Wednesday, 22 October 2014

The Thrill of Destruction

The Thrill of Destruction

When you look at the news or hear someone on the broad Left talking and you think to yourself "don't they know how destructive that is?". The answer is sometimes, yes, they know and they want destruction. Within us there is a part that likes destruction, particularly if we get to do the destroying.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes we get to see that expressed not as a physical act but as a political idea. Not an ideal, even a wrong ideal has a lofty goal, but an idea can be either good or bad, low or high. This idea can seem to be a positive and that is often how it is portrayed, but at heart it's goal is to destroy. I'll give you an example.

A few months ago someone I know put up a post on Facebook supporting Homosexual marriage. I replied that I was opposed to it. The usual things came back, people should be free to love whoever they want, it's cruel to stop two people who love each other from marrying, etc. etc. What was interesting was that they didn't have any real arguments to my points, they simply restated their original points. I'm sure you've noticed this as well that they have slogans not arguments. But then a women who I have never met popped up and joined in, against me. Thats okay I'm a big boy, I can handle it. She tried the female tactic of attacking me and then trying to imply it's all in jest. I wasn't that interested in her, but instead concentrated on the other person, I mean I know them and I also know why they think as they do on this issue. They think they are being nice to people, having empathy for people. I pointed out the long term consequences of supporting Homosexual marriage. You are not just supporting one new form of marriage, but by default all new forms of marriage because the arguments for legalizing Homosexual marriage are exactly the same as those that allow you to marry your brother, a spider or a chair. It's not the advancement of marriage, it's the road to the death of marriage. I said "you think this is a small reform, but it's not". The other women then said "I know!".

Ummm now thats interesting, she knows that she supports the end of marriage. She knows that she is destroying something precious and that is the appeal. Destroying something is the aim of a significant minority on the broad Left. They are an important part of the Left as they allow two things to occur, firstly they are the ones who put up the wacky ideas and then they look around to see who saluted. And if the idea gets rejected, well it's not the mainstream who supports this wacky idea, it's other's further along. Secondly they are the ones who are violent. When things need to be smashed, whether they be ideas, windows or faces, then they are ready to do violence. Sometimes all they need to do is threaten violence.

The thrill of destruction is not unique to the Left, it is shared by all people. What is different about the Left however is that whatever thought comes into their head they believe to be an ideal, when often it is nothing more than the thrill of destruction.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
 6 of 20 Freedom and Private Property

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Some Links

Some Links

First off I've had a very busy week as well as technical problems preventing me from posting. Later today I'll have another post, but for now I wanted to share with you two links.

The first I saw at The Thinking Housewife and concerns a constant theme of mine, how bad the world economy is, here are some charts from the United States.

The second is from my home town of Melbourne and is as weird and stupid as anything from around the world....enjoy finding out about how the children's nursery rhyme, Baa Baa Black Sheep is Racist and Sexist!

Because newspaper articles are often hard to find I'll reproduce the entire article below.

THE decision to put Baa, Baa, Black Sheep out to pasture at some kindergartens because of racial concerns has been slammed by hundreds of Victorians.
Staff at childcare centres in the south-eastern suburbs told the Herald Sun the lyric was being changed because of concerns over the racial connotations of “black”, and to reflect a multicultural community.
Kindergarten teachers have told the Herald Sun a centre in Melbourne’s east had also considered changing the line “one for the little boy who lives down the lane” in case it could be deemed sexist.
Parents, teachers and hundreds of Herald Sun readers said it’s political correctness gone mad.
“What ignorance. The rhyme has nothing to do with race,” Amy said on
Gavin said: “I am a person who has black skin. Can we please stop with the political correctness, it’s becoming a joke. The song is called baa baa black sheep. No need to change it!”
Leonie Meadows agreed: “It certainly is taking it too far. We have black sheep why can’t we call them black? Are we going to ban the colour black?”
One reader even took the time to come up with a new song - politically correct of course.
“Blah blah, that sheep
“Are you having a good day?
“I sure hope so
“Because I wouldn’t want to offend you
“In any way.”
Celine Pieterse, co-ordinator of Malvern East’s Central Park Child Care, said children could still use “black” if they chose to.
“We try to introduce a variety of sheep.”
At nearby Bubbles Pre-School, owner Belli Spanos encouraged the original lyrics: “There are black sheep and there are white sheep ... it’s not implying anything, other than the colour of the sheep.”
Cheltenham’s Lepage Primary principal came under fire in 2010 after pupils were told to replace “gay” with “fun” in Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree.
The Education Department said it did not tell early learning staff what to teach children.

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

Saturday, 11 October 2014

The Nineteenth Month

The Nineteenth Month

Another good month, I've had around 1700 (just below) visitors this month. Because I've been working and sick I haven't been posting as regularly as I'd like. Having said that I'm still happy with my output as well as the visitor numbers.

My worst day was the 18th of September when I had 32 visitors, I only had one other day in the 30's. The next day the 19th of September was my best day with 96 visitors. Over the month the daily average has been 57 visitors.

11th September-11th October

United States
United Kingdom

11th August-11th September
United States
United Kingdom
France has nearly tripled this month and is now in third place. The Ukraine has risen by 50% and has just been pipped at the post by France, moving it from third to fourth place. Both are much higher than they have been in the past so I'm very pleased!

Germany and the Netherlands are both up, the Netherlands by 50%.

Unfortunately the United States is down, although still higher than it was two months ago and Australia is also down. 

As are the United Kingdom and Canada.

Romania and Indonesia are both back in the top 10, while Japan and Sweden have left.

I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt, Tunisia, South Africa, New Zealand, Fiji, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia.

I look forward to seeing you again.
Mark Moncrieff

Tuesday, 7 October 2014

Political Correctness and Modern Society

Political Correctness and Modern Society

We all know Political Correctness, we've heard the term and we even know more or less the limits of Political Correctness. While most people have heard of Political Correctness, most will tell you it's stupid, or at least it can be. But modern society has a more complex relationship with this idea then most people think.

Political Correctness is the idea that there are some things you just shouldn't say, not just words but even entire topics you shouldn't talk about. But this gets people confused because before Political Correctness there were also words and topics you weren't supposed to talk about. Whats particularly confusing is that things that you once weren't supposed to talk about are now freely spoken about and things that were once freely spoken about are now regarded as Political Incorrect and are things that shouldn't be mentioned. Lots of people don't like it but they have adjusted to it, even if it's just to get by.

Most people are happy to talk about the idea of free speech, the reality is that nearly everyone has words and topics they regard as taboo. Things that they just don't want to hear or be a part of. Things that make them uncomfortable and thats normal, every person has their limits. In the past forbidden words or topics were normally regarded as having "a time and a place", they were said, they could be said in the right place or to the right people. But Political Correctness is different, the purpose is not to restrict speech but to control how people speak, think and how they interact with other people. It is not about being polite or modest or discrete, it is how about making sure that certain topics are only spoken of in the correct manner.

It's quite an achievement to have done this, I remember growing up during the Cold War and people saying "it's a free country I can say anything I please" and it was true and they did. In the 70's and 80's Political Correctness gained ground, it was influential in the Universities and in Government, but outside of those places it was ridiculed and ignored for the most part. Ironically the end of the Cold War saw the rise of Political Correctness because the rationale of living in a free country didn't need to be proved any longer. And it had served it's apprenticeship within the Universities and the Government. It was through the Government that it really took hold because the Government controls most education, either directly or indirectly and it could use the teachers to pass it on to their students. Their students who had never known a world in which Political Correctness hadn't existed.

But it also had a second string in it's bow, as society became rougher in speech because of social changes from the 1960's, many people wanted things to be nicer. For words to be nicer and for some type of restraint to be imposed on those who couldn't or wouldn't restrain themselves. Political Correctness came to the rescue, here was a way to reimpose some order on speech, to make it kinder and gentler. A way to smooth out the rough edges.

To those who support Political Correctness for ideological reasons it never seems to be enough, they find it very hard to understand why people think it is restrictive. They often hear things that are Political Incorrect and they wish that it worked better. They don't think people are restricted in speech, they think people are a bit too free in their speech. They hear racist, sexist, homophobic comments regularly, so they argue how can people feel restricted? But the reason they hear these comments so regularly is not because they are said regularly but because they are sensitive to such comments. They don't let the comment go by, they put it into their mental notebook and keep score. When you do that the score can get quite high.

The problem with Political Correctness isn't that it restricts people, it's that often the words or topics that are not allowed to be discussed are wrong. Factually wrong. The assumption made for most of the forbidden things within Political Correctness is that equality is the highest order. Racism is wrong because it assumes that different races are not equal. Sexism is wrong because it implies that men and women are not equal and so on and so forth. But if everyone is equal, then that means that everyone is the same and that there is nothing unique about them. You cannot be exactly the same and unique, but that is the claim. For a good portion of the population this claim is absurd. You will hear people say that some part of Political Correctness has gone too far, but in fact it hasn't gone to far, it's working exactly as it's supposed to. It's designed to stop people speaking, thinking and to restrict how people interact.

For Political Correctness to end we need to decide what words and topics are not allowed in polite society. And then to allow those words and topics to be spoken at an appropiate "time and place". When politeness, modesty and discretion were given short shift, that allowed the way for Political Correctness to fill there place. We don't need Political Correctness, we need politeness, modesty and discretion to make a comeback. This is both a legal problem and a societal issue as both need to be fixed.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Enjoy?
Marriage: Love or Stability 

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Right-Liberal Socialism

Right-Liberal Socialism

Socialism is supposed to be something that the Left supports and that Right-Liberals abhor. But when you look at the world around you Socialism is alive and well and aided by both the Left and the Right, but for different reasons.

Left-Liberals support Socialism because it is the only economic form that can possibly support the society they want. They want a large Government and numerous autonomous individuals. The autonomous individuals will go about their business and when they cannot support themselves or Left-Liberalism thinks they need help, whether they do or don't, then the Government can provide them with that support. 

But what possible reason could Right-Liberals have to support Socialism?

Well what Right-Liberals support is free trade and open borders, which seem to be the opposite of Socialism, but the difference between the Left and the Right is how big they are thinking. Left-Liberals are mostly thinking in terms of countries or mega-states like the EU, but Right-Liberals are thinking of the entire world. 

If Right-Liberalism was supreme what would it want? It would want trade between countries to be unrestricted, for the flow of workers to be unrestricted and for the transfer of money to be unrestricted. But in the real world, people in different countries have different standards of living, different wages and different conditions of work. But if things are to be unrestricted then those things cause problems. The different standards mean that the economy is uneven. The world economy, and if the world economy is uneven that creates problems, it creates opportunity as well but if that was the goal of Right-Liberalism they wouldn't support everything being unrestricted. No, the world economy must be equalized, it must be just as easy to do business in China as in Canada. Not different rules and conditions, but sameness.

This sameness has a name, Factor Price Equalization and what it says is when countries trade with each other wages and prices will equalize, maybe not exactly but they move closer together. The reason is because the two countries are now part of the same market and they are operating in direction competition with each other. So the high wages in one country will go down and the low wages in another will rise. The same will occur with prices. Now this is a nice rational idea and it even sounds fair, why would a Traditional Conservative oppose it?

We oppose it because it isn't rational and it sure isn't nice. This is Socialism and all Socialism believes in leveling, in removing distinctiveness and in redistributing money. Your money, my money, the taxpayers money as if it wasn't our money but their very own money. But Governments don't have their own money, they get their money from us, the taxpayer. Under Socialism, whether it is practiced by the Left or the Right, a massive transfer of money takes place from those who have money to those who don't. That transfer takes money from all taxpayers and gives it to people who are not taxpayers, including business. Right-Liberals control the Government and the Government then tells business to do something, of course it requires compensation. The fact that it demands compensation for proposals it proposed and supports is besides the point. 

Wages in rich countries go down and those in poor countries rise. Thats good for those in poor countries, as long as they are in the industries that get good wages, but it's bad for everyone else. For poor people in poor countries life gets harder as they must live on less as prices rise along with wages. For those in rich countries prices fall and wages stagnate, over time wealth is eaten up and poverty is the result.

Right-Liberalism also supports Socialism, the leveling of the world, by supporting mass immigration. They believe in the right of every person to live and work where ever they want. The free movement of labour. If a poor person leaves a poor country then they have shown not only that they are better than other people, more enterprising, but by allowing them to immigrate to a richer country it shows not only compassion but a practical way of relieving poverty, at least to the Right-Liberal mind. But mass immigration is Socialism, a leveling of the distinctiveness between two peoples and the transfer of money from one group to another. And the best part for the Right-Liberal is that that transfer of money isn't at his expense but at someone elses. It comes at the expense of the man who cannot get a job in his own country because that job is held by a foreigner and it is paid for by his countrymen who must pay taxes that support this policy. But the Right-Liberal is hardly affected at all, if he is wealthy enough he can move away from the problem or pay to protect himself from most of it's effects. But those without that wealth have to live with the full effects. The risk is shared, the benefits are privatized.

All Socialism destroys wealth because it invests in unproductive enterprises, both economically and socially. Raise the living standards of poor countries by lowering the living standards of the rich countries. That is classic Socialism.

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

Sunday, 28 September 2014

The Individual Versus Individualism

The Individual Versus Individualism

Some people believe that their children will be like little copies of them, with similar ideas and interests. But what new parents find out quite quickly is that their little pride and joy is an individual. They like and dislike things all on their own, they don't need to be told. It's always interested me how some babies love men and how others find men scary and they don't want anything to do with them. Still other babies are more easy going and don't have an opinion about the matter. As they get older they expand the amount of things they have opinions about, clothes, toys, people.

It's isn't a very radical thing to say to most people, that each person is an individual. It seems self evident. But what we might forget is that this individual thing isn't confined to people. Most thing are in fact an individual, every animal, every tree, even every rock. Pick two random trees and examine them, you'll find that they are distinct from each other and that they are indeed individuals. Of course when we talk about individuals we are mainly talking about people. But just like trees, people share a lot in common with others of their kind. Because when you examined those two trees you would find that not only were there things that made them individual, but things that united them, that made them the same. That without a close look you most likely wouldn't be able to tell them apart. But even when every tree in the forest starts to look the same, you still know that each tree is an individual.

Society is very much like this, every person is an individual with their own interests, tastes and ideas. But we still accept, correctly, that we are not just individuals. We are a part of other groupings, a family, a dance troupe, an infantry platoon. The individual goes into making something bigger than themselves by joining together with other individuals. But one of the great paradoxes of human life is that while we are distinct individuals, hardly any of us want to be, we want to belong.

Liberalism has taken the reality of the individual in a strange direction. One that they believe is exciting and that we Conservatives find frightening. The idea of individualism, here the reality that the individual exists is pushed to it's extreme, not only does it exist but it is supreme. The individual not only has their own interests, tastes and ideas, but these things are more important than anything outside of the individual. It is a very selfish way of looking at the world. That our own desires and thoughts are more important than those of any others. That we only form families, or dance troupes or infantry platoons because we wish too. Not because these things are needed or because they are important and not because they allow us to belong, but because the individual chooses them. Nature has been reversed and the individual is supreme, society must change to accommodate the individuals individualism.

But there is a problem because society is made up of numerous individuals and individualism allows the most extreme and radical to express their individualism at the expense of every other individual. When someone becomes extreme in their behaviour or dress, in times past they were pulled closer to the average. Liberalism however always thought this was wrong and instead they believed in the autonomous individual. So now we have people with facial tattoos and we are all supposed to think this is right and normal. In another decade there will be another extreme practice and it will continue on and on. The individualism of everyone else is compromised to allow for this. The idea that there should be normal behaviour or dress, that there are limits to what the individual should do, is no where to be seen. Liberalism cannot see that individualism is only possible by constricting individuals because anyone who doesn't support a perpetual social revolution is denied their individualism.

When someone such as I says there should be limits to individualism, we are often attacked, even called Fascists. Which not only shows that they don't know what Fascism is, but it also shows the selfishness inherent in individualism. In Liberalism nothing it supports ever has any consequences, unless they are good. So when it is pointed out that individualism isn't freeing, it is instead a constriction, they simply deny it, after all how can such a thing be true. How could Liberalism be constricting? Individualism makes the individual supreme at the expense of society. But society is not separate from the individual, if it was then individualism might work, instead it encourages the worst in us and marginalises the best in us.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Racist, Sexist, Homophobe

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Multiculturalism Bites Owner - Again!

Multiculturalism Bites Owner - Again!

Multiculturalism is the idea that people of different cultures and backgrounds can live peacefully in the same community, while still enjoying their different cultures. For decades Liberalism has supported this, encouraged and even demanded Multiculturalism. Because at heart Liberalism believes that all cultures will disappear before the all powerful nature of Liberalism. So Multiculturalism is a weapon that can be used to break down society and bring everyone closer to Liberalism.

But it seems that Liberalism, the owner of Multiculturalism, doesn't really understand the nature of the beast. You see it is supposed to work like this, Liberalism is the piper and the piper plays the tune and everyone else dances to the that tune. But to protect Multiculturalism special protections have been put in place to stop it from disappearing too fast. It has a job to do. In fact it has two jobs. First it must help dissolve the host culture and secondly it must add it's weight to Liberalism by itself dissolving into the mass of Liberal. But what happens when part of this Multicultural weapon starts to realise that Liberalism is the enemy?

Well it appears that we are currently in that situation. A portion of Muslim immigrants into the West, people who were to help dissolve the West and then dissolve themselves, have decided they only want to do one of those things. The modern Islamist threat in the West is the creation of Liberalism. It isn't part of their plan, in fact it's so far away from their plan that they have no idea what to do. But that doesn't change the fact that neither we nor they would be in this mess if it wasn't for their blind faith in Multiculturalism. We are all the victims of a mad experiment to see what happens when you mix all different kinds of peoples and cultures together. The truly bizarre thing is we always knew the answer, because history keeps coming up with the same answer. They can live in peace for a long time, but sooner or later they fight.

Liberalism knew this but believed that those things happened to other people, but not to Liberals. Other people are stupid, but Liberals are smart, so smart that they will be able to solve any problem that arises. Because they believe that people are rational beings. But they are wrong, we are not always rational beings, sometimes we are quite irrational and at other times what is rational for me is not what is rational for you. But of course even if they were correct and all it required was being smart enough, it won't work if you refuse to admit that there is a problem. Consistently Liberalism has denied that there is any problem. They must protect Multiculturalism until it has done it's job, they will attack and defame anyone who tries to stop it, they have been relentless. But it meant that this problem has become bigger and bigger. Instead of stopping a small problem they have instead attacked those who have pointed out the problem, they have tried to shoot the messenger.

They keep talking about Islam as the religion of peace, they just don't get it. They refuse to say the truth. We all know the truth, it is only they who deny it. Islamism, whether they like it or not is a part of Islam. What surprises me is how timid the rest of Islam is towards Islamism, is it because it fears it or is it because it wants to join in with the winner? What is clear is that while we are in a war against Islamism and have been for decades, neither Islam nor Liberals have any real idea of how to combat it. They cannot fight an ideological war as that is one of Islamism's war aims, to destroy the ideology of both mainstream Islam and Liberalism. They hate the West and everyone who supports it. Just because you are not a Liberal doesn't mean you are safe, you are as much their enemy as the extreme Liberal is. Just like the Cold War, Conservatives and Liberals have a common enemy. One who would happily see us dead. But this time the military threat is not just other there, but here, if where you live has Multiculturalism that is. Because the threat was imported to destroy us, but Liberalism lost control of it, it was never supposed to be like this. Once again Multiculturalism has bitten it's owner!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
What is more Important, the Past, the Present or the Future?