Wednesday, 1 April 2015

The Problem of Small Families

Today large families in the West are rare, rarer than they were even a few decades ago. But the small size of modern families has a number of concerns that are seldom mentioned and I think should be mentioned.

One aspect that affects us all is that people often have little or no experience with children. In the past both boys and girls had to look after smaller children, whether they were siblings, cousins, teammates, classmates or simply neighbourhood children. Whether they liked it or not they got practical hands on experience with children, they knew what was normal behavour and what wasn't, they knew lots of people of all ages who also had that experience, so if they didn't know the answer it was likely someone did. People weren't scared of children because they know what to expect. But the small size of most modern families means that today, large numbers of people grow up with little practical experience of children. Of course not everyone in the past got that experience, but they were the exceptions. Today it is the exception to have such experience.

What happens when adults don't understand children?

They seek the advice of "experts", people who in many cases understand the theory and are not always as good with the practical. They often give advice that is theoretical or that is true "in the best of all possible worlds", but not so much in this one. When most people have experience with children childcare isn't much of an issue, when it is a rare skill things change. Government wants to manage things and if possible business wants to make money from things. When they want or need advice they ask the "experts", not parents, on how things should be done. Those who work in childcare or teaching must then act on the advice of the "experts", on how things must be done. What nursery rhythm they may sing, what food they may eat and what games and teaching are acceptable, to the "expert".

The size of families has repercussions within the home. When a Mother had only boys in times past most would have still been around girls and the same in reverse for Fathers. For most people there was still a healthy way of expressing your masculine or feminine aspect even if you only had all boys or all girls. Mothers could interact with girls and use there femininity to help them grow into women. Fathers could use their masculinity to help boys grow into men. But with smaller families there is a lack of connection. Your not helping children who mean something to you, nephews and nieces, or the children of a close community, but random children. For some thats enough, but for many it is not. What I see is Mothers trying to make boys more feminine and Fathers trying to make theirs girls more masculine. Boys tend to fight what they don't like early, but thats not true for girls. Girls are more cooperative, they want to be liked and they especially want to be liked by their Father, so when he says he likes kickboxing many join in. They like their Daddy, not kickboxing, but they want to share something with their father and if he likes kickboxing, then its kickboxing that they do together. It might be sport, computers, camping, fixing cars. The Fathers often don't understand what they are doing, they are turning their daughter into a surrogate son.

Then as the daughter gets older he encourages his surrogate son to succeed. You can do anything, he tells her, he might never have given any serious thought to Feminism, but he tends to become a Feminist. No one can stop my surrogate son from becoming a Supreme Court Judge or a Paratrooper, she's as good as anyone, especially any man. After all every Father knows there is no man who is really good enough for her. His personal pride is at stack, the families pride, she must succeed. All the effort that would have gone into supporting a son gets transferred to his daughter. Often he will tell you he believes in equality and in fairness, his daughter deserves every opportunity. But how often does he stop to think about how he closes off opportunities?

About how competing with men will affect her, about how she will feel when she comes to understand she isn't valued as a daughter should be, but as a son should be, about how being more masculine will affect her. No, I bet he has never given any of these things a single thought.

We all have needs, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, they are not always the same and we need to express them in acceptable and practical ways. For too many people the small size of our families does much more harm then you would at first suspect.

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

Friday, 27 March 2015

Nuclear Terror and the Extinction of Man (1950-60's)

It is hard to think of two generations that had such different experiences than the Silent generation (the term used before the term the Greatest generation took over) and their children the Baby Boomers. Parent and child, but such vastly different experiences of war and peace, poverty and wealth, unemployment and employment, it bred two very different generations. There really was a generation gap.

Lets look at the Silent generation first, born from 1900 to the 1930's they grew up in a time of great technological change, but for most of them it was a something they saw in the distance. Most people didn't have cars, or telephones in the house, or fly in aeroplanes, or even electricity. As time went on that changed, but most of this generation grew up without these things, things that we and our parents take for granted. Most grew up knowing hunger, not starvation, but they didn't always eat 3 meals a day because the money to buy food wasn't always available. They were taught to be patriotic, to be proud of their history and to be religious. Not all were of course, but most were taught to be and most were. They believed in thrift and in good manners. Of course that didn't mean everyone behaved that way. They served in large numbers in time of war and as a generation they saw much of war and they suffered. They saw much of poverty, even if they were not poor they saw others who were.

But during WWII people saved money, they had too. The Government forced people to buy war bonds, there were war bond drives to encourage people to voluntarily buy even more war bonds and finally with so much of industry geared to creating the weapons of war, they were forced to save because there was nothing to buy. Get millions of people to do that and you have a mass of money to invest. That nest egg lasted until the 1960's.

When the war ended the Silent generation wanted to get married, they wanted jobs and families. The 1930's had been a time of economic depression, the 1940's a time of war. Now men and women wanted to be ordinary people, they wanted jobs and houses and spouses and babies.

Babies that were known collectively as the Baby Boomers. The war had meant people moved, now housing was in short supply and new suburbs were built and the infrastructure to support it. Cars became common, credit started to become common, it was a boom time. But it came at a cost, everything comes at a cost, nothing is really free. Families became isolated as young families moved away to get housing and better jobs. Mothers were left to look after children without family support. Which meant that grandparents couldn't provide support and encouragement, instead "experts" filled the gap.

These children had a vastly different experience to their parents. Technology was rapidly changing, but now it was a part of their life, cars were owned by most families, telephones became a regular feature in most homes, flying in an aeroplane wasn't unheard of, instead most people came to expect that they would fly, if not today at some point. Electricity was now common and with it came television and household appliances. Life for most people was much better. So good in fact that many of the Baby Boomers couldn't understand the life that their parents told them about. It often made parents angry that their children didn't have any real idea of just how good they had it, some even resented it.

What does any of this have to do with nuclear terror and the extinction of man?

As it turns out quite a bit. The Silent generation knew war, they have lived through it, they had served and fought and suffered in it. They were both idealistic and practical people, they had ideals and beliefs, but they also understood that the world didn't always pay attention to such things. War was horrible, it had cost them so much, years, away from family and work, it cost money and effort and it inflicted suffering and death. But the Baby Boomers heard two very different tales of war, they heard that the war were the best years of their life, about all the good times they had, about the adventures they had been through. But they also heard about the horrors of war, how war wasn't worth it, war should be banned it was so horrible. This created a schizophrenic attitude in the Baby Boomers to both their parents and towards war.

Because the Baby Boomers had a problem that no other generation had ever been faced with. They were told from a young age, that everyone they loved and everything they treasured could be taken from them in an instant. That Atomic Bombs were so powerful they could make life on Earth extinct. Those who supported nuclear weapons talked about how powerful they were, those who opposed nuclear weapons talked about how powerful they were and together they created a sincere belief that the Human race would be extinct...and soon.

The limitations of nuclear weapons were never discussed, by anyone. The two Atomic Bombs dropped on Japan were portrayed as city busters, and subsequent advances in nuclear technology were talked up. But rarely was the fact that Japanese cities of the period, were built mainly of wood and paper, talked about. Imagine if I told you about an amazing new weapon I'd made that could destroy buildings made of wood and paper, how impressed would you be? I don't think I have ever seen test footage of a nuclear blast that had a solid brick building, wooden houses yes, but not solid structures. Solid structures break up the force of explosions, nuclear or otherwise. Look at this image of Hiroshima after the Atomic blast. What do you notice? That everything that isn't solid has been destroyed, but the solid buildings are still there, seriously damaged but still there. Nor is radiation talked about properly, yes some radiation can last for thousands of years, but as a general rule, the shorter the half-life of radiation the more dangerous it is. A radioactive isotope that has a half-life of 10 seconds will kill you. A radioactive isotope that has a half-life of 10,000 years is basically harmless. Need proof? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both functioning cities, 1.1 million in Hiroshima and 400,000 in Nagasaki, today.

But instead those who should have given comfort and support gave tales of nightmares. It was widely assumed that this was inevitable, certainly that idea that it was only a matter of time until someone made all of mankind extinct gained currency. Live life for today because there will be no tomorrow. Eat, drink, do drugs, have sex, spend, spend, spend. Remember there is no tomorrow. Because tomorrow or next week or next year someone will drop the bomb and mankind will be extinct. Survive, you think you could survive? Haven't you heard that the living will envy the dead? Haven't you been paying attention? There is no way to survive, there is no future.

If mankind is to have a future he must throw off the old thinking that starts wars, wars can destroy mankind. If man is to survive he must get rid of courage, courage encourages fighting, fighting leads to wars and wars can destroy mankind. If man is to survive he must reject the past and find new ways of living. If man is to survive he must change quickly. So went the thinking, in a way it is quite logical, but of course it shows a failing of the Silent generation, not the Baby Boomers. It is the idea that today is important but the past is not, that history cannot teach us anything because its old, only the new can teach us anything. The Baby Boomers should have been given that comfort, that support, some were, many were not. The legacy of this period is with us still and it will be for a long time. It gave a mighty push to nihilistic thinking and made it mainstream. It will be very hard to get of it, and we need to do exactly that.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why child care will always cost too much


Thursday, 19 March 2015

Liberalism versus Conservatism

What is the inherent divide between Liberalism and Conservatism?

We are both products of the Christian West and we both see the world through that prism. We share a belief in the special nature of man, that man is more than an animal and that he can achieve great things and that the individual person is important. But after that we start to get quite divergent opinions.

The nature of Man
We disagree on the nature of Man, Liberalism believes that Man is flawed but fixable, in fact perfectible. Conservatives agree that Man is flawed but we in no way believe we are perfectible. We might improve for a time but the inherent nature of Man guarantees that the improvement will rarely last. We are not perfectible because we are too changeable and we have desires. We lust after flesh, money, possessions, security, fame as well as many other things. We want more than we have and we are not always as fussy as we think we are in getting them. We are guilty of being human. If Liberalism were ever to be right and we were perfected, than we wouldn't be human.

The best Society
We disagree on the nature of society and on what constitutes the best society. Liberalism believes that the individual is the basic unit of construction when a society is built. Conservatives very strongly disagree, we believe that families are the basic unit of construction when a society is built. That individuals are born into families and that families create communities and that communities create nations. Liberalism believes that only the individual is real, that families, communities and nations are artificial. That the individual creates through their presence families, communities and nations. That a random group of people can proclaim themselves to be a family and they are. They create their own reality. Conservatives reject this, families, communities and nations are not artificial, they are organic. They come to life because they are alive, they are made up of living people. Now you might think that sounds like the individual creates through their presence as Liberalism believes. However the individual is only ever an individual within Liberalism. Conservatism believes that we are greater than our parts, that we are better by belonging to families, communities and nations. But these things are regarded as artificial by Liberalism, you are not great, you are not part of something better than yourself, something timeless, under Liberalism you are a lone individual and thats it.

The best Government
We disagree on the nature of Government, Liberalism believes that as people are perfectible, so is society and so is Government. That while Government is artificial, it is acceptable because it frees up the individual to do what they like. Families, Communities and nations are not acceptable as they put obligations upon the individual. So does Government of course, but Liberals get around this Unprincipled Exception by saying that Government creates better Liberals and therefore better people. Conservatives, you guessed it, reject this. Government is of Man and by Man, as Man is flawed so will his Governments be flawed. All Governments and all forms of Government, even a genuinely Conservative one. Of course if you believe that Government is perfectible and it isn't, that sets you up to fail and failure is on the bad side of flawed. A Government that accepts that governing is about managing often competing issues is on the good side of flawed.

Liberalism believes that all things relating to Man are changeable and perfectible. Conservatism believes that man and his institutions are flawed and that we must learn to manage as best we can with these flaws.

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


Saturday, 14 March 2015

Why Fighting WWII was right

Over at another politically incorrect blog, Mr. Doom, who I link too has written a review of Patrick Buchanan's 2008 book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War". To really understand why I'm writing this, you might want to read the post and our exchange first.

Firstly while Mr. Buchanan is a real Conservative, I'm afraid I don't have much time for him as he's a Paleo-Conservative, or to put it another way he's an Isolationist. I am however a Traditional Conservative and on social and economic matters the two see pretty much eye to eye, but not on Foreign policy. There the Paleo-Conservative believes that we should not interfere or be involved in foreign countries, How realistic is that?

Mr. Buchanan's book, as the title suggests, believes that WWII was unnecessary, if only France and Britain, and by implication the United States had left Germany alone then there would not have been any war. Germany was simply trying to readdress the problems caused by losing WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. It wasn't a Western problem, it was an East European problem and the Nazis really only wanted to fight the Soviet Union, if they had stayed out then there wouldn't have been a second World War.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that gave us WWII, it is exactly this kind of thinking that lead to the policy of Appeasement. Lets have a look at the timeline that lead to the war in Europe.

1918 Germany and her allies are defeated. The German Empire and Monarchy is overthrown.

1919 The Treaty of Versailles takes German territory and gives it to Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, France and Belgium. The Treaties of Saint Germain-en-Laye and Trianon with Austria and Hungary respectively, breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All become Republics.

1923 Germany experiences hyper-inflation and the French occupy the Saar.

1925-29 Germany has an economic boom.
'
1929 The boom ends when the US banks who loaned Germany the money that created the boom want their money back as quickly as possible because of the growing economic depression.

1929-33 Germany is one of the countries hardest hit by the great depression. Unemployment stands at 1 in 3. No party can gain a majority in the Reichstag, political chaos reigns.

1933 President Hindenburg is persuaded to make Hitler Chancellor. The Nazi's take office and then illegally destroy all opposition, creating a one party state.

1934 President Hindenburg dies and Hitler makes himself Head of State, all German soldiers and sailors must swear an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler. Germany and Poland sign a Non-Aggression Pact valid for 10 years.

1935 Germany announces that it is rearming and reintroducing conscription. Britain and Germany sign the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. The Treaty of Versailles is effectively dead.

1936 Germany sends three battalions into the Rhineland, the Rhineland had been demilitarized since 1924. The French do nothing, Charles De Gaulle calls it "A defeat without a battle". Germany sends money, supplies, equipment and troops to support the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. The Olympics are held in Berlin.

1938 Austria is put under intense pressure to join Germany, the Anschluss. The Austrian President calls for a referendum on the issue, within 3 days of the announcement German troops enter Austria, the Austrian Government offers no resistance. While the Nazi's were always anti-Semitic it didn't seem that extreme from a distance, in Vienna the treatment of the Jews was public and unfiltered for the first time. Attitudes towards Nazi Germany began to change. Germany makes similar demands on the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, as it contains primarily ethnic Germans. The Sudetenland had never been a part of Germany, in the Middle Ages it was part of the Kingdom of Bohemia and then the Austrian Empire. Germany prepared Case Green, the military invasion of Czechoslovakia. An International Conference is convened to find a peaceful end to the crisis. Italy, France, Britain and Germany are invited, Czechoslovakia is not. The Conference agrees to give Germany the Sudetenland, with the agreement that the rest of Czechoslovakia will be left alone. Prime Minister Chamberlain of Britain gives his famous "peace for our time" quote. Within 6 weeks the Nazis attack Jews and their property in the Night of Broken Glass across Germany.

1939 6 months after signing the Munich Agreement, Germany takes over the rest of Czechoslovakia.
 Britain and France retaliate by giving a guarantee to Poland. Hitler believes after Munich that neither country will honour the guarantee to Poland. Germany invades Poland, 3 days later Britain and France declare war. WWII begins.

I don't believe I have made any controversial statement in this timeline. How is it possible to avoid war? Be more cowardly! More dishonourable! More craven! Is that even possible!

The policy of Appeasement said always give the bully what he wants, anything is better than war. Germany breaks the Treaty of Versailles, only 16 years after it was signed and how does Britain responded? By formalizing it with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. And France just blindly follows. When Germany decides to remilitarize the Rhineland, what does France do? Nothing because Britain doesn't think its a problem. When Austria seeks International support to stop a Nazi takeover, no one helps. When Czechoslovakia, who has a military treaty with France expects to be supported by its Ally, it is instead betrayed. Poland which signed a Non-Aggression pact with Germany, Nazi Germany, is attacked with 50% of the time period still to go.

Put this together with the Appeasement of Italy and Japan and its no wonder that Germany believed that no amount of outrageous behavior would lead to war. How bad was the policy of Appeasement is shown by Mr. Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain and one of its greatest supporters. When he arrived back from Munich in September 1938 he said these words

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

By March 1939, 6 months later he was convinced that nothing would stop war as Nazi Germany could not be trusted to keep its word. War came because Hitler wanted war, not only in the east, because Hitler wanted Germany to dominate all of Europe and by dominate he meant by force. Plan Z was the plan to rebuild the German navy for war with Britain. The U-Boats didn't exist to fight Poland or the Soviet Union, or France, they existed to fight Britain. The idea that Britain or France could have been safe if only they had only given even more to Nazi Germany is delusional.

Speaking of delusional, here we come to the hatred of Winston Churchill, supposed warmonger and war criminal, if only he had kept his nose out of poor Germany's business there would have been no war. Well let me put it another way, if Winston Churchill had never been born there still would have been two world wars, the nature of them would have been different but not the reality of them. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in May 1940, 8 months after the start of the war, he had not held a Cabinet level position since 1929. How exactly does a man who isn't Prime Minister or in the Cabinet start a war?

On the 3rd of September 1939 Mr. Chamberlain was the Prime Minister of Britain and he declared war upon Germany, later that day France, New Zealand and Australia, in that order declared war.

That a Conservative can argue that we should not have fought WWII is just sick and twisted,

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
14 of 20 Pattern in History






"England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Happy Second Birthday Upon Hope!

Another year on the blogger Roller Coaster, I read earlier in the year that most Conservative bloggers give up after two years as not much if anything has changed. I feel like giving up at times, but then I think about the alternative. The alternative is just surrendering to Liberalism and becoming a passive Conservative, but I don't find that idea very appealing.

Visitor numbers have grown and thats a positive thing. The Melbourne Traditionalists are also having regular bi-monthly meetings. Things are moving positively in the right direction. Still a long way to go, but I feel that we are moving.

I have had 35,364 visitors since I started, 20,000 in this past year.

My most clicked on post is What do Traditional Conservatives believe? which has been clicked on 1,642 times. My least clicked on post is The Third Month, which has only been clicked on 13 times. My visitors fall into 3 groups, 40% Americans, down from 60% last year. Australians are roughly the same as last year at 20% and the rest of the world has increased from 20% to 40%. As overall numbers have increased that has meant that each group has grown, but the rest of world has grown bigger.

Blogger provides me with some graphs, which I'll show you. Here's the Roller Coaster I was talking about at the start.
Graph of Blogger page views

The worst month since last March was June when I had 1,312 visitors and the best was December when I had 1,923 visitors. But as you can see the graph is trending upwards, unlike last year when things were much more unstable. The graph seems to end on a downward trend, but that only shows the first 1/3rd of this month.

Below are the Top 10 posts followed by the numbers of clicks each has received.

What do Traditional Conservatives Believe? 1,642

Free Trade versus Protectionism 1,627

Why do Conservatives Believe in Different Social Classes? 1,072

Feminism, Why We are not Feminists 996

The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination 733

The Loneliness Epidemic 466

Why Don't the Poor Marry? 451

What is More Important, the Past, the Present or the Future? 424

Government and Traditional Conservatism 377

The Balanced Society 351

I still have no idea what the difference between a "Referring URL" and "Referring Sites" is, but I present it here anyway, just as I did last year.

Referring URLs

Referring Sites


Search Keywords

EntryPageviews
uponhopeblog.blogspot.com
58
free trade vs protectionism
30
upon hope
29
free trade versus protectionism
16
traditional conservatism
10
upon hope blog
7
free trade and protectionism
5
why to conservatives believe that society should have different classes
5
http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/creating-wealth.html
4
protectionism vs free trade
4
Below is a map and the numbers of visitors that have visited in the last two years.

Pageviews by Countries

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
EntryPageviews
United States
14983
Australia
6263
United Kingdom
1582
Ukraine
1057
France
960
Germany
930
Russia
788
Canada
749
China
574
Romania
406
The Top 10 countries are all the same as last year, but apart from the Top 3 they are all in different places. 

I thank you all for your support and I hope that the comming year builts upon what is already here and gets to a wider audience.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff