Democracy is a political system that works when people feel they can compromise. However we are rapidly leaving that idea behind. How many times have you voted for a candidate or heard someone else say they voted for a particular candidate because they were "the lesser of two evils"? I know I have. But the thing is, that the lesser of two evils, is still evil.
When good compromises with evil, we get more evil, only slower. For the good to remain good it cannot compromise. But being unrelenting is difficult. It's true that a tree that does not bend breaks. So instead of breaking we bend, at a personal level, in fact at every level. We compromise, we give up the good to achieve some peace. We allow evil to triumph and because it was only a small triumph we can pretend to ourselves that it wasn't a big deal.
Conservatives have always said that Democracy would fail. It is our curse that we can see the endpoint, we can quite clearly see that this great scheme is doomed. But we cannot get the timing right, we always think that the doom is near, no matter how far away it really is. So we tell people that this will fail and they then watch as it does not fail, in fact it achieves great successes. We look like fools while still knowing the truth. It seems like a religious conviction, like we have put our faith before our reasoning. However it is exactly the opposite, our reasoning has informed our faith...so to speak.
Of course Conservatism is neither a religion or a faith, instead it is a political philosophy. A conceit that we know how to organise the affairs of man. Maybe it is wrong to say that Democracy is unique in it's failings. Maybe all schemes to organise the affairs of man will fail in time. Maybe man is the problem and not philosophy?
However we are then left with a paradox. Man needs order to live in any kind of security, let alone freedom. But if all schemes to organise the affairs of man are doomed to fail, how do we achieve order?
I think that the answer to this paradox is not that things fail but for how long can they maintain order.
Democracy once seemed like the great answer to human affairs. It gave everyone a say in the running of the Government. It gave everyone a stake in the political system. It put forward high sounding ideals, such as freedom, equality, progress, prosperity to name just a few. It made attempts to achieve these things and often it looked like it had achieved them. But freedoms are in competition with each other, equality may be law but nowhere is it real because it is not a real reflection of reality. In other words looks and laws can be deceiving.
And when it fails we will all hear, but it wasn't real Democracy!
What is becoming increasingly clear is that the centre is shrinking. Both the Left and the Right are growing in size. And we each are coming around to the idea that we cannot live with the other. That compromise is wrong, that there is nothing that should be compromised. We think that we are right and we know that the Left is evil, the Left thinks that we are evil and know that they are right.
I have not felt that Parliament represented me for a long time. I vote merely to vote in the lesser of two evils, who is still evil. The sense that we are a community all in this together is gone, my neighbours are not my people but random strangers from all over the world. And the people who are my blood are living in a dreamworld that I do not share.
In such an atmosphere Democracy cannot survive.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
When Universal Ideals Aren't
Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Saturday, 25 November 2017
Liberalism Without Democracy
The political ideology that we live under is Liberalism, but one of it's best defensive techniques is to not call it anything. To simply leave the impression that what we live under has no name, instead it is portrayed as simply the way things are. One of the few times we do hear the word "Liberal" is in the term Liberal Democracy.
A few days ago I was reading this article "Conservatism, Populism and Conviction Politics by John O'Sullivan in Quadrant. Which starts off badly but becomes really good, I encourage you to read it, even though it is over 8 pages in length. But in it he comes across a term and turns it on it's head. Which reveals something quite remarkable.
" Professor Mudde has given us one such definition above: populism is an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism. Another was revealed unintentionally by Professor Pappas when he said: “Populist parties embrace democracy but not liberalism. Liberalism without democracy is not a combination found in real-life polities today.” It is his second sentence that discloses the definition we need. For “liberalism without democracy” is an apt description of the system of government towards which the West has been moving since 1989, and populism is the resistance to it."
Liberalism without democracy is very revealing, because that is the system of government that we increasingly live under. That explains a mystery that I have not written about much because I didn't have an answer to it. Why are Parliaments giving up their power?
When you look at how democracy is supposed to work and how it currently does work you notice a discrepancy. Democracy is supposed to work with each of the three branches of government, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, in friendly hostility to each other. Friendly because they are supposed to cooperate, but hostile because they are jealous of their unique rights and abilities.
However since WWII the system has ceased to function like that, and since the end of the Cold War that has accelerated. It started with International bodies, they had existed before WWII but afterwards they were given a new and special place. Firstly they were given the responsibility for maintaining the peace of the world. Secondly it was the given the moral authority to decide if countries were right or wrong. Thirdly it was given responsibilities for everything from health (World Health Organisation) to protecting historic monuments (UNESCO).
Now politicians could use the United Nations as a way of avoiding responsibilities. They would have to appeal to a higher authority than the nationals Parliament, or Courts or the Head of State. In times past a higher authority would have meant God, or the Church but the United Nations replaced all of them. God, Churches, Parliaments, Courts, Head of States, all awaiting United Nations approval. And it worked, people accepted it, Parliaments accepted it, Courts accepted it.
So then they moved onto the Courts, if people would accept the authority of the made up United Nations. And it was make up, in San Franciso, in 1945. Then why not use the Courts to effect Liberal change. People don't expect to the have a say in the decision of the Courts. Maybe the Courts could be used to effect change. It turns out that they can!
All they need to do is to ignore an important principle of law, called precedent. Here's how it works, in a properly functioning system of law, laws are made either by the Parliament enacting them or by Precedent. Precedent is whereby a legal decision on a particular legal matter has been made in the past. That creates a precedent and thereby a new law. What the Courts are not allowed to do is simply to make up law as they see fit. What the Liberal Activists have done is they will do exactly that, they will create law as they see fit using the Courts. Judges will then enforce this new entirely made up law because they will argue that they are using precedent.
We can currently see this very clearly with President Trumps travel bans. The Courts do not have any power to change a decision of the Executive Branch. But it pretends that it does. It also does not have the power to change laws made by the United States Congress. But again it pretends that it does. Only the President has the power to make or unmake an Executive Order. The same exists with laws passed by Congress, only Congress can make or unmake it's laws. The United States Supreme Court decides upon whether a law is Constitutional, however that power is no where in the United States Constitution, instead it is a power it took for itself all the way back in 1803. If a law is decided to be unconstitutional, in the past it went back to Congress, now it dies a quick death with everyone just accepting the Courts decision.
That is not how Democracy is supposed to work, but as long as Liberalism advances then who cares how if democracy works, it's only important if Liberalism works.
Liberalism without democracy has a third leg, the Non-Government Organisation also known as an NGO. Here you can use private citizens to advance the cause of Liberalism without Government approval. Sorry did I say without Government approval? What I meant to say was without officially declaring the Governments interest. For example, private citizens who work for an NGO lobby Government to increase subsidies for solar panels, for example. The Government accepts the opinion of the NGO because thats what the people want and they know what the people want because the NGO told them. So how do the workers in the NGO get paid? They get paid by the Taxpayer via the Government who provides them with a grant to look into how people feel about solar panels. Whats important isn't the Taxpayer, or the NGO or the Government, whats important is Liberalism and advancing it's objectives.
The fourth leg is big business, today Crony Capitalism is King. The Government provides money, regulations and contacts to keep big business big. Free Enterprise whereby companies compete against each other to generate profit is not what any CEO wants to endure. Much better to get the Government to introduce regulations that smaller competitors cannot comply with and stop any real competition before it starts. In return big business supports the social agenda of the Government. It doesn't need a memo, it does it all of it's "own free will" (Trademark). Of course a company is not a person, it has no free will, it does however have interests. Interests that can be worked on by people who don't need to engage in Free Enterprise because their friends in Government have put in place regulations that destroy any real competition.
Liberalism without democracy helps explain why democracy is dying, it has served in purpose. Certainly we will continue to have elections, but the days when they matter are receding into the past. Now the peoples will can be and is circumvented.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Defending the American Alliance
A few days ago I was reading this article "Conservatism, Populism and Conviction Politics by John O'Sullivan in Quadrant. Which starts off badly but becomes really good, I encourage you to read it, even though it is over 8 pages in length. But in it he comes across a term and turns it on it's head. Which reveals something quite remarkable.
" Professor Mudde has given us one such definition above: populism is an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism. Another was revealed unintentionally by Professor Pappas when he said: “Populist parties embrace democracy but not liberalism. Liberalism without democracy is not a combination found in real-life polities today.” It is his second sentence that discloses the definition we need. For “liberalism without democracy” is an apt description of the system of government towards which the West has been moving since 1989, and populism is the resistance to it."
Liberalism without democracy is very revealing, because that is the system of government that we increasingly live under. That explains a mystery that I have not written about much because I didn't have an answer to it. Why are Parliaments giving up their power?
When you look at how democracy is supposed to work and how it currently does work you notice a discrepancy. Democracy is supposed to work with each of the three branches of government, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, in friendly hostility to each other. Friendly because they are supposed to cooperate, but hostile because they are jealous of their unique rights and abilities.
However since WWII the system has ceased to function like that, and since the end of the Cold War that has accelerated. It started with International bodies, they had existed before WWII but afterwards they were given a new and special place. Firstly they were given the responsibility for maintaining the peace of the world. Secondly it was the given the moral authority to decide if countries were right or wrong. Thirdly it was given responsibilities for everything from health (World Health Organisation) to protecting historic monuments (UNESCO).
Now politicians could use the United Nations as a way of avoiding responsibilities. They would have to appeal to a higher authority than the nationals Parliament, or Courts or the Head of State. In times past a higher authority would have meant God, or the Church but the United Nations replaced all of them. God, Churches, Parliaments, Courts, Head of States, all awaiting United Nations approval. And it worked, people accepted it, Parliaments accepted it, Courts accepted it.
So then they moved onto the Courts, if people would accept the authority of the made up United Nations. And it was make up, in San Franciso, in 1945. Then why not use the Courts to effect Liberal change. People don't expect to the have a say in the decision of the Courts. Maybe the Courts could be used to effect change. It turns out that they can!
All they need to do is to ignore an important principle of law, called precedent. Here's how it works, in a properly functioning system of law, laws are made either by the Parliament enacting them or by Precedent. Precedent is whereby a legal decision on a particular legal matter has been made in the past. That creates a precedent and thereby a new law. What the Courts are not allowed to do is simply to make up law as they see fit. What the Liberal Activists have done is they will do exactly that, they will create law as they see fit using the Courts. Judges will then enforce this new entirely made up law because they will argue that they are using precedent.
We can currently see this very clearly with President Trumps travel bans. The Courts do not have any power to change a decision of the Executive Branch. But it pretends that it does. It also does not have the power to change laws made by the United States Congress. But again it pretends that it does. Only the President has the power to make or unmake an Executive Order. The same exists with laws passed by Congress, only Congress can make or unmake it's laws. The United States Supreme Court decides upon whether a law is Constitutional, however that power is no where in the United States Constitution, instead it is a power it took for itself all the way back in 1803. If a law is decided to be unconstitutional, in the past it went back to Congress, now it dies a quick death with everyone just accepting the Courts decision.
That is not how Democracy is supposed to work, but as long as Liberalism advances then who cares how if democracy works, it's only important if Liberalism works.
Liberalism without democracy has a third leg, the Non-Government Organisation also known as an NGO. Here you can use private citizens to advance the cause of Liberalism without Government approval. Sorry did I say without Government approval? What I meant to say was without officially declaring the Governments interest. For example, private citizens who work for an NGO lobby Government to increase subsidies for solar panels, for example. The Government accepts the opinion of the NGO because thats what the people want and they know what the people want because the NGO told them. So how do the workers in the NGO get paid? They get paid by the Taxpayer via the Government who provides them with a grant to look into how people feel about solar panels. Whats important isn't the Taxpayer, or the NGO or the Government, whats important is Liberalism and advancing it's objectives.
The fourth leg is big business, today Crony Capitalism is King. The Government provides money, regulations and contacts to keep big business big. Free Enterprise whereby companies compete against each other to generate profit is not what any CEO wants to endure. Much better to get the Government to introduce regulations that smaller competitors cannot comply with and stop any real competition before it starts. In return big business supports the social agenda of the Government. It doesn't need a memo, it does it all of it's "own free will" (Trademark). Of course a company is not a person, it has no free will, it does however have interests. Interests that can be worked on by people who don't need to engage in Free Enterprise because their friends in Government have put in place regulations that destroy any real competition.
Liberalism without democracy helps explain why democracy is dying, it has served in purpose. Certainly we will continue to have elections, but the days when they matter are receding into the past. Now the peoples will can be and is circumvented.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Defending the American Alliance
Thursday, 16 November 2017
Australia and the End of Common Sense
Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that 79.5% of eligible Australian voters had voted on the question of whether they supported same sex marriage in Australia. Of that total 61.6% voted in favour and 38.4% against. Yet another defeat for common sense, yet another victory for stupidity and insanity.
Something that 30 years ago people laughed at, 40 years ago when people said that legalizing homosexuality would lead to this they were ridiculed and yet here we are. We have abandoned common sense for emotionalism, we have abandoned family for anything goes. Two people of the same sex cannot make a baby but thats forward looking and we have abandoned that as well. How much thought has been given to the future?
This is one more nail in the coffin of the family and in marriage. From this point on the pressure for more social experimentation increases. More teaching children about sex and homosexuality. More pressure to embrace the unacceptable. More pressure to redefine marriage further. More stupidity and insanity. And now all presented as the peoples will.
Everyone who voted yes has given us a giant shit sandwich!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong?
Something that 30 years ago people laughed at, 40 years ago when people said that legalizing homosexuality would lead to this they were ridiculed and yet here we are. We have abandoned common sense for emotionalism, we have abandoned family for anything goes. Two people of the same sex cannot make a baby but thats forward looking and we have abandoned that as well. How much thought has been given to the future?
This is one more nail in the coffin of the family and in marriage. From this point on the pressure for more social experimentation increases. More teaching children about sex and homosexuality. More pressure to embrace the unacceptable. More pressure to redefine marriage further. More stupidity and insanity. And now all presented as the peoples will.
Everyone who voted yes has given us a giant shit sandwich!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong?
Monday, 13 November 2017
Novelty, Our Strength is Our Weakness
I have thought for some time that often someone or somethings greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. The West has that problem, the thing that has make us great, novelty, is killing us. What is novelty? Novelty is liking the new and strange, and we do. Our Civilization was built on novelty, new ideas, new discoveries, new inventions, new technologies. The Civilization of the West is based on innovation, changing things, as many things as we can.
Before the Black_Death around 1350, the outlook of the West doesn't seem much different from any other Civilization. But afterwards things began to change, first the deaths of so many people changed society. Workers were in short supply and therefore wages began to be more widely paid. Before that time wages were rare, people worked either feeding themselves or for their Feudal Lord. Secondly educated people knew that the world had once been better than it was, they knew about the Roman Empire. They could read about it and they could see the ruins, ruins they couldn't build and in many cases couldn't even repair. Thirdly after this period there are inventions that no other Civilization ever developed. In the later Middle Ages both Plate armour and handguns were developed and only replaced when something better came along. In other Civilizations once technology reached a certain level then they either didn't develop further or they actively destroyed technology.
People often call this Idea of progress or the cult of progress, but I think that is putting the cart before the horse. I think that the reality came first and then people came up for a name for it, but calling it the idea of progress makes it sounds like it was all part of a master plan, it wasn't. Unlike other peoples, Europeans came to view the new as good, even better, it came to define their Civilization. It still defines it. The history of Western Civilization became the history of novelty, whats new, discoveries, inventions, people, ideas, music, art, whats new!
I started thinking about this when I was watching a TV series on music. An episode on the 1960's for example didn't feature music that was popular in that decade, instead it featured ideas that would be popular. In other words it was really a history of novelty in music. I started to notice it everywhere in the study of history. It wasn't about how people lived it was about novelty, about what was new and exciting. About what would change the future instead of being a study of it's particular time and place. But this idea is everywhere in our Civilization, the idea that things can be new and improved. And it's allied idea that things that aren't shouldn't exist.
Sometimes I tell people I'd rather be old fashioned then new fashioned, they always laugh because being new fashioned is something they have never heard before. But how often are we told that something must be done way with because it is old fashioned? Old fashioned is outdated, it most certainly is not a novelty and we are addicted to novelty. Whats the latest scientific discovery? Whats the newest technology? Whats new at the movies? What new songs are on the music charts? Look at this new idea, technique or book. Constantly we are bombarded with the new.
But how can it be that the new is always better, however that prejudice is very much a part of our Civilization. It is even acceptable to lie about the past to guarantee that the new will be better. In the past people thought the world was flat....no they didn't that is a deliberate lie. In the past people argued about how many angels could fit on the eye of a needle...no they didn't that is a deliberate lie. In the past (meaning before the person speaking was born) women were basically slaves...no they weren't that is a deliberate lie. These lies make the present seem better while always degrading the future they claim to won't so much. The past, present nor the future is important, only novelty is. Because it makes life seem much more exciting and full then it really is.
That helps explain why people think well of immigration when it is so harmful. Why people welcome the idea of Multiculturalism because it always offers something novel. You boring White people with your boring white bread culture is no match for the excitement of a new ethnic restaurant. The excitement of new suburbs, new faces, new cultures, even new crimes. The excitement never ends and isn't that what our Civilization is about?
Isn't our Civilization more exciting now that men don't run everything? Isn't it more exciting now that people can choose their gender? Isn't everything so much better now that everything is new fashioned!
Actually this puts everyone who opposed Liberalism in a very bad spot because in many ways they are right. Novelty is exciting and the new is novel and that is one of the defining points of our Civilization. And Liberalism provides that novelty, in fact it could not exist without it. But if we continue on this path then we are doomed. There is no future in a cosmopolitan and genderless people. We need to find an answer to this before our greatest strength destroys us.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Pattern in History
Before the Black_Death around 1350, the outlook of the West doesn't seem much different from any other Civilization. But afterwards things began to change, first the deaths of so many people changed society. Workers were in short supply and therefore wages began to be more widely paid. Before that time wages were rare, people worked either feeding themselves or for their Feudal Lord. Secondly educated people knew that the world had once been better than it was, they knew about the Roman Empire. They could read about it and they could see the ruins, ruins they couldn't build and in many cases couldn't even repair. Thirdly after this period there are inventions that no other Civilization ever developed. In the later Middle Ages both Plate armour and handguns were developed and only replaced when something better came along. In other Civilizations once technology reached a certain level then they either didn't develop further or they actively destroyed technology.
People often call this Idea of progress or the cult of progress, but I think that is putting the cart before the horse. I think that the reality came first and then people came up for a name for it, but calling it the idea of progress makes it sounds like it was all part of a master plan, it wasn't. Unlike other peoples, Europeans came to view the new as good, even better, it came to define their Civilization. It still defines it. The history of Western Civilization became the history of novelty, whats new, discoveries, inventions, people, ideas, music, art, whats new!
I started thinking about this when I was watching a TV series on music. An episode on the 1960's for example didn't feature music that was popular in that decade, instead it featured ideas that would be popular. In other words it was really a history of novelty in music. I started to notice it everywhere in the study of history. It wasn't about how people lived it was about novelty, about what was new and exciting. About what would change the future instead of being a study of it's particular time and place. But this idea is everywhere in our Civilization, the idea that things can be new and improved. And it's allied idea that things that aren't shouldn't exist.
Sometimes I tell people I'd rather be old fashioned then new fashioned, they always laugh because being new fashioned is something they have never heard before. But how often are we told that something must be done way with because it is old fashioned? Old fashioned is outdated, it most certainly is not a novelty and we are addicted to novelty. Whats the latest scientific discovery? Whats the newest technology? Whats new at the movies? What new songs are on the music charts? Look at this new idea, technique or book. Constantly we are bombarded with the new.
But how can it be that the new is always better, however that prejudice is very much a part of our Civilization. It is even acceptable to lie about the past to guarantee that the new will be better. In the past people thought the world was flat....no they didn't that is a deliberate lie. In the past people argued about how many angels could fit on the eye of a needle...no they didn't that is a deliberate lie. In the past (meaning before the person speaking was born) women were basically slaves...no they weren't that is a deliberate lie. These lies make the present seem better while always degrading the future they claim to won't so much. The past, present nor the future is important, only novelty is. Because it makes life seem much more exciting and full then it really is.
That helps explain why people think well of immigration when it is so harmful. Why people welcome the idea of Multiculturalism because it always offers something novel. You boring White people with your boring white bread culture is no match for the excitement of a new ethnic restaurant. The excitement of new suburbs, new faces, new cultures, even new crimes. The excitement never ends and isn't that what our Civilization is about?
Isn't our Civilization more exciting now that men don't run everything? Isn't it more exciting now that people can choose their gender? Isn't everything so much better now that everything is new fashioned!
Actually this puts everyone who opposed Liberalism in a very bad spot because in many ways they are right. Novelty is exciting and the new is novel and that is one of the defining points of our Civilization. And Liberalism provides that novelty, in fact it could not exist without it. But if we continue on this path then we are doomed. There is no future in a cosmopolitan and genderless people. We need to find an answer to this before our greatest strength destroys us.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Pattern in History
Saturday, 11 November 2017
The Fifty-Sixth Month
A terrible month, I had food poisoning, all good now but it put a big dint into my posting. So this has not been a spectacular month, although I have had some good numbers from some new countries.
My best day in the last month was the 17th October when I had 204 visitors. I had two equally worst days, the 26th October and the 3rd November when I had 37 visitors each.
October-November
September-October
My best day in the last month was the 17th October when I had 204 visitors. I had two equally worst days, the 26th October and the 3rd November when I had 37 visitors each.
October-November
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
950
|
Australia
|
388
|
Russia
|
371
|
United Kingdom
|
125
|
Spain
|
112
|
Canada
|
86
|
Finland
|
56
|
Ireland
|
54
|
Brazil
|
49
|
France
|
49
|
September-October
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1190
|
Australia
|
422
|
Finland
|
131
|
Japan
|
97
|
United Kingdom
|
89
|
Canada
|
76
|
Germany
|
63
|
France
|
61
|
United Arab Emirates
|
40
|
Spain
|
40
|
The United Kingdom, Spain and Canada are all up.
The United States, Australia, Finland and France are down.
Russia, Ireland and Brazil are back in the top 10.
Japan, Germany and the United Arab Emirates are out of the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries: the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Poland, Croatia, Greece, Moldova, the Ukraine, Estonia, U.A.E., Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, New Zealand, Peru
I hope you enjoyed your visit and that you visit again.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Monday, 6 November 2017
Teaching Teenagers about Traditionalism
See Also: Teaching preschoolers about Traditionalism & Teaching children about Traditionalism
At each stage knowledge must be taught in a logical manner, from small to big, from personal to impersonal, from simple to complex. Now that they are a teenager they will be able to deal with much more complex topics than before. For Preschoolers living a Traditional life is the best teacher. For children you can start to ask questions about how the world works and about how it should work. For teenagers you can start to get very specific.
Teenagers are infamous for being rebellious and unruly, but in many ways nothing has changed, they are learning and they are testing their limits. The biggest mistake of modern parenting is not to set limits, but to let the teenager find them out themselves. Do both yourself and your teenager a favour, set limits and expect them to be meet. And as they get older adjust them. But do not try to set rules for a 16 year old, that horse has bolted, set limits when they are young. I have sadly seen this mistake made more than once and it never works. Set limits early and they can be adjusted but they can never be set after the event.
Instead of covering the three principles of Traditional Conservatism, I will look at how to cover some controversial topics with your teenager.
Equality
Race and sex are real so we should treat them that way. In short people are different and if something is different it cannot also be the same. Equality says exactly that. But that defies common sense, let your teenager know that. And let them know that people are important because they exist not because they are all equally good at something. That if equality was real then everyone who was in the Olympics would get a gold medal. If everyone was equal then sport would be very boring, so would music and in fact every other human endeavour.
Purity Versus Corruption
Modern society is constantly trying to corrupt us and it does, but to corrupt us it needs for us to be corruptible. We start off pure and it goes about corrupting us. It seeks to turn us against our Traditions, to pretend that there is no such thing as Order and to destroy our Families. It encourages us to do without thinking. One aspect that is being pushed to corrupt us is interracial relationships. It is amazing how many advertisements on TV show an interracial couple. But how many people want to raise children that do not look like them? I know someone who has one English parent and the other Sri Lankan, they look Greek, which of course they are not.
Tattoos, piercings, promiscuity, all of these are about corruption, about destroying our purity. About damaging who we really are and creating artificial people instead of our authentic self.
Loyalty
The most important thing to understand about loyalty is that it is mutual. If someone is not loyal to you then you should not be loyal to them. Be loyal to your teenager, but let them know that that is a two way street. Let them know that friends who are not loyal are not friends. A boyfriend or girlfriend who is not loyal is also not a friend. That includes schools and places of work, not getting your own way is not about loyalty and sometimes you have to put up with stuff, but do not be loyal when you are not being treated loyally.
Hopefully this will provide some ideas for you to go on with and help keep Traditionalism going.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
At each stage knowledge must be taught in a logical manner, from small to big, from personal to impersonal, from simple to complex. Now that they are a teenager they will be able to deal with much more complex topics than before. For Preschoolers living a Traditional life is the best teacher. For children you can start to ask questions about how the world works and about how it should work. For teenagers you can start to get very specific.
Teenagers are infamous for being rebellious and unruly, but in many ways nothing has changed, they are learning and they are testing their limits. The biggest mistake of modern parenting is not to set limits, but to let the teenager find them out themselves. Do both yourself and your teenager a favour, set limits and expect them to be meet. And as they get older adjust them. But do not try to set rules for a 16 year old, that horse has bolted, set limits when they are young. I have sadly seen this mistake made more than once and it never works. Set limits early and they can be adjusted but they can never be set after the event.
Instead of covering the three principles of Traditional Conservatism, I will look at how to cover some controversial topics with your teenager.
Equality
Race and sex are real so we should treat them that way. In short people are different and if something is different it cannot also be the same. Equality says exactly that. But that defies common sense, let your teenager know that. And let them know that people are important because they exist not because they are all equally good at something. That if equality was real then everyone who was in the Olympics would get a gold medal. If everyone was equal then sport would be very boring, so would music and in fact every other human endeavour.
Purity Versus Corruption
Modern society is constantly trying to corrupt us and it does, but to corrupt us it needs for us to be corruptible. We start off pure and it goes about corrupting us. It seeks to turn us against our Traditions, to pretend that there is no such thing as Order and to destroy our Families. It encourages us to do without thinking. One aspect that is being pushed to corrupt us is interracial relationships. It is amazing how many advertisements on TV show an interracial couple. But how many people want to raise children that do not look like them? I know someone who has one English parent and the other Sri Lankan, they look Greek, which of course they are not.
Tattoos, piercings, promiscuity, all of these are about corruption, about destroying our purity. About damaging who we really are and creating artificial people instead of our authentic self.
Loyalty
The most important thing to understand about loyalty is that it is mutual. If someone is not loyal to you then you should not be loyal to them. Be loyal to your teenager, but let them know that that is a two way street. Let them know that friends who are not loyal are not friends. A boyfriend or girlfriend who is not loyal is also not a friend. That includes schools and places of work, not getting your own way is not about loyalty and sometimes you have to put up with stuff, but do not be loyal when you are not being treated loyally.
Hopefully this will provide some ideas for you to go on with and help keep Traditionalism going.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
Wednesday, 1 November 2017
Teaching Children about Traditionalism
See also: Teaching Preschoolers about Traditionalism
This article is about teaching children between the ages of 5-12 about Traditionalism. Before the age of 5 it is best in most cases to show rather than tell. Show how family is important by visiting and talking about them, for example. But now you can start to talk about ideas and start asking them questions about how the world works and how it should work.
The three principles of Traditional Conservatism are:
Tradition
Order
Family
Tradition
Of course continue to celebrate the important dates in your families, community and nations life. Now you can start to talk about why they are important and why they should be remembered. Ask them why do we have public holidays? Why do we have special days, like birthdays? If they don't know tell them that it is important that we have our own special days. Days that are important for a person such as a birthday and as a community or nation such as public holidays. At this age you can start to really have fun starting your own traditions. In my family for example we had music nights were we only played music. You could read, or colour in, or talk or daydream, but no electronic devices. It was family time, with no interruptions. This works particularly well with a special meal or snacks. Use this to introduce your children to music they have not heard before, let them know that there is music older than them and even older than you.
Order
Why are parents and teachers in charge instead of children? Why does the dog sleep outside, why doesn't everyone take turns? Why are things this way instead of another way? Because there is order and everything has a rightful and a wrongful place. One activity I did was a goldrush, I did it near Easter and I bought a bag of small chocolates which became golddust and a large egg which became the nugget. I drew a map of a room and I decided where the golddust and where the nugget would be. I then gave the children some string and let them "stake" out their claim. Each child got at least one small chocolate, but then the rest was rewarded by their claim. It's a good way to talk about fairness and how life is not fair. When I asked the children I did it with was it fair that some people got rich and others didn't, they thought it was fair.
Family
Try and eat together, if not every night at least once a week. Try to read to them at bedtime, it really builds up intimacy and trust. It's like having a secret, that belongs to you and that child and to no one else in the world. What children want is your time, they want to know that you care and doing things with them shows that. Point out the differences between the sexes and why each has their strengths and weaknesses and how together they can get over most of those problems. Talk about why family is important and how family stretches all the way from the creation to the end of time. How we mortal but in a way family is eternal.
It's not to early to talk about Traditionalism, to lay the groundwork that can be built on in the future. Start early and if you have some more ideas I'd like to see them below in the comments.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees
This article is about teaching children between the ages of 5-12 about Traditionalism. Before the age of 5 it is best in most cases to show rather than tell. Show how family is important by visiting and talking about them, for example. But now you can start to talk about ideas and start asking them questions about how the world works and how it should work.
The three principles of Traditional Conservatism are:
Tradition
Order
Family
Tradition
Of course continue to celebrate the important dates in your families, community and nations life. Now you can start to talk about why they are important and why they should be remembered. Ask them why do we have public holidays? Why do we have special days, like birthdays? If they don't know tell them that it is important that we have our own special days. Days that are important for a person such as a birthday and as a community or nation such as public holidays. At this age you can start to really have fun starting your own traditions. In my family for example we had music nights were we only played music. You could read, or colour in, or talk or daydream, but no electronic devices. It was family time, with no interruptions. This works particularly well with a special meal or snacks. Use this to introduce your children to music they have not heard before, let them know that there is music older than them and even older than you.
Order
Why are parents and teachers in charge instead of children? Why does the dog sleep outside, why doesn't everyone take turns? Why are things this way instead of another way? Because there is order and everything has a rightful and a wrongful place. One activity I did was a goldrush, I did it near Easter and I bought a bag of small chocolates which became golddust and a large egg which became the nugget. I drew a map of a room and I decided where the golddust and where the nugget would be. I then gave the children some string and let them "stake" out their claim. Each child got at least one small chocolate, but then the rest was rewarded by their claim. It's a good way to talk about fairness and how life is not fair. When I asked the children I did it with was it fair that some people got rich and others didn't, they thought it was fair.
Family
Try and eat together, if not every night at least once a week. Try to read to them at bedtime, it really builds up intimacy and trust. It's like having a secret, that belongs to you and that child and to no one else in the world. What children want is your time, they want to know that you care and doing things with them shows that. Point out the differences between the sexes and why each has their strengths and weaknesses and how together they can get over most of those problems. Talk about why family is important and how family stretches all the way from the creation to the end of time. How we mortal but in a way family is eternal.
It's not to early to talk about Traditionalism, to lay the groundwork that can be built on in the future. Start early and if you have some more ideas I'd like to see them below in the comments.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees