The Most Evil Day of the Twentieth Century
Today, the 28th of June 2014 is the centenary of the most evil day in the Twentieth century, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. You might say that you can think of more evil deeds and you would be correct, except that nearly all of those evil deeds can be traced back to this one.
The assassination itself was the second attempt on the Archdukes life that day. The first was a bomb that was thrown at his car, the fuse on the bomb didn't explode until the next car in line passed under it. It was intended to kill the Archduke but instead it wounded around 20 people, both travelling in the car and bystanders. The attempted Assassin then took cyanide and jumped into a river to commit suicide. He was pulled out of the river as it was very shallow and the poison only made him sick, he was of course arrested, after the police retrieved him from the crowd who attacked him. The Archduke then made a speech with the Mayor of Sarajevo in which he thanked the people of Sarajevo for their support. The assassins were not locals but Serbians. The Archduke and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg then decided to change their plans and go to the hospital to show their support for those wounded in the earlier bombing. Unfortunately their driver was not informed and he continued onto the old route, he was told to stop and reverse the car as it was going to the hospital by a more direct route. It was here that quite by chance the second Assassin was waiting. Not only had the car gone this way when it wasn't supposed to but the car stopped directly in front of the Assassin. He was less than 2 arms lengths away when he fired two shots. The first struck the Archduke in his jugular vein, the second hit the Duchess in the stomach. The Assassin said his second shot was directed at the Mayor of Sarajevo and not at the Duchess. All the same she died on the way to the hospital and the Archduke died 10 minutes after his wife.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and his death started a trail of events that would lead to the First World War and the deaths of at least 10 million people. It would end the German, Russian, Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian Empires as well as lead to the murders of the Russian Imperial family. The chaos of that war would allow Communism, Fascism and Nazism to arise, something it is impossible to imagine without the war. Something like 30 million people died between the two world wars because of these political philosophies. Most in the Soviet Union, also a creation of the chaos from the war. The great depression was caused by the debt induced by the war. All of this lead into the Second World War and the deaths of at least 50 million people. Then add to that the tens of millions who died during the Cold War period, in battle and in the failed policies of various Communist Governments. That is more than 100 million people, 100,000,000!
Of course if the Archduke had not been assassinated wars would still have been fought and evils would still have been committed, without question. Human nature has not changed despite the many attempts to do just that. And it is human nature that is most responsible for wars, just as human nature lead to the First World War. But human nature is not enough, it requires events to push human failings along. The assassination thrust both together. The consequences of the war have been catastrophic for our Civilization and it is here that it began to die.
Each nation had valid reasons to go to war, the tragedy is not that war exists, or that wars happen but that this one happened at the exact time that it did. When every nation was rich enough to fight and organised enough to have huge armies and navies. That the technology existed to transport masses of men quickly via railways and that quick firing artillery and machine guns existed which meant that it was always easier to defend than attack. The technology to overcomes these, long range airplanes and reliable tanks did not exist for decades, even though both were used during the war. Further the war was a tragedy because of an irony, there had been too much peace. No general war since 1815, thats 99 years and no war between major European powers since the early 1870's, thats 40 years. It meant that the technology that existed was not really understand and each part of it was looked at in isolation without an idea of what would happen when all of these things got put together.
It is a problem today as well. The next war will be much more destructive than we can imagine, that sadly doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it. We may have no choice in the matter and peace through fear means you have lost your freedom without even fighting, not a great outcome. Today we live in a world that is the result of that evil day. It is a rare thing to be able to chase so much misery to one event, on one day.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Lawrence Auster
Saturday, 28 June 2014
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
The Rest of the World is Doomed
The Rest of the World is Doomed
A few days ago I received in the letterbox a newsletter from my local Member of Parliament entitled the Batman Courier. The electorate he represents and that I live in is called Batman, after the explorer John Batman not the superhero. I assume it was delivered to everyone in the electorates, it is 6 pages of glossy paper all about how bad the Liberal Governments budget was. Something I agree with them about and in fact I wrote an article about A Disappoint Budget, a Disappointing Government. But what I didn't do was say that everything was good and that there was no need for a reduction in our level of debt or in Government expenditure in total. But here is what the Australian Labor Party thinks:
Explanation under the title
"The Abbot Government has sought to justify the savage cuts and unfair policies in the 2014 Budget by creating a budget crisis."
Second Paragraph
"According to the International Monetary Fund, Australia has the second smallest debt in the developed world. While the United States and and the United Kingdom experienced net debt levels of 89% and 86% of their GDP in 2013, Australia's net debt level remained at 12.6%."
Third Paragraph
"Australia is also one of only 9 countries currently boasting a AAA credit rating from all three major rating agencies."
Then below that is a graph showing the level of debt of a few leading economies:
"Government Gross Debt as percentage of GDP"
Japan 228.4%
Greece 183.7%
US 109.1%
UK 109.1%
Aus(tralia) 33.7%
"If Australian's(sic) economy is in crisis, the rest of the world is doomed."
First things first, the budget is terrible, it should be cutting fat and waste from Government expenditure not be cutting payments and services that people rely on to live. So in that regard I am in agreement with the criticism of this budget. But the entire reason that we owe any money is because of Labor!
They are the ones who started with a surplus and ended 5 years later with a deficit. A debt that is 1 in 3 of every dollar created in Australia in a year. And that 1 in 3 is needed to pay off the Federal Governments debt, the state's have debts, business has debt and individuals have debt but we are not even beginning to pay any of that, because that 1 in 3 is only for the debt of the Australian Federal Government. A debt entirely created by Labor, but which they have no guilt, no shame and no remorse. In fact they don't even seem to think that owing more than your nation produces in a year is any big thing.
It is the standard inability of parties of the broad Left to comprehend where money comes from or what it represents. The Government doesn't have money, instead it receives it's revenue from taxation. That taxation is paid for by you and I. So a debt created by the Labor Party is now my debt and I am expected to pay it off and I will because like you I will have no say in the matter.
The levels of debt around the world is simply insane and to pretend we do not have a problem because our debt is not as insane as others countries is truly insane! We can have no national prosperity while we have debt, sadly it will takes many years, probably decades to be rid of this debt, but at least the current Government, for all their failings, understand that it is a problem. Sadly I do not see that understanding overseas and I do not hold out much hope, I fear that things will get much worse. The rest of the world is doomed, unless it starts fixing this debt problem.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Paradox of Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
A few days ago I received in the letterbox a newsletter from my local Member of Parliament entitled the Batman Courier. The electorate he represents and that I live in is called Batman, after the explorer John Batman not the superhero. I assume it was delivered to everyone in the electorates, it is 6 pages of glossy paper all about how bad the Liberal Governments budget was. Something I agree with them about and in fact I wrote an article about A Disappoint Budget, a Disappointing Government. But what I didn't do was say that everything was good and that there was no need for a reduction in our level of debt or in Government expenditure in total. But here is what the Australian Labor Party thinks:
Explanation under the title
"The Abbot Government has sought to justify the savage cuts and unfair policies in the 2014 Budget by creating a budget crisis."
Second Paragraph
"According to the International Monetary Fund, Australia has the second smallest debt in the developed world. While the United States and and the United Kingdom experienced net debt levels of 89% and 86% of their GDP in 2013, Australia's net debt level remained at 12.6%."
Third Paragraph
"Australia is also one of only 9 countries currently boasting a AAA credit rating from all three major rating agencies."
Then below that is a graph showing the level of debt of a few leading economies:
"Government Gross Debt as percentage of GDP"
Japan 228.4%
Greece 183.7%
US 109.1%
UK 109.1%
Aus(tralia) 33.7%
"If Australian's(sic) economy is in crisis, the rest of the world is doomed."
First things first, the budget is terrible, it should be cutting fat and waste from Government expenditure not be cutting payments and services that people rely on to live. So in that regard I am in agreement with the criticism of this budget. But the entire reason that we owe any money is because of Labor!
They are the ones who started with a surplus and ended 5 years later with a deficit. A debt that is 1 in 3 of every dollar created in Australia in a year. And that 1 in 3 is needed to pay off the Federal Governments debt, the state's have debts, business has debt and individuals have debt but we are not even beginning to pay any of that, because that 1 in 3 is only for the debt of the Australian Federal Government. A debt entirely created by Labor, but which they have no guilt, no shame and no remorse. In fact they don't even seem to think that owing more than your nation produces in a year is any big thing.
It is the standard inability of parties of the broad Left to comprehend where money comes from or what it represents. The Government doesn't have money, instead it receives it's revenue from taxation. That taxation is paid for by you and I. So a debt created by the Labor Party is now my debt and I am expected to pay it off and I will because like you I will have no say in the matter.
The levels of debt around the world is simply insane and to pretend we do not have a problem because our debt is not as insane as others countries is truly insane! We can have no national prosperity while we have debt, sadly it will takes many years, probably decades to be rid of this debt, but at least the current Government, for all their failings, understand that it is a problem. Sadly I do not see that understanding overseas and I do not hold out much hope, I fear that things will get much worse. The rest of the world is doomed, unless it starts fixing this debt problem.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Paradox of Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
Sunday, 22 June 2014
Traditional Conservative views on Women
Traditional Conservative views on Women
Nearly a year ago I did a post on Traditional Conservative views on Men in which I laid out what we want from men and what men should expect from Traditional Conservatives. Here I will do the same in regards to women. Traditional Conservatives believe in the traditional family of one Husband/Father and one Wife/Mother with children and it is this life that is most important to us. We believe that this brings the greatest protection and satisfaction than any other type of life. Because it allows men and women to bring their unique skills and abilities to bear in support of something greater than themselves, their family and their shared future.
Far too often we see that Liberalism supports loneliness, but we do not, there are times in which it is natural to feel lonely, but that should not be the case for year after year particularly when someone is in the prime of their life. That is unnatural, as well as cruel. But it is the life that we see far too many people living, or should I say enduring. Traditional Conservatives believe in marriage because we do not agree with enforced loneliness. We want to see people investing in others, but not in random people, investing in people who will invest in them. A parent, sibling, Husband, children, they are the people you should be investing in, because they will, or have invested in you, supported you and loved you. No boss will love you like your family will.
We support Femininity, those things that only a women can provide or at least those things that a women can do best. Feminine beauty is important, we support beauty, the idea that things should be, within reason, attractive as well as functional. That fashion should be feminine and that it should make women attractive. Femininity is of course more than the physical, we support women being ladies. That gentleness and kindness, sympathy and manners are also important, as is loyalty. Without loyalty all of the others are misplaced.
Just as there are things we support, there are things we do not support. We do not support promiscuity, what happens in your love life is your business, but sadly misery loves company and when someone is promiscuous they tend to endorse it to others. We oppose it not only because is harmful to you but because it rarely seems to be enough to keep it to oneself. How is it harmful? Unwanted pregnancy, abortions, disease, the risk of physical assault, molestation or rape, attacks to a womens self esteem and self worth and a jading that encourages women to be hard instead of being feminine.
We do not support divorce, we believe that most problems that married couples experience can be overcome, but that no fault divorce encourages the worst in people. The permanence of marriage was once, only 40 years ago, the norm and it should be again. Divorce creates hatred between men and women instead of togetherness. It harms children by giving them the most concrete example that people are disposable. You are not disposable!
We do not support womens careers, we are not against women working, after all women have always worked but we do not support careerism. Because that interferes with family, family is not a feather in a cap, it is the very reason that we do things. Women with families may need to work but that is quite different to desiring to work. If a married women wants to work outside the home there are many charities or schools that seek extra help. If money is required than need wins and you must work, but we would caution that it should not be in competition with men. Because other men also require jobs so that they too may get married and support their family.
So what should women expect from Traditional Conservatives? They should expect us to oppose loneliness and to support marriage. To support the permanence of your marriage and to support your husband in work. To support you when you have children and to support the home that you have created. Your home is a sacred place to us just as your family is sacred to you. It should be the job of a Government to provide a stable environment in which young people can meet their future spouse, in which a Husband and Wife can build a home and a family and that when that family is grown that they can then see their children do the same thing. We should all be involved in creating the future and only families can build that future. That is what you should expect from us.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
5-of-20 The Principle of Hierarchy
Nearly a year ago I did a post on Traditional Conservative views on Men in which I laid out what we want from men and what men should expect from Traditional Conservatives. Here I will do the same in regards to women. Traditional Conservatives believe in the traditional family of one Husband/Father and one Wife/Mother with children and it is this life that is most important to us. We believe that this brings the greatest protection and satisfaction than any other type of life. Because it allows men and women to bring their unique skills and abilities to bear in support of something greater than themselves, their family and their shared future.
Far too often we see that Liberalism supports loneliness, but we do not, there are times in which it is natural to feel lonely, but that should not be the case for year after year particularly when someone is in the prime of their life. That is unnatural, as well as cruel. But it is the life that we see far too many people living, or should I say enduring. Traditional Conservatives believe in marriage because we do not agree with enforced loneliness. We want to see people investing in others, but not in random people, investing in people who will invest in them. A parent, sibling, Husband, children, they are the people you should be investing in, because they will, or have invested in you, supported you and loved you. No boss will love you like your family will.
We support Femininity, those things that only a women can provide or at least those things that a women can do best. Feminine beauty is important, we support beauty, the idea that things should be, within reason, attractive as well as functional. That fashion should be feminine and that it should make women attractive. Femininity is of course more than the physical, we support women being ladies. That gentleness and kindness, sympathy and manners are also important, as is loyalty. Without loyalty all of the others are misplaced.
Just as there are things we support, there are things we do not support. We do not support promiscuity, what happens in your love life is your business, but sadly misery loves company and when someone is promiscuous they tend to endorse it to others. We oppose it not only because is harmful to you but because it rarely seems to be enough to keep it to oneself. How is it harmful? Unwanted pregnancy, abortions, disease, the risk of physical assault, molestation or rape, attacks to a womens self esteem and self worth and a jading that encourages women to be hard instead of being feminine.
We do not support divorce, we believe that most problems that married couples experience can be overcome, but that no fault divorce encourages the worst in people. The permanence of marriage was once, only 40 years ago, the norm and it should be again. Divorce creates hatred between men and women instead of togetherness. It harms children by giving them the most concrete example that people are disposable. You are not disposable!
We do not support womens careers, we are not against women working, after all women have always worked but we do not support careerism. Because that interferes with family, family is not a feather in a cap, it is the very reason that we do things. Women with families may need to work but that is quite different to desiring to work. If a married women wants to work outside the home there are many charities or schools that seek extra help. If money is required than need wins and you must work, but we would caution that it should not be in competition with men. Because other men also require jobs so that they too may get married and support their family.
So what should women expect from Traditional Conservatives? They should expect us to oppose loneliness and to support marriage. To support the permanence of your marriage and to support your husband in work. To support you when you have children and to support the home that you have created. Your home is a sacred place to us just as your family is sacred to you. It should be the job of a Government to provide a stable environment in which young people can meet their future spouse, in which a Husband and Wife can build a home and a family and that when that family is grown that they can then see their children do the same thing. We should all be involved in creating the future and only families can build that future. That is what you should expect from us.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
5-of-20 The Principle of Hierarchy
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Local Business is Beautiful Business
Local Business is Beautiful Business
As Traditional Conservatives we believe in communities and in families. The reason we believe in these things is because they provide mutual support to each other, they are not competitive or exploitative by nature. But instead the health of one contributes to the health of the other. In economics we need this as well, we need the economy to be mutually supportive, to not be exploitative and to contribute to both societies and the Nations health. We do however still require competition within the economy. The question is how to achieve these things.
We often hear about Multinationals and other very large companies, it's easier for both the media and politicians to concentrate upon these large entities. But most wealth and most jobs are not created or maintained by Multinationals, instead those things are created and maintained by medium and small business. Enterprises that may consist of as many as 10,000 employees, but in the majority of cases consist of less than 100 employees. It is here that most people work and it is here that we can have a real influence and impact as the needs of these companies are very close to ours.
We want communities to support themselves, to provide employment and opportunity. We want communities to be mutual aid societies, where people can look to others within their community to help and protect them in hard times. Instead of what we currently have where support is provided from on high, by a distant Government who then feels that as they are paying the bills they should get to decide far too much about our lives. While we believe that both Government and even Multinationals have their place, we need to push the interests of medium and small business. To help them both remain in business and to encourage new businesses. Most businesses benefit from a prosperous community and both medium and small business can help create those conditions. Mutually supporting conditions.
These companies employ local staff, they spend most of their expenditure, both business and private, locally. Within the community. It is this mutual aid that we need to support. Strong local business can create strong local communities. Furthermore many of the large companies can also be used to help support local communities, by making them into franchises. A supermarket chain is the perfect example of whats wrong and what we can do about it. They have the advantage of buying in bulk thereby getting lower prices which they pass on to us. They employ local people but unfortunately the profits of the business are not enjoyed by that community. Instead they go to shareholders who may live in the community but most likely they live in other communities. But if a supermarket chain was made into a franchise that one disadvantage can become an advantage. Local people owning a franchise or being shareholders in their local supermarket. The only thing it doesn't do locally would be purchasing.
Strong communities pay dividends, they are great places for families, for the young and the old, they provide jobs and security, job security as well as personal security. They are of course not the whole answer, but they are a needed part of the mix and we should be supporting them by supporting medium and small business.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
As Traditional Conservatives we believe in communities and in families. The reason we believe in these things is because they provide mutual support to each other, they are not competitive or exploitative by nature. But instead the health of one contributes to the health of the other. In economics we need this as well, we need the economy to be mutually supportive, to not be exploitative and to contribute to both societies and the Nations health. We do however still require competition within the economy. The question is how to achieve these things.
We often hear about Multinationals and other very large companies, it's easier for both the media and politicians to concentrate upon these large entities. But most wealth and most jobs are not created or maintained by Multinationals, instead those things are created and maintained by medium and small business. Enterprises that may consist of as many as 10,000 employees, but in the majority of cases consist of less than 100 employees. It is here that most people work and it is here that we can have a real influence and impact as the needs of these companies are very close to ours.
We want communities to support themselves, to provide employment and opportunity. We want communities to be mutual aid societies, where people can look to others within their community to help and protect them in hard times. Instead of what we currently have where support is provided from on high, by a distant Government who then feels that as they are paying the bills they should get to decide far too much about our lives. While we believe that both Government and even Multinationals have their place, we need to push the interests of medium and small business. To help them both remain in business and to encourage new businesses. Most businesses benefit from a prosperous community and both medium and small business can help create those conditions. Mutually supporting conditions.
These companies employ local staff, they spend most of their expenditure, both business and private, locally. Within the community. It is this mutual aid that we need to support. Strong local business can create strong local communities. Furthermore many of the large companies can also be used to help support local communities, by making them into franchises. A supermarket chain is the perfect example of whats wrong and what we can do about it. They have the advantage of buying in bulk thereby getting lower prices which they pass on to us. They employ local people but unfortunately the profits of the business are not enjoyed by that community. Instead they go to shareholders who may live in the community but most likely they live in other communities. But if a supermarket chain was made into a franchise that one disadvantage can become an advantage. Local people owning a franchise or being shareholders in their local supermarket. The only thing it doesn't do locally would be purchasing.
Strong communities pay dividends, they are great places for families, for the young and the old, they provide jobs and security, job security as well as personal security. They are of course not the whole answer, but they are a needed part of the mix and we should be supporting them by supporting medium and small business.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
Friday, 13 June 2014
It's Only a Movie
It's Only a Movie
Have you ever watched a movie and been enraged? Have you ever told others how angry this movie makes you? If you have I'm sure you've heard the line "it's only a movie"! Which if your anything like me that makes me both angrier and abit sheepish as it is only a stupid movie after all. But over the years I've realised it isn't "just a movie", in fact it is one of around 500 made every year just in the United States. It's not just a movie but a constant stream of someone else's thoughts and ideas that we pay money to see.
I remember as a teenager wondering why certain conventions were used. Why did the bully always get his comeuppance? Why did the nerd always get the girl? Why was the rebel always right? In real life the bully only sometimes got their comeuppance, the nerd rarely got the girl and the rebel was often times just an attention seeker. But in movies non of that was true. I recently read an article that told me the answer to why the nerd always wins the girl, because the scriptwriters were often the nerds and here was their revenge. Well at least that makes sense, it might even explain the bullies.
As I got older I noticed other conventions, sex is desirable and it doesn't have consequences, drugs are cool, families can be manufacture and that money equals success. Sex is desirable but it absolutely does have consequences, but think about how often characters have sex, often without even a word said between them. I do not think I have seen a movie made in the last 40 years in which extramarital sex isn't supported. If your married and unhappy, have sex with a stranger and don't you dare feel bad about it, particularly if you have real lust for them, even though we will always refer to it as love not lust. This goes back much further than 40 years, but crime should not be glamorous, but somehow always is. I think in particular of "Blow" made in 2001 staring Johnny Depp, about George Jung a man who helped start mass importation of cocaine into the United States. The thing is the drug trade not only made him rich but it destroyed his life. Now the movie shows all the glamour, drugs are cool, beautiful people use drugs, beautiful people have sex without consequences, beautiful people have sex without consequences with drug runners, drugs make you rich, drugs aren't respectable but money can make you respectable. Then right at the end of the movie, with about 10-20% still to go, it all turns sour, but the problem is it is so out of touch with the tone of the rest of the movie it doesn't seem to be part of the same movie. The Director might argue that he put in how drugs destroyed his life and technically he's correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the movie glamourizes his life and his bad and criminal behavour. It is not a morality tale, which it should be as, I not have mentioned this, but drugs destroyed his life. He was released from prison on the 2nd of June 2014, that's 11 days ago after serving 20 years. Blow isn't even the worst offender, it is so common in movies dealing with crime that it often goes unmentioned. Criminals are cool, even when they are evil, because evil is cool.
The manufactured family is one that often passes under the radar because it used to obscure it's real function. Many military and specialized jobs have an espirit de corp, a brotherhood that forms, that is quite natural. But what it's not is family and most people understand that, my job, no matter how important or dangerous is my job and my family is my family. But here they seek to blur the line between the two, in recent times to even reject family over the job, a character will say something like "I have 16 siblings, all my parents and grandparents are still alive, I'm married with 36 children, but you guys in the Aquatic Surveillance Squad are my real family". Ok, no one has 16 siblings and 36 children, but if you pay attention you will hear someone say "but your my real family". It's insidious, but it fits right into the Liberal idea that you are your job. That there is no higher meaning in life than to be a paid professional. Remember that those who make movies live this life they don't just preach it.
And this fits into money equals success, I have often been surprised by how affluent people are in American movies. Not that rich people exist but that America seems to consist of the upper middle class and ghetto's, rarely do you see real working class Americans or even actual middle class life. Sure there are alot of movies and I'm sure you can give me a list of movies that prove me wrong. The problem is I can provide my own list of movies where what I've said is true. Not every movie shows this, but it is remarkable how distorted the view of America is in movies. The struggle to become rich seems a mania in the movies, at times it seems it's all about the money. Of course we all need money to live thats not the issue, the issue is that when you worship money, what you are really worshiping is greed. Greed is a vice not a virtue.
I'm not going to stop watching movies and I doubt you will either, but I would like you to think about what we are being sold. We are being sold a view of life that often, we don't live and that we do not endorse. It's not just a movie.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of the Word "Politics"
Have you ever watched a movie and been enraged? Have you ever told others how angry this movie makes you? If you have I'm sure you've heard the line "it's only a movie"! Which if your anything like me that makes me both angrier and abit sheepish as it is only a stupid movie after all. But over the years I've realised it isn't "just a movie", in fact it is one of around 500 made every year just in the United States. It's not just a movie but a constant stream of someone else's thoughts and ideas that we pay money to see.
I remember as a teenager wondering why certain conventions were used. Why did the bully always get his comeuppance? Why did the nerd always get the girl? Why was the rebel always right? In real life the bully only sometimes got their comeuppance, the nerd rarely got the girl and the rebel was often times just an attention seeker. But in movies non of that was true. I recently read an article that told me the answer to why the nerd always wins the girl, because the scriptwriters were often the nerds and here was their revenge. Well at least that makes sense, it might even explain the bullies.
As I got older I noticed other conventions, sex is desirable and it doesn't have consequences, drugs are cool, families can be manufacture and that money equals success. Sex is desirable but it absolutely does have consequences, but think about how often characters have sex, often without even a word said between them. I do not think I have seen a movie made in the last 40 years in which extramarital sex isn't supported. If your married and unhappy, have sex with a stranger and don't you dare feel bad about it, particularly if you have real lust for them, even though we will always refer to it as love not lust. This goes back much further than 40 years, but crime should not be glamorous, but somehow always is. I think in particular of "Blow" made in 2001 staring Johnny Depp, about George Jung a man who helped start mass importation of cocaine into the United States. The thing is the drug trade not only made him rich but it destroyed his life. Now the movie shows all the glamour, drugs are cool, beautiful people use drugs, beautiful people have sex without consequences, beautiful people have sex without consequences with drug runners, drugs make you rich, drugs aren't respectable but money can make you respectable. Then right at the end of the movie, with about 10-20% still to go, it all turns sour, but the problem is it is so out of touch with the tone of the rest of the movie it doesn't seem to be part of the same movie. The Director might argue that he put in how drugs destroyed his life and technically he's correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the movie glamourizes his life and his bad and criminal behavour. It is not a morality tale, which it should be as, I not have mentioned this, but drugs destroyed his life. He was released from prison on the 2nd of June 2014, that's 11 days ago after serving 20 years. Blow isn't even the worst offender, it is so common in movies dealing with crime that it often goes unmentioned. Criminals are cool, even when they are evil, because evil is cool.
The manufactured family is one that often passes under the radar because it used to obscure it's real function. Many military and specialized jobs have an espirit de corp, a brotherhood that forms, that is quite natural. But what it's not is family and most people understand that, my job, no matter how important or dangerous is my job and my family is my family. But here they seek to blur the line between the two, in recent times to even reject family over the job, a character will say something like "I have 16 siblings, all my parents and grandparents are still alive, I'm married with 36 children, but you guys in the Aquatic Surveillance Squad are my real family". Ok, no one has 16 siblings and 36 children, but if you pay attention you will hear someone say "but your my real family". It's insidious, but it fits right into the Liberal idea that you are your job. That there is no higher meaning in life than to be a paid professional. Remember that those who make movies live this life they don't just preach it.
And this fits into money equals success, I have often been surprised by how affluent people are in American movies. Not that rich people exist but that America seems to consist of the upper middle class and ghetto's, rarely do you see real working class Americans or even actual middle class life. Sure there are alot of movies and I'm sure you can give me a list of movies that prove me wrong. The problem is I can provide my own list of movies where what I've said is true. Not every movie shows this, but it is remarkable how distorted the view of America is in movies. The struggle to become rich seems a mania in the movies, at times it seems it's all about the money. Of course we all need money to live thats not the issue, the issue is that when you worship money, what you are really worshiping is greed. Greed is a vice not a virtue.
I'm not going to stop watching movies and I doubt you will either, but I would like you to think about what we are being sold. We are being sold a view of life that often, we don't live and that we do not endorse. It's not just a movie.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of the Word "Politics"
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
The Fifteenth Month
The Fifteenth Month
This will be a shorter than normal post. This month I thought I would get over 30 visitors every day, sadly I lucked out on two days and didn't make it. So close!
My best day this month was 5th of June when I had 83 visitors, the worst day was the day before that, the 4th of June when I had 26 visitors. The average was 45 visitors a day over the course of the month.
11th of May - 11th June 2014
May-June
This will be a shorter than normal post. This month I thought I would get over 30 visitors every day, sadly I lucked out on two days and didn't make it. So close!
My best day this month was 5th of June when I had 83 visitors, the worst day was the day before that, the 4th of June when I had 26 visitors. The average was 45 visitors a day over the course of the month.
11th of May - 11th June 2014
May-June
April - May
Australia is much higher than it was last month, the United Kingdom has nearly double. The Ukraine is also higher as is Germany.
Japan is one higher and France and Russia are back in the top 10.
Unfortunately the United States has dropped even though it remains the biggest country by a long way. China and Canada have also dropped in numbers but they remain in the top 10.
Sadly South Africa and Spain have dropped out of the top 10.
The United Arab Emirates nearly made it into the top 10, but it dropped off in the last week or so after have been there for most of the month.
I have also been visited by people from the following countries: Ireland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay.
I hope I see you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Australia is much higher than it was last month, the United Kingdom has nearly double. The Ukraine is also higher as is Germany.
Japan is one higher and France and Russia are back in the top 10.
Unfortunately the United States has dropped even though it remains the biggest country by a long way. China and Canada have also dropped in numbers but they remain in the top 10.
Sadly South Africa and Spain have dropped out of the top 10.
The United Arab Emirates nearly made it into the top 10, but it dropped off in the last week or so after have been there for most of the month.
I have also been visited by people from the following countries: Ireland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay.
I hope I see you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Sunday, 8 June 2014
The Future of American Power
The Future of American Power
This past week has been the seventieth anniversary of D-Day and a number of things have come together to make me think I need to put my thoughts down. Not about D-Day but about the future, particularly the future of American power. This is different to most of what I write because it doesn't concern Conservatism or any other political philosophy, but instead concerns grand strategy and the future shape of the world.
The United States is the most powerful country on Earth, not many would dispute that. It still has the largest economy, largest Navy and Air Force, some would argue the most powerful Army, even if it isn't the biggest and we haven't mentioned it's nuclear might. It has a population of 300 million with the highest stand of living and still has large amounts of natural resources. It also has enormous cultural influence and it's currency is seen as the world standard. Much of the same could once have been said of the British Empire, but that empire is now gone and in many ways Britain is living off the prestige of that empire. That is not to say modern Britain doesn't have power or influence, it does, but nothing compared to what it once had. It has been fortune for all the English speaking countries that one English speaking country, with all of the common culture and shared heritage, was replaced by another English speaking country as the worlds most powerful country.
Sadly the United States as a Superpower is nearing the time when it will no longer be able to remain a Superpower. A Superpower being defined as a nation that is widely regarded, even by it's enemies as a world leader. The British Empire wasn't a Superpower, but the Soviet Union was, because it was regarded by even it's enemies as a world leader. But the British Empire was the most powerful of a range of other great powers, France and Russia for example.I am not suggesting that the United States will fall into obscurity, but it will lose it's Superpower status.
The United States will lose it's Superpower status for two broad reasons. 1) It is not doing anything to seriously retard or stop it's declining power & 2) other nations are rising in power relative to the United States. That means that within most of our lifetimes, we will see a return to what existed before WWII, a number of great powers. The most likely of the great powers are Europe (or some type of European power, maybe NATO), Russia, India, China and the United States. An argument can be made against each of these being a great power and they have merit, but I believe that each will find a place in the future international order.
I haven''t yet set out why American power is declining so let me do so here. The United States, like much of the West has a number of serious issues that no one in power, or likely to gain power has any idea of how to address. The cheapening of university education and the coming destruction of higher education. The lose of confidence in both Liberal economics and democratic institutions. The large debt that no one has any idea of how to pay, but that hasn't stopped more money from being borrowed or printed, each dangerous in it's own way. Mass immigration and mass illegal immigration, each a problem and for Superpower status it both shows the weakness of the American state, it cannot even enforce it's own laws, but it also changes the population and that common culture and heritage is destroyed. The assumptions that one once made about the United States cannot be made anymore, just as happened with Britain.
It will take time for these things to occur but unless something makes them change this is what will happen. I think it will be a much worse world than the one we currently live in because for all of the faults of the United States it does stand by it's Allies and it will help even non Allies if they need assistance. Nothing contributes to world stability more than the idea that the United States is the most powerful country on Earth. If China or India were the most power country would they do the same? I do not believe that they would, they are much more isolationist than the United States is. When the United States ceases to be a Superpower, we will miss it much more than we think.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Defending the American Alliance
This past week has been the seventieth anniversary of D-Day and a number of things have come together to make me think I need to put my thoughts down. Not about D-Day but about the future, particularly the future of American power. This is different to most of what I write because it doesn't concern Conservatism or any other political philosophy, but instead concerns grand strategy and the future shape of the world.
The United States is the most powerful country on Earth, not many would dispute that. It still has the largest economy, largest Navy and Air Force, some would argue the most powerful Army, even if it isn't the biggest and we haven't mentioned it's nuclear might. It has a population of 300 million with the highest stand of living and still has large amounts of natural resources. It also has enormous cultural influence and it's currency is seen as the world standard. Much of the same could once have been said of the British Empire, but that empire is now gone and in many ways Britain is living off the prestige of that empire. That is not to say modern Britain doesn't have power or influence, it does, but nothing compared to what it once had. It has been fortune for all the English speaking countries that one English speaking country, with all of the common culture and shared heritage, was replaced by another English speaking country as the worlds most powerful country.
Sadly the United States as a Superpower is nearing the time when it will no longer be able to remain a Superpower. A Superpower being defined as a nation that is widely regarded, even by it's enemies as a world leader. The British Empire wasn't a Superpower, but the Soviet Union was, because it was regarded by even it's enemies as a world leader. But the British Empire was the most powerful of a range of other great powers, France and Russia for example.I am not suggesting that the United States will fall into obscurity, but it will lose it's Superpower status.
The United States will lose it's Superpower status for two broad reasons. 1) It is not doing anything to seriously retard or stop it's declining power & 2) other nations are rising in power relative to the United States. That means that within most of our lifetimes, we will see a return to what existed before WWII, a number of great powers. The most likely of the great powers are Europe (or some type of European power, maybe NATO), Russia, India, China and the United States. An argument can be made against each of these being a great power and they have merit, but I believe that each will find a place in the future international order.
I haven''t yet set out why American power is declining so let me do so here. The United States, like much of the West has a number of serious issues that no one in power, or likely to gain power has any idea of how to address. The cheapening of university education and the coming destruction of higher education. The lose of confidence in both Liberal economics and democratic institutions. The large debt that no one has any idea of how to pay, but that hasn't stopped more money from being borrowed or printed, each dangerous in it's own way. Mass immigration and mass illegal immigration, each a problem and for Superpower status it both shows the weakness of the American state, it cannot even enforce it's own laws, but it also changes the population and that common culture and heritage is destroyed. The assumptions that one once made about the United States cannot be made anymore, just as happened with Britain.
It will take time for these things to occur but unless something makes them change this is what will happen. I think it will be a much worse world than the one we currently live in because for all of the faults of the United States it does stand by it's Allies and it will help even non Allies if they need assistance. Nothing contributes to world stability more than the idea that the United States is the most powerful country on Earth. If China or India were the most power country would they do the same? I do not believe that they would, they are much more isolationist than the United States is. When the United States ceases to be a Superpower, we will miss it much more than we think.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Defending the American Alliance
Saturday, 7 June 2014
Two Links
Two Links
I have just added Another Politically Incorrect Blog to my list of favourite links, welcome Mr. Doom. His most recent post is on Rupyard Kiplings book Kim. And before that on the recent European elections, go have a look.
I also have a link for the seventieth anniversary of D-Day, once you go to the link, click on each photo and it will change between what the scene looked like on D-Day and then today. D-Day landing scenes in 1944 and now
Enjoy
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Thursday, 5 June 2014
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Earlier today I read Mark Richardsons article Changing the military for what purpose? and I am in total agreement, but it reminded me that I have thoughts on this issue that I haven't written down and that I should do so. This will be unlike other articles as here I will be talking abit about my personal experience and the lessons learnt from them.
In 1987 I enlisted in the Australian Army Reserve and I served until 1994, nearly all of my service was in a signal platoon within an infantry battalion. Unlike the regular Army were you train and are then assigned to a unit, in the reserves you join a unit and then do your training. When I went to do my basic training I was in a platoon that was 1/3rd female, 2/3rd male, with a male platoon commander and a female sergeant. Each of the three sections within the platoon had it's own hut in which we slept and kept our equipment. The platoon trained together and there was one area in which the females were much better, drill. But there was another area where they were terrible and that was the assault course. Near the end of our training the platoon had a forced march, crossing a barbed wire obstacle, did a firemens carry and crossed a water obstacle, all to be done within a particular time limit. It was hard going, I was very fit and eager, but unlike now I was a very skinny stick figure, good for endurance but not for carrying weight. Of course we also carried our personal equipment and our rifle during this. By the time we got through the barbed wire the males were very tired but the females were defeated. They were beyond tired, they couldn't think or talk, to complete the course we took their rifles and equipment off them and carried it, but that wasn't enough we had to push or pull them along to get through the course.
We all finished and were very happy about it but it was a very revealing event. Rarely in life do men and women do the exact same physical activity and at someones else's pace. Here it was and it showed how very different the male mind and body was to the female's. It wasn't a slight difference but in a totally different league. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, when I finished the assault course I felt like I was going to die, it was bloody tough. But I finished it carrying my own equipment and someone else's.
I remember the female sergeant saying she was against females doing combat roles in the Army but some of the female recruits being for it. It was a common theme I saw during my service, newly enlisted women wanting to conquer the world (or at the least the Army), and more experienced women saying no thanks I'm only interested in doing my job.
In 1984 the Australian Parliament passed the Equal Opportunity Act and the Armed Forces were the only area in which it did not apply. But some of the attitudes of the time did reach into the Army and the Eighties were a time in the Australian Army in which unofficially boundaries were pushed. My unit was an infantry battalion, all male, but it was also a reserve unit and it recruited from the local community. If a women wants to enlist and her local unit is all male what should the Army do? Well in the Eighties it was decided that they could serve in a non combat support role within the infantry battalion and if the battalion was mobilised for war they would be detached to other duties. So then they started looking within the battalion for where they could fit and one of the places was my sub-unit, the signals platoon.
Within a signals platoon there are basically three jobs, maintaining the Communications Post (CP), running telephone lines out to different points and the repairing and defending of the telephone lines and company signalers (which I did) who 's job was to make sure the company commanders had communication back to the CP. Both company signalers and linesmen are very physical jobs, only CP duty is a non combat role in a platoon who's primary mission isn't combat but providing communications.
The little experiment went on for a few years until someone up top remembered their own rules and it was stopped. But in that time I served with and observed a number of female soldiers and these are my observations. Non of the women I served with would have thought of themselves as Feminists, they joined mostly because of patriotism, although like most of the men who also joined for that reason they would have denied it. Everyone liked to pretend to be much more cynical than they really were. Family history played a part, a Father or Grandfathers service was important, again this was true for the men. And many seemed abit of an outsider, a little tomboyish. Many of them did valuable service and did their job to the best of their ability, in the right job they were an asset to the Army.
But I also observed limitations, a lack of physical strength and stamina, a lack of mental toughness, a desire for creature comforts, no desire to get dirty, a naivety about how easy things can be, once in a position the desire to remain there and become the "expert". Add to that the distraction of soldiers, NCO's and Officers when women are around, you may say they cannot help that and you would be correct, but nor can the men help it, it's biology and it can and does cause all kinds of problems.
If women are to remain in the Armed Forces then they should serve in womens services, as they once did. They protected women by providing a female command structure that had male oversight. They did jobs that the Army needs done. But like Chaplains, they should only be trained to protect themselves, not as combat or combat support troops. There are plenty of men who want those jobs and who will do them better.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
4 of 20 The Principle of Variety
Earlier today I read Mark Richardsons article Changing the military for what purpose? and I am in total agreement, but it reminded me that I have thoughts on this issue that I haven't written down and that I should do so. This will be unlike other articles as here I will be talking abit about my personal experience and the lessons learnt from them.
In 1987 I enlisted in the Australian Army Reserve and I served until 1994, nearly all of my service was in a signal platoon within an infantry battalion. Unlike the regular Army were you train and are then assigned to a unit, in the reserves you join a unit and then do your training. When I went to do my basic training I was in a platoon that was 1/3rd female, 2/3rd male, with a male platoon commander and a female sergeant. Each of the three sections within the platoon had it's own hut in which we slept and kept our equipment. The platoon trained together and there was one area in which the females were much better, drill. But there was another area where they were terrible and that was the assault course. Near the end of our training the platoon had a forced march, crossing a barbed wire obstacle, did a firemens carry and crossed a water obstacle, all to be done within a particular time limit. It was hard going, I was very fit and eager, but unlike now I was a very skinny stick figure, good for endurance but not for carrying weight. Of course we also carried our personal equipment and our rifle during this. By the time we got through the barbed wire the males were very tired but the females were defeated. They were beyond tired, they couldn't think or talk, to complete the course we took their rifles and equipment off them and carried it, but that wasn't enough we had to push or pull them along to get through the course.
We all finished and were very happy about it but it was a very revealing event. Rarely in life do men and women do the exact same physical activity and at someones else's pace. Here it was and it showed how very different the male mind and body was to the female's. It wasn't a slight difference but in a totally different league. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, when I finished the assault course I felt like I was going to die, it was bloody tough. But I finished it carrying my own equipment and someone else's.
I remember the female sergeant saying she was against females doing combat roles in the Army but some of the female recruits being for it. It was a common theme I saw during my service, newly enlisted women wanting to conquer the world (or at the least the Army), and more experienced women saying no thanks I'm only interested in doing my job.
In 1984 the Australian Parliament passed the Equal Opportunity Act and the Armed Forces were the only area in which it did not apply. But some of the attitudes of the time did reach into the Army and the Eighties were a time in the Australian Army in which unofficially boundaries were pushed. My unit was an infantry battalion, all male, but it was also a reserve unit and it recruited from the local community. If a women wants to enlist and her local unit is all male what should the Army do? Well in the Eighties it was decided that they could serve in a non combat support role within the infantry battalion and if the battalion was mobilised for war they would be detached to other duties. So then they started looking within the battalion for where they could fit and one of the places was my sub-unit, the signals platoon.
Within a signals platoon there are basically three jobs, maintaining the Communications Post (CP), running telephone lines out to different points and the repairing and defending of the telephone lines and company signalers (which I did) who 's job was to make sure the company commanders had communication back to the CP. Both company signalers and linesmen are very physical jobs, only CP duty is a non combat role in a platoon who's primary mission isn't combat but providing communications.
The little experiment went on for a few years until someone up top remembered their own rules and it was stopped. But in that time I served with and observed a number of female soldiers and these are my observations. Non of the women I served with would have thought of themselves as Feminists, they joined mostly because of patriotism, although like most of the men who also joined for that reason they would have denied it. Everyone liked to pretend to be much more cynical than they really were. Family history played a part, a Father or Grandfathers service was important, again this was true for the men. And many seemed abit of an outsider, a little tomboyish. Many of them did valuable service and did their job to the best of their ability, in the right job they were an asset to the Army.
But I also observed limitations, a lack of physical strength and stamina, a lack of mental toughness, a desire for creature comforts, no desire to get dirty, a naivety about how easy things can be, once in a position the desire to remain there and become the "expert". Add to that the distraction of soldiers, NCO's and Officers when women are around, you may say they cannot help that and you would be correct, but nor can the men help it, it's biology and it can and does cause all kinds of problems.
If women are to remain in the Armed Forces then they should serve in womens services, as they once did. They protected women by providing a female command structure that had male oversight. They did jobs that the Army needs done. But like Chaplains, they should only be trained to protect themselves, not as combat or combat support troops. There are plenty of men who want those jobs and who will do them better.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
4 of 20 The Principle of Variety
Sunday, 1 June 2014
Misogyny, Why We are not Misogynists
Misogyny, Why We are not Misogynists
Misogyny means a hatred of women and Conservatives and men and even society in general have been accused of being Misogynists. But of course Conservatives are not Misogynists and I hope to show why in this post. Men and society are also not guilty of the charge but that's another post.
Misogyny like racist means different things to ordinary people than they do to Liberals or those on the Left of politics. In regards to Misogyny, ordinary people think it refers to serial killers who kill and mutilate women and others who show extreme violence or hatred towards women. But to Liberals and the Left, a Misogynist is someone who criticizes women or their behavior or who doesn't believe that men and women are identical and equal in every way. By that definition Conservatives are Misogynists, by that definition everyone who has every lived has been a Misogynist, including everyone alive today.
Of course that won't do as a definition, as it's nonsense.
Conservatives do criticize women and we do on occasion criticize womens behavior, but we also do the same to men. But we normally criticize them for different reasons as we believe that men and women are different. That men and women bring different ways of thinking and doing things and that it is these differences that are important not the areas in which they are similar. We believe that men and women need each other both individually and as a society. So the differences make them stronger and mutually supporting, instead of being areas of conflict. We further believe that men and women should not compete against each other, but that they should support each other and do the things that they are best at, instead of both trying to be the same person.
For Liberalism and those further to the left this is unacceptable as this implies that we do not believe that men and women can be identical and equal and in this they are correct. We reject the idea that men and women are identical and equal because we can see that it is not true. But if men and women are not equal then that must mean that one is superior to the other. But thats not necessary true as the strengths and flaws of men and women are different and there fore mutually supporting, you might even say complimentary.
When we reject the charge that we are Misogynists we must remember that the charge isn't meant as an objective critique, it is meant to shut us up and to shame us, to show others we are dangerous and that we have dangerous ideas. To that charge we should point out that criticism is not hatred and that only a fool would think that it is.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, just another branch of Liberalism II
Misogyny means a hatred of women and Conservatives and men and even society in general have been accused of being Misogynists. But of course Conservatives are not Misogynists and I hope to show why in this post. Men and society are also not guilty of the charge but that's another post.
Misogyny like racist means different things to ordinary people than they do to Liberals or those on the Left of politics. In regards to Misogyny, ordinary people think it refers to serial killers who kill and mutilate women and others who show extreme violence or hatred towards women. But to Liberals and the Left, a Misogynist is someone who criticizes women or their behavior or who doesn't believe that men and women are identical and equal in every way. By that definition Conservatives are Misogynists, by that definition everyone who has every lived has been a Misogynist, including everyone alive today.
Of course that won't do as a definition, as it's nonsense.
Conservatives do criticize women and we do on occasion criticize womens behavior, but we also do the same to men. But we normally criticize them for different reasons as we believe that men and women are different. That men and women bring different ways of thinking and doing things and that it is these differences that are important not the areas in which they are similar. We believe that men and women need each other both individually and as a society. So the differences make them stronger and mutually supporting, instead of being areas of conflict. We further believe that men and women should not compete against each other, but that they should support each other and do the things that they are best at, instead of both trying to be the same person.
For Liberalism and those further to the left this is unacceptable as this implies that we do not believe that men and women can be identical and equal and in this they are correct. We reject the idea that men and women are identical and equal because we can see that it is not true. But if men and women are not equal then that must mean that one is superior to the other. But thats not necessary true as the strengths and flaws of men and women are different and there fore mutually supporting, you might even say complimentary.
When we reject the charge that we are Misogynists we must remember that the charge isn't meant as an objective critique, it is meant to shut us up and to shame us, to show others we are dangerous and that we have dangerous ideas. To that charge we should point out that criticism is not hatred and that only a fool would think that it is.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, just another branch of Liberalism II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)