but very importantly, we do not believe in open borders or in the International being more important than the National, we are patriots and we believe in our Nation and our people and that other Conservatives in other Nations should do the same.
So what do Conservatives have a problem with here?
Conservatives do not believe that Human nature is primarily good, we believe in people being a mixture of good and evil. That we are capable of both great good and great evil as we are complex creatures. Therefore we believe strongly in a world of consequences, even if we do not all agree on exactly how much consequences every action should have. We know that two random people will rarely if ever be equal, that they will have different temperaments and abilities, that equality is a fine thing in a court of law but in the rest of life it is chimera, an unreal or fanciful idea. Just as tolerance is not absolute because we all have limits to how much we can tolerate. We do not believe that the individual is the basis upon which society is built but that the family is the basic building block of society. We are not born alone but from a Mother and a Father, we are born into a family. We further believe that while freedom is good it is not the only social good, it is not even the only individual good. Commitment is very important to Conservatives, to family, to marriage, to our Nation, to our religious beliefs. Without commitment we are adrift without any hope of landfall. We believe in ideals but we also accept that if something is practical it can out way an ideal, so if tariffs or free trade are good we may support them, but if they are not we might not support them.We have no commitment to either because the practical is what we regard as important. Lastly but very importantly, we do not believe in open borders or in the International being more important than the National, we are patriots and we believe in our Nation and our people and that other Conservatives in other Nations should do the same.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Saturday, 6 July 2013
What Conservatives are not
What
Conservatives are not
I have just finished a series, but I’m going to get right back into another. This time I’m going to be looking at different Political philosophies and what makes them different from Conservatism. We get called names from time to time that we know aren’t true but it can be hard to think of why they aren’t true. Here will be a quick and easy guide as to why they do not apply to us. Some will be quite obvious , while others will not be.
As always if you have something to say please let me know. As long as it’s constructive I’m open to praise or criticism.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
I have just finished a series, but I’m going to get right back into another. This time I’m going to be looking at different Political philosophies and what makes them different from Conservatism. We get called names from time to time that we know aren’t true but it can be hard to think of why they aren’t true. Here will be a quick and easy guide as to why they do not apply to us. Some will be quite obvious , while others will not be.
As always if you have something to say please let me know. As long as it’s constructive I’m open to praise or criticism.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Conspiracy Versus Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy
Versus Conspiracy Theory
It is
important to be able to distinguish between a genuine conspiracy and a conspiracy
theory. We live in an age that seems at times to be consumed by belief in both
conspiracies and conspiracy theories. This post is designed to help us to both define
our enemies beliefs as well as to defend ourselves from such charges.
A conspiracy
is a plan made in secret, with others with the aim of carrying out some kind of
action. A plan and action carried out by an individual is by definition not a
conspiracy because it doesn’t involve others. A conspiracy can be for good or
for ill, for example conspiring to organise a surprise party is good,
conspiring to rig a jury is not good.
A conspiracy
theory is the theory that a conspiracy exists. The defining divide between a
conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is the role of evidence. The further along a
conspiracy is the more evidence will be available that the conspiracy exists.
In the case of a conspiracy theory the lack of evidence is taken as proof of
the effectiveness of the “conspiracy”. Furthermore any evidence there is, is
taken as proof no matter how distant the different strands may be from each
other. In most cases the theory is the starting point and evidence is then
sorted to fit the theory.
In further posts I will be looking at other political theories, some of which rely on conspiracy theories to form the platform upon which they exist. Namely Nazism, Communism and Feminism.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
The Third Month
The Third Month
This my third month in operation and the roller coaster that
is blogging continues. I needed to finish my list of Conservative Principles so
this is late, nearly two weeks late but it is here. I decided to start my new
direction on the 1st of June. I have moved away from criticizing
Liberalism to taking a harder look at Conservatism and what we believe. It
doesn’t get the same attention and I firmly believe that until we take our own
ideas seriously we will not excite others with our ideas, no matter how bad
Liberalism gets.
In the last month I have gone very high and very low in numbers Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative and Mrs. Laura Woods of The Thinking Housewife both put up links to particular articles they thought of interest. I would like to thank both of them for their support.
It pushed my numbers up very high, the highest was on the 20th
of May when my blog had 178 visitors, with two other days around 150. My lowest
was the 4th of June when I had 10 visitors. Since the highs it has
averaged around 25 visitors a day, so less than the average for last month even
though the total number of visitors this month is much higher.
11/06/2013
May-June
Entry
|
Pageviews
|
United States
|
512
|
Australia
|
421
|
United Kingdom
|
90
|
Canada
|
82
|
Russia
|
52
|
Romania
|
42
|
Germany
|
31
|
Slovenia
|
25
|
Czech Republic
|
21
|
Ukraine
|
21
|
April-May
Australia
|
367
|
United States
|
266
|
Russia
|
98
|
United Kingdom
|
97
|
Germany
|
76
|
Romania
|
27
|
Bulgaria
|
25
|
Canada
|
23
|
South Korea
|
14
|
Indonesia
|
11
|
For the first time Australia is not where the most of my
visitors came from this month. The United States took the lead by doubling in
numbers. Australia was still very high in second place but with a more modest
increase in visitors.
The others countries that have jumped up in visitor numbers
is Canada and Romania. Canada has tripled, while Romania is more modest but
still very nice to see.
The United Kingdom has had a slight drop in numbers and
Russia has nearly halved. I hope both are temporary.
Three new countries have made their way into the top 10,
Slovenia, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine. Welcome!
While Bulgaria, South Korea and Indonesia may have dropped
out of the top 10 they are still active and I forward to seeing these guys turn
up as some of them have been here since the first day I started the blog.
I have also received visitors from France, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Norway, Croatia, India, China, Malaysia, South Africa, Costa Rica
and Brazil.
Thanks for visiting and reading what I have to say and I
look forward to see you here in the future.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
All 20 Conservative Principles
All 20 Conservative Principles
Here are all 20 of the Conservative Principles I have detailed in my last 20 posts. This is put here for anyone who would like to print this off, either to study it themselves or to hand out to someone who may be interested in these ideas.
Here are all 20 of the Conservative Principles I have detailed in my last 20 posts. This is put here for anyone who would like to print this off, either to study it themselves or to hand out to someone who may be interested in these ideas.
Conservative Principles
1 Conservatives believe that there exists an enduring moral
order, human nature is constant and moral truths are permanent. They understand
that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a
stable world of enduring values.
2 Conservatives believe in traditions, customs, conventions
and permanence. When those who seek to destroy the old ways succeed they start
to create the exact same things that they claimed they didn’t need or want
customs, conventions and permanence.
3 The Principle of Prudence: think before you leap.
4 The Principle of Variety: We should respect the variety
within the human race, which includes class, sex, race and ability, amongst
others.
5 The Principle of Hierarchy: Hierarchy preserves and
protects the whole community simultaneously, instead of protecting one part at
the expense of the others.
6 That freedom and private property is such a close link
that to take one away is to take away the other.
7 The Conservative does not put his trust in mere
benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate
enforcement of the law and the old intricate web of restraint upon will and
appetite, these the Conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order.
A just Government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority
and the claims of liberty.
8 The Conservative knows that any healthy society is
influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called it’s permanence
and it’s progression, in short the Conservative favours reasoned and temperate
progress. He is opposed to the cult of progress, which believes that everything
new is superior to everything old.
9 The Conservative knows that there is no war between the
sexes because men and women are the twin pillars of the human race. They are
mutually supporting, bringing the opposite of what the other has, they fit
together and are expressly made to fit together.
10 The Principle of Mutual Obligation: The poor and the weak
should be protected from the rich and the strong, but it is better to encourage
those able to look after themselves to do so and to concentrate on those truly
in need of our aid and protection.
11 The Principle of Defence: The Defence of the Nation and
it’s interests is a permanent mandate of Government, it has no higher duty.
12 The Principle of Respect: Conservatives believe that
Traditional authority should be respected, not absolute obedience but respect.
13 The Principle of Patriotism: Patriotism is right and
proper.
14 Conservatism attempts to discern a “pattern in history”
that will yield “clues” as to what is feasible or infeasible
15 Conservatives do not believe man to be perfectible if
only his institutions can be reformed or destroyed, conservatives hold that man
by his very nature is a mixture of good and evil, of rationality and
irrationality.
16 Firms should be profitable, not for profit but so that
they can remain an ongoing concern.
17 Employees matter, wherever in the company they are.
18 Customers keep the business in business, they matter.
19 All business should be striving for situations of mutual
benefit/profit and not be engaged in economic cannibalism.
20 Debt should be temporary and not permanent. The aim is to
assemble a surplus not to assemble debt. Debt is bad.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Monday, 1 July 2013
20 of 20 Debt is Bad
20 of 20 Debt is Bad
Debt should be temporary not permanent. The aim is to assemble a surplus not debt. Debt is bad.
It is very hard to go through life without at some point being in debt. But debt is not the ideal, it is something that we should try to avoid if at all possible, it is something that should be temporary, it is something that every effort should be make to pay off. Look around us and you can see Governments all over the world who think that debt is at worst only annoying, in no way a disaster. They do not see why debt is really a problem, that so much money is spent to pay off debt and the interest from the debt is bad enough but I think the worst part is that it steals from the future. Instead of making plans that will improve things you are treading water at best, at worst trying not to drown.
The aim for families and Governments should be the same, to build up a surplus. To have savings ready for a rainy day, when costs rise, when the unforeseen is upon us, when we would like to do something special. We shouldn't be borrowing money to do any of those things if it is possible to save. It should be our goal to save money so that we are the masters of our own destiny and not the slaves of debt.
For other posts on this topic:
Debt is King I
Debt is King II
&
Debt: The Options
Debt: The Options
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future