Friday, 29 April 2016

Where Do We Go From Here?

A short while ago I read, and I paraphrase here "that Conservatives talk philosophy, but Liberals talk strategy.". It's an interesting idea. When I read that I thought we do do a lot of philosophy. But it is rare for us to discuss strategy. Why is that?

I think it's because we are individualistic, we have our ideas and thoughts and we stick to them. Unlike those on the broad Left who are collectivists. They tend to move on when the collective wants them too. If they are unable to move on they tend to end up calling themselves "Conservatives" and believing themselves to be so, but they rarely if ever are.

But it is quite hopeless to talk about strategy in isolation, all by yourself. Only a group, even a smallish one, can hope to carry out any kind of strategy. A strategy in this context is a long term plan. But we don't have any long term plans because we don't have any groups to formulate them or to carry them out. Conservatives are a million Armies of one.

How do we effect change if we do not have any strategy?

How do we effect change if we have no one to formulate or to carry out such a strategy?

I assume that if your here reading my blog that your as sick and tired of where the world is heading as I am. In fact I'm not only sick of where it's heading I'm sick of it right now. I don't want to return to a past world, I want to transform this one. I want the world to make sense, I want the natural order restored. I assume I'm not the only one?

But all I see and hear is how the world is going bad and how I'm powerless to do anything about it. There are groups who oppose Islam, or who want to stop immigration, or who oppose Feminism. I support all of those things, not because I hate Muslims or immigrants or women, not even Leftest ones, I oppose them (amongst others) because they are weapons that the broad Left uses to attack us, that they use to destroy us. But I don't want to belong to 3 groups were I support 60% of the agenda. I'd like to support at least 90%, maybe I'm just greedy. But I don't want to support Liberalism and that 40% that I do not support is because they still believe in many of the first principles of Liberalism. That all people are equal for example, or that Feminism is good except for the extreme bits, ignoring the fact that feminism is always extreme.

It may sound as if I'm blaming everyone else for this state of affairs but I am also aware of my own limitations. I doubt I can write any better or think any clearer, this is as good as I get. But it is not enough, things aren't getting any better, we can all see that. I can see my country disappearing right before my eyes and how do I fight back....with a blog!   

That's quite pathetic.

When I'm asked what did I do to defend everything that I love, what do I say?

That I wrote a fucking blog?

It's not enough, it was never enough but I am only one man. I'm just another Army of one and they don't win many battles, let alone wars. Well this Soldier feels at times like he should desert, but where would I run, where would I hide? There is no where to run and no where to hide, so where do I go from here?

Until Conservatives decide to fight in groups we cannot do anything but lose. And I don't mind telling you that I'm sick of losing. I wonder if I'm only one?

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Blog
Another Article You Might Like?
Taxes, Budgets and the Economy

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Are Conservatives Cats or Dogs?

Recently I have been thinking of the difference between the belief of Conservatives and our actions. We talk about our Nation, race, ethnicity, society, family, about things that are big and collective, not about individuals but about collectives of people. Liberals on the other hand talk about the Individual, about how it is not the collective that is powerful but the Individual. Which further got me thinking about cats and dogs, cats are individualists, while dogs are collectivists, so what are we, cats or dogs?

Cats were domesticated sometime between the last Ice Age and the birth of Civilization, when Man began to settle in one place and grew crops instead of hunting and gathering. Settlements allowed food to be stored, but stored food also brought rats and mice, who ate our food. It's believed that cats became domesticated because they started to hunt closer to human settlements and humans came to see them as a protector, even as a sign of the favour of the Gods. By nature cats are loners, they live alone and they hunt alone. It doesn't take much for a domestic cat to become feral. A cat is a wild animal who lives in our homes and by and large we both benefit from this relationship. But they are very individualistic, very selfish, they like things their way, they like their own space, they even get jealous. The joke about a cat not having an owner, but instead of cats having a human, rings true because that's how cats seem to think.

Dogs have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years, the relationship between Man and dogs is Ancient. Dogs were domesticated because they could help with hunting, but over time we have trained and bred them to perform numerous tasks. Dogs have been used for hunting, herding, as sentries, for pulling loads, and for companionship, they also made camp life more hygienic by cleaning up stray bits of meat. Dogs are collectivists, they live in packs and humans are simply another pack to them. Dogs need to know their place in the pack, they need to know who is in charge. To a dog your family is his pack and a dog will defend the pack whether it is made up of dogs or humans.

I said earlier that Conservatives are collectivists and that dogs are collectivists, but I don't think it's that simple. Conservatives have always found it hard to form groups, or to maintain them, why is that?

Liberals and others further left seem to find it much easier to form groups, although maintaining them can be another story. While most of these groups end very messily some have remarkably long lives. Some have marked their centenary, how many Conservatives, even Liberal groups that call themselves Conservative can claim that? Some but not many.

Why is it so hard for Conservatives to form groups? My theory is that we are cats, we are individualistic. I don't know about you but I found Conservatism on my own, I didn't read lofty books on Conservative philosophy for example, maybe that's why I never fell for the Liberal trap of confusing the two. But it did mean that I had many Liberal beliefs, which I thought of as exceptions. I won't say I don't still have any but I will say I have very few left. But so much was done on my own, without other people, sometimes despite other people, because I knew what they were saying was wrong. I remember as a teenager hearing it said that "you should be able to do anything you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people".  Even then I knew it was wrong but I didn't know why it was wrong, I now know that it's wrong because actions and ideas have consequences, I also know that it isn't possible to live and not to hurt people, it's not even possible to live and not hurt yourself.

I don't think I'm alone in coming to Conservatism by myself. I think many, maybe most come to it alone. They know they are hearing lies, they know that the world is not as it should be and they search for answers. It means that we aren't very good followers, if we were we wouldn't have gone looking for answers. We would have accepted what we were told but we didn't. The great irony is that we believe in collectivism but we are individuals.

Of course that also means that Liberals, who believe in individualism are collectivists, they follow the leader. I have always been amazed by how they know what is the latest "fashion" within Liberalism. How could they see it so quickly, but I guess it isn't hard when you follow the leader. Of course there isn't a Grand Master of Liberalism, there are many leaders in different fields, but it is these leaders who provide the next "fashion".

So how is Conservatism going to move forward if we cannot form groups, if we cannot put aside our individualistic nature? Or to put it another way how do we herd cats? If you've got any ideas I'd be very happy to hear them.

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

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The Thirty-Seventh Month

Welcome to this my 300th post!

This month has been no different on the roller-coaster ride that is blogging. Up and down with a few loop the loops along the way. I recently found out that that Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative is in the National Library of Australia Pandora Archive. What does that mean? It means that someone at the National Library of Australia has decided that his website is important enough to be archived and preserved for future generations, no matter what happens on the web. Currently it's a few months behind but they have archived everything up until December 2015, check it out:

As for myself I had a small win, I found that one of my articles had been posted on a click bait site, although when you click on the link it comes to my site.

Very nice!

This month has been right about average in terms of numbers, but where visitors are coming from is changing. My best day this month was the 22nd March when I had 104 visitors, my worst day was the 19th March when I had 31 visitors.

United States
United Kingdom

11th February-11th March
United States
United Kingdom

Ireland is the only country that was in the top 10 last month that went up!

The United States has dropped, but the only reason it was so high last month was due to a link that had been posted to me. Sadly ever other country is also down, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and Russia.

Japan and Romania are back in the top 10 and the Netherlands and Brazil have left it..

I have also had visitors from the following countries: Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, Ukraine, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Palestine, U.A.E., Pakistan, India, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore,  Indonesia, Philippines, Ethiopia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Argentina

I hope to see you all again soon.

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

Saturday, 9 April 2016

Things I wish I had Written

Recently I have found some writing I have thought was very good, so good I wish I had written it.

I grew up listening to Marty Robbins and his great Western songs. In fact earlier this week I listened to his Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs album, that link goes to "They're hanging me tonight", a great tragic song if such things appeal to you as they do to me. But until tonight I never knew he had written a political song. How political? His record label refused to release the song, I should also point out that this song was recorded in 1966 when Marty Robbins was still making the Country and Western charts. Ohhh if your not a Lefty you really have to listen to this, fantastic!

Marty Robbins - Ain't I Right

Quadrant is an Australian monthly journal that has been going since the 1950's, It was originally published as part of a pushback against Communist publications in the West, it even received funding from the CIA during the Cold War. It is still published and you can buy it in Newsagents or order it if they do not have it in stock. It is a Classical Liberal/Right Liberal/Conservative hybrid, Intellectual but in the good old fashioned way. Here's the part I wish I had written:

Ideologies Have Consequences/

"Western progressives appear to approach external and internal politics with sharply different mindsets. International relations are viewed through the prism of "win-win". The idea is that hostile ideological regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran or geopolitical adventurers like Vladimir Putin's Russia can be won over through negotiations, bribery and appeals to what the Western Left considers the "real" (that is, material) interests of the outlier regimes, premised on a global progressive view of the world. In this view, anti-democratic adversaries can be persuaded into abandoning their zero-sum approach to international politics and embracing the globalist "win-win" or non-zero-sum scenario, as Robert Wright (Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny) argued more than a decade ago.

On the other hand, the progressives view domestic politics as strictly a zero-sum game. Their opponents at home, Western conservatives, are often excoriated as racists, xenophobes and reactionary retrogrades. The current President of the United States and the leaders of, for example, the European Parliament and European Commission, appear to expend much more vitriol on Republicans and Eurospectics, respectively, then on the West's anti-democratic enemies. This hostility is often reciprocated, hence the increasing polarisation of Western politics"

Here's some from websites.

Is Lack of Play the Reason Kids are Depressed?

"Many of the older generation, in recalling their own carefree childhood play experiences, are quick to wish the same for their children and grandchildren.

But there is a major difference between those days and today. The older generations were able to play in their backyard and throughout the neighborhood because many of them had a parent at home. Not an overseeing, hovering parent ready to swoop in at the sign of a scratch, but an adult who encouraged children to get out of the house and was a responsible and wise resource in the event of real trouble. The few children who didn't have a parent at home could run with the herd and still be safe because the eyes of so many other parents were upon him.

It's all well and good to say that children need more freedom and opportunities to play, but can this really happen in a society where both parents go to work and bring home a paycheck?"

"This, of course, runs up against two of the left's most anti-reality tendencies. The first is its consistent inability to comprehend the difference between the descriptive and the normative - between an "is" and an "ought". To the left, if something ought to be, then it is - or perhaps more specifically, if something must be true in order for their beliefs to be valid, then it is true, and questioning it will be placed beyond the pale. The second is their belief in the power that laws passed by governments have to restructure reality. They protest: "But we have passed laws to ensure equality! We have Supreme Court decisions! The law is clear!" Perhaps it is - but it is also meaningless in the face of implacable reality.

So here is some reality: You cannot pass a law that will make human beings equal. You can pass a law that will force everybody to act as if human beings are equal but that is not the same thing. The government could just as well pass a law forcing everybody to act as if unicorns existed, and enforce it with penalties so harsh that virtually nobody would be willing to speak up against it. In fact, you can go father. You could mandate teaching about unicorns at schools and universities, and indeed, you could even set up whole Departments of Unicorn Studies. You could make sure that films and television were careful to never question whether unicorms existed. You could get people kicked off of social networks for snickering at the idea of unicorns. You could make it so that those who dared to disbelieve in unicorns were fired from their jobs, blacklisted from entire professions, and rendered unable to make enough money to put food on the table for their children to eat.

You could do all of that, and it still won't make unicorns exist."

A great song and three very good thoughts I wish I had written, I hope you found them as enlightening as I did.

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

Friday, 1 April 2016

Should We Call Ourselves Conservatives?

Of the five sites that I link to, 3 have expressed to me either a rejection or a reluctance to being called Conservative. The Author of Another Politically Incorrect Blog, calls himself Conservative from time to time but other times rejects the name, I think it is far to say he finds the term conflicting. Right Wing Fighter isn't conflicted he rejects the term and calls himself Right Wing. Over at Oz Conservative Mr. Richardson uses the term but he has in the past questioned it's usefulness. I think it is fair to say that Conservatism has acquired some baggage along the way.

The word Conservative originally meant to "to conserve" and it is in that meaning that the Frenchman Franois-Rene de Chateaubriand first used it in a political context in 1818. As an aside the word Liberal has been in use since the 1300's but only gained it's political meaning at around the same time as the word Conservative did. The original Liberals were those Spaniards who supported the Liberal Constitution of 1815, The political word Conservative comes from France but is not French, the political word Liberal comes from Spain but is not Spanish. Since that time the Western World has divided itself into Conservative and Liberal camps, although the meaning of the two terms has been anything but consistent.

Even today, while many other political philosophies exist, most people think in terms of the two sides, Conservatives on one side and Liberals on the other. It's why you get various meanings of the two words. In the 1800's Conservatives were Conservative, they believed in tradition, order and family, they were trying conserve. But due to Liberalism's need to constantly change what tended to happen was Liberals who had gone so far but could no longer believe in going any further went over to the other side, and started to call themselves and believe themselves, to be Conservatives. Over time young people grew up with a more Liberal society and saw that society as the one they had to conserve. Both of which diluted the idea's of tradition, order and family.

 In the Twentieth Century both of those trends continued, even accelerated. The Conservatives became more and more Liberal. They even took up Classical Liberal economic ideas and started to call it Conservative!

Today we are left with every Right of Centre party calling itself Conservative, and most of them believe that they are. The media calls them Conservatives, even their enemies think they are Conservatives, in a way it is quite bizarre.

So is the term Conservative still useful?

I believe that it is and here's why. First of all we need a name, you cannot go around without a name because over time someone else will give you a name and then your stuck. Secondly it's a name everyone knows, sure it has it's baggage but it is still respectable (I'll come back to this point). Thirdly it still has it's original meaning, to conserve.

The real problem with the term Conservative is that it's too broad and it has picked up too many meanings. That can be fixed by attacking Liberalism, when Liberals call themselves Conservatives point out why they are Liberals. When Liberal policies are called Conservative point out how they are really Liberal policies. The British Conservative Party legalised Homosexual marriage because it supports the family. Conservative? No of course it isn't, you cannot defend the family by redefining it, you cannot defend marriage by redefining it. The policy is Liberalism supported by Liberals, no real Conservative would ever support it, this is the type of thing that needs to be pointed out and attacked. Just because it is now law does not mean it is anymore worthy than it was before. The policy is not tradition, therefore it is not Conservative. The policy is not order, you cannot refine order as that is the road to chaos, therefore it is not Conservative. The policy is not Family because you not defend the family by redefining it, therefore it is not Conservative.

One mistake people make is to think that as we support tradition then we support every tradition, we support everything that has happened in the whole of history. Of course we do not, supporting tradition means supporting the best traditions not the worst, it means supporting the natural order of things, not inventing "better" ways, artificial ways.

If we did change our name what would it be, Alternative-Right, Neoreactionary, Manosphereian or some other term? The truth is that they have their own baggage, as is only natural, to try to invent a name with no baggage is to invent something no one objects to. If you invent a political name or philosophy that no one objects to then we will all start calling you the God-Emperor of the Universe, because that is what you would be. Sadly I do not see that happening for you or for anyone else.

Conservatism is still respectable and unlike Liberalism it will remain respectable. Liberalism keeps changing it's name, one decade it's Progressive, the next it's Liberal and on it goes, why? Because it uses up it's good name and goes searching for a new one. That has happened to Conservatism as well, when Liberals reject any further Liberalism they call themselves Conservatives, why? Because we are still respectable, for all of Conservatism's up's and downs we are still respectable after two centuries. Liberalism cannot say that.

Further to that point is that if we did change our name we would not escape. They would still accuse us of everything that they do now, their deserters would still try to join our ranks and dilute it. We could call ourselves anything we wanted, we could call ourselves the Insane Clown Posse, we could call ourselves Rapist-Murders and in 50 years time we would have Liberals claiming that they are the real Rapist-Murders and that we should stop calling ourselves that as we are destroying their good name. And what would we do then? Start a completely new name or pley the Liberal game and go back to the old one?

If you believe in tradition, order and family your a Conservative, get used to it.

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

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Liberalism – The Story of an Acid

Critics have often described Liberalism as a disease, A disease can weaken the body, it might even kill, but a disease might be fought, it might be defeated. But Liberalism is an acid, it destroys and disfigures everything it touches, including Liberalism. Can an acid be defeated?

Is there a single institution, that has not been disfigured by Liberalism?

Monarchy, Parliament, Democracy, Family, Marriage, Religion, Law have any of them emerged unscathed from Liberalism?

Children, morals, education, trade, freedom of association, labour relations, relations between the sexes, have any of these gone unaffected by Liberalism?

The thing that makes Liberalism the most radical of all Political Philosophies is it’s ability, and it’s desire, to destroy everything it touches. To reduce everything to Liberalism, only Liberalism all the time.

Liberals will say that they are builders, not destroyers. That they have built a better world. But how often will they admit the destruction that they are responsible for? When they do admit it they claim that it was necessary, what was destroyed was a bond, it made people slaves, it held them back, it stopped people from achieving their true potential. To Liberals all of these are good reasons to destroy something.

But Liberalism is not mindless, it does not destroy things for fun, although it’s fellow travellers might. No, Liberalism has a vision of the future, it has aimed it’s sights upon a better world, filled with better people and for those who believe no amount of set backs, complaints or reality is enough to end the dream. For every Liberal knows that the future is late.

You would think such an attitude would make Liberals impatient, and sometimes they are. But overall Liberalism is amazingly patient, the dream is inevitable, it will always come true. They truly believe that a better world filled with better people is on it’s way.

And what would this world look like?

The perfect Liberal world differs between Liberals, after all they are individuals. But it would look something like this. A Government that looks after the needs of every single Individual. There would be no such thing as family or even society. There would only exist Individuals and the only reason the Government would exist is to provide what those Individuals with the things they cannot provide for themselves. The world of the Autonomous Individual.

There are some things that even Liberals seem confused by, would business exist, would money, what about marriage? Would men and women still exist? Would race? Religion? Some say yes all of these things would exist, others say no non of these things would exist.

Now think of the world that you and I live in today and think about the world that I have described, the world of the Autonomous Individual. There is quite a difference between the two. Now think of all of the things that Liberalism must destroy to create it’s vision. They must destroy anything that binds people together, Nations, Family, Society, all must be destroyed.

So how does Liberalism go about destroying these things?

By being an acid, by dissolving those things that bind us together. Step by step they remove the things that stand in their way. For all of Liberalisms faults it is very logical, the next step is normally easy to identity. Let us use the family as an illustration. The first step was to say that Kings and Priests were illegitimate, then they moved onto fathers. Authority was the enemy they attacked here. Then they sort to remove Marriage from the authority of the Church and move it from something Sacred to something Secular. To remove God’s authority and replace him with man’s authority. That included the power to grant divorces. Then they said that women needed to be free of fathers, of their family and from their husband. First they attacked the power of Kings and Priests, then of the church, then Fathers and then of Husbands. They sort step, by step to remove any authority that they did not have power over. This all happened before 1900.

They had a long break during which they suffered some advances and even some defeats. Then they started again in the second half of the 20th Century. They started by talking about sex, about sexual freedom, about how people within marriage should be free to do as they desired with their partner. But that was simply a smoke screen, what they wanted was for all people to reject authority, including the authority of a persons spouse. What they wanted was for people to become dissatisfied with what they had in life, to desire, to lust after more, particular sex. They pushed pornography, they pushed sexual freedom, they pushed the idea that cheating on your partner was a personal issue not a legal one. They pushed for Adultery to be made legal, after all it only affects two people they argued. They push for no-fault divorce because it was only between people, it didn’t affect anyone else they argued. This all happened by 1980.

But they like to put their fingers into as many pies as possible, you never know which one will be the one with the idea to break through. They supported homosexuality, it’s decriminalization, it’s relentless push to be made legitimate, to be accepted. They did the same with the transgender issue. They pushed for Feminism, which is logical as it is a branch of Liberalism. All of which is an attack on the family. Liberals like to say that this idea is wrong, but if it was truly wrong they would have stopped pushing these ideas, but they never have.

Women should have careers, careers are compulsory, husbands and children are optional. They pushed the idea that marriage was also optional, love is not a document, you don’t need anyone else’s authority. No, Liberalism says you are your own authority, you’re a rebel against all of world history, against everything that has ever been. History is wrong, society is wrong, everything is wrong, except the Individual.

At each step they use the acid of Liberalism to dissolves the edges, to destroy the form that we all know. Soon it is misshaped and discoloured, it is no longer as it was. They point to it and say “look at this old tired thing, if it was worth saving it wouldn’t be so misshaped and discoloured”. Never revealing or admitting that they are the ones who made it look this way. No, they look to the victims of their brave new world and say they wanted the world this way. We are only giving the people what they want. A want that mysteriously they know but that the people don’t. Liberalism is an acid and it destroys everything it touches. 

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

Friday, 18 March 2016

Women and the Unprincipled Exception

The late Traditionalist Lawrence Auster wrote of the Unprincipled Exception, the Unprincipled Exception is where Liberalism proposes a universal idea that it then provides an exception to. An exception that is entirely against the principles that it claims it supports, in other words an unprincipled exception.

In the past 50 years Liberalism has had a lot to say about women, something that before that time wasn't true. There is even a branch of Liberalism that cares for very little else, Feminism. Certainly Feminism existed for then but before then it was regarded as the ugly stepchild of Liberalism. But so much of what Liberalism has to say about women involves the Unprincipled Exception.

Liberalism has comes to believe that all people are equal and that includes the idea that men and women are equal. That the only real difference between men and women is cosmetic. Therefore all areas of society must be opened up so that women can compete on a level playing field with men. Or at least that's the idea, the reality is a little different.

In reality men and women are different, they have different strengths and weaknesses, different interests and different abilities. That means that men and women have different levels of success. But that offends Liberalism. Liberalism has decided that men and women are equal so that is the new reality, actual reality be damned!

What the new reality demands is made law and women must be pushed into equality, no matter who it hurts. Girls and young women must be continually told how "girls can do anything" so that they never need to think about the issue they just "know" the correct response. Women need to be constantly reminded of how hard done by they are. Men are the Class enemy, so just as whites are always to blame, so are men always to blame when this utopia doesn't work. And men are often blamed because this utopia hardly ever works as it's supposed to.

To make it work laws are passed, on equal pay, on anti-discrimination (which is of course discriminatory), anti-sexual harassment laws and of course quotas. Equality becomes an end in itself, it is even defined as a feature of a countries national values.  What all these laws do is drive a wedge between men and women, particularly over time as men come to feel that they are undervalued. And that is the whole point, to drive a wedge between men and women, the Autonomous Individual doesn't have groups loyalty's. No they are Autonomous, without anything holding them back, the more society is destroyed the more Liberalism achieves it ultimate goal and we can all become fully human.

The real problem with all of these laws is that they are Unprincipled Exceptions, they all say women aren't really equal to men so we will force men and women to believe or at least say that they are equal. Equal pay laws weren't designed to have men paid the same as women, they were designed so that women would be paid the same as men. Sexual harassment laws were designed to protect women not men, but if they are equal how can women need protection? There is the irony, every law designed to push equality shows that equality does not exist, if it did the laws wouldn't be needed, the law wouldn't even be possible.

Marriage, family and a believe that we are building the future allows both men and women to see and encourage the virtues in each other. But single life does not, it encourages men and women's vice's, we come to see the opposite sex not as partners in life, not in a shared future, but as rivals, as people who seek to hurt us and do us harm. As people that we needs things from but who we do not wholly trust or respect. That leads to relationships were people expect to exploit their partner. It is not a virtuous life, how can it be?

Liberalism loves to talk about how virtuous it is about how it believes in big and grand ideas, but ideas have consequences and when men and women view each other as untrustworthy, as people who deserve little or no respect Liberalism is to blame. It set us up to fail and we have. Liberalism always wants the credit but it's time it started taking the blame.

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