Saturday 31 October 2015

Why did Business Turn against the Family?

In the 1950's Business was seen as solidly pro family, compared to today it's quite amazing how little they engaged in either politics or social issues. They believed in making money and in supporting the society in which they were a part. There were exceptions of course, Advertising being one, although even here it was more an indirect attack than in your face. Today much of Business is anti family, although they always deny it. But we can see for ourselves the real picture, in advertising, in company hiring policies and in the things it will not defend. How did one thing change into another?

One of the things I always find interesting about business before the 1970's is how much Big Business and local business had in common. They believed in broadly similar ideals, a free market economy with protectionism, minimum subsidies and minimum regulations, and finally they were both socially Conservative. That included the idea that men and women were different and that they had different roles to play in the economy and within society. As far as Business was concerned it had no business interfering in that and neither did the Government. It worked, it made money and it should not be changed. That all changed with the the death of Classical Liberalism in the 1950's.

At first hardly anyone noticed, it took until the 1960's and then everyone seemed to notice it all at the same time. Society seemed to become more radical all at once and neither society at large or Business liked what it saw. It saw direct attacks upon the very foundations of society, including the very idea of Business. Both became not more Conservative, but Reactionary. They felt very threatened and they wanted these upstarts put in their place. But the ground under their feet had already moved, they lost the fight before they could even begin to fight back. And the reason is that the 1950's were not a time of Conservatism, socially yes, but not politically, politically the 1950's were totally dominated by Liberals. Every major political party in the Western world was a party that supported Liberalism. So when they tried to fight against Liberalism they allied with Liberals to do it. It was doomed to failure.

But even worse was the the Parliaments were already dominated by Liberals, so the fight wasn't really about whether Liberalism should spread but it was a question of how much could society, and by extension Business accept? In the United States this was greatly assisted by the Supreme Court which was even more Liberal than Congress was. And around the world the United Nations, a much respected institution at the time, was used to give prestige to Liberal ideas that would help set the future direction of "reform".

But these things also alienated a Branch of Liberalism, the Right. The Right rejected the way Liberalism was going and the thing they rejected was any Socialist or Communist influence upon the economic "truths", as they saw it, of Liberalism. But now they felt less inhibited and went back into Liberalism's past and started bringing out ideas that had seemed dead. Free Trade instead of Protectionism. Open Borders and Mass Immigration to create an open labour market, as opposed to the closed Union controlled labour market. Less regulation of money and currency, instead of very tight controls. Slowly, each of these ideas spread and were popularized within the Business community.

During this time Conservatism suffered two massive defeats, both self inflicted in many ways. First of all we sort Allies to help us fight Liberalism and who did we ally with? Liberals, Right-Liberals but not Conservatives, so that in time it was inevitable that we would be betrayed, and we were..... and still are being betrayed!

Secondly we trusted that Business was on our side, that Business was much too practical to fall for Liberalism's lies. But the problem was that Business is far too practical, it is much more interested in money that principle. So if principles cost money, they cut costs.

But to be honest Business was also put in a most difficult position. The law changed, what was once normal and legal was now made illegal. Feminists, the third leg of modern Liberalism pushed for women to be treated to all the advantageous that men enjoyed, but not so much the disadvantages. The difference between men and women was now illegal, or at least noticing the differences was. It meant that Business whether it liked it or not had to hire more women and therefore less men. It had to promote more women and therefore less men. And Business found out something it never expected, there were advantages to hiring women over men.

Women were very loyal and very well organised, they were disciplined and compliant, they respected authority and demanded less money. As a workforce women were much easier to control, sure they had disadvantageous as well. They were physically much weaker, with less stamina which meant that women became rarer the more physical or dirty the job. They were less fit and took more time off work, And while relations between Management and worker improved, Management spent more time dealing with inter staff issues than ever before. As the 1970's wore on another issue arose, women were much more traditional than they let on. When they got married or had children they tended to leave, after the Business had invested years into them, they were gone. That had a serious affect on how Business looked at the family.

Now that Business was legally compelled to recruited and promote women, it hated the fact that all that experience and training was wasted after 5 or at best 10 years in most cases. And the problem women were those that married as they tended to take on more traditional roles, which also meant that if they stayed they didn't want to be promoted. That practical side of Business kicked in, if women getting married is a problem for Business than marriage is anti business. Business pushed the idea that it was pro women, that it loved female employees and much of that was true. Slowly it pushed the idea that the ideal Businesswomen is single, a single women can devote everything to the Business. But a married women has a divided loyalty, at best. Slowly, not all at once, not in a rush, but a long slow mantra. The only mantra in town and slowly things changed. Once a Single man was seen in Business as a failure, a man who couldn't even get a wife was a bad bet. But now the married man or women was viewed with suspicion, if they were truly dedicated to the company they wouldn't have divided their loyalty and gotten married. And each step they took they said it's because it's wrong to discriminate, but of course at each step they did discriminate, against the old idea and in favour of the new idea.

But as they accepted one Liberal idea, they also came to accept other Liberal ideas. They found out that if they played the game they could profit. They could get Government, via the taxpayer, to subside them, to pay for all kinds of Business expenses. Something Classical Liberalism would have regarded as obscene, but neither Left or Right Liberalism really objected now, they had come to accept that that was the price of business. Today Business can be quite open in it's hostility to the family, it is not universal, not all of Business thinks the same. But nearly all obey the rules. It is no longer unthinkable for a company to support Homosexual marriage, it is no longer unthinkable for a company to lecture us on our environmental "responsibilities". It is no longer unthinkable for a women to run a company, or a country, and to still tell us about how she is discriminated against.

The idea that Business is Conservative was always untrue, it's even more so now.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Report From the Melbourne Reclaim Australia Rally      

Wednesday 28 October 2015

Why Conservatives should Join the Army

I served in the Australian Army Reserve from 1987-1994 and I want to encourage young men who are fit and able to enlist in their Countries Armed Force. In my title I say "join the Army", but thats just shorthand, I encourage you to join any Branch as they are all equally needed to defend your Nation.

There are many reasons why men think they should not enlist. Here are some common reasons, they fear:

Loneliness and/or boredom
Death or Injury

They are all genuine concerns and in no way do I want to belittle them. But I wish to put forward a list of reasons why you should enlist.

Patriotic duty
Skill at Arms

Now here I want go through each and give an argument in favour of each.

Patriotic Duty: First and foremost it is your Patriotic Duty to serve, if Conservatives do not believe in the common good then what do we believe in? The Nation is about serving something greater than yourself, in serving your heritage, in defending it's Traditions and in serving it's interests.  We are not served if our Nation is defeated or humiliated, it makes us more vulnerable. It also continues the unbroken link with the past, you are the living link between the past and the future.

Tradition: It is hard to think of an organisation that values Tradition more than the Armed Forces. It's drills and ceremonies are often centuries old and have been performed by countless others before you. It remembers and honours wars and battles fought long ago. It honours those who fell long ago and it teaches respect for the past in a way no other organisation does. To put it in perspective, when I served I took part in ceremonies older than both the Australian Army and the Nation of Australia.

Courage: It takes courage to leave home and go and do something hard, to be yelled at and to get little sleep, to learn and learn and learn like you never have before. It takes courage to fire live weapons, something that in many Countries civilians cannot do. It takes courage to learn skills that are dangerous and to learn how to do them safely. It takes courage to learn to fight as well as to fight. I remember one exercise I was on, we were on a hill and we were attack by a company of Infantry with Armoured Personal Carriers and Tanks in support. I couldn't see the vehicles but I could feel the ground vibrating as off in the distant they prepared to attack. Of course it was only training, but training for war non the less. You are tested, even in peacetime training you are tested in a way that you will not be tested elsewhere.

Discipline: The Army is both famous and infamous for it's discipline and it deserves both reputations. The Army can often be stupid, petty and even belittling. But you really do learn discipline, you learn to get up at 3am to do Guard duty, you learn to obey orders, you learn to drill and you learn to do things the Army way. And you learn that discipline is a valuable skill. One that you will use over and over again the rest of your life.

Skill at Arms: In some countries, the United States for example, it is possible to learn skill at arms outside of the Army. But not everyone has assess to weapons or the opportunity to use them in a safe and responsible way. The Army provides men with that opportunity. It teaches the technical aspects, how to clean and maintain and how to use weapons. Not just handguns and rifles, but machine guns, anti-tank weapons, mortars, Tanks and Artillery. Things that even the most avid collector cannot get hold of normally. This helps the male interest in machines and technology, it also encourages confidence and gives men the proper respect for these weapons. They are not toys but weapons of war.

Tactics: All Soldiers learn tactics, they learn how different organisations fit together and how different weapons systems fight together. They learn a different form of discipline, one that complements the more formal version and they gain confidence in performing often complex and difficult tasks.

Leadership: You learn about Leadership, both what is good leadership and what is bad leadership. If you study for any type of promotion you will learn to manage men, how to lead them and how not too, both important skills. You will learn how to instruct, something that is a valuable skill in many professions. I have a Teaching Degree, but the Army taught me how to teach, not the useless Teaching Degree.

Organisation: Allied to Leadership is the knowledge of how organisations work and how they fit together. You learn to operate inside a very complex organisation, one that is both simpler and much harder than nearly any other. It is a good insight into how to do things and in how not to do things.

Survival: For many of us, City living is what we know, it's where we live. But knowing how to live rough is quite a good skill to have. Knowing how to set up a tent, how to cook your own food, how to get along with others in a close envirnonment, meeting people from all walks of life and having no choice but to find a way to get along, these are all important skills. Skills many modern people do not have. I won't say the Army will teach you these skills but you will learn them anyway.

Friendship: Old Army buddies are a real thing, you will never meet the people you meet in the Army again, even if you meet them as Civilians. You will experience a part of life that is for most people unique, never to be repeated. You will meet the smartest and the dumbest people you will ever meet. You will have friends, experiences and memories that you will never forget. That can be a good thing, it can be a bad thing, but it is absolutely a thing.

And there is one final and rather depressing reason why you should join the Army.

We will need to be able to fight!

As I look at the future I do not see universal bliss and brotherhood, I see Governments failing to enforce their own laws and failing in it's most basic duty, to protect it's citizens. I see the ever rising tide of Third World invaders. I see massive debt that cannot be paid back ever. I see Liberalism continuing to push every bad idea that it has because it cannot see any other way to create it's Utopia.

I also see that people are noticing all of this, that people are getting sick of it and that the old arguments of Liberalism are starting to fail. That the "trust us things will get better" is wearing thin. What happens when the two sides notice that no one is being fooled?

When that happens, we will need to be able to fight!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism Just Another Branch of Liberalism I

Saturday 24 October 2015

Pornography and Liberalism

Classical Liberalism did not support Pornography. It believed that it was immoral and that it was an attack upon human dignity. It is obvious however that this is not the current attitude of Liberalism towards Pornography. Why is that?

Classical Liberalism believed that trade should be unrestricted, but it came to accept that sometimes the Government should restrict the sale of items that were against the public good or against the National Interest. It came to accept that Slavery was wrong and so was the slave trade. It also accepted that just because something was possible that did not automatically mean that it should be done. It accepted that censorship had a place. That not all ideas were equal and that not all behavours were equal. That things such as moral and immoral, just and unjust, right and wrong were real divides and that they should be kept divided. 

On this point there was not much difference between Conservatives and Classical Liberals, in fact Socialists, Communists, Facists and Nazi's held very similiar views on this idea. Pornography was degeneracy. And while individuals had their own opinions, some opposed, some supportive, the mainstream views within every Political Philosophy was that Pornography was bad. And until Denmark made Pornography legal in 1969 when it abolished all cenorship, no country had ever legally allowed Pornography, even when they quietly tolerated it.

In fact you don't have to search hard to find Liberals, Socialists and others from the early 1900's who opposed censorship, who said it was wrong and immoral. Some who thought that even Pornography was harmless and should be legalized. But these were not mainstream views at all.  What turned the tide was The death of Classical Liberalism. When Liberalism split in the 1950's it allowed ideas at the fringe to move to the centre. And one of these was the removal of censorship. It made sense as it showed a complete change, a more open tomorrow without the restrictions of the past. But it shows the false choice presented to us at every election.

The truth was that Right-Liberals used ending censorship as a way of showing how much better the West was compared to Communism. In other words, the end of censorship was a weapon in the cultural campaign of the Cold War. It was a way of saying "hey don't support Communism, only we can give you freedom". That freedom included Pornography. Just as the Left-Liberals supported Free Love and Sexual Liberation, the loosening of personal and societal morals. Here both sides of Liberalism, with much support from Feminism, supported the same thing but from different directions. It didn't matter which way you voted, you ended up supporting the legalisation of Pornography, no matter what your personal opinion was. 

In time Right-Liberalism would also come to support Pornography from a Classical Liberal position, Classical Liberalism believed that it is the right of every merchant to sell anything he likes to anybody who wants to buy and that the Government doesn't have the moral right to stop this as the market is the highest moral authority. So selling Pornography was now a moral right, it was no different then selling soap. Just as there are now Right-Liberals who push the same idea about drugs.

For Left-Liberalism Pornography is part and parcel of their new world view, that freedom is unlimited and that each person can choose and make their own life. Pornography is like a catalogue which helps you pick and choose your next sexual adventure, after all life is an adventure, your only here once, your a long time dead, it's true but somehow miss's the point. It provides a distraction, it allows the illusion that an unlimited sexual smorgasbord is out there for the taking, it allows you to "experience" sex with people who in real life you would never stand a chance of being with. 

Sadly it also fills a void that modern Liberal society has created, it allowed the lonely to pretend that they are not lonely, it allows sexual relief and it never rejects you. But Pornography is a dream factory and dreams are not real.

There are a number of questions that remain, why is Pornography so widely accepted, I do not mean why is it used we all know the answer to that, but why is it so rare to hear it being criticised? Why is it that Parliaments have been so ready to allow Pornography such free rein, Politicians are normally very jealous of others having power that should be theirs, but no where in the West has there been a pushback against Pornography, even when it is clearly illegal to do what they are doing. For example in Australia all Internet Pornography is illegal, but the Government has never done anything to stop it.

But my biggest question is an economic question, who's paying for all this? Pornography is available on demand in enormous quantities, you could spend every waking hour looking at Pornography every day for the rest of your life and at least theoretically, you would never see the same scene twice. It is truly amazing how much exists. But apart from Amateur Pornography, someone has to pay those who appear in it, they have to pay the film crew, to have the film processed, to have it put on the internet and for bandwidth. But in this day and age why would anyone pay too see Pornography when it is available in such quantities foir free?

Something about this doesn't make sense.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?

Thursday 15 October 2015

My Liberal Life

In Australia we have compulsory Superannuation, whereby the company you work for puts money into a retirement fund for you to retire on. Earlier this year I started a new job and yesterday I received my Superannuation statement for the last financial year.

$539.20     Contributions
-$5.55        Investment Returns
-$19.50      Admin Fees
-$135.75    Insurance Fees
-$60.52      Government Taxes

$317.88     Closing Balance.

I feel that it nicely sums up my life, whatever I put in I get less back.

Yesterday I felt quite melancholy and decided I was just tired, but today I have felt the same. To be honest it didn't help that an article I was asked to write was rejected. Thinking about it they should never have asked me to write for them. They wanted Intellectual writing, but thats simply not how I write. I am no Intellectual and I do not wish to be. But if someone who writes about Political Philosophy isn't an Intellectual then what is he?

And theres the issue, what am I?

Well I'm a middle aged, white working class Australian Traditional Conservative man.

But over time much of the things that seemed solid are vanishing. The working class still exists but it is no longer solidly white as it once was. The Institutions that once supported it, now work to destroy it.

You would think being Australian would be something permanent, but with mass immigration I feel less and less that I live in my country. I live in a foreign country and I never moved house.My citizenship is open it seems to anyone. My Ethnicity, that I am a White Australian, is denied. Step by step I am being taken to pieces.

I have felt the full effects of Feminism, of Mass Immigration and of Free Trade. I have spent many years unemployed and unemployment means poverty and loneliness. A job that my Father could have got, instead went to a women because of Feminism. A job that my Father could have got, instead went to an Immigrant. A job that my Father could have got, instead is done in China. As I said I got to pay the full effects.

All of that unemployment meant that I have never married and that I have no children and the truth is I never will.

I grew up in a large family and we were close but over time we have become less close. People move, people get busy, people change and not always for the better. I guess you could include friends in that. And as I have gotten older I have become less tolerant of other people opinions and life choices.

I have always been interested in politics but I was still a teenager when I first saw that "Conservative" Parties weren't that Conservative. But it still took me decades to decide that that was because they were willful not because they were stupid. I went looking for real Conservative voices and I found Mark Richardson. After a while I decided I wanted to do more, I wanted to be active so I started Upon Hope.

My idea was that it was a way of making contact with other Conservatives, of building a Conservative community, a Conservative movement. That together we could try and fight back. instead of fighting alone. But it has failed. I feel as alone now as when I started.

Recently I have realised that I am living a Liberal life, I have no family commitments, I feel less and less connected to my country or my community. While I am currently working I'm as disposable there as I have been in any other job. I have been disposed of in relationships, so I don't have any romantic connections. If anything goes wrong I would need the help of the Government. In short I am an Autonomous Individual.

I am living a Liberal life and to be quite honest with you it sucks.

I have been thinking I might sell off everything I own and move to Mongolia. There I can be a real Liberal and tell the Indigenous Mongolians that just because I don't look Mongolian, or know Mongolian culture (as if there is one!), or the Mongolian language, that I'm every bit as Mongolian as they are.

But the problem with my Liberal life is that Liberalism is supposed to be about choices and I didn't choose any of this.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Zimbabwe Failed

Sunday 11 October 2015

The Thirty-First Month

Another month in the life of Upon Hope and it can get very difficult to find the time to write. Even though it's 9:30am as I write this I should be in bed as I worked last night and work again tonight. But I always hate not doing the update on the 11th.

My best day this month was the 20th of September when I had 120 visitors and my worst day was the 29th of September when I had 33 visitors. My American and Australian numbers are rising, but the rest of World, as a whole, is falling. Although individual countries are still doing good.

11th September-11th October
United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand

11th August-11th September
United States
United Kingdom

The United States has gone up by 1/5th, Australia is up by 1/3rd, as is Germany. The United Kingdom is also up.

Canada, India and France are down.

The Netherlands is basically the same, New Zealand is back in the top 10, after a long absence and the Ukraine is also back.

Indonesia has dropped a long way out of the top 10 and Romania is also out.

I have also received visitors from Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, Moldova,  Russia, U.A.E., Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mexico, Trinadad and Tobago, Brazil.

I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff

Friday 9 October 2015

Is Liberalism Rejecting Feminism?

I have often written that Feminism is Liberalism as applied to women, and I stand by that. But I should point out that Liberalism can survive without Feminism, but the reverse is not true. Without the support of Liberalism, Feminism would be nothing. Everything that Feminism has achieved has been achieved because of the support of Liberalism. Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, Feminism believes in the Autonomous Female Individual.

Liberalism has not always been supportive of Feminism, in fact there have been large chunks of time were Feminism appeared to be a dead philosophy. And each time it came back into fashion because of the support it received from Liberalism. But think of this, between the 1920's and the 1960's Feminism disappeared from mainstream view, it still existed of course, but it was tiny. That changed after Classical Liberalism died. Now it made alot of sense for Left Liberalism to provide support to Feminism, which it did. They both wanted to destroy traditional society and especially the family. Both held the Autonomous Individual back, so for a truly Liberal society to exist, for Individuals to be free they needed to go.

Feminism took to this task with relish, they made alot of noise and created alot of strife. But when you look at the Feminist legislation of the 1970's you realise that Feminists just didn't have the numbers in any Parliament to make any of this happen. So who did? Liberals. Liberals pushed these things into law and the Feminists made it seem as if there was a real need for these laws and that they were needed right away.

Today the Feminist agenda has reeked much havoc upon our society. In many ways Liberalism doesn't need Feminism anymore, the work it was needed for is done or at least well in train to continue it's path of destruction. But it seems to me that another idea has taken away the glamour that was once Feminism, Multiculturalism!

Multiculturalism has many features that Liberalism likes very much, it is a direct attack on race, ethnicity and group loyalty. It brings the two sides of Liberalism together, Right-Liberals provide an economic argument and Left-Liberals provide the social argument. It attacks the nation state and even the idea of such a state. It isolates the individual, both native born and immigrate. It uses Institutions that in many cases were hostile to Liberalism and forces it to choose, take the Churches for example, should they show compassion for the poor immigrate or should it be loyal to the native born? It must choose, as must charities, businesses, schools. It creates tensions within communities, between friends, neighbours and family members. Everyone is made more isolated, more Autonomous. The more Autonomous Individuals the greater the victory for Liberalism.

However Feminism works at cross purposes to Multiculturalism. It believes that a women regardless of her race, ethnicity or religion should be an Autonomous Female Individual, but pushed too far that would create quite alot of problems for Liberalism. Liberalism is fine with that being true at some indistinct point in time, but today it needs Feminist's to be more Liberal than Feminist. It needs them to support Multiculturalism, even when it directly hurts Feminism.

In the 1990's Feminists became aware of female genital mutilation amongst some Muslim ethnic groups and they began to campaign against it, but now it is rarely mentioned. The same for human sex trafficking, abit more well known, but it is surprising how little is done on this issue. Actually Conservatives would support Feminists on these issues, we share their outrage, but that outrage has been strangely quiet of late. As has the outrage regarding the rape of women by Immigrants. Feminists have never been shy about using rape as a weapon, But today they are strangely quiet, again. Is it the case that Feminists don't think it's a problem? Is it the case that they are much better Liberals than they are Feminists? Or is it the case that without Liberals, Feminists just aren't that important?

The current Invasion of Europe which continues with the help of the Governments of Europe and the full support of Liberalism is set to continue. And as the majority of these Invaders are young men, crime will rise, including rape and other sex crimes. As the first duty of any Government is the protection of it's own citizens, the Governments of Europe are failing in the most shocking way. It seems Feminism is also failing. It claims to represent women and their interests. But it seems that like Liberalism, it is willing to sacrifice women for a greater good. If European women must be raped to achieve their goals then thats a price they are prepared for others to make.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Lack of Perception      

Saturday 3 October 2015

Conservative Parties: Five Criteria

Any Right of Centre Party is described by the media as "Conservative". Even the members and Politicians of such Parties refer to themselves and I assume believe themselves, to be Conservatives.

Surely there should be some criteria by which to judge if a Political Party is really Conservative or not?

Well here are five and to be a true Conservative Party it must have all five. it must be:

1. Socially Conservative

2. Fiscally Conservative

3. Economically Conservative

4. Loyal to it's own People

5. Loyal to it's own Heritage

What do they mean?

Socially Conservative means that the family, consisting of one Man/Husband and one Women/Wife with their children be encouraged and supported. That everything to done to support them and that as little as possible be done to harm them. That the family is the basic unit in society, it built the past and it will build the future.

Fiscally Conservative means balance the budget! Either reduce spending or increase taxes, but balance the budget. The idea that Conservatives only support lower taxes is counter productive because it is a slogan not good policy. Good policy says that if people want more services then they should pay more tax to support it, if they want tax cuts then services should be curtained. Living in debt cannot last and Conservatives should never support it.

Economically Conservative means that the economy is not about money or the stockmarket, certainly they have their place. A Conservative economy puts the creation of wealth and the creation and maintenance of male employment as it's highest priorities.

Loyal to it's own People means that it opposes foreign armies, banks, investors, and any others from dominating. That they may have their place if appropriate but that the Nation remains the property of the Nation. That also means opposing mass immigration, Multiculturalism and Diversity. All of which are designed to destroy the People.

Loyal to it's own heritage means that they do not believe in the tyranny of the living, that the dead and those yet unborn are as much a part of the nation as the living. Once we were unborn, now we live and one day we shall be dead, and that the future, the present and the past are indivisible, part of the same continuum. But heritage is not just people, it is also buildings, art, literature, culture and language. It is also law and our traditional form of Government. For those countries with a Monarchical tradition, part of our heritage is the Monarchy.

When those who claim to be Conservative cannot support these five criteria then you can be certain that they are not really Conservative at all.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration III