In another post where I list the Guiding Principles of the Melbourne Traditionalist, long time reader Mr. Grieb has asked the following:
" "Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism." What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and Right Liberalism? Where do Libertarians fit in the spectrum of political categories? (Are they strict Classical Liberals, Right Liberals or a mix between the two?) Why does Feminism have its own separate category and is not a part of Left Liberalism, also known as Progressive Liberalism in America?"
Some good questions there Mr. Grieb, so let me look at each in turn.
What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and Right Liberalism?
Classical Liberalism once covered nearly all of Liberalism, but as I wrote in The Death of Classical Liberalism, that unity no longer exists and now Liberalism is split into three, including Right Liberalism. Classical Liberalism was a unified political philosophy, it had opinions on nearly everything. There was hardly an area where it was absent, at least when it came to having an opinion. It had an opinion on everything from economics (Free Trade), to society, to crime and punishment and so on and so forth. But when Liberalism split that was no longer true, Each side in the split took the things that it thought was important within Liberalism and that which it didn't think was important it abandoned. The Right Liberals thought that economics was of most important and so they took nearly everything of importance that related to economics. Left Liberals however rejected economics and now you rarely ever hear them talk about economics.
But just as Left Liberals rejected economics, Right Liberals rejected society, they started as socially conservative, but over time they have given leadership of all social issues to Left Liberalism, just as the Left Liberals have given economic leadership to Right Liberalism. That is why we hear Right Liberals (calling themselves Conservatives) saying that they support homosexuals getting married and homosexuals adopting children as they support marriage and families. They cannot see that these things are a rejection of marriage and family. In turn that is why you hear Left Liberals supporting Corporations while at the same time they complain about economic inequality.
Where do Libertarians fit in the spectrum of political categories? (Are they strict Classical Liberals, Right Liberals or a mix between the two?)
Libertarianism has two quite contradictory origins, Classical Liberalism and Anarchism. Libertarianism, has taken the idea that the individual is supreme and that not only should he be free from Government interference but so should his money, from Classical Liberalism. But it kept going further where it met up with Anarchism, which rejected society as society holds back the individual and it rejected the Government as all Governments control and oppress the individual. I would describe Libertarianism as right wing Anarchy. The only real difference being that some Libertarians believe in limited Government and all Libertarians believe in money. Libertarianism is the extreme right of modern Liberalism.
Why does Feminism have its own separate category and is not a part of Left Liberalism, also known as Progressive Liberalism in America?
When Classical Liberalism split it split into three parts, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism. I've already described how Right and Left Liberalism split, but I totally understand your confusion regarding Feminism. At first sight Feminism shares so much in common with Left Liberalism that they seem the same. Feminism, no matter what it says in public, believes in women, full stop. Left Liberalism believes in much more than just women. It has a whole of society approach, something Feminism is too narrow minded to have.
Feminism has officially existed since the 1840's, but its record over that time is mixed, sometimes it has been very powerful(1870-1920's & 1960's-) and at others it has even appeared to be extinct (1920's-1960's). Today it is very powerful, mainly because Left Liberalism supports it. Once Left Liberalism turns off the tap then Feminism will appear to be extinct again. Of course it will not be extinct, In short Left Liberalism can and will be strong without Feminism, but that is not true in reverse. Feminism is a very fringe philosophy, lets face it it rejects half of the human race, but it appears bigger than it is because Left Liberalism has decided to include it. If that ever changes then it will no longer appear bigger than it is, it will appear as if it is invisible.
I hope this answers your questions.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Debt: the Options
Monday, 25 May 2015
Thursday, 21 May 2015
The Difference's Between Men and Women
We are often told that men and women are equal, that they are the same, that there is no real difference between the two. Of course this goes against all of Human history and experience, including our own, including of those who tell us such things.
Traditional Conservatives of course reject this view, we believe our own eyes and experience. That men and women are different in very profound ways and that those differences are important to the success, the happiness and the survival of the Human race. So in what ways are men and women different?
Men
Men are interested in how things work. How does the World work? How does a Government work? How does a car work? They are interested in processes's, in how things work and in why things work as they do. They are interested in action, in building and in making things work.
Women
Women are interested in people and in how people relate to each other. Women are interested in feelings and in people activities. Thats how women seem to know so much about everyone.
Men however aren't interested in people, people are too individualistic for men's liking. Women on the other hand find that machines and Governments are too abstract, not human enough, not individual enough to warrant much attention.
The male tendency to see things as part of a whole and the female tendency to see things in isolation can be disastrous when viewed by themselves. But when men and women join together these tendencies become assets, they complement each other because they cover such a wide spectrum of activities and experience.
Men and women are not the same and nor should they be, they each have unique talents and we need them. We need both male and female, not in each individual as we are so often told, we need the real talents, not some second best talent. Only men can provide the uniquely male talents and only women can provide these unique female talents. Let us embrace the differences.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Self Regulation
Traditional Conservatives of course reject this view, we believe our own eyes and experience. That men and women are different in very profound ways and that those differences are important to the success, the happiness and the survival of the Human race. So in what ways are men and women different?
Men
Men are interested in how things work. How does the World work? How does a Government work? How does a car work? They are interested in processes's, in how things work and in why things work as they do. They are interested in action, in building and in making things work.
Women
Women are interested in people and in how people relate to each other. Women are interested in feelings and in people activities. Thats how women seem to know so much about everyone.
Men however aren't interested in people, people are too individualistic for men's liking. Women on the other hand find that machines and Governments are too abstract, not human enough, not individual enough to warrant much attention.
The male tendency to see things as part of a whole and the female tendency to see things in isolation can be disastrous when viewed by themselves. But when men and women join together these tendencies become assets, they complement each other because they cover such a wide spectrum of activities and experience.
Men and women are not the same and nor should they be, they each have unique talents and we need them. We need both male and female, not in each individual as we are so often told, we need the real talents, not some second best talent. Only men can provide the uniquely male talents and only women can provide these unique female talents. Let us embrace the differences.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Self Regulation
Saturday, 16 May 2015
Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles
When I talk about the Melbourne Traditionalists some may wonder what we stand for, a fair question. So here are our guiding principles.
1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia
2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage
3. Loyalty to the family, Husband & Wife, Mother & Father and their children
4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism
5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity
For those who support these principles our next meeting is in South Yarra, Melbourne on Wednesday the 3rd June at 7pm. For further details contact me, Mark Moncrieff -
uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com
If you want things to change then you need to move beyond your private thoughts and be prepared to meet with others who share your displeasure at the state of the world. You are not alone and meeting others who agree with you is an exciting thing. If your not in Melbourne, I encourage you to make every effort to find others who share you views and meet up with them where you live.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Housewives good for the economy and society
1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia
2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage
3. Loyalty to the family, Husband & Wife, Mother & Father and their children
4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism
5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity
For those who support these principles our next meeting is in South Yarra, Melbourne on Wednesday the 3rd June at 7pm. For further details contact me, Mark Moncrieff -
uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com
If you want things to change then you need to move beyond your private thoughts and be prepared to meet with others who share your displeasure at the state of the world. You are not alone and meeting others who agree with you is an exciting thing. If your not in Melbourne, I encourage you to make every effort to find others who share you views and meet up with them where you live.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Housewives good for the economy and society
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
The Twenty-Sixth Month
First of all an apology, I've been quite busy working and catching up on sleep so I haven't posted in a week! A shudder just ran down my spine when I realised an entire week...I'll make up for it I promise. I'm also two days later than I would normally publish my monthly update.
This month has continued the downward trend after the massive high of two months ago, but blogging is nothing if not a rollercoaster ride. My best day this month was the 16th April when I had 119 visitors, my worst day this month was the 25th April when I had 25 visitors. but I've only had 6 days this month with under 50 visitors.
14th April - 13th May
This month has continued the downward trend after the massive high of two months ago, but blogging is nothing if not a rollercoaster ride. My best day this month was the 16th April when I had 119 visitors, my worst day this month was the 25th April when I had 25 visitors. but I've only had 6 days this month with under 50 visitors.
14th April - 13th May
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
833
|
Australia
|
300
|
Russia
|
163
|
United Kingdom
|
92
|
France
|
63
|
Canada
|
48
|
Germany
|
34
|
India
|
32
|
Japan
|
30
|
Indonesia
|
22
|
14th March - 12th April
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
2463
|
Australia
|
435
|
Russia
|
352
|
Canada
|
190
|
France
|
110
|
United Kingdom
|
109
|
Germany
|
83
|
Netherlands
|
44
|
Ukraine
|
34
|
Japan
|
25
|
The only country that is higher than last month is Japan.
Every other country is down, although the top 3 are still very good numbers.
India and Indonesia are back in the top 10 and the Netherlands and the Ukraine have left.
I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia,
I look forward to seeing again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
The Death of Classical Liberalism
Classical Liberalism believed in personal freedom, in personal rights and in Laissez faire economics. The idea that Government should allow business as much freedom as it likes. It's no coincidence that such an economic policy lead to the rise of Unions and Socialism. But Classical Liberalism was the political philosophy of the Victorian age, in Britain and France, the low Countries and Scandinavia, the United States and what came to be called the Dominions (Canada, Australia etc.). By the 1950's it was the dominate political philosophy, with only Communism as a serious rival. Then at the height of it's power it fractured into Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism. What caused it to fracture and why did it fracture into those 3 factions?
First lets take a step back, Classical Liberalism looks quite Conservative compared to the Liberalism we are used too these days, and many who remain Classical Liberals call themselves Conservatives, but they are Liberals not Conservatives and we must always remember that.
In the Victorian age, Classical Liberalism was a way for the Middle class, particularly the rising nouveau riches (French for new rich), to make a claim on politics. It was a way of announcing their arrival as a new and powerful political player, because before the Victorian age most did not have political power, nor did most have the right to vote. This class wanted to be free from Government interference, free to do as they liked and free to make money as they saw fit. Not without restraint, they still believed in restraint but of a moral and personal nature, Governments role was only to do what the individual or business could not or should not do. In many ways what it believed is Conservative, but the sense that we are all in this together was rejected, every man for himself. It also rejected tradition and hierarchy as they stopped the everyman from rising, as they saw it, to his best.
But the rise of Classical Liberalism was at the expense of the Aristocracy and the Working class, both urban and rural. Because it believed in the self made man, that each man should be free to make his own way in the world and that he shouldn't be held back by social class or origin. They believed in merit, not in being born into a role, but in the best man for the job. Each generation inventing itself. And while most Classical Liberals would say they reject the idea, in reality they believe in Leveling, in the idea that there should only be one social class and that all men should be equal. That the Upper class and the Working class are in a sense illegitimate and that they should cease to exist and become one with the Middle class, the natural class.
It is this class aspect which saw the rise of Unions and Socialism, to oppose the rise of Classical Liberalism, and over time they merged. This joining together was often called Progressivism. Still supporting Classical Liberalism, unless it attacked the Working class. If it did then they supported the Working class instead. Here was an attempt to reconcile two very different philosophies and for a while it worked. But it fell victim to the idea that it was always compromising, that it didn't really stand for anything. But slowly Socialism did seep into Classical Liberalism.
The First World War was a major challenge as Classical Liberalism needed all the help it could get to win. It is during this war that Socialism was given support, a kind of war Socialism was adopted. Rationing, the compulsory acquisition of goods, compulsory control of money, foreign trade and the economy, compulsory military and industrial service, and the leveling of the sexes and social classes, everyone is in this together. People asked, not unreasonably, if it worked to win the war why couldn't Socialism, or at least some kind of Socialism work to solve the problems of peace. The Russian Revolution stopped alot of people from being too enthusiastic, while encouraging others. The Great Depression pushed these ideas even further. It challenged the idea that Classical Liberalism had all the answers and it created divisions within Liberalism on how best to solve this problem.
Finally the Cold War put the final nail into the coffin of Classical Liberalism. The choice between Socialism and Capitalism was now stark. Should the Government control the entire economy as Communism said, or should the Government have a more limited role? How limited? It was on this final point, how limited, that Classical Liberalism crashed and broke apart.
It split in 3, those still interested in Liberal economics became Right-Liberals or economic Liberals, also known as Dry's, they rejected Socialism utterly. Those interested in society came to believe in identity politics, infused with both the ideas of a Liberal society and the ideals of a Socialist society. They came to ignore economics and concentrate on society becoming Left-Liberals or Social Liberals. Finally a third group also split, one that had been part of Liberalism for over a century, Feminism. But now Feminism wasn't restrained by being a part of Classical Liberalism, it no longer had to seem respectable to married men. It became more radical now also infused with Socialist ideas.
In the 1950's hardly anyone noticed the split, it was only in the 1960's that it really became noticeable. It is why the 1960's were so radical and it demonstrates why Conservatives always opposed Classical Liberalism, we always knew that it couldn't stand still that it would continue to change and that it started radical and it always would be and so it continues to be, Liberalism, the most radical of all the political philosophies.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Debt is King II
First lets take a step back, Classical Liberalism looks quite Conservative compared to the Liberalism we are used too these days, and many who remain Classical Liberals call themselves Conservatives, but they are Liberals not Conservatives and we must always remember that.
In the Victorian age, Classical Liberalism was a way for the Middle class, particularly the rising nouveau riches (French for new rich), to make a claim on politics. It was a way of announcing their arrival as a new and powerful political player, because before the Victorian age most did not have political power, nor did most have the right to vote. This class wanted to be free from Government interference, free to do as they liked and free to make money as they saw fit. Not without restraint, they still believed in restraint but of a moral and personal nature, Governments role was only to do what the individual or business could not or should not do. In many ways what it believed is Conservative, but the sense that we are all in this together was rejected, every man for himself. It also rejected tradition and hierarchy as they stopped the everyman from rising, as they saw it, to his best.
But the rise of Classical Liberalism was at the expense of the Aristocracy and the Working class, both urban and rural. Because it believed in the self made man, that each man should be free to make his own way in the world and that he shouldn't be held back by social class or origin. They believed in merit, not in being born into a role, but in the best man for the job. Each generation inventing itself. And while most Classical Liberals would say they reject the idea, in reality they believe in Leveling, in the idea that there should only be one social class and that all men should be equal. That the Upper class and the Working class are in a sense illegitimate and that they should cease to exist and become one with the Middle class, the natural class.
It is this class aspect which saw the rise of Unions and Socialism, to oppose the rise of Classical Liberalism, and over time they merged. This joining together was often called Progressivism. Still supporting Classical Liberalism, unless it attacked the Working class. If it did then they supported the Working class instead. Here was an attempt to reconcile two very different philosophies and for a while it worked. But it fell victim to the idea that it was always compromising, that it didn't really stand for anything. But slowly Socialism did seep into Classical Liberalism.
The First World War was a major challenge as Classical Liberalism needed all the help it could get to win. It is during this war that Socialism was given support, a kind of war Socialism was adopted. Rationing, the compulsory acquisition of goods, compulsory control of money, foreign trade and the economy, compulsory military and industrial service, and the leveling of the sexes and social classes, everyone is in this together. People asked, not unreasonably, if it worked to win the war why couldn't Socialism, or at least some kind of Socialism work to solve the problems of peace. The Russian Revolution stopped alot of people from being too enthusiastic, while encouraging others. The Great Depression pushed these ideas even further. It challenged the idea that Classical Liberalism had all the answers and it created divisions within Liberalism on how best to solve this problem.
Finally the Cold War put the final nail into the coffin of Classical Liberalism. The choice between Socialism and Capitalism was now stark. Should the Government control the entire economy as Communism said, or should the Government have a more limited role? How limited? It was on this final point, how limited, that Classical Liberalism crashed and broke apart.
It split in 3, those still interested in Liberal economics became Right-Liberals or economic Liberals, also known as Dry's, they rejected Socialism utterly. Those interested in society came to believe in identity politics, infused with both the ideas of a Liberal society and the ideals of a Socialist society. They came to ignore economics and concentrate on society becoming Left-Liberals or Social Liberals. Finally a third group also split, one that had been part of Liberalism for over a century, Feminism. But now Feminism wasn't restrained by being a part of Classical Liberalism, it no longer had to seem respectable to married men. It became more radical now also infused with Socialist ideas.
In the 1950's hardly anyone noticed the split, it was only in the 1960's that it really became noticeable. It is why the 1960's were so radical and it demonstrates why Conservatives always opposed Classical Liberalism, we always knew that it couldn't stand still that it would continue to change and that it started radical and it always would be and so it continues to be, Liberalism, the most radical of all the political philosophies.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Debt is King II
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Who Owns Australia?
A few months ago I bought a small booklet from the 1930's entitled "Who owns Australia?", it is a work of the Left, back when they were seriously interested in economics. It lists company after company and how much money they made in Australia. Its an interesting historical document. But that's not what I mean when I ask the question, who owns Australia?
No company thinks that it owns Australia, not even business believes in owns Australia, they may expect things but they do not claim ownership. But there is an organisation that does believe that it owns Australia and that is the Australian Government. That it is the supreme authority. However there are problems with that idea and that problem can be summed up in a short phrase, the Australian people.
The Australian people own Australia, not the Australian Government and here's why. Government, all Government, is a state of trusteeship. Its role is to keep the country running, to reconcile the past, the present and the future and to guarantee to the best of its ability that the country has a future. To protect it and to provide the authority to serve the Nation.
What got me to ask the question was not the book I mentioned, as I had asked the question before I saw the book, in fact thats one of the reasons I bought the book. But because of immigration. I read an article by Peter Brimelow, the editor of http://www.vdare.com/ and in one post he wrote that both the American Democratic and Republican Parties were Parties of treason. And I instantly knew he was right. I had not thought that way before, but now I do. Of course his criticize is just as true around the Western world, including Australia. Our Liberal and Labor parties are also Parties of treason.
Now some people will say thats ridiculous, immigration has always been a part of Australia's history. True, up to a point, immigration was predominately from Britain, to Australia, in other words from one British country to another British country. There were exceptions but thats what they remained exceptions. But then it was decided to allow non-British people to immigrate to Australia in large numbers. To change the ethnic composition of the Nation. But what right does a mere political party have to do such a thing?
It can do such a thing if it believes that it, through forming the Government, owns Australia. But it breaks the covenant between the Government and the people, between the Nation and the State. The Parliament of Australia is the supreme law making authority within Australia. Except when the Constitution is involved, then only the Australian people have the authority to change it. But the ethnic composition is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor has Parliament ever really addressed the issue. It has simply changed immigration laws and the number of immigrates at its own discretion. But the Government exists not to create its own reality, to change things about as it sees fit. It must at all times be loyal to the people, the Nation. Immigration of non-British people into Australia was not loyal and the political parties know this because they have never allowed the issue to be put to a Plebiscite or a Referendum. Never has an election been fought over the issue because both major parties support mass immigration.
They continue to act as if they own Australia, but they do not, nor does the Parliament have the right to change the composition of the Nation. It does not have the right to change the ethnic, racial or religious composition of the Nation. The Parties of Treason need to be stopped before there is no Nation!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Who Wins When Liberalism Wins?
No company thinks that it owns Australia, not even business believes in owns Australia, they may expect things but they do not claim ownership. But there is an organisation that does believe that it owns Australia and that is the Australian Government. That it is the supreme authority. However there are problems with that idea and that problem can be summed up in a short phrase, the Australian people.
The Australian people own Australia, not the Australian Government and here's why. Government, all Government, is a state of trusteeship. Its role is to keep the country running, to reconcile the past, the present and the future and to guarantee to the best of its ability that the country has a future. To protect it and to provide the authority to serve the Nation.
What got me to ask the question was not the book I mentioned, as I had asked the question before I saw the book, in fact thats one of the reasons I bought the book. But because of immigration. I read an article by Peter Brimelow, the editor of http://www.vdare.com/ and in one post he wrote that both the American Democratic and Republican Parties were Parties of treason. And I instantly knew he was right. I had not thought that way before, but now I do. Of course his criticize is just as true around the Western world, including Australia. Our Liberal and Labor parties are also Parties of treason.
Now some people will say thats ridiculous, immigration has always been a part of Australia's history. True, up to a point, immigration was predominately from Britain, to Australia, in other words from one British country to another British country. There were exceptions but thats what they remained exceptions. But then it was decided to allow non-British people to immigrate to Australia in large numbers. To change the ethnic composition of the Nation. But what right does a mere political party have to do such a thing?
It can do such a thing if it believes that it, through forming the Government, owns Australia. But it breaks the covenant between the Government and the people, between the Nation and the State. The Parliament of Australia is the supreme law making authority within Australia. Except when the Constitution is involved, then only the Australian people have the authority to change it. But the ethnic composition is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor has Parliament ever really addressed the issue. It has simply changed immigration laws and the number of immigrates at its own discretion. But the Government exists not to create its own reality, to change things about as it sees fit. It must at all times be loyal to the people, the Nation. Immigration of non-British people into Australia was not loyal and the political parties know this because they have never allowed the issue to be put to a Plebiscite or a Referendum. Never has an election been fought over the issue because both major parties support mass immigration.
They continue to act as if they own Australia, but they do not, nor does the Parliament have the right to change the composition of the Nation. It does not have the right to change the ethnic, racial or religious composition of the Nation. The Parties of Treason need to be stopped before there is no Nation!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Who Wins When Liberalism Wins?