Yesterday, the 26th January was Australia Day. The day the First Fleet set up the first White settlement in Australia back in 1788, which is today the city of Sydney. So as you can see it's a pretty important date in Australia's history and today. So of course the Left decided to protest it, as they have done for a number of years now.
Just like the Confederate statues and Columbus, Captain Cook the discoverer of Australia has had his likeness vandalised. These people enjoy the benefits that these explorers provided and then complain that it wasn't done to their exacting standards. Standards that only apply to other people, never to themselves. As the old saying goes, if it wasn't for double standards the Left wouldn't have any standards at all. So they march and damn Australia and publicly state that they want this country to burn. They demand that we change the date, that Australia Day is really Invasion Day. But we all know that no date is acceptable to them, no matter what date it is. They hate us but they still insist that we respect them and that we remain loyal to them but somehow they never get around to respecting us, nor do they ever remain loyal to us.
But I have been wondering about whether it is worth celebrating Australia Day. I mean I did go to an Australia Day BBQ on the 26th. But still, the Australia that I loved is dying and I do not love this new Australia. Every year the Australian Government has citizenship ceremonies to make ever more Foreigners into paperwork Australians. On the 26th that number was 13,000, in one day. That isn't worth celebrating. I'm sick to death of Immigration, of foreign faces everywhere I go. That isn't worth celebrating. I was disgusted that 8 million Australians voted for homosexuals to marry, it has affected how I see the entire country, how I see my countrymen. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm stupid but I always thought that underneath it all Australians had commonsense, that they could see through this rubbish. I didn't think we would win the vote, but to see that half the population was really that stupid was heartbreaking. Only 1 in 3 voted against and many of those were foreigners, it really has affected how I see my country. That isn't worth celebrating.
I recently had a family member introduce me to his Asian girlfriend, he knows my views and yet he still thought that he could force me to approve. I do not approve and I am not going to pretend to approve. Two of my friends sided with him over me, so thats 1 relative and 2 friends down this year alone. I was told that my opinion was unacceptable and that I was a Nazi. Apparently only Nazi's believe White people should be with other White people, or is it that I think Asian women should have Asian boyfriends that makes me a Nazi? Don't answer the question because I don't care.
From Government to family, it's betrayals all round.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The End of any Consensus
Saturday, 27 January 2018
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
Melbourne Traditionalists, February 2018
A new year starts and so must we with a new meeting in February. If you live in Melbourne Australia or are visiting and your a Traditional Conservative, then get in contact with me.
uponhopeblog(at)gmail.com
In other excellent news Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative has put together a new Melbourne Traditionalists site. The aim of the site is primarily to let people know that we exist, it will also have information on this years Conference and the like.
Guiding Principles of the Melbourne Traditionalists
1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia
2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage
3. Loyalty to the Family, Husband and Wife, Mother and Father and their children
4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism
5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Policing and Conservatism
uponhopeblog(at)gmail.com
In other excellent news Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative has put together a new Melbourne Traditionalists site. The aim of the site is primarily to let people know that we exist, it will also have information on this years Conference and the like.
Guiding Principles of the Melbourne Traditionalists
1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia
2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage
3. Loyalty to the Family, Husband and Wife, Mother and Father and their children
4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism
5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Policing and Conservatism
Saturday, 20 January 2018
Melbourne Traditionalists Conference 2018 in Nine Months
At this point things are progressing as planned!
With all these the same:
Dates: 19 October 2018, Friday 7pm Meet and Greet
20 October 2018, Saturday 10am - 5pm Conference
7pm Banquest
Venue: The venue is a very nice building, old and beautiful in Melbourne Australia
Cost: $75 - $100 (Australian Dollars)
What do you get for your money: 5 lectures, lunch and banquest, all non-alcoholic drinks. All inclusive.
I can announce three of the five lectures
1. Shakespeare and Conservatism
2. The history of the anti-Suffragette Movement
3. Christianity, Morality and the West
Still working on the other two, but with nine months to go it is already taking shape. If anyone has any questions please send me an email uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Order, Why do Conservatives Believe in Order?
With all these the same:
Dates: 19 October 2018, Friday 7pm Meet and Greet
20 October 2018, Saturday 10am - 5pm Conference
7pm Banquest
Venue: The venue is a very nice building, old and beautiful in Melbourne Australia
Cost: $75 - $100 (Australian Dollars)
What do you get for your money: 5 lectures, lunch and banquest, all non-alcoholic drinks. All inclusive.
I can announce three of the five lectures
1. Shakespeare and Conservatism
2. The history of the anti-Suffragette Movement
3. Christianity, Morality and the West
Still working on the other two, but with nine months to go it is already taking shape. If anyone has any questions please send me an email uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Order, Why do Conservatives Believe in Order?
Wednesday, 17 January 2018
How Parliament Destroyed Democracy
We know that the past was different but we often don't realise how different because we also assume that the past was pretty much like the present. Didn't I just write two things that are contradictory? Yes I did, because as Conservatives know, man is both rational and irrational, we often believe things that are contradictory. We think that Parliament operated pretty much today as it did a century or two centuries ago, but things have changed and that has changed how our Parliaments works.
The Parliament at Westminster in London is known as the mother of Parliaments, since it has given birth to all of the Parliaments in the English speaking world as well as inspiring many beyond. Parliaments make law and it is from English law that Parliaments get a most peculiar idea. English law is at heart not about showing power or about trying to find the truth, instead it is about setting two adversary's at each other. English law is a contest between competing ideas and it gives the benefit of the doubt not to the most powerful person in the court, which is normally the Government, but instead to the accused. For Parliaments the presumption of innocence is not important, for the courts it is but not for Parliament. What is important for Parliaments is that English law is a contest, it is adversarial, it is intellectual combat.
Before 1881 in Britain, Members of Parliament were not paid. Some form of English Parliament has existed since the middle 1200's, so for 600 years Parliament functioned without members being paid. Most members either did it because they were interested in politics, they were ambitious, for status or sometimes because it was expected of them. But the expense was entirely paid for by them, not by the taxpayer. Which meant that Parliamentary service was a burden, admittedly with benefits, but most members of Parliament ended up poorer, not rich for the experience. However that meant that only men with money could be a member of Parliament. The reason that changed was that the voting franchise was extended to allow all men over the age of 21 to vote. If they could vote then they were able to become members of Parliament. But how could a working man support himself in Parliament? The concern was that it would degrade the prestige of Parliament if poor men were elected, but either, could not attend or were attending in "rags" so to stop that from occurring all Parliamentarians were paid.
Money corrupts, it has certainly corrupted Politicians. Instead of being independent and therefore adversarial, now they are simply paid employees. Before the 1800's political parties as we understand them did not exist, now nearly all members of Parliament are members of political parties. It is so common we are surprised when they are not. But because so much is really decided outside of Parliament that means that the intellectual combat that is supposed to take place, does not. Sadly our members of Parliament are now simply corporate employees and like all employees they need to keep the boss happy and their boss isn't the electorate, it's the party. The Left-Liberal Party, the Right-Liberal Party, you know the Uniparty Party.
I found it surprising that before 1881 only two members of Parliament were paid and one of those was the Prime Minister. All other Ministers worked for free!
Also because members of Parliament are now professional Politicians they need to be kept busy. So they make themselves busy by passing legislation. Every year more laws, more regulations, why? Because they need to be kept busy. Bizarrely much of the work of Parliament today is busy work, not real work. In other words it doesn't need to be done but it does keep people busy. Of course the more laws the less freedom, the more regulations the less freedom. When the members of Parliament were Independents they understood this, now they don't have a clue.
Today in our Parliaments we have instead of intellectual combat, the Uniparty. Politicians who in reality support 85% of the same things as their "opponents" do. That means that instead of real debate occurring we get heated and heavy debate on issues the vast majority of us don't care about or else no debate. That is why no one raises Immigration as an issue, because that would mean real debate and we all know that is not allowed to happen. The lack of intellectual combat breeds contempt for Politicians, which breeds contempt for Parliament, which breeds contempt for Democracy. This is not going to end well.
For one idea of a solution try what form of government should Conservative support?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Customers
The Parliament at Westminster in London is known as the mother of Parliaments, since it has given birth to all of the Parliaments in the English speaking world as well as inspiring many beyond. Parliaments make law and it is from English law that Parliaments get a most peculiar idea. English law is at heart not about showing power or about trying to find the truth, instead it is about setting two adversary's at each other. English law is a contest between competing ideas and it gives the benefit of the doubt not to the most powerful person in the court, which is normally the Government, but instead to the accused. For Parliaments the presumption of innocence is not important, for the courts it is but not for Parliament. What is important for Parliaments is that English law is a contest, it is adversarial, it is intellectual combat.
Before 1881 in Britain, Members of Parliament were not paid. Some form of English Parliament has existed since the middle 1200's, so for 600 years Parliament functioned without members being paid. Most members either did it because they were interested in politics, they were ambitious, for status or sometimes because it was expected of them. But the expense was entirely paid for by them, not by the taxpayer. Which meant that Parliamentary service was a burden, admittedly with benefits, but most members of Parliament ended up poorer, not rich for the experience. However that meant that only men with money could be a member of Parliament. The reason that changed was that the voting franchise was extended to allow all men over the age of 21 to vote. If they could vote then they were able to become members of Parliament. But how could a working man support himself in Parliament? The concern was that it would degrade the prestige of Parliament if poor men were elected, but either, could not attend or were attending in "rags" so to stop that from occurring all Parliamentarians were paid.
Money corrupts, it has certainly corrupted Politicians. Instead of being independent and therefore adversarial, now they are simply paid employees. Before the 1800's political parties as we understand them did not exist, now nearly all members of Parliament are members of political parties. It is so common we are surprised when they are not. But because so much is really decided outside of Parliament that means that the intellectual combat that is supposed to take place, does not. Sadly our members of Parliament are now simply corporate employees and like all employees they need to keep the boss happy and their boss isn't the electorate, it's the party. The Left-Liberal Party, the Right-Liberal Party, you know the Uniparty Party.
I found it surprising that before 1881 only two members of Parliament were paid and one of those was the Prime Minister. All other Ministers worked for free!
Also because members of Parliament are now professional Politicians they need to be kept busy. So they make themselves busy by passing legislation. Every year more laws, more regulations, why? Because they need to be kept busy. Bizarrely much of the work of Parliament today is busy work, not real work. In other words it doesn't need to be done but it does keep people busy. Of course the more laws the less freedom, the more regulations the less freedom. When the members of Parliament were Independents they understood this, now they don't have a clue.
Today in our Parliaments we have instead of intellectual combat, the Uniparty. Politicians who in reality support 85% of the same things as their "opponents" do. That means that instead of real debate occurring we get heated and heavy debate on issues the vast majority of us don't care about or else no debate. That is why no one raises Immigration as an issue, because that would mean real debate and we all know that is not allowed to happen. The lack of intellectual combat breeds contempt for Politicians, which breeds contempt for Parliament, which breeds contempt for Democracy. This is not going to end well.
For one idea of a solution try what form of government should Conservative support?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Customers
Sunday, 14 January 2018
Setting Up a Conservative Group
In this Liberal world a big problem for Conservatives is what should we do?
Well I think the time for doing nothing is over, people have to become active, the question is how active?
The best way to get started is to join or even start a Conservative group in your area. While it can seem quite daunting to do such a thing, once you commit to the idea it's not. Now I'm not saying it will be easy, it can be frustrating. It is also great to know that you are not alone in your beliefs.
When the Melbourne Traditionalists first met, there were only two people and we didn't get a third person for six months. Do not be afraid of starting small, if there are two of you it's enough to start.
Venue
Another issue people have is where to meet? If the group is less than 5, I suggest meeting in a public place, a bar or restaurant. As long as everyone can sit together and there aren't too many distracts, such as a big screen TV or it being too noisy to talk. You do not want a presenter, it should be informal and social. Talk over a meal and let people get their frustrations with modern life out.
If there are more than 5, I suggest getting a private room. Now most people are worried about cost which is a reasonable thing to worry about. But most places have quiet days, Sunday and Monday, day or night, are normally quiet. The Melbourne Traditionalists for example, meet in a private room at a hotel for free because we bring in money in drinks and meals that they otherwise would not get. Less than 5 and it probably isn't worth it for the venue to give you the private room.
Also remember to be courteous and friendly to the staff, it is amazing how much this helps. However if you feel restricted in what you can talk about find another venue.
Recruiting
Recruiting is always an issue, I use my blog and Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative also puts out notices. There are three main ways of recruiting people:
1. via the internet
You can set up a website that lets people know that you exist, to do this cheaply you can use Blogger or Wordpress. I know of one group that started by going through the comments of a blog to find any reference to their hometown and then contacting those people. Time consuming, but it worked!
2. Leaflets
Write up a short description of your group and print out leaflets, put them on noticeboards and do letterboxing. Putting them into peoples letterboxes. Remember to include some way of contacting you, I suggest either via your website or an email address.
3. In Person
When you meet people in real life find out what concerns them. It really depends upon your personality and the circumstance, if your the kind of person who is a people person then ask people about various issues. See if you can recruit them, but be careful not to be too eager. If your not a people person I wouldn't try this at all.
Security
Another important concern is security, meeting in a bar or restaurant they will either have their own security or they will have experience with unruly customers. But you also need your own internal security.
Be fussy!
It is very important to be fussy, you can have a big group if you let anyone join. However you will soon find that people who have nothing in common with you will want to join. Don't let them....be fussy!
The best way is to meet with any new candidate privately, have a meal together or a coffee. Find out about what they believe, personally if someone I meet likes Ben Shapiro, their out. Have standards and stick to them. If you let in people who are "conservatives" but not Conservatives it will destroy your group, keep it to people who are on your side. People who are "conservatives" are in reality Liberals, you don't need them.
It is also important that you do not give out your personal information, which is why a website and email is good. Do not give out your person address or telephone numbers. I would also only let members know when and where you meet.
Women
95% or so of people interested in politics are men, but when a women does turn up it can complicate matters. Men take notice of women and women like to be noticed, it's no ones fault but it will change the dynamics of your group. I am not saying keep women out, I am, however saying it is not unreasonable to do so. One failed romance can destroy a group, sadly I have seen it happen.
Money
One final point is money, make sure everyone pays their own way, do not allow a situation where you are left to pay the bill.
A Conservative group is a great way to find and connect to like minded people. Too often it can seem like we are all alone and that no one else shares our values or ideas. It's not true and by forming groups we can help to start the process of moving out of cyberspace and into the real world.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types of Modern Liberals
Well I think the time for doing nothing is over, people have to become active, the question is how active?
The best way to get started is to join or even start a Conservative group in your area. While it can seem quite daunting to do such a thing, once you commit to the idea it's not. Now I'm not saying it will be easy, it can be frustrating. It is also great to know that you are not alone in your beliefs.
When the Melbourne Traditionalists first met, there were only two people and we didn't get a third person for six months. Do not be afraid of starting small, if there are two of you it's enough to start.
Venue
Another issue people have is where to meet? If the group is less than 5, I suggest meeting in a public place, a bar or restaurant. As long as everyone can sit together and there aren't too many distracts, such as a big screen TV or it being too noisy to talk. You do not want a presenter, it should be informal and social. Talk over a meal and let people get their frustrations with modern life out.
If there are more than 5, I suggest getting a private room. Now most people are worried about cost which is a reasonable thing to worry about. But most places have quiet days, Sunday and Monday, day or night, are normally quiet. The Melbourne Traditionalists for example, meet in a private room at a hotel for free because we bring in money in drinks and meals that they otherwise would not get. Less than 5 and it probably isn't worth it for the venue to give you the private room.
Also remember to be courteous and friendly to the staff, it is amazing how much this helps. However if you feel restricted in what you can talk about find another venue.
Recruiting
Recruiting is always an issue, I use my blog and Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative also puts out notices. There are three main ways of recruiting people:
1. via the internet
You can set up a website that lets people know that you exist, to do this cheaply you can use Blogger or Wordpress. I know of one group that started by going through the comments of a blog to find any reference to their hometown and then contacting those people. Time consuming, but it worked!
2. Leaflets
Write up a short description of your group and print out leaflets, put them on noticeboards and do letterboxing. Putting them into peoples letterboxes. Remember to include some way of contacting you, I suggest either via your website or an email address.
3. In Person
When you meet people in real life find out what concerns them. It really depends upon your personality and the circumstance, if your the kind of person who is a people person then ask people about various issues. See if you can recruit them, but be careful not to be too eager. If your not a people person I wouldn't try this at all.
Security
Another important concern is security, meeting in a bar or restaurant they will either have their own security or they will have experience with unruly customers. But you also need your own internal security.
Be fussy!
It is very important to be fussy, you can have a big group if you let anyone join. However you will soon find that people who have nothing in common with you will want to join. Don't let them....be fussy!
The best way is to meet with any new candidate privately, have a meal together or a coffee. Find out about what they believe, personally if someone I meet likes Ben Shapiro, their out. Have standards and stick to them. If you let in people who are "conservatives" but not Conservatives it will destroy your group, keep it to people who are on your side. People who are "conservatives" are in reality Liberals, you don't need them.
It is also important that you do not give out your personal information, which is why a website and email is good. Do not give out your person address or telephone numbers. I would also only let members know when and where you meet.
Women
95% or so of people interested in politics are men, but when a women does turn up it can complicate matters. Men take notice of women and women like to be noticed, it's no ones fault but it will change the dynamics of your group. I am not saying keep women out, I am, however saying it is not unreasonable to do so. One failed romance can destroy a group, sadly I have seen it happen.
Money
One final point is money, make sure everyone pays their own way, do not allow a situation where you are left to pay the bill.
A Conservative group is a great way to find and connect to like minded people. Too often it can seem like we are all alone and that no one else shares our values or ideas. It's not true and by forming groups we can help to start the process of moving out of cyberspace and into the real world.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types of Modern Liberals
Thursday, 11 January 2018
The Fifty-Eighth Month
I don't know where to start with this update, I don't know whether I should be happy with my numbers or not. In one sense they have been good, but in others not so good. To be honest I wish I could have a month were I reported only good things.
On the good side, I have 7 countries with over 100 visitors each!
I said last month that it's unusual to get over 200 from a country and this month I have 4 countries over 200!
Also December was a good month, as this one has been so far, I had exactly 3,800 visitors in December and over 1000 so far this month. The best month since August, which I was happy about.
I have also had a number of days were big numbers of visitors arrived from a particular country. I had 20 visitors from the Sudan and 177 from the Netherlands on the 24th December. 176 of the Dutch visitors read one article, The end of any consensus, which was from September. The Spanish and Russians also turned up in big numbers on one day. The British were more spread out but I had big numbers read, Liberalism is a Christian heresy, which was also my most popular article in the last month, it has been visited 595 since it was published.
So way aren't I entirely happy with those numbers?
Because I'm worried that they aren't regulars, but just people who will visit the blog once and then be off. I'm not growing, or am I? I really don't know. What I do know is that my American and Australian numbers are down again. It is really getting frustrating.
My worst day was the 25th December, Christmas day, when I had only 38 visitors, maybe thats a good thing as it means people have better things to do on Christmas Day then read blogs. My best day was very good, I had 397 visitors on the 3rd January.
December-January
November-December
United Kingdom, Russia, Spain and Ireland were all up by a long way!
I hope you all visit again soon.
My worst day was the 25th December, Christmas day, when I had only 38 visitors, maybe thats a good thing as it means people have better things to do on Christmas Day then read blogs. My best day was very good, I had 397 visitors on the 3rd January.
December-January
November-December
The United States, Australia, Canada and France were all down.
The Netherlands and China are back in the top ten.
Brazil and the Ukraine have both left the top 10.
I have also receieved visitors from the following countries: Isle of Man, Belgium, Faroe Islands, Finland, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Estonia, U.A.E., Bahrain, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong, South Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Guatemala, Peru
I hope you all visit again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Sunday, 7 January 2018
Why Didn't Feminists Do It Like This?
A few days ago a visitor came to my site via a site called Masculine by Design, so I went and had a look. Sadly it hasn't had an update since February 2017, but many of it's 33 posts were of interest. The site owner included two graphs that I found particularly interesting.
The first is a timeline of a typical modern womens life. He calls it "Life in Reverse" and when you see the next graph that title makes sense.
Woman who live life in reverse
Here is the second graph, a timeline he called "Have It All"
How Woman can it all
Now here is the question, why didn't Feminists push the second timeline instead of the first?
The second timeline gives women a pathway to achieve everything that Feminists said women should have if they chose such a life. Actually most women do want a husband and children, whether they have a university education or a career. So why didn't they push this pathway?
Because it's doable, but not equitable. Feminism says that women are equal to men, or that women should be equal to men, it changes depending upon which is useful in any particular context. But giving women a doable timeline means that women are not the same as men. And as Feminism is a branch of Liberalism, Ideology is always more important than reality.
Also the first timeline makes women independent, women do not need to rely on men to support them or their children. Instead women are encouraged to be independent no matter what the cost. The more money a women makes the harder it is for her to find a mate as she still wants a man who is more successful than her. Feminists aren't worried about that, that doesn't matter, what matters is that she is independent. The very thing that will make her life harder is presented as something desirable.
Feminism isn't about improving the lives of women, it's only about improving the lives of Liberal women. Hence why it gives no choice to women except the Liberal one of being an independent women. Why don't they care about the price women have to pay?
Because they don't have to pay, you do!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Conservatives Should Join the Army
The first is a timeline of a typical modern womens life. He calls it "Life in Reverse" and when you see the next graph that title makes sense.
Woman who live life in reverse
Here is the second graph, a timeline he called "Have It All"
How Woman can it all
Now here is the question, why didn't Feminists push the second timeline instead of the first?
The second timeline gives women a pathway to achieve everything that Feminists said women should have if they chose such a life. Actually most women do want a husband and children, whether they have a university education or a career. So why didn't they push this pathway?
Because it's doable, but not equitable. Feminism says that women are equal to men, or that women should be equal to men, it changes depending upon which is useful in any particular context. But giving women a doable timeline means that women are not the same as men. And as Feminism is a branch of Liberalism, Ideology is always more important than reality.
Also the first timeline makes women independent, women do not need to rely on men to support them or their children. Instead women are encouraged to be independent no matter what the cost. The more money a women makes the harder it is for her to find a mate as she still wants a man who is more successful than her. Feminists aren't worried about that, that doesn't matter, what matters is that she is independent. The very thing that will make her life harder is presented as something desirable.
Feminism isn't about improving the lives of women, it's only about improving the lives of Liberal women. Hence why it gives no choice to women except the Liberal one of being an independent women. Why don't they care about the price women have to pay?
Because they don't have to pay, you do!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Conservatives Should Join the Army
Tuesday, 2 January 2018
The Problem With Compromising
When you look at the history of Conservatism, we come across the word "compromise" quite often. And it is nearly always presented as a good thing, but compromising has a number of problems that need to be pointed out.
When most people think about compromising they think of both sides in a dispute giving up something. Both sides, not just one, but both sides and they hope to achieve a big win by both sides taking a small loss. Compromising is based upon the idea that each side is made up of reasonable people. This point is very important and it colours how we see this idea. Sadly we often get compromises which are nothing of the sort, but which are instead "compromises".
Liberals are like Communists, they are not reasonable people, they are ideological people. Their beliefs are more important than peace, or honour, or civilization. Victory is what they want, not comprises. In fact they never compromise, not really.
Here are three types of "compromises" that we need to watch out for and to reject.
Consultations
This is a favourite with Governments, another term for it is consultations. You know how it goes "We are in consultations with the local community". Have you ever been to one of these "consultations"? They are always decided before hand and it's obvious. Whoever is chairing the meeting lets people talk as long as they like, particularly if what they are saying is supportive or even mildly sceptical. Make sure the time is chewed up, "Ohhh I'm sorry but your critical comment cannot be addressed as we are short of time". "Thank you all for coming, we have heard your comments and will take them into consideration". And that will be the last you ever hear of it, because it wasn't really there to hear your voice, instead it was there to give the fig leaf of respectability to their actions.
Intellectual or False Compromise
Another form of compromise is to proclaim a joint victory. "After protracted negotiations it is clear that both sides have important contributions to make". The announcement is the most important part of the compromise. Nothing will happen, nothing will change and nothing will be achieved. So why negotiate? Because it seems like things will happen, it seems like change will occur and it seems as if something will be achieved. Appearance is everything and everything is hollow.
Slow Victory, Slow Defeat
The third form of compromise is to bring out a comprehensive agreement between the two parties. It seems like a really difference has been made. However one side will not honour the agreement with anything but words, however the other side will be expected to honour every word. It is victory achieved slowly for one side and defeat occurring slowly for the other.
Conclusion
Unless both sides are really prepared to compromise then negotiations are pointless. It is entirely typical of Liberalism to call for compromise and for negotiations, but to do nothing but talk. They are not interested in compromise, what they are interested in is gaining advantage and negotiations do that. Real negotiations do not take place in the open, they are always secret. If they are known then you are now under pressure to reach an agreement. Even a bad one. It is better not to negotiate then to reach that point.
So does that mean that we should never compromise, no there are times when compromising is healthy. Healthy compromising involves both sides giving things up, and when backsliding occurs that the issues are addressed and not ignored. Once things are agreed upon and those things agreed to are ignored then the agreement is dead. It should be openly rejected and it should be after publicly trying to repair the agreement. But once it is dead it should not be allowed to be a zombie agreement, it must not be allowed to be something that is dead pretending to be alive.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees
When most people think about compromising they think of both sides in a dispute giving up something. Both sides, not just one, but both sides and they hope to achieve a big win by both sides taking a small loss. Compromising is based upon the idea that each side is made up of reasonable people. This point is very important and it colours how we see this idea. Sadly we often get compromises which are nothing of the sort, but which are instead "compromises".
Liberals are like Communists, they are not reasonable people, they are ideological people. Their beliefs are more important than peace, or honour, or civilization. Victory is what they want, not comprises. In fact they never compromise, not really.
Here are three types of "compromises" that we need to watch out for and to reject.
Consultations
This is a favourite with Governments, another term for it is consultations. You know how it goes "We are in consultations with the local community". Have you ever been to one of these "consultations"? They are always decided before hand and it's obvious. Whoever is chairing the meeting lets people talk as long as they like, particularly if what they are saying is supportive or even mildly sceptical. Make sure the time is chewed up, "Ohhh I'm sorry but your critical comment cannot be addressed as we are short of time". "Thank you all for coming, we have heard your comments and will take them into consideration". And that will be the last you ever hear of it, because it wasn't really there to hear your voice, instead it was there to give the fig leaf of respectability to their actions.
Intellectual or False Compromise
Another form of compromise is to proclaim a joint victory. "After protracted negotiations it is clear that both sides have important contributions to make". The announcement is the most important part of the compromise. Nothing will happen, nothing will change and nothing will be achieved. So why negotiate? Because it seems like things will happen, it seems like change will occur and it seems as if something will be achieved. Appearance is everything and everything is hollow.
Slow Victory, Slow Defeat
The third form of compromise is to bring out a comprehensive agreement between the two parties. It seems like a really difference has been made. However one side will not honour the agreement with anything but words, however the other side will be expected to honour every word. It is victory achieved slowly for one side and defeat occurring slowly for the other.
Conclusion
Unless both sides are really prepared to compromise then negotiations are pointless. It is entirely typical of Liberalism to call for compromise and for negotiations, but to do nothing but talk. They are not interested in compromise, what they are interested in is gaining advantage and negotiations do that. Real negotiations do not take place in the open, they are always secret. If they are known then you are now under pressure to reach an agreement. Even a bad one. It is better not to negotiate then to reach that point.
So does that mean that we should never compromise, no there are times when compromising is healthy. Healthy compromising involves both sides giving things up, and when backsliding occurs that the issues are addressed and not ignored. Once things are agreed upon and those things agreed to are ignored then the agreement is dead. It should be openly rejected and it should be after publicly trying to repair the agreement. But once it is dead it should not be allowed to be a zombie agreement, it must not be allowed to be something that is dead pretending to be alive.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)