Sunday, 15 January 2017

The Salisbury Review - A Magazine Review

Now most of you have never heard of The Salisbury Review, but early in 2016 I decided to get a yearly subscription. So what is The Salisbury Review? It's subtitle is "The quarterly magazine of conservative thought" and its a magazine that comes out of Britain. I have known of the magazine for a few years but I had never seen a copy and I wanted to find out if it was any good.

I also decided I would do a review after I had seen all four issues and that time is now. I was very impressed with how quickly the magazine arrived in Australia from Britain, it was obvious that they don't mess around with their orders. When it arrived it was a magazine as advertised, not a journal just a normal looking magazine. So far so good. But then I opened it up and started to read, the first thing was the editorial and it was awful. It started off by saying that Britain needed foreign workers, particularly the Poles as the English working class were terrible. I was both shocked and outraged. A Conservative magazine that wasn't Patriotic is worthless.

A little while later I had dinner with Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative fame and I told him I had subscribed to the magazine. He asked me what I thought of it, instead of doing that I handed the magazine to him and told him to read the editorial. Now I must explain that in manner he is very much a Gentlemen, doesn't swear, speaks very evenhandedly, doesn't like to raise his voice. But as he started to read this I thought he had developed Tourette's Syndrome, the editorial was that bad.

So how was the rest of the magazine, a lot better than the editorial but nothing great. It was not really concerned with "conservative thought", but with British Conservative thought, now I don't object to that but it isn't what the magazine highlights. I think it should highlight that it is about British Conservative thought. An interesting but I found annoying stylistic feature is their page layout, hardly any of the articles start at the top of the page. I assume that is because there are no advertisements at all, not a single one. I'm not sure if that is policy or not, it shows how Right-Liberal our society is that it seems so strange that a magazine doesn't have any ad's.

There are some good writers and not all of them are well known authors either such as Theodore Dalrymple, who has a truly beautiful sentence regarding Hillary Clinton in the Winter 2016 issue "Her public affability, when she displays it, has the authentic ring of phoniness.".

But in others I find a very Liberal sentiment and I must admit I resent paying a magazine of "conservative thought" money to read a Liberals opinions. I also purchase an Australian political magazine called Quadrant and they have any number of Liberal opinions, so why is it alright for Quadrant but not for The Salisbury Review? Because Quadrant doesn't label itself as being "conservative thought".    

From reading what I have written you may think I hate The Salisbury Review, but I just wish it was better. I have given serious thought into whether I will resubscribe or not and I have decided that I will. It is very hard to get a magazine like this off the ground and they have done that and they have kept it going for 30 years, I admire that. I want to support that and encourage more Conservatism and more Conservative thought, although I must also say that my support is not unlimited.

Why is it called The Salisbury Review?

 It's named after Lord Salisbury who was the last Conservative Prime Minister of Britain to actually be Conservative, he left office in 1902.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Paradox of the Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government

Friday, 13 January 2017

The Forty-Sixth Month

December was a good month, my fourth best, 3,550, only 94 less than the month before. January has been slow, not disastrous, only slow although I do hope it picks up.

I apologise for being two days last with my update, I have no real excuse.

My best day was the 18th December when I had 298 visitors, I had two worst days, the 29th December and the 8th January when I had only 39 visitors each day.  While I have had Russians and Poles come onto the site in small numbers, most of my Russian and Polish visitors came in a big rush over a few days.

I have been a bit disappointed that I have no received any emails or comments regarding divorce in Europe. I really have no idea what the situation is which I find annoying, so if any of you do know please let me know.

While most months are from the 11th of each month to the 11th of the next month, the last month is from the 13th of December to the 13th of January.

United States
United Kingdom

United States
United Kingdom
Russia is up, as are Germany and France by small numbers.

The United States and Australia are both down, the United Kingdom has halved and Canada is down even further.

Poland, China and Belgium are back in the top 10.

The Netherlands, Ireland, India have left the top 10.

I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Turkey, U.A.E., Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, Sudan, Kenya, Angola, Zambia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina

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

Saturday, 7 January 2017

Is Divorce in Europe That Different?

Over at Adventures In Keeping House a few days ago, Sanne put up a post Men vs Women where the original post got diverted in the comments, as often happens on the internet. It became a discussion on the Mens Rights Movement and sites like Return of Kings. Then a commenter calling himself "theexpertdeveloper" wrote this:

"Read some of the stories on the Community of the Wrongly Accused web site and weep. Too many men have had their lives ruined by divorce-rape. They have lost access to their children, the homes, cars and incomes were taken away. Many men now live in flop houses with winos after a particularily nasty divorce settlement."

Sanne replied:

"The expert I live in Europe and I have yet to meet one man ruined by "divorce rape". In fact, they all seem to do relatively well and quickly embark upon new relationships. It can be different in America, I won't argue that point since I don't live there."

When I read that I was shocked, was divorce in Europe really so clean and clinical? Was it really so very different to divorce in the English speaking world?

I would really love to hear from European men, it doesn't matter what country your from, regarding your experience of divorce.  

In the English speaking world law is adversarial, with lawyers appearing for both sides before a judge and arguing or presenting their clients case. In Family law there are no juries unlike in other law courts.

I would like to tell you about divorce in Australia, while I have never been married I do however have some stories to tell all of which happened to men I personally know.

If a women wants to keep the house all she has to do is accuse the man of domestic violence, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Because the Police will remove him from the premises straight away. He will be served with a restraining order which forbids him going near the women, any children, the house and all of his belongings. She is now in physical possession of the house and he must find new accommodation, all of which will work in her favour when it all goes to court.

A former boss of mine wasn't even married but he was living with the women in question. He purchased a block of vacant land with the idea of building on it and selling the built property. He was required to upkeep the block and while that wasn't expensive it was time consuming. The women decided to leave him, but it doesn't end there. She engaged a lawyer to take him to court, she wanted half of the property. Now she had never put any money into the block and she very rarely went to the block, but when it went to court she was awarded half of the block and he had to sell it and hand over half of the money.

In a custody dispute the ex-wife accuses the ex-husband of sexually abusing their daughter. He was never charged let alone convicted because it was rubbish. But it did destroy whatever civility had existed before that point, so now the ex-wife could tell the court how aggressive and angry he was at her and that it would be too dangerous for their daughter to be in his custody. It worked, she got sole custody.

I know a women who worked as a Police officer and at one point she worked in a sex crimes unit. She told me that most of her work was investigating Fathers accused of sexually abusing their children by, yes you guessed it their ex-wives. She said to me that nearly all of it was wrong and that there was rarely anything criminal let alone any sex crimes. It was all very demoralizing for her, as like many people who go into that line of work she wanted to help people and instead, she was interviewing what seemed like an endless line of men who had been wrongly accused. Why were all these men being accused? It was all about custody battles, not just the law but a tactic designed to demoralise the men so they give up fighting in the courts.

I know another man who's wife left him for another man, she took their two children and moved far away so it was physically hard for him to see his children. She also tried to demoralize him but this time it was a little different. He mentioned in passing that he had visited a lake by himself. An anonymous caller contacted Social Services and told them that he had visited this lake, that he had visitation rights this weekend and that they feared that he might harm his children, in other words that he might murder his children in the lake. He received a visit from the Police and he had to go to court to prove that he was not a danger to his own children. The court said, he was never charged let along convicted, but the court still said he had to be supervised when he saw his children just to be certain. After six months Social Services said that they were no longer interested in his case as everything seemed alright. Thats a pretty high price to pay for mentioning that you'd visited a local beauty spot.

So when I hear that divorce in Europe is different I am extremely suspicious. Are there no vindictive women in Europe? Are there no biased Judges? Does Feminism have no sway in Europe courts? Are property rights so finely balanced that no man has to fear? Is every ex-wife happy to share custody?

As I said earlier I would love for European men to tell me what their experience of divorce was like. Is it so very different?

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

Wednesday, 4 January 2017

You're Not A Conservative If You Believe:

You’re not a Conservative if you believe:

That Utopia is desirable or achievable

That it is possible or desirable to create perfect people

That it is possible or desirable to create a perfect Government

That it is possible or desirable to create a society without social classes

That it is possible or desirable for there to be no rich or poor

That it is possible or desirable to make people equal

That men and women are equal

That different Races are equal

That two random individuals are equal

That intelligence is the most important human attribute

That it is possible or desirable to love everyone

That theory is more important than reality

That people are disposable

That your people are disposable

That there is no difference between people

That your country is just a place

That there are more than two sexes

That people can change their sex

That there are no limits to human experience or knowledge

That man is God

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

Sunday, 1 January 2017

Some Problems With the Frankfort School Idea

As you surf the internet and look at Conservative or Alt-Right sites you will come across something called the Frankfurt School. It is something you will soon learn is infamous in Conservative and Alt-Right for the destruction it has caused across the West. So what is the Frankfort School?

In 1923 at the University of Frankfort in Germany the Institute for Social Research was formed, although it mostly known as the Frankfort School. It was set up by a private fund to study Marxism and to make such research more respectable within Universities. It's big idea was called Critical Theory, which basically said that there is much to criticize in society and here was a theory for doing so. Now most of the people who wrote for the Institute for Social Research were Communists and most them were Jews, although they were not the only writers they were the majority. So as the Nazi's became more powerful within Germany the Institute decided to put in place a plan to move both the school and it's money if the Nazi's should come to power.

In 1933 they did come to power and the Institute moved first to Geneva in Switzerland and then in 1934 to New York where they remained until moving back to Germany in 1951. Ironically going into exile was the making of the school, here were real life European intellectuals who had had to flee the Nazi's because of their political, philosophical and religious beliefs. It gave them a sense of glamour, it also meant that they began publishing in English which increased their readership and influence greatly.

The main criticism of the Frankfort School is that it used this influence to spread Communist ideas and to undermine the West. That much of the upheaval of the 1960's was because the Left began to follow the ideas of the Frankfort School. While it is true that their ideas were hostile to the West and that they did serve to influence the New Left of the 1960's it has a major problem. The upheaval of the 1960's didn't have there origin in the 1960's. The 1960's were simply the time when all of the festering sores that covered Liberalism could no longer be covered up.

The truth is that the 1960's were a Liberal revolution against itself. Sure it had Communist and other influences without any question. But the biggest problem was Liberalism and it's internal contradictions. Everything political and social that came to symbolize the 1960's existed 50 or even a 100 years before that time. Everything that has come after is the logical extension of Liberalism, not of Communism.

Liberalism has since the 1950's accepted the Communist idea of Class Warfare and the Frankfort School is one of many to influence that outcome. I am not saying that it had no influence at all, or that it did not have bad influences, what I am saying is that it wrong to think that the world we live in today can be laid at the feet of the Frankfort School, nothing is quite that simple. To understand our modern world we must study Liberalism and it's history because Liberalism is the problem.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism, The Conclusion

Sunday, 25 December 2016

Merry Christmas From the Terror Capital of Australia

Merry Christmas from Melbourne, Australia where today there was supposed to be a terrorist attack. Fortunately the would be Terrorists were very vocal about their desire and they have been arrested. Their plan was to set off a bomb in Federation Square and to gun down people at Flinders Street Railway Station and at St. Pauls Anglican Cathedral, all three are located on the same busy crossroad. Federation Square is where the first of the Reclaim Australia Rallies were held in 2015.  

Once again we have been told by our worthless Politicians to go about our business without a care in the world, but what they really want us to do is to go about without a thought in our head. They want us to pretend that the Multicultural society that they have forced upon us isn't failing right before our eyes. These latest bring the total to 80 that are currently in Victorian prisons on Terrorism related charges, yes they are all Muslims. And our Politicians are so so very proud of how successfully they have created a peaceful Multicultural society, but like everything Liberalism says it is simply another lie.

The only reason 80 of them sit in jail is because they have big mouths and we have been very lucky, how long will it be before we get our own Berlin moment?

Last week we had an African try to set a Service Station on fire, this is the link to a news report on Facebook with footage of him trying to set petrol on fire. Fortunately a Tradesmen saw what he was doing and used a fire extinguisher to drive him away. The Tradesmen then went to three Police stations to report it, at the first two he was hold they didn't have the staff to deal with it and at the third he was told that they had better things to do with their time. Please look at the news report, it's about 2 minutes long. Police are not investigating the incident because no property was damaged!

While not in Melbourne the Australian Christian Lobby had a van filled with gas cylinders driven into their building in Canberra last week. Fortunately it was at night and while the building suffered damage no one except the man who set the gas cylinders on fire was injured. All we have been told is that the man is 35 years old, an Australian national and he was seriously burned in the explosion that he set off. However the Police insist that it was not religiously, politically or ideologically motivated. Here we have another man with no name, no race, no religion and no motivation carrying out a terrorist act that the Authorities insist isn't Terrorism.

The Liberal and Labor parties are parties of treason, they have created this problem without our approval or consent. This is their problem, created by them and maintained by them. They insist that all they want is for everyone to live in peace, because all of human history is a seemingly endless list of people being unable to live in peace but no they insist that this time it will work. They have not done any of this for our benefit, they have not done any of this for our Nations benefit, they have done it for their own ideological belief, they did it because they believe in Liberalism. They are traitors and the soon we get rid of them the safer we will be!

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

Thursday, 22 December 2016

How Do Dictators Stay in Power?

We have all wondered how can countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe continue, but they do continue. We wonder why don't people overthrow these Governments? Well there is a constant pattern that is used by these Governments that keep them in power and here I will show those patterns, or at least some of them.

The most obvious method is of course repression. To use killing, torture and imprisonment to punish those who oppose the Government and to make others keep doing what they are told by using this as a threat. Now executions and imprisonment are not only used by Dictatorships, But the difference is that the purpose of these things in a Dictatorship is to protect the Dictatorship. Justice, punishment or rehabilitation are not important, the protection of the Dictatorship is important. But a Government that relies on repression along won't survive any serious challenge.

What a Dictatorship really needs is supporters, but who would support a Dictator? Well it has to be understood that Dictatorships exist for a reason, they do not exist in a vacuum. They exist because that nation is in crisis, societal, economic, political and possibly militarily. And that crisis has made all other forms of Government, at least for a time, illegitimate. Because Governments must work, they must function and the Dictatorship is at this time the only form of Government that functions. When it ceases to function it will collapse, but until it does it is the only thing that keeps away anarchy.

So how does a Dictatorship get supporters? It's quite simple really, it chooses a small part of the population to support it, not too small or it cannot survive a crisis, but not too big or it will not be able to support it's supporters. So lets pretend that I am the Dictator of Britain, I need to pick a group who I can rely on when times are bad. I might pick a religious group, or a political group or an Ethnic group. If I pick too small a group I just won't have enough support, but I can't pick too big a group because I won't be able to look after them. I've decided that the ideal group are the Welsh. There are millions of them so I have a large pool to recruit from for all kinds of Government jobs. But they are only about 10% of the total population so I can look after them.

Now I don't completely neglect the other groups, I still need supporters from Northern Ireland and Scotland and England but not too many. It's particularly important that I have some people from these groups in my inner circle. That way I can always use them to show how much I care and to try and show that I don't favour the Welsh alone.

A Dictatorship exists because the nation is in crisis, some Dictatorships evolve over time and try to solve the crisis they have found themselves in, South Korea is an excellent example of that. Most try to at least keep things as good as they are, things might get better or worse but they try to keep them on an even keel. But others become a Kleptocracy, a form of Government were by corruption and theft is the main reason the Government exists or they become Failed State's. Governments who are either unable or unwilling to keep things on an even keel.

These type of States slowly get worse over time, because they promote people based on their loyalty to the Government not on their competence. So slowly, any competence that existed dies out. Now the Government must survive by looting it's own people. So let us suppose that I am that kind of Dictator, Britain is fast becoming a Failed State and I'm responsible, how do I remain in Government?

Well firstly I make sure that the police, both official and secret and the Armed Forces are loyal and taken care of, I need them. Secondly I take care of my chosen people, the Welsh. I make sure that those who are not my chosen people bare any burdens that arise. I want movable goods, cars, jewelry, anything that is of value that I can transfer to the Welsh. Now it's not important that these things be given out to all of the Welsh, only those who I think are loyal. Loyalty is most important. They get priority when trains are in short supply or electricity, they always get priority. It is important that there is one segment of the population who know that they owe everything they have to me. That way if something should happen to me or even threatens me there is a group of people who will always rally to support me. When that support runs out my Dictatorship is over, it's my job to make sure it doesn't run out.

I am not of course the Dictator of Britain, the only place my tyranny reigns is here on this blog. Dictatorships don't exist in a vacuum and each has it's own unique features but they also share common traits. I hope that here I have given some insight into why Dictatorships exist and how they manage to survive.

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