Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Living Within Our Means

It always amazes me that the idea that both we and our Governments should live within our means is controversial. But I was reminded recently that it is, that many people find it very difficult to separate what is, from what could be or even what should be. So what do I mean by "living within our means"?

I mean that debt is bad, that sometimes we have no choice but to go into debt but that when we do have a choice we should choose not to be in debt. Because in many cases we do have a choice. Let me give you an example. You like camping but you've decided you want to do it in abit more comfort so you start looking at caravans. You find the perfect caravan for your needs and it costs $16,000. Now for some that is way too much money, it might be perfect but it is out of reach. But lets assume that you do decide to purchase this caravan, do you save for it or do you use credit to pay for it?

If you decided it was too much and did not buy the caravan you are living within your means.

If you decide to save up and only purchase it when you have saved the money, you are also living within your means.

If you decide to use credit to buy the caravan you have put yourself into debt. It would be very hard to pay back anything less than 10% of the purchase price. Right there is $1,600 that you could have used on anything you like, but instead it goes to a finance company. You are living beyond your means.  

A caravan might be a nice thing to own but it is really a necessity. But lets assume that you have lost your home in a natural disaster. You need somewhere to live and urgently. That same $16,000 caravan bought on credit is now a need not a want. You need it to live in and that comes back to what I wrote above, sometimes we have no choice but to go into debt. It is important to make a difference between need and want.

Now when I say debt is bad people always bring up houses, I'm not a fan of the real estate market but it is true that is how most people buy their home. But houses are different to nearly every other thing that you can buy, most things are less than your yearly income but a house will rarely fit into that category. So buying a house is something that most people will need to go into debt to buy and there is really no way around that. But a house does fall into the need category so in most cases that debt is acceptable. However if you buy a house that you can only afford because interest rates are low or for some other artificial reason then the really is that this is beyond your means, it is bad debt.

The Government should operate much the same, it should live within it's means. Now there is a genuine reason for Governments to borrow money. It has expenses that need to be paid regularly but it's income does not arrive with the same regularity. So to cover the gap it borrows  money to cover this cost. However in most cases there is very little that is too expensive for a Government to buy. If it needs new dams or airports, if it needs to repair bridges or a railway fleet. These things are expensive but they are not so much that Governments really need to borrow money to pay for them. It is however how those things are paid for now and in the past. But when you think about it it becomes a very expensive way of doing business. Lets say a Government wants to build a dam and it will cost $16,000,000, if it saved up and paid for it there would be little addition cost. If it decides to borrow the money as they so often do then we end up paying interest on that money. Money paid on interest should instead be spend on other things but instead it goes towards paying for something we already have. That bridge will end up costing alot more than $16,000,000 in the end, thats alot of dead money.

Government can and should save to buy things, they should rarely be in debt. War is one of the rare things that normal Government revenue cannot pay for. In that case or in other extreme emergencies then of course Governments should go into debt. But in normal years Governments should have money in the bank, they should not be borrowing money. And the same goes for you and I. Debt is bad, we should all try to live within our means!

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

Friday, 2 December 2016

Race Versus Ideology

Since President elect Trumps election there has been a bit of a push back by some Conservatives against the idea that Race is important. Over at Another Politically Incorrect Blog the blogger DforDoom, who frequently comments here, has put up at least two posts saying that Ideology is more important than Race, Trumps Victory and White Nationalism & The Alt-Right, Pro and Con. On Facebook I belong to a closed Traditional Conservative group and the exact same issue has arisen, as it has on a few other sites I look in on.

Over at Oz Conservative, Mr. Richardson has in the last month written three posts about how Whites are threatened and thought of by the Left. Feminist Professor On White Men, Whiteness Is Like & Kelloggs Pumps $75,000,000 To Radical Left. It seems that Whites are controversial!

But I believe that both Race and Ideology are important, not just one and I am totally against rejecting one to support the other.

I'm White, why would I be against that? I know the Left in all their guise's are against it, but I am not. I reject totally their Ideology that Whites are to blame for the wrongs of the world and that we have to pay for it. Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Diversity, I reject them all. I reject them because they seek to destroy my Family, Ethnicity and Race. Or to put it another way, my Family, my larger Family and my enormous Family because all three are the same thing writ large. 

I have seen it written that Ideology is more important than Race because what Conservative wants an Atheist Marxist simply because he's White. No in this idea it would be better if they were not White but Conservative. But I have a serious problem with this. An Atheist can become devout, a Marxist can have a political awakening and become Conservative. You don't have to travel far in Conservative circles to see examples of either. But a man of another Race can never be White anymore than a White man can cease to be White. Your Ideology can change but your Race never can.

You should be loyal to your Race, you should be loyal to your Ethnicity, you should be loyal to your Family and you should be loyal to yourself. If Ideology is more important than Race, then how are you different to the Left?

I feel that too many Conservatives have taken on board the ideas of the Left, that Race is polluted, a perverted idea, but Race is not an idea it is a reality. One of the Lefts favourite tactics is to pretend that if you are positive about being White then you must hate other Races. What they are trying to say is that if George says "I loves being White" that must mean that he is a racist, but if George told you he loves his Wife, would you think "Ohhh no George hates every women who isn't his wife". No of course you wouldn't, but there is no difference between the two things George has said, both times he told you he loves, not that he hates. Stop thinking like the Left and saying that one must mean the other, it's rubbish.

As for Ideology, if I wanted to live surrounded by Leftists I could move to that suburb today, I really don't want too. But I don't want to live in my current suburb right now either. The one filled with Foreigners who share practically nothing with me. We have no shared culture or history. I do share those things with White Leftists. But I do not like or approve of their ideas regarding, well nearly everything. I'm not willing to comprise on either my Race or my Ideology. 

Asia for Asians
Africa for Africans 
White countries for Everyone!

No way.

White countries for Whites!

Because Race matters.

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

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Promiscuity is a Dead End

We live in a promiscuous age, a very promiscuous age, you might even say a very Liberal age. For in every sense of the word the age we live in is Liberal. Where personal choice is put up as the highest value, where we are not encouraged to our highest virtues. Because we are told that sex is about fun and about pleasure. We are encouraged to distract ourselves through hedonism, into using our senses for pleasure because life has no higher purpose.

But I have noticed that for most people there are three stages to promiscuous:

1. That seems like a lot of fun!

2. This is a lot of fun!

3. This has stopped being fun!

Some people reach that third stage and push on to a fourth stage:

4. I don't know any other way to live!

Those who have reached the fourth stage are addicts and it is not different to any other addiction, they need their fix. And they encourage others to partake, after all what they are offering seems free. They will tell you "everyones doing it", "we aren't ashamed of our bodies like some people", "we are free spirits", but no addict is free and sex can be very addictive.

When you have limited experience with sex, promiscuity seems like a great idea. It improves your experience and your confidence, you feel popular. But it's not you who is popular, your the free dish on the menu and everyone wants to take a bite. It's curiosity, lustful curiosity, but that can be exciting, after all your also taking "bites from the menu".

So if it is so much fun why doesn't it remain fun?

Because there comes a time, quickly for some, years even decades for others, when you realised that you are treating others as if they are disposable. Then you realise that you are just as disposable. And for most people this realisation comes when they start being intimate with people they don't find at all attractive or even like. For most people that's when it all stops being fun.

When no-fault divorce first came into being there was a rash of people being serial monogamist, being faithful to one partner one after the other. In fact we still see it, people who believe that they are loyal and faithful and moral because every person they have been intimate with they have been in a relationship with. But this is simply another form of promiscuity.

While promiscuity is nothing new, it has reached further than anyone could have imagined. If we could travel back in time and inform people of our lives now, most people from the past would be shocked at how we live and that our society allows this, that we allow this.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism And Mass Immigration III

Saturday, 26 November 2016

Why Paid Maternity Leave Is A Bad Idea

Recently the Australian Government has become concerned about "double dipping" in regards to Paid Maternity Leave, where by Mothers get paid both by their employer and by the Government. Hence the term "double dipping", currently it is entirely legal and I might add entirely a Government created problem. But it obscures the real problem's with Paid Maternity Leave.

The Australian Government has since the 1970's followed the standard soft Feminism line, just like most other Western countries. The idea that women must become more autonomous, that women must compete against men, that the Government must support women against men and that the Family holds women back. But as Governments want to be reelected they didn't introduce all this at once. They brought in a little here and a little there, which is why even though they were giving Feminism most of what they wanted they were continually criticised.

It is only in the last 20 years that Paid Maternity Leave was given any political live. And it was not until 2011 that it became law in Australia, being called the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. It provides 18 weeks paid leave for the primary carer for a new born baby or an adopted baby, the Government wants to increase this to 20 weeks.

Traditionally a Mother with her new born was financially supported by her Husband. The Family provided what was required. But as business now had to recruit women because the Government insisted that not to was discrimination that meant they wanted women who they had trained and spent money on to return. This is the bases for Paid Maternity Leave. But what it does is it encourages the Government to replace the role of a Husband, in fact women don't even need a Husband because whether they are married or single the Government will provide.

Paid Maternity Leave is often advanced as a way of increasing the birth rate, but in the long run it will do exactly the opposite because it is anti-Family. Instead of building strong stable families, it instead encourages women to put career before either family or children. That can only push the birth rate down, it will never increase it.

Further Mothers who work are only part time Mothers, they work so that they can pay other women to raise their child, how much sense does that make? It is entirely uneconomical and it gives further power to the Government, because the Government, not the Parent gets to make the big decisions about how the child will be raised. Discipline, eating habits, education, non of this is decided by the parent but by the child care provider who must follow the instructions the Government has given them. She is reduced from being a Mother to being a broodmare who's only task is to breed. That is quite simply wrong and immoral.

If Paid Maternity Leave is paid for by the Government, then people who have no knowledge of Mother or child are paying for their upkeep. This is not about helping to protect the poor, it is instead paying people who have jobs to take time off. There is no such thing as infinite money nor is there such as thing as infinite jobs. Money spent here cannot be spent elsewhere. If it is paid for by the employer  as some argue then it encourages unemployment because it stops others from being employed. How can their wages be paid for when that money has already been spent on Paid Maternity Leave.

Paid Maternity Leave is also a direct attack on Marriage and the Family. Single women get paid just as married women do, here the Governments encourages single motherhood, instead of encouraging Father and Mother to marry. Marriage is good for all concerned, children grow up with both parents and they are all in a better financial position than if they lived in separate households. But nothing about this policy is about securing a stable environment for either Marriage or Families.

Economically Paid Maternity Leave is expensive, this week the Government announced that they are about $34 billion further in debt then they thought they would be. But instead of trying to save money, they push on regardless. Yet again we all get to live in a fools paradise, but one day it will come crashing down. Socially and economically this policy is the height of folly.

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

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

The Left Breeds What It Claims To Hate

The broad Left, whether it be Liberal, Socialist or what have you likes to tell everyone, including themselves how nice they are. How tolerant, open and loving they are, how they represent a new positive future open to everyone. However, if your like me and your not on the Left, you get to experience something about them that they never advertise. And that is how intolerant, close minded and hateful their past, present and future really is.

They haven't changed since the French Revolution, they always talk about the bright future that you can vaguely see on the horizon. They say it's a new dawn and we keep pointing out that it's an illusion and the Left really resent it. Although whether they resent us being right or us existing is open to debate. Because one thing they really don't understand is other peoples viewpoints. I am reminded of a quote from William F. Buckley, Jr. "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.". You don't need to travel very far to encounter this view. You can go into any Left of centre chat room or put up a Facebook post that your "tolerant" "friend" see's. You can get into a discussion at work or at a party or even within your own family and there it is, that claim about how they love and how we hate, how they are tolerant and how we are intolerant. But what happens when you tell them that they are wrong?

Well all that love and tolerance just seems to vanish. They don't listen to your arguments, they don't respect you and they really really don't love you. It's as if they just use those things to make themselves sound better than they are. But there are three reasons why they use this line of attack.

1. They like to think of themselves as good people.

2. It is used to make others think that they are good people who always think of others before themselves.

3. How do you argue against someone who "loves"?

In reality all of this is simply a weapon, the Left tries to turn everything into a weapon. The Left believes that they can create a perfect world and that everyone who opposes them is evil because they stand in the way of that perfect world. You are evil, I am evil....according to the Left, so don't worry that means your probably not evil. Of course you might be evil, after all the Left call so many people evil, their bound to get it right once in a while simply by accident. But if your evil, or at least they believe that you are evil then they don't need to listen to your opinion because the evil opinion of an evil person is always wrong. But for the good of anyone standing nearby and they believe for your own good, they label you. You might be, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Fascist, Nazi but whatever they label you, whatever name they call you remember it's because they love and you hate!

But when everyone who disagrees with you is (insert nasty name) the truth is they stop caring about being called nasty names. Think about this quote from Peter Brimelow of vdare.com who wrote this

"What I did not anticipate was that this continued vilification has resulted (in) a younger generation of Americans, who 71 years after the end of World War II, are clearly indifferent to accusations of Nazism, even if just out of bravado. This, too, is the fault of the Left and the gatekeepers of our public debate."

How indifferent? This indifferent!

When mild and reasonable opinions are treated just as extreme and unreasonable opinions are, there is no incentive to be mild or reasonable. The Left are creating the very extreme attitudes and opinions they profess to abhor. But when have the Left taken any notice of consequences?

They believe that there is no such thing as consequences on the road to Utopia, but like so much else they are going to find out that that ain't true at all.

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




Thursday, 17 November 2016

What Should We Expect From President Trump?

I endorsed Mr. Trump back in September. I like to think that got him over the line during the election, of course it didn't but I do like to think it!

Now that Mr. Trump is President-elect Trump I have been reading many articles on various sites about what a Trump presidency will be like. Some have been quite good (7 Things to expect from a Trump presidency) and others have left me scratching my head. So I would like to try and show what we can reasonably expect.

We should expect very little in regard to social Conservatism. He simply isn't a social Conservative. So Homosexual Marriage, abortion and the rest of the social evils will not change. On this front we must continue fighting.

President-elect Trump has said he wants to increase spending on Infrastructure and Defence. That will push America further into debt. I'm not saying that Infrastructure and Defence shouldn't have money spent on them, but they do mean that America goes further down the debt hole. Maybe he has a secret plan for fixing the debt, I sure hope so.

No matter who became President at this election, non social Conservatism and increased debt were always going to happen. So in that sense this is neutral more than bad.

There are four things that he we should expect from President Trump.

Lack of Political Correctness: Political Correctness is something President Trump won't have much time for. He likes to call things by their proper name and he will, you should expect lots of "scandals" about how racist and sexist he is. I think most of us will quite enjoy this aspect of his Presidency, we might even be able to use it to push it out into the open more, get people used to plain speaking instead of walking on eggshells.

Opposing Globalization: Free Trade was given a fair trial and it has failed to deliver what it promised. If 25 years isn't enough to make it work than it can fairly be said to be a failure. It has failed the working people of the Western world quite clearly. President Trump wants that to change, it will be quite interesting to see his idea being put into practice. But anything that puts a damper on Free Trade is good. It helps restore national borders as well as national economies. A Government should be loyal to it's own people first and President Trump is doing that.

Immigration: I don't know what he will do regarding legal Immigration. But he has already said he plans to enforce US Immigration law, right there is a massive victory for everyone opposed to Mass Immigration and the destruction of White countries. I expect big things here and if he fails to delivery, that will be the biggest failure of his term. Now I know there are those who are saying that The Wall will now be a fence, but I do not see any reason to worry about what form the border barrier takes, what matters is that it is effective.

Opposing ISIS: There is one area where I believe most pundits are wrong. President Trump will not be a peacenik. In fact I believe he wants to fight a war and that war will be against ISIS. He has said so numerous times that he plans to defeat ISIS, if he is serious he needs US combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Air power has never won a war by itself and to rely on the Iraqi and Syrian Armies with Western special forces is no better. It might take as much as 100,000 troops on the ground to destroy ISIS and I think he will do that. The exact number of ground troops is up for debate but if he wants to destroy ISIS he must commit US ground forces to combat for as long as it takes in both Iraq and Syria. And I think that the Middle East is going to get a lot more walls as well.

As I have said before President Trump might fail, he certainly will disappoint. And while he will not give us everything we want, or that he might want, we should be enjoying the victories that we can achieve. After all we have all endured enough defeats, it might be good to have the a few victories.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism And Mass Immigration II

Monday, 14 November 2016

Refugee Camp or Aged Care Facility

The Australian Government agreed under Prime Minister Tony Abbot to take in thousands of refugees from Syria. His successor Malcolm Turnbull has agreed that approximately 150 can be housed in an Aged Care Facility in Eltham. Eltham is a very leafy, middle class suburb, well known for being the favourite suburb for Teachers and for it's arts and crafts, including the artists colony at Montsalvat.  Into this mix the Australian Government has said it will bring in 150 Syrian Muslim women and children.

This is a terrible idea, but to show how terrible an idea this is I will assume that everything the Government and those on the Left has said about the Refugees is true. We have been told that only the most vulnerable of the Refugees will be housed here and that they will be women and children.

Firstly a community made up of only women and children is entirely artificial. Children need Fathers and women want Husbands and lovers, they want male companionship. There is nothing unnatural or unusual about this, in fact exactly the opposite. So if their male family members are brought to Australia how long will it be before they make their way to Eltham?

An Aged Care Facility is a place for the Elderly to rest after a life of work and family. They deserve that. But instead they will be subjected to children. Children are lovely, joyful, playful, loud and demanding, they all of those things. But here in this place of rest they will hear babies crying, toddlers screaming and children being loud. Non of this is unnatural or unexpected but this is is in no way consistent with the needs of an Aged Care Facility.

One thing that the Elderly are quite famous for is their resistance to change, they have lived a long time and they are set in their ways. Now they must not only adjust to a large group of people, but to a group who do not share their language, religion or culture. They are alien to each other in every sense. Now some will argue that they will get used to each other, but that misses the point, they should never have been put in this situation in the first place.

Another question that hasn't been answered is how old will these children be? 10, 12, 15, 18 or if Europe is anything to go by 36? It makes a big difference. Teenagers, particularly teenagers without male authority, tend to cause trouble. It's one of the things teenagers do without much effort. When they put effort into causing trouble things can become very serious. We have no idea about the age of these children nor do we know how long they will be here. A child of 10 today is 14 in 4 years time. Will they still be here in 4 years?

No one knows.

There are so many things wrong with this Refugee policy, but this list is long enough. If anything goes wrong remember the Australian Government is to blame because they allowed this to happen.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Left or Social Liberalism