The Liberal Party is always Liberal

In Australia the two major political parties are the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is always referred to as a Conservative party, not only by it's opponents but by it's supporters as well. As should be obvious considering the name is that it is no such thing.

The Liberal Party is often referred to as a broad church, and it is where Conservative and Classical Liberal thought both reside together, from the 1960's you can include Right-Liberals. But seriously, what do Conservatism and Liberalism, Classical or Right Liberalism have in common?

I'll tell you what we share in common, common enemies. We both oppose Communism, Fascism and Socialism. But when I look at the Liberal Party I don't see much Conservatism. In fact when I look at the founder of the party Sir Robert Menzies, I don't find a Conservative but a Classical Liberal. In his book "Afternoon Delights" he wrote Chapter Twelve "The revival of Liberalism in Australia" on page 286

"We took the name "Liberal" because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise, and rejecting the Socialist panacea."

As the man said Liberal, but certainly not Conservative.

Recently we have had a change of leadership within the Liberal Party, from the "Conservative" Tony Abbot to the Liberal Malcolm Turnbull. Whats of particular interest and shows how broad the Liberal Party church is, Mr. Abbot was leader of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and Mr. Turnbull was leader of the Australian Republican Movement, at the same time. Then under Prime Minister Howard they both served as Ministers in the same Cabinet. It's not so much a broad church as an open air meeting!

This change of leadership has meant that Australia has a new Prime Minister, Mr. Turnbull is loved by the media, because as nearly everyone agrees, he would make a great leader of the Labor Party. But that might give the wrong impression of Mr. Abbot, who is always described as a Conservative and it's true he is more Conservative than Mr. Turnbull. But lets have a look at some of the things Prime Minister Abbot supported. He supported the Monarchy and he reintroduced Knighthoods. He said he would get rid of 18C, a section of law whereby you cannot offend people. But didn't. Apart from stopping illegal immigration by sea, something all sensible people are against, he did nothing to end either multiculturalism or mass immigration. Like all Politicians he talked big about creating jobs, but there are still something like 700,000 unemployed, around the same number as when he started. He created free trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China. Now one of the big selling points to all free trade agreements is that they will create jobs, how come we have 700,000 unemployed?

But my biggest gripe is that Conservative Prime Minister Abbot was a Feminist. Something he was never given credit for, but have a look at this list. His Chief of Staff was a women, and quite a controversial one, he often talked about how bad domestic violence was and wanted more laws introduced to combat it, he wanted a maternal leave scheme that would have benefited those who quite frankly didn't need the Governments money and he saw more women in the workforce than ever before. Wow what an amazing Conservative!

Or maybe we should call him what he always was, a Liberal.

Now everyone agrees that Prime Minister Turnbull is a Liberal, he wants a Republic, he supports homosexual marriage (something Mr. Abbot opposed, even with a Lesbian sister), he is a believer in Climate Change, in fact he supports all the fashionable causes. And the majority of Federal Liberal Parliamentarians voted for this man to be there leader and by default Australia's leader.

Conservative, no    

Liberal, yes

Because the Liberal Party is always Liberal and it always will be.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage

Oz Conservative is Back!!!

Only four days ago I wrote that I was unaware of when Mark Richardson would be returning with Oz Conservative, well today I find it's back!

The Prodigal Son has returned and apart from saying some nice things about me, he also has an article on the loopy thinking we see all around us. Find out what The Biggest Threat To Your Daughter is!

Mr. Richardson is a Master in analyzing the social and the political together, if you've read him before you'll know what I mean, if you haven't do yourself a favour and check him out.

Welcome back Sir you have been missed!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Futrure

3rd October 2015, Melbourne Traditionalists Meeting

In two weeks some of us interesting in Traditional Conservatism in Melbourne will be meeting up. If your in Melbourne and you are both interested in Traditional Conservatism and in attending please send me an email.

uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com

Things keep moving in the world and if we are ever going to move it in the direction that we want we need to organise. And the first part of that is meeting up in real life. The Internet has it's advantages but it also has it's disadvantages, one of which is it feels like your doing more than you really are. Only real people meeting up with other people can hope to change things in any way. If you live in or near Melbourne and you can meet up, please contact me.

If you live somewhere else do everything you can to make contact with other Traditional Conservatives and to get organised!

Here are the Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles.


Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Conservative Future

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: The Conservative Approach

Recently Refugees and Asylum Seekers have been much in the news with the terms being much abused in the process. I thought it might be of interest to look at some realistic options and some unrealistic options for the future.

First of all we need to define what a refugee is, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

" The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." "

It goes on to say:

" But refugees and migrants, even if they often travel in the same way, are fundamentally different, and for that reason are treated very differently under modern international law.

Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom. They have no protection from their own state - indeed it is often their own government that is threatening to persecute them. "

So in short a refugee is someone with a genuine reason to fear for their life and who believes that they must flee their own country in order to live. Are the people we are currently seeing on our TV screens refugees?

No, a refugee cannot country shop, under International law they have a right to safety but not much else. It is not a crime to seek asylum, however it is a crime to break the law, even immigration law and not only is criminal behavour being allowed it is being encouraged. When a country refuses to enforce it's own laws it seems a bit ridiculous to expect others to obey it.

So what can be done?

Here we have two separate issues:

1) Refugees fleeing from genuine danger

&

2) Economic migrants fleeing economic disaster

Each require different approaches.

1) Refugees

The vast majority of refugees want to return to the life they had, in their own country amongst their own people. And that should be our objective as well. Only in the most extreme cases should that principle be violated.

A.We should endeavour to keep people as close to their own country as possible.

B. We should encourage countries with similar ethnic, racial or religious beliefs to accept as many temporary or permanent refugees as possible. Even if we have to help them financially.

C. Only when it is impossible for refugees to return to their own country should permanent settlement be an option.

D. Any Refugees allowed in should be temporary, with a long period, 25 years, before they can claim Permanent Residence or Citizenship.

2. Economic Migrants

Any Migrant who breaks the law, including immigration law should be deported. Only those who arrive legally as part of an orderly immigration policy should be allowed to stay, all others have broken the law and should be deported. Including those who have already arrived illegally.

If the West exists on the Principle of the Rule of Law, then it applies to our Governments and to all equally, Native born, Immigrant, Refugee and Economic Migrant. If we are the only ones who the Government expects to obey the Rule of Law then the Government is on the side of injustice.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration II

The Thirtieth Month

Another milestone in the life of Upon Hope, thirty months, thats two and a half years, since I wrote my first post and counting. Recently I haven't been posting as often as I would have liked, I know my constant refrain, but in my defence I do keep posting. A small mercy I know.

Last month I had over 2300 views and just as I did for the eighteenth month I will list the top 10 articles on the site. Here is the Top 10 clicked on articles, I'll include the total number of times the articles has been clicked on in brackets.

(2405) What do Traditional Conservatives believe?

(2040) Free Trade Versus Protectionism

(1823) Why Don't the Poor Marry?

(1371) Why do Conservatives Believe in Different Social Classes?

(1159) Feminism, Why We Are Not Feminists

(806) The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination

(794) What is More Important, the Past, the Present or the Future

(580) The Loneliness Epidemic

(467) The Balanced Society

(454) Multiculturalism, the Conclusion

My worst day this month was the 28th August with 30 visitors, my best day was the 23rd August with 107 visitors. In the Thirty months this blog has been up and running I have had over 22, 000 American, over 8,000 Australians and more than 2,000 British visitors!

11th August-11th September

Entry	Pageviews
United States	951
Australia	260
Indonesia	101
Germany	82
France	65
India	53
United Kingdom	42
Canada	32
Netherlands	24
Romania	24

11th July-11th August

Entry	Pageviews
United States	833
Australia	342
Russia	164
United Kingdom	156
Canada	52
Germany	36
India	36
Indonesia	35
Netherlands	32
France	28

The United State is heading back in the right direction, as are Germany France and India. Indonesia is also doing quite well.

Unfortunately Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands all down, some by a quite a bit.

Russia which was very high is gone from the top 10 and Romania is back in.

I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, U.A.E., India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, Zambia, Namibia, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Venezuela, 

I look forward to seeing you again.

Mark Moncrieff

Transgenderism and Liberalism

Recently we have all been witness to a massive push in favour of Transgenderism. The idea that we can change our sex and that it is really nothing to be worried about at all. To many people and nearly all Conservatives this is mystifying. How can something so radical in it's effect be portrayed as something benign. But to Liberalism this is all logical.

Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that each person is completely free to make their own choices in life. To choose their own religion, to choose their own partner, their own career, their own homeland, their own identity. And that when any of that doesn't work out, for whatever reason, to be able to discard of it, any part of it without any consequences. But there remained some things that Liberalism couldn't change, primarily race and sex. But they found ways around both of these, not perfect ways but still ways. For race they encourage interracial relationships and bi-racial children. For sex they encourage Transgenderism.

First let me explain the difference between sex and gender. Sex is biology, you and in fact all mammals are born either male or female. Gender, until the 1950's referred to either masculine or feminine words within a language. Or to a plants sex. In the 1950's it was proposed that gender be used instead of sex because while sex was static, you were either a male or a female. Gender was changeable, flexible. While sex was biological, gender was a social construct, able to be changed, manipulable. Gender is not a neutral word, but is instead a political word, a Liberal word.

The first sex change operation took place in Germany in 1930, although it is possible that was only the first time it was publicly known. Now of course it is called gender reassignment. You may notice that there is not only a change of words between "sex change operation" and "gender reassignment", but a change in philosophy. An operation is a medical procedure, reassignment is a choice.

But Liberalism doesn't force people to be Transgender, instead there exist people who believe that they are males who should be female, or females who believe they should be male. Liberalism simply uses these people to support it's own ideas and beliefs. It pushes a harmful idea, the idea that people are perfectible. That people are the best judge of whats best for them, in all circumstances and that we all need to go along with it.

People with Transgenderism are suffering, how can believing that your entire body is wrong be anything but mental anguish. They need care, they deserve our sympathy but they do not deserve our complicity. They have been sold a lie, the same lie given to the married. That if you are unhappy all you need to do is to change your circumstances. If you are married and you are unhappy, become unmarried and be happy again. But as far to many Divorcees have found, divorce is not the road to happiness, it is simply changing one set of problems for a new set of problems, sometimes you don't even get to be rid of the old problems. The Transgendered are told that if they change sex they too can be happy, they can escape what ales them and that they can finally be happy. But that is not how life works. That is not how life works for anyone and it is wrong to think that it does. There is not a person alive who has not suffered and there never will be. Suffering is a part of life, not all of life and I sincerely hope not most of life, but it is a real part of life.

Remember that this push for Trangender rights is a logical extension of Liberalism. It is not really about the Transgendered or about their rights, they are simply weapons and if in the future they need to be abandoned they will be. What is important is that all traditional ties be destroyed so that people can be free of all attachments. This is the end goal of Liberalism and Transgendering is just one of the weapons they use to try and make this happen.

Upon Hope Blog- A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like
Anarchy and Libertarianism
   

Patriotism Versus Nationalism

Today is National Flag Day in Australia, if you've never heard of it don't feel too bad, practically no one has. Australia had a public competition to choose it's national flag and on the 3rd of September 1901 the winning flag from the national flag competition was flown for the first time. It seems a fitting day to talk about Patriotism and Nationalism.

Often these two ideas are used interchangeably, as if the difference between them are slight or non existent. However when you look into it you find that the two are quite different. One is a feeling, the other a belief. One is ancient, even timeless, the other is modern. One is about love, the other more conflicted.

Patriotism is ancient, both Greeks and Persian were patriotic and many others besides, they had a love of country and of their own people. Patriotism is exactly that, a love of your own country. It is a higher emotion because it is selfless, your country cannot love you back, the love is all one way. It may be critical or uncritical, but it is never selfish because all Patriots understand that true love of country involves sacrifice. Because at all times Patriotism is a duty, a duty to a higher cause, the cause of your own people. Not just your family and friends but all of those who are your people. The greater and more diverse your people are the less Patriotic feeling is aroused.  The more homogeneous the people the easier it is to generate patriotic feeling. Patriotism may or may not be about love of Government, but it is always the love of the people. Of their customs, of their culture, of their history and of their survival.

You can still be a Patriot and betray the Government, but you cannot be a Patriot if you betray the people. Legally Treason can only be committed against a Government. But all true Patriots know that the Government exists for the benefit of the people, not the other way around.

Nationalism however is different, it is not ancient, instead it is a by production of the French Revolution. During the Enlightenment, many sort a way of limiting the influence of religion upon society. One great power that the Catholic Church had was it's wide reach, It crossed borders and was outside of many laws, as were it's members. Many resented this, they wanted the Church to not be a Supranational institution, but to be a national institution. One that was both controllable by national laws and at the same time a symbol of the nation, like the Church of England was in England. For others Religion was wrong, Popes, Cardinals and Priests shouldn't exist, But both believed that spiritual life wasn't as important as this life. And in this life nations are important, very important.

Patriotism and Religion have rarely clashed as they saw each other as complementary, dealing with different but related areas of life. Nationalism however saw Religion as a rival because it sort to replace Religion, to make the Nation-State the object of worship and dedication. Nationalism was in it's beginning a Liberal philosophy. It was about freedom, the freedom of the nation from any outside authority. Especially that of the Catholic Church!

Nationalism was about freeing the nation from it's own feudal past, freeing it from foreign rulers, which included freedom from religious authority. Sadly Nationalism was as much about hate as it was about love. About rejecting the nations heritage, about rejecting it's traditional bonds and obligations. Instead all of those things were to be cut away to make room for the new and improved nation. It fed on resentments and fears. I will give you two examples from my lifetime. The Irish Republican Army is Nationalist, I have never heard it talk about how much it loves Ireland, I have however heard it talk about how much it hates England. In a similar vane are the various Palestinian groups, never have I heard them shout "Life to Palestine", but I have heard them yell "Death to Israel". You might argue that their causes are just and that they are right to feel angry, hatred and bitterness. But you would find it much harder to argue that they hold these positions because they love their own people.Any love they feel is more than overshadowed by the hate that they feel.

I know a fair number of Nationalists and most of them are good people. Most of the time we share similar views. But the truth is I am not a Nationalist, I am a Conservative, I am a Patriot.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Different Shades of Liberalism