Thursday, 14 August 2014

Why Don't the Poor Marry?

Why Don't the Poor Marry?

In the past nearly everyone married, even the very poor. Today in the Third World it remains as it was in the First World only decades ago. Most people marry, the rich, the poor and nearly everyone in between. Of course there were exceptions but still roughly 90% of adults married. Today that is not true in the First World, why is that?

When I first started thinking about this I was thinking about men, about why I knew so many men who were not married, but then I realised that women who are poor also do not marry. But only in the First World and it is something that largely goes unmentioned. Because it feeds into that idea that we all have more options and that people are not marrying because they now have the option not too. But as I wrote in Liberalism, More Options, Less Choice more options do not really mean more choice and I think that is what we have here. People are finding it harder to marry and I think there are six basic reasons that all interplay with each other that explain why

1) Free love and being forever young
2) Selfishness
3) Money
4) Prestige
5) Society and meeting up
6) Divorce

Let me go through each and try to explain why they contribute to the poor not marrying.

Free Love and being forever young
Since the 1960's an idea has gained currency, it certainly didn't start in the 1960's, no the idea was old when Moses was a boy. The idea was that life shouldn't have consequences, it's an old idea because it is so appealing. No mistakes, no regrets, I've made mistakes and I have regrets, wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world were that didn't happen, a world were it is in fact impossible. The idea that life should have no consequences is all around us, you don't have to look too hard to find it. Free love and being young forever are very much a part of this philosophy. Sex without consequences, sex just for fun, sex just to pass the time, no pregnancies, no sexual diseases, no emotions that make everything awkward and embarrassing. And as the old saying goes "Youth is wasted on the young", maybe it is but what if you could be young forever? Would you take it? Many do or at least they try to be young forever. The problem with both is sex does have consequences and being young forever is impossible and any attempt to do so is like repairing an old tire, the repair won't last forever. If it won't last forever then it's a trick and either your fooling yourself or your trying to fool someone else, but at all times it's still a trick. What does this have to do with marriage or the lack of marriage? These ideas discourage people from thinking about their future, it stops them from making plans or decisions. If life has no consequences then it lacks meaning. Which is a strange thought at first. How can one mean the other? Because all your decisions are so small and trivial that your entire life loses it lustre. When you think of a person who is jaded with life you don't think of a virgin, no you think of someone who has had so much sex that even that natural high means nothing, it has lost it's lustre. If life has no consequences then you can delay everything, there is no hurry because there are no consequences. You cannot make a mistake and you should have no regrets. Marriage is just one option and a distant one at that.

Selfishness
People have always been selfish, but in the past it was regarded as a bad thing, something to try and avoid or push away, to fight against. Today people still talk about selfishness being bad, but we know that it is at one and the same time encouraged. Buy things with credit, pay it back at some distant future time, have sex without consequences with as many partners as your genitals can handle. This isn't by any means a complete list, no that would take too long. The problem with selfishness is that it concentrates our attention on only one person. Everyone else is present but unimportant. How do I feel? What do I want? Why can't I have that now? Why should I only have one girlfriend at a time? It's all about me, all about the self. Where does another person fit into this life? There is no room and secondly it discourages people from changing to accommodate another person. Take me as I am or get lost. Sadly as we get older that selfishness becomes part of us and it becomes harder to fit another person into your life. How do you marry when you have learnt to be so selfish and to do it so well?

Money
We all need money to live thats a given. But money means more than just numbers and more than just it's buying power. Of course those things are important but money is also important because we earnt it, because it belongs to us and because it gives us stability. For most of us that money will come from a wage and you earn a wage by working in a job. But when jobs are scarce or you are unable to work then your pile of money doesn't grow. You have lost the number, you have lost that buying power, you have also lost the pride of earning that money and finally the stability that a wage provides. Hardly any man cares how much money a women makes, some do but most don't. They care about how a women looks, her personality and her intelligence, but not her money. For a women thats not true, she cares very much about a mans money, some women are gold diggers, but most women care because they want to be able to rely on her man to look after her, even if she doesn't need it. When a women becomes a mother that is a very important consideration. But the economy has changed and steady employment, something common for recent generations has largely disappeared. There was once an idea that a man would have a wife, children and a job, a single job for his entire life. That is now gone, hardly any workers at any level have that security anymore. Jobs are casual, even if your a full time employee. Security is a very important thing, it allows people to take risks and to prepare for the future. But when jobs are not secure then all of that is gone. A man without regular employment will never marry, it is simply impossible.

Another issue is that the more money a women earns means that any man who courts her must make at minimum the same as her. Of course it's better if he earns more money, but when women are given preference in both employment and promotions, that puts both men and women in an impossible position. A women wants a man who is more successful than her, but each step up the ladder means there are less men available. Secondly those men who are successful now have a large number of women to choose from, much larger than they would normally have available to them. Non of this supports marriage.

Nor does single parents benefits, it replaces a husband with the Government, but the Government cannot love them, nor can it help take the load of parenting. What it encourages is to split families, a truly evil thing.

Prestige
Money not only provides income but it provides prestige, as do things like job titles. I recently heard someone say men don't like fancy cars, but women do so men have learnt to like fancy cars. I don't agree that men don't like fancy cars, but behind that is the idea that even if men hated fancy cars they would still like to drive them because of the effect it has on women, maybe. But why do women like fancy cars? Because they are not only a sign of how much money a man has but a prestige item. What is prestige? It is anything that signals how much wealth, power or influence a person has. But marriage has lost prestige and the reason is a part of everything in this article.

Society and meeting up
We all accept that society has changed and continues to change, accepting that fact doesn't mean we like or approve of it. Once people knew their neighbours, they knew their names and their jobs, they knew where they worked and they knew their family. Of course there have always been loners but it was harder, much harder in the past, even only a few decades ago to be nearly invisible as it is now. But part of that society was that people met alot of other people just like them. Neighbours, neighbours family, neighbours friends, shopkeepers and their staff and clubs and other social organisations. But today, and for decades all of those things, those connections have been vanishing. How do you meet people when there are so few chances to really meet people? At nightclubs, on dating websites? Well people have and do meet people through those methods. But how many people do you know who have married after they met in a nightclub? What about internet dating? In 2012 I was the bestman at a friends wedding, he met a real and quite attractive women on World of Warcraft!

That is not a dating strategy, that is just stupid blind luck.... all I can say is thank God for stupid blind luck. Sadly stupid blind luck is not a reliable business partner. If that wasn't the case we could all just lay back and relax. The internet gives us a false idea of the world, because it allows us to think that we have unlimited options, another case of more options less choice. But in reality we don't have more options because it is far to easy to dismiss people. Your unlikely to run into them while shopping, or get an earful about what a bad person you are from your neighbour. Because people on the internet are disposable, they are not flesh and blood people. Of course in reality they are but the internet is not reality it is a distortion of reality and it is as part of that distortion that they are a part of our life. Of course just as they are disposable, so are you and in no way does that encourage real connections.

Divorce
Nothing has harmed marriage more than no fault divorce, it has attacked the idea that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one women for life. That only God, a supernatural being has the power to undo this sacred union. Now it is only an artificial union between two contractors, it's a business arrangement. A contract between two autonomous individuals and nothing to do with God, or tradition, or family, or community, or permanence. If you want to get out no worries, you can get out. Those who gave us no fault divorce said they were giving us options, making us free. But we never asked for that option and loneliness is not freedom. Divorce not only destroys existing families, it also stops new families from coming into existence as it destroys the security that marriage once provided. No matter how loving, no matter how rich, no matter what you do there is no defence against no fault divorce. The permanence of marriage is gone, it can be rebuilt but first we must understand how evil no fault divorce is.

If marriage is to recover than the casual connections that allowed real people to meet other real people in a natural setting needs to be rebuild. No fault divorce needs to be destroyed. Jobs need to be made more secure and male employment needs to be a priority. And the idea that we can live a life without consequences needs to put back into the box it came out of. It is not possible to change human nature, but it is possible to change everything else that I've written about here.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
11 of 20 The Principle of Defence

Monday, 11 August 2014

The Seventeenth Month

The Seventeenth Month

So far I don't have much to report this month, I had a slight increase over last month but only by about 30 visits which because of Bloggers hickups I suspect are from my viewing the site and it counting them as outside views!

My worst day was the 17th of June when I only had 16 views and my best day was the 3rd August when I had 78 views.

11th July - 11th August
EntryPageviews
United States
584
Australia
226
Ukraine
70
France
45
Canada
35
Turkey
28
United Kingdom
22
Russia
21
Germany
20
Indonesia
19

11th June -11th July 2014
EntryPageviews
United States
576
Australia
190
United Kingdom
63
Ukraine
62
Netherlands
47
Canada
32
France
32
Indonesia
24
India
18
Russia
18
The United States is slightly up, Australia is up but as stated at the start that could all be me! The Ukraine, France, Canada and Russia are also up.

Turkey is new, 18 came in one day and a few days later 10 more did. Germany has made it back into the top 10.

The United Kingdom and Indonesia are both down. Currently the total of visitors from the United Kingdom is 999, so the very next visitor will be my 1000th!

India has however left the top 10.

I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Jersey, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Malta, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Oman, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina.

I hope to you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future



Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Traditional Conservative Views on the Law

Traditional Conservative Views on the Law

Let me start off with a joke:

Q: Whats 19 foot long and gives the greatest of pleasure?

A: A busload of Lawyers going over a cliff.

Now you may or may not find that joke funny, I've had some success with it. But what isn't funny is the contempt that so many of us hold for the Courts and the officers of the court, Lawyers. How can it be that a profession that is so vital to the working of Civilization is held in such contempt?

Today there are parts of the world were law is not about courts or Lawyers but about might, even whim. How would you fare in sure a place? But instead of having guilt or innocence decided by whim or by might we have Courts and Lawyers and a long legal tradition. It is this long legal tradition that we rely on to protect us. That each person in the process knows their role and agrees upon the rules. That there are independent outsiders who also have a say in how the courts run, namely Parliament.

But with all this the Law is held in contempt, not because it's job isn't seen as important, in fact quite the opposite. The importance of the task is accepted by nearly everyone. It is the way these tasks are carried out that draws contempt and sometimes that is unfair. The Courts must act as the law allows them too. Parliament and the politicians who sit there are responsible for a good deal of that contempt. It is they who have taken away capital punishment for example and that a life sentence should mean life. It is they who decide how much or how little should be handed out as punishment. A Judge may want to hang a burglar, he might even sentence him to death, but of course it would not stand because the law Parliament passed doesn't allow for such a punishment. Now I only put that forward as an extreme example. The politicians decide how many people may end up in jail, not the judges, if there is no room than the guilty must be given some other sentence than jail. The fault of the Parliaments in how the Courts are views is too often forgotten and it shouldn't be.

The expansion of courts has also added to that contempt, when most people think of a court they think of people who are accused of crimes of being there, murder, rape, assault, theft etc. But most people go to court for petty reasons or to Family Court (which may or may not be petty). The reach of the law into our lives has increased quite a lot within the last century. We can be fined for not having a seatbelt on or for smoking in the wrong place. And Family Court seems to be an endless pit of misery. A legal misery that hardly even existed 50 years ago and we all get to pay for the Courthouses, the Judges and the Lawyers. Not to mention the social chaos that results. It is this social chaos that informs much of our contempt as it shows how little our opinion or well being is taken into account. We are informed of whats good for us and we are told we must obey. The idea that Parliament or the Courts are on our side gets harder to believe.

Sadly the Courts have their own problems, caused by themselves. Parliament may set the limits of the law but it is Judges that get to make decisions and it is us who must live with the consequences. When a Judge decides that small sentences are fair, they set themselves up to be criticized. It is their duty to protect as well as to punish. The community doesn't want one or the other we want both and it the Courts job to provide us with both.

A further reason for our contempt is that there are too many Lawyers. Too much competition in this case is bad. It encourages bad behavior as only the most ruthless will succeed and that does neither the Law nor us any service. Too much competition in the Law also encourages practices that take away from the Laws dignity, our dignity. Advertising is one such area, Law firms should not be allowed to advertise on TV or Radio as it makes the Law, a commercial business. At no stage should the Law be a commercial business, it has a much greater task and that is to protect Civilization by protecting us.

The Law is one of the few areas of human endeavour that is needed to service Civilization. The lack of law is not the rule of barbarians, but the rule of the weather. Very fickle indeed. Laws allow might to have it's place but not decide everything. And the great strength of the law is it's age and traditions. It has not been decided by this generations fashions, or even by the fashions of our Grandfathers generation. Instead it is built up over time with Parliament providing input. It is not a perfect system, but Conservatives do not seek such a system. It's virtues must be encouraged and supported, just as we must oppose and reject it's vices. Only precedent can save the Law from being a tyranny for without precedent there is only whim.

Unfortunately the Law has been removed from our hands and our role is to support the views expressed in Parliament. Once Parliament represented us, we agreed on the whole with the punishments given out, but now we are told our opinion isn't important. Judges talk about community standards but ignore the actual community. The actual community should decide more of the law.

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

 

Sunday, 3 August 2014

Liberalism, more options less choice

Liberalism, more options less choice

Liberals and those who aren't Liberals but have never heard any other opinion, often talk about how many options we have now. How we can have any job we like and how we are not restricted in who we date. That the world is a smorgasbord of options and you should just live it up and enjoy. Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Unfortunately many Liberals also believe that Traditional options do hurt people. That choosing to be too religious hurts those who might not be religious because it judges them. That being a stay at home Mother judges though who choose to work. Those who have no option but to work are included by Liberalism in the chose to work basket.

But this creates a paradox, if some options create conflict, even if only in the Liberal mind, then all options cannot be equally good. Some options should, it seems, not be chosen at all!

So how does Liberalism resolve this conflict? By encouraging some options over others and at times being very blatant about it. Options are provided that crowd out other options. So for example Mothers should be provided with childcare, women should be encouraged to study more and to work fulltime, to be a financially  independent women even when married. At each stage of her life she must be encouraged to pick one option over another option. The correct options, the Liberal option. Of course not every women gets the message or wants to. So another route must be used to encourage the correct option. Housewives are slaves, oppressed by men, second class citizens we are told., Motherhood is rarely attacked nor is marriage, sometimes but mostly not. No instead talk about the exciting strides made by working women, so many firsts, so many options. A slave, oppressed by men or an exciting career, which do you think is the correct Liberal option?

Some options are made more fashionable than others and the old Fabian strategy is at work here. The long slow advance that from time to time allows a massive breakthrough. But each breakthrough narrows options. More options mean narrower choices.

Lets suppose you are a man and you want a stay at home wife and mother, your first task is to find a women who you like, who likes you and who wants the same thing as you do. Once that was the default position, but now it is just one option amongst many. Your task isn't made easier it is made harder. Then you must find or already have a job that allows you enough money and security to marry and raise a family. Of course it won't be easy, it never has been. But now you must also compete with women, married and unmarried who we are told are being discriminated against. But you'll find that the new Liberal order actually discriminates against you and your family.

At each stage of life we are all encouraged to have options, to be as free as a bird, unless we pick the wrong option. Then we find that not all options are equal, in fact some options are strongly preferred over others. And some of those who have picked the wrong option do so because they are Traditional Conservatives. It's nice to have you here.

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


Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Some Thoughts on Race

Some Thoughts on Race

The Left love to call everyone to the right of them racist and of course Traditional Conservatives have not escaped the charge. This will be a controversial post as to discuss race in any context, except to say it doesn't exist or shouldn't exist, is controversial. However Traditional Conservatives do believe that race exists, that it is a biological reality and that it is in no way a "social construct". Old fashioned racism was when someone hated people of a different race, but the new fashioned definition of racism is to notice that race exists at all.

The charge is also made that we believe in racial supremacy, namely in white supremacy. It is true that you can be a racial supremacist and a Traditional Conservative. You can be a white, black or as I heard someone jokingly say at a party a Vietnamese supremacist. However most Traditional Conservatives are not racial supremacists, because we accept that it is too narrow a view of the complexity of human ability.

We do however agree that you should be loyal to your people, that you should be interested in the past, the present and the future of your own people. That may or may not be defined by race, it may be defined by ethnicity or religion. It is not because they are the smartest or the best looking or for any other reason then that they are your people. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not the smartest or the best looking, it matters that you belong with these people and that they are yours. You have a shared history and hopefully a shared future. Loyalty is a positive virtue and it should be used as a positive virtue.

Sadly to the Multiculturalists, the mass immigration supporters and the diversity agitators, your loyalty is seen as racism. Of course it isn't, but what matters is that they charge you with the "crime" of racism, it isn't important that you be guilty. In this day and age to be disloyal to your people is put forward as a virtue. That you support all people equally and without qualification. It is so appealing because it sounds so lovely and benign, but is it? If your friend is loyal to everyone he meets, just how loyal is he to you? I'd suggest that he isn't loyal to you at all but is more likely to be a fair weather friend, here for the good times but gone when anything bad is happening. That sums up the Multicultarists and their fellow travelers quite well, agree with them or else because they are always loyal to their ideas not to you.

When bad times come they don't leave their ideas they double down on them. Race must be destroyed is at the heart of their belief. They hate all race, starting with the white race and once it is destroyed they will move onto the others. They hate the idea that there really are differences between people, how can a perfect world exist when you can see the differences? No that cannot be allowed!

Traditional Conservatives reject all of that way of thinking, race is real and just as different people are different so are different races. We accept it and move on with our lives, we are not obsessed with race we simply accept that it exists. But at the heart of our beliefs about race is that all people should be loyal to their people. Not to some random person who we are told to be loyal too.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
9 of 20 The Male and Female Pillars

Thursday, 24 July 2014

Why Child Care Will Always Cost Too Much

Why Child Care Will Always Cost Too Much

This week the Australian Governments Productivity Commission has released a report in which it recommends paying child care subsidies to Grandparents and to nannies. Now the Government doesn't have to adopt this idea, it is after all just a recommendation. However it does raise the question of why do Grandparents need to be paid for a job they are currently doing for free?

Childcare, professional childcare that is, fits into the philosophy of all 3 strands of Liberalism. Liberalism believes in the autonomous individual, that each individual should be free to create their own life without restrictions and children are a major restriction. Particularly when it comes to getting or keeping a job. So Right or Economic Liberalism as supported by the Liberal Party, Left or Social Liberalism as supported by Labor and the Greens and Feminism all come together on this issue and agree that childcare is needed and by needed what they mean is paid for by the taxpayer.

If women are to be autonomous individuals then they need to be free of children or else they cannot work. All 3 strands of Liberalism agree on this point but for different reasons. Right or Economic Liberalism believes in the Market, that economic forces are the centre of life and if someone is not part of the market how can they be free? No that won't do, everyone needs to be a part of the market, including mothers. Left or Social Liberalism believes in making people free through social forces and they use the Government to shape those social forces. Mothers must work or they are cut off from these social forces, they must be autonomous individuals. Then you have Feminism who believe that women should be free from male domination, that includes being free from husbands. A women who is an autonomous individual has her own money, her own job, even if married.

But childcare has a built in paradox, the more money that is made available the more expensive it becomes. Even when the aim of that money is to provide subsidies to specifically make childcare more affordable. How can that be?

Well lets look at what costs are involved in running a childcare operation
1) A specially designed space that is available for no other purpose
2) Wages and training
3) Activities to entertain, educate or otherwise keep the childrens attention

Lets say a centre has 20 places, it needs a ratio of staff to children, we will say the ratio is 1 to 5, 1 staff member for every 5 children. That gives a staff of 4, but you also need a supervisor to run the centre, do the paperwork, be an extra pair of hands (and eyes) and to ultimately be responsible for everything. The more children that are enrolled the more money the centre makes, even Government run centres need to make money now days. But the more children, the more staff are needed. The more staff you have the more experienced the staff needs to be. Not all of the staff of course, but you need experienced staff to look after not just the children but also the less experienced staff. To provide training, mentoring and to make sure the children are not put in harms way. But each step costs money. New staff cost money and so does the experienced staff.

When few mothers work then childcare is expensive as it is a great risk to open a childcare centre, unless it is Government run and heavily subsided. As more mothers start to work the cost goes up, childcare is a rare commodity and it has just become rarer. Over time as more mothers work then the cost goes down, but it has entered a cycle of boom and bust. Parents want those who look after their children to be trained and that costs money, both to provide the training and in increased wages to encourage the training. Each step to increasing the numbers of children in childcare and to make the staff more professional cost money. And because of the low ratio of staff to children means that there is no economy of scale. A costly industry just keeps getting more expensive.

Even if every mother worked and her children were in childcare the costs would not go down by much. The reason is that the childcare industry is not designed to be cost effective, it is designed to separate mothers from their children. The cost is not important to anyone but parents. The industry doesn't believe it can cut costs in a way that would be acceptable and I think they are correct to believe that. Government likes the control it has over children in childcare and lets be honest Government is not renowned for keeping costs down. And every political party wants mothers to work, the cost in money or to families is unimportant, what matters is their ideology.

As for paying Grandparents to do a job they are already doing for free, once they accept the money then the Government will be calling the tune. Will a Grandparent be allowed to spank a child? Will they be able to feed them what foods they think is right or only the foods the Government thinks is right? Will Grandparents be required to undergo training to look after their own grandchildren? If you refuse the Governments money does that mean you are regarded as more likely to be abusive and require more Government supervision?This is a dangerous idea and people should remember that rarely do these things happen all at once, normally they start with something reasonable and progressively move to something unreasonable.    

The real problem with childcare is that it separates mothers and children. And the ultimate reason it will always cost too much, is that it seeks to improve on a very cost efficient and practical solution that we already know works. A mother looking after her own children while being supported by her husband.


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

Monday, 21 July 2014

Australian Suicide Bomber?

Australian Suicide Bomber?

Last Friday I was watching the news reports on MH17, the Malaysian Airlines plane shot down over the Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew. It is of course a big story here, particularly as 28 Australians were killed, with another 9 resident in Australia and 6 visitors on their way to Melbourne for an international AIDS conference. But it was a big news day and as if this tragic event wasn't enough I then saw the Israeli retaliation in Gaza with Hamas using their own people as human shields and our media falling for it, yet again. Then a third news item came on about a suicide bombing in a marketplace in Northern Iraq that killed 4. But the interesting thing about this was that the suicide bomber was Australian, or should that be "Australian"?

It turns out he was the second "Australian" suicide bomber, some reports say he was the third. Now I ask you what kind of Australian name is Abu Bakr al-Australi? We all know it's not an Australian name, it's an Arabic name, a fake Arabic name at that. Two of the suicide bombers have used this alias before carrying out their evil actions. The media are happy to call them Australian. But now I ask you a second question, what makes an Australian think of going on jihad and then deciding to become a suicide bomber? The answer is Islam and particularly it's political offshoot Islamism. What does Islam have to do with Australia? Until 1967, the answer was very little.

In the late 1800's the first Muslims came to Australia as camel drivers, they lived very tough lives running caravans out into the centre of Australia which is mostly desert. They were always called Afghans, but most would have come from whats now Pakistan and nearly all were men, about 1000. When they married it was mostly to white Australian women who converted to Islam and in time they grow to a few thousand spread around Australia. The only real trouble they caused was in 1914 when we went to war against the Ottoman Empire, two shot up a trainload of picnickers killing one man. But apart from that I haven't heard of any other serious problems. And over time their numbers few, all that changed in 1967.

In 1967 the Australian Government decided to extend our immigration program to Turkey and that began the influx of Muslims into Australia. In the 1970's immigration was extended to every country in the world. But what really started increasing the numbers was the civil war in Lebanon. From here the numbers grew slowly until the 1990's when large numbers of Muslims started to enter Australia. And how have we been repaid?

Just like in many other Western countries, Islamist terrorist cells have been arrested for plotting mass murder upon us. Others are under monitoring from our Intelligence service and our military, police and emergency services train for what they will do if one of these plots isn't discovered in time. Now we keep hearing about how worried the Politicians and our Intelligence chiefs are worried that jihadists who have trained and fought in Syria and/or Iraq should return and want to continue the fight. We have been luckier than some in that we have not had a successful terrorist attacks within Australia, but unluckier than others as 88 Australians were killed in a terrorist attack in Bali and others have been killed in other places.

Now some argue that that is only a tiny minority and they are correct, they argue that most Muslims are just normal people seeking to get on with their life and again they are correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the Australian Government imported a problem that we didn't have and I might add didn't need. Again you might argue that the Government cannot predict the future, to which I wholeheartedly agree. That leads us to two points, firstly thats an argument for a more cautious approach and secondly, while the Government may not be able to predict the future it certainly can understand the past and to a lesser degree the present.

But Islamic immigration into Australia has not stopped, nor has it decreased, no it continues unabated, it seems with no end in sight. At the same time we know that the war against Islamism has not ended and that means we must constantly watch over our shoulders to make sure we are safe. Our own Government, Labor and Liberal have made us less safe, less secure and have destroyed our peace of mind. And for what?

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of Word "Politics"