Winston Churchill famously said to the British House of Commons on the 11th November 1947 "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" Interesting the sentence before reads "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise". But actually I believe he is wrong on this point, if you criticize Democracy you will find that many do consider it perfect and all wise. I'm not ordinarily a critic of Democracy as I do tend to agree with Churchill's first quote. But Democracy does have a number of problems and I am going to list some of them here.
Social and Economic Leveling
The spread of the idea of Equality
The tyranny of the Majority
The tyranny of the Party system
Who is really in Charge?
Bribery of the Electorate
Anyone can be the Leader.....even You!
Democracy says that everyone is equal and that everyone should get to decide who governs them, but we do not have the Democracy of Ancient Greece, even though ours is inspired by it. We do not have Direct Democracy, instead we have Representative Democracy. We do not vote on issues or policies in most cases, in most cases we vote for someone to represent us. To represent our views and our interests. We do not get to make many decisions our self, instead nearly all Government decisions are made for us, in that respect Democracy is no different to any other political philosophy. Lets now look at each of the problems individually.
Social and Economic Leveling
One man, one vote was how Democracy was once described. And indeed it is presented as a good thing that each vote has exactly the same power, only one vote for each voter. But what that means is every wiseman and every fool gets the same vote, every informed voter and every ignorant voter gets the same vote, every sober voter and every drunk voter gets the same vote. It is a massive force for social and economic leveling.
The spread of the Idea of Equality
If each vote is exactly the same, then each vote is equal. That is how it is presented, but in practice it doesn't quite work that way. For complex electoral reasons some voters in some areas are much more important than others. For example someone who always votes for the same party is rarely as important as a swinging voter. For it is really the swinging voter who decides most elections, not the loyal voter. But of course the idea that everyone is equal, that everyone is the same is there at all times. That no matter who the voter is they are like every other voter, no matter what divides them.
The Tyranny of the Majority
This has been called the Dictatorship of the 51%. If 51 % of the electorate votes in favour of something than it must be good, if they vote against it it must be bad. This has a certain logic to it when it is an absolute majority, but when you start to see such tiny victories you do wonder at the logic of it. For example in any US Presidential election, only something like 30-40% of voters actually vote for the man who becomes President. Because voting isn't compulsory it means that a minority gets to decide who becomes President. A Tyranny of the Minority.
The Tyranny of the Party System
When modern Democracy first came into being each electorate voted for someone to represent them in Parliament, a local who would present their side of any argument. No Parties existed as we know them. Only loose groupings of people that believed in more or less similar things, but there was little organisation or discipline. In the early 1800's that started to change and political parties as we would know them began to appear. They brought with them, organisation, discipline, money and agendas. something missing from earlier groupings. It detached the local Member of Parliament from his community and attached him to a new group based not on location, but on ideology. Over time ideology and money replaced all other considerations. I'm not saying that earlier Parliamentarians didn't have political beliefs or that they were above money, neither of those things are true. But everything was tempered by their connection and in most cases having to live after they retired from Parliament in their local community. Today a Parliamentarian, at least theoretically, doesn't even have to visit their electorate, let alone retire there. Today the Parties provide that support. What the Party wants is much more important than what the electorate wants. Today the electorate gets to pay for what the Party wants.
Who is really in Charge?
President Lincoln said "By the people and for the people", but if the people are in charge why did they need a President? If the President is in charge what are the people there for? In a Democracy who is in charge? Is it God? The Head of State? The Head of Government? The Parliament? The Courts? The People? To answer this the idea of the separation of powers came about. It's not a bad idea, in fact I quite like it. But it still doesn't answer the question, who's in charge?
Bribery of the Electorate
This is quite a big problem and getting bigger. If a Politician gave you cash, you'd be more than likely outraged. "Does he think he can bribe me!". But the reality is that Democracy is all about bribing people, not individuals, but entire groups of people all at once. The best thing of about bribery in a Democracy is that it isn't the Politicians money, it's the voters money. Higher wages, tax cuts, welfare are all great areas for bribery, because it seems like it is about doing good. Hey maybe some good will be done, but often it's about making sure the right people get the right incentive to vote the right way. It makes Democracy sound seedy, I wish I could say that it wasn't so but it is. And most people know it, it's why most people don't like Politicians, they know there is something not quite right about them. Some have even worked out that much of the time they are bribing you with your own money.
Anyone can be the Leader....even You!
This is the greatest of all the conceits of Democracy, that you too can be in charge. Democracy's wonderful, anyone can be Prime Minister or President. Of course when you have a closer look at who does get those jobs you find that they tend to have things in common with each other that stop you from ever getting the job. The idea that you can be in charge is an ego boost, it makes it feel, like if I made a few small changes I could be there too. The Leader of my Country and I are so alike, I could be him with a few small changes. But it's a lie, it takes quite a bit to become the Leader, dedication, ambition, ruthlessness, even skill. It's quite an exacting business and most fall, but it's not always a case of survival of the fittest, it's often a case of everyone else tripped and I'm the only one left. But the idea that often in politics the Leader is the most ruthless, or the most dull, everyone interesting got knocked out, is one we find a little uncomfortable thinking about.
So with all of the problems of Democracy should we replace it? To be honest I don't know what there is to replace it with, either better or worse. Of course that doesn't mean it cannot be replaced, I just don't see a better idea. Democracy certainly has it's flaws and I find much to criticize. I do not believe it it is destined to survive, it must constantly prove itself and I believe it's biggest enemies are the political parties that are like vampires sucking the life out of it. It is not immortal, it can die. And if it does die, what then?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Loneliness Epidemic
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Sunday, 26 July 2015
Immigration and Forced Consent
"We are a nation of immigrants", have you ever heard this argument? Of course you have, but it is a pro-rape argument. Let me explain. By this argument once you have had sex you can never stop having sex, even if you object. Once a nation has accepted an immigrant, it must do so forever, whether the native born consent or not. What's it called when your forced to have sex against your will? Rape. What's it called when your forced to accept immigration against your will? The Governments immigration policy.
The question of consent is only important when the the immigrant is involved. The immigrant choose to come here, so that gives them to Liberals, of both the Left and the Right a special status that the native born doesn't have. But let me turn immigration policy on it's head, let us say that no one wants to come here, so the only way we can get immigrants is to steal them, to launch military style raids upon other countries to kidnap their people. Once here they are free to go about their lives, but of course after going to all that trouble to get them here we aren't going to let them leave are we? Of course not!
In this situation everyone can see that immigration is forced, there is no consent. Of course it is possible that some will come to see it as a good thing that they could start a new life in a new land, even if they were forced. But that wouldn't change the fact that they were forced.
The native born, however have not consented to immigration, no where has an election, referendum or plebiscite concerning immigration been held. N,o it has not been the people who have consented because, their consent has never been sort or asked for. It is the Parliaments, the activists and the Bureaucracy that make the decisions and the rest of us who are left to sort it out. Without our consent.
The transformation of our societies, the idea that any random person is just as good as the native born is not equality, it is blatant discrimination against the native born. Never asked, never consulted, called Nazi, Fascist or Racist when we dare to complain, that is when we aren't ignored. And the whole time we are told how great and important our Democracy is. How can ignoring the people be Democratic? How can replacing the people be Democratic? How can importing new voters be Democratic?
They are all a mockery of Democracy!
Today, no one is a greater enemy of our freedoms and of Democracy than our own Parliaments.
That is to say nothing of how it attackers workers, of how it makes jobs hard to obtain and keep. My nephew was denied a job because he couldn't speak Mandarin, in Australia. But that's legal, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the immigrant, so instead our Governments discriminate against the native born. Whenever a dispute arises between immigrants and the native born we all know who is supposed to give up their way. And it ain't the immigrant.
Here we get the Liberal ideal, the artificial community, where by any person can come or go as they please. But of course like so much that Liberalism supports it is a mockery of what a real community is. A real community is organic, arising from generations of shared experiences. A community does not consist of fair weather friends who can leave at any moment. But Liberalism always supports the artificial over the organic, the natural.
I have never consented to mass immigration, nor did my Parents or my Grandparents, neither did yours. This is all taking place against our will, without our consent. Even those who approve of what is going on have never consented, for them it is simply a happy happenstance. For the rest of us, we are living a nightmare where by our own Government and it's institutions replace us. I do not consent and I never will!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Too Much is Never Enough
The question of consent is only important when the the immigrant is involved. The immigrant choose to come here, so that gives them to Liberals, of both the Left and the Right a special status that the native born doesn't have. But let me turn immigration policy on it's head, let us say that no one wants to come here, so the only way we can get immigrants is to steal them, to launch military style raids upon other countries to kidnap their people. Once here they are free to go about their lives, but of course after going to all that trouble to get them here we aren't going to let them leave are we? Of course not!
In this situation everyone can see that immigration is forced, there is no consent. Of course it is possible that some will come to see it as a good thing that they could start a new life in a new land, even if they were forced. But that wouldn't change the fact that they were forced.
The native born, however have not consented to immigration, no where has an election, referendum or plebiscite concerning immigration been held. N,o it has not been the people who have consented because, their consent has never been sort or asked for. It is the Parliaments, the activists and the Bureaucracy that make the decisions and the rest of us who are left to sort it out. Without our consent.
The transformation of our societies, the idea that any random person is just as good as the native born is not equality, it is blatant discrimination against the native born. Never asked, never consulted, called Nazi, Fascist or Racist when we dare to complain, that is when we aren't ignored. And the whole time we are told how great and important our Democracy is. How can ignoring the people be Democratic? How can replacing the people be Democratic? How can importing new voters be Democratic?
They are all a mockery of Democracy!
Today, no one is a greater enemy of our freedoms and of Democracy than our own Parliaments.
That is to say nothing of how it attackers workers, of how it makes jobs hard to obtain and keep. My nephew was denied a job because he couldn't speak Mandarin, in Australia. But that's legal, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the immigrant, so instead our Governments discriminate against the native born. Whenever a dispute arises between immigrants and the native born we all know who is supposed to give up their way. And it ain't the immigrant.
Here we get the Liberal ideal, the artificial community, where by any person can come or go as they please. But of course like so much that Liberalism supports it is a mockery of what a real community is. A real community is organic, arising from generations of shared experiences. A community does not consist of fair weather friends who can leave at any moment. But Liberalism always supports the artificial over the organic, the natural.
I have never consented to mass immigration, nor did my Parents or my Grandparents, neither did yours. This is all taking place against our will, without our consent. Even those who approve of what is going on have never consented, for them it is simply a happy happenstance. For the rest of us, we are living a nightmare where by our own Government and it's institutions replace us. I do not consent and I never will!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Too Much is Never Enough
Monday, 20 July 2015
3rd August 2015 Melbourne Traditionalists Meeting
In two weeks time the next Melbourne Traditionalists meeting will take place. If you are in Melbourne Australia and you are interested in attending and in Traditional Conservatism then send me an email and I will send you the details.
If your not in Melbourne Australia you should be trying to make contact with other Traditional Conservatives. Only by meeting up and providing mutual support can we hope to advance our cause. It is becoming more and more urgent, mass immigration, the destruction of the family and marriage, the destruction of our traditions and heritage, the atomization of society. There is much to oppose, there is much to fight against, but we need to get organised.
The Greek debt crisis will in time simply be "The Debt Crisis", Liberalism needs money to survive, it can get away with much of it's craziness because it makes the economy run. It makes the economy run by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It cannot continue, so it will not. But when Liberalism stumbles what will move into it's place? Unless we get organised it sure won't be us!
To contact me:
uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com
For our Guiding Principles.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
If your not in Melbourne Australia you should be trying to make contact with other Traditional Conservatives. Only by meeting up and providing mutual support can we hope to advance our cause. It is becoming more and more urgent, mass immigration, the destruction of the family and marriage, the destruction of our traditions and heritage, the atomization of society. There is much to oppose, there is much to fight against, but we need to get organised.
The Greek debt crisis will in time simply be "The Debt Crisis", Liberalism needs money to survive, it can get away with much of it's craziness because it makes the economy run. It makes the economy run by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It cannot continue, so it will not. But when Liberalism stumbles what will move into it's place? Unless we get organised it sure won't be us!
To contact me:
uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com
For our Guiding Principles.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Thursday, 16 July 2015
Reclaim Australia Rally's - This Weekend
This weekend is the Second Reclaim Australia Rally, I attended the first rally on the 4th April, some of you may remember that I wrote about it, Report from the Melbourne reclaim Australia rally. Unfortunately, and despite my best efforts I have to work this Saturday so I will be unable to attend the rally. However I do want to say that I continue to support the rallies and that I am very disappointed that I cannot be there. To anyone who will be close to a rally this weekend, I encourage you to attend and give your support.
Here are some points to remember about attending
It has recently been very cold and wet across Australia and this weekend should be no exception. So make sure your dressed for both the cold and the wet as you might be outside for quite some time.
The Left will be out in force, particularly in Melbourne, be prepared. Mostly it will be the same old rubbish about us being Nazi's and Racists. Remember to them everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi and anyone who doesn't believe in destroying White Australia is a Racist.
The Left will try and block the way in to the rally, if possible record what they do and let your friends and family know how they treat ordinary Australians going about their lawful business.
The Police will be passive if past rallies are any guide, although I imagine there will be large numbers in attendance. If given instructions by Police obey them. When things get hard they will instruct the Reclaim Australia people to end the rally, then they will move the Reclaim Australia people off first. Leaving the Left with possession of the field. Remember the rally is not against the Police, but record anytime they let the Left get away with anything.
If you are not happy with the Police make a formal complaint: http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=11933
Dress decently and behave respectably, but don't put up with rubbish. If you have patriotic clothing or a Flag by all means take it along if you want. The Left may try to snatch Flags away from people, particularly from women, so be ware.
Some people on the Right seem to think that being the most extreme is the best, just like some on the Left. It should go without saying but I will do so anyway, do not wear anything that has Nazi symbols, you would think this would be obvious but it seems not to some people. If you do see people wearing, or who have Swastika tattoos that they refuse to cover up, try to keep away from them.
Nearly all of those who protest on the Left are young men, that is not true of the Reclaim Australia people, there will be teenagers, there will be old people and there will be women. Look out for them!!
Don't let anything I have said discourage you from going, we need to fight back, we need to Reclaim Australia.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Should Conservatives be Optimistic?
Here are some points to remember about attending
It has recently been very cold and wet across Australia and this weekend should be no exception. So make sure your dressed for both the cold and the wet as you might be outside for quite some time.
The Left will be out in force, particularly in Melbourne, be prepared. Mostly it will be the same old rubbish about us being Nazi's and Racists. Remember to them everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi and anyone who doesn't believe in destroying White Australia is a Racist.
The Left will try and block the way in to the rally, if possible record what they do and let your friends and family know how they treat ordinary Australians going about their lawful business.
The Police will be passive if past rallies are any guide, although I imagine there will be large numbers in attendance. If given instructions by Police obey them. When things get hard they will instruct the Reclaim Australia people to end the rally, then they will move the Reclaim Australia people off first. Leaving the Left with possession of the field. Remember the rally is not against the Police, but record anytime they let the Left get away with anything.
If you are not happy with the Police make a formal complaint: http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=11933
Dress decently and behave respectably, but don't put up with rubbish. If you have patriotic clothing or a Flag by all means take it along if you want. The Left may try to snatch Flags away from people, particularly from women, so be ware.
Some people on the Right seem to think that being the most extreme is the best, just like some on the Left. It should go without saying but I will do so anyway, do not wear anything that has Nazi symbols, you would think this would be obvious but it seems not to some people. If you do see people wearing, or who have Swastika tattoos that they refuse to cover up, try to keep away from them.
Nearly all of those who protest on the Left are young men, that is not true of the Reclaim Australia people, there will be teenagers, there will be old people and there will be women. Look out for them!!
Don't let anything I have said discourage you from going, we need to fight back, we need to Reclaim Australia.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Should Conservatives be Optimistic?
Saturday, 11 July 2015
The Twenty-Eighth Month
Another good month, with my irregular postings, better than I could of hoped for, luckily. My weird work shifts continue, but I'll keep soldiering on. I have started to realise how much Blogger changes over time. I have never changed my font but at different times the font has changed. I also notice that the seven most recent articles are still displayed on the front page, which seems excessive and stops me from keeping a more accurate count of how many people read each post. I'll have to think about what I want to do about this, if anything.
My best day this month was the 14th June when I had exactly 300 visitors, my worst day was the 21st June when I only had 47, but still that is the only day this month that has been under 50. I'm happy about that.
11th June-11th July
11th May-11th June
The United Kingdom is up, as are Germany, the Ukraine and India. Greece is new to the top 10.
The United States is basically the same.
Australia, Russia, Canada and France are all down and South Korea is out of the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., China, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Jamaica, Brazil.
I hope to see you again.
Mark Moncrieff
My best day this month was the 14th June when I had exactly 300 visitors, my worst day was the 21st June when I only had 47, but still that is the only day this month that has been under 50. I'm happy about that.
11th June-11th July
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1042
|
Australia
|
268
|
Russia
|
76
|
Germany
|
75
|
United Kingdom
|
75
|
India
|
54
|
Greece
|
49
|
Ukraine
|
45
|
Canada
|
42
|
France
|
37
|
11th May-11th June
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1040
|
Australia
|
281
|
South Korea
|
206
|
Russia
|
82
|
United Kingdom
|
66
|
Canada
|
50
|
France
|
45
|
India
|
39
|
Germany
|
37
|
Ukraine
|
35
|
The United Kingdom is up, as are Germany, the Ukraine and India. Greece is new to the top 10.
The United States is basically the same.
Australia, Russia, Canada and France are all down and South Korea is out of the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., China, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Jamaica, Brazil.
I hope to see you again.
Mark Moncrieff
Thursday, 9 July 2015
Why Civic Patriotism is Wrong
Civic Patriotism is the idea that as long as someone chooses to join our National life, that they obey our laws and sincerely attempt to fit in then they are as much an Australian, or Canadian or German as someone who was born there. In the United States it is also known as the "propositional nation". Unfortunately there are a number of problems with this idea.
In Australia I have heard Australians refer to it as "meat pies and Football", a stereotypical Australian likes meat pies and football, a stereotype that's true. So if an immigrant also like meat pies and football he's just as Australian as anyone born here. But what happens if meat pies and football become unpopular? Or if someone born in Australia doesn't like meat pies and football? Does that mean neither of them are Australians? The problem is that meat pies and football are simply random items and what they symbolize here is that being Australian means nothing. Like a meat pie, being Australian is manufactured.
Why would an Australian be so eager to destroy their own ethnicity? In a word, pride. To know that someone came from another country and has tried to become one us, shows how tolerant we are, how open and accepting, how great our country is become others want to share it with us. But what happens when people arrive who aren't that interested in our ways, but who wish to keep their own ways? Well Civic Patriotism seems to embrace these people as well. They are go-getters, they're the type of people we want in this country, they want a better life, in time they will be part of us.
Not a thought in the world about their fellow Australians who need those jobs, not a thought in the world for their fellow Australians who need to get ahead. No those things have been reserved for immigrants. The Civic Patriots, aren't that interested in their fellow Australians as they don't make them feel proud. Their fellow Australians are an obligation, a burden.
Of course the Civic Patriot will one day find that a fair number of those who he supported coming here will also be a burden. That tends to divide them, some realise that Civic Patriotism is a dead end street. But others push on, telling their fellow Australians that they are not accepting enough, that they need to embrace more diversity, more is better, only racism stops them from integrating. No amount of ethnic tensions, no amount of terrorism, no amount of crime seems enough they remain true to their ideal. That meat pies and football can create the best nation on Earth, that it can create a Multicultural utopia right here in Australia.
And all they have to do to create this utopia is destroy White Australia, reduce us to a minority, while pretending that we have all of the power. They went from being friendly to newcomers to betraying their own family all in the name of pride. When the immigrant population was small Civic Patriotism made some sense, now that it is threatening to destroy us as a people, it's treason.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Homes not Houses
In Australia I have heard Australians refer to it as "meat pies and Football", a stereotypical Australian likes meat pies and football, a stereotype that's true. So if an immigrant also like meat pies and football he's just as Australian as anyone born here. But what happens if meat pies and football become unpopular? Or if someone born in Australia doesn't like meat pies and football? Does that mean neither of them are Australians? The problem is that meat pies and football are simply random items and what they symbolize here is that being Australian means nothing. Like a meat pie, being Australian is manufactured.
Why would an Australian be so eager to destroy their own ethnicity? In a word, pride. To know that someone came from another country and has tried to become one us, shows how tolerant we are, how open and accepting, how great our country is become others want to share it with us. But what happens when people arrive who aren't that interested in our ways, but who wish to keep their own ways? Well Civic Patriotism seems to embrace these people as well. They are go-getters, they're the type of people we want in this country, they want a better life, in time they will be part of us.
Not a thought in the world about their fellow Australians who need those jobs, not a thought in the world for their fellow Australians who need to get ahead. No those things have been reserved for immigrants. The Civic Patriots, aren't that interested in their fellow Australians as they don't make them feel proud. Their fellow Australians are an obligation, a burden.
Of course the Civic Patriot will one day find that a fair number of those who he supported coming here will also be a burden. That tends to divide them, some realise that Civic Patriotism is a dead end street. But others push on, telling their fellow Australians that they are not accepting enough, that they need to embrace more diversity, more is better, only racism stops them from integrating. No amount of ethnic tensions, no amount of terrorism, no amount of crime seems enough they remain true to their ideal. That meat pies and football can create the best nation on Earth, that it can create a Multicultural utopia right here in Australia.
And all they have to do to create this utopia is destroy White Australia, reduce us to a minority, while pretending that we have all of the power. They went from being friendly to newcomers to betraying their own family all in the name of pride. When the immigrant population was small Civic Patriotism made some sense, now that it is threatening to destroy us as a people, it's treason.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Homes not Houses
Sunday, 5 July 2015
Liberalism and the Slippery Slope
Liberalism is extremely patient, it has to be as if people saw too clearly what it wanted they would reject it. So it moves slowly, sometimes extremely slowly. So certain are they in their views that they accept that Liberalism is inevitable. That the complete Liberal society is put together just like a jigsaw puzzle, piece by piece. It has taken centuries to get to this point and no one knows how much longer it will take, but Liberals believe it is inevitable.
Conservatives call the idea that things are build in stages "The Slippery Slope", that one thing leads to another. But when Liberals hear the slippery slope argument they passionately deny it, they call it the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". A major problem with this idea is that the entire history of Liberalism is the story of the slippery slope. Each idea is used as a platform to advance the next idea. Often the argument used is that we cannot stop half way, we must complete whatever has been started. Liberals refer to everything they do as a reform. We still call it the slippery slope.
The denial of the slippery slope argument reveals how Liberals fight. They either genuinely cannot see the consequences of what they want or they simply lie. They know full well the consequences but are completely disingenouos denying that there is any further point beyond this. They are what I call the 15 year old Liberal. They are not people of the future or of the past, they exist only in the present, so therefore they cannot protect either the past or the future, because they use both to advance their agenda now, in the present. And to do that they either lie or they remain ignorant of the consequences. Remember their argument is "there won't be any consequences and if there are they'll be good consequences", completing failing to understand that no consequences and good consequences are not the same thing at all.
Let us look at Homosexual marriage as an example of the slippery slope. There are two arguments that make Homosexual marriage irresistible to Liberalism. 1. Everyone is equal and 2. no fault divorce, because both are steps towards creating the autonomous individual. Liberals believe that the autonomous individual is the ideal, that a large Government and numerous autonomous individuals will be in a word, Utopia, the perfect society. Now of course we don't live in the perfect society, something Liberals agree with us about. But to create autonomous individuals all those things that define people, that bind people must be destroyed. Marriage binds people, so does family, no fault divorce is one step on the road to creating autonomous individuals. People who are not bonded to another person, but someone who may find they need a larger and stronger Government to survive, because they are now without other forms of support.
Liberals are also very heavily into the idea of equality, that there are either no real differences between people, or that there should not be any real differences between people. But here in the real world equality doesn't really exist, because people are different. We are unique individuals and therefore we cannot be equal, true equality is an impossibility. But even when Liberals accept this they still believe that there is a nobility in the struggle to create an equal world. Maybe, but the struggle to make everyone equal is an exercise in Leveling, in reducing every person and making them the same. Indistinguishable from each other. By saying, even believing, that any random person can marry, that any random person can raise children, they are Leveling each and every one of us. They are saying that there is nothing unique about us, we are all equal.
But of course they didn't arrive at this point in one fall swoop, no they went one step at a time. They argued that a person shouldn't be judged by the colour of their skin, that men and women were equal, that homosexuals are no different to someone who is heterosexual. Whether those things are true or untrue is unimportant right now, what is important is that each step allowed the next step. That once you accept one of these things it becomes increasing illogical to deny the next step. The next step becomes inevitable, no matter how you feel about the issue now, in time logic will dictate that you must take the next step. Some people are not logical and are able to advance one step and no further, most people do follow the logical course and end up supporting the next step, even when they say they never will.
Marriage is no different, once we accept that marriage was dissolvable then it set in step the next step. Logically that wasn't homosexual marriage, but it was inevitable that in time there would be another "reform" to marriage. Remember it isn't homosexuality that Liberals support, it is the destruction of marriage that they support. Many people support homosexual marriage because they believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equal. Liberals care more that this weakens marriage. And that is why they will support further marriage "reforms". They will claim it is because of equality. No matter how wrong their belief they always claim to be doing it for a noble cause. The next logical step is Group marriage, they will trot out all the arguments about how each individual should decide for themselves, they will show us happy wives and ask them about their sex life, they will talk about how a group marriage is a community and that Conservatives should support both marriage and community. But I know that if I marry 15 women, there are 14 men out there who can never marry. 14 more autonomous individuals. The more destruction the happier those Liberals get. So when they deny the Slippery Slope, always know that they are wrong.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Unified Liberalism
Conservatives call the idea that things are build in stages "The Slippery Slope", that one thing leads to another. But when Liberals hear the slippery slope argument they passionately deny it, they call it the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". A major problem with this idea is that the entire history of Liberalism is the story of the slippery slope. Each idea is used as a platform to advance the next idea. Often the argument used is that we cannot stop half way, we must complete whatever has been started. Liberals refer to everything they do as a reform. We still call it the slippery slope.
The denial of the slippery slope argument reveals how Liberals fight. They either genuinely cannot see the consequences of what they want or they simply lie. They know full well the consequences but are completely disingenouos denying that there is any further point beyond this. They are what I call the 15 year old Liberal. They are not people of the future or of the past, they exist only in the present, so therefore they cannot protect either the past or the future, because they use both to advance their agenda now, in the present. And to do that they either lie or they remain ignorant of the consequences. Remember their argument is "there won't be any consequences and if there are they'll be good consequences", completing failing to understand that no consequences and good consequences are not the same thing at all.
Let us look at Homosexual marriage as an example of the slippery slope. There are two arguments that make Homosexual marriage irresistible to Liberalism. 1. Everyone is equal and 2. no fault divorce, because both are steps towards creating the autonomous individual. Liberals believe that the autonomous individual is the ideal, that a large Government and numerous autonomous individuals will be in a word, Utopia, the perfect society. Now of course we don't live in the perfect society, something Liberals agree with us about. But to create autonomous individuals all those things that define people, that bind people must be destroyed. Marriage binds people, so does family, no fault divorce is one step on the road to creating autonomous individuals. People who are not bonded to another person, but someone who may find they need a larger and stronger Government to survive, because they are now without other forms of support.
Liberals are also very heavily into the idea of equality, that there are either no real differences between people, or that there should not be any real differences between people. But here in the real world equality doesn't really exist, because people are different. We are unique individuals and therefore we cannot be equal, true equality is an impossibility. But even when Liberals accept this they still believe that there is a nobility in the struggle to create an equal world. Maybe, but the struggle to make everyone equal is an exercise in Leveling, in reducing every person and making them the same. Indistinguishable from each other. By saying, even believing, that any random person can marry, that any random person can raise children, they are Leveling each and every one of us. They are saying that there is nothing unique about us, we are all equal.
But of course they didn't arrive at this point in one fall swoop, no they went one step at a time. They argued that a person shouldn't be judged by the colour of their skin, that men and women were equal, that homosexuals are no different to someone who is heterosexual. Whether those things are true or untrue is unimportant right now, what is important is that each step allowed the next step. That once you accept one of these things it becomes increasing illogical to deny the next step. The next step becomes inevitable, no matter how you feel about the issue now, in time logic will dictate that you must take the next step. Some people are not logical and are able to advance one step and no further, most people do follow the logical course and end up supporting the next step, even when they say they never will.
Marriage is no different, once we accept that marriage was dissolvable then it set in step the next step. Logically that wasn't homosexual marriage, but it was inevitable that in time there would be another "reform" to marriage. Remember it isn't homosexuality that Liberals support, it is the destruction of marriage that they support. Many people support homosexual marriage because they believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equal. Liberals care more that this weakens marriage. And that is why they will support further marriage "reforms". They will claim it is because of equality. No matter how wrong their belief they always claim to be doing it for a noble cause. The next logical step is Group marriage, they will trot out all the arguments about how each individual should decide for themselves, they will show us happy wives and ask them about their sex life, they will talk about how a group marriage is a community and that Conservatives should support both marriage and community. But I know that if I marry 15 women, there are 14 men out there who can never marry. 14 more autonomous individuals. The more destruction the happier those Liberals get. So when they deny the Slippery Slope, always know that they are wrong.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Unified Liberalism