I was born in 1970 and when I was growing up there was a path for men to follow, at least in theory. The theory said get an education, get a job, meet a girl, fall in love, get married, have children, buy a house. Non of that sounds bad to me and it didn't then. But during my lifetime all of those things that allowed that life to be lived have been attacked. And today things are much worse and the truth was they weren't much fun back then.
Education is the easy part, your practically forced to get an education because there are no jobs for young people to go into. So everyone stays at school or goes on to some form of Higher Education simply because they don't have any choice. That fact is often hidden by providing a false choice, what course are you going to study? See it looks like it's all your choice, you get to make these choices. But as everyone is in the same boat and everyone is getting more and more educated your choice is nearly worthless. Because hardly anyone needs that level of education, it's make busy work and it's very hard to avoid.
Jobs, the last time Australia had full employment was in the 1970's. My older brothers and sisters told me how you could quit a job in the morning and get a new job in the afternoon. But that economy didn't exist in the 1980's, but people did talk about bringing back full employment. In 1992 the Australian Government released a paper on how to do it, of course it never happened and since then the whole idea has been dropped as if an economy with full employment never existed. Instead we have an economy with part time jobs, casual jobs and lots of unemployment. Unemployment is bad and I find that people who have never experienced it have no idea about it's effects. When your unemployed your life stops and that includes with women. If you do get a women have a good time because you sure won't have a long time. No women is interested in a man without money, not for long anyway. Add to that feminism, official Feminism that is, women get priority in employment and for promotion. They even have the gall to call it "equal opportunity"!
So that stops many men from rising up and if you'd like to go down the ladder and do a manual job, do you know Mandarin? The ever present and increasing Immigrant , they drive down standards, wages and opportunity just by turning up. So many men are left in the position were they cannot stay were they are because there are no jobs, they can't go up because those jobs have gone to women and they can't go down because of Immigrants. And every inch of it Government policy.
Well at least meeting a girl should be easy, I mean there are literally millions of 'em. If only that was true, sure you might be able to pick up a new girl every night but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about permanent relationships, but for millions of men those relationships aren't happening, and that means for millions of women as well. Feminism is a big problem here, the idea that women should concentrate on a career, the idea that relationships are traps, the idea that men are bad. Women have become quite standoffish, they reject men as they always have, but the dating game has gotten harder. In the past people meet through family or mutual friends, they met at work and everyone had the idea that this would lead somewhere, it wasn't undirected. But when so many women are concerned with careers that assumption no longer exists, in fact it is often explicitly denied. Men are treated as optional extras, instead of as the missing piece to a fulfilling life. Something else that makes dating worse now than in the past is technology, it puts another step in front of men that they now need to get past.
All of this means that it has become harder to fall in love, not lust, but love. It is extremely easy to fall in lust today. But here Feminism has done it's work again. It is amazing how many women will tell you they aren't Feminists and then behave as Feminists. I have heard a certain phrase for years "I don't need a man, I want a man!", but they never seem to understand that what men hear is "I didn't need this handbag, I wanted it and when I'm finished with it I'll get rid of it!". Because I assure you that is what men hear. Men, like women need to be needed, not wanted but needed. The, I couldn't live without you kind of thing. They need to know they have a purpose, but when women make their own money, men are denied the role of provider, but what is very clear is that women still expect a man to fulfill that role even when she is financially successful. Women having jobs make both men and women unhappy because women want men who are richer than themselves. And your much likelier to fall in love with someone your attracted to then someone your not.
But lets just say a man does meet a women and fall in love, then marriage and children are the next step for most. But lets fact facts marriage isn't what it used to be. Once marriage was a byword for security, but we live today in the world of no-fault divorce and that means that no one is safe. Because there is no defence against no-fault divorce, no matter how smart, sexy, devoted or rich a man is. He can do everything right and still end up disposable. Men are not allowed to be fallible and that is simply an impossible standard for anyone.
No matter how things go you will always need a place to live, but even housing is becoming ridiculous. House prices are going through the roof in so many places. How do you raise a family when housing prices are so bad?
When I was growing up there was a path for men to follow, but so many men of my generation could not follow it, I couldn't. But at least there was a path, some guideline to follow. But today things are so bad for men that nearly all of this needs to be rebuilt. Women have changed and not for the better and that has been a miserable thing for men to see and experience. However that does not mean that women are entirely to blame or that nothing can be done to fix things. But it does mean that right now things are bad and they don't look like they are going to get better any time soon.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Marriage Alternative
Sunday, 26 February 2017
Monday, 20 February 2017
The Fall of Singapore and of the White Race
On the 15th February 2017 it was 75 years since Singapore was surrendered to the Japanese. In 1942 most of the world was run by White men, at that time there were less than 10 countries that were not. Today White men are losing control of even their own countries, let alone running other peoples. The fall of Singapore was the start of that decline.
Winston Churchill said the fall of Singapore was a British and Imperial defeat, it was also the end of all of the European colonial empires. The fall of Singapore is one of the most important battles in world history. That may at first seem like quite a claim to make but I don't think so.
By December 1941, the month Japan entered the war, Britain and her Empire was fighting a large war in Europe, Africa and in the Middle East. It's forces had been pushed out of Europe twice, first at Dunkirk in 1940 and then from Greece in 1941. Britain and Malta had both been bombed and the sea routes to both were under attack. But for most of the Empire the effects of the war were not felt, because the fighting was happening far way. The same was true of the French Empire for the most part and the Belgian and the Dutch. The war was nearly entirely, but not exclusively, a European war. But Japan's entry into the war was to change that.
But the truth was that Japan and it's military were not taken seriously by most Western Governments. I have in my collection a military pamphlet published by the Australian army in 1941 about the Japanese army, my copy has the stamp of the Director of Naval Intelligence in it. This pamphlet is a very serious and accurate description of the Japanese army, how it trained, was organised, equipped, commanded. But even with all of that information available, before Japan attacked, we still underestimated the ability of the Japanese. Why? The answer is simple, Japan was regarded as a second rate power because it was an Asian power, or to be more correct because it wasn't a White power.
In the centuries that it took to create the European Empires and their successor states, like the United States and the other states of the Americas, defeat by a non European army was extremely rare. It is truly remarkable how small armies or fleets of Whites would outfight, out perform and out think non-Europeans. Now many people will say of course they did they had better weapons and technology, but even when they were equipped like the Europeans they still lost. That of course does not mean that Europeans always won, there are many instances of Europeans being defeated. But what is remarkable is not that they were defeated but how small the forces defeated were.
Japan had however defeated a major European power all by itself, it had defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. But this was regarded as a once off, it was dismissed because Russia was a backwards country, in the opinion of others hardly a European country at all and besides Russia was operating thousands of miles from it's supply base. Some of those complaints were real, Russia was backwards compared to other Western countries and it was operating very far from it's supply base. But the professionalism of the Japanese was quickly forgotten.
The general opinion before WWII was that of course Whites ruled the world, they were superior. Why they were superior was a matter of debate, even then, but not that they were superior. Was it because of their Race? There Greek and Roman heritage? Their Christianity? Their education system? Their science? Their technology? Their political organisation? Their manufacturing? Their financial system? In the end most people simply treated them as interchangeable, the fact was that they were in charge and nothing was going to change or challenge that.
But the fall of Singapore did change all of that. Because no one, apart from the Japanese, thought it was even possible. Britain, even in 1941 was a massive power. How could such an important colony as Malaya, the source of 70% of the worlds rubber, be lost? And in theory Malaya and Singapore should not have been lost. Singapore was a major naval base, but the ships that should have been there were instead in the Mediterranean or in the Atlantic. The planes that should have defended the skies were the left over machines that were obsolete and not wanted anywhere else. The soldiers that should have defeated the Japanese were under trained and were used poorly. None of that was true of the Japanese forces, what made the fall of Singapore even worse what that the Japanese were outnumbered 4 to 1!
Twice Britain has lost an Empire, it lost it's first at Yorktown in 1781 and it lost it's second at Singapore in 1941. After Singapore, after the defeat, the humiliating defeat, it was hard to believe anymore that Whites were superior. Singapore lead directly to the end of the European colonial Empires in Asia. It destroyed the unspoken agreement that said the colonial subjects would be loyal and in return they would be protected. They were not protected, surprising they were not bitter about that fact, but they had lost the trust that was required if things were to return to how they had been.
Singapore did not mean that the Empires ended overnight, but after Singapore it was hard to maintain the idea that Whites were superior. Whites were fallible just like everyone else, they could be defeated, they were not invincible. The fact that the colonial Empires were effectively bankrupt after WII and that the Soviets and the Americans were opposed to Empires did not help. But it was Singapore, the victory of an Asian power over a White one that changed everything. After Singapore there was no going back, the world had changed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
95th Anniversary
Winston Churchill said the fall of Singapore was a British and Imperial defeat, it was also the end of all of the European colonial empires. The fall of Singapore is one of the most important battles in world history. That may at first seem like quite a claim to make but I don't think so.
By December 1941, the month Japan entered the war, Britain and her Empire was fighting a large war in Europe, Africa and in the Middle East. It's forces had been pushed out of Europe twice, first at Dunkirk in 1940 and then from Greece in 1941. Britain and Malta had both been bombed and the sea routes to both were under attack. But for most of the Empire the effects of the war were not felt, because the fighting was happening far way. The same was true of the French Empire for the most part and the Belgian and the Dutch. The war was nearly entirely, but not exclusively, a European war. But Japan's entry into the war was to change that.
But the truth was that Japan and it's military were not taken seriously by most Western Governments. I have in my collection a military pamphlet published by the Australian army in 1941 about the Japanese army, my copy has the stamp of the Director of Naval Intelligence in it. This pamphlet is a very serious and accurate description of the Japanese army, how it trained, was organised, equipped, commanded. But even with all of that information available, before Japan attacked, we still underestimated the ability of the Japanese. Why? The answer is simple, Japan was regarded as a second rate power because it was an Asian power, or to be more correct because it wasn't a White power.
In the centuries that it took to create the European Empires and their successor states, like the United States and the other states of the Americas, defeat by a non European army was extremely rare. It is truly remarkable how small armies or fleets of Whites would outfight, out perform and out think non-Europeans. Now many people will say of course they did they had better weapons and technology, but even when they were equipped like the Europeans they still lost. That of course does not mean that Europeans always won, there are many instances of Europeans being defeated. But what is remarkable is not that they were defeated but how small the forces defeated were.
Japan had however defeated a major European power all by itself, it had defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. But this was regarded as a once off, it was dismissed because Russia was a backwards country, in the opinion of others hardly a European country at all and besides Russia was operating thousands of miles from it's supply base. Some of those complaints were real, Russia was backwards compared to other Western countries and it was operating very far from it's supply base. But the professionalism of the Japanese was quickly forgotten.
The general opinion before WWII was that of course Whites ruled the world, they were superior. Why they were superior was a matter of debate, even then, but not that they were superior. Was it because of their Race? There Greek and Roman heritage? Their Christianity? Their education system? Their science? Their technology? Their political organisation? Their manufacturing? Their financial system? In the end most people simply treated them as interchangeable, the fact was that they were in charge and nothing was going to change or challenge that.
But the fall of Singapore did change all of that. Because no one, apart from the Japanese, thought it was even possible. Britain, even in 1941 was a massive power. How could such an important colony as Malaya, the source of 70% of the worlds rubber, be lost? And in theory Malaya and Singapore should not have been lost. Singapore was a major naval base, but the ships that should have been there were instead in the Mediterranean or in the Atlantic. The planes that should have defended the skies were the left over machines that were obsolete and not wanted anywhere else. The soldiers that should have defeated the Japanese were under trained and were used poorly. None of that was true of the Japanese forces, what made the fall of Singapore even worse what that the Japanese were outnumbered 4 to 1!
Twice Britain has lost an Empire, it lost it's first at Yorktown in 1781 and it lost it's second at Singapore in 1941. After Singapore, after the defeat, the humiliating defeat, it was hard to believe anymore that Whites were superior. Singapore lead directly to the end of the European colonial Empires in Asia. It destroyed the unspoken agreement that said the colonial subjects would be loyal and in return they would be protected. They were not protected, surprising they were not bitter about that fact, but they had lost the trust that was required if things were to return to how they had been.
Singapore did not mean that the Empires ended overnight, but after Singapore it was hard to maintain the idea that Whites were superior. Whites were fallible just like everyone else, they could be defeated, they were not invincible. The fact that the colonial Empires were effectively bankrupt after WII and that the Soviets and the Americans were opposed to Empires did not help. But it was Singapore, the victory of an Asian power over a White one that changed everything. After Singapore there was no going back, the world had changed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
95th Anniversary
Friday, 17 February 2017
Tradition in Strange Places
I argued back in August 2016 that game has undergone a profound change of heart. It was in the beginning about men getting more than their fair share from the sexual smorgasbord that Liberalism has provided. But over time, as those who have lived this life has gotten older they began to see a different Liberal world. A world in which items on the sexual smorgasbord were in reality poison.
I present to you two examples of exactly that.
First is from Roosh V, who started Return of Kings. I am amazed at how Traditional this video is, it is both insightful and sad. Just to deal with one thing in this video, I think most people, men and women, only need a 8th Grade education. Please do watch.
Why are women being educated?
The second is from Dalrock, who has also taken quite a Traditional viewpoint, have a read of this one:
Denying the Feminist Rebellion
Here are two men who only a few short years ago would have laughed at us, now saying the same things that we think.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Future of the Nation-State
I present to you two examples of exactly that.
First is from Roosh V, who started Return of Kings. I am amazed at how Traditional this video is, it is both insightful and sad. Just to deal with one thing in this video, I think most people, men and women, only need a 8th Grade education. Please do watch.
Why are women being educated?
The second is from Dalrock, who has also taken quite a Traditional viewpoint, have a read of this one:
Denying the Feminist Rebellion
Here are two men who only a few short years ago would have laughed at us, now saying the same things that we think.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Future of the Nation-State
Monday, 13 February 2017
An example of Feminism Failing
Well here's a turn up for the books, Sydney University has a scholarship that openly favours men! Yes you read that correctly!
The scholarship is open to both men and women but will favour men, the scholarship is in veterinary science. Now veterinary science is a great example of whats wrong with feminism and how it works in theory and practice. Australia has a very large livestock industry and we have a lot of pets so there is a real practical need for veterinarians. But the two areas are quite different.
Veterinary science is a harder course to get into in Australia than medicine because the number of veterinarians needed is much lower but the desire to work with animals is high. We all know or have known, a teenage girl who wants to work with animals and many girls are very good students. So they get very high scores to go to University and the competition to get into Veterinary science is high and a large number of those places are taken by female students, how high? It turns out 90% of Veterinary science students are female.
In the past 20 years Veterinary science has gone from being a male dominated industry into a female dominated industry. And with it have come the problems that a female dominated industry generates. Here is a table of male and female veterinarians and whether they are full time or part time workers
Male Full Time 19%
Male Part Time 3%
Female Full Time 48%
Female Part Time 30%
The first thing we notice is that Feminists couldn't care less about equality as they so often claim, because when men went from being over 90% to 22% they didn't care at all. The second thing we notice is the vast difference between male part time workers and female part time workers. Why do 10 times more women than men work part time?
That's because women like to work with pets, not livestock. Pets are companions, we find it easy to relate to them, pet owners are male and female, young and old, there is a lot of human interaction and most of the work is in the major cities. For livestock non of that is really true, it is often lonely work, driving long distances, working long hours, dealing with vast numbers of animals, gruff farmers, and it is hard physical labour and of course most of it takes place in the countryside.
For men that type of life makes sense, but most women reach a point where they want to get married and have children and this often means working part time. All that money spent to train them, all those years of training and often experience is put aside to have a family. I support them getting married, I support them having children, it's the most natural thing in the world. But I cannot help thinking what a waste it was for everyone concerned. Because if men had been trained instead we all would have gotten full value out of it all. And this will get worse because as women enter a profession, men leave it, men do not want to work with women, certainly not in a female dominated industry.
But livestock is big business, billions of dollars are at stake, so how long can this continue?
How long will farmers have to put up with this before something is done?
Here we have Feminism in action and we can quite clearly see it failing.
For Mark Richardsons take on this same issue: Ever heard a Feminist say she just wants equaltiy?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another article You Might Like?
Self-Regulation
The scholarship is open to both men and women but will favour men, the scholarship is in veterinary science. Now veterinary science is a great example of whats wrong with feminism and how it works in theory and practice. Australia has a very large livestock industry and we have a lot of pets so there is a real practical need for veterinarians. But the two areas are quite different.
Veterinary science is a harder course to get into in Australia than medicine because the number of veterinarians needed is much lower but the desire to work with animals is high. We all know or have known, a teenage girl who wants to work with animals and many girls are very good students. So they get very high scores to go to University and the competition to get into Veterinary science is high and a large number of those places are taken by female students, how high? It turns out 90% of Veterinary science students are female.
In the past 20 years Veterinary science has gone from being a male dominated industry into a female dominated industry. And with it have come the problems that a female dominated industry generates. Here is a table of male and female veterinarians and whether they are full time or part time workers
Male Full Time 19%
Male Part Time 3%
Female Full Time 48%
Female Part Time 30%
The first thing we notice is that Feminists couldn't care less about equality as they so often claim, because when men went from being over 90% to 22% they didn't care at all. The second thing we notice is the vast difference between male part time workers and female part time workers. Why do 10 times more women than men work part time?
That's because women like to work with pets, not livestock. Pets are companions, we find it easy to relate to them, pet owners are male and female, young and old, there is a lot of human interaction and most of the work is in the major cities. For livestock non of that is really true, it is often lonely work, driving long distances, working long hours, dealing with vast numbers of animals, gruff farmers, and it is hard physical labour and of course most of it takes place in the countryside.
For men that type of life makes sense, but most women reach a point where they want to get married and have children and this often means working part time. All that money spent to train them, all those years of training and often experience is put aside to have a family. I support them getting married, I support them having children, it's the most natural thing in the world. But I cannot help thinking what a waste it was for everyone concerned. Because if men had been trained instead we all would have gotten full value out of it all. And this will get worse because as women enter a profession, men leave it, men do not want to work with women, certainly not in a female dominated industry.
But livestock is big business, billions of dollars are at stake, so how long can this continue?
How long will farmers have to put up with this before something is done?
Here we have Feminism in action and we can quite clearly see it failing.
For Mark Richardsons take on this same issue: Ever heard a Feminist say she just wants equaltiy?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another article You Might Like?
Self-Regulation
Sunday, 12 February 2017
The Forty-Seventh Month
January was a mixed month, I was down about 600 visitors over the month before, but at the same time I was happy with what I had written.
I've also had some links to posts I've done and which I always appreciate, including from a new website. Oz Conservative, A Thrifty Homemaker and from Amerika, Mr. Brett Stevens who runs Amerika (the website, not the country) was also interviewed this week on Redice Radio, which was worth a listen.
My best day this month was on the 8th February when I had 182 visitors, the links helped, and my worst day was the 27th January when I had 63 visitors. Which means this month I haven't had a single day with less than 50 visitors, normally I get a day or two that goes below 50, so quite happy with that.
January-February
December-January
I've also had some links to posts I've done and which I always appreciate, including from a new website. Oz Conservative, A Thrifty Homemaker and from Amerika, Mr. Brett Stevens who runs Amerika (the website, not the country) was also interviewed this week on Redice Radio, which was worth a listen.
My best day this month was on the 8th February when I had 182 visitors, the links helped, and my worst day was the 27th January when I had 63 visitors. Which means this month I haven't had a single day with less than 50 visitors, normally I get a day or two that goes below 50, so quite happy with that.
January-February
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1133
|
Australia
|
690
|
United Kingdom
|
99
|
Germany
|
95
|
Singapore
|
70
|
France
|
69
|
India
|
66
|
Canada
|
33
|
Spain
|
32
|
China
|
27
|
December-January
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
993
|
Australia
|
559
|
Russia
|
557
|
Poland
|
228
|
United Kingdom
|
66
|
China
|
65
|
Germany
|
58
|
France
|
54
|
Belgium
|
30
|
Canada
|
27
|
The United States is up as is Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Canada.
China is down.
Singapore, India and Spain are new or back in to the top 10
While Russia, Poland and Belgium are out of the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, the Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, U.A.E., Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Bahamas, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina,
I hope to see you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Thursday, 9 February 2017
What Kind of Australian Are You?
Here is an interesting survey that some Left wingers in Australia have conducted. It asks the question, what kind of Australian are you? And it wants to know about your political beliefs.
Their idea is that there are 7 political tribes in Australia and I belong to the second smallest at only 6%, the Anti-establishment Firebrand. Which I'm sure is meant to be an insult or even a warning to everyone else to beware of us, but I'm very happy to be an Anti-establishment firebrand.
Here's what the political tribes are and the percentage (rounded off) which they claim for each:
- Progressive Cosmopolitans (18%)
- Activist Egalitarians (18%)
- Ambitious Savers (10%)
- Lavish Mod-Cons (6%)
- Prudent Traditionalists (30%)
- Disillusioned Pessimists (12%)
- Anti-establishment Firebrands (6%)
The Lavish Mod-Cons are actually 5.5% and there fore the smallest group, but I rounded everyone off, Ambitious Savers were 9.9%, I say lets just call it 10% and be done with it.
I'm not sure how much this should be trusted but I do know people who fall into each category, but I do wonder about the numbers. The Progessives and the Activists seem high to me and the Pessimists and the Firebrands seem low, but maybe thats wishful thinking. But to think even the Left agree's that 1 in ever 20 Australians have Conservative attitudes and hate the Government no matter whether it is Liberal or Labor is a good thing. Australia is changing, 30 years ago for that to be true would have been unthinkable, but not now.
The thing the survey does show is that we are becoming more and more divided, just like the rest of the Western world. We have less and less in common, Liberalism is working it's wicked magic.
The survey is here:
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Senator Bernardi & the Australian Conservatives
The big news in Australian politics this week is that Senator Bernardi has left the Liberal Party, who are in Government, to form his own party Australian Conservatives. I have been asked by a few people for my reaction and I must say I'm underwhelmed.
For those outside of Australia a little background. Senator Bernardi is a Federal Senator from South Australia and while he was a member of the Liberal party he is much more socially conservative than the average Liberal Senator. He is one of the Lefts and the medias, favourite whipping boys. To give you a bit of a taste, last year in a speech opposing homosexual marriage he said words to the effect that if this was allowed what real reason could you give if someone wanted to marry an animal, would you make bestiality legal? Well the Left and the media went nuts, falsely saying that he compared homosexuals to animals and sexual relations between homosexuals to bestiality.
Now on the good side Senator Bernardi has guts and principles, he will openly stand up for what he believes and fight even when he is attacked from all sides. I really admire that and I also like his social conservatism.
Around November 2016 I was sent via email a survey from a survey company and it was about Australian politics. What did I think of the Liberal/ Labor Parties, not much, would I support a Conservative party? I said to myself it depends on what it represents, but the only answers were yes or no, so I ticked yes. The survey did not ask for an opinion on policies only about parties. Then a few weeks later I was on Facebook and I saw an ad for Australian Conservatives and I thought I must check that out, so I went to their Facebook page and the very first thing I saw was "we support a multicultural Australia" and I thought whats the point of being 10% further to the right then the Liberal Party?
Australian Conservatives is the name of Senator Bernardi's political party.
Their idea is that they will unite the Australian Right behind Senator Bernardi and it is bizarre, because if he is not onboard with the National question then it is all pointless. The one area Australian politics is screaming out for is a party that will oppose Immigration, instead we get this. I agree with him on social issues, but it is not enough, not by a long way. If we lose on every social issue we can at least in theory change it at some point to what we want. How do we change our country back to Australians living in Australia if 90% of the people living in Australia aren't Australian?
The National question is a life and death issue and like every other political party in the country it cannot hide quickly enough from it. Sadly I think Senator Bernadi is not a Conservative, I think he's a Classical Liberal and we have already done Classical Liberalism, it lead here and boy do I hate it here!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Blaming The Jews Is Wrong
For those outside of Australia a little background. Senator Bernardi is a Federal Senator from South Australia and while he was a member of the Liberal party he is much more socially conservative than the average Liberal Senator. He is one of the Lefts and the medias, favourite whipping boys. To give you a bit of a taste, last year in a speech opposing homosexual marriage he said words to the effect that if this was allowed what real reason could you give if someone wanted to marry an animal, would you make bestiality legal? Well the Left and the media went nuts, falsely saying that he compared homosexuals to animals and sexual relations between homosexuals to bestiality.
Now on the good side Senator Bernardi has guts and principles, he will openly stand up for what he believes and fight even when he is attacked from all sides. I really admire that and I also like his social conservatism.
Around November 2016 I was sent via email a survey from a survey company and it was about Australian politics. What did I think of the Liberal/ Labor Parties, not much, would I support a Conservative party? I said to myself it depends on what it represents, but the only answers were yes or no, so I ticked yes. The survey did not ask for an opinion on policies only about parties. Then a few weeks later I was on Facebook and I saw an ad for Australian Conservatives and I thought I must check that out, so I went to their Facebook page and the very first thing I saw was "we support a multicultural Australia" and I thought whats the point of being 10% further to the right then the Liberal Party?
Australian Conservatives is the name of Senator Bernardi's political party.
Their idea is that they will unite the Australian Right behind Senator Bernardi and it is bizarre, because if he is not onboard with the National question then it is all pointless. The one area Australian politics is screaming out for is a party that will oppose Immigration, instead we get this. I agree with him on social issues, but it is not enough, not by a long way. If we lose on every social issue we can at least in theory change it at some point to what we want. How do we change our country back to Australians living in Australia if 90% of the people living in Australia aren't Australian?
The National question is a life and death issue and like every other political party in the country it cannot hide quickly enough from it. Sadly I think Senator Bernadi is not a Conservative, I think he's a Classical Liberal and we have already done Classical Liberalism, it lead here and boy do I hate it here!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Blaming The Jews Is Wrong
Friday, 3 February 2017
50 Years Without Justice
Today the 3rd February 2017 is the fiftieth anniversary of the last execution in Australia. Since that time we have lived in an environment were by murderers are kept alive and most of them are released. When Capital Punishment ended we were told that a life sentence would mean life imprisonment. But except in the very worst cases it in fact never means that. To give one example, the last person sentenced to death in Australia was Brenda Hodge who was sentenced to death in 1984, it was commuted to life imprisonment, so how much time did she serve? 10 years. From death to 10 years is a pretty big drop!
Now people often say we don't need Capital Punishment a) it is barbaric b) what if we execute an innocent man? c) revenge is not justice d) it is not a deterrent, 3) it's state murder lets have a look at each in turn.
It is barbaric:
Here is a classic Liberal tactic, brand something wrong (barbaric, discriminatory, etc.) and just keep calling it that no matter what the evidence. In the case of Capital Punishment this has been a major tactic for 300 years. It was in the 1700's that Capital Punishment first came under serious attack and that attack was that it was barbaric. In Britain the first move to restrict Capital Punishment was to call for a ban on public executions, why? Because it was barbaric. The real reason was that the public liked executions and the Middle Class did not approve of that.
In common with most Liberal causes, while opposition to Capital Punishment was held by some for most Liberals it was not an issue. And for a century the issue wasn't an issue. But it is truly remarkable how patient Liberalism is, because when it woke up again it used the exact same argument again. For a century it hadn't been barbaric and then after WWII it was barbaric again and again it shows how Liberalism works. Because the same was true of Capital Punishment after WWII as it had been a century before, the public liked executions, it was the Middle Class who didn't. So the Middle Class used their power in the Law, Parliament, the Media, Political Parties and the one thing that the Middle Class does best, the lobby groups. Lawyers cast doubt on the fairness of the law, on the need for it in a modern society and in private ie. professional lobbying to organisations such as Law Societies. The other professionals did much the same and of course never forget the appeal of Middle Class lobbyists submitting appeals to Middle Class Professional lobbyists.
All of this, regardless of the country lead to a push to abolish Capital Punishment and in each case they used controversial cases to push for it's abolition, always on the grounds that it is barbaric. But is Capital Punishment really barbaric?
Recently in the United States there has been a controversy regarding lethal injection. The drugs used come from Europe and abolitionists have tried and in some cases succeeded in stopping the drugs from being exported to the United States. Meaning that either the State in question is forced to cancel the execution or to use alternative drugs. When that leads to new problems the abolitionists then say that Capital Punishment must be banned as it is barbaric. Here is another classic Liberal tactic, to create the problem and then provide the "solution".
The truth is that modern Capital Punishment, no matter the method of execution is as painless as death can be. The further truth is that most people will suffer more painful deaths then those executed using modern methods.
What if we execute an innocent man?
Now this is a good argument as most people find it very hard to counter. Mistakes, even honest mistakes happen, the argument goes that if you wrongly convict a man and he is executed then a great injustice has been done, but if he goes to jail you can fix the mistake. But here's the thing, the problem Liberals have with Capital Punishment isn't that they might execute an innocent men, no the thing that keeps them up at night is what happens if they execute a guilty man!
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that each person is self make and self defined. A big part of that is the idea that life should not have consequences. Capital Punishment is a big consequence and it's permanent and that is why Liberals hate it, that is why they oppose it. Liberalism loves the idea of mercy, not for the innocent, for the guilty because it shows how morally superior they are to the rest of us.
Revenge is not justice:
Basically their argument is that the only punishment that is acceptable is the one they approve of. If it's more severe then they approve of they call it revenge, if they approve of it it's justice. The Liberal position is based on nothing but arrogance.
It's not a deterrent:
This one is just a lie and they know it. If something is punished harshly then people will try to avoid it, that's just common sense. Ohhh common sense now I see why Liberals missed this rather obvious idea.
The other tack they take with this idea is that murder rates have not risen since Capital Punishment was abolished so that must mean that Capital Punishment was not a deterrent. Now let me ask you a question. In the past 50 years has medical technology gotten worse, stayed the same or gotten better?
I would suggest that most people would say it has gotten better, so if medical technology has gotten better then that should mean that murder is rarer because less people die from the same wounds. When you look at it in that light you realise that society is more violent now then it was 50 years ago.
It's State murder:
Here we see the Pacifists idea that all killing is wrong in full swing, but like Pacifism it's a really bad idea. It says that the murderer has killed isn't that enough violence? What will be achieved by committing more violence? And like Pacifism it is both simple to understand and wrong.
The thing that separates Capital Punishment from murder is threefold, firstly it is legitimate, secondly the punishment is known and thirdly it is justice. Capital Punishment is lawful because the lawful authorities have made it legal, if they abolish it it is no longer lawful. But once the lawful authorities have made it lawful then then it is lawful and there for legitimate. A murder is by definition unlawful, meaning that by definition Capital Punishment constituted by a lawful authority can never be unlawful.
Secondly the punishment is known, unlike murder it is not arbitrary, that means that a murderer, unlike his victim, knows what he is getting himself into.
Thirdly a victim of murder does not get a defendant to protect their legal rights, they have no jury of their peers to appeal to, they have no learned Judge to keep things above board. The victim is denied all of these things, the murderer in a court of law is not. To pretend that this is judicial murder is simply that, pretense.
Why is it that only the victim of a murder should suffer death but the murderer should not?
Why is his life more precious than the life he has taken?
The law should always be on the side of the innocent, protecting the innocent is justice, When murderers are not executed they escape punishment, it is sadly that simple and for 50 years Australia has been in a place where the guilty are protected at the expense of the innocent.
When will we see justice again?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Chivalry
Now people often say we don't need Capital Punishment a) it is barbaric b) what if we execute an innocent man? c) revenge is not justice d) it is not a deterrent, 3) it's state murder lets have a look at each in turn.
It is barbaric:
Here is a classic Liberal tactic, brand something wrong (barbaric, discriminatory, etc.) and just keep calling it that no matter what the evidence. In the case of Capital Punishment this has been a major tactic for 300 years. It was in the 1700's that Capital Punishment first came under serious attack and that attack was that it was barbaric. In Britain the first move to restrict Capital Punishment was to call for a ban on public executions, why? Because it was barbaric. The real reason was that the public liked executions and the Middle Class did not approve of that.
In common with most Liberal causes, while opposition to Capital Punishment was held by some for most Liberals it was not an issue. And for a century the issue wasn't an issue. But it is truly remarkable how patient Liberalism is, because when it woke up again it used the exact same argument again. For a century it hadn't been barbaric and then after WWII it was barbaric again and again it shows how Liberalism works. Because the same was true of Capital Punishment after WWII as it had been a century before, the public liked executions, it was the Middle Class who didn't. So the Middle Class used their power in the Law, Parliament, the Media, Political Parties and the one thing that the Middle Class does best, the lobby groups. Lawyers cast doubt on the fairness of the law, on the need for it in a modern society and in private ie. professional lobbying to organisations such as Law Societies. The other professionals did much the same and of course never forget the appeal of Middle Class lobbyists submitting appeals to Middle Class Professional lobbyists.
All of this, regardless of the country lead to a push to abolish Capital Punishment and in each case they used controversial cases to push for it's abolition, always on the grounds that it is barbaric. But is Capital Punishment really barbaric?
Recently in the United States there has been a controversy regarding lethal injection. The drugs used come from Europe and abolitionists have tried and in some cases succeeded in stopping the drugs from being exported to the United States. Meaning that either the State in question is forced to cancel the execution or to use alternative drugs. When that leads to new problems the abolitionists then say that Capital Punishment must be banned as it is barbaric. Here is another classic Liberal tactic, to create the problem and then provide the "solution".
The truth is that modern Capital Punishment, no matter the method of execution is as painless as death can be. The further truth is that most people will suffer more painful deaths then those executed using modern methods.
What if we execute an innocent man?
Now this is a good argument as most people find it very hard to counter. Mistakes, even honest mistakes happen, the argument goes that if you wrongly convict a man and he is executed then a great injustice has been done, but if he goes to jail you can fix the mistake. But here's the thing, the problem Liberals have with Capital Punishment isn't that they might execute an innocent men, no the thing that keeps them up at night is what happens if they execute a guilty man!
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that each person is self make and self defined. A big part of that is the idea that life should not have consequences. Capital Punishment is a big consequence and it's permanent and that is why Liberals hate it, that is why they oppose it. Liberalism loves the idea of mercy, not for the innocent, for the guilty because it shows how morally superior they are to the rest of us.
Revenge is not justice:
Basically their argument is that the only punishment that is acceptable is the one they approve of. If it's more severe then they approve of they call it revenge, if they approve of it it's justice. The Liberal position is based on nothing but arrogance.
It's not a deterrent:
This one is just a lie and they know it. If something is punished harshly then people will try to avoid it, that's just common sense. Ohhh common sense now I see why Liberals missed this rather obvious idea.
The other tack they take with this idea is that murder rates have not risen since Capital Punishment was abolished so that must mean that Capital Punishment was not a deterrent. Now let me ask you a question. In the past 50 years has medical technology gotten worse, stayed the same or gotten better?
I would suggest that most people would say it has gotten better, so if medical technology has gotten better then that should mean that murder is rarer because less people die from the same wounds. When you look at it in that light you realise that society is more violent now then it was 50 years ago.
It's State murder:
Here we see the Pacifists idea that all killing is wrong in full swing, but like Pacifism it's a really bad idea. It says that the murderer has killed isn't that enough violence? What will be achieved by committing more violence? And like Pacifism it is both simple to understand and wrong.
The thing that separates Capital Punishment from murder is threefold, firstly it is legitimate, secondly the punishment is known and thirdly it is justice. Capital Punishment is lawful because the lawful authorities have made it legal, if they abolish it it is no longer lawful. But once the lawful authorities have made it lawful then then it is lawful and there for legitimate. A murder is by definition unlawful, meaning that by definition Capital Punishment constituted by a lawful authority can never be unlawful.
Secondly the punishment is known, unlike murder it is not arbitrary, that means that a murderer, unlike his victim, knows what he is getting himself into.
Thirdly a victim of murder does not get a defendant to protect their legal rights, they have no jury of their peers to appeal to, they have no learned Judge to keep things above board. The victim is denied all of these things, the murderer in a court of law is not. To pretend that this is judicial murder is simply that, pretense.
Why is it that only the victim of a murder should suffer death but the murderer should not?
Why is his life more precious than the life he has taken?
The law should always be on the side of the innocent, protecting the innocent is justice, When murderers are not executed they escape punishment, it is sadly that simple and for 50 years Australia has been in a place where the guilty are protected at the expense of the innocent.
When will we see justice again?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Chivalry