The End of Any Consensus

When I was in my twenties I thought something that I no longer believe. I believed that while I disagreed with others politically, basically we were still on the same side. But in truth I no longer believe that at all. Now I wonder was it a different time or was I just naive?

Actually I think both were true, the times were different. The 1990's were right after the Cold War. The Depression of the 1930's, the Second World War and then the Cold War encouraged the idea that we were all in this together. That differences of opinion were merely that, a difference of opinion. That each person was entitled to their opinion and that no opinion was really better than another. While in reality each person held that their own opinion was correct. There was even a name for this, it was known as the Post-War consensus.

And in truth there was a consensus, but as the Cold War went on and Liberalism split that consensus began to break down. In the 1940's there was hardly any dispute about what constituted a family, about whether people could decide their own sex, about whether single women should have children to multiple fathers all funded by the taxpayer, that each nation belonged to it's own people and they had a right to protect that. But by the 1990's how much of that was disputed? Why, all of it was disputed. Things that were once unquestioned were now viewed as expendable and as of no value.

Over time it has become harder to see those who disagree as merely having a difference of opinion. It is also obvious that this new opinion is not one sided either. To hold the wrong opinion about homosexual marriage is forbidden in many circles, including many workplaces. Actually I'm just as intolerant as they are. How can they live in the world we want? How can we live in the world they want? Because what is becoming increasingly obvious is that we have very little in common.

 What do I have in common with those who believe I am merely an economic unit?

What do I have in common with those who believe that I have no sex, race or ethnicity?

What do I have in common with the foreigners who are flooding into my country?

What do I have in common with those that believe a family is anything they decide?

What do I have in common with those who believe that marriage is disposable and redefinable?

I have next to nothing in common with these people, they are not on my side. They sell me out at every step. They don't understand or respect me, Actually I return their lack of respect, I despise them. And I think more and more people are doing the same. How is this going to end?

Very very badly, that's how!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Unemployment

Anarcho-Tyranny in the Soviet Union

Here is my third and final extract from The Gulag Archipelago II, for those who do not know what Anarcho-Tyranny is, it is when there is one rule for one group and another rule for another. There is no equality before the law. This extract is from page 413.

"The thieves - the urki - are not Robin Hoods! When they want they steal from last-leggers. When they want they are not squeamish about - taking the last footcloths off a man freezing to death. Their great slogan is "You today, me tomorrow!".
But perhaps they really are patriots? Why don't they steal from the state? Why don't they plunder the special country villas? Why don't they stop the long black limousines? Is it because they expect to encounter the conqueror of Kolchak there? No, it is because those automobiles and dachas are well defended. And because stores and warehouses are shielded by the law. Because the realist Stalin understood long ago that this was just a big buzz - this re-education of the urki. And he redirected their energy, sicked them on the citizens of his own country.
Here is what our laws were like for thirty years - to 1947; For robbery of the state, embezzlement of state funds, a packing case from a warehouse, for three potatoes from a collective farm - ten years! (After 1947 it was as much as twenty!) But robbery of a free person? Suppose they cleaned out an apartment, carting it off on a truck everything a family had acquired in a lifetime. If it was not accompanied by murder, then the sentence was up to one year, sometimes six months.
The thieves flourished because they were encouraged.
Through it's laws the Stalinist power said to the thieves clearly: Do not steal from me! Steal from the private persons! You see, private property is a belch from the past. (But "personally assigned"VIP property is the sign of the future...)
And the thieves...understood. In their intrepid stories and songs, did they go to steal where it was difficult, dangerous, where they could lose their heads? No. Greedy cowards, they pushed their way in where they were encouraged to push their way in - they stripped the clothes from solitary passers-by and stole from unguarded apartments.
The twenties, the thirties, the forties, the fifties! Who does not remember that eternal threat hovering over the citizen: Don't go where it's dark! Don't come home late! Don't wear your watch! Don't carry money with you! Don't leave the apartment empty! Locks! Shutters! Dogs!
How many who were robbed knew that the police didn't even bother to look for the criminals, didn't even set a case in motion, so as not to spoil their record of completed cases - why should they sweat to catch a thief if he would be given only six months, and then be given three months off for good behavior? And anyway, it wasn't certain that the bandits would even be tried when caught. After all, prosecutors "lowered the crime rate" - something demanded of them at every conference - by the curious method of simply quashing cases, especially if they saw there would be many defendants.
Finally, sentences were bound to be reduced, and of course for habitual criminals especially. Watch out there now, witness in the courtroom! They will all be back soon, and it'll be a knife in the back of anyone who gave testimony!
Therefore, if you see someone crawling through a window, or slitting a pocket, or your neighbors suitcase being ripped open - shut your eyes! Walk by! You didn't see anything!
That's how the thieves have trained us - the thieves and our laws!"

The criminal was made a part of the States power of repression. When the Government refuses to enforce the law to protect the honest citizen it gives criminals the power to repression us. In the Soviet Union self protection was itself so strict that it was effectively illegal. We are not that bad off yet, but at each turn Liberals want us more and more defenceless, just as the Communist did to the peoples of the Soviet Union.

See Also:
The Gulag Archipelago II - A Book Review
Perished Comically - The Gulag Archipelago II

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Self-Regulation

Perished Comically - The Gulag Archipelago II

This is from The Gulag Archipelago II, starting on page 324 and while it is long it is quite easy to read and quite interesting. I particularly like how "impenetrable" the Marxist Professor is and the exchange regarding why Mothers have to work and the consequences.

"My friend Panin are lying on the middle shelf of a Stolypin compartment and have set ourselves up comfortably, tucking our salt herrings into our pockets so we don't need water and can go to sleep. But at some station or other they shove into our compartment...a Marxist scholar! We can even tell this from the goatee and spectacles. He doesn't hide the fact: he is a former professor of the Communist Academy. We hang head down in the square cutout - and from his first words he is: impenetrable. But we have been serving time for a long while and have a long time left to serve, and we value a merry joke. We must climb down to have a bit of fun! There is ample space in the compartment, and so we exchange places with someone and crowd in:
"Hello"
"Hello"
"You're not too crowded?"
"No, it's all right."
"Have you been in the jug a long time?"
"Long enough."
 "Are you past the halfway mark?"
"Just."
"Look over there: how poverty stricken our villages are - straw thatch, crooked huts."
"An inheritance from the Tsarist regime."
"Well, but we've already had thirty Soviet years."
"That's an insignificant period historically."
"It's terrible that the collective farmers are starving."
"But have you looked in all of their ovens?"
"Just ask any collective farmer in our compartment."
"Everyone in jail is embittered and prejudiced."
"But I've seen collective farms myself."
"That means they were uncharacteristic."
(The goatee has never been in any of them - that way it was simpler)
"Just ask the old folks, under the Tsar they were well feed, well clothed and they used to have so many holidays."
"I'm not even going to ask. It's a subjective trait of human memory to praise everything about the past. The cow that died is the one that gave twice the milk. (Sometimes he even quoted proverbs!) And our people don't like holidays. They like to work."
"But why is there a shortage of bread in many cities?"
"When?"
"Right before the war for example."
"Not true! Before the war, in fact, everything had been worked out."
"Listen, at that time in all the cities on the Volga there were queues of thousands of people..."
"Some local failure in supply. But more likely your memory is failing you."
"But there's a shortage now!"
"Old wives tales. We have from seven to eight billion poods of grain."
"And the grain itself is rotten."
"Not at all. We have been successful in developing news varieties of grain."
"But in many shops the shelves are empty."
"Inefficient distribution in local areas."
"Yes, and the prices are high. The workers have to do without many things."
"Our prices are more scientifically based then anywhere else."
"That means wages are low."
"And the wages, too, scientifically based."
"That means they're based in such a way that the worker works for the state for free the greater part of his time."
"You don't know anything about economics. What is your profession?"
"Engineer."
"And I am an economist. Don't argue. Surplus value is even impossible here."
"But why is it that the father of a family used to be able to feed his family by his own labor, but now two or three in the family have to work?"
"Because there was unemployment previously, and the wife couldn't get work. And the family went hungry. Furthermore the wife's working is important for her equality."
"What the devil do you mean by equality? And who does all the household work?"
"The husband has to work."
"And how about you - did you help your wife?"
"I am not married."
"So each of them had to work during the day, and now both of them have to work in the evenings too. And the women have no time for the main thing - for bringing up the children."
"She has quite enough. They are mainly brought up by the kindergarten, school and Komsomol."
"Well, and how are they bringing them up? They grow up to be hooligans and petty thieves and the girls...run wild and loose."
"Not at all. Our youth have lofty principles."
"That's what the papers say. But our papers tell lies."
"They are much more honest than the bourgeois newspapers! You ought to read the bourgeois newspapers."
"Just give me the chance!"
"That's not necessary at all."
"And our newspapers still tell lies."
"They are openly bound to the proletariat."
"That's the kind of bringing up that makes the crime rate grow."
"On the contrary, it's falling, give me the statistics."
(This in a country where even the number of sheep tails is classified as a secret!)
"And another reason our crime rate is rising is that our laws themselves give rise to crime. They are ferocious and ridiculous."
"On the contrary, they are fine laws. The finest in the history of humanity."
"Especially Article 58."
"Without it our young state would not have been able to hold out."
"It's no longer so very young."
"Historically speaking it is very young."
"But look around at the number of people imprisoned."
"They got what they deserved."
"And what about you?"
"I was jailed by mistake. They will sort things out and release me."
(They all leave themselves this loophole.)
"By mistake? Then what kind of laws do we have?"
"The laws are excellent, it is the deviations from them that are unfortunate."
"Everywhere their is graft, bribes, corruption."
"We have to intensify our Communist upbringing."
And so forth. He is imperturbable. He speaks in a language which requires no effort of mind. And arguing with him is like walking through a desert.
It's about people like this that they say: "He made the rounds of all the smithies and came home unshod."
And when they write his obituaries: "perished tragically during the period of the cults," this should be corrected to read "perished comically."

As I read this I keep thinking about when I have spoken to Liberals, the same pat answers, the same common phrases over and over again. The same blind obedience to equality, without any thought of the cost. "He speaks in a language which requires no effort of mind." exactly!

See Also:
The Gulag Archipelago II - A Book Review
Anarcho-Tyranny in the Soviet Union

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Liberalism and the Mutually Exclusive Argument

The Gulag Archipelago II - A Book Review

Under the Czars Russia produced many great writers, but under the Soviets there was only one, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. His Gulag Archipelago is a masterpiece, it is literature and a record of one of the most monstrous times in history. The Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany and Japan during the Second World War was a slave empire. Together they were the three slave empires of the Twentieth Century. Solzhenitsyn looks at the life of the Corrective Labour Camps, known as GULAG. And like a chain of islands, known as an archipelago, these camps spread right across the Soviet Union. Hence the title of "The Gulag Archipelago".

He starts off here in his second volume with the birth of the camps right at the start of the Russian Revolution. Then the first camp on Solovetsky, the building of the White Sea Canal and the spread of the camps throughout the Soviet Union. How the camps provided both free labour to build the Socialist economy, and that they also destroyed "through labour" those opposed in word, deed or thought to the Soviet Government. What does destroyed through labour mean? It means these people were worked to death. They were murdered as surely as if they had been shot, which the Soviet Government did as well.

He includes chapters on those loyal Communists sent to the Gulags, on how Gulag influenced the entire society, on the Zeks as the prisoners were known, on women, on the Guards, on the 58's (the political prisoners), on the Thiefs. It is hard to think of anything that has been left out. Throughout there are personal stories, things that he experienced and saw, things that others experienced. He includes stories on both those who survived and those who died. His research is impressive and his knowledge is extensive and he admits when he doesn't know something. How impressive is his research? This was the first real study of the Gulags and 40 years after it was published it is still one of the best. It just covers so many bases.

No book is perfect and it must be admitted that most people who start this book will not finish it, it is a heavy book in every sense of the word. This volume is volume 2 for a start, further it's nearly 700 pages long, thats a lot of reading. It is also about the death and destruction of millions of lives. To quote George Orwell out of context, most people do not want to read 700 pages of " If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever". When it was written the Soviet Union existed, it no longer does. What I found interesting is how many things I found that were still current in the world.

Now let me quote from page 628 (it's a big book) and remember that this is written about Communism, but how it fits Liberalism and the world we live in now:

"The permanent lie becomes the only safe form of existence, in the same way as betrayal. Every wag of the tongue can be overheard by someone, every facial expression observed by someone. Therefore every word, if it does not have to be a direct lie, is nonetheless obligated not to contradict the general, common lie. There exists a collection of ready-made phrases, of labels, a selection of ready made lies. And not one single speech nor one single essay or article nor one single book - be it scientific, journalistic, critical, or "literary", so called - can exist without the use of primary cliche's. In the most scientific of texts it is required that someones false authority or false priority be upheld somewhere and that someone be cursed for telling the truth; without this lie even an academic work cannot see the light of day. And what can be said about those shrill meetings and trashy lunch-break gatherings where you are compelled to vote against your own opinion, to pretend to be glad over what distresses you (be it a new state loan, the lowering of piece rates, contributions to some tank column, Sunday work duties, or sending your children to help on the collective farm) and to express the deepest anger in areas which you couldn't care less - some kind of intangible, invisible violence in the West Indies or Paraguay?

In prison Tenno recalled with shame how two weeks before his own arrest he had lectured the sailors on "The Stalinist Constitution - The Most Democratic in the World." And of course not one word of it was sincere.

There is no man who has typed even one page...without lying. There is no man who has spoken from a rostrum...without lying. There is no man who has spoken into a microphone...without lying."

Things were much much worst then than now, but it is not hard to live in the modern West and not to understand what it is to live like that. That is why we fight!

See also:
Perished Comically - The Gulag Archipelago II
Anarcho-Tyranny in the Soviet Union

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Debt, The Options

What is a Cuckservative?

Recently I was on a site and the host was attacking the Alt-Right and it was clear to me that she did not understand the real meaning of the words "Cuckservative" or "Cuck". Then I thought, I wonder if those who visit my site know what it means? I'm sure many, if not most do, but for those who do not know I thought I should put it here for all to see.

Firstly, Cucksevative is a contraction of two words, "Cuckold" and "Conservative", sometimes it is abbreviated as simply "Cuck". I hope someone who is on this site doesn't need the word Conservative explained. The word Cuckold however does need explaining. It originates from the word "Cuckoo", a cuckoo is a bird, although many people think of it as a clock, the cuckoo clock. The cuckoo bird is a type of bird that exists on different Continents and in different climates and terrain. However the one we are concerned with is called the Common Cuckoo which lives in Africa and Europe.

The Common Cuckoo is a Brood Parasite, basically it has it's fun and then lays it's eggs in other birds nests. That way it doesn't have to raise it's own young, instead Common Cuckoo's are raised by birds other than it's parents and then goes on to do the same again when it comes time to breed. In the Middle Ages this fact was well known and it gave rise to the term "Cuckold" which meant either a man or a women who's spouse had been unfaithful. Over time the term came to mean a man who's wife had been unfaithful.

If you go to the dictionary this will be the definition that you find and this confuses many people. When a candidate or pundit is called a Cuckservative are they saying his wife has been unfaithful? Are they insulting the wife, implying that she is unfaithful? It just seems mean!

And for 500 years the dictionary definition was correct, however in the last two decades the meaning of the word "Cuckold" has slightly changed and it changed because of internet pornography. In internet pornography a Cuckold is a man who wants or encourages his wife to be promiscuous. Just as the pornographic industry started the myth that women could not resist becoming amorous with the pool cleaner or the pizza delivery boy, so it has created another myth that men really want their wives to be promiscuous. But in truth most men find that idea quite repulsive.

It is here between the myth and the reality that the word Cuckservative came into being. Morally a man who encourages his wife to sleep around is her pimp, but unlike an "honest" pimp he doesn't get any money from it, so why does he do it? Because of the emotional high that he gets, it's all about how it makes him feel. But add to this another factor, an important one, a man who encourages his wife to be promiscuous is also betraying his marriage, in fact the very ideal of marriage,

So when a man is called a Cuckservative he is being called out for betraying his ideals and/or his country. A Cuckservative is a man who talks about how much he loves his country but does nothing to defend his fellow countrymen. He pimps out his ideals, his country in return for how it makes him feel. It is the very worst form of virtue signaling and it is utterly contemptible.

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Financial Economy

The Forty-Second Month

This month I have been blogging for 3 1/2 years and it has been quite a mixed month. My numbers are down but that is to be expected after a bumper month. I have no idea why that should be but it seems quite consistent. Although I have also had some of my articles posted on other websites which is always nice.

First lets look at the numbers, in August I had 2,854 visitors, about half what I had the month before. In the last month my worst day was the 25th August when I had 27 visitors and my best day was four days later, on the 29th August when I had 150 visitors.

Two websites said some very nice things about two of my articles. Storm'n Norm'n said that my post Have I always been a Conservative? was the best article he had read all week. And over at thronealtarliberty, Mr. Neal said some very nice things about my post Homosexuality and Conservatism. Thank you to both!

Every six months I give a list of the ten most read articles on my site. The total number of times they have been viewed is the number in brackets.

(3873) What do Traditional Conservatives believe?

(2761) Free-trade versus Protectionism

(2274) Why don't the poor marry?

(1910) Why do Conservatives believe in different Social Classes?

(1567) Feminism, why we are not Feminists

(1451) What is more important, the past the present or the future?

(1034) The Discrimination of anti-Discrimination

(931) Housewives, good for the economy and society

(903) The Balanced Society

 (745) Multiculturalism, the conclusion

In the Forty-Two months this blog has been running I have had over 34,000 Americans, 13,000 Australians and 6,000 Russians visit the blog.

August-September

Entry	Pageviews
United States	708
Australia	464
United Kingdom	105
Canada	86
Germany	84
France	66
Ukraine	31
Philippines	24
Netherlands	23
New Zealand	22

July-August

Entry Pageviews Russia 3557 United States 817 Australia 570 United Kingdom 193 Germany 129 Mauritius 115 Canada 65 France 42 China 33 India 27

Canada and France are the only countries that were in the top 10 last month that are up this month.

The Ukraine, the Philippines, the Netherlands and New Zealand are back in the top 10 this month.

The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany are down over last month.

And Russia, Mauritius, China and India have left the top 10.

I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland,  Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYROM), Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Turkmenistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sudan, Ghana, Kenya, Botswana, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil,

Thank you for visiting and I hope to see you again.

Mark Moncrieff'

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Nineteenth Month

Is Donald Trump a Conservative?

The short answer is no, he's a Classical Liberal. But even so it seems that he is the best candidate a Conservative could vote for in some time. Quite some time. So whats so good about him and why should Conservatives vote for him?

First lets deal with the bad stuff, Mr. Trump is not a Social Conservative. We cannot expect him to do much in this regard. Some Conservatives say that alone should rule him out, I do not agree at all. We need to fight on so many fronts and this is just one, an important one to be sure but while we won't win here we might on other fronts.

He has said basically nothing about reining in America's outrageous Government debt. I hope he has a secret plan, but of course I simply do not know. It is amazing to me that America can be so much in debt and it is barely mentioned, by anyone.

But something that Mr. Trump can be given credit for is for bringing real Immigration issues to this election. His ten point plan is amongst the best I have seen in a long time.

♦ One: We will build a wall along the Southern Border.
♦ Two: End Catch-And-Release
♦ Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.
♦ Four: Block Funding For Sanctuary Cities
♦ Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws
♦ Six: We Are Going To Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Any Place Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur
♦ Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
♦ Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.
♦ Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet [E-Verify].
♦ Ten: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers.

I accept it could be better, it could deal more with legal Immigration and it could have a remigration policy, but in our current climate of endless Immigration, legal and illegal into the Western World anything that strikes back is to be celebrated.

The second reason to support Mr. Trump is for his trade policies. He has always been critical of Free Trade, remember seeing a clip of him on The Oprah Winfrey Show from the 1980's, maybe early 1990's saying pretty much the same things he is saying now. Every country has to look after it's own people first and that is his policy.

The third reason I would vote for him if I could is a personal observation. It seems to me as if he has shared an experience that you and I have experienced. Were you once thought "hey maybe we don't agree but we're still on the same side", now you know they are not on your side, that they lie and that your sick of hearing their lies. When I hear him speak it seems quite clear to me that he is sick of the lies.

There are those who argue that Mr. Trump is a fraud, that he is doing this for his ego. I hope he is doing this for his ego, in fact I'm counting on it. How can he go back on his promises if his ego is so important?

I don't think he is a fraud, nor do I think he is a savour. He is only a man, but one who has been saying and doing the right things for quite some time now. He hasn't backed down when he has been attacked, he keeps fighting and it's great to see. I'm sick of Conservatives being too nice to win.

Now as President Mr. Trump may fail, he certainly will disappoint, that is inevitable, but I really cannot see him being worse than Mrs. Clinton. And let us be very honest that is the only alternative.

If Mrs. Clinton wins everything gets worse, there is no question of that. If Mr. Trump wins maybe things will get better. I know who I would vote for, to be honest I'm quite jealous of you Americans getting a real choice, one day I'd like one of them myself!

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
My Liberal Life 

Melbourne Traditionalists in October, 2016

It's that time again, another Melbourne Traditionalist get together. We last got together in early August and it was a great success. Food, drink, political conversation and some funny stories, what is there not to like?

If your in Melbourne Australia on Monday 3rd October why not come out and have dinner and some good high quality political discussion.  It's far too easy to feel isolated and overwhelmed but you are not alone. So don't sit at home, come out and meet up with some like minded people. If your not in Melbourne why not try and organise your own little get together's.

More than 500 Australians checked out this site last month, if you live in or near Melbourne don't be shy.

If you are interested send me an email at: uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com

Upon Hope - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Debt Is King II