The Paradoxes of Anti-Racism
Anti-Racism is the idea or belief that racism is wrong and that as all peoples are equal it is redundant for anyone to hold racist views or opinions and furthermore that everyone should be encouraged to think of all people as their equal. At first sight anti-racism can seem reasonable enough, but on closer inspection there are a number of paradoxes that seriously dint the this idea.
There are three main paradoxes within Anti-Racism:
1) Race doesn't exist
2) White people are racist and other people are not racist
3) White privilege and the underlying problem of how did whites get this "privilege"!
Race doesn't exist
You will find this rather bizarre idea is quite widespread. The idea goes like this, because race is so controversial it shouldn't exist and there fore doesn't really exist, it is instead a social construct, something that isn't real but that people for social, political or economic reasons have decided is real. But because it's a social construct, it can be deconstructed. Race can be made to disappear as if it never existed because it doesn't exist, as it's only a social construct. Then we can all just be united as the human race, instead of being divided by people being of different races. Within Universities this idea has taken hold, it might not be universally held in Universities but that is where it's stronghold is. And it has been given strength by the knowledge that the differences between races biologically is so small. Which is true for DNA, you would expect humans to be very much like other humans when it comes to the very building blocks of life. But it's not true once you start looking at other biological sciences, then the differences between races becomes a different picture. But the idea that race doesn't exist means that we must ignore what is right before our eyes and that is that people look different and the differences between races means that very basic items of appear can look different. Skin, eye and hair colour, the size of our bodies, the shape of our nose, how much hair we have on our bodies or face, the shape of our eyes and that is only what we can see. Anti-Racism says that that is because they are the only differences but we know that isn't true. We know that different races can get different diseases, even mental illness can be decided by race. But when you point these things out the Anti-racist says "you can't say that it's racist"! How can something be racist if race doesn't exist? It's nonsense.
White people are racist and other people are not racist
The idea that we are all united is one that many people find comforting, if we are all on the same side then there will be no more racial problems. But that is only an idea and when racial problems, real or manufactured turn up then who's to blame? If it is possible for all people to be the same, equal, then why isn't it happening? Who benefits? Well here things take a half logical turn because in most Western countries the majority of the population is white, so who are the rich, the celebrities, the big business owners, the politicians or the University lecturers? Their nearly all white, so who benefits? It must be those who already have power, they don't want to fix racism because they benefit from it. That actually has some logic behind it, but of course in a majority white country not only will those already mentioned be white, but so will the majority of every class. The majority of the middle class will be white, the majority of the working class will be white, the majority of the very poor will be white, the majority of the homeless, the unemployed, the prison population, the suicides will be white. So when a white person does something racist or is a accused of being racist the idea is formed that they do that from a position of power. So a white homeless person is by this idea more powerful than a rich person of any other race. It's ridiculous but it is what many Anti-Racists believe. That only the powerful can be racist and that as the powerful in white countries are white then all whites are powerful, therefore only whites are racist. But isn't placing all past, current and future blame on one race racist? Only if your not an Anti-Racist!
This is also know as the Apex theory, whereby someone looks at the apex or top and assumes that is what everything else looks like, for example the apex of a mountain might be covered in snow, so the assumption is that all of the mountain is covered in snow, whether it is or not.
White privilege and the underlying problem of how did whites get this "privilege"!
White power is most often called white privilege, being white has it privileges it seems. That may be so but those privileges did not spring from no where. Here Anti-racists would agree, white privilege is possible in their view because it has come at the expense of other races. Why aren't there more black country singers? Because white privilege stops them. Why aren't there more white hip hop artists? Because they aren't good enough will come back the reply. Ok, maybe their not, but why isn't that a good enough answer for country music? The answer is because of white privilege, it is a simple answer but at least it's consistent. The problem with it is that it implies that whites are superior. How did white's gain their privilege? According to Anti-Racists white's took it from other races, they lied, tricked and forced them to give up their privileges and whites took them. If this is true how did one race gain so much power? Was it Western Civilization, Christianity, Liberalism, technology, disease? But all of these have been rejected in favour of race, it isn't Western Civilization privilege, nor is it Christianity privilege or even Liberal privilege, no it's white privilege. Whites are responsible for this world and no one else, for all it's mistakes and horrors. If that is true then whites are by definition superior to every other race. Anti-Racism is white supremacy!
If that ain't a paradox then I don't know what is.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
12 of 20 The Principle of Respect
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Neo-Conservatism, Why We Are Not Neo-Conservatives
Neo-Conservatism, Why We Are Not Neo-Conservatives
Neo in Latin means new, so Neo-Conservatism means new Conservatism. What exactly is a new Conservative?
It turns out it's a branch of Right-Liberalism, it might be new but it isn't Conservative. Many Neo-Conservatives started off on the Left and as both they and the Left changed they felt a bit left out in the cold. In time they saw that they agreed a lot with "Conservatives" and that is what they thought they were, but not the old type of Conservative, a new but still progressive Conservative, a Neo-Conservative. In reality they were not Conservatives they had simply moved from a Classical Liberalism to a Right Liberal position. Just as the Left moved from a more Classical Liberal position to one further left, much closer to Socialism and Communism.
Neo-Conservatives are solidly Right Liberal in their social and economic policies. In fact I cannot think of any serious disagreement between the two. But one idea stands supreme, the idea that each of us desires to be an autonomous individual, now both Right and Left Liberalism agree with this but what they might not agree with is that Neo-Conservatives believe that America is the greatest Liberal society ever. And that as everyone desires to be an autonomous individual and as America has come further than any other nation in creating a Liberal society, all Foreign and Domestic policy should be aligned to first keep and then extent the ideal of American Liberalism. They further believe that it is profoundly immoral to hinder or stand in the way of Humanities greatest goal. Like all Liberals they believe in a perfect world, in a heaven on Earth that they can create. But Neo-Conservatives believe that a piece of that heaven on earth already exists. That American Liberalism is the way to obtain that perfect world. That is why they originally turned against the Left because it attacked and put under threat American Liberalism by moving further to the Left.
They believe in the strength of the United States, that America is the best, last hope for Humanity. That just as open borders and Free Trade allows those not born American to still receive the miracle of American Liberalism, American Liberalism can also be exported. But in most of America Neo-Conservatives are a tiny minority. Their strength lies in New York City and Washington D.C., they tend to be very cultured and academic, to work in Universities and in Government. And while their ideas get a good hearing in the halls of power they do not have much strength or power. Iraq is the perfect example. They supported the invasion of Iraq, as did many others, it certainly was not just Neo-Conservatives who supported the war. But what they wanted was a long occupation and an intense effort to transform Iraq from an oppressed, poor and illiberal country, into a bastion of American Liberalism in the Middle East. A country that would then transform the rest of the Middle East by it's sincere conversion to American Liberalism. I even remember President Bush saying things very similar. Of course things worked out differently, very differently.
The Neo-Conservatives sometimes got their way, but not consistently. For example they wanted large amounts of money spent on rebuilding Iraq and that money was spent (often badly). But as part of that effort they wanted political education, basically civic classes, but hardly any of that was carried out. They wanted to rebuild civil institutions, but that proved much harder than most thought, one reason being because many of the civil institutions couldn't be rebuild because they had never existed before. But instead of trying to achieve a compromised peace, which it may have been possible to achieve, although I admit that is not certain. They wanted to create Switzerland, a multiethnic, multi-party Democracy in the Middle East. That failed, I do not believe as many others believe that Democracy cannot work in the Middle East but Democracy is not magic, it is more like a crop in the field, it needs the right conditions to grow. The right conditions do not exist in Iraq for Democracy to work, at least not as we understand it, maybe some type of limited Democracy might work. The right conditions do not exist for Liberalism to work either.
In many ways Neo-Conservatives seem stuck in the early 1960's. America is strong, economically, politically, socially and militarily. It is rich and can afford to be generous, it is after all the envy of the world. America was made great by Liberalism, American Liberalism is the future. America rebuilt Germany and Japan after the war, there is nothing Americans cannot achieve if they put their minds to it. Neo-Conservatism will not survive beyond my lifetime because the America that they believe in and admire is not here anymore. Sure parts of it are, America isn't down and out but how much does it really resemble the early 1960's anymore?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Who Wins When Liberalism Wins?
Neo in Latin means new, so Neo-Conservatism means new Conservatism. What exactly is a new Conservative?
It turns out it's a branch of Right-Liberalism, it might be new but it isn't Conservative. Many Neo-Conservatives started off on the Left and as both they and the Left changed they felt a bit left out in the cold. In time they saw that they agreed a lot with "Conservatives" and that is what they thought they were, but not the old type of Conservative, a new but still progressive Conservative, a Neo-Conservative. In reality they were not Conservatives they had simply moved from a Classical Liberalism to a Right Liberal position. Just as the Left moved from a more Classical Liberal position to one further left, much closer to Socialism and Communism.
Neo-Conservatives are solidly Right Liberal in their social and economic policies. In fact I cannot think of any serious disagreement between the two. But one idea stands supreme, the idea that each of us desires to be an autonomous individual, now both Right and Left Liberalism agree with this but what they might not agree with is that Neo-Conservatives believe that America is the greatest Liberal society ever. And that as everyone desires to be an autonomous individual and as America has come further than any other nation in creating a Liberal society, all Foreign and Domestic policy should be aligned to first keep and then extent the ideal of American Liberalism. They further believe that it is profoundly immoral to hinder or stand in the way of Humanities greatest goal. Like all Liberals they believe in a perfect world, in a heaven on Earth that they can create. But Neo-Conservatives believe that a piece of that heaven on earth already exists. That American Liberalism is the way to obtain that perfect world. That is why they originally turned against the Left because it attacked and put under threat American Liberalism by moving further to the Left.
They believe in the strength of the United States, that America is the best, last hope for Humanity. That just as open borders and Free Trade allows those not born American to still receive the miracle of American Liberalism, American Liberalism can also be exported. But in most of America Neo-Conservatives are a tiny minority. Their strength lies in New York City and Washington D.C., they tend to be very cultured and academic, to work in Universities and in Government. And while their ideas get a good hearing in the halls of power they do not have much strength or power. Iraq is the perfect example. They supported the invasion of Iraq, as did many others, it certainly was not just Neo-Conservatives who supported the war. But what they wanted was a long occupation and an intense effort to transform Iraq from an oppressed, poor and illiberal country, into a bastion of American Liberalism in the Middle East. A country that would then transform the rest of the Middle East by it's sincere conversion to American Liberalism. I even remember President Bush saying things very similar. Of course things worked out differently, very differently.
The Neo-Conservatives sometimes got their way, but not consistently. For example they wanted large amounts of money spent on rebuilding Iraq and that money was spent (often badly). But as part of that effort they wanted political education, basically civic classes, but hardly any of that was carried out. They wanted to rebuild civil institutions, but that proved much harder than most thought, one reason being because many of the civil institutions couldn't be rebuild because they had never existed before. But instead of trying to achieve a compromised peace, which it may have been possible to achieve, although I admit that is not certain. They wanted to create Switzerland, a multiethnic, multi-party Democracy in the Middle East. That failed, I do not believe as many others believe that Democracy cannot work in the Middle East but Democracy is not magic, it is more like a crop in the field, it needs the right conditions to grow. The right conditions do not exist in Iraq for Democracy to work, at least not as we understand it, maybe some type of limited Democracy might work. The right conditions do not exist for Liberalism to work either.
In many ways Neo-Conservatives seem stuck in the early 1960's. America is strong, economically, politically, socially and militarily. It is rich and can afford to be generous, it is after all the envy of the world. America was made great by Liberalism, American Liberalism is the future. America rebuilt Germany and Japan after the war, there is nothing Americans cannot achieve if they put their minds to it. Neo-Conservatism will not survive beyond my lifetime because the America that they believe in and admire is not here anymore. Sure parts of it are, America isn't down and out but how much does it really resemble the early 1960's anymore?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Who Wins When Liberalism Wins?
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Paleo-Conservativism, Why We are Not Paleo-Conservatives
Paleo-Conservativism, Why We are Not Paleo-Conservatives
I am a Traditional Conservative and I write about Traditional Conservatism, but a major strain of Conservativism is Paleo-Conservatism and it's worth while pointing out what we agree on and what we do not agree on.
On most issues we are in agreement. Both agree that Tradition and custom are important, that we owe a great deal to our Western heritage, which includes both it's Pagan and Christian past. Greek/Roman and North European combined with Christian Civilization. That family is at the centre of life and that without the family being strong only tyranny can rule in it's place. We share a distrust of "big", business, Government, political parties, ideas and non-government organisations. In other words everything should be human sized, not "big" and impersonal or simply by it's size be in danger of crushing us.
We jointly oppose the "isms", Feminism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism. All of these are impersonal forces that seek to crush the little and the big. We share a belief that people are different, both as individuals and as groups, that race, ethnicity and nationality are real and they can and do make people different, maybe better, maybe worse, but different. Just as men and women are different. That religion is not something old and worn out, but something that is needed and when it vanishes people do not become rational they instead find a new "religion". One now based not on tradition and custom but on the fashion of today, no matter how silly or destructive.
We agree on a lot.
What we disagree on is Foreign policy.
Paleo-Conservatism is an American philosophy, once called isolationism. Once upon a time it made sense, America was in a real sense isolated from the realities of the outside world. But that isolation ended, for better or worse it does not exist any more. America was lucky that it ever existed. The only reason it existed was that even after the Revolution, Britain was her main trading partner and what a very jealous partner she was. The Royal Navy as much as the United States Navy keep America isolated from the political realities in the rest of the world. That wouldn't last forever and it didn't. America it'self ended it's isolation by becoming a large trading nation. Big business ended isolation before the Spanish-American war, before WWI and well before Pearl Harbor. Trade involved America in the affairs of other nations and other people. Trade still involves America in the affairs of other nations and people. Of course America is not alone in that, most countries are so involved, but America has the worlds largest economy, it's has Wall Street, it has Hollywood, it is the birthplace of Jazz, Country and Western, Rock and Roll and Hip Hop as well as producing enormous amounts of Television. It is often forgotten, but shouldn't be, that American culture leaves a very big imprint, I would argue even bigger than it's economic, political or military imprint, upon the world. The idea that America can step out of the world is very strange indeed.
Now two other countries also have a Paleo-Conservative tradition, Canada and the United Kingdom. Because Canada is so close to the United States it often picks up things that others might not notice simply because they are further away. Paleo-Conservatism is one of these things, I don't know enough about Canadian politics to say too much but I have noticed how different Canada's response to international crises are compared to Australia or New Zealand. Canada has much more of a hands off approach.
The United Kingdom also has a tradition, but it's known as "Little Englander", a little Englander was a term of contempt for British (normally English) Conservatives who didn't really like the Empire and thought Britain should have as little to do with Europe as possible. Trade if need be but apart from that keep out. To see a modern version of a little Englander you can read the newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens.
The problem with all of this is that it ignores the practical realities that exist. It is not possible to live in a world were our enemies, and everyone has enemies, just ignore you and don't trouble you. The question is when you are challenged when do you respond. Do you do it when the Nazi's come to power? Or wait until they break the Treaty of Versailles? Or the Ruhr? Or Austria? Or the Sudetenland? Or the rest of Czechoslovakia? Or Poland? Or Denmark and Norway? Or France and the Low Countries? Or Britain? Or Pearl Harbor?
Either you do something at some point or you capitulate. There is no third option, not really. Doing nothing is capitulation.
Far too often I see the option do nothing, at least it's consistent I guess. But the consequences are not mentioned because it is always supposed to be someone else's problem. There is no responsibility and little concern for outside issues. If your only opinion is, get out we should never have been there, you shouldn't be surprised that you have no influence upon events or opinions. And thats a real problem.
Traditional Conservatives believe that Foreign Affairs continue and that we should be a part of it. That Foreign relations, trade, diplomacy and military intervention all have their place. War is part of human existence and we must be prepared for it and it is nearly always better to fight in someone else's country than in our own if we have a choice about it. That we should have Allies and friends and that we should stick by them just as we expect them to stick by us. That we should have principles and that we should be prepared to defend them, even fight for them and that sometimes a situation is simply wrong and that we should be part of righting it. Even if that means war.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
I am a Traditional Conservative and I write about Traditional Conservatism, but a major strain of Conservativism is Paleo-Conservatism and it's worth while pointing out what we agree on and what we do not agree on.
On most issues we are in agreement. Both agree that Tradition and custom are important, that we owe a great deal to our Western heritage, which includes both it's Pagan and Christian past. Greek/Roman and North European combined with Christian Civilization. That family is at the centre of life and that without the family being strong only tyranny can rule in it's place. We share a distrust of "big", business, Government, political parties, ideas and non-government organisations. In other words everything should be human sized, not "big" and impersonal or simply by it's size be in danger of crushing us.
We jointly oppose the "isms", Feminism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism. All of these are impersonal forces that seek to crush the little and the big. We share a belief that people are different, both as individuals and as groups, that race, ethnicity and nationality are real and they can and do make people different, maybe better, maybe worse, but different. Just as men and women are different. That religion is not something old and worn out, but something that is needed and when it vanishes people do not become rational they instead find a new "religion". One now based not on tradition and custom but on the fashion of today, no matter how silly or destructive.
We agree on a lot.
What we disagree on is Foreign policy.
Paleo-Conservatism is an American philosophy, once called isolationism. Once upon a time it made sense, America was in a real sense isolated from the realities of the outside world. But that isolation ended, for better or worse it does not exist any more. America was lucky that it ever existed. The only reason it existed was that even after the Revolution, Britain was her main trading partner and what a very jealous partner she was. The Royal Navy as much as the United States Navy keep America isolated from the political realities in the rest of the world. That wouldn't last forever and it didn't. America it'self ended it's isolation by becoming a large trading nation. Big business ended isolation before the Spanish-American war, before WWI and well before Pearl Harbor. Trade involved America in the affairs of other nations and other people. Trade still involves America in the affairs of other nations and people. Of course America is not alone in that, most countries are so involved, but America has the worlds largest economy, it's has Wall Street, it has Hollywood, it is the birthplace of Jazz, Country and Western, Rock and Roll and Hip Hop as well as producing enormous amounts of Television. It is often forgotten, but shouldn't be, that American culture leaves a very big imprint, I would argue even bigger than it's economic, political or military imprint, upon the world. The idea that America can step out of the world is very strange indeed.
Now two other countries also have a Paleo-Conservative tradition, Canada and the United Kingdom. Because Canada is so close to the United States it often picks up things that others might not notice simply because they are further away. Paleo-Conservatism is one of these things, I don't know enough about Canadian politics to say too much but I have noticed how different Canada's response to international crises are compared to Australia or New Zealand. Canada has much more of a hands off approach.
The United Kingdom also has a tradition, but it's known as "Little Englander", a little Englander was a term of contempt for British (normally English) Conservatives who didn't really like the Empire and thought Britain should have as little to do with Europe as possible. Trade if need be but apart from that keep out. To see a modern version of a little Englander you can read the newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens.
The problem with all of this is that it ignores the practical realities that exist. It is not possible to live in a world were our enemies, and everyone has enemies, just ignore you and don't trouble you. The question is when you are challenged when do you respond. Do you do it when the Nazi's come to power? Or wait until they break the Treaty of Versailles? Or the Ruhr? Or Austria? Or the Sudetenland? Or the rest of Czechoslovakia? Or Poland? Or Denmark and Norway? Or France and the Low Countries? Or Britain? Or Pearl Harbor?
Either you do something at some point or you capitulate. There is no third option, not really. Doing nothing is capitulation.
Far too often I see the option do nothing, at least it's consistent I guess. But the consequences are not mentioned because it is always supposed to be someone else's problem. There is no responsibility and little concern for outside issues. If your only opinion is, get out we should never have been there, you shouldn't be surprised that you have no influence upon events or opinions. And thats a real problem.
Traditional Conservatives believe that Foreign Affairs continue and that we should be a part of it. That Foreign relations, trade, diplomacy and military intervention all have their place. War is part of human existence and we must be prepared for it and it is nearly always better to fight in someone else's country than in our own if we have a choice about it. That we should have Allies and friends and that we should stick by them just as we expect them to stick by us. That we should have principles and that we should be prepared to defend them, even fight for them and that sometimes a situation is simply wrong and that we should be part of righting it. Even if that means war.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Why Don't the Poor Marry?
Why Don't the Poor Marry?
In the past nearly everyone married, even the very poor. Today in the Third World it remains as it was in the First World only decades ago. Most people marry, the rich, the poor and nearly everyone in between. Of course there were exceptions but still roughly 90% of adults married. Today that is not true in the First World, why is that?
When I first started thinking about this I was thinking about men, about why I knew so many men who were not married, but then I realised that women who are poor also do not marry. But only in the First World and it is something that largely goes unmentioned. Because it feeds into that idea that we all have more options and that people are not marrying because they now have the option not too. But as I wrote in Liberalism, More Options, Less Choice more options do not really mean more choice and I think that is what we have here. People are finding it harder to marry and I think there are six basic reasons that all interplay with each other that explain why
1) Free love and being forever young
2) Selfishness
3) Money
4) Prestige
5) Society and meeting up
6) Divorce
Let me go through each and try to explain why they contribute to the poor not marrying.
Free Love and being forever young
Since the 1960's an idea has gained currency, it certainly didn't start in the 1960's, no the idea was old when Moses was a boy. The idea was that life shouldn't have consequences, it's an old idea because it is so appealing. No mistakes, no regrets, I've made mistakes and I have regrets, wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world were that didn't happen, a world were it is in fact impossible. The idea that life should have no consequences is all around us, you don't have to look too hard to find it. Free love and being young forever are very much a part of this philosophy. Sex without consequences, sex just for fun, sex just to pass the time, no pregnancies, no sexual diseases, no emotions that make everything awkward and embarrassing. And as the old saying goes "Youth is wasted on the young", maybe it is but what if you could be young forever? Would you take it? Many do or at least they try to be young forever. The problem with both is sex does have consequences and being young forever is impossible and any attempt to do so is like repairing an old tire, the repair won't last forever. If it won't last forever then it's a trick and either your fooling yourself or your trying to fool someone else, but at all times it's still a trick. What does this have to do with marriage or the lack of marriage? These ideas discourage people from thinking about their future, it stops them from making plans or decisions. If life has no consequences then it lacks meaning. Which is a strange thought at first. How can one mean the other? Because all your decisions are so small and trivial that your entire life loses it lustre. When you think of a person who is jaded with life you don't think of a virgin, no you think of someone who has had so much sex that even that natural high means nothing, it has lost it's lustre. If life has no consequences then you can delay everything, there is no hurry because there are no consequences. You cannot make a mistake and you should have no regrets. Marriage is just one option and a distant one at that.
Selfishness
People have always been selfish, but in the past it was regarded as a bad thing, something to try and avoid or push away, to fight against. Today people still talk about selfishness being bad, but we know that it is at one and the same time encouraged. Buy things with credit, pay it back at some distant future time, have sex without consequences with as many partners as your genitals can handle. This isn't by any means a complete list, no that would take too long. The problem with selfishness is that it concentrates our attention on only one person. Everyone else is present but unimportant. How do I feel? What do I want? Why can't I have that now? Why should I only have one girlfriend at a time? It's all about me, all about the self. Where does another person fit into this life? There is no room and secondly it discourages people from changing to accommodate another person. Take me as I am or get lost. Sadly as we get older that selfishness becomes part of us and it becomes harder to fit another person into your life. How do you marry when you have learnt to be so selfish and to do it so well?
Money
We all need money to live thats a given. But money means more than just numbers and more than just it's buying power. Of course those things are important but money is also important because we earnt it, because it belongs to us and because it gives us stability. For most of us that money will come from a wage and you earn a wage by working in a job. But when jobs are scarce or you are unable to work then your pile of money doesn't grow. You have lost the number, you have lost that buying power, you have also lost the pride of earning that money and finally the stability that a wage provides. Hardly any man cares how much money a women makes, some do but most don't. They care about how a women looks, her personality and her intelligence, but not her money. For a women thats not true, she cares very much about a mans money, some women are gold diggers, but most women care because they want to be able to rely on her man to look after her, even if she doesn't need it. When a women becomes a mother that is a very important consideration. But the economy has changed and steady employment, something common for recent generations has largely disappeared. There was once an idea that a man would have a wife, children and a job, a single job for his entire life. That is now gone, hardly any workers at any level have that security anymore. Jobs are casual, even if your a full time employee. Security is a very important thing, it allows people to take risks and to prepare for the future. But when jobs are not secure then all of that is gone. A man without regular employment will never marry, it is simply impossible.
Another issue is that the more money a women earns means that any man who courts her must make at minimum the same as her. Of course it's better if he earns more money, but when women are given preference in both employment and promotions, that puts both men and women in an impossible position. A women wants a man who is more successful than her, but each step up the ladder means there are less men available. Secondly those men who are successful now have a large number of women to choose from, much larger than they would normally have available to them. Non of this supports marriage.
Nor does single parents benefits, it replaces a husband with the Government, but the Government cannot love them, nor can it help take the load of parenting. What it encourages is to split families, a truly evil thing.
Prestige
Money not only provides income but it provides prestige, as do things like job titles. I recently heard someone say men don't like fancy cars, but women do so men have learnt to like fancy cars. I don't agree that men don't like fancy cars, but behind that is the idea that even if men hated fancy cars they would still like to drive them because of the effect it has on women, maybe. But why do women like fancy cars? Because they are not only a sign of how much money a man has but a prestige item. What is prestige? It is anything that signals how much wealth, power or influence a person has. But marriage has lost prestige and the reason is a part of everything in this article.
Society and meeting up
We all accept that society has changed and continues to change, accepting that fact doesn't mean we like or approve of it. Once people knew their neighbours, they knew their names and their jobs, they knew where they worked and they knew their family. Of course there have always been loners but it was harder, much harder in the past, even only a few decades ago to be nearly invisible as it is now. But part of that society was that people met alot of other people just like them. Neighbours, neighbours family, neighbours friends, shopkeepers and their staff and clubs and other social organisations. But today, and for decades all of those things, those connections have been vanishing. How do you meet people when there are so few chances to really meet people? At nightclubs, on dating websites? Well people have and do meet people through those methods. But how many people do you know who have married after they met in a nightclub? What about internet dating? In 2012 I was the bestman at a friends wedding, he met a real and quite attractive women on World of Warcraft!
That is not a dating strategy, that is just stupid blind luck.... all I can say is thank God for stupid blind luck. Sadly stupid blind luck is not a reliable business partner. If that wasn't the case we could all just lay back and relax. The internet gives us a false idea of the world, because it allows us to think that we have unlimited options, another case of more options less choice. But in reality we don't have more options because it is far to easy to dismiss people. Your unlikely to run into them while shopping, or get an earful about what a bad person you are from your neighbour. Because people on the internet are disposable, they are not flesh and blood people. Of course in reality they are but the internet is not reality it is a distortion of reality and it is as part of that distortion that they are a part of our life. Of course just as they are disposable, so are you and in no way does that encourage real connections.
Divorce
Nothing has harmed marriage more than no fault divorce, it has attacked the idea that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one women for life. That only God, a supernatural being has the power to undo this sacred union. Now it is only an artificial union between two contractors, it's a business arrangement. A contract between two autonomous individuals and nothing to do with God, or tradition, or family, or community, or permanence. If you want to get out no worries, you can get out. Those who gave us no fault divorce said they were giving us options, making us free. But we never asked for that option and loneliness is not freedom. Divorce not only destroys existing families, it also stops new families from coming into existence as it destroys the security that marriage once provided. No matter how loving, no matter how rich, no matter what you do there is no defence against no fault divorce. The permanence of marriage is gone, it can be rebuilt but first we must understand how evil no fault divorce is.
If marriage is to recover than the casual connections that allowed real people to meet other real people in a natural setting needs to be rebuild. No fault divorce needs to be destroyed. Jobs need to be made more secure and male employment needs to be a priority. And the idea that we can live a life without consequences needs to put back into the box it came out of. It is not possible to change human nature, but it is possible to change everything else that I've written about here.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
11 of 20 The Principle of Defence
In the past nearly everyone married, even the very poor. Today in the Third World it remains as it was in the First World only decades ago. Most people marry, the rich, the poor and nearly everyone in between. Of course there were exceptions but still roughly 90% of adults married. Today that is not true in the First World, why is that?
When I first started thinking about this I was thinking about men, about why I knew so many men who were not married, but then I realised that women who are poor also do not marry. But only in the First World and it is something that largely goes unmentioned. Because it feeds into that idea that we all have more options and that people are not marrying because they now have the option not too. But as I wrote in Liberalism, More Options, Less Choice more options do not really mean more choice and I think that is what we have here. People are finding it harder to marry and I think there are six basic reasons that all interplay with each other that explain why
1) Free love and being forever young
2) Selfishness
3) Money
4) Prestige
5) Society and meeting up
6) Divorce
Let me go through each and try to explain why they contribute to the poor not marrying.
Free Love and being forever young
Since the 1960's an idea has gained currency, it certainly didn't start in the 1960's, no the idea was old when Moses was a boy. The idea was that life shouldn't have consequences, it's an old idea because it is so appealing. No mistakes, no regrets, I've made mistakes and I have regrets, wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world were that didn't happen, a world were it is in fact impossible. The idea that life should have no consequences is all around us, you don't have to look too hard to find it. Free love and being young forever are very much a part of this philosophy. Sex without consequences, sex just for fun, sex just to pass the time, no pregnancies, no sexual diseases, no emotions that make everything awkward and embarrassing. And as the old saying goes "Youth is wasted on the young", maybe it is but what if you could be young forever? Would you take it? Many do or at least they try to be young forever. The problem with both is sex does have consequences and being young forever is impossible and any attempt to do so is like repairing an old tire, the repair won't last forever. If it won't last forever then it's a trick and either your fooling yourself or your trying to fool someone else, but at all times it's still a trick. What does this have to do with marriage or the lack of marriage? These ideas discourage people from thinking about their future, it stops them from making plans or decisions. If life has no consequences then it lacks meaning. Which is a strange thought at first. How can one mean the other? Because all your decisions are so small and trivial that your entire life loses it lustre. When you think of a person who is jaded with life you don't think of a virgin, no you think of someone who has had so much sex that even that natural high means nothing, it has lost it's lustre. If life has no consequences then you can delay everything, there is no hurry because there are no consequences. You cannot make a mistake and you should have no regrets. Marriage is just one option and a distant one at that.
Selfishness
People have always been selfish, but in the past it was regarded as a bad thing, something to try and avoid or push away, to fight against. Today people still talk about selfishness being bad, but we know that it is at one and the same time encouraged. Buy things with credit, pay it back at some distant future time, have sex without consequences with as many partners as your genitals can handle. This isn't by any means a complete list, no that would take too long. The problem with selfishness is that it concentrates our attention on only one person. Everyone else is present but unimportant. How do I feel? What do I want? Why can't I have that now? Why should I only have one girlfriend at a time? It's all about me, all about the self. Where does another person fit into this life? There is no room and secondly it discourages people from changing to accommodate another person. Take me as I am or get lost. Sadly as we get older that selfishness becomes part of us and it becomes harder to fit another person into your life. How do you marry when you have learnt to be so selfish and to do it so well?
Money
We all need money to live thats a given. But money means more than just numbers and more than just it's buying power. Of course those things are important but money is also important because we earnt it, because it belongs to us and because it gives us stability. For most of us that money will come from a wage and you earn a wage by working in a job. But when jobs are scarce or you are unable to work then your pile of money doesn't grow. You have lost the number, you have lost that buying power, you have also lost the pride of earning that money and finally the stability that a wage provides. Hardly any man cares how much money a women makes, some do but most don't. They care about how a women looks, her personality and her intelligence, but not her money. For a women thats not true, she cares very much about a mans money, some women are gold diggers, but most women care because they want to be able to rely on her man to look after her, even if she doesn't need it. When a women becomes a mother that is a very important consideration. But the economy has changed and steady employment, something common for recent generations has largely disappeared. There was once an idea that a man would have a wife, children and a job, a single job for his entire life. That is now gone, hardly any workers at any level have that security anymore. Jobs are casual, even if your a full time employee. Security is a very important thing, it allows people to take risks and to prepare for the future. But when jobs are not secure then all of that is gone. A man without regular employment will never marry, it is simply impossible.
Another issue is that the more money a women earns means that any man who courts her must make at minimum the same as her. Of course it's better if he earns more money, but when women are given preference in both employment and promotions, that puts both men and women in an impossible position. A women wants a man who is more successful than her, but each step up the ladder means there are less men available. Secondly those men who are successful now have a large number of women to choose from, much larger than they would normally have available to them. Non of this supports marriage.
Nor does single parents benefits, it replaces a husband with the Government, but the Government cannot love them, nor can it help take the load of parenting. What it encourages is to split families, a truly evil thing.
Prestige
Money not only provides income but it provides prestige, as do things like job titles. I recently heard someone say men don't like fancy cars, but women do so men have learnt to like fancy cars. I don't agree that men don't like fancy cars, but behind that is the idea that even if men hated fancy cars they would still like to drive them because of the effect it has on women, maybe. But why do women like fancy cars? Because they are not only a sign of how much money a man has but a prestige item. What is prestige? It is anything that signals how much wealth, power or influence a person has. But marriage has lost prestige and the reason is a part of everything in this article.
Society and meeting up
We all accept that society has changed and continues to change, accepting that fact doesn't mean we like or approve of it. Once people knew their neighbours, they knew their names and their jobs, they knew where they worked and they knew their family. Of course there have always been loners but it was harder, much harder in the past, even only a few decades ago to be nearly invisible as it is now. But part of that society was that people met alot of other people just like them. Neighbours, neighbours family, neighbours friends, shopkeepers and their staff and clubs and other social organisations. But today, and for decades all of those things, those connections have been vanishing. How do you meet people when there are so few chances to really meet people? At nightclubs, on dating websites? Well people have and do meet people through those methods. But how many people do you know who have married after they met in a nightclub? What about internet dating? In 2012 I was the bestman at a friends wedding, he met a real and quite attractive women on World of Warcraft!
That is not a dating strategy, that is just stupid blind luck.... all I can say is thank God for stupid blind luck. Sadly stupid blind luck is not a reliable business partner. If that wasn't the case we could all just lay back and relax. The internet gives us a false idea of the world, because it allows us to think that we have unlimited options, another case of more options less choice. But in reality we don't have more options because it is far to easy to dismiss people. Your unlikely to run into them while shopping, or get an earful about what a bad person you are from your neighbour. Because people on the internet are disposable, they are not flesh and blood people. Of course in reality they are but the internet is not reality it is a distortion of reality and it is as part of that distortion that they are a part of our life. Of course just as they are disposable, so are you and in no way does that encourage real connections.
Divorce
Nothing has harmed marriage more than no fault divorce, it has attacked the idea that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one women for life. That only God, a supernatural being has the power to undo this sacred union. Now it is only an artificial union between two contractors, it's a business arrangement. A contract between two autonomous individuals and nothing to do with God, or tradition, or family, or community, or permanence. If you want to get out no worries, you can get out. Those who gave us no fault divorce said they were giving us options, making us free. But we never asked for that option and loneliness is not freedom. Divorce not only destroys existing families, it also stops new families from coming into existence as it destroys the security that marriage once provided. No matter how loving, no matter how rich, no matter what you do there is no defence against no fault divorce. The permanence of marriage is gone, it can be rebuilt but first we must understand how evil no fault divorce is.
If marriage is to recover than the casual connections that allowed real people to meet other real people in a natural setting needs to be rebuild. No fault divorce needs to be destroyed. Jobs need to be made more secure and male employment needs to be a priority. And the idea that we can live a life without consequences needs to put back into the box it came out of. It is not possible to change human nature, but it is possible to change everything else that I've written about here.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
11 of 20 The Principle of Defence
Monday, 11 August 2014
The Seventeenth Month
The Seventeenth Month
So far I don't have much to report this month, I had a slight increase over last month but only by about 30 visits which because of Bloggers hickups I suspect are from my viewing the site and it counting them as outside views!
My worst day was the 17th of June when I only had 16 views and my best day was the 3rd August when I had 78 views.
11th July - 11th August
So far I don't have much to report this month, I had a slight increase over last month but only by about 30 visits which because of Bloggers hickups I suspect are from my viewing the site and it counting them as outside views!
My worst day was the 17th of June when I only had 16 views and my best day was the 3rd August when I had 78 views.
11th July - 11th August
11th June -11th July 2014
The United States is slightly up, Australia is up but as stated at the start that could all be me! The Ukraine, France, Canada and Russia are also up.
Turkey is new, 18 came in one day and a few days later 10 more did. Germany has made it back into the top 10.
The United Kingdom and Indonesia are both down. Currently the total of visitors from the United Kingdom is 999, so the very next visitor will be my 1000th!
India has however left the top 10.
I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Jersey, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Malta, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Oman, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina.
I hope to you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Traditional Conservative Views on the Law
Traditional Conservative Views on the Law
Let me start off with a joke:
Q: Whats 19 foot long and gives the greatest of pleasure?
A: A busload of Lawyers going over a cliff.
Now you may or may not find that joke funny, I've had some success with it. But what isn't funny is the contempt that so many of us hold for the Courts and the officers of the court, Lawyers. How can it be that a profession that is so vital to the working of Civilization is held in such contempt?
Today there are parts of the world were law is not about courts or Lawyers but about might, even whim. How would you fare in sure a place? But instead of having guilt or innocence decided by whim or by might we have Courts and Lawyers and a long legal tradition. It is this long legal tradition that we rely on to protect us. That each person in the process knows their role and agrees upon the rules. That there are independent outsiders who also have a say in how the courts run, namely Parliament.
But with all this the Law is held in contempt, not because it's job isn't seen as important, in fact quite the opposite. The importance of the task is accepted by nearly everyone. It is the way these tasks are carried out that draws contempt and sometimes that is unfair. The Courts must act as the law allows them too. Parliament and the politicians who sit there are responsible for a good deal of that contempt. It is they who have taken away capital punishment for example and that a life sentence should mean life. It is they who decide how much or how little should be handed out as punishment. A Judge may want to hang a burglar, he might even sentence him to death, but of course it would not stand because the law Parliament passed doesn't allow for such a punishment. Now I only put that forward as an extreme example. The politicians decide how many people may end up in jail, not the judges, if there is no room than the guilty must be given some other sentence than jail. The fault of the Parliaments in how the Courts are views is too often forgotten and it shouldn't be.
The expansion of courts has also added to that contempt, when most people think of a court they think of people who are accused of crimes of being there, murder, rape, assault, theft etc. But most people go to court for petty reasons or to Family Court (which may or may not be petty). The reach of the law into our lives has increased quite a lot within the last century. We can be fined for not having a seatbelt on or for smoking in the wrong place. And Family Court seems to be an endless pit of misery. A legal misery that hardly even existed 50 years ago and we all get to pay for the Courthouses, the Judges and the Lawyers. Not to mention the social chaos that results. It is this social chaos that informs much of our contempt as it shows how little our opinion or well being is taken into account. We are informed of whats good for us and we are told we must obey. The idea that Parliament or the Courts are on our side gets harder to believe.
Sadly the Courts have their own problems, caused by themselves. Parliament may set the limits of the law but it is Judges that get to make decisions and it is us who must live with the consequences. When a Judge decides that small sentences are fair, they set themselves up to be criticized. It is their duty to protect as well as to punish. The community doesn't want one or the other we want both and it the Courts job to provide us with both.
A further reason for our contempt is that there are too many Lawyers. Too much competition in this case is bad. It encourages bad behavior as only the most ruthless will succeed and that does neither the Law nor us any service. Too much competition in the Law also encourages practices that take away from the Laws dignity, our dignity. Advertising is one such area, Law firms should not be allowed to advertise on TV or Radio as it makes the Law, a commercial business. At no stage should the Law be a commercial business, it has a much greater task and that is to protect Civilization by protecting us.
The Law is one of the few areas of human endeavour that is needed to service Civilization. The lack of law is not the rule of barbarians, but the rule of the weather. Very fickle indeed. Laws allow might to have it's place but not decide everything. And the great strength of the law is it's age and traditions. It has not been decided by this generations fashions, or even by the fashions of our Grandfathers generation. Instead it is built up over time with Parliament providing input. It is not a perfect system, but Conservatives do not seek such a system. It's virtues must be encouraged and supported, just as we must oppose and reject it's vices. Only precedent can save the Law from being a tyranny for without precedent there is only whim.
Unfortunately the Law has been removed from our hands and our role is to support the views expressed in Parliament. Once Parliament represented us, we agreed on the whole with the punishments given out, but now we are told our opinion isn't important. Judges talk about community standards but ignore the actual community. The actual community should decide more of the law.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Unprincipled Exception
Let me start off with a joke:
Q: Whats 19 foot long and gives the greatest of pleasure?
A: A busload of Lawyers going over a cliff.
Now you may or may not find that joke funny, I've had some success with it. But what isn't funny is the contempt that so many of us hold for the Courts and the officers of the court, Lawyers. How can it be that a profession that is so vital to the working of Civilization is held in such contempt?
Today there are parts of the world were law is not about courts or Lawyers but about might, even whim. How would you fare in sure a place? But instead of having guilt or innocence decided by whim or by might we have Courts and Lawyers and a long legal tradition. It is this long legal tradition that we rely on to protect us. That each person in the process knows their role and agrees upon the rules. That there are independent outsiders who also have a say in how the courts run, namely Parliament.
But with all this the Law is held in contempt, not because it's job isn't seen as important, in fact quite the opposite. The importance of the task is accepted by nearly everyone. It is the way these tasks are carried out that draws contempt and sometimes that is unfair. The Courts must act as the law allows them too. Parliament and the politicians who sit there are responsible for a good deal of that contempt. It is they who have taken away capital punishment for example and that a life sentence should mean life. It is they who decide how much or how little should be handed out as punishment. A Judge may want to hang a burglar, he might even sentence him to death, but of course it would not stand because the law Parliament passed doesn't allow for such a punishment. Now I only put that forward as an extreme example. The politicians decide how many people may end up in jail, not the judges, if there is no room than the guilty must be given some other sentence than jail. The fault of the Parliaments in how the Courts are views is too often forgotten and it shouldn't be.
The expansion of courts has also added to that contempt, when most people think of a court they think of people who are accused of crimes of being there, murder, rape, assault, theft etc. But most people go to court for petty reasons or to Family Court (which may or may not be petty). The reach of the law into our lives has increased quite a lot within the last century. We can be fined for not having a seatbelt on or for smoking in the wrong place. And Family Court seems to be an endless pit of misery. A legal misery that hardly even existed 50 years ago and we all get to pay for the Courthouses, the Judges and the Lawyers. Not to mention the social chaos that results. It is this social chaos that informs much of our contempt as it shows how little our opinion or well being is taken into account. We are informed of whats good for us and we are told we must obey. The idea that Parliament or the Courts are on our side gets harder to believe.
Sadly the Courts have their own problems, caused by themselves. Parliament may set the limits of the law but it is Judges that get to make decisions and it is us who must live with the consequences. When a Judge decides that small sentences are fair, they set themselves up to be criticized. It is their duty to protect as well as to punish. The community doesn't want one or the other we want both and it the Courts job to provide us with both.
A further reason for our contempt is that there are too many Lawyers. Too much competition in this case is bad. It encourages bad behavior as only the most ruthless will succeed and that does neither the Law nor us any service. Too much competition in the Law also encourages practices that take away from the Laws dignity, our dignity. Advertising is one such area, Law firms should not be allowed to advertise on TV or Radio as it makes the Law, a commercial business. At no stage should the Law be a commercial business, it has a much greater task and that is to protect Civilization by protecting us.
The Law is one of the few areas of human endeavour that is needed to service Civilization. The lack of law is not the rule of barbarians, but the rule of the weather. Very fickle indeed. Laws allow might to have it's place but not decide everything. And the great strength of the law is it's age and traditions. It has not been decided by this generations fashions, or even by the fashions of our Grandfathers generation. Instead it is built up over time with Parliament providing input. It is not a perfect system, but Conservatives do not seek such a system. It's virtues must be encouraged and supported, just as we must oppose and reject it's vices. Only precedent can save the Law from being a tyranny for without precedent there is only whim.
Unfortunately the Law has been removed from our hands and our role is to support the views expressed in Parliament. Once Parliament represented us, we agreed on the whole with the punishments given out, but now we are told our opinion isn't important. Judges talk about community standards but ignore the actual community. The actual community should decide more of the law.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Unprincipled Exception
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Liberalism, more options less choice
Liberalism, more options less choice
Liberals and those who aren't Liberals but have never heard any other opinion, often talk about how many options we have now. How we can have any job we like and how we are not restricted in who we date. That the world is a smorgasbord of options and you should just live it up and enjoy. Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Unfortunately many Liberals also believe that Traditional options do hurt people. That choosing to be too religious hurts those who might not be religious because it judges them. That being a stay at home Mother judges though who choose to work. Those who have no option but to work are included by Liberalism in the chose to work basket.
But this creates a paradox, if some options create conflict, even if only in the Liberal mind, then all options cannot be equally good. Some options should, it seems, not be chosen at all!
So how does Liberalism resolve this conflict? By encouraging some options over others and at times being very blatant about it. Options are provided that crowd out other options. So for example Mothers should be provided with childcare, women should be encouraged to study more and to work fulltime, to be a financially independent women even when married. At each stage of her life she must be encouraged to pick one option over another option. The correct options, the Liberal option. Of course not every women gets the message or wants to. So another route must be used to encourage the correct option. Housewives are slaves, oppressed by men, second class citizens we are told., Motherhood is rarely attacked nor is marriage, sometimes but mostly not. No instead talk about the exciting strides made by working women, so many firsts, so many options. A slave, oppressed by men or an exciting career, which do you think is the correct Liberal option?
Some options are made more fashionable than others and the old Fabian strategy is at work here. The long slow advance that from time to time allows a massive breakthrough. But each breakthrough narrows options. More options mean narrower choices.
Lets suppose you are a man and you want a stay at home wife and mother, your first task is to find a women who you like, who likes you and who wants the same thing as you do. Once that was the default position, but now it is just one option amongst many. Your task isn't made easier it is made harder. Then you must find or already have a job that allows you enough money and security to marry and raise a family. Of course it won't be easy, it never has been. But now you must also compete with women, married and unmarried who we are told are being discriminated against. But you'll find that the new Liberal order actually discriminates against you and your family.
At each stage of life we are all encouraged to have options, to be as free as a bird, unless we pick the wrong option. Then we find that not all options are equal, in fact some options are strongly preferred over others. And some of those who have picked the wrong option do so because they are Traditional Conservatives. It's nice to have you here.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism: The Conclusion
Liberals and those who aren't Liberals but have never heard any other opinion, often talk about how many options we have now. How we can have any job we like and how we are not restricted in who we date. That the world is a smorgasbord of options and you should just live it up and enjoy. Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Unfortunately many Liberals also believe that Traditional options do hurt people. That choosing to be too religious hurts those who might not be religious because it judges them. That being a stay at home Mother judges though who choose to work. Those who have no option but to work are included by Liberalism in the chose to work basket.
But this creates a paradox, if some options create conflict, even if only in the Liberal mind, then all options cannot be equally good. Some options should, it seems, not be chosen at all!
So how does Liberalism resolve this conflict? By encouraging some options over others and at times being very blatant about it. Options are provided that crowd out other options. So for example Mothers should be provided with childcare, women should be encouraged to study more and to work fulltime, to be a financially independent women even when married. At each stage of her life she must be encouraged to pick one option over another option. The correct options, the Liberal option. Of course not every women gets the message or wants to. So another route must be used to encourage the correct option. Housewives are slaves, oppressed by men, second class citizens we are told., Motherhood is rarely attacked nor is marriage, sometimes but mostly not. No instead talk about the exciting strides made by working women, so many firsts, so many options. A slave, oppressed by men or an exciting career, which do you think is the correct Liberal option?
Some options are made more fashionable than others and the old Fabian strategy is at work here. The long slow advance that from time to time allows a massive breakthrough. But each breakthrough narrows options. More options mean narrower choices.
Lets suppose you are a man and you want a stay at home wife and mother, your first task is to find a women who you like, who likes you and who wants the same thing as you do. Once that was the default position, but now it is just one option amongst many. Your task isn't made easier it is made harder. Then you must find or already have a job that allows you enough money and security to marry and raise a family. Of course it won't be easy, it never has been. But now you must also compete with women, married and unmarried who we are told are being discriminated against. But you'll find that the new Liberal order actually discriminates against you and your family.
At each stage of life we are all encouraged to have options, to be as free as a bird, unless we pick the wrong option. Then we find that not all options are equal, in fact some options are strongly preferred over others. And some of those who have picked the wrong option do so because they are Traditional Conservatives. It's nice to have you here.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism: The Conclusion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)