Friday, 18 June 2021

Asia and the West

Consider this, in 1911 China became a republic, then in the 1930's and 40's Chinese Nationalists and Communists fought a civil war. China's history is thousands of years old and until the mid-1800's Republicanism, Nationalism and Communism were no where to be seen. Because they are foreign ideas, not Chinese ideas and that is the theme of this post. Asia is today filled with ideas that aren't theirs and it is leading them to ruin.

This has taken a long time to come about, Asia was very resistant to Western efforts to trade with them. In the 1800's the Western powers forced Asia to open up to trade through military force and threats of force. But once the doors were open it became like a flood, Western ideas and material goods came to dominate and while there was resistance a new elite came to power by using those ideas and materials. Japan even tried to reject it's own history and culture and to become a European power. That only failed because the European powers rejected Japan's efforts as absurd.  

WWII brought about two contradictory outcomes, the Japanese conquest of Singapore meant the end of the European empires. It had broken the idea that Europeans were invincible, something that may seem stupid today, but wasn't when they had won victory after victory which had brought Asia under their control, either directly or indirectly. The second outcome was to reinforce that the West was superior. It's way of thinking, it technology, it's military force. The Allied victory in the Pacific was primarily American, which lessened the blow because while they were also White they weren't Europeans. They were a different power and the Korean War would push this outcome. By the end of the Cold War the American way had jointed hands with the European way and had become the Western way. Victory in the Cold War again helped.   

But all of this had a cost, Asia willingly surrendered it's initiative to follow the West. It made Western technology, it reconfigured it's economy to fit into the West's economy, it followed Western culture. Thats not to say that it didn't keep any of it's own, it did, but it followed the West to a high degree. To give but one example, traditionally brides in China wore red, in the West brides wore white. Today brides nearly everywhere wear white, because in the West it means purity, but traditionally in China white was the colour of ghosts and bones, in other words the colour of death. That is quite a big shift, but a shift that matches with the idea that the West does things better. 

Today Asia is confused, it policies have lead to the same social and demographic problems that the West suffer from. A low birth rate and a culture of sterility. In South Korea the birth rate is the lowest in the world at 0.9 per births per women. I do not think that bigger is better, but it is a symptom of the Western disease. It has accepted the Wests way of doing things, even when that is disastrous. It looks to the West for the next move, but we don't have a next move. We are also confused, the confidence that once was our hallmark is rapidly diminishing. Is Asia going to follow us down the transgender fiasco? It has followed us down the feminism one. The one saving grace is that Asia has not followed us down the mass immigration and multicultural path. 

However there is no evidence that Asia is capable of following it's own path. Ironically the lower IQ of other regions will protect them from our worst follies. But Asia has gained so much by following our lead and that will be their downfall, as it will be ours!

To Help Support My Work      

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Did Business Turn Against The Family?

Saturday, 12 June 2021

The Turner Diaries - A Book Review

For my birthday I received a copy of The Turner Diaries, normally I would put a link in but any link I put in would get old quite quickly. While I had certainly heard of the book before I had never even seen a copy. So I was interested in finding out exactly what this book was about. 

The conceit of the book is that 100 years after The Great Revolution a diary is found that was written by an ordinary member of the Organisation called Earl Turner. Everything is written from his point of view, with the exception of some notes to explain things, mostly for a future audience, not us. It begins in 1991 and goes until 1993, but it is not a day by day account. Dramatically I understand why the book has proven so popular. It is easy to read and always logical, it covers a great deal of ground, different types of action and locations. It shows you what is happening and gets the reader into the story. It is also technical, so if your interested in weapons or 'how would that work' questions then that is there. Just enough but never too much. Things constantly happen so it's hard to get bored at any point. Earl Turner is also an interesting character, both an everyman that most men can relate too and a heroic character. One forced by circumstances to go from everyman to hero. In the beginning Turner finds it hard to believe that he is capable of killing, by the end he kills countless people. While I won't spoil the story, I think it fair to say that the book and the violence within the book escalates by quite a bit.

So why is this book so controversial?

The book also escalates it's racial violence, at the start Whites need protection from the government. But the Organisation isn't Pro-White, it's anti-everybody who isn't White. Their ideology is at times anti-Black, at others anti-Jewish and at others anti-Liberal. Each is criticised  multiple times throughout, but not at the same time. Each is treated as a separate issue. Just as the White traitors are always treated as a symptom of the disease and not as a cause, even though they are the ultimate cause of the problems. I was going to write that the killing of non-Whites was extreme, but actually the killing of Whites by the Organisation is also extreme. Turner and the Organisation are fanatics and killing people comes to mean nothing to them. Everything becomes about ends not means and killing anyone regardless of race or guilt to achieve those ends is justified in the book. Of course most people who dismiss this book simply call it racist, but it's not just non-Whites who die in droves. 

As a story it's a good action story, it never lets up, something is always happening or about to happen. But this book is also about ideology, and a book that kills all non-Whites and a good deal of Whites is not a book on how to achieve our aims but one that shows us how things should not be done!   


To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Divorce Is Bad

Friday, 11 June 2021

The Ninety-Ninth Month

Not much to report this month, apart from not writing as much as I was sick, just a common cold. But it put me in bed for most of a week and I'm just over the cough a month later. 

My best day this month was the 1st of June when I had 360 visitors. My worst day was the 26th May when I had 46, my only day under 50.  

United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand
South Korea

Monday, 7 June 2021

The Unintended Reformation - Conclusion

While it has taken me far longer than I had hoped to read this book, I am very glad that I have read this. For a number of years I have argued that Liberalism began in the Reformation and that is backed up by this book. It asked questions that I had not thought of and it has pointed me in directions that have opened my thinking. 

How could the Universities brush Christianity aside so easily, even though it took a long time? 

Why did rationalism seem like such a good answer, but it failed to provide the answers that it promised?

Why don't we live in a more Christian society, when that was the aim of the Protestant reformers?

I have reviewed each chapter in turn, for a book this detailed I think that it was the best way to do it. 

Here are the links:

Excluding God

Relativizing Doctrines

Controlling the Churches

Subjectivizing Morality

Manufacturing the Goods Life

Secularizing Knowledge

This is not a light read, it is an academic book written by an academic, but with that proviso I think that the book is excellent.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Refugees And- Asylum Seekers: The Conservative Approach

Tuesday, 1 June 2021

Women Are Life

The female body creates life. That is it's purpose, it is why it exists. Women create life, their bodies allow life to grow, their minds, manners and temperament encourage the continuation of life. Quite simply life cannot exist without women. Which is why Liberalism attacks the female body and the female mind. 

At every turn the very nature of women is attacked. Men, the fathers of women, the husbands of women, are a threat, don't trust them. They are violent and dangerous. Women need men just as men need women. But each is encouraged to distrust, even to hate the other. Childbirth is the worst pain a women can endure and life is about avoiding pain. Abortion, the ending of life is better. If a women must have a child, as few as possible. Career and making money, having a good time these are all better things than family. 

Men are also required to create life and over time they have a very important part to play in a child's life. However women are a constant in a child's life, If a child grows up in an all female environment they might not notice that they have missed out. But if a child grows up in an all male environment they will notice that they have missed out. The love, tenderness and care that a women can give is hard for a man to provide. But we have reached a stage whereby we can pretend that these things are unimportant.

Today we hear that women can do anything, some even believe it. That they can do any job, no matter how dangerous or damaging. That those who object hate women, they think that women are inferior.  That a women's worth is really about her abilities and skills, nothing to do with her inborn nature. To imply that womens greatest strength is motherhood and her ability to create and nurture life is to reduce women to a broodmare. 

It is how Liberalism argues, to always twist truth to it's own vision. They reduce women to small, weaker men and declare that to be a triumph. Because it transforms what women are, it transcends what women are, it ignores what women are. Women have a nature, but Liberalism denies that nature, animals have natures, humans should rise above their natures and become fully human. To do that they need to reject their own nature.

This is why they push so hard for women in the military, in police, in combat. These things are the ultimate transformation. They are about leadership, authority and about killing. Women not as lifegivers, but as lifetakers. The most extreme inversion of womanhood. 

We see this pushed in advertising and in movies and tv shows. Women are just as capable of violence as men, in many shows women are even more violent then men. Many people with no experience of violence believe these lies, just like they are supposed to. 

Liberalism doesn't support women, it always supports itself. Women must like men become Autonomous Individuals, self made. To achieve that women and womanhood must no longer be associated with life and lifegiving. They must become like men and be ready to deal out death.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Problems Of Monarchy

Friday, 28 May 2021

Secularizing Knowledge - The Unintended Reformation - The Sixth Chapter Review

Chapter Five: Manufacturing The Goods Life

This chapter is about how Universities and the sharing of knowledge changed because of the Reformation. Governments liked Universities because it gave them access to trained and educated men who they could use in their administrations. Men who were not tied to the church, but who could still operate at the same level as educated churchmen could. The Reformation threatened all of that, so the Universities were put under the governments protection and control. This was true in both Protestant and Catholic countries, but was more true in Protestant ones.

What continued was what was called the 'Republic of Letters', whereby scholars would correspond with other scholars regardless of where they lived or what they believed. Over time it became the custom to ignore religious writing and to concentrate upon everything else. The scholars became self censors. God had at the start of the 'Republic of Letters' been the most important topic, but he and religion were so fraught with difficulties that they were purposely dropped as acceptable topics. 

Between 1520 and the French Revolution, Theology was regarded as the most important subject at any University. Which meant that it needed to be protected the most. Catholics and Protestants both thought it too important to be subject to attack from the other side. Protestants also did not want to be attacked by other Protestants. So governments protected Theology departments and made sure that they could not be attacked. The best way to protect them was to stop people from having access to them. Gradually the subject went from something that every student had to study and it was the main source of study. To an elite that most students were not allowed access to unless they were devoting themselves fully to it. 

But what that did was it lead to mental atrophy, to the ivory tower. Theology had become a subject that was inward looking, it was not concerned with the real world or it's workings. This was true in both Catholic and Protestant countries. When it was required to fight against the secularizing of knowledge, it failed because it had no real arguments to defend itself with. Not because it was right or wrong, but because it had become an esoteric subject. 

What's amazing is that these arguments had been going on since the beginning of Christianity and it had developed answers. It had had to. So answers existed but they couldn't use them because they had not kept up with modern ways of doing things. Things had changed and the old arguments came across as old fashioned, as out of date. 

During the 1800's most Universities and governments stopped viewing Theology departments as needing special protection or having special status. Again it did not happen all at once but in time they all lost the protection and status that they had once had. In it's place they became professional schools who's job was to create ministers of religion. What they were no longer, were places were the mysteries of life were discussed. That place had gone to the newly created Philosophy departments.   

Protecting Theology had come at an great cost, another unintended consequence of the Reformation.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Remembrance, A Battle We Won

Friday, 21 May 2021

Choice, Sexuality, Race and Liberalism

 In my last article, The One-Armed Man And LiberalismDfordoom left the following comment.

and Liberalism always believes that that which is chosen is superior to anything natural or normal.

Except when it comes to sexuality. Modern liberalism exalts homosexuality and also insists that it is not chosen. It insists that homosexuals are born that way.

And in the case of the transgender ideology (which they also exalt) they insist (weirdly) that being transgender is not chosen. They insist that a man who "transitions" into a woman was born a woman and that that is unchangeable.

Modern liberalism certainly exalts the transgressive over the normal but when it comes to sexuality and "gender identity" they are rigid biological determinists.

Modern liberals also see race as something that is not chosen, hence the hostility towards Rachel Dolezal for daring to identify as black when she was born white.

Maybe what we're dealing with are two different models of liberalism that have nothing whatever in common. Old school liberals certainly believe that you can choose your destiny. The modern variety of liberal seems to believe the opposite.

Liberalism believes in choice, it believed in it yesterday, it believes it today and it will believe in it tomorrow. But life is complex, it doesn't always run in a straight line. Instead it takes detours and back roads, it even ends up in cul-de-sacs and has to retrace it's steps. Liberalism has this problem, it wants to run in a straight line but it must constantly change tac to deal with the things that oppose it. Homosexuality presented it with a problem.

Traditionally, it was viewed as unnatural, the problem for Liberalism was why would someone choose to be something that was unnatural? 

The answer was to show that it was not unnatural, instead that it was totally natural. Not only was it natural but it unchosen, it was genetic, until no genetic marker was found. Nothing to notice, nothing to be upset about or disgusted by, because it was natural.  That argument worked even better than they had hoped. But it also put them in a bind, how do you get rid of this argument and proceed to one were people choose their own sexuality?

For that is the position that Liberalism wants. The answer is transgenderism. Here are people who choose to be either male or female. However the enemies of Liberalism do not accept that these people choose. Instead we say that these people are mentally ill, because wanting to change from male to female or vice versa is unnatural. Which has put Liberalism into a bind. For the time being they are stuck, they cannot say that either homosexuality or transgenderism is a choice, because that leaves them open to the attack that these things are unnatural. 

In the 1970's they tried to square this circle by pushing the idea of bi-sexuality, that sex was on a spectrum and that whatever someone choose was the right choice. That's what the B in LGBT stands for, but when was the last time you heard someone talk about it? 

However that didn't work because both heterosexual and homosexual men rejected it. The aim is to find a way to make all sexuality about choice. 

When it comes to race Liberalism does not like people changing race. It's views are long term, not short term. People changing race upsets Liberalism, but that does not mean that it supports race. What it wants is a raceless human race. They want race mixing, they want coffee coloured people. One human race were there are no races. But they want people to willingly choose this!

Here is the inherent contradiction within Liberalism, it wants people to choose, but people keep making the wrong choices. That 'forces' Liberalism to make choices for people, to protect them from making the wrong choice, to protect them for themselves. 

To Help Support My Work 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Conspiracy, When Even Dead Children Aren't Enough