Tuesday, 25 August 2015

Why Do People Keep Voting the Same Way?

Over at Would You Have Voted for this Society? Mr. Doom wrote a comment, which I have included in full below.

"I agree that in no western country did the people actually vote for the kinds of social changes we've seen in the past half century. And to a large extent these changes were implemented by stealth or in a dishonest and deceptive manner.

On the other hand voters could have taken a stand against such disastrous changes. There have always been alternatives to the major political parties. OK, not always great alternatives, but voters have always had the option of registering a protest by abandoning their traditional allegiances to the parties that have betrayed them. And the voters have steadfastly refused to do so. They have maintained their sheep-like devotion to the major political parties. Even when an alternative was on offer (as was the case with UKIP in the recent British election),

Many people have been excited by the level of support that nationalist parties have attracted in Europe in recent years but what is really surprising to me is just how few people actually vote for these alternatives. In not a single country has such a party even come close to gaining real power.

This suggests either an extraordinary degree of voter apathy, or perhaps outright defeatism. Or even just a total lack of awareness of what is happening."

He raises some very important points and I would like to address them.

Why do people keep voting for the same political parties?

I believe that there are a few reasons why.

Multiple Issues
Real Life Concerns
Economics
Loyalty
No other real option

Lets look at each in turn

Multiple Issues
When voting people are voting for someone to represent them, on various issues. In most cases they have never meet any of the candidates and so they must vote according to the purported believes of a particular party. They rarely, if ever get to vote on single issues. They must try to vote for a candidate who will broadly support their believes. That makes it hard for single issues to get traction, because they must compete with other issues that are just as important. Many people vote not on conviction that this is the best candidate from the best party, but because they fear the consequences of their opponents gaining power.

Real Life Concerns
Many political issues are abstract, real life however has a way of being anything but abstract. People, quite rightly, need to look after themselves in the here and now. Unfortunately that means that voting tends to be about short term concerns. So for example it's not so much about tax policy and how much the Government needs, but instead becomes about tax rates, how much am I paying and can I pay less? Politicians often encourage this, because they are also thinking short term. Real life concerns stop people from thinking about deep issues, as they have more immediate issues to deal with. Will I keep my job? Does that girl love me? Why isn't my child sleeping at night? Whats wrong with my arm, it hurts for no reason? Real life, all of these things are legitimate things to worry about and they get in the way of things that are also real life issues. Big issues that need to be dealt with, Immigration for example.

Economics
The fear of a bad economy is huge, people live in constant fear of the economy. I can never remember a time when the economy wasn't an issue. When people didn't fear it. It stops many people from changing how they vote, because of fear. They need their job and they know that their a plenty of unemployed already. How would they pay for the house, pay their bills, look after themselves and their family? The fear that the economy will go bad is very real, becomes from time to time it does exactly that.

Loyalty
People often vote the way they do because they want to fit in, all my family votes for x, all my friends support x, then so should I. Many people vote a certain way because they have always voted that way. They joined and stayed loyal, even though the party that they are loyal to does not return that loyalty.

No Other Real Option
At the last Australian Federal Election my vote went to Labor, I didn't vote for Labor but thats were my vote ended up. Australia has a preferential voting system, that means that you number all the candidates from your favourite candidate to your least favourite candidate in order. In my electorate, the safest Labor seat in Australia, there were 9 candidates, 4 right of centre, 1 Liberal, 1 Labor, 1 Green,1 Socialist and 1 from the Animal Justice Party and right there is the order in which I voted, Labor in 6th place. So how did my vote end up with them? If your first preference doesn't win, then your vote goes to your second preference and it just keeps doing that until only two candidates are left. Those two candidates then receive all of the votes. In nearly every electorate in Australia the two parties are the Liberals and Labor, in my electorate it's Labor and the Greens.

In a first past the post system unless you vote for the winner you may as well not have bothered to vote.There is no perfect voting system, they all have limitations. But it means that just voting isn't enough. Why were there 4 right of centre parties, each by themselves was nothing special, but together, even in a left wing electorate, they don't win but they get pretty respectable numbers. In more Conservative electorates they would win, if they didn't split their share of the votes. But if they won they would need to have competent policies and candidates. To be honest I feel that these parties are more anti than pro, they know what they are against but they are not so certain of what they are for. And to be frank thats not enough.

The truth is that the options just aren't that good in most cases.

I must disagree with you on one point Mr. Doom, UKIP did splendidly in the last elections, 11 millions votes is fantastic. Only winning 1 seat is unfortunate, but remember that is a 100% improvement on their position in the last Parliament. They are in a great position to do more in the future. My one concern is that they are not a Conservative party any more than the Conservative Party is, but if I was in the UK I would vote for them, I might even have joined. They are a ray of sunshine in a very dark sky.

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


Friday, 21 August 2015

Would You Have Voted for this Society?

As I wander through life I wonder how we got to where we are and how do we fix things? I often ask the question "Would you have voted for this Society?" Because the truth is that we never did vote for this Society, Those who are supposed to represent us have instead given us their vision, not ours.

When did we insist on ending Capital Punishment?

We were told that instead of death, Murderers would receive Life, imprisonment that is. Instead the average sentence for murder is 16 years in Victoria, where I live.

 When did we insist on Abortion on demand?

Certainly there were people who did insist, but we were never given a say in such a profound issue. An issue of life and death, a moral issue and an issue concerning the future population of the Nation.

When did we insist that marriage for life should end?

We never held demonstrations, or rioted to have divorce in our lives. We never wanted no fault divorce. But we all got to pay for it.

When did we vote for Feminism to be official Government policy?

But it is and it has been for four decades, something we never asked for or wanted was given to us anyway by those who think they are our betters.

When did we get to vote on Immigration?

Immigration has always been a controversial issue and so it remains. Immigration is the transformation of the Nation, the changing of the populations composition. How could it be anything but controversial, but nowhere have we been allowed to vote on this historic decision.

When did we decide to be a Country of multiple cultures?

We never decided, that was decided for us, by those who think they are our betters.

Maybe we would have voted for these things, but we never got that option did we?

Changing our Society, our Country and our Nation is not our decision to made it seems. We live in a Representative Democracy that isn't very representative all. It appears that our job is simply to pay our taxes and be loyal to those who show us no loyalty in return.

How long can Democracy survive when it is a farce?

Would I have voted for this society....NO!!!!

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

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

The Twenty-Ninth Month

A steady month this month, there were some high days and some low days but overall steady. With some great numbers and one I really want to see reversed. And while I haven't posted as much as I would like I am very happy with the quality of what I've been writing.

I also received a very nice comment from Mara in What Do Liberals Want?, it really has made my day reading that!

My best day was the 9th August when I had 262 visitors and my worst day this month was the 29th July when I had 29 visitors. Thats a very low number, but to be expected as I haven't been posting as many articles. I'd like to say that will improve, but we'll see. It's not because I don't have things to say, it''s finding the time to get it done properly thats the issue. But I'll keep pushing through, as we all must.

11th July-11th August

EntryPageviews
United States
833
Australia
342
Russia
164
United Kingdom
156
Canada
52
Germany
36
India
36
Indonesia
35
Netherlands
32
France
28

11th June-11th July

EntryPageviews
United States
1042
Australia
268
Russia
76
Germany
75
United Kingdom
75
India
54
Greece
49
Ukraine
45
Canada
42
France
37

Australia, Russia and the United Kingdom as all up in a big way, I like seeing Countries get into the hundreds!

Canada is also up, more modest but still good to see.

The United States is down, by two hundred, I really want to see this number reversed!

Indonesia and the Netherlands are back in the top 10.

Germany, India and France are all down and Greece and the Ukraine have left the top 10.

I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, Lebanon, Israel, U.A.E., China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Chile,

 I hope to see you again.
Mark Moncrieff

Thursday, 6 August 2015

What Do Liberals Want?

At the most recent Melbourne Traditionalists meeting, there was a general discussion about what do Liberals, or the Left in general want? Why is it so hard to argue with them and why when presented with facts are they so ready to ignore them? This is my version of the discussion at that meeting, with particular thanks to Jason and Mark Richardson, but including all those there as it was quite a free wheeling discussion.

It seems to be the week for it as three other sites have very similar posts:

Anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog - Our-self-destructive-elites

victorstamp.wordpress.com - The-change-agents

&

The Orthosphere - Will-we-ever-see-the-end-of-the-liberal-college-professor?

The discussion began with how hard it is to convince any on the Left to see reason, or even to see a fact. How resistant they are to any change in thought and how while they think of themselves as free spirited, they are so alike in thought. So alike it can be terrifying to see and experience and we do experience it. But why are they so resistant? Is it because our arguments aren't good enough, that may be the case, but it would be something someone would get better at if that were true. But experience often leads to despair, not to more "conversions", for want of a better word. There is something else at play, something deeper. To reject any part of Liberalism would lead to a world of confusion and uncertainty. So to avoid that no part that has been picked up can be rejected.

We know this is true from those who have left, they report finding one thing out of place, one thing that didn't make sense and over time coming to reject it entirely. The good Liberal doesn't allow that doubt to remain, they reject it, ignore it and denounce it.

But why? What possible benefit could they received from doing this?

Liberalism and in fact all political philosophies, apart from Conservatism, believe in Utopia, in perfect people living in a perfect world. No war, or anger, no hatred or despair, no hunger or want. A perfect people living in a perfect world. So when you point out a flaw in their plan, a flaw in their vision, they resent it. How dare you try to stop a perfect world from coming into being, how bad and evil does someone have to be to try and deny such a world? Here is not only why they reject facts, but also why they are never fair to Conservatives or Conservatism. They do not see us as people having a different opinion, they see us as evil, because only evil people supporting an evil philosophy would try to stop the making of a perfect world.

They even have a vision of how this perfect world will come about. People need to be united, but are instead divided, by their sex, their age, their ethnicity, their nationality, their race, their religion, their beliefs, there are so many things driving people apart, if only those difference's could be destroyed, done away with. If that could happen, then people wouldn't be divided, then they would be united. So the things that divide people must be done away with and instead people must be made the same, equal, even if they don't want, particularly if they don't want it. Nothing is more important than perfect people living in a perfect world.

People must be made equal, Equality is what will make perfect people. Because unity is perfection, one Human Race without division. A world of equality, in which there is no division is a Level one, where no one is below or above anyone else. So those who are below the line, need assistance, they need to be given preference in jobs and financial support, they need their mistakes to be ignored, they need to be told how wonderful they are simply for existing.  If this destroys their families, their communities, if this destroys their well being and their identify, thats a price that Liberals are prepared for other people to pay. Nothing can get in the way of perfect people living in a perfect world, nothing.

For those above the line, they must be leveled as well. This is not about everyone enjoying the good life, thats just a story they tell. What they really want is no rich, no poor, no smart, no dumb, no over achievers and no under achievers. What they want is equality and to achieve that everyone must be Leveled. Those who have done well in life must be brought down, they cannot be allowed to remain unequal.

What do Liberals and in fact all Leftists want? They want perfect people living in a perfect world and they use the ideology of Equality to achieve it.  

The truth is that Equality isn't real, it is not possible, nor is it desirable. So that means that perfect people living in a perfect world is also not possible. Every sensible person already knows this. But it is a believe that has captured the hearts and imaginations of far too many people, from the top of society down. It influences every level of Government and society. It is everywhere, this mad idea that we are perfectible, but that does not make it real. We need to fight this madness, because that is what it is.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage

Thursday, 30 July 2015

The Problems of Democracy

Winston Churchill famously said to the British House of Commons on the 11th November 1947 "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" Interesting the sentence before reads "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise". But actually I believe he is wrong on this point, if you criticize Democracy you will find that many do consider it perfect and all wise. I'm not ordinarily a critic of Democracy as I do tend to agree with Churchill's first quote. But Democracy does have a number of problems and I am going to list some of them here.

Social and Economic Leveling
The spread of the idea of Equality
The tyranny of the Majority
The tyranny of the Party system
Who is really in Charge?
Bribery of the Electorate
Anyone can be the Leader.....even You!

Democracy says that everyone is equal and that everyone should get to decide who governs them, but we do not have the Democracy of Ancient Greece, even though ours is inspired by it. We do not have Direct Democracy, instead we have Representative Democracy. We do not vote on issues or policies in most cases, in most cases we vote for someone to represent us. To represent our views and our interests. We do not get to make many decisions our self, instead nearly all Government decisions are made for us, in that respect Democracy is no different to any other political philosophy. Lets now look at each of the problems individually.

Social and Economic Leveling
 One man, one vote was how Democracy was once described. And indeed it is presented as a good thing that each vote has exactly the same power, only one vote for each voter. But what that means is every wiseman and every fool gets the same vote, every informed voter and every ignorant voter gets the same vote, every sober voter and every drunk voter gets the same vote. It is a massive force for social and economic leveling.

The spread of the Idea of Equality
If each vote is exactly the same, then each vote is equal. That is how it is presented, but in practice it doesn't quite work that way. For complex electoral reasons some voters in some areas are much more important than others. For example someone who always votes for the same party is rarely as important as a swinging voter. For it is really the swinging voter who decides most elections, not the loyal voter. But of course the idea that everyone is equal, that everyone is the same is there at all times. That no matter who the voter is they are like every other voter, no matter what divides them.

The Tyranny of the Majority
This has been called the Dictatorship of the 51%. If 51 % of the electorate votes in favour of something than it must be good, if they vote against it it must be bad. This has a certain logic to it when it is an absolute majority, but when you start to see such tiny victories you do wonder at the logic of it. For example in any US Presidential election, only something like 30-40% of voters actually vote for the man who becomes President. Because voting isn't compulsory it means that a minority gets to decide who becomes President. A Tyranny of the Minority.

The Tyranny of the Party System
When modern Democracy first came into being each electorate voted for someone to represent them in Parliament, a local who would present their side of any argument. No Parties existed as we know them. Only loose groupings of people that believed in more or less similar things, but there was little organisation or discipline. In the early 1800's that started to change and political parties as we would know them began to appear. They brought with them, organisation, discipline, money and agendas. something missing from earlier groupings. It detached the local Member of Parliament from his community and attached him to a new group based not on location, but on ideology. Over time ideology and money replaced all other considerations. I'm not saying that earlier Parliamentarians didn't have political beliefs or that they were above money, neither of those things are true. But everything was tempered by their connection and in most cases having to live after they retired from Parliament in their local community. Today a Parliamentarian, at least theoretically,  doesn't even have to visit their electorate, let alone retire there. Today the Parties provide that support. What the Party wants is much more important than what the electorate wants. Today the electorate gets to pay for what the Party wants.

Who is really in Charge?
President Lincoln said "By the people and for the people", but if the people are in charge why did they need a President? If the President is in charge what are the people there for? In a Democracy who is in charge? Is it God? The Head of State? The Head of Government? The Parliament? The Courts? The People? To answer this the idea of the separation of powers came about. It's not a bad idea, in fact I quite like it. But it still doesn't answer the question, who's in charge?

Bribery of the Electorate
This is quite a big problem and getting bigger. If a Politician gave you cash, you'd be more than likely outraged. "Does he think he can bribe me!". But the reality is that Democracy is all about bribing people, not individuals, but entire groups of people all at once. The best thing of about bribery in a Democracy is that it isn't the Politicians money, it's the voters money. Higher wages, tax cuts, welfare are all great areas for bribery, because it seems like it is about doing good. Hey maybe some good will be done, but often it's about making sure the right people get the right incentive to vote the right way. It makes Democracy sound seedy, I wish I could say that it wasn't so but it is. And most people know it, it's why most people don't like Politicians, they know there is something not quite right about them. Some have even worked out that much of the time they are bribing you with your own money.

Anyone can be the Leader....even You!
This is the greatest of all the conceits of Democracy, that you too can be in charge. Democracy's wonderful, anyone can be Prime Minister or President. Of course when you have a closer look at who does get those jobs you find that they tend to have things in common with each other that stop you from ever getting the job. The idea that you can be in charge is an ego boost, it makes it feel, like if I made a few small changes I could be there too. The Leader of my Country and I are so alike, I could be him with a few small changes. But it's a lie, it takes quite a bit to become the Leader, dedication, ambition, ruthlessness, even skill. It's quite an exacting business and most fall, but it's not always a case of survival of the fittest, it's often a case of everyone else tripped and I'm the only one left. But the idea that often in politics the Leader is the most ruthless, or the most dull, everyone interesting got knocked out, is one we find a little uncomfortable thinking about.

So with all of the problems of Democracy should we replace it? To be honest I don't know what there is to replace it with, either better or worse. Of course that doesn't mean it cannot be replaced, I just don't see a better idea. Democracy certainly has it's flaws and I find much to criticize. I do not believe it it is destined to survive, it must constantly prove itself and I believe it's biggest enemies are the political parties that are like vampires sucking the life out of it. It is not immortal, it can die. And if it does die, what then?

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

Sunday, 26 July 2015

Immigration and Forced Consent

"We are a nation of immigrants", have you ever heard this argument? Of course you have, but it is a pro-rape argument. Let me explain. By this argument once you have had sex you can never stop having sex, even if you object. Once a nation has accepted an immigrant, it must do so forever, whether the native born consent or not. What's it called when your forced to have sex against your will? Rape. What's it called when your forced to accept immigration against your will? The Governments immigration policy.

The question of consent is only important when the the immigrant is involved. The immigrant choose to come here, so that gives them to Liberals, of both the Left and the Right a special status that the native born doesn't have. But let me turn immigration policy on it's head, let us say that no one wants to come here, so the only way we can get immigrants is to steal them, to launch military style raids upon other countries to kidnap their people. Once here they are free to go about their lives, but of course after going to all that trouble to get them here we aren't going to let them leave are we? Of course not!

In this situation everyone can see that immigration is forced, there is no consent. Of course it is possible that some will come to see it as a good thing that they could start a new life in a new land, even if they were forced. But that wouldn't change the fact that they were forced.

The native born, however have not consented to immigration, no where has an election, referendum or plebiscite concerning immigration been held. N,o it has not been the people who have consented because, their consent has never been sort or asked for. It is the Parliaments, the activists and the Bureaucracy that make the decisions and the rest of us who are left to sort it out. Without our consent.

The transformation of our societies, the idea that any random person is just as good as the native born is not equality, it is blatant discrimination against the native born. Never asked, never consulted, called Nazi, Fascist or Racist when we dare to complain, that is when we aren't ignored. And the whole time we are told how great and important our Democracy is. How can ignoring the people be Democratic? How can replacing the people be Democratic? How can importing new voters be Democratic?

They are all a mockery of Democracy!

Today, no one is a greater enemy of our freedoms and of Democracy than our own Parliaments.

That is to say nothing of how it attackers workers, of how it makes jobs hard to obtain and keep. My nephew was denied a job because he couldn't speak Mandarin, in Australia. But that's legal, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the immigrant, so instead our Governments discriminate against the native born. Whenever a dispute arises between immigrants and the native born we all know who is supposed to give up their way. And it ain't the immigrant.

Here we get the Liberal ideal, the artificial community, where by any person can come or go as they please. But of course like so much that Liberalism supports it is a mockery of what a real community is. A real community is organic, arising from generations of shared experiences. A community does not consist of fair weather friends who can leave at any moment. But Liberalism always supports the artificial over the organic, the natural.

I have never consented to mass immigration, nor did my Parents or my Grandparents, neither did yours. This is all taking place against our will, without our consent. Even those who approve of what is going on have never consented, for them it is simply a happy happenstance. For the rest of us, we are living a nightmare where by our own Government and it's institutions replace us. I do not consent and I never will!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Too Much is Never Enough


Monday, 20 July 2015

3rd August 2015 Melbourne Traditionalists Meeting

In two weeks time the next Melbourne Traditionalists meeting will take place. If you are in Melbourne Australia and you are interested in attending and in Traditional Conservatism then send me an email and I will send you the details.

If your not in Melbourne Australia you should be trying to make contact with other Traditional Conservatives. Only by meeting up and providing mutual support can we hope to advance our cause. It is becoming more and more urgent, mass immigration, the destruction of the family and marriage, the destruction of our traditions and heritage, the atomization of society. There is much to oppose, there is much to fight against, but we need to get organised.

The Greek debt crisis will in time simply be "The Debt Crisis", Liberalism needs money to survive, it can get away with much of it's craziness because it makes the economy run. It makes the economy run by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It cannot continue, so it will not. But when Liberalism stumbles what will move into it's place? Unless we get organised it sure won't be us!

To contact me:

uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com

For our Guiding Principles.

Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future