Thursday, 16 April 2015


Now there's a word you don't hear very often these days. Its an old fashioned word, with an old fashioned meaning. To be loyal you must have commitment, you must be dedicated, you must be able to say no to fashion, not to clothes and shoes, but to political and social fashions. To be loyal is to risk being unfashionable.

We see this aversion to being unfashionable all around us, Politicians who are wind vanes, turning in the breeze. Commentators who voice unfashionable opinions, who the next week tell us the opposite to fit in. We see it in our personal life, if your Mother was filmed calling someone a racist name, who's side would you be on? If your brother hit his wife, would you be on his side? Would you be loyal? Or would you be fashionable?

We are constantly told that we should be disloyal, that we have a greater loyalty. That its alright to betray those close to us. Of course loyalty also means being loyal to yourself. Its not disloyal to protect yourself or to protect those close to you, but it is disloyal to put fashion first. To worry about what others think when being loyal is what is required.

We see this lack of loyalty in public policy. Multiculturalism is a massive betrayal, our own Government has said to us your just like everyone else, the only problem with that is thats not their job to remind us of how ordinary we are. The Governments job, all Governments, is to talk us up, to say to the rest of the world we are the envy of the world. The Governments job is to protect us, to support us, to look out for our interests, even if that is at someone else's expense. Its job is to be loyal to us and to no one else. To no one else!

How well do you think your Government does its job? Do you feel like your the envy of the world? Do you feel safe? Do you feel as if your Government supports you, even at the expense of others?

I know how I feel and my answer is no to all of these. My Government has sold me out, it cannot be loyal to every person on Earth and still remain loyal to me. We all know that a man who claims to love all women is loyal to non. Its simply not good enough.

Mass Immigration, diversity, how disloyal can they get? They have been at it a long time and they will just keep on going, as they have forgotten that it is their job to be loyal to us, not to anyone else. It is our job, to remind them, to tell them to be loyal to us and to be loyal to no one else. I have told Multiculturalists this and they are shocked, as if the thought had never occurred to them. Actually I think thats true, I honestly think they have never thought of loyalty, lets face it loyalty isn't very fashionable is it?

But let me end by being very blunt, loyalty is reciprocal,if your not loyal to me then you shouldn't expect me to be loyal to you, because I'm not!

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

Sunday, 12 April 2015

The Twenty-Fifth Month

First of all an apology as I'm a day late with this post. But what a month its been! My best month ever on this blog by a long way. I have never been able to break the 2000 barrier, I'd get 1900 visitors in a month but I just couldn't get over that hump. Last month thanks to a link, it was blown out of the water, in March I had 4,523 visitors and so far this month I've had 1,400 visitors. Very nice figures indeed.

My best day this last month was the 14th March when I had an incredible 1,040 visitors, thats more than twice what my previous best day was. My worst day was the 25th of March when I had 47 visitors, my only day under 50 and I only had 13 days with under 100 visitors.

The reason for the big numbers is Laura Wood at The Thinking Housewife, who linked to an old article Why don't the poor marry?., thanks Laura! To be honest the title could have been broader and propably should have been. But Blogger has a mystery, in a normal month I should have expected around 2000 visitors, but I had 2,500 more than that. The only new link I know was from The Thinking Housewife, but the article was only clicked on 1100 times in the last 30 days. Where did the other visitors come from?

I've also had a very strange thing happen this week, I started getting visitors from a site I had never heard of before. It turned out that they had included a link to Upon Hope, which I saw here,, however today my blog isn't included in the list! I have a feeling they didn't like my opinion about Paleo-Conservativism, to be honest I find the whole thing more amusing than anything.

 14th March-12th April
United States
United Kingdom
11th February - 11th March
United States
United Kingdom

Canada is more than 6 times better than the month before. Russia is more than 4 1/2 times more than the month before. The United States is more than 3 1/2 times more than the month before and France has doubled.

Australia has increased by over 100 visitors. The United Kingdom has also increased. The Netherlands is exactly the same as last month.

Germany is down by 2 1/2 times what it was last month and the Ukraine is also down.

Japan has reentered the Top 10, although Sweden was in only two days ago and Romania is out of the Top 10.

I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, U.A.E., Kuwait, Pakistan, India, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Algeria, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Brazil, 

I hope you find something of interest, something that makes you think and something that helps answers a question or two. If you want to send me an email, my address is on the front page and if you want to leave a comment please do so. I look forward to seeing many of you again.

Mark Moncrieff

Thursday, 9 April 2015

The White Civil War

Probably the thing that surprised me the most at the Reclaim Australia Rally last Saturday was just how White everyone was, on both sides. Sure there were thoses of other races there, but not that many. It was the Whitest crowd I have been a member of in many years, easily.

It reinforced an idea that I had read recently and had at first not given much thought too, but it wouldn't go away. I read this article in the last month, but now I cannot find (I assume thats more my fault as I didn't bookmark it, then that it has been deleted). The article talked about how we are engaged in a White civil war, that nearly every conflict within society is between Whites and other Whites.

So much makes sense when you view it like that. The Left always accuses us of being racists, but the truth is that we rarely think in racial terms. We are proud of our heritage, but we are more proud of our Nationality or Ethnicity than of our Race. But think on this, every Political Philosophy was invented by a White man, every one. Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, Democracy, Fascism, Nazism, even Conservatism. The one possible exception is Feminism and that has a lot more male influence than anyone cases to admit, although even if you accept it as a wholly female Philosophy it was still invented by Whites. Now there is quite a variety of ideas in there.

For a point of difference look at one of the greatest and oldest Civilizations, China. China has thousands of years of history, of culture and Civilization, many inventions came from China and some of the Worlds great Philosophies also come from China. But when you look at the last two centuries it becomes clear that the only answer China had for dealing with the West was to adopt Western Political Philosophies. Republicanism was an introduced Political Philosophy, so was Democracy and Nationalism as was Communism. Non of these ideas came from China, in fact they are all completely contradictory to all of Chinese history.

All of these Political Philosophies, with one exception, is Utopian, they all believe that it is possible to create a perfect world filled with perfect people. This idea comes from the Bible, from the idea that there will be an endtime, an end to history and the creation of a perfect world when Jesus returns. These Political Philosophies of course believe not in a religious endtime, but in a political endtime, whereby there Philosophy will have created that perfect world, filled with perfect people. Ironically the one Political Philosophy that rejects that, is Conservatism.

But once you have accepted the idea that the world is perfectible, then your playing for very high stakes. For the very soul, that is, the very secular soul of man.

So what does all this have to do with a White Civil War?

Liberalism believes in its secular endtime, in the ability of both society and the individual to be perfectible. But to achieve that it must destroy those things that stop that perfectibility from happening. The family and the Nation must be destroyed to create this perfect world. And the best Liberals are White, so are the best Communist's, Socialist's, Anarchist's, Libertarian's, Democrat's, Fascist's, Nazi's, Feminist's and Conservative's. These ideas are all indigenous to Western Civilization, the Civilization of Whites. They understand what they mean better than anyone else, because they grow up with the underlining assumptions that underpin these Political Philosophies. You'll learn your Grandmothers recipe better if she teaches you in her own kitchen than from a written recipe after she has died. The same applies here.

But there is another aspect that has a deep influence upon this White Civil War. People like to feel superior to others, it may not be nice but it is natural. And as Whites lose their social cohesion, they can regain a sense of that by adopting a Political Philosophy. Instead of being proud of your Race or Ethnic group, instead of being proud of your Nationality or of your social class you can show your superior to others by supporting causes. The easiest way is to join whoever is shouting the loudest or who sounds the nicest. Gay marriage? Refugees? Diversity? It doesn't matter what it is, all that really matters is that you have joined a tribe and that you are superior to the other tribes.

The interesting thing is that it helps explain why so many Whites support Anti-White policies. Because people of Colour are weapons, not people. Just as the White working class is used as a weapon. These people exist not as someone to support, but as a way of showing what tribe you belong to and to show how superior you are compared to others. So when a Liberal supports a policy and it fails, thats alright because it wasn't really there to help, it was there to prove that you belong to the Liberal tribe and that it won and that proves that your superior.

Sadly this idea, that being superior, of always being right, has for many become the all consuming passion within Liberalism. Liberalism once believed in its aims, far too many are happy just to prove how much better they are than thee.

It is only by defeating Whites that we can advance our cause, no other Race understands the underlining assumptions that give our rival Political Philosophies strength. Whites are the problem, and the answer.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why does Liberalism hate the Family? 


Sunday, 5 April 2015

Report from the Melbourne Reclaim Australia Rally

For those of you who don't know, earlier today, Easter Saturday, a group called Reclaim Australia held a rally to protest the Islamisation of Australia (halal food, the burka, support for Terrorism) and how Australia is heading in the wrong direction. I was undecided about going, until Thursday when I went to the Dentists and I saw posters on the street calling for a counter protest and I decided I was going. To give you some idea of what happened here's The Age newspapers coverage, you'll notice the photos show the Socialists, here is the Herald Sun newpapers coverage, you'll notice the Australian flag everywhere. Here is 9 news tv coverage, here was where I was.

It was scheduled to start at 1pm, I arrived just after, fashionably late and went looking for the rally. The rally was held in Federation Square, an ugly modernist site of buildings and tiled uneven open space which was built to replace two 1960's ugly modernist buildings, located in the middle of Melbourne. A terrible place for a rally, unfortunately the rally was being held on a large balcony, with only two ways in, one facing North, one facing South. Here's where the fun and games began. The rally was due to start as I said at 1pm, but the Police had allowed not one rally, but two. One by Reclaim Australia and the other by a group that called itself No Room for Racism, but in reality the radical group Socialist Alliance. Their aim was to break up the first rally. At Midday the Police had come in and formed a human barrier to the South and a Mounted Police barrier on the North side. Keeping the early Reclaim Australia supporters on the balcony, the Police barriers on either side and then the Socialists formed up with the Police behind them to to stop any further supporters from getting in.

It turned out that quite a few of us were fashionably late. So now we have Socialists and Reclaim Australia supporters on the same side of the Police barriers. All of the violence is due to this Police failure to properly keep the two groups separate. So those of us on the outside wanted to get in, I looked at the South side and realized I couldn't get in, so I went to the North side. Myself and others walked through the Socialist crowd up to their human barrier. I tried to push my way through, when other Reclaim Australia supporters saw that they joined in. I was tripped and fell to the ground, unhurt, I got up and told them not to try that again. A few minutes later we tried again, but it failed as well. We tried a third time to push through and the Mounted Police moved forward pushing the Socialists into us and pushing us back. We might have been able to force our way through the Socialists, maybe, to their credit they were quite disciplined, but not Mounted Police. So we didn't try again, but for many their blood was up and seemingly at random someone would spit, punch or push someone on the other side. Neither side was innocent and there were others who were trying, not always successfully to calm things down. A few of the Socialists spoke to me and asked me why I was there. I told them that I wanted to live in my own country not someone elses, they seemed a bit surprised but they listened. Another said it wasn't my country as I wasn't an Aboriginal, this is a favourite tactic of the Left in Australia. I asked him why he wanted more immigrants in the country to make Aboriginal people even more of a minority. Some of the Socialists were reasonable, but for others no fact was enough they were there simply to deny us the right to go about our lawful business.

I started speaking with some other Reclaim Australia supporters and I saw some did manage to break through the barrier. But them more Police started turning up. I then went around to the South side, talking to more people and handing out my leaflet, What do Traditional Conservatives believe? I handed out quite a few. A number of those I spoke to had seen me trying to push through and asked if I was alright. It got quite heated but I was completely unhurt, not a scratch, which wasn't true for others. The most serious injury I saw happened to the guy who tripped me, he was wearing a dress by the way, but after I'd moved off I saw something hit him in the head and he was bleeding, to show how much passion there was people cheered. There was a lot of anger from both sides, but if you walked away people tended to leave you alone. Not always, there was one incident where a young female Socialist tried to grab an Australian flag held by a Reclaim Australia supporter so I pushed her away. She wasn't happy and she started yelling at me and kicked me in the ankle, but thats the way of the Left, do as I say, not as I do. Before I could do anything some other people started yelling at her, I don't even know who's side they were on, but I walked away as I was planning to do in the first place.

The Reclaim Australia organizers called the rally off after about an hour, I assume on Police advice. Then the Socialists decided they wouldn't let the Reclaim Australia supporters out!

The Police wanted the Reclaim Australia supporters to leave via the South, but the Socialists blocked the way. So now it all starts again. The pushing, the name calling, the chanting and yes the violence. I managed to join up with those who had made it into the rally, although they had moved off of the balcony by this stage. But then the Reclaim Australia supports got angry and started to use the Socialists tactics against them, more organised by this stage. Things could have got very ugly when a large contingent of Police arrived and forced the two groups apart. The Police then moved the Reclaim Australia supporters out of Federation Square. Just like the entire day, the Police either by accident or design gave a victory to the Socialists. Victoria Police have a sad record in recent years, last year they were even forced to give a public apology over allowing abortion supporters to attack and intimidate marchers on an anti-abortion march.

By 3pm both groups had been moved off. I was still there and I saw a reporter and I asked him how he was going to show what happened. He said he would show what happened, I asked if he would talk about how the Police wouldn't let Reclaim Australia supporters into their own rally. He didn't really reply. But I watched his report and he did put it in, simply by explaining how the Police formed up.

Some thoughts on the Reclaim Australia Rally.

-Federation Square is a terrible place for a rally, central yes, but crowded and too noisy, even if everything had gone 100% okay. I would suggest a hall where we bought tickets before hand and only those with tickets get in. Much easier to control.

- The Socialists had speakers in big wheelie bins, we should steal that idea.

- The Reclaim Australia supporters didn't go there for a confrontation, but the Socialists did, if they give us advance warning that they are going to protest we should prepare for that. Today we were not prepared and they achieved their aim of shutting us down.

- Organizers need to coordinate with Police better. The actions of the Police helped the Socialists. If the Police are not on our side then we shouldn't pretend that they are and we should prepare for that.

- The Socialists called themselves anti-racist but they were an awfully white bunch, so were we and so were the Police. This was whites fighting and arguing against whites.

- A number of people said to me today that this was war. Everyday we move slowly towards a civil war as the gulf is growing. The only question is which Western Country will go up first.

- People of other races moved about the Square and I didn't see them either afraid or harassed. So much for us being racists.

There are people who will be scared off by today, but that is what they count on. We must be brave, both physically and mentally, we must fight mentally and if need be physically. We must not let them silence or intimidate us. I'm sick of being told what I'm allowed to think or say, I'm sick of being told who can live in my country and I just have to put up with it. I'll be at the next Reclaim Australia rally!

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

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