Recently on a Facebook group I belong to, someone asked the question "Anybody have any suggestions on how I can explain Traditional Conservatism to my kids?". I sent him a reply with some ideas, but I thought this is a good question that I would like to expand upon.
The first thing to remember is that a child's world is small, very small and it expands slowly. And the way things are taught to a child should be logical, from small to big, from personal to impersonal, from simple to complex. This is true for all teaching. You should never set your student up to fail if you can help it. It was explained to me as never give your students the final year exam at the start of the year. Instead build them up step by step until they can pass the exam.
The three principles of Traditional Conservatism are:
Tradition
Order
Family
Of course for preschoolers there is no need to tell them what the principles are. They can learn what they are first and then learn the names later. Remember, from small to large, from personal to impersonal, from simple to complex.
Tradition
The best way to bring out the importance of tradition is to live them and talk about them. Celebrate the important dates in your families lives, in your community and your countries life. At this age it is best just to do and to tell them how important it is, too much explanation will simply be confusing. Remember to have your own family traditions, not just for for the big occasions but also for everyday living. Have a sports day, or a music day, build your own family traditions. Make life both exciting and comforting.
Order
Order is about things being in their rightful place, preschoolers both love and hate it. Much of this is simply what you would teach preschoolers anyway. To make sense of the world they need to categorize things, to put them in order. Encourage that and let them know that things have their rightful place. Nearly everything you teach a preschooler about involves order, putting things in their rightful place.
Family
Talk about family history, visit family, show photos, talk about when you were growing up in the olden days, visit graves. Do not cut yourself or your preschooler off from the past. Let them know that the past created today, that it created them. That family is about love and blood.
For most people the things mentioned here will happen anyway, but it is good to have a reminder or to point out something that you might not have thought of.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Patriotism
Saturday, 28 October 2017
Friday, 20 October 2017
Melbourne Traditionalist Conference 2018
I am please to announce that in a years time, to the day, we will be hosting the Melbourne Traditionalists Conference. I have already secured a venue and have begun the planning for the conference.
Dates: 19 October 2018, Friday 7pm Meet and Greet
20 October 2018, Saturday 10am - 5pm Conference
7pm Banquet
Venue: The venue is very nice, old and beautiful in Melbourne Australia
Cost: $75 - $100 (Australian dollars)
What do you get for your money: 5 lectures, lunch and banquet, all non-alcoholic drinks. The cost will be inclusive of all of this.
There is still a lot of work to be done to turn it into a reality, but the first steps have been taken. For those who live in or near Melbourne there isn't much of an excuse not to come. For those further afield, hopefully a years notice is enough!
For those seeking further information please send me an email: uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
What do Traditional Conservatives believe?
Dates: 19 October 2018, Friday 7pm Meet and Greet
20 October 2018, Saturday 10am - 5pm Conference
7pm Banquet
Venue: The venue is very nice, old and beautiful in Melbourne Australia
Cost: $75 - $100 (Australian dollars)
What do you get for your money: 5 lectures, lunch and banquet, all non-alcoholic drinks. The cost will be inclusive of all of this.
There is still a lot of work to be done to turn it into a reality, but the first steps have been taken. For those who live in or near Melbourne there isn't much of an excuse not to come. For those further afield, hopefully a years notice is enough!
For those seeking further information please send me an email: uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like:
What do Traditional Conservatives believe?
Friday, 13 October 2017
Voices from Palestine 1890s-1948 - A Book Review
Normally when I review a book I put the title in the title of the post, but in this case the subtitle was more useful. The book is entitled 'A senseless, squalid war' by Norman Rose, and the quotes are in the title. The book is about the British Mandate of Palestine and how and why it ended. I thought that as the issue of Israel/Palestine comes up on the Right more than I think it deserves, that some might find this book helpful.
Norman Rose was a Historian at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem and was employed there when he wrote this book. The book is a good read and well written, normally easy to follow and informative. It deals with a roughly 50 year period starting in the 1890's when Jewish immigration to Palestine starts to become a political issue. It ends with the British leaving Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel. What makes this book useful is that it clearly explains the sequence of events and how the issues grew from small to large. There are many personal accounts of events and thoughts which provides a greater insight.
The book looks at the three sided conflict, military, political, economic and demographic from the Arab, Jewish and British sides. On the cover is a quote from a book review in the Spectator newspaper 'Eloquent, comprehensive and even-handed, Truly excellent.' I mostly agree, but it is not quite as even handed as the reviewer thinks. It seems to me that the book is fairer to the Jews, then to the British and finally to the Arabs. But that has it's advantageous as it reveals quite clearly the internal divisions within the Jewish camp. It is not dismissive of the Arabs and it does talk about Jewish tactics and excesses. As a history I think it is quite well done and worthwhile for anyone looking for a popular history of the beginnings of the Israel/Palestine problem.
But as I was thinking about this review, it occurred to me that the way the Jews and the Arabs approached things, is very much how Liberals and Conservative approach issues. The Jews were always ready to talk, in fact they often pushed for talks to legitimize their position. Something Liberals do all the time. The Arabs however were so certain that their cause was right that they often refused to talk, which made them look like they were the cause of the problem, even though they were not. Something Conservatives do. While the Jews were always ready to talk, to practically anyone, they never compromised on anything important. And any compromise they did make was used as a bargaining chip in later negotiations. This is such a Liberal thing to do. The Arabs also never compromised on anything important, but they were sold out by Arabs who sold land to the Jews and who refused to stand up to any threat. In fact one of the reasons the Arabs lost was because so much of their leadership was more concerned with their own welfare than with their peoples. Sound familiar?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Loneliness Epidemic
Norman Rose was a Historian at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem and was employed there when he wrote this book. The book is a good read and well written, normally easy to follow and informative. It deals with a roughly 50 year period starting in the 1890's when Jewish immigration to Palestine starts to become a political issue. It ends with the British leaving Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel. What makes this book useful is that it clearly explains the sequence of events and how the issues grew from small to large. There are many personal accounts of events and thoughts which provides a greater insight.
The book looks at the three sided conflict, military, political, economic and demographic from the Arab, Jewish and British sides. On the cover is a quote from a book review in the Spectator newspaper 'Eloquent, comprehensive and even-handed, Truly excellent.' I mostly agree, but it is not quite as even handed as the reviewer thinks. It seems to me that the book is fairer to the Jews, then to the British and finally to the Arabs. But that has it's advantageous as it reveals quite clearly the internal divisions within the Jewish camp. It is not dismissive of the Arabs and it does talk about Jewish tactics and excesses. As a history I think it is quite well done and worthwhile for anyone looking for a popular history of the beginnings of the Israel/Palestine problem.
But as I was thinking about this review, it occurred to me that the way the Jews and the Arabs approached things, is very much how Liberals and Conservative approach issues. The Jews were always ready to talk, in fact they often pushed for talks to legitimize their position. Something Liberals do all the time. The Arabs however were so certain that their cause was right that they often refused to talk, which made them look like they were the cause of the problem, even though they were not. Something Conservatives do. While the Jews were always ready to talk, to practically anyone, they never compromised on anything important. And any compromise they did make was used as a bargaining chip in later negotiations. This is such a Liberal thing to do. The Arabs also never compromised on anything important, but they were sold out by Arabs who sold land to the Jews and who refused to stand up to any threat. In fact one of the reasons the Arabs lost was because so much of their leadership was more concerned with their own welfare than with their peoples. Sound familiar?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Loneliness Epidemic
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
The Fifty-Fifth Month
I'll keep this short but this month is down from the month before and was nearly at the same level as two months ago, only a 100 or so fewer.
The worst day in the last month was the 4th October when I had 44 visitors, the best day was the 17th September when I had 250 visitors, that last number is not rounded off.
September-October
August-September
Australia is up and back over 400, the United Kingdom, Canada and Spain are up.
The worst day in the last month was the 4th October when I had 44 visitors, the best day was the 17th September when I had 250 visitors, that last number is not rounded off.
September-October
August-September
The United States and Germany are down.
France has stayed exactly the same.
Finland, Japan and United Arab Emirates are in the top 10.
Russia, Brazil and Ireland are out of the top 10, Brazil and Ireland were both in for most of the month.
I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, Namibia, South Africa, Barbados, Brazil, Argentina.
I hope you enjoyed your visit and I that you visit again.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Sunday, 8 October 2017
What We Are Up Against
Currently in Australia there is a postal vote to gage the electorate's opinion on homosexual marriage. What is bizarre about this, I mean apart from the entire idea of homosexual marriage, is that local and state governments have stated their support for homosexual marriage. And so far 660 Australian companies and 1,715 organisations have also come out in support as of the 18th September. I encourage you to look at this link showing the logo's of these companies.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-the-businesses-backing-the-yes-campaign-for-same-sex-marriage-2017-9
But I will remind people that in Republican Referendum to decide if Australian would become a Republic in 1999. Every TV station, newspaper and all but a hand full of radio stations supported Australia becoming a Republic, as did the majority of politicians, it failed.
More recently we have Brexit and the election of President Trump. How I remember watching the TV stations all saying that Hillary Clinton had a 98.5% of victory....thank God for that 1.5%!
To be honest I don't know which side will get the most votes, but it is becoming clear that many people are starting to question the idea's being put before them. Even with all of that opposition there is still hope.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Financial Economy
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-the-businesses-backing-the-yes-campaign-for-same-sex-marriage-2017-9
But I will remind people that in Republican Referendum to decide if Australian would become a Republic in 1999. Every TV station, newspaper and all but a hand full of radio stations supported Australia becoming a Republic, as did the majority of politicians, it failed.
More recently we have Brexit and the election of President Trump. How I remember watching the TV stations all saying that Hillary Clinton had a 98.5% of victory....thank God for that 1.5%!
To be honest I don't know which side will get the most votes, but it is becoming clear that many people are starting to question the idea's being put before them. Even with all of that opposition there is still hope.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Financial Economy
Thursday, 5 October 2017
The Old Double Standard
Feminists used to argue against the double standard, the idea that it was okay for men to be promiscuous but not for women. Now promiscuity is in the long term a bad thing for both men and women, collectively and individually. However it affects men and women differently, something that was once regarded as common sense, but when was the last time you heard someone talk about common sense?
Here I want to write about how promiscuity affects men and women and why the double standard was a benefit to society as long as it wasn't taken too far.
It may not come as surprise to many but men are quite attracted to women, both individual women and women as a sex. This attraction can cause a man to be more interested in lust than love. But having said that I should also point out that men are individuals and this is not true for all men, but it is common enough. When men are serious they are attracted to a women, when they are not they are attracted to all women. And when a man decides to be promiscuous he wants to be as promiscuous as possible. But there comes a time when lust alone losses it's glamour, when a man seeks more than the physical and the impermanent. Bizarrely promiscuity can make him more attractive to women and set him up to want more than promiscuity can provide. Sadly some men never leave and others return to it, but for most men promiscuity is a phase that once over is over.
For women promiscuity is different, emotions play a much bigger part in sex than it does for a man. Most men can engage in sex without any emotional attachment, that is rarely true for women. The reason is a hormone called oxytocin, which bonds a women to the man she has just had sex with. So while in theory promiscuity should provide a women with some benefit, it doesn't. Instead what it does is causes confusion because she feels emotion for men who she shouldn't. Over time this causes a great deal of hurt and heartbreak. Women can come to feel that men are cold and heartless, and not without reason. However this does neither men or women any good in the long term. As a women gets older and decides she would like a more permanent relationship, the most natural desire in the world, how does she put aside her hard learnt emotions that men are cold and heartless? Sadly it is very hard to do so and instead you find women who do not bond with their husband and this never ends well.
I do not know why nature has decreed that men should get a benefit for promiscuity and women should not, but it seems clear to me that that is the case. There are of course other risks associated with promiscuity such as pregnancy, disease, reputation to name only some. But the above is a taste of what happens when everything works right. But even for men promiscuity has it's limits, for an interesting but extremely sad example of overplaying promiscuity read this:
http://www.returnofkings.com/129776/a-face-that-i-could-love
For some good and positive advice on building a more permanent relationship watch this:
The Consequences of "Trading UP"
Update: I wrote this a few days too early, two days after I wrote this another article has been published online with statistics and here it is:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/sluts-are-nuts.html
While the title might be off putting the statistics are quite revealing.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Principle of Respect
Here I want to write about how promiscuity affects men and women and why the double standard was a benefit to society as long as it wasn't taken too far.
It may not come as surprise to many but men are quite attracted to women, both individual women and women as a sex. This attraction can cause a man to be more interested in lust than love. But having said that I should also point out that men are individuals and this is not true for all men, but it is common enough. When men are serious they are attracted to a women, when they are not they are attracted to all women. And when a man decides to be promiscuous he wants to be as promiscuous as possible. But there comes a time when lust alone losses it's glamour, when a man seeks more than the physical and the impermanent. Bizarrely promiscuity can make him more attractive to women and set him up to want more than promiscuity can provide. Sadly some men never leave and others return to it, but for most men promiscuity is a phase that once over is over.
For women promiscuity is different, emotions play a much bigger part in sex than it does for a man. Most men can engage in sex without any emotional attachment, that is rarely true for women. The reason is a hormone called oxytocin, which bonds a women to the man she has just had sex with. So while in theory promiscuity should provide a women with some benefit, it doesn't. Instead what it does is causes confusion because she feels emotion for men who she shouldn't. Over time this causes a great deal of hurt and heartbreak. Women can come to feel that men are cold and heartless, and not without reason. However this does neither men or women any good in the long term. As a women gets older and decides she would like a more permanent relationship, the most natural desire in the world, how does she put aside her hard learnt emotions that men are cold and heartless? Sadly it is very hard to do so and instead you find women who do not bond with their husband and this never ends well.
I do not know why nature has decreed that men should get a benefit for promiscuity and women should not, but it seems clear to me that that is the case. There are of course other risks associated with promiscuity such as pregnancy, disease, reputation to name only some. But the above is a taste of what happens when everything works right. But even for men promiscuity has it's limits, for an interesting but extremely sad example of overplaying promiscuity read this:
http://www.returnofkings.com/129776/a-face-that-i-could-love
For some good and positive advice on building a more permanent relationship watch this:
The Consequences of "Trading UP"
Update: I wrote this a few days too early, two days after I wrote this another article has been published online with statistics and here it is:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/sluts-are-nuts.html
While the title might be off putting the statistics are quite revealing.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Principle of Respect
Monday, 2 October 2017
The Camp of the Saints - A Book Review
About a month or so ago I was talking to someone at a social event and he mentioned The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail, I replied that while I had heard of the book I had never read it. In fact I had never even seen a copy. The next time we caught up he handed me his copy, so I began to read.
For those who don't know about the book it was published in French in 1973 and translated into English two years later. It is about a fleet that arrives off the coast of France filled with a million people from the Third World, in this case Indians. Which leads to the destruction of Western Civilization and the end of the White race. Of course it has been labeled racist and ridiculous, something that could never happen. Although after having read it it is hard not to be affected by it and to not notice that much of it has happened.
On the back of the book are some excerpts, this one shows the scale of the book:
"A stream of violent controversy will swirl around this book, since it takes on a whole cluster of polemical issues -- over-population, race, the Third World, and the character of liberal thought and sentiment."
There are three great themes in the book, 1. Race, 2. Liberalism and 3. the lose of confidence within the West. Most people, certainly most critics and detractors of the book, only notice Race but the others are also very important to the story. As the author puts it in his preface much of what he puts into characters mouths are things that had really been said. It it both a strength and a weakness of the book, it means that the ridiculous sounding is not so ridiculous unfortunately it also means that characters often don't speak so much as give speeches. Sometimes that works better in some places than it does in other places.
I would like to give two excerpts from the book itself, one short, the other long.
Most of the book is set in France, but this scene is in New York with an adviser speaking to the Mayor on the telephone and in it you can see the first and the third themes:
"And the wolf is tired of being a wolf, is that what your saying? Well, do like me, Jack. Have yourself another drink, and run your fingers up and down your wife's white skin, nice and slow, like something very precious. And wait. . . " (page 22)
This next scene is in the Belgian consulate in India before the fleet sets sail and he is addressing a group of Western Liberals who have set the events in motion:
"You know," the Consul went on, "there's a very old word that describes the kind of men you are. It's 'traitor.' That's all, your nothing new. There have been all kinds. We've had bishop traitors, knight traitors, general traitors, statesmen traitors, scholar traitors, and just plain traitors. It's a species the West abounds in, and it seems to get richer and richer the smaller it grows. Funny, you would think it would be the other way around. But the mind decays, the spirit warps. And the traitors keep coming. Since that day in 1522, the twelfth of October, when that noble knight, Andrea d'Amaral, your patron saint, threw open the gates of Rhodes to the Turks. . . Well, that's how it is, and no one can change it. I can't. I'm sure. But I can tell you this; I may be wrong about your results, but I find your actions beneath contempt. Gentlemen, your passports will not be renewed. That's the one official way I can still show you how I feel. And my Western colleagues are doing the same with any of their nationals involved."
One of the statues sat up. The one who had mused about the ocean. He was, in fact, the atheist philosopher known in the West by the name Ballan.
"Passports, countries, religions, ideals, races, borders, oceans . . . " Ballan shouted. "What bloody rubbish!" (page 31)
The book is best when it concerns the West, when it shows how Liberal piety works in theory and in practice. How it eats away at the centre until all that remains is a soft outer crust that looks much more solid than it really is. How it inverts the good in us and perverts it to evil, how humility is made into contempt, how cowardice is portrayed as heroism, how the high call of morality and ethics are made into the sirens call that leads to immorality and self destruction. How the claim that the individual is God leads to defeat for the individual and all he holds dear.
Race is not backed away from in the book, it is a very openly pro-White book. But having said that everything that happens in the book is the fault of Whites and the author does not hide that fact. He never states it, but he doesn't have to. It was Whites who created the technology for the Third World to come here, in the book the ships that make up the fleet. It is Whites who told the peoples of the Third World that we are all equal and that they have every right to live as we do. It was Whites who encouraged them to leave their homelands and invade the West. It was Whites who refused to stop the fleet even though it had multiple chances to do so. The West fell because Whites refused to defend it.
The Camp of the Saints is a tragedy, an important book and a wake up call.
Let us defend the West!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Stages of Liberal Reform
For those who don't know about the book it was published in French in 1973 and translated into English two years later. It is about a fleet that arrives off the coast of France filled with a million people from the Third World, in this case Indians. Which leads to the destruction of Western Civilization and the end of the White race. Of course it has been labeled racist and ridiculous, something that could never happen. Although after having read it it is hard not to be affected by it and to not notice that much of it has happened.
On the back of the book are some excerpts, this one shows the scale of the book:
"A stream of violent controversy will swirl around this book, since it takes on a whole cluster of polemical issues -- over-population, race, the Third World, and the character of liberal thought and sentiment."
There are three great themes in the book, 1. Race, 2. Liberalism and 3. the lose of confidence within the West. Most people, certainly most critics and detractors of the book, only notice Race but the others are also very important to the story. As the author puts it in his preface much of what he puts into characters mouths are things that had really been said. It it both a strength and a weakness of the book, it means that the ridiculous sounding is not so ridiculous unfortunately it also means that characters often don't speak so much as give speeches. Sometimes that works better in some places than it does in other places.
I would like to give two excerpts from the book itself, one short, the other long.
Most of the book is set in France, but this scene is in New York with an adviser speaking to the Mayor on the telephone and in it you can see the first and the third themes:
"And the wolf is tired of being a wolf, is that what your saying? Well, do like me, Jack. Have yourself another drink, and run your fingers up and down your wife's white skin, nice and slow, like something very precious. And wait. . . " (page 22)
This next scene is in the Belgian consulate in India before the fleet sets sail and he is addressing a group of Western Liberals who have set the events in motion:
"You know," the Consul went on, "there's a very old word that describes the kind of men you are. It's 'traitor.' That's all, your nothing new. There have been all kinds. We've had bishop traitors, knight traitors, general traitors, statesmen traitors, scholar traitors, and just plain traitors. It's a species the West abounds in, and it seems to get richer and richer the smaller it grows. Funny, you would think it would be the other way around. But the mind decays, the spirit warps. And the traitors keep coming. Since that day in 1522, the twelfth of October, when that noble knight, Andrea d'Amaral, your patron saint, threw open the gates of Rhodes to the Turks. . . Well, that's how it is, and no one can change it. I can't. I'm sure. But I can tell you this; I may be wrong about your results, but I find your actions beneath contempt. Gentlemen, your passports will not be renewed. That's the one official way I can still show you how I feel. And my Western colleagues are doing the same with any of their nationals involved."
One of the statues sat up. The one who had mused about the ocean. He was, in fact, the atheist philosopher known in the West by the name Ballan.
"Passports, countries, religions, ideals, races, borders, oceans . . . " Ballan shouted. "What bloody rubbish!" (page 31)
The book is best when it concerns the West, when it shows how Liberal piety works in theory and in practice. How it eats away at the centre until all that remains is a soft outer crust that looks much more solid than it really is. How it inverts the good in us and perverts it to evil, how humility is made into contempt, how cowardice is portrayed as heroism, how the high call of morality and ethics are made into the sirens call that leads to immorality and self destruction. How the claim that the individual is God leads to defeat for the individual and all he holds dear.
Race is not backed away from in the book, it is a very openly pro-White book. But having said that everything that happens in the book is the fault of Whites and the author does not hide that fact. He never states it, but he doesn't have to. It was Whites who created the technology for the Third World to come here, in the book the ships that make up the fleet. It is Whites who told the peoples of the Third World that we are all equal and that they have every right to live as we do. It was Whites who encouraged them to leave their homelands and invade the West. It was Whites who refused to stop the fleet even though it had multiple chances to do so. The West fell because Whites refused to defend it.
The Camp of the Saints is a tragedy, an important book and a wake up call.
Let us defend the West!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Stages of Liberal Reform
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)