When I growing up I was told that women wanted nice guys, everyone told the same story. If you were nice women would be attracted to you. The media pushed the idea of the snag, the sensitive new age guy. A man who was sensitive, basically a man who was understanding like a womens girlfriend but who she could have sex with. However what the men of my generation found out was that women despise nice guys. The old saying was true, nice guys do finish last, that if a women told you that you were sweet, what that really meant was that she would never have sex with you.
Which is an important point to this whole story because Generation X came of age after the sexual revolution. The promise of which was that sex was available just for the asking. We saw in real life that people could get together without marriage, that parents could have new partners and no one said it was wrong. Quite the opposite, on TV and in the movies the idea that the old outdated rules were over and that new unlimited sex was now available was very common. While pornography wasn't as common as today, we knew that it existed and that it was legal. Since 1970 adultery in entertainment has been portrayed as a breaking of the chains of marriage, the ending of an outdated taboo and as a liberating experience. Non of that was true for those who grew up before 1970.
The rules had changed and people knew that they had but at one and the same time they thought that nothing had changed. People were still people, men were still men and women were still women, they still wanted and desired one another just as they always had. Which is true and not true. Something that I have found amazing was how little people thought about women and how they think. Women were openly regarded as a mystery, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. The feminine mystique was a very popular idea, that women were capricious, illogical and unfathomable. That this mystery made women more attractive, more alluring. A common saying was that it was a womens prerogative to change her mind. To put thought into what made women tick was to take her from her pedestal and to think of her as just a machine or problem. The idea was romantic, but for the males of Generation X it was to lead to much heartache.
This meant that as we became attracted to women and sort to establish relationships with them we often met with failure. When we sort to satisfy our lust, as we had been lead to believe was our birthright, we found that women wanted relationships. However when we sort a relationship we found that women could be as shallow as any man. What had changed? Why did neither the old ways or the new ways work?
Because in the past women only had a small number of options, which was also true for men. In the case of both the best option was nearly always to get married and to become a family. And for the vast majority of men and women that was what they did and for most it was a good life. But as women were provided with more options that was no longer true. Women kept the demands that they had always had, that a man provide, that he love her, etc. and built upon that more demands. Women were told an even bigger lie then men, they were told that in the past they had no options and that now they had unlimited options...neither of which were true. That there was no time limit on their options, motherhood could be delayed without cost, that they could live their lives without men if they wanted, that they should never settle for second best, that only the perfect man was good enough for them. Women are still told these ugly lies.
The older generations thought that the desire for love and sex would push men and women together just as it always had. But when sex with numerous partners is without judgement then there is no real world reason to settle down. And love can sadly be faked. It was not that women no longer wanted to be loved, or to marry or to have children. But to do that you need to pick an option and stick to it and you also need to pick the correct option. Single motherhood is not the best option, divorce is not the best option. Until we remove these options the lies just go on and on.
The society that we live in is simply unsustainable!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Tragedy of the Euro
Saturday, 26 January 2019
Friday, 25 January 2019
Protect the Innocent, Not the Guilty
A few hours ago I had a confrontation on Facebook on the topic of legalising drugs. Over the past few weeks I have been engaged in another dispute, again on Facebook, regarding Euthanasia. But both are related in my mind because the real question in both is how do you protect the innocent?
The argument put forward, a very Liberal argument, is that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my life!
The thing that many find hard to understand is that these issues do not only affect you, they affect others as well. They affect people who may not have the experience, the will or the strength to resist. It's not good enough to say that these people are weak and that they deserve whatever happens to them. It is our duty to protect the innocent, yes even the weak innocent. Liberalism wants us all to be individuals with no loyalty to each other and no duty of care. But we do have a duty.
In both of these discussions the idea has been pushed that to deny people the use of drugs or the ability to die when they want is immoral, that I am immoral for opposing these things. It shows how perverse our society has become that they think these are good arguments. You could make a good argument that informed people should have options. That in controlled circumstances people should be able to use drugs. That in controlled circumstances people should be able to end their life. The question I have is how do you keep it restricted?
I know the answer, the answer is that there is no way to keep it restricted. Medical marijuana is the gateway drug to heroin being legally sold. Allowing people with terminal illness to kill themselves is the start of ending life for any reason you like. I have seen peoples life destroyed by drugs but I have never seen it uplifted by drug use. People are being told that their life has no value, it is an evil message.
One thing that I find over and over again is the inability to think though the consequences of an action. That ideas, action and even inaction has consequences and that many things can be predicted by using logic. Medical marijuana will lead to legalising marijuana, which will lead to a softening of enforcement of harder drugs, which will lead to a de facto legalisation, which leads to the legalising of hard drugs. It is entirely logical, but people like to pretend that they are the masters, that they get to choose how far something goes, but history shows that that is not true. Each new generation starts off further down the line, thinking that this thing which is bad is normal, after all it has been a part of their life for as long as they can remember.
Until we can protect the innocent non of these things should be allowed and as it is not possible to protect the innocent non of them should be allowed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Australian Election 2013
The argument put forward, a very Liberal argument, is that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my life!
The thing that many find hard to understand is that these issues do not only affect you, they affect others as well. They affect people who may not have the experience, the will or the strength to resist. It's not good enough to say that these people are weak and that they deserve whatever happens to them. It is our duty to protect the innocent, yes even the weak innocent. Liberalism wants us all to be individuals with no loyalty to each other and no duty of care. But we do have a duty.
In both of these discussions the idea has been pushed that to deny people the use of drugs or the ability to die when they want is immoral, that I am immoral for opposing these things. It shows how perverse our society has become that they think these are good arguments. You could make a good argument that informed people should have options. That in controlled circumstances people should be able to use drugs. That in controlled circumstances people should be able to end their life. The question I have is how do you keep it restricted?
I know the answer, the answer is that there is no way to keep it restricted. Medical marijuana is the gateway drug to heroin being legally sold. Allowing people with terminal illness to kill themselves is the start of ending life for any reason you like. I have seen peoples life destroyed by drugs but I have never seen it uplifted by drug use. People are being told that their life has no value, it is an evil message.
One thing that I find over and over again is the inability to think though the consequences of an action. That ideas, action and even inaction has consequences and that many things can be predicted by using logic. Medical marijuana will lead to legalising marijuana, which will lead to a softening of enforcement of harder drugs, which will lead to a de facto legalisation, which leads to the legalising of hard drugs. It is entirely logical, but people like to pretend that they are the masters, that they get to choose how far something goes, but history shows that that is not true. Each new generation starts off further down the line, thinking that this thing which is bad is normal, after all it has been a part of their life for as long as they can remember.
Until we can protect the innocent non of these things should be allowed and as it is not possible to protect the innocent non of them should be allowed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Australian Election 2013
Saturday, 19 January 2019
Melbourne Traditionalist Conference 2019
In nine months the Melbourne Traditionalists Conference will be taking place. We are currently working on the event so I don't have much to say yet. But I would like you all to consider coming along on Friday 18th & Saturday the 19th October 2019.
More to follow in the months to come!
More to follow in the months to come!
Sunday, 13 January 2019
Is the movie Logan acceptable?
Last week I watched an X-Men movie, Logan the last movie featuring Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Patrick Steward as Professor Xavier. I'm not a fan of the X-Men but I had heard good things about the movie and I bought it cheap. The production and the acting are excellent, the story is good, alright and terrible depending on which part of the movie your watching. But it is very violent and gory with frequent foul language and much of this involves children. Couple this with it's message that Mexican children have to cross the border or die, although it's the Canadian border and they are being hunted by a Corporation not the government. This is not a fit movie for children to watch however as it is a superhero movie I know children will watch it, which greatly disturbs me.
50 years ago a movie like this would not have been made, although even then people were complaining about the lowering of standards. It was argued that adults should not be treated as children and that they should be able to watch things that were adult. Violence, sex, cruelty and swearing. To be honest most people accept that argument, but why is it that we do so little to help parents protect their children from these things?
Since New Years I have watched 16 movies and rewatched the first season of Game of Thrones. So it is not that I find violence, sex, cruelty and swearing unacceptable. But no one pretends that Game of Thrones is suitable childrens viewing, that's not true for Logan and other superhero movies. Sure in Australia it is rated Mature Age 15+ but how many people pay attention to that?
I have been watching a lot of British WWII movies recently, like In Which We Serve. An excellent war movie about WWII made during WWII. Full of violence, it even has a little swearing and of course it includes the cruelty of war, people, good people die. It even includes humour. But at it's heart it is a serious movie, something Logan pretends to be but isn't. Maybe this is what bothers me the most, that it pretends to be something it is not.
When I was growing up violence or nudity in a movie would have the argument made that they were required for artistic merit. You never hear that argument anymore because now our standards are so low that having a child rip out a mans throat or shoot half his head off, both in graphic detail, goes without even a mention. This blurring of the line between children's viewing and adult viewing is not new and it is getting worse. Simply because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. If adults are to continue to enjoy violence, sex, cruelty and swearing then children have to be protected from it and it must also be remembered that teenagers are not simply immature adults. They need to be treated not as children and not as adults, but as teenagers. It makes things more complicated, life's like that.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Rhodesia Failed
50 years ago a movie like this would not have been made, although even then people were complaining about the lowering of standards. It was argued that adults should not be treated as children and that they should be able to watch things that were adult. Violence, sex, cruelty and swearing. To be honest most people accept that argument, but why is it that we do so little to help parents protect their children from these things?
Since New Years I have watched 16 movies and rewatched the first season of Game of Thrones. So it is not that I find violence, sex, cruelty and swearing unacceptable. But no one pretends that Game of Thrones is suitable childrens viewing, that's not true for Logan and other superhero movies. Sure in Australia it is rated Mature Age 15+ but how many people pay attention to that?
I have been watching a lot of British WWII movies recently, like In Which We Serve. An excellent war movie about WWII made during WWII. Full of violence, it even has a little swearing and of course it includes the cruelty of war, people, good people die. It even includes humour. But at it's heart it is a serious movie, something Logan pretends to be but isn't. Maybe this is what bothers me the most, that it pretends to be something it is not.
When I was growing up violence or nudity in a movie would have the argument made that they were required for artistic merit. You never hear that argument anymore because now our standards are so low that having a child rip out a mans throat or shoot half his head off, both in graphic detail, goes without even a mention. This blurring of the line between children's viewing and adult viewing is not new and it is getting worse. Simply because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. If adults are to continue to enjoy violence, sex, cruelty and swearing then children have to be protected from it and it must also be remembered that teenagers are not simply immature adults. They need to be treated not as children and not as adults, but as teenagers. It makes things more complicated, life's like that.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Rhodesia Failed
Friday, 11 January 2019
The Seventieth Month
Seventy months seems like a long time!
It's been a good month here's hoping for a good year, both from me and you :)
In the last month I had 3,937 visitors, my best day was 13th December when I had 296 visitors, my worst day Christmas Day, 25th December when I had 35 visitors. This month I had 6 days over 200 and 3 days under 40, quite an extreme. Although looking at last month's post I see I had on my best day 297 visitors and on my worst 34 visitors. Only one different from this month for best and worst day.
December 2018-January 2019
November-December
It's been a good month here's hoping for a good year, both from me and you :)
In the last month I had 3,937 visitors, my best day was 13th December when I had 296 visitors, my worst day Christmas Day, 25th December when I had 35 visitors. This month I had 6 days over 200 and 3 days under 40, quite an extreme. Although looking at last month's post I see I had on my best day 297 visitors and on my worst 34 visitors. Only one different from this month for best and worst day.
December 2018-January 2019
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1538
|
Russia
|
774
|
Australia
|
356
|
Indonesia
|
165
|
Germany
|
140
|
France
|
128
|
Singapore
|
126
|
United Kingdom
|
92
|
Unknown Region
|
91
|
Ukraine
|
83
|
November-December
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1041
|
Russia
|
571
|
Australia
|
361
|
Unknown Region
|
277
|
United Arab Emirates
|
189
|
Indonesia
|
92
|
Singapore
|
84
|
France
|
68
|
United Kingdom
|
63
|
Netherlands
|
63
|
The United States, Russia, Indonesia, France, Singapore and the United Kingdom are all up.
Australia is basically the same.
Unknown Region is down.
Germany and the Ukraine are back in the top 10.
The United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands have both left the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Oman, U.A.E., Iraq, India, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines, Cameroon, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina
I look forward to seeing you here again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Tuesday, 8 January 2019
The Difference Between Strangers and Total Strangers
On my last post I had the following comment from Digger Nick:
I live in a pretty much all white neighbourhood (I say pretty much as I don't really know for sure, but i have never seen a non-white person here) but I still live around total strangers.
What Digger Nick lives with are strangers,but I live among total strangers.
Whats the Difference?
A stranger is someone who you don't know.
A total stranger is someone with whom you have nothing in common. A total stranger is foreign and alien.
I live in a place where I'm expected to treat people of different races, ethnicities, religions as if they are my countrymen, but they aren't. I don't speak their languages, I don't worship their Gods. They are more than just strangers, they are more than simply people I don't know. I now live in a place that is foreign. I stayed and my country left.
When I say total strangers, that's what I mean!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Islamic World and our Common Problem
I live in a pretty much all white neighbourhood (I say pretty much as I don't really know for sure, but i have never seen a non-white person here) but I still live around total strangers.
What Digger Nick lives with are strangers,but I live among total strangers.
Whats the Difference?
A stranger is someone who you don't know.
A total stranger is someone with whom you have nothing in common. A total stranger is foreign and alien.
I live in a place where I'm expected to treat people of different races, ethnicities, religions as if they are my countrymen, but they aren't. I don't speak their languages, I don't worship their Gods. They are more than just strangers, they are more than simply people I don't know. I now live in a place that is foreign. I stayed and my country left.
When I say total strangers, that's what I mean!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Islamic World and our Common Problem
Sunday, 6 January 2019
Racism and Other Nonsense Words
Racism is a strange word, it's one of the few words in the English language that can change meaning within the space of a sentence. When I was growing up racism meant to hate someone of another race without reason. And today many people still use that definition.
However what if you have a good reason to hate someone of another race? Is that still racism? Most people would say yes, okay.
But it also apparently means wanting less immigration or wanting to live among your own people, just like your ancestors did. It means being loyal to strangers before being loyal to your own people or even yourself. Often those on the Right find that it is hard to argue against being called a racist, even when race is not on their minds at all. Sadly it often wins arguments for Liberals and Leftists because the person on the Right doesn't know how to argue back.
The issue is loyalty, nearly everyone on the Right believes in loyalty. That's not true of Liberals and Leftists. How can they be loyal when they are rebelling against their own family and upbringing? How can they be loyal when they believe that their race, society and civilization is wrong and needs to be replaced? In the case of Liberals how can they be loyal when they believe that there is no such thing as a group identity?
The idea that you want to be left alone to live your life is not something that they understand. That you don't want to live among strangers is also a strange idea for them to grasp. As far as they are concerned the only reason that you want these things is because you hate. They are already betraying themselves for what they believe are higher ideals, betraying you is nothing. They have no loyalty to you, or me, it is an entirely foreign concept. They also have no empathy, that is why they talk through you, not too you.
The reason that they do this is because they believe something that is not true, they believe in equality. In a nutshell, equality is the idea that everyone is equal and equal means the same, interchangeable. But that's not true, because it cannot be true. People are both similar to other people and at the same time different. If I turn up on your doorstep and said I was your mother, you would know I was lying. I'm nothing like your mother. In other words your mother and I are not interchangeable. We each have our distinct differences, while still retaining similarities. People are different both as individuals and in groups. It's commonsense, which is why it doesn't make any sense to Liberals and Leftists at all.
Being called a racist is like when you were seven and you were told you had boy germs or girl germs. It's use is to separate you from the group and to let others know that they shouldn't associate with you. What it is not is an attempt to show your position accurately. If you are called a racist and they are the same race as you call them a traitor and demand to know why they aren't loyal to you. When they say that they aren't loyal to racists, let them know that loyalty is a two way street and that means that you will show then the same amount of loyalty that they have shown you.
Racism, like Nazi and White supremacist are nonsense words, words that mean whatever they want them to mean. Treat them as nonsense words.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Conservative Messiah
However what if you have a good reason to hate someone of another race? Is that still racism? Most people would say yes, okay.
But it also apparently means wanting less immigration or wanting to live among your own people, just like your ancestors did. It means being loyal to strangers before being loyal to your own people or even yourself. Often those on the Right find that it is hard to argue against being called a racist, even when race is not on their minds at all. Sadly it often wins arguments for Liberals and Leftists because the person on the Right doesn't know how to argue back.
The issue is loyalty, nearly everyone on the Right believes in loyalty. That's not true of Liberals and Leftists. How can they be loyal when they are rebelling against their own family and upbringing? How can they be loyal when they believe that their race, society and civilization is wrong and needs to be replaced? In the case of Liberals how can they be loyal when they believe that there is no such thing as a group identity?
The idea that you want to be left alone to live your life is not something that they understand. That you don't want to live among strangers is also a strange idea for them to grasp. As far as they are concerned the only reason that you want these things is because you hate. They are already betraying themselves for what they believe are higher ideals, betraying you is nothing. They have no loyalty to you, or me, it is an entirely foreign concept. They also have no empathy, that is why they talk through you, not too you.
The reason that they do this is because they believe something that is not true, they believe in equality. In a nutshell, equality is the idea that everyone is equal and equal means the same, interchangeable. But that's not true, because it cannot be true. People are both similar to other people and at the same time different. If I turn up on your doorstep and said I was your mother, you would know I was lying. I'm nothing like your mother. In other words your mother and I are not interchangeable. We each have our distinct differences, while still retaining similarities. People are different both as individuals and in groups. It's commonsense, which is why it doesn't make any sense to Liberals and Leftists at all.
Being called a racist is like when you were seven and you were told you had boy germs or girl germs. It's use is to separate you from the group and to let others know that they shouldn't associate with you. What it is not is an attempt to show your position accurately. If you are called a racist and they are the same race as you call them a traitor and demand to know why they aren't loyal to you. When they say that they aren't loyal to racists, let them know that loyalty is a two way street and that means that you will show then the same amount of loyalty that they have shown you.
Racism, like Nazi and White supremacist are nonsense words, words that mean whatever they want them to mean. Treat them as nonsense words.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Conservative Messiah