Saturday, 27 August 2016

Homosexuality And Conservatism

Once upon a time it was possible for a Heterosexual person to live without thinking about Homosexuality. To most people Homosexuals were as mythical as unicorns and their attitudes to both were quite similar. Some people love unicorns, some people like unicorns, some people are interested in unicorns, most people couldn't care less about unicorns. But today we are forced to notice.

Historically Homosexuality was a crime and a sin, but in reality it was ignored as much as possible. Because sex was private, it was not a subject for public discussion. The attitude was remarkably well spread across peoples, cultures, religions and time and it was that Heterosexual people simply pretended that Homosexuality didn't exist and in return Homosexuals pretended they didn't exist. To put it another way, everyone used discretion. Of course everyone knew it did but unless it was forced into public view it remained private, discrete.

Now whenever this idea is said in public someone will invariably ask about Oscar Wilde, it's best to go to his Wikipedia page and read it there under the subheading "Trials". In short he wasn't discrete and he paid the price, not for his Homosexuality but for his pride.

But the live and let live attitude did not survive the Twentieth Century and war was the reason. The two World Wars and the Cold War would put paid to the idea that what was private should stay private. Because during these times of heightened tensions much more attention was paid to anything that was out of the ordinary. The Intelligence Services and the Police were on the look out for spies, saboteurs and subversives. And while Homosexuals were no more likely to be any of those things than anyone else it did mean that the things they did that were "out of the ordinary" were noticed. In previous times they would have been forgotten, but now they might have National Security implications so instead of being ignored they were noted down and compiled. Now that National Security might be involved Homosexuality was no longer able to pretend it didn't exist. It was very unfair as Homosexuals had done nothing to provoke this interest, they were simply caught in the crossfire.

Added to this was another game changer, the Sexual Revolution. When people think of the Sexual Revolution they think of the 1960's but in reality it started way before that, remember Playboy was started in 1953. The most important change was that sex was no longer regarded as private. it could and should be talked about and put on display. It was a complete inversion of what had gone on before. Homosexuals were as much a part of that as the rest of Western society. From this point on there was no way of hiding the fact that Homosexuality existed.

And just as Feminism pushed and pushed and demanded things both reasonable and unreasonable so did the Homosexual lobby. When people complained that things were going too far they were also told that these things didn't affect them. And if they continued to complain that they were bigots. We were told that Homosexuals were just like us. So Homosexuality was legalized and now in most Western countries they can adopt children, marry and change genders. And if you have a problem with any or all of that then you are regarded as the problem.

Conservatives however have opposed all of these things and we continue to do so. We do not want pride marches or Mardi Gras, we do not want public nudity, simulated sex acts and sex toys on display. Dignity should be important. We do not want children to be brought up without a Mother or a Father, which is why we are critical of single parenthood. That is why we oppose Homosexuals adopting children. Marriage is about Family, about a man and a women creating the future, it is not primarily about love, desire or personal fulfillment, all of that is great but they are not the reasons we support Marriage or the Family. That is why we oppose Homosexual Marriage.

Does anyone really still believe that non of these things will affect us? No that horse bolted quite some time ago.

So what do Conservatives want?

What we want is discretion, from both Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. I never want to know about your sex life, nor do I need too. It really shouldn't be that much to ask, but it seems it is. I want society to work and I want to stop feeling like the last sane man in the asylum. But maybe that is too much to ask. What I want is the Balanced Society, a society were we all have our place, a place with discretion.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Did Business Turn Against the Family?
    




Monday, 22 August 2016

Have I Always Been a Conservative?

Winston Churchill is often attributed with saying something along the lines of "If your not a Liberal at 20 you have no heart, if your not a Conservative at 30 you have no head".  I guess I never had a heart, but I always had a head. When I first became interested in politics as a teenager I knew I was not a Leftist.

I grew up in a working class family in three working class suburbs in the north of Melbourne. Even in the 1970's and 80's it was multicultural, Australians, Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs and Turks, and at school there were some Lebanese. The smallest street I lived on had only 6 houses in it, Greeks, Australians, an Italian Husband and English Mother, Australians, Yugoslav and Italians. The only Asians were at the Chinese restaurant and the darkest people I knew were Greeks, some of whom looked Indian more than European.

Violence was rare and crime was primarily property crime, although property crime was quite high. People lived side by side and shopped at the same shops and were friendly in the street, but at the same time each socialized in their own clubs and churches. The Turks I should add were very secular, I didn't even know they were Muslim until I was a teenager. At school there were ethnic tensions but often between other ethnic groups, but in hindsight rarely did it amount to much.

I first came to know about politics in the early 1980's, during what historians now call the Second Cold War, when tensions were high between the West and the Communist world. I knew we had enemies and I knew that some people in my country gave much aid and comfort to those enemies. A big controversy at the time were nuclear weapons. I always wondered why they protested American nuclear weapons but never the Soviet or Chinese ones. I also wondered why the media always showed the anti-Vietnam War protesters as the good guys. What became clear to me was that they had picked a side and it wasn't my countries side....it wasn't my side either.

I knew from an early age that I was a Patriot, and living amongst other ethnic groups I also knew I was Australian. That I wasn't Greek or Italian or any other nationality and I learnt at an early age that they weren't Australian. Don't get me wrong I didn't hate any of these people as I said earlier they were in the main friendly and good people, but they weren't my people. They were foreign people who lived in my country.

Around the same time I saw something happen that was quite strange. Many of the Greeks, Yugoslavs etc. who worked with my Step-Father had enough money to return home, in most cases they hadn't been home in decades. Before they left they were very strongly Greek or Yugoslav but when they came back their attitude had change completely. When they came back they started calling themselves Australians. They had found out that their homeland had changed, just as everywhere else had, that the things they didn't like about Australia were often the same or worse back in the old country and that the life they had here was much better then the life they could have had if they had stayed. This change in attitude helped a great deal as they assimilated.

But the Australian Government wasn't happy with that, no they wanted more immigration and from more countries. The reason so many people point to Australia as a Multicultural success story was because most of the immigrants were European and in time they assimilated. Starting in the 1970's the Australian Government has decided to bring in primarily non-European immigrants and to encourage them not to assimilate. While at the same time having a large unemployment problem. Nearly all of the current problems with immigration can be traced back to this starting point.

So from as early as I was interested in politics I knew I wasn't on the Left, that must mean that I was a Conservative. And I probably would have called myself such, although now that I look back on it I also had a lot of Classical Liberal ideals. On the Conservative side I was a Monarchist, made much easier by being born in a Constitutional Monarchy, I was always sceptical of Feminism, I have always thought that a womens highest calling was as a Wife and Mother. That being an accountant was more important always seemed wrong to me.

But I also had a number of Classical Liberal ideals, I was a Civic Patriot, I was seduced by the idea of Equality, I knew I didn't support Communism or Socialism so I thought Free Trade might be the answer and while I was never a Crusader I accepted Global Warming. Last and I now realize the worst was that at the back of my mind was the idea that one day there might be a perfect society. I admit it is such a compelling idea that what you believe might one day result in perfection. But it's also at one and the same time a stupid idea because common sense and your own person experience should tell you that such a thing is simply not possible. What I find interesting is that I could see that in the ideas of others but not that it also lurked in mine as well.

Although I was never a Liberal Party supporter, I remember seeing a very small article in the newspaper, sometime around 1985. It was about the Victorian State Conference who had voted that they wanted Capital Punishment brought back, but not a single Liberal Member of Parliament would support it. Even as a teenager I saw that the Liberal Party didn't represent it's members and if it didn't support them it sure didn't support anyone who wasn't a member.

My first real taste of reality was when I left school, as it is for most of us. Unemployment awaited me as it did for so many. No job, no hope of a job and no women. The truth is that a man needs a job to hold on to a women. He needs money, he needs hope and he needs a future. But for the working class men of my generation we faced the twin challenge of immigrants getting the lower down jobs and women getting the higher up jobs. It would be a rare man who has not had a period of unemployment. And with unemployment comes hopelessness and loneliness and poverty. For some that poverty is much more than a lack of money, I was lucky as I never went that low.

I had jobs and unemployment and I went as an adult to University to get a degree that taught me alot, kept me busy but that never helped. That is this generations burden, the worthless degree. I had a long term relationship that ended many years ago. I've had my share of ups and downs. But I kept quite close to what I had always believed.

Over time I got sick of the constant lies I kept hearing. That we needed more immigration because it helped the economy, but it wasn't helping me and I didn't see it helping anyone else in the unemployment line. That the real problem with Multiculturalism was that Whites were racist, that we were not tolerant, hold on 1/3rd of Australia's population was born overseas and we aren't tolerant!  You would have to be a complete moron to believe that, sadly we have many more complete morons than we really require. It's also abit much to be constantly told how discriminated against women and immigrants are when they get the job that you require, and this keeps happening decade after decade. Until 2006 I accepted Global Warming without really thinking about it and one day my Mother is watching the news and she says "Another story on Global Warming!" and to my own surprise I replied "It's probably not even true". After that I started to think about it and I remembered all the horror stories we were told when Global Warming first started being talked about and how that time was now. But the oceans hadn't risen, the polar bears weren't extinct. In short they lied.

In 2010 I was very upset about the direction Australia was heading, so I decided to look on the internet to find some kindred spirit. I found Oz Conservative and contacted Mr. Richardson and we met up. Since then we have stayed in contact and see each other a few times a year, first with the Eltham Traditions and now with the Melbourne Traditionalist. But as I read more of his site I realized I had things I wanted to say and he was very supportive. He told me that one thing that would happen was that I would do alot of thinking and that it would really clear up my thinking. I was sceptical but he was right, my thinking is much clearer, things I had only vaguely thought about I had to deeply think about. I had to make sure that the things I wrote made sense to both me and to my readers. In doing that I came to understand Liberalism alot more and I came to understand Conservatism more. I realized what they had in common and where they differed. It finally ended most of my Classical Liberal ways, I won't say all as we are bathed in Liberal from birth.

So have I always been a Conservative? The answer is no, but I'm there now.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Debt is King I


Wednesday, 17 August 2016

Classical Liberal Versus Conservative

Most people who call themselves Conservatives today or who are called Conservatives are in reality Classical Liberals. They share a number of things in common, neither are Socialists and they are mostly socially Conservative.

However there are things that mark them out as different.

Classical Liberals believe in liberty, that freedom is the greatest thing. That meant freedom from Priests and Kings, but while other branches of Liberalism kept seeking further and further freedoms, Classical Liberalism mainly stopped. It was content with the freedoms that it had. It saw itself as fulfilled with freedom of religion, of speech, property. It didn't understand why the other branches of Liberalism kept asking for more. It believed that they were radical but that they were sensible. And that if they were not radicals than that must mean that they are Conservatives.

But Conservatives believe in something different, Conservatives believe in Tradition, Order and Family. In other words in stability and in reconciling the past, the present and the future, not in rejecting any of those things. Of course when Conservatives say they don't believe in liberty or freedom than Liberals think we must support Dictatorship or slavery. But what we accept and Liberals do not is that freedoms are not absolute and that one freedom can interfere with another freedom. In other words not all freedoms are equal or desirable.

Those more "radical" branches of Liberalism have kept the idea of freedom, absolute freedom alive. Classical Liberalism believed in some restraint, both public and personal. But not the rest of Liberalism, they believed in continuing the logical progression within Liberalism. If freedom is absolute then there is much more to achieve. Freedom from ones social class, from ones Ethnicity, Nationality and Race, freedom from biology, freedom his history, freedom from responsibility.

Classical Liberalism and Conservatives both agree, this is fruitcake territory. Sadly that doesn't stop Classical Liberals from joining in on the Liberal logic train. They think "Ohhh sure most of this is crazy, but this one bit is completely comparable with my other beliefs". The Liberal in them is ignited and they then use this to bring along other "Conservatives". It's reasonable they argue, it's such a small concession they argue, it will show that we are not rigid or old fashioned they argue, it will show our good faith they argue, it will be popular they argue, it will be a vote winner they argue.

They believe in a radical revolutionary philosophy and they think that they can turn it on or off at their discretion. Liberalism doesn't work like that, you cannot choose how much revolution you can have. In that sense Classical Liberals live in a world filled with Unprincipled Exceptions, that they can pick and choose how much of this ore that they will have. The other branches of Liberalism understand the logic of Liberalism, that Liberalism is a philosophy of more and more and that Liberalism always means more Liberalism.  

But Classical Liberals do not understand that, instead they think they are Conservatives. They call Liberal principles Conservative principles. Here is a major reason why Liberalism keeps winning, it has "Conservative" allies, people who everyone should call what they are, Classical Liberals.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Essence of Liberalism

Thursday, 11 August 2016

The Forty-First Month

This last month has been my best ever!

I have had the most visitors ever, I have had great numbers from various countries, including my own country, Australia. I also have six countries over 100 and one over 1000, actually quite a way over. All excellent, although I expect two of those countries to vanish quite quickly. It is a strange thing I have noticed before that countries will arrive in large numbers and then vanish as if they were never there at all. Do they come back? I don't really know, but I'm glad they were here, although obviously I would prefer for them to remain.

At the start of August the Melbourne Traditionalists met, numbers were slightly lower than I had hoped for, but not greatly. We had not held a get together since late 2015 and as it turned out the weather should best be described as "it was a dark and stormy night".  But the venue was excellent as was the talk around the table, Britex, Europe and the current terrorism/fake refugee crisis, the Pope and Catholicism, Trump and the US election, the Alt-Right and Australian politics and I might have missed one or two topics. I should also point out how many jokes were told, it's not all serious by any means. But that gives you a sense of what to expect at a Melbourne Traditionalist meeting.

There will be another meeting soon and I was contacted by someone interested in doing the same in country Victoria, which I will give every assistance I can too.

I also had the sad task of unlinking from a long time site I had supported, I give my reasons here The Thinking Housewife.

My worst day this month was the 16th June when I had 39 visitors, my best day was the 23rd June when I had 693 visitors! I then had 16 straights days of over 100 visitors a day, as I said this has been the best month ever.

July-August
EntryPageviews
Russia
3557
United States
817
Australia
570
United Kingdom
193
Germany
129
Mauritius
115
Canada
65
France
42
China
33
India
27

June-July
EntryPageviews
United States
706
Australia
362
Japan
110
United Kingdom
80
Brazil
34
Canada
30
Germany
30
China
29
France
28
India
19


I don't think I even had one visitor from Russia the month before, but as it has done in the past it came on in strength. Australia is over 500, before this month I had only very briefly reached that number, so that makes me very happy.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, China and India are all up. Germany and the United Kingdom are all up were they should be.

Mauritius, talk about a surprise, sadly it looks like they will be like Russia.

Japan and Brazil are down this month and both have left the top 10, maybe they are distracted by the Rio Olympics.

I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Poland, Albania, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Morocco, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina
Thanks for visiting and I hope to see you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff

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

Monday, 8 August 2016

Policing and Conservatisim

Every society needs someone to uphold it's laws and standards, to prevent crime and to pursue wrongdoers. Over time there have been various ways of doing these things, the hue and cry, collective responsibility, outlawing, sheriffs, even using the Army. But since the 1830's the primarily way has been via a Police Force.

While there are Law Enforcement older than London's Metropolitan Police, they are mostly Paramilitary. The French Gendarme for example are part of the French Armed Forces, but they carry out both policing and security tasks. The Police as we understand it comes from the English experience. The success of this experiment, because it was an experiment, is shown by the fact that for 150 years the English policeman, the "bobby" was not simply a symbol of law enforcement but a symbol of law, civility and of Civilization itself. He was as much a symbol of the British Empire as the British Army or the Royal Navy.

In Canada one of the great national symbols is the "Mountie" the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the United States there are a number of world famous Law Enforcement and Police Forces, sometimes they are famous for the wrong reasons. Everywhere in the world there are such forces but non are as famous as those already mentioned.

How did such an experiment work? Conservatives were not in favour of such forces, they believed that it would be a continuation of the French Gendarme, an army without cavalry or artillery but an army just the same. But Sir Robert Peel had a different idea and he was fortunate in deciding to appoint two commissioners to his Metropolitan Police, a Soldier by the name of Colonel Sir Charles Rowan and a Lawyer, or as Sir Robert called him "a sensible Lawyer", Sir Richard Mayne. Within weeks of the formation of the force a book was issued to all ranks, it was known as the "General Instruction", here is the second paragraph:

"It should be understood, at the outset, that the principal object to be attained is the Prevention of Crime.
To this great end every effort of the Police is to be directed. The security of person and property, the preservation of the public tranquility, and all the objects of a Police Establishment, will thus be better effected, than by the detection and punishment of the offender, after he has succeeded in committing the crime. This should constantly be kept in mind by every member of the Police Force, as the guide for his own conduct. Officers and Police Constables should endeavour to distinguish themselves by such vigilance and activity, as may render it extremely difficult for any one to commit a crime within that portion of the town under their charge."

The aim was to prevent crime rather than to solve crime or to imprison people and in fact over the first decade of the Metropolitan Police crime dropped greatly. But it was not simply the presence of Police that made crime drop there were other principles that were applied that also assisted. They are known by Historians as the "Peelian Principles":

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use the  minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Since the 1960's Policing has changed and to be honest not for the better. Society changed, the Politicians changed and so did the Courts, in time so did the Police. The first major change was the creation of S.W.A.T. or Special Weapons And Tactics units. This was a major departure from Peelian Principles as it was turning away from minimum force to a more Para-Military force. In hindsight maybe these quasi-military tasks should have been handled by the military.

But it was only the start of a process whereby the Police would become Para-Military over time. The next thing to force a change was Civil Rights, here I mean Civil Rights in it's broadest context. Minorities, Women, in fact anyone who was excluded from Policing for any reason. Before the 1970's nearly every Police Force had a height limit, in most places it was 6ft, (182.88cm) tall. Starting from that time that began to change, Heights limits plummeted, women were being recruited as well as increasing minorities. In short standards were being changed and rarely were they being improved upon.

Policing is an active task, it cannot be put on hold and done tomorrow and it can be very hard to hide it's failures. That has stopped the worst excesses because they affected things very quickly. Something that the Military which has long periods where it is not active will be unable to do.

But this lowering of standards has meant Police had to find new ways of doing the job. The old weapons of persuasion, baton and handgun no longer did the job with police of smaller stature. Tasers, capsicum spray, shotguns and long arm weapons now became more favoured. As did the use of SWAT teams.

These SWAT teams gained two big boosts in the 1980's with the increased violence of the Drug trade and the second when the Cold War ended. Now military equipment that was no longer needed could be given to Police to fight the Drug gangs. But just as people become addicted to drugs so the Police became addicted to this new military hardware. To the idea that it made them safer and helped put the bad guys down. This attitude was helped in the 1990's by a number of instances were the Police were outgunned. the North Hollywood shootout.

Added to this was the break down of the family, divorce and single parenthood seemed to make the Police seek the role of authority figure over everyone. The age of the friendly policemen came to can end and the age of the the authority figure arrived. The Police took a no nonsense approach, with everybody. The police came to see us all as the enemy. Step by step the Police left the Peelian Principles behind.

I live 15 minutes drive from my local Police Station, but I do not know any of the Police there and they do not know me. We are strangers with little in common. There is no shared community, the Police might live here or a hundred miles away.  They patrol in cars, although a few years ago I did see a bike patrol. They more resemble cavalry than Police and that is how people now think of them, if your in trouble you dial the cavalry to come to your rescue.

The Police were once, only a few decades ago respected as the Thin Blue Line, holding back the barbarians. But as the Police become increasingly Para-Military with various weapons on their body, body armour and now cameras. I cannot help feeling that I am dealing with an enemy, When the Police are loyal to the law and the law is used against us, how can the Police be on our side?

Sadly like so many of our public institutions the Police are also failing us. If they wish to alienate us with their "robocop" armour and facemasks, how can we respect them? And once Conservatives have lost respect for the Police were does that leave either of us?

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Death of Classical Liberalism

Thursday, 4 August 2016

Game Versus Tradition

The Alt-Right and Traditional Conservatism are not the same thing, but each year we seem to get closer. We share many of the same complaints and even some of the same answers. One interesting area is Game, which has a very interesting history, some intriguing ideas and a way to go before it is really acceptable to Traditional Conservatives

Game is the idea that men and women are different and that men can understand (and seduce) women by studying what women really want instead of what they say they want. In short to trigger desire in women and to use that to the mans and possibly the women's advantage.

Now the above description starts off quite Conservative, with men and women being different, but it quickly drifts away. This is what makes Game so interesting, most of us are familiar with a Conservative group moving to the left but rarely does a Liberal movement move to the right.

Game started becoming a movement in the early 1990's as many young men came to a realization, they lived in a society that said sex was available everywhere but that was not the reality that they experienced. They wanted to know why and how to change it. They wanted their fair share of the unlimited sex that was supposed to be out there, in time they wanted more than their fair share. What they wanted certainly wasn't unnatural but it also wasn't very conservative, it was however very liberal. Here were Liberal men looking for what Liberalism had promised them in return for Feminism. That women would want sex just as much as men did.

A term you don't tend to hear now but which was very much in vogue in the 1980's, the SNAG, it stood for Sensitive New Age Guy. A man who was sensitive, empathetic to women, their needs and their emotions. Now that women were being encouraged to have their own careers and money they didn't need a masculine man, masculinity was out and in it's place women now needed a male girlfriend who they could have sex with. But what many Liberal men were finding out was that even though the media, the schools and many women themselves pushed this idea. Women found it a massive turn off, they wanted men.

At the same time came the Internet and here is where the movement came into being.  Men from around the world could ask others the same questions, they could try out techniques and find out what worked and what didn't. The aim for nearly all of this men was to pick up women, to be as promiscuous as possible. Very Liberal, nothing conservative.

But these men did learn things, they learnt that most women didn't say what they really wanted, that women test men constantly, that being masculine was best at attracting women, even when that masculinity was damaging. But the truth was that all of this behavour was damaging, it was about having sex and nothing more, still very Liberal.

But over time things began to change, this movement has been around for around 25 years now. It came to think beyond picking up women. It came to see that men should improve themselves, that while doing it to get women was a good way to start it was best when done for the mans own self improvement. That he should look after himself, learn skills and develop his knowledge. All good things. It began to reject a core value of Liberalism, that men and women are equal. For a group that started so solidly in the Liberal camp that is absolutely massive.

However there is still much that Traditional Conservatives such as myself and others find hard to accept. While we agree that men and women are different, we find it hard to accept the harsh criticisms that women attract. It is not that we do not find fault in women, as we are sometimes accused of, but that often women seem to have no redeeming features. However that simply is not true.

The movement has for some time talked about Patriarchy, about restoring men to a position of authority. But at this time they have misunderstood something that Traditional Conservatives and Spider-man do understand, that with great power comes great responsibility, some do understand it and in time I hope more do. But if men are to be restored to a position of authority, it also means a position of responsibility.

That a man should not care about how many women he has bedded but he should care about his legacy. In other words what has he done to build the future. In this article they talk about the 5 types of Alphas:

The Player
The Hobbyist
The Asshole
The Conqueror
The Alpha Provider

But to a Traditional Conservative only two pass muster, the Conqueror and the Alpha Provider, because these are the only two who will leave something behind. They are the only ones who will leave a legacy. Maybe the others will leave children behind, but illegitimate children who they probably won't know, see or provide for. To our mind that is no Alpha at all.

When a man is 18 picking up women is nearly irresistible, at 28 it still holds many attractions, but at 38 or 48 it has lost a lot of it's appeal. What will you legacy be? Will you leave a legacy? Will you contribute to the future of your people or will you be here today forgotten forever? After all how many men want to think that they will still be picking up women when they are 78?

I do however have hope, I read this article and it is just so close to a Traditional Conservative position. They aren't there yet but rejecting one of Liberalisms core beliefs is no small achievement. It is one area where I do hold out hope that something good will arise.

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

Monday, 1 August 2016

Why I have Unlinked from The Thinking Housewife

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided that I can no longer support The Thinking Housewife.   When I first started my blog I received a lot of support from the site and I have taken over a year to finally take this step.

We live in a world of lies, we are told that equality is real even though our own eyes show us it isn't. We are told that men can become women, or vice versa just by saying so. That diversity is our greatest strength. Lies all of them and that's a pretty short list. But not everything is a lie. There are absolute truths and Conservatives should not deny them.

Evil is real, both men and women are capable of performing great evil. They are capable of carrying out mass murder amongst other crimes. And it should not be the task of the Conservative to try and find or to make excuses for their evil. One theme that has become very repetitive and might I also say distasteful is the denial of such evil, evil  such as Sandy Hook. Please go to that link and have a look at the photo that has been posted.

No murders, no victims, no crime, all just a media event. As the last poster calls them "crisis actors". How comforting it must be to live in a world were everything is so organised, where crime and evil doesn't exist unless it has been organised by some secret committee. That conspiracies exist is not the same thing as letting us believe that there is only conspiracy. Because this idea that there are evil men and they don't commit evil acts unless they are directed by some secret committee is rubbish.

So is the idea that the Nazi's are only maligned because they lost, the reason they are so maligned is because they were mass murdering bastards. From Norway to Greece, from France to Russia mass murder was their standard operating procedure. To pretend that they are just misunderstood or innocent is perverse. Just as pretending that the Holocaust didn't happen. I guess all the Jews must have been invited to a big party by the King of Fairyland and they will wake from their slumber and rejoin us any day now. The reason there were less Jews around at the end of the war then at the start was because the Nazi's who blamed them for everything that went wrong killed them. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand, they hated the Jews, they had the power to kill them so they did kill them. No if's, no buts and no maybes!

911Dallas Police shootings, are all false flags, all organised by those secret committees. It's all too much and I know I'm not alone in thinking this. I have finally had enough and I will no longer be supporting this site, which is sad both because the site was once great and because of the help it once gave to me. But I have finally had enough.

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