Foreign Aid and Traditional Conservatism
Nearly all first world countries give out foreign aid and it is very rare to hear that aid should be cut or discontinued, it is much more common to hear that it isn't enough. That our Governments are cheap or immoral for not giving more, even when that aid seems like it is being wasted or it comes from money the Government has had to borrow. There are legitimate reasons for providing foreign aid and there are legitimate reasons for not providing foreign aid.
The first point that must be made is that most foreign aid comes from taxation and that means that money is taken from the citizens of a first world country and given to another country. It is not strictly speaking the Governments money to spend as it likes, it is the tax payers money. Now the tax payer may approve or disapprove of how the money is spent. My point is that the tax payer is often forgotten in the discussion of these issues and they should not be because they are ultimately responsible for where the money came from.
There are three legitimate reasons for providing foreign aid:
1) A disaster that destroys a peoples ability to provide for themselves, such as the 2004 Tsunami.
2) The aid is in the direct interests of the donor country, such as Australia providing aid to the Solomon Islands after it became a failed state enabling it to rebuild.
&
3) The aid is for the defence of a friendly country, such as Australia providing patrol boats to Pacific nations so they can look after their own security.
The aim of all foreign aid should be to help the donor nation to achieve it's foreign policy aims and for the receiver nation to become self sufficient and not become addicted to aid.
Sadly the pitfalls of foreign aid are many:
Many aid programs start small and get bigger, they start off with small and often local aims but then grow into huge ever expanding beasts. Often the success or failure of a program isn't as important as the fact that it is expanding.
Many programs seemed aimed at providing aid that destroys society, one example I often hear about is aid given to make women economically independent. Meaning that the men in these communities are not needed and cannot compete because they do not receive any similar aid. It is not aid that helps the entire community or even particular families but only women. Will these women marry men poorer than themselves, the one who that the aid is leaving behind?
Another aid problem is when aid destroys the local economy, providing free food for example directly attacks local farmers. Who then become dependent upon foreign food themselves.
We should not seek to do what the locals can do even if we can do it better. It is better that they do it imperfectly than that we do it perfectly as to do so makes them dependent upon us. That dependence should not ever be the design of foreign aid and often it seems that it is. Foreign aid must be of benefit to both countries. It must also be accountable, it is the seeming waste of money that makes people so angry about foreign aid. People need to see some concrete benefit to our aid. But the best foreign aid we can provide is in governance, making the institutions of the country stronger and those who work for the Government more professional. It is in the building of these institutions that national wealth is built, not because Governments create wealth, they do not, but because they protect the civil organisations that do create wealth. It is the creation of wealth that will end the need for foreign aid.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-discrimination-of-anti.html
Friday, 31 January 2014
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Defending the American Alliance
Defending the American Alliance
In 1951 Australia, New Zealand and the United States signed a security treaty called ANZUS. The Treaty is only 3 pages long and the important part is:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new_zealand/anzus.pdf
Article V
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an
armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories
under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the
Pacific.
In other words, if you attack one you've attacked all three.
All three countries were at that time engaged in fighting the Korean War, the fifth war Australia and the United States had fought in together, the others were the Boxer Rebellion, WWI, Northern Russia during the Russian Civil War, WWII and of course the Korean War. Subsequently both nations fought together in the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.
ANZUS or as it's also know the American alliance has always been popular in Australia but it has never been unanimously popular. There have always been critics and they tend to come in three flavours:
-Pacifists who oppose all war, or at least say they do and tend to believe that even preparing for war in the form of an alliance is wrong.
-Anti-Americans who dislike, sometimes hate, something or occasionally everything about America. They tend to come in three shapes: those who hate Americas culture (much more pronounced in the past than now, for example 50 years ago there was a real difference between British and American culture, now not so much), those who hate Americas power (the idea of an American "Empire") and those who hate Americas money (people with money are crass and bullies, America has money, America is a crass bully).
&
-Australian Nationalists who tend to be broadly to the left and isolationist, believing that Australia should and can go it alone. No friends, no allies, Switzerland for an entire Continent.
Strangely there is a Conservative strand of opposition, it tends to be a combination of Anti-Americanism and Australian Nationalism. It also tends to the conspiratorial, with the idea that America and Britain before that, bullied, bribes and hoodwinks Australian Governments into providing bases or fighting wars we don't want. Australia is just a poor innocent puppet being controlled by the evil puppet master.
The only thing missing is actual history. When studying Australia's wars you find that, one we are very eager and supportive of our wars and two Australia is remarkably consistent in why it fights wars. If it were true that we were being forced to fight other peoples wars neither of those things would be true. An underlying and bizarre idea you come across is that Australia doesn't have any national interests. What interest did Australia have in fighting on the Somme or in Afghanistan or in Vietnam? These places are so far away how could they affect Australia? The reason we must be fighting in these distant places, far from Australia is to please others, we are fighting other peoples wars.
The reality is that we do have national interests and like every other country on Earth we try to look after them. One of the ideas that underpins Australia's security is called "collective security" and it means that the world is a safer place in both war and peace if we act with other countries. One curious aspect of Australian military history is that we have never fought a war by ourselves, we have in every war been part of an alliance. And I doubt that Australia ever will fight a war by itself, it gives enormous benefits having allies. Australia does not have to provide everything itself it can share the load with it's allies and that works in reverse as well. Our allies including the United States get the benefits of Australia's assets. I'll give one example, during WWII an Australian naval officer was attached to the US Marines because before the war he had captained a wooden merchant ship in the Pacific and had intimate knowledge of tides, currents and beaches of remote Pacific islands, that knowledge was used in 19 amphibious assaults from Tarawa to Okinawa.
Another bizarre idea is that Australia doesn't and apparently never has had any enemies. Apparently everything would have been fine if Germany had won WWI, no problems it wasn't our war. The defeat of the British Empire and the victory of German militarism wouldn't have affected us. WWII is normally not questioned although you'll always find one. But the Cold War is another matter, again apparently Communism was bad but not really our problem, always someone else's, but not ours. I'm sure that if the Communists had won the Cold War it wouldn't have affected us. Now we have Al Qaeda and the other Islamist's ideologues who attack and kill us in tall buildings, in bars and on buses around the world. Apparently they aren't our enemy either, if we leave them alone they will just leave us alone. Our enemies have never been in any doubt that we are their enemy, they don't need our permission to be our enemy, they get to decide that. The idea that if we ignore the world it will go away is not true.
Australia has national interests and one of the ways we protect those interests is by being an ally of the United States and other countries. It's not a one way street and nor should it be, if we expect America to fight for us when the time comes then we must in return be prepared to fight for America. Not because we are a puppet but because we believe in collective security, we believe in supporting our friends and we believe it is in our national interest to align ourself with nations that have similar national interests. There are many very good reasons for Australia and the United States to be allies and not that many reasons for us not to be. May the ANZUS Alliance last for many years to come.
Upon Hope Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
4 of 20 The Principle of Variety
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/4-of-20-principle-of-variety.html
In 1951 Australia, New Zealand and the United States signed a security treaty called ANZUS. The Treaty is only 3 pages long and the important part is:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new_zealand/anzus.pdf
Article V
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an
armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories
under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the
Pacific.
In other words, if you attack one you've attacked all three.
All three countries were at that time engaged in fighting the Korean War, the fifth war Australia and the United States had fought in together, the others were the Boxer Rebellion, WWI, Northern Russia during the Russian Civil War, WWII and of course the Korean War. Subsequently both nations fought together in the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.
ANZUS or as it's also know the American alliance has always been popular in Australia but it has never been unanimously popular. There have always been critics and they tend to come in three flavours:
-Pacifists who oppose all war, or at least say they do and tend to believe that even preparing for war in the form of an alliance is wrong.
-Anti-Americans who dislike, sometimes hate, something or occasionally everything about America. They tend to come in three shapes: those who hate Americas culture (much more pronounced in the past than now, for example 50 years ago there was a real difference between British and American culture, now not so much), those who hate Americas power (the idea of an American "Empire") and those who hate Americas money (people with money are crass and bullies, America has money, America is a crass bully).
&
-Australian Nationalists who tend to be broadly to the left and isolationist, believing that Australia should and can go it alone. No friends, no allies, Switzerland for an entire Continent.
Strangely there is a Conservative strand of opposition, it tends to be a combination of Anti-Americanism and Australian Nationalism. It also tends to the conspiratorial, with the idea that America and Britain before that, bullied, bribes and hoodwinks Australian Governments into providing bases or fighting wars we don't want. Australia is just a poor innocent puppet being controlled by the evil puppet master.
The only thing missing is actual history. When studying Australia's wars you find that, one we are very eager and supportive of our wars and two Australia is remarkably consistent in why it fights wars. If it were true that we were being forced to fight other peoples wars neither of those things would be true. An underlying and bizarre idea you come across is that Australia doesn't have any national interests. What interest did Australia have in fighting on the Somme or in Afghanistan or in Vietnam? These places are so far away how could they affect Australia? The reason we must be fighting in these distant places, far from Australia is to please others, we are fighting other peoples wars.
The reality is that we do have national interests and like every other country on Earth we try to look after them. One of the ideas that underpins Australia's security is called "collective security" and it means that the world is a safer place in both war and peace if we act with other countries. One curious aspect of Australian military history is that we have never fought a war by ourselves, we have in every war been part of an alliance. And I doubt that Australia ever will fight a war by itself, it gives enormous benefits having allies. Australia does not have to provide everything itself it can share the load with it's allies and that works in reverse as well. Our allies including the United States get the benefits of Australia's assets. I'll give one example, during WWII an Australian naval officer was attached to the US Marines because before the war he had captained a wooden merchant ship in the Pacific and had intimate knowledge of tides, currents and beaches of remote Pacific islands, that knowledge was used in 19 amphibious assaults from Tarawa to Okinawa.
Another bizarre idea is that Australia doesn't and apparently never has had any enemies. Apparently everything would have been fine if Germany had won WWI, no problems it wasn't our war. The defeat of the British Empire and the victory of German militarism wouldn't have affected us. WWII is normally not questioned although you'll always find one. But the Cold War is another matter, again apparently Communism was bad but not really our problem, always someone else's, but not ours. I'm sure that if the Communists had won the Cold War it wouldn't have affected us. Now we have Al Qaeda and the other Islamist's ideologues who attack and kill us in tall buildings, in bars and on buses around the world. Apparently they aren't our enemy either, if we leave them alone they will just leave us alone. Our enemies have never been in any doubt that we are their enemy, they don't need our permission to be our enemy, they get to decide that. The idea that if we ignore the world it will go away is not true.
Australia has national interests and one of the ways we protect those interests is by being an ally of the United States and other countries. It's not a one way street and nor should it be, if we expect America to fight for us when the time comes then we must in return be prepared to fight for America. Not because we are a puppet but because we believe in collective security, we believe in supporting our friends and we believe it is in our national interest to align ourself with nations that have similar national interests. There are many very good reasons for Australia and the United States to be allies and not that many reasons for us not to be. May the ANZUS Alliance last for many years to come.
Upon Hope Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
4 of 20 The Principle of Variety
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/4-of-20-principle-of-variety.html
Monday, 20 January 2014
Pacifism, why we are not Pacifists
Pacifism, why we are not Pacifists
Pacifism has an elegant simplicity to it that provides much of it's appeal. It states that violence, murder, war, are all wrong. That all violence from slapping to genocide are interrelated, one leads to the other in effect. That violence breeds violence and therefore that it is best not to be violent or to support violence because it never solves problems, it can only continue or start new problems.
Of course in reality Pacifism has variants, not every Pacifist is "pure" so to speak. In practice very few people are Pacifists rejecting all violence, but many people who are not Pacifists will still support Pacifism, saying that it would be a better world if violence did not exist, if murder, war, assault and rape vanished from the world. It's hard to argue with that, of course it would be better, after all no one is lining up to be murdered, killed in a war, bashed or raped are they.
The Utopian vision within Pacifism is clear, that people can change the world, if only enough of us believe, if only enough of us stop using violence, if only our Governments behaved morally then violence would end. The history of the world be damned, ignore it, reject it and instead believe in the human power to change reality. Human nature either doesn't exist or needs to be resisted and changed. Remember your rejecting reality.
Sadly we do not and have never had the power to end war, specific wars yes but not all wars. Neither do we have the power, individually or collectively to end violent crime. The truth is we have only limited ability to control the violence of others, we do not even have total control over our own violence. Much personal violence is based on our emotions, are you totally in control of your emotions? Know anyone else who is? If you know someone who is your a very rare person, if you are in control of your emotions, your even rarer. The idea that we can control our emotions is very appealing, that we can control the emotions of others maybe even more appealing. Of course that doesn't mean people are uncontrollable, or that people should not seek to control themselves. That is a false division, the idea that only two extremes are possible.
Our Governments are extents of us, Governments are not people but they are made up of people. That is something that seems to be forgotten by many. That means that they share the attributes of people, or to be more correct the actions of Governments share the attributes of people, because they are made by people. It is people who make the decisions of Government. Pride, fear, anger, greed, ignorance, principles, ideals, love, hate, are just some of the emotions people feel. When people in Government make decisions those and many other emotions come into play and that includes when issues of violence are at stake. Many times violence will be rejected for one reason or another, there are more imagined wars than actual wars, but other times violence will not be rejected but used. Some may argue that if emotion was left out then violence would have no place, but logic often demands violence. Logic can be as cruel a master as emotions because the logical response to violence is often violence. Of course if it is accepted that violence breeds violence, then the next logical question becomes is there a limit to how much violence we may endure? If there is then the logical response is violence, if there is no limit than logic dictates that may mean extinction. Very few people are ever happy with that answer.
If all violence is wrong than beating someone else is just as reprehensible as them defending themselves. How dare those monsters defend themselves!
There is also no place for loyalty, your nations army is just as wrong as your enemies. Pacifists must always be on the lookout for wrongdoing, including by their own country, maybe especially. They are an Internationalist by default, the ultimate relativist.
If all war is wrong, if all violence is wrong, self defence is just as wrong as aggression. Unless everyone decides to be a Pacifist at the same hour on the same day it means that the principled are merely the victims of those who remain unprincipled. War and violence isn't right or wrong it is reality, it exists and Pacifism trys to pretend that if reality is unpleasant, than reality must chance. Reality must submit to ideology. Violence exists for a reason and because we do not always understand it or like it, does not change it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
Right or Economic Liberalism
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/right-or-economic-liberalism.html
Pacifism has an elegant simplicity to it that provides much of it's appeal. It states that violence, murder, war, are all wrong. That all violence from slapping to genocide are interrelated, one leads to the other in effect. That violence breeds violence and therefore that it is best not to be violent or to support violence because it never solves problems, it can only continue or start new problems.
Of course in reality Pacifism has variants, not every Pacifist is "pure" so to speak. In practice very few people are Pacifists rejecting all violence, but many people who are not Pacifists will still support Pacifism, saying that it would be a better world if violence did not exist, if murder, war, assault and rape vanished from the world. It's hard to argue with that, of course it would be better, after all no one is lining up to be murdered, killed in a war, bashed or raped are they.
The Utopian vision within Pacifism is clear, that people can change the world, if only enough of us believe, if only enough of us stop using violence, if only our Governments behaved morally then violence would end. The history of the world be damned, ignore it, reject it and instead believe in the human power to change reality. Human nature either doesn't exist or needs to be resisted and changed. Remember your rejecting reality.
Sadly we do not and have never had the power to end war, specific wars yes but not all wars. Neither do we have the power, individually or collectively to end violent crime. The truth is we have only limited ability to control the violence of others, we do not even have total control over our own violence. Much personal violence is based on our emotions, are you totally in control of your emotions? Know anyone else who is? If you know someone who is your a very rare person, if you are in control of your emotions, your even rarer. The idea that we can control our emotions is very appealing, that we can control the emotions of others maybe even more appealing. Of course that doesn't mean people are uncontrollable, or that people should not seek to control themselves. That is a false division, the idea that only two extremes are possible.
Our Governments are extents of us, Governments are not people but they are made up of people. That is something that seems to be forgotten by many. That means that they share the attributes of people, or to be more correct the actions of Governments share the attributes of people, because they are made by people. It is people who make the decisions of Government. Pride, fear, anger, greed, ignorance, principles, ideals, love, hate, are just some of the emotions people feel. When people in Government make decisions those and many other emotions come into play and that includes when issues of violence are at stake. Many times violence will be rejected for one reason or another, there are more imagined wars than actual wars, but other times violence will not be rejected but used. Some may argue that if emotion was left out then violence would have no place, but logic often demands violence. Logic can be as cruel a master as emotions because the logical response to violence is often violence. Of course if it is accepted that violence breeds violence, then the next logical question becomes is there a limit to how much violence we may endure? If there is then the logical response is violence, if there is no limit than logic dictates that may mean extinction. Very few people are ever happy with that answer.
If all violence is wrong than beating someone else is just as reprehensible as them defending themselves. How dare those monsters defend themselves!
There is also no place for loyalty, your nations army is just as wrong as your enemies. Pacifists must always be on the lookout for wrongdoing, including by their own country, maybe especially. They are an Internationalist by default, the ultimate relativist.
If all war is wrong, if all violence is wrong, self defence is just as wrong as aggression. Unless everyone decides to be a Pacifist at the same hour on the same day it means that the principled are merely the victims of those who remain unprincipled. War and violence isn't right or wrong it is reality, it exists and Pacifism trys to pretend that if reality is unpleasant, than reality must chance. Reality must submit to ideology. Violence exists for a reason and because we do not always understand it or like it, does not change it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
Right or Economic Liberalism
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/right-or-economic-liberalism.html
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Are You an Active or a Passive Conservative?
Are You an Active or a Passive Conservative?
It can seem like our entire life is lived in the shadow of Liberalism. How often we turn on the news to instead hear some Liberal announcement of how racist something is, or how wonderful it is that a random women has done something. To hear how diversity is promoted and how things once heard every other day are now regarded as politically incorrect. You go to work or school, to a family function and you hear the same clap trap and it wears on you. You think to yourself I wish I could escape from all this and then you wonder why isn't someone fighting back?
Unfortunately this isn't something new, us Conservatives have been struggling with this issue for a very long time. One answer has been to ignore it to just let it flow over us and not let it concern us. Sure it might be concerning someone else but if it isn't concerning me I'll just let it pass. That way I don't have to fight and struggle, that way I can get on with my life and enjoy my family and friends. That way I don't have others thinking bad things about me and I can concentrate on the important things in life.
Certainly family and friends are important, without question, so is your job and your relationships with others. It's too hard to fight the world all by yourself. Time and time again Conservatives have been passive, we have retreated into our private life, we give up the public arena to concentrate on our family. We can protect them we think. But our passivity does not protect them, too many Conservative parents find they have Liberal children, why? In good part because they always see the Liberal side, it was right in front of them, in school, on TV and in the cinema and their favourite celebrity told them so. When did they hear an alternative? Most parents bring up their children to be good people and our society tells them that good people are Liberal. You and I know thats not true, but let me ask you, did you always know that or did you learn it the hard way?
When we are passive and retreat into our family and jobs, we are not left alone. Liberalism follows us, it lectures us on the news, it instructs us while it says it's only entertaining us. We are not left alone and in time Liberalism catches up with us. It demands more from us, it always wants more. Maybe it's when your child comes home from school and tells you of what they learnt that you don't approve of, it might be your neighbours behavour that everyone expects you'll be cool with because it's the tolerant thing to do, even though you wonder why you must be tolerant but they do not. It might be that you have to train the foreign worker who's taking your job (as an old boss of mine had to do). It is only a matter of time until it taps you on the shoulder and demands more.
The temptation to be passive is alluring, it seems sensible and safe. But as I look around I wonder why wasn't more done to stop the rot we see all around us. Why didn't Conservatives organise, why when I was ready to do more wasn't there already something there to join? Because of the passive Conservative, so much has gone unfought. I'm guilty, or at least I have been. We must do more to meet other Conservatives, to build networks and support. We must not let the next generation, or the one after that be left with the same level of support we have now. We need more and it is up to us to do more. It would be great to change the world but it might be enough to simply change from being a passive Conservative to being an active Conservative.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
It can seem like our entire life is lived in the shadow of Liberalism. How often we turn on the news to instead hear some Liberal announcement of how racist something is, or how wonderful it is that a random women has done something. To hear how diversity is promoted and how things once heard every other day are now regarded as politically incorrect. You go to work or school, to a family function and you hear the same clap trap and it wears on you. You think to yourself I wish I could escape from all this and then you wonder why isn't someone fighting back?
Unfortunately this isn't something new, us Conservatives have been struggling with this issue for a very long time. One answer has been to ignore it to just let it flow over us and not let it concern us. Sure it might be concerning someone else but if it isn't concerning me I'll just let it pass. That way I don't have to fight and struggle, that way I can get on with my life and enjoy my family and friends. That way I don't have others thinking bad things about me and I can concentrate on the important things in life.
Certainly family and friends are important, without question, so is your job and your relationships with others. It's too hard to fight the world all by yourself. Time and time again Conservatives have been passive, we have retreated into our private life, we give up the public arena to concentrate on our family. We can protect them we think. But our passivity does not protect them, too many Conservative parents find they have Liberal children, why? In good part because they always see the Liberal side, it was right in front of them, in school, on TV and in the cinema and their favourite celebrity told them so. When did they hear an alternative? Most parents bring up their children to be good people and our society tells them that good people are Liberal. You and I know thats not true, but let me ask you, did you always know that or did you learn it the hard way?
When we are passive and retreat into our family and jobs, we are not left alone. Liberalism follows us, it lectures us on the news, it instructs us while it says it's only entertaining us. We are not left alone and in time Liberalism catches up with us. It demands more from us, it always wants more. Maybe it's when your child comes home from school and tells you of what they learnt that you don't approve of, it might be your neighbours behavour that everyone expects you'll be cool with because it's the tolerant thing to do, even though you wonder why you must be tolerant but they do not. It might be that you have to train the foreign worker who's taking your job (as an old boss of mine had to do). It is only a matter of time until it taps you on the shoulder and demands more.
The temptation to be passive is alluring, it seems sensible and safe. But as I look around I wonder why wasn't more done to stop the rot we see all around us. Why didn't Conservatives organise, why when I was ready to do more wasn't there already something there to join? Because of the passive Conservative, so much has gone unfought. I'm guilty, or at least I have been. We must do more to meet other Conservatives, to build networks and support. We must not let the next generation, or the one after that be left with the same level of support we have now. We need more and it is up to us to do more. It would be great to change the world but it might be enough to simply change from being a passive Conservative to being an active Conservative.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Saturday, 11 January 2014
The Tenth Month
The Tenth Month
My attempt to do a post every 3 days failed, I guess once every 5 days is at least a discipline I can stick with even if it's not ideal. The numbers for this month have been disappointing with a big drop in numbers from the United States which is where the majority of my readers come from. On the plus side Australia has been steady which is good as have a few other countries.
The best day this month was the 6th of January when 86 visitors came to the site and the worst was the 26th December when 13 came.
The dates are from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.
December - January
My attempt to do a post every 3 days failed, I guess once every 5 days is at least a discipline I can stick with even if it's not ideal. The numbers for this month have been disappointing with a big drop in numbers from the United States which is where the majority of my readers come from. On the plus side Australia has been steady which is good as have a few other countries.
The best day this month was the 6th of January when 86 visitors came to the site and the worst was the 26th December when 13 came.
The dates are from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.
December - January
November - December
Four countries have given me a rise in numbers, Russia, Canada, Japan and Ireland. Russia was up 50% over last month, unfortunately Russia was in third place for awhile but has been more volatile in recent months. Of course I hope that it will continue growing in numbers. Canada was more modest but still welcome. Japan is mostly one Westerner it seems, but most of this increase was on one day so obviously it's not all him. Ireland is new to the top 10, welcome!
Australia has been steady which I'm pleased about, but time will tell. As has Germany.
As I've already stated the United States is down, I don't know if it's just the time of year. China, United Kingdom and France are all down as well. As always I hope they pick up.
Countries that have pop in for a look include, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Indonesia, and South Africa.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Monday, 6 January 2014
Feminism, Why we are not Feminists
Feminism, Why we are not Feminists
Feminism is the belief that Men and Women are equal and that the sex differences between the two are either non-existent or minor. The most disturbing aspect of Feminism is that at heart it is a conspiracy theory. The theory states that Men oppress Women and have since the beginning of time, that only Feminists can really see this oppression and there for only they can do anything to stop this historic injustice. Feminism is simply Liberalism as it applies to the lives of Women.
Traditional Conservatives however reject every aspect of Feminism. We do not believe that Men and Women are equal, we believe that Men and Women are vital. They are vital because each sex has different attributes and abilities. Men and Women are not interchangeable they are unique. Each sex encompassing those things needed by the other sex that they themselves do not have. Neither sex is the superior sex because each sex is superior in the things that it is good at and inferior in the things it is not good at.
We also reject the idea that Men oppress Women, both sexes suffer and both are rewarded in life simply because they were born a particular sex. It is not one getting all the goodies and the other receives nothing. Life is without any doubt unfair but that unfairness does not, and should not, fall only on one sex.
Within Feminism there are many divisions most small and some very large but from our perspective it is best to simply divide Feminism into two parts, the parts we can see and encounter. I call them Hard Feminism and Soft Feminism
Hard Feminism
When most people think of Feminism this is what they think of, Women's Studies, all men are rapists, political Lesbianism. This is the hard and often nasty face of Feminism. Here is the reason most women will not call themselves Feminists no matter how close to the Feminist ideal they live. Even standard Liberals can get incensed at their ideas and antics. But of course they are needed, for without them who would have the courage to say the really outrageous things?
No, Liberalism needs them so they can see who ignores and who salutes the latest idea. Sometimes they say things that can seem acceptable to most people. But in reality Feminists often win because society doesn't want to fight. They never thought of the idea before Feminism mentioned it, society has no idea if it's true or not but it just wants to get on with life and not get bogged down in an argument it doesn't really know anything about. Just because Society doesn't want a fight doesn't mean we should just roll over and give up.
Soft Feminism
Soft Feminism is the sort you see nearly every day, the idea that Men and Women are equal but Women have been discriminated against in the past so they need extra help today. It's one of those things you mostly accept because either you haven't noticed it yet or because you must just to get through the day. Offices were everyone is Female, Schools with not a single Male Teacher, Women in traditional Male occupations but no corresponding Males in traditional Female occupations. No fault divorce, child custody and child support, were Men are too often guilty unless proven innocent. When you challenge this you get some interesting responses. Some get very embarrassed as if they've been caught out. Others insist that thinking Men and Women aren't identical is either hatred of Women or old fashioned. As if criticizing something means you must hate it and that new fashion is somehow better, even though we all know fashions come and go.
The idea that Women can and should do anything a Man can do is rife. How can it not be when so many say Men and Women are equal simply because they have heard the mantra so many times before. The idea, that ideas have consequences is an absurdity to these people and they will tell you so. Women can dress any way they want, they can drink as much as any Man and they can be as sexually irresponsible as any Cad. All without consequences they believe. Which is strange because these things still have consequences for men, the mistake is to think that consequences are only moral consequences. The consequences for both are a lack of safety, health issues and emotional baggage and instead of having these problems crop up in life they seem to be the desired outcome.
Hating
Feminism has a well deserved reputation for hating Men, some Feminists dispute this, they say it is the actions of Men that they hate not Men themselves. Unfortunately whether that is true or not it is the policies that they support that show their true colours. Men are actively discriminated against in favour of not Women but Feminist Women. It is here that the true hatred of Feminism is shown.
For Feminism believes that all true Women are Feminists and all who are not must either be converted or ignored. Laws that protect traditional Women are dismantled as being pro-Male laws, because instead of Men and Women being partners in life together, they must now be enemies in the war between the sexes. The ideal Women is single with a professional career, children optional but not preferred, who is promiscuous and hard living. The ideal Women is a Bachelor!
Feminism hates Women and femininity even more than it hates Men and masculinity.
When they say that the differences between the sexes don't matter and those that exist should be eliminated they really mean it. They wish for a world were no one can tell the difference between a Man and a Women, where femininity is as dead as masculinity. It is a war against Human nature, it is a war against biology, it is a war against Human dignity, it is a war against Humanity itself.
In short Feminism is inhuman.
For those of us opposed to Feminism we should always remember this:
Not all Women are Feminists
Not all Feminists are Women
Here is a trap Feminists fall for, we should know better.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Feminism is the belief that Men and Women are equal and that the sex differences between the two are either non-existent or minor. The most disturbing aspect of Feminism is that at heart it is a conspiracy theory. The theory states that Men oppress Women and have since the beginning of time, that only Feminists can really see this oppression and there for only they can do anything to stop this historic injustice. Feminism is simply Liberalism as it applies to the lives of Women.
Traditional Conservatives however reject every aspect of Feminism. We do not believe that Men and Women are equal, we believe that Men and Women are vital. They are vital because each sex has different attributes and abilities. Men and Women are not interchangeable they are unique. Each sex encompassing those things needed by the other sex that they themselves do not have. Neither sex is the superior sex because each sex is superior in the things that it is good at and inferior in the things it is not good at.
We also reject the idea that Men oppress Women, both sexes suffer and both are rewarded in life simply because they were born a particular sex. It is not one getting all the goodies and the other receives nothing. Life is without any doubt unfair but that unfairness does not, and should not, fall only on one sex.
Within Feminism there are many divisions most small and some very large but from our perspective it is best to simply divide Feminism into two parts, the parts we can see and encounter. I call them Hard Feminism and Soft Feminism
Hard Feminism
When most people think of Feminism this is what they think of, Women's Studies, all men are rapists, political Lesbianism. This is the hard and often nasty face of Feminism. Here is the reason most women will not call themselves Feminists no matter how close to the Feminist ideal they live. Even standard Liberals can get incensed at their ideas and antics. But of course they are needed, for without them who would have the courage to say the really outrageous things?
No, Liberalism needs them so they can see who ignores and who salutes the latest idea. Sometimes they say things that can seem acceptable to most people. But in reality Feminists often win because society doesn't want to fight. They never thought of the idea before Feminism mentioned it, society has no idea if it's true or not but it just wants to get on with life and not get bogged down in an argument it doesn't really know anything about. Just because Society doesn't want a fight doesn't mean we should just roll over and give up.
Soft Feminism
Soft Feminism is the sort you see nearly every day, the idea that Men and Women are equal but Women have been discriminated against in the past so they need extra help today. It's one of those things you mostly accept because either you haven't noticed it yet or because you must just to get through the day. Offices were everyone is Female, Schools with not a single Male Teacher, Women in traditional Male occupations but no corresponding Males in traditional Female occupations. No fault divorce, child custody and child support, were Men are too often guilty unless proven innocent. When you challenge this you get some interesting responses. Some get very embarrassed as if they've been caught out. Others insist that thinking Men and Women aren't identical is either hatred of Women or old fashioned. As if criticizing something means you must hate it and that new fashion is somehow better, even though we all know fashions come and go.
The idea that Women can and should do anything a Man can do is rife. How can it not be when so many say Men and Women are equal simply because they have heard the mantra so many times before. The idea, that ideas have consequences is an absurdity to these people and they will tell you so. Women can dress any way they want, they can drink as much as any Man and they can be as sexually irresponsible as any Cad. All without consequences they believe. Which is strange because these things still have consequences for men, the mistake is to think that consequences are only moral consequences. The consequences for both are a lack of safety, health issues and emotional baggage and instead of having these problems crop up in life they seem to be the desired outcome.
Hating
Feminism has a well deserved reputation for hating Men, some Feminists dispute this, they say it is the actions of Men that they hate not Men themselves. Unfortunately whether that is true or not it is the policies that they support that show their true colours. Men are actively discriminated against in favour of not Women but Feminist Women. It is here that the true hatred of Feminism is shown.
For Feminism believes that all true Women are Feminists and all who are not must either be converted or ignored. Laws that protect traditional Women are dismantled as being pro-Male laws, because instead of Men and Women being partners in life together, they must now be enemies in the war between the sexes. The ideal Women is single with a professional career, children optional but not preferred, who is promiscuous and hard living. The ideal Women is a Bachelor!
Feminism hates Women and femininity even more than it hates Men and masculinity.
When they say that the differences between the sexes don't matter and those that exist should be eliminated they really mean it. They wish for a world were no one can tell the difference between a Man and a Women, where femininity is as dead as masculinity. It is a war against Human nature, it is a war against biology, it is a war against Human dignity, it is a war against Humanity itself.
In short Feminism is inhuman.
For those of us opposed to Feminism we should always remember this:
Not all Women are Feminists
Not all Feminists are Women
Here is a trap Feminists fall for, we should know better.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)