In the last 50 years the Family has gone from strong to weak, from being the bedrock of society to being seen by many as just one of many options in life.(The Family Versus Liberalism) The destruction of the Family continues today and will continue into the future. The way that it has been destroyed is an interesting look at how Liberalism operates in practice.
First of all Liberalism pushed the idea of personal liberty, your you're own person, you can do as you want, don't let anyone tell you what to do. Not your parents, not your teachers or your church, don't obey the law if you feel it is unjust. Do as you want, do as you feel because that is what makes you free. When people try to bring you back into the fold they are oppressors and Fascists, you cannot let people like that run your life, be free, don't allow them to restrict you. Coupled with this was a very old idea that made a comeback in the 1960's, that idea was Free-Love. Which is not about love at all but about lust. This idea is much older and has a spotty history with Liberalism. But under Left Liberalism it became official. Today we live in a Free-Love society.
Along with that went the idea that marriage should not be a sexual prison, people within marriage should be free to express themselves. If someone committed adultery they shouldn't be punished, it was a problem between two people, only those within the marriage could have any problem. It was not something that society, the church or the Government should have any say in. Of course that rewarded the adulterer and punished the innocent party. But if marriage is not to remain a sexual prison then that is the price that must be paid.
Liberalism has talked about equality since the 1830's, that people were all the same under the skin and that nothing really divide's the Human race. In line with that came Feminism, it was roughly the same again as Equality within Liberalism. But it really came into it's own under the patronage of Left Liberalism. As a part of Identity Politics it was perfect, it helped break up the natural bond between men and women by saying to women "You know all the things in life that upset you? Well they're the fault of men and we can fix them!" Fix the problems or fix men, Feminism likes to be a bit ambiguous on this point. But it did nothing to encourage men and women to be caring and supportive of each other. Instead Feminism encouraged women to become Bachelors
Allied to Feminism was another form of Identity Politics, Gay Liberation. Or as we Conservatives call it the Homosexual Agenda. What was so destructive about the Homosexual Agenda was the idea that there was nothing normal. Everything was normal, everything was natural, everything should be allowed and once it is allowed it becomes endorsed and supported. It was not homosexuality itself that was so much the problem as the ideas that came attached to it. The idea that everything is normal is very destructive.
At around the same time Governments began to provide financial support for women who became pregnant out of wedlock. This encouraged women to be promiscuous, it discouraged marriage because if a women married she would lose her benefits, it stopped men from being proper fathers as poor men cannot compete with the resources of the Government and this lack of stability has an impact upon men, women and children. While it provides short term relief, it causes long term problems. (How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage)
But the most damaging of all was No Fault Divorce. The rest might have faded away over time but No Fault Divorce is the plague that just keeps on giving. The idea was that people trapped in a loveless or harmful marriage should be able to divorce, okay maybe thats right, maybe they should be able to. But No Fault Divorce goes that step further and says it might be embarrassing for people to have to admit why they want a divorce so it is better if we ask no questions and just grant the divorce. Before this if someone wanted a divorce they needed a good reason, but now any reason would do. So instead of people trying to make their marriage work because they had too, they now could get divorced. It destroyed marriages, it destroyed families, it destroyed lives and it still does. But maybe worst of all is that it destroys the idea that marriage is permanent, that marriage is a real commitment. It destroys the idea that marriage is forever.
And this list is only those things that the Left Liberals brought to bare, it doesn't include the economic consequences of Mass Immigration or Free-Trade. The Family is under threat, the very idea of the Family is under threat. People have grown so used to the way the world is today that they think things are normal. But nothing about these times is normal. We need to remember that and to let others know, we need to wake people up.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article /you Might Like?
The Paradox of Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
Thursday, 31 December 2015
Friday, 25 December 2015
The Family Versus Liberalism
The Liberal attitude to the family has changed over time. Classical Liberalism was supportive of the family, in practice if hostile in theory. But modern Liberalism is hostile in both practice and theory. Why did this change?
Classical Liberalism was hostile to the family in theory, it believed in liberty over tradition, it believed that Priests, Kings and Fathers had too much power and they did much to reduce the power of all three. They believed in equality, they liberalised divorce laws, gave women property rights and extended the electoral franchise, first the Middle class, then the Working class and then Women. They sort to destroy the old world of certainty and to create one of opportunity. But at the same time they were very Socially Conservative. Religion played a big part, both for those who were devout and for those who saw religion as a tradition. They saw marriage as the logical and as the moral place for men and women to congregate. They rejected such Radical ideas as Free Love, Polygamy or Group Marriage. They believed in marriage being between one man and one women for life, except in extreme circumstances.
Furthermore they were big supporters of privacy, in the doctrine that a mans home was his castle. That the law had to have a valid reason to enter the home. And Liberal law was very strict in this regard. It was proof of their strong commitment to property law and to personal liberty.
But what should be obvious is that much of these ideas were at cross purposes, in Lawrence Austers phrase, they were Unprincipled Exceptions. An Unprincipled Exception is where Liberalism proclaims a grand idea, usually a Universal idea and then decides that their are exceptions to their universal idea, exceptions that are entirely unprincipled. So they simultaneously support the institution of marriage and reducing the power of Fathers, the granting of divorce and giving women property rights, which came at the expense of these womens Fathers and Husbands.
Around 1900, Liberalism moved into a new phase, Socialism, which ironically came into being as a reaction and as a rejection of Liberalism, came to be very influential within Liberalism. In fact it worked both ways. Liberalism came to influence Socialism, just as Socialism came to influence Liberalism. But this Socialist Liberalism was still Socially Conservative. It was primarily in economic matters that things changed and while society was slowly becoming less religious the older standards still stood. Marriage was regarded as an institution, one that didn't need any reforming.
That all changed with the death of Classical Liberalism in the 1950's. Once the idea of Class Warfare entered Liberalism from Communism then everything started to change. Within Communism, Class Warfare says that there are two kinds of classes, the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class. You are either in one class or the other class, there are no neutral people, everyone is either oppressed or the oppressor. And Class Warfare is perpetual, it never ends until true Communism arrives. Class Warfare destroys both the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class and results, according to Communist theory at least, in a Classless Society.
Once this idea entered Liberalism, Liberalism split and the part we are interested in here is Left or Social Liberalism. Because it is upon this part that this idea fell. Within Liberalism, Class Warfare came to be known under many different names, but behind each one is this core idea. It was known as Civil Rights, Womens Rights, Indigenous Rights, Gay Rights. What has come to be called Identity Politics. In each case a coherent argument could and was made that these were not Radical causes they were simply a plea to give Liberal freedoms to people who had unfairly been denied that freedom. But Liberalism believes something that Communism doesn't. Communism believes that there is only so much power to go round, something Conservatives agree with. However Liberalism believes that power is unlimited. So a Communist understands that if one man has power that power has to come from somewhere, it came at someone elses expense, and because their belief in Class Warfare they approve of that. Liberalism believes that if one man has power then he has joined everyone else who has power. Power has a magical ability to be unlimited.
With that in mind, giving power to groups who believe they have been denied power is expanding the amount of people who are free and have power. Liberalism see's this as a great advance, as all positive and no negative. But sadly as a Conservative I think the Communists are right (I bet that sentence has never been written before!). That power is limited and that if you give it to one group you must take it from another. That is most obvious when you look at what Women as a Class have obtained, it has come at the expense of Men as a Class. It has never been portrayed that way, it is always portrayed as all good, but taking away a man's ability to gain employment and promotion has serious consequences, for men, for women and for society. But Liberalism ignores all of these things, because it believes in the Individual and not in Society.
Left Liberalism is no longer Socially Conservative and Right Liberalism even denies that there is such a thing as Society. The Family is something they do not respect or believe to be important. The idea of preparing for the future has left them as they can see their perfect society coming into form. It is an illusion, they think that the destruction of Society, of the Family will lead to a Classless Society. A World without Racism or Discrimination, they believe that such a world is close. But without the Family there can be no future.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Did Business Turn Against Family?
Classical Liberalism was hostile to the family in theory, it believed in liberty over tradition, it believed that Priests, Kings and Fathers had too much power and they did much to reduce the power of all three. They believed in equality, they liberalised divorce laws, gave women property rights and extended the electoral franchise, first the Middle class, then the Working class and then Women. They sort to destroy the old world of certainty and to create one of opportunity. But at the same time they were very Socially Conservative. Religion played a big part, both for those who were devout and for those who saw religion as a tradition. They saw marriage as the logical and as the moral place for men and women to congregate. They rejected such Radical ideas as Free Love, Polygamy or Group Marriage. They believed in marriage being between one man and one women for life, except in extreme circumstances.
Furthermore they were big supporters of privacy, in the doctrine that a mans home was his castle. That the law had to have a valid reason to enter the home. And Liberal law was very strict in this regard. It was proof of their strong commitment to property law and to personal liberty.
But what should be obvious is that much of these ideas were at cross purposes, in Lawrence Austers phrase, they were Unprincipled Exceptions. An Unprincipled Exception is where Liberalism proclaims a grand idea, usually a Universal idea and then decides that their are exceptions to their universal idea, exceptions that are entirely unprincipled. So they simultaneously support the institution of marriage and reducing the power of Fathers, the granting of divorce and giving women property rights, which came at the expense of these womens Fathers and Husbands.
Around 1900, Liberalism moved into a new phase, Socialism, which ironically came into being as a reaction and as a rejection of Liberalism, came to be very influential within Liberalism. In fact it worked both ways. Liberalism came to influence Socialism, just as Socialism came to influence Liberalism. But this Socialist Liberalism was still Socially Conservative. It was primarily in economic matters that things changed and while society was slowly becoming less religious the older standards still stood. Marriage was regarded as an institution, one that didn't need any reforming.
That all changed with the death of Classical Liberalism in the 1950's. Once the idea of Class Warfare entered Liberalism from Communism then everything started to change. Within Communism, Class Warfare says that there are two kinds of classes, the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class. You are either in one class or the other class, there are no neutral people, everyone is either oppressed or the oppressor. And Class Warfare is perpetual, it never ends until true Communism arrives. Class Warfare destroys both the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class and results, according to Communist theory at least, in a Classless Society.
Once this idea entered Liberalism, Liberalism split and the part we are interested in here is Left or Social Liberalism. Because it is upon this part that this idea fell. Within Liberalism, Class Warfare came to be known under many different names, but behind each one is this core idea. It was known as Civil Rights, Womens Rights, Indigenous Rights, Gay Rights. What has come to be called Identity Politics. In each case a coherent argument could and was made that these were not Radical causes they were simply a plea to give Liberal freedoms to people who had unfairly been denied that freedom. But Liberalism believes something that Communism doesn't. Communism believes that there is only so much power to go round, something Conservatives agree with. However Liberalism believes that power is unlimited. So a Communist understands that if one man has power that power has to come from somewhere, it came at someone elses expense, and because their belief in Class Warfare they approve of that. Liberalism believes that if one man has power then he has joined everyone else who has power. Power has a magical ability to be unlimited.
With that in mind, giving power to groups who believe they have been denied power is expanding the amount of people who are free and have power. Liberalism see's this as a great advance, as all positive and no negative. But sadly as a Conservative I think the Communists are right (I bet that sentence has never been written before!). That power is limited and that if you give it to one group you must take it from another. That is most obvious when you look at what Women as a Class have obtained, it has come at the expense of Men as a Class. It has never been portrayed that way, it is always portrayed as all good, but taking away a man's ability to gain employment and promotion has serious consequences, for men, for women and for society. But Liberalism ignores all of these things, because it believes in the Individual and not in Society.
Left Liberalism is no longer Socially Conservative and Right Liberalism even denies that there is such a thing as Society. The Family is something they do not respect or believe to be important. The idea of preparing for the future has left them as they can see their perfect society coming into form. It is an illusion, they think that the destruction of Society, of the Family will lead to a Classless Society. A World without Racism or Discrimination, they believe that such a world is close. But without the Family there can be no future.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Did Business Turn Against Family?
Thursday, 17 December 2015
Was Ronald Reagan a Conservative?
Ronald Reagan was a movie actor, Governor of California and most famously the 40th President of the United States. His policies helped end the Soviet Union and the Cold War, historically he is a very important man. But my question is, was he a Conservative?
The short answer is no.
But you probably want the long answer.
When Ronald Reagan was an actor he was a Liberal, very Liberal. He supported many of the fashionable Leftist causes of the 1930's. He supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, he supported civil rights, he was a stock standard Liberal. Although he was very Patriotic, in 1937 he became a Reserve Army Officer and served during WWII, first in the Cavalry and from May 1942 in the Army Air Force. He never served overseas due to his poor eyesight, instead he made movies, mostly training films for the Armed Forces.
Between 1941 and 1959 he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild 7 times, the only US President to have be a member of a Union. It was during this time that he started to become more conservative or maybe as many Liberals complained they didn't change but their party did. In fact he often said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. They left me.". Certainly during this time the Democratic Party was changing. But three things drove Ronald Reagan from being a Democrat to becoming a Republican.
The first was a strike in the late 1940's when he saw violence on the picket lines and Communist organisers organising it. He may have been Liberal but he was never a Communist or a fellow traveler.
The second was the huge tax bill's that he paid during the 1950's. The 1950's were a time of large Government expenditure and unlike today were we have large Government expenditure and low tax and high debt, back then it was paid for by tax. As much as 90% income tax, which meant that he sometimes didn't work because he didn't make enough money. It showed him that Socialism didn't work and turned him against high taxes.
The third was his becoming the spokesmen for General Electric, in the 1950's Businessmen were much more Conservative than now. They believed in free enterprise, they were patriotic and they were socially Conservative. As he spent more time with General Electric he came to see that they shared much more in common than he had first thought. It was his involvement with General Electric that lead to his political career.
In 1964 he support Barry Goldwater, another Conservative who was always a Classical Liberal, for the Presidency. His campaigning for Mr. Goldwater saw him recruited to be the Republican candidate for Governor of California. In 1966 he won the election, he supported the death penalty, but only used it once as there were legal problems with the California Supreme Court. He was very anti-Hippy and he was against the welfare state. I should also add that he was very much in favour of the war in Vietnam, unlike most who started by supporting the war and turned against it, he never changed his mind in private or in public.
However he also legalised abortion and no fault divorce. In fact he was the first Governor to do either. He later said that he regretted making abortion legal and that he was inexperienced as a Governor when he signed it into law, if he had been given the law later on in his career he wouldn't have signed it.
He also let his personal feelings get in the way by passing into law No Fault Divorce. He is the only President to have ever been divorced. Before No Fault Divorce you had to prove to a Judge that there was a valid reason for the divorce and he found it humiliating. So he thought it would be better if you did not need to show a reason in court. He also came to regret this decision.
In 1980, on his third attempt he became the Republican nominee for President of the United States and of course he won. He was very good on Foreign policy, mostly. He stood up to the Soviets, he built up America defence, he invaded Grenada and stopped it from becoming a smaller Cuba. He set out to win the Cold War, something every other President had decided was too dangerous, and he did.
On the flip side his policy in Lebanon resulted in the US Marines seeing their worst single day since Iwo Jima in WWII. It was so bad it was really a non-policy. He allowed Pakistan too much room and we are still paying for that today. It wasn't the US who armed the Islamist's in Afghanistan but Pakistan, with Americas money.
On the economic front his policies defeated inflation, the great destroyer of wealth and living standards. In the 1970's it seemed unbeatable, so his achievement was great.
However he also supported Free Trade and trade liberalization, he supported Wall Street over Main Street and he never balanced a budget. He left America with a massive debt.
Now in time of war it is acceptable for a Government to get into debt, even massive debt. The Cold War was a war and President Reagan used debt as a weapon to help defeat Communism. He believed, correctly, that the Soviet Union as a country that had a Socialist economy simply could not find the money to build up it's military, particularly in technology. He outspent the Soviets and bankrupted them. It was a brilliant strategy, to use money to destroy Communism. And if during the past 25 years the US Government had paid off that debt, America would be unbeatable, however it has gone into ever greater amounts of debt.
But his greatest mistake as President was the Immigration Amnesty of 1986, or to give it it's proper name the Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986. The idea was that an amnesty would be signed to make illegal Immigrants legal and in return to make Congress enforce the law more vigorously. The Act did legalise the illegal Immigrants, but it did not lead to more vigorous enforcement of the law. It was a total victory for the left. After he left office President Reagan said it had been a mistake and he regretted it. But how could he not know that rewarding illegal activity is wrong? He not only rewarded it but he praised it to the skies when he signed it into law at Ellis Island.
Now lets get back to whether President Reagan was a Conservative, here are the five criteria for a Conservative:
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to your own People
5. Loyal to your own Heritage
Now lets look at each.
He legalised Abortion and No Fault Divorce, Socially Conservative, No!
He got America into massive debt and he never balanced a budget, or even tried too, Fiscally Conservative, No!
He saw Wall Street replace Main Street, the financial economy replace the real economy and he approved of it. He supported trade liberalization over American manufacturing, Economically Conservative, No!
He granted Amnesty and rewarded illegal activity and America has paid a massive price for that. He did nothing to stop legal Immigration. Was he loyal to his own People, No!.
Was he loyal to his own Heritage, Yes!
No Conservative could ever support No Fault Divorce or Abortion on demand, there may be arguments for either in limited circumstances but never as a right. These are Liberal ideas and he made them law, Ronald Reagan was a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative, but as the modern meaning of Conservative seems to mean "not a Socialist"", he was called a Conservative and even believed he was one. But he was not and we should not keep calling him one.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism Just Another Branch of Liberalism II
The short answer is no.
But you probably want the long answer.
When Ronald Reagan was an actor he was a Liberal, very Liberal. He supported many of the fashionable Leftist causes of the 1930's. He supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, he supported civil rights, he was a stock standard Liberal. Although he was very Patriotic, in 1937 he became a Reserve Army Officer and served during WWII, first in the Cavalry and from May 1942 in the Army Air Force. He never served overseas due to his poor eyesight, instead he made movies, mostly training films for the Armed Forces.
Between 1941 and 1959 he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild 7 times, the only US President to have be a member of a Union. It was during this time that he started to become more conservative or maybe as many Liberals complained they didn't change but their party did. In fact he often said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. They left me.". Certainly during this time the Democratic Party was changing. But three things drove Ronald Reagan from being a Democrat to becoming a Republican.
The first was a strike in the late 1940's when he saw violence on the picket lines and Communist organisers organising it. He may have been Liberal but he was never a Communist or a fellow traveler.
The second was the huge tax bill's that he paid during the 1950's. The 1950's were a time of large Government expenditure and unlike today were we have large Government expenditure and low tax and high debt, back then it was paid for by tax. As much as 90% income tax, which meant that he sometimes didn't work because he didn't make enough money. It showed him that Socialism didn't work and turned him against high taxes.
The third was his becoming the spokesmen for General Electric, in the 1950's Businessmen were much more Conservative than now. They believed in free enterprise, they were patriotic and they were socially Conservative. As he spent more time with General Electric he came to see that they shared much more in common than he had first thought. It was his involvement with General Electric that lead to his political career.
In 1964 he support Barry Goldwater, another Conservative who was always a Classical Liberal, for the Presidency. His campaigning for Mr. Goldwater saw him recruited to be the Republican candidate for Governor of California. In 1966 he won the election, he supported the death penalty, but only used it once as there were legal problems with the California Supreme Court. He was very anti-Hippy and he was against the welfare state. I should also add that he was very much in favour of the war in Vietnam, unlike most who started by supporting the war and turned against it, he never changed his mind in private or in public.
However he also legalised abortion and no fault divorce. In fact he was the first Governor to do either. He later said that he regretted making abortion legal and that he was inexperienced as a Governor when he signed it into law, if he had been given the law later on in his career he wouldn't have signed it.
He also let his personal feelings get in the way by passing into law No Fault Divorce. He is the only President to have ever been divorced. Before No Fault Divorce you had to prove to a Judge that there was a valid reason for the divorce and he found it humiliating. So he thought it would be better if you did not need to show a reason in court. He also came to regret this decision.
In 1980, on his third attempt he became the Republican nominee for President of the United States and of course he won. He was very good on Foreign policy, mostly. He stood up to the Soviets, he built up America defence, he invaded Grenada and stopped it from becoming a smaller Cuba. He set out to win the Cold War, something every other President had decided was too dangerous, and he did.
On the flip side his policy in Lebanon resulted in the US Marines seeing their worst single day since Iwo Jima in WWII. It was so bad it was really a non-policy. He allowed Pakistan too much room and we are still paying for that today. It wasn't the US who armed the Islamist's in Afghanistan but Pakistan, with Americas money.
On the economic front his policies defeated inflation, the great destroyer of wealth and living standards. In the 1970's it seemed unbeatable, so his achievement was great.
However he also supported Free Trade and trade liberalization, he supported Wall Street over Main Street and he never balanced a budget. He left America with a massive debt.
Now in time of war it is acceptable for a Government to get into debt, even massive debt. The Cold War was a war and President Reagan used debt as a weapon to help defeat Communism. He believed, correctly, that the Soviet Union as a country that had a Socialist economy simply could not find the money to build up it's military, particularly in technology. He outspent the Soviets and bankrupted them. It was a brilliant strategy, to use money to destroy Communism. And if during the past 25 years the US Government had paid off that debt, America would be unbeatable, however it has gone into ever greater amounts of debt.
But his greatest mistake as President was the Immigration Amnesty of 1986, or to give it it's proper name the Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986. The idea was that an amnesty would be signed to make illegal Immigrants legal and in return to make Congress enforce the law more vigorously. The Act did legalise the illegal Immigrants, but it did not lead to more vigorous enforcement of the law. It was a total victory for the left. After he left office President Reagan said it had been a mistake and he regretted it. But how could he not know that rewarding illegal activity is wrong? He not only rewarded it but he praised it to the skies when he signed it into law at Ellis Island.
Now lets get back to whether President Reagan was a Conservative, here are the five criteria for a Conservative:
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to your own People
5. Loyal to your own Heritage
Now lets look at each.
He legalised Abortion and No Fault Divorce, Socially Conservative, No!
He got America into massive debt and he never balanced a budget, or even tried too, Fiscally Conservative, No!
He saw Wall Street replace Main Street, the financial economy replace the real economy and he approved of it. He supported trade liberalization over American manufacturing, Economically Conservative, No!
He granted Amnesty and rewarded illegal activity and America has paid a massive price for that. He did nothing to stop legal Immigration. Was he loyal to his own People, No!.
Was he loyal to his own Heritage, Yes!
No Conservative could ever support No Fault Divorce or Abortion on demand, there may be arguments for either in limited circumstances but never as a right. These are Liberal ideas and he made them law, Ronald Reagan was a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative, but as the modern meaning of Conservative seems to mean "not a Socialist"", he was called a Conservative and even believed he was one. But he was not and we should not keep calling him one.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism Just Another Branch of Liberalism II
Friday, 11 December 2015
The Thirty-Third Month
This has been a very good month for the blog, this has been my second best month ever!
What makes it even better is that to my knowledge I have not had any of my posts linked too by any other site. In the past my best months have been when I have been linked to by another site, so that is a big step in this blogs history.
The fates have been very kind to me as the number of posts I have done is low. I apologise for my lack of postings as I have been extremely busy with work. In late November I worked 88 hours in 7 days, this week I have 1 day off, today. I don't know what my future holds but somethings got to change, how dramatically I don't know.
My best month was March 2015 when I had 4523 visitors after The Thinking Housewife linked to a post I had written around 6 months earlier. This month, November 2015, I have had 2828 visitors, still a way to go before I beat the number one position, but I'm very happy to both beat second place and to do it myself with your help of course!
My best day was the 9th December when I had 232 visitors and my worst was the 2nd December when I had 41 visitors. This month I have only had 3 days under 50, a lot better than I deserved.
11th October-11th November
What makes it even better is that to my knowledge I have not had any of my posts linked too by any other site. In the past my best months have been when I have been linked to by another site, so that is a big step in this blogs history.
The fates have been very kind to me as the number of posts I have done is low. I apologise for my lack of postings as I have been extremely busy with work. In late November I worked 88 hours in 7 days, this week I have 1 day off, today. I don't know what my future holds but somethings got to change, how dramatically I don't know.
My best month was March 2015 when I had 4523 visitors after The Thinking Housewife linked to a post I had written around 6 months earlier. This month, November 2015, I have had 2828 visitors, still a way to go before I beat the number one position, but I'm very happy to both beat second place and to do it myself with your help of course!
My best day was the 9th December when I had 232 visitors and my worst was the 2nd December when I had 41 visitors. This month I have only had 3 days under 50, a lot better than I deserved.
11th October-11th November
Russia is nearly double, sometimes I get no one from Russia and then I get a big group as happened yesterday when I had 47 visitors from Russia.
France is also nearly double, it has been moving around the 100 mark for a few weeks now, moving over and the back down again.
The United Kingdom and Germany are up.
With the Ukraine and China coming back into the top 10.
The United States, Australia, Canada and India are all down, with the Netherlands and Romania leaving the top 10.
I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Greece, Belarus, Lithuania, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman, U.A.E., Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Tunisia, Kenya, New Zealand, Mexico, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Peru.
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Thursday, 3 December 2015
Should a Conservative Think Such a Thing?
In March 1918 during the First World War, the Germans launched an offensive that broke through the Western Front. The Allies convened a Conference to decide what to do. At the Conference French Prime Minister Clemenceau heard General Petain (the victor of Verdun, Marshal of France and leader of Vichy France in WWII) say "the Germans will beat the English in open country, then they'll beat us as well". Clemenceau would later tell this story to the French President, Poincare where he would ask the rhetorical question"surely a General should not speak or think like that?"
I often think of that quote, but I ask "surely a Conservative should not speak or think like that?"
Have you ever thought something along those lines?
How can someone be a Conservative or think they are a Conservative if they say or think that? It is one of the more frustrating parts of being a Conservative. Finding that people that you hoped really were Conservative aren't.
In Australia, like most of the world, very few journalists call themselves Conservatives, at least their honest for once. But one who does call himself Conservative is Andrew Bolt. Mr. Bolt is the most read columnist in Australia and has been for years, he also has a TV show called The Bolt Report. And on most issues he's quite good, sometimes I'm surprised by how good, but then he reveals his other side. The side where he supports civic patriotism and says race doesn't matter, such as when he opposed putting a foreword in the Australian Constitution, his argument was that it would introduce race into the document and divide Australians along racial lines. So he was on the right side but for the wrong reason. The reason Conservatives should oppose such a thing is that such a change to the Constitution will have unforeseen consequences, consequences that no one can see and that it is always better to be safe than sorry.He also supports soft feminism and free trade. Things that are not Conservative at all, What he is is a Classical Liberal.
In the November 2015 issue of Quadrant, in the article The Birth of a New Conservative Age by Peter Murphy, on page 13 we get this quote:
"...there is a spectrum of conservatives. There are free-market, classical liberal, libertarian, national security, anti-totalitarian, Christian, evangelical, reform, futurist and traditional conservatives".
Wow what a list!
So basically your a Conservative if your not a Socialist. Well that explains how the Liberal party of Australia can exist, and the British Conservatives and the American Republicans!
The absurdity of the list should be obvious but sadly isn't, how can a Liberal, classical or otherwise be a Conservative? How can a Libertarian be a Conservative? And what exactly is a reformist reforming? Just to point out the most obvious.
I would have thought that a Conservative should be well, Conservative, like nearly all the time, not some random percentage. If a Conservative doesn't fit this criteria just how Conservative are they?
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to it's own People
5. Loyal to it's own Heritage
When you hear a Conservative talk ask yourself if a Conservative should speak or think such a thing?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
I often think of that quote, but I ask "surely a Conservative should not speak or think like that?"
Have you ever thought something along those lines?
How can someone be a Conservative or think they are a Conservative if they say or think that? It is one of the more frustrating parts of being a Conservative. Finding that people that you hoped really were Conservative aren't.
In Australia, like most of the world, very few journalists call themselves Conservatives, at least their honest for once. But one who does call himself Conservative is Andrew Bolt. Mr. Bolt is the most read columnist in Australia and has been for years, he also has a TV show called The Bolt Report. And on most issues he's quite good, sometimes I'm surprised by how good, but then he reveals his other side. The side where he supports civic patriotism and says race doesn't matter, such as when he opposed putting a foreword in the Australian Constitution, his argument was that it would introduce race into the document and divide Australians along racial lines. So he was on the right side but for the wrong reason. The reason Conservatives should oppose such a thing is that such a change to the Constitution will have unforeseen consequences, consequences that no one can see and that it is always better to be safe than sorry.He also supports soft feminism and free trade. Things that are not Conservative at all, What he is is a Classical Liberal.
In the November 2015 issue of Quadrant, in the article The Birth of a New Conservative Age by Peter Murphy, on page 13 we get this quote:
"...there is a spectrum of conservatives. There are free-market, classical liberal, libertarian, national security, anti-totalitarian, Christian, evangelical, reform, futurist and traditional conservatives".
Wow what a list!
So basically your a Conservative if your not a Socialist. Well that explains how the Liberal party of Australia can exist, and the British Conservatives and the American Republicans!
The absurdity of the list should be obvious but sadly isn't, how can a Liberal, classical or otherwise be a Conservative? How can a Libertarian be a Conservative? And what exactly is a reformist reforming? Just to point out the most obvious.
I would have thought that a Conservative should be well, Conservative, like nearly all the time, not some random percentage. If a Conservative doesn't fit this criteria just how Conservative are they?
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to it's own People
5. Loyal to it's own Heritage
When you hear a Conservative talk ask yourself if a Conservative should speak or think such a thing?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
Friday, 27 November 2015
The Islamic World and our Common Problems
Recently when I have read a Liberal's idea of what to do about Islam, it always involves the idea of an Islamic Reformation. Which seems a strange thing to want, after all the Reformation brought centuries of war, hatred and bitterness to Christianity. What they really want is for Islam to become more Liberal. What they really want is a miracle.
The truth is that there is no Islamic Reformation on the horizon and everyone with any sense knows this. If anything Islam is heading the other way, towards a more traditional view of religion and we can thank Liberalism for a large part of that. The modern Islamic world has to a large degree given off a distorted view. It builds new modern buildings and gives the impression that it is westernizing, but much of that is window dressing. A show for us the outsiders and for the Muslim insiders. The truth is that the economies of much of the Islamic world simply doesn't exist. Instead of building a diverse economy, the Islamic world has come to rely on oil to produces it's wealth. And it does produce wealth. But it is also destroying any possible way out because it corrupts the Traditional rulers and it destroys any hope of leading a traditional life. It also destroys more westernized states, because it corrupts them as well. But the greatest corrupter of the Islamic world is the West, but I'll come back to that.
Islam was once one of the great Civilizations of the world, but it has been dying for centuries. It's greatest days were 1000 years ago, it's hard to think of any major or important advance or discovery that has been made in the Islamic world in the last 500 years. A century ago the Islamic world was stagnant. In the 20th century Oil took a stagnant culture and corrupted it because it gave massive amounts of wealth to people who never earned it. One little talked about fact is that nearly everything in the oil business is done by Foreigners, financing, exploration, planning infrastructure, building infrastructure, management, drilling and extracting oil, fire fighting, transportation and shipping are in many places done by Foreigners. In many places the local people, don't do this kind of work, but they get the benefit through cheap oil and social programs. For rulers and ruled, the wealth that comes from oil is like mana from heaven, like winning the lottery every day.
But just as failure causes problems so does success. For better or worse the traditional ways of life are dying out and in there place is a hybrid Islamic/Western culture. But modern Western life can be very alienating, add to this the problem of people having too much time on their hands and add to that a population that is over educated. Now many of these problems we in the West understand because we have them as well. But us Westerners don't have a way out, we are Westerners living the Western way. In the Islamic world one way of breaking out is Islam, because unlike the West which is overwhelmingly secular, the Islamic world is still overwhelmingly religious. When these people embrace Islam, they are also rejecting something, they are rejecting the West, the Liberal West, the Liberal vision.
For us in the West this leaves us with three large problems.
1) Islamic Immigration
The economies of the Islamic world are failing jobs, money and meaning are missing (there are exceptions, South East Asia for example) . Many are over educated, angry and frustrated and they look at the West and decide to emigrate. They look to build a new life, but they often find that the promised land is every bit as frustrating as the one they left behind. The culture is alien, nearly everything is strange and they seek comfort in the old ways. Now I'm not against Islamic immigration, I'm against all immigration, legal and illegal, Islamic and non-Islamic because a country should look after it's own people first and always.
2) Islamic Terrorism
Another path is to fight the West, to attack Liberalism. Some might think that as we are also opposed to Liberalism we have something in common, but we have no common cause with radical Islam. Radical Islam is as much our enemy as it is Liberalisms, just as Nazism and Communism were our common enemy. Radical Islam is a mad dog and you don't make peace with mad dogs, you shoot them. Classical Liberalism was capable of fighting our common enemies, modern Liberalism is very confused and it keeps hoping for that miracle I mentioned at the start, unfortunately for us I think they are unlikely, very unlikely to get it.
3) Nauru
Nauru is a tiny nation of 8000 people in the Pacific Ocean just above the Equator. It was first a Germany colony before Australia captured it in 1914 and it was one of Australia's very few colonies. In 1968 Nauru became independent and most people believed it had a wonderful future ahead of it. You see Nauru was rich, it had Phosphate, which is a fertilizer. It made Nauru rich and while the Phosphate was running out Nauru had a future fund, hundreds of millions of dollars which it would invest in foreign countries and live off of the interest. It was a good plan and most people thought it would work. But it failed and it failed because the people of Nauru had never earned this money, it was like mana from heaven, like winning the lottery every day. So they spent it like it was free money and now Nauru is not rich. This will be the fate of the oil rich countries and it will be a massive destabilizing factor that will effect us all.
Islamic immigration we can end, if we have the will, currently Liberalism wants the opposite. We can defeat Islamic terrorism, if we have the will, currently Liberalism does not have that will. Maybe it is possible to stop the Islamic world from becoming Nauru. The modern economic history of the Islamic world makes quite sad reading. Some will say they are not our problems, but they will be because they will affect us and that makes them our problem.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems of Monarchy
The truth is that there is no Islamic Reformation on the horizon and everyone with any sense knows this. If anything Islam is heading the other way, towards a more traditional view of religion and we can thank Liberalism for a large part of that. The modern Islamic world has to a large degree given off a distorted view. It builds new modern buildings and gives the impression that it is westernizing, but much of that is window dressing. A show for us the outsiders and for the Muslim insiders. The truth is that the economies of much of the Islamic world simply doesn't exist. Instead of building a diverse economy, the Islamic world has come to rely on oil to produces it's wealth. And it does produce wealth. But it is also destroying any possible way out because it corrupts the Traditional rulers and it destroys any hope of leading a traditional life. It also destroys more westernized states, because it corrupts them as well. But the greatest corrupter of the Islamic world is the West, but I'll come back to that.
Islam was once one of the great Civilizations of the world, but it has been dying for centuries. It's greatest days were 1000 years ago, it's hard to think of any major or important advance or discovery that has been made in the Islamic world in the last 500 years. A century ago the Islamic world was stagnant. In the 20th century Oil took a stagnant culture and corrupted it because it gave massive amounts of wealth to people who never earned it. One little talked about fact is that nearly everything in the oil business is done by Foreigners, financing, exploration, planning infrastructure, building infrastructure, management, drilling and extracting oil, fire fighting, transportation and shipping are in many places done by Foreigners. In many places the local people, don't do this kind of work, but they get the benefit through cheap oil and social programs. For rulers and ruled, the wealth that comes from oil is like mana from heaven, like winning the lottery every day.
But just as failure causes problems so does success. For better or worse the traditional ways of life are dying out and in there place is a hybrid Islamic/Western culture. But modern Western life can be very alienating, add to this the problem of people having too much time on their hands and add to that a population that is over educated. Now many of these problems we in the West understand because we have them as well. But us Westerners don't have a way out, we are Westerners living the Western way. In the Islamic world one way of breaking out is Islam, because unlike the West which is overwhelmingly secular, the Islamic world is still overwhelmingly religious. When these people embrace Islam, they are also rejecting something, they are rejecting the West, the Liberal West, the Liberal vision.
For us in the West this leaves us with three large problems.
1) Islamic Immigration
The economies of the Islamic world are failing jobs, money and meaning are missing (there are exceptions, South East Asia for example) . Many are over educated, angry and frustrated and they look at the West and decide to emigrate. They look to build a new life, but they often find that the promised land is every bit as frustrating as the one they left behind. The culture is alien, nearly everything is strange and they seek comfort in the old ways. Now I'm not against Islamic immigration, I'm against all immigration, legal and illegal, Islamic and non-Islamic because a country should look after it's own people first and always.
2) Islamic Terrorism
Another path is to fight the West, to attack Liberalism. Some might think that as we are also opposed to Liberalism we have something in common, but we have no common cause with radical Islam. Radical Islam is as much our enemy as it is Liberalisms, just as Nazism and Communism were our common enemy. Radical Islam is a mad dog and you don't make peace with mad dogs, you shoot them. Classical Liberalism was capable of fighting our common enemies, modern Liberalism is very confused and it keeps hoping for that miracle I mentioned at the start, unfortunately for us I think they are unlikely, very unlikely to get it.
3) Nauru
Nauru is a tiny nation of 8000 people in the Pacific Ocean just above the Equator. It was first a Germany colony before Australia captured it in 1914 and it was one of Australia's very few colonies. In 1968 Nauru became independent and most people believed it had a wonderful future ahead of it. You see Nauru was rich, it had Phosphate, which is a fertilizer. It made Nauru rich and while the Phosphate was running out Nauru had a future fund, hundreds of millions of dollars which it would invest in foreign countries and live off of the interest. It was a good plan and most people thought it would work. But it failed and it failed because the people of Nauru had never earned this money, it was like mana from heaven, like winning the lottery every day. So they spent it like it was free money and now Nauru is not rich. This will be the fate of the oil rich countries and it will be a massive destabilizing factor that will effect us all.
Islamic immigration we can end, if we have the will, currently Liberalism wants the opposite. We can defeat Islamic terrorism, if we have the will, currently Liberalism does not have that will. Maybe it is possible to stop the Islamic world from becoming Nauru. The modern economic history of the Islamic world makes quite sad reading. Some will say they are not our problems, but they will be because they will affect us and that makes them our problem.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems of Monarchy
Thursday, 19 November 2015
3rd December 2015, Melbourne Traditionalists Meeting
This is just a short post, but on the 3rd December the Melbourne Traditionalists will be meeting. If your in Melbourne, Australia and your interested in coming along send me an email. uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com
I'll be there, as will Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative. If this meeting is like past ones, you'll be in the company of people who see the world as you do. Something I think you'll agree is not an everyday event. So if your in the area and you have the time get in contact with me!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles
I'll be there, as will Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative. If this meeting is like past ones, you'll be in the company of people who see the world as you do. Something I think you'll agree is not an everyday event. So if your in the area and you have the time get in contact with me!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Hold Back This Day - A Book Review
Recent I read Hold Back This Day by Ward Kendall, this sci-fi novel is set on Earth nearly a century after the Unification of Earth under the rule of World Gov. World Gov believes in Racial equality, or to be more correct in the elimination of all races and the creation of one race. All peoples have been divided up into Skin Tone Classes, Pale White is Skin Tone 1, Blueish Black (where skin is so dark it gives off a faint blueish tinge) is Skin Tone 10. The ideal skin tone is Skin Tone 5 and World Gov works to create an entire World of Skin Tone 5's.
The main character is Jeff Huxton, a Skin Tone 1 Australian, who grew up in Australia Zone 5, as a racial minority with most people being a mix of White and Black African "blend". His first wife and his son are also a Skin Tone 1, but by the time the story starts she has been killed in a race riot. His second wife is primarily Asian and their daughter is closer to the ideal skin tone.
Jeff is a Teacher and he has had a successful career all things considered. At the start of the novel he arrives with his family in Africa to begin a new job as a Skoolplex Administrator. A High School Principle, but with additional duties, there is also a "Harmony Project", that helps people of the wrong skin tone to breed with others of the opposite but equally wrong skin tone. Jeff approves of this, he is a loyal and devoted servant of World Gov and it's ideals of making a better world through eliminating racial differences.
He also knows that he is living through the last days of the White race and that World Gov has not always done things nicely. But through it all he still believes in the greater good that World Gov proclaims and some of it's claims stand up. It ended war by unifying Earth and many are like Jeff believing that they are creating a better world. One of the things I liked was how the problems of World Gov are introduced little by little, it is very subtle and well done.
The novel is about Jeff's political and racial awakening, he knows right from the start that World Gov has secrets. And it is how many, maybe most people operate, being able to believe things that are mutually exclusive. I felt this was also well done. Piece by piece Jeff moves from loyal to disloyal, from dedicated to rebel. I found his journey quite convincing.
Sadly I did not find everything convincing, some of the terms strike me as strange, Multiculturalism is used, even though it is not World Gov policy and it seems quite old fashioned and out of place in the setting. Nayra also seemed out of place, I wouldn't say what it is as it is important to the plot but it struck me as silly. I also had a problem with Jeff's love interest later on, it just didn't seem realistic, she seemed like a plant and I was surprised when she wasn't. However he also received a surprise ally at the same time which I thought was a stroke of genius and a very good political point as well.
I also liked the ending, there is both a happy ending and a tragic ending and they both make sense, thats quite an achievement. Overall I liked this novel, it has it's faults but it also does what it sets out to do very nicely. It is well written and if your after a good read that makes you think then why not give Hold Back This Day a read.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, Just Another Branch of Liberalism I
The main character is Jeff Huxton, a Skin Tone 1 Australian, who grew up in Australia Zone 5, as a racial minority with most people being a mix of White and Black African "blend". His first wife and his son are also a Skin Tone 1, but by the time the story starts she has been killed in a race riot. His second wife is primarily Asian and their daughter is closer to the ideal skin tone.
Jeff is a Teacher and he has had a successful career all things considered. At the start of the novel he arrives with his family in Africa to begin a new job as a Skoolplex Administrator. A High School Principle, but with additional duties, there is also a "Harmony Project", that helps people of the wrong skin tone to breed with others of the opposite but equally wrong skin tone. Jeff approves of this, he is a loyal and devoted servant of World Gov and it's ideals of making a better world through eliminating racial differences.
He also knows that he is living through the last days of the White race and that World Gov has not always done things nicely. But through it all he still believes in the greater good that World Gov proclaims and some of it's claims stand up. It ended war by unifying Earth and many are like Jeff believing that they are creating a better world. One of the things I liked was how the problems of World Gov are introduced little by little, it is very subtle and well done.
The novel is about Jeff's political and racial awakening, he knows right from the start that World Gov has secrets. And it is how many, maybe most people operate, being able to believe things that are mutually exclusive. I felt this was also well done. Piece by piece Jeff moves from loyal to disloyal, from dedicated to rebel. I found his journey quite convincing.
Sadly I did not find everything convincing, some of the terms strike me as strange, Multiculturalism is used, even though it is not World Gov policy and it seems quite old fashioned and out of place in the setting. Nayra also seemed out of place, I wouldn't say what it is as it is important to the plot but it struck me as silly. I also had a problem with Jeff's love interest later on, it just didn't seem realistic, she seemed like a plant and I was surprised when she wasn't. However he also received a surprise ally at the same time which I thought was a stroke of genius and a very good political point as well.
I also liked the ending, there is both a happy ending and a tragic ending and they both make sense, thats quite an achievement. Overall I liked this novel, it has it's faults but it also does what it sets out to do very nicely. It is well written and if your after a good read that makes you think then why not give Hold Back This Day a read.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, Just Another Branch of Liberalism I
Thursday, 12 November 2015
The Thirty-Second Month
Well this has been a great month in terms of numbers, I've also been quite happy with what I've been writing. I've also been happy with the popularity of some of the posts and the comments, all of a high quality. Thank you!
I unlinked from the Sydneytrads as I had been unhappy for awhile about them not linking to me, when they did in the past, As I wrote in Loyalty, if your not on my side then you shouldn't expect me to be on yours. In a nutshell it's really as simple as that.
This month I had only two days below 50, the 14th October with 30 and the 22nd October with 40. My best day was 222 on the 1st November.
11th October-11th November
11th September-11th October
I unlinked from the Sydneytrads as I had been unhappy for awhile about them not linking to me, when they did in the past, As I wrote in Loyalty, if your not on my side then you shouldn't expect me to be on yours. In a nutshell it's really as simple as that.
This month I had only two days below 50, the 14th October with 30 and the 22nd October with 40. My best day was 222 on the 1st November.
11th October-11th November
11th September-11th October
The United States is doing quite well, as is Australia, I'm very happy with these numbers. Russia has come back out of nowhere. The United Kingdom is up as is Canada, India, France and the Netherlands.
Germany is way down, in fact it is the only country in the top 10 to have gone down. The Ukraine and New Zealand have both left the top 10.
I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Macedonia, Greece, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, U.A.E., Pakistan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Barbados, Brazil
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)