Thursday, 21 May 2015

The Difference's Between Men and Women

We are often told that men and women are equal, that they are the same, that there is no real difference between the two. Of course this goes against all of Human history and experience, including our own, including of those who tell us such things.

Traditional Conservatives of course reject this view, we believe our own eyes and experience. That men and women are different in very profound ways and that those differences are important to the success, the happiness and the survival of the Human race. So in what ways are men and women different?

Men
Men are interested in how things work. How does the World work? How does a Government work? How does a car work? They are interested in processes's, in how things work and in why things work as they do. They are interested in action, in building and in making things work.

Women
Women are interested in people and in how people relate to each other. Women are interested in feelings and in people activities. Thats how women seem to know so much about everyone.

Men however aren't interested in people, people are too individualistic for men's liking. Women on the other hand find that machines and Governments are too abstract, not human enough, not individual enough to warrant much attention.

The male tendency to see things as part of a whole and the female tendency to see things in isolation can be disastrous when viewed by themselves. But when men and women join together these tendencies become assets, they complement each other because they cover such a wide spectrum of activities and experience.

Men and women are not the same and nor should they be, they each have unique talents and we need them. We need both male and female, not in each individual as we are so often told, we need the real talents, not some second best talent. Only men can provide the uniquely male talents and only women can provide these unique female talents. Let us embrace the differences.

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

Saturday, 16 May 2015

Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles

When I talk about the Melbourne Traditionalists some may wonder what we stand for, a fair question. So here are our guiding principles.

1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia

2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage

3. Loyalty to the family, Husband & Wife, Mother & Father and their children

4. Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism

5. Opposition to the destruction of White Australians, opposed to Multiculturalism, Mass Immigration and Diversity



For those who support these principles our next meeting is in South Yarra, Melbourne on Wednesday the 3rd June at 7pm. For further details contact me, Mark Moncrieff -

uponhopeblog (at) gmail.com

If you want things to change then you need to move beyond your private thoughts and be prepared to meet with others who share your displeasure at the state of the world. You are not alone and meeting others who agree with you is an exciting thing. If your not in Melbourne, I encourage you to make every effort to find others who share you views and meet up with them where you live.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Housewives good for the economy and society

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

The Twenty-Sixth Month

First of all an apology, I've been quite busy working and catching up on sleep so I haven't posted in a week! A shudder just ran down my spine when I realised an entire week...I'll make up for it I promise. I'm also two days later than I would normally publish my monthly update.

This month has continued the downward trend after the massive high of two months ago, but blogging is nothing if not a rollercoaster ride. My best day this month was the 16th April when I had 119 visitors, my worst day this month was the 25th April when I had 25 visitors. but I've only had 6 days this month with under 50 visitors.

14th April - 13th May
EntryPageviews
United States
833
Australia
300
Russia
163
United Kingdom
92
France
63
Canada
48
Germany
34
India
32
Japan
30
Indonesia
22

14th March - 12th April

EntryPageviews
United States
2463
Australia
435
Russia
352
Canada
190
France
110
United Kingdom
109
Germany
83
Netherlands
44
Ukraine
34
Japan
25
The only country that is higher than last month is Japan.

Every other country is down, although the top 3 are still very good numbers.

India and Indonesia are back in the top 10 and the Netherlands and the Ukraine have left.

I have also had visitors from the following countries Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, 

I look forward to seeing again soon.
Mark Moncrieff

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

The Death of Classical Liberalism

Classical Liberalism believed in personal freedom, in personal rights and in Laissez faire economics. The idea that Government should allow business as much freedom as it likes. It's no coincidence that such an economic policy lead to the rise of Unions and Socialism. But Classical Liberalism was the political philosophy of the Victorian age, in Britain and France, the low Countries and Scandinavia, the United States and what came to be called the Dominions (Canada, Australia etc.). By the 1950's it was the dominate political philosophy, with only Communism as a serious rival. Then at the height of it's power it fractured into Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism. What caused it to fracture and why did it fracture into those 3 factions?

First lets take a step back, Classical Liberalism looks quite Conservative compared to the Liberalism we are used too these days, and many who remain Classical Liberals call themselves Conservatives, but they are Liberals not Conservatives and we must always remember that.

In the Victorian age, Classical Liberalism was a way for the Middle class, particularly the rising nouveau riches (French for new rich), to make a claim on politics. It was a way of announcing their arrival as a new and powerful political player, because before the Victorian age most did not have political power, nor did most have the right to vote. This class wanted to be free from Government interference, free to do as they liked and free to make money as they saw fit. Not without restraint, they still believed in restraint but of a moral and personal nature, Governments role was only to do what the individual or business could not or should not do. In many ways what it believed is Conservative, but the sense that we are all in this together was rejected, every man for himself. It also rejected tradition and hierarchy as they stopped the everyman from rising, as they saw it, to his best.

But the rise of Classical Liberalism was at the expense of the Aristocracy and the Working class, both urban and rural. Because it believed in the self made man, that each man should be free to make his own way in the world and that he shouldn't be held back by social class or origin. They believed in merit, not in being born into a role, but in the best man for the job. Each generation inventing itself. And while most Classical Liberals would say they reject the idea, in reality they believe in Leveling, in the idea that there should only be one social class and that all men should be equal. That the Upper class and the Working class are in a sense illegitimate and that they should cease to exist and become one with the Middle class, the natural class.

It is this class aspect which saw the rise of Unions and Socialism, to oppose the rise of Classical Liberalism, and over time they merged. This joining together was often called Progressivism. Still supporting Classical Liberalism, unless it attacked the Working class. If it did then they supported the Working class instead. Here was an attempt to reconcile two very different philosophies and for a while it worked. But it fell victim to the idea that it was always compromising, that it didn't really stand for anything. But slowly Socialism did seep into Classical Liberalism.

The First World War was a major challenge as Classical Liberalism needed all the help it could get to win. It is during this war that Socialism was given support, a kind of war Socialism was adopted. Rationing, the compulsory acquisition of goods, compulsory control of money, foreign trade and the economy, compulsory military and industrial service, and the leveling of the sexes and social classes, everyone is in this together. People asked, not unreasonably, if it worked to win the war why couldn't Socialism, or at least some kind of Socialism work to solve the problems of peace. The Russian Revolution stopped alot of people from being too enthusiastic, while encouraging others. The Great Depression pushed these ideas even further. It challenged the idea that Classical Liberalism had all the answers and it created divisions within Liberalism on how best to solve this problem.

Finally the Cold War put the final nail into the coffin of Classical Liberalism. The choice between Socialism and Capitalism was now stark. Should the Government control the entire economy as Communism said, or should the Government have a more limited role? How limited? It was on this final point, how limited, that Classical Liberalism crashed and broke apart.

It split in 3, those still interested in Liberal economics became Right-Liberals or economic Liberals, also known as Dry's, they rejected Socialism utterly. Those interested in society came to believe in identity politics, infused with both the ideas of a Liberal society and the ideals of a Socialist society. They came to ignore economics and concentrate on society becoming Left-Liberals or Social Liberals. Finally a third group also split, one that had been part of Liberalism for over a century, Feminism. But now Feminism wasn't restrained by being a part of Classical Liberalism, it no longer had to seem respectable to married men. It became more radical now also infused with Socialist ideas.

In the 1950's hardly anyone noticed the split, it was only in the 1960's that it really became noticeable. It is why the 1960's were so radical and it demonstrates why Conservatives always opposed Classical Liberalism, we always knew that it couldn't stand still that it would continue to change and that it started radical and it always would be and so it continues to be, Liberalism, the most radical of all the political philosophies.

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

Saturday, 2 May 2015

Who Owns Australia?

A few months ago I bought a small booklet from the 1930's entitled "Who owns Australia?", it is a work of the Left, back when they were seriously interested in economics. It lists company after company and how much money they made in Australia. Its an interesting historical document. But that's not what I mean when I ask the question, who owns Australia?

No company thinks that it owns Australia, not even business believes in owns Australia, they may expect things but they do not claim ownership. But there is an organisation that does believe that it owns Australia and that is the Australian Government. That it is the supreme authority. However there are problems with that idea and that problem can be summed up in a short phrase, the Australian people.

The Australian people own Australia, not the Australian Government and here's why. Government, all Government, is a state of trusteeship. Its role is to keep the country running, to reconcile the past, the present and the future and to guarantee to the best of its ability that the country has a future. To protect it and to provide the authority to serve the Nation.

What got me to ask the question was not the book I mentioned, as I had asked the question before I saw the book, in fact thats one of the reasons I bought the book. But because of immigration. I read an article by Peter Brimelow, the editor of http://www.vdare.com/ and in one post he wrote that both the American Democratic and Republican Parties were Parties of treason. And I instantly knew he was right. I had not thought that way before, but now I do. Of course his criticize is just as true around the Western world, including Australia. Our Liberal and Labor parties are also Parties of treason.

Now some people will say thats ridiculous, immigration has always been a part of Australia's history. True, up to a point, immigration was predominately from Britain, to Australia, in other words from one British country to another British country. There were exceptions but thats what they remained exceptions. But then it was decided to allow non-British people to immigrate to Australia in large numbers. To change the ethnic composition of the Nation. But what right does a mere political party have to do such a thing?

It can do such a thing if it believes that it, through forming the Government, owns Australia. But it breaks the covenant between the Government and the people, between the Nation and the State. The Parliament of Australia is the supreme law making authority within Australia. Except when the Constitution is involved, then only the Australian people have the authority to change it. But the ethnic composition is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor has Parliament ever really addressed the issue. It has simply changed immigration laws and the number of immigrates at its own discretion. But the Government exists not to create its own reality, to change things about as it sees fit. It must at all times be loyal to the people, the Nation. Immigration of non-British people into Australia was not loyal and the political parties know this because they have never allowed the issue to be put to a Plebiscite or a Referendum. Never has an election been fought over the issue because both major parties support mass immigration.

They continue to act as if they own Australia, but they do not, nor does the Parliament have the right to change the composition of the Nation. It does not have the right to change the ethnic, racial or religious composition of the Nation. The Parties of Treason need to be stopped before there is no Nation!  

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Who Wins When Liberalism Wins?

Monday, 27 April 2015

The Future of the Nation-State

To most people the term, Nation-State simply means a country. But the term applies to two separate and distinct things, in simple terms the Nation is the people and the State is the Government.

I will us Europe as a means of defining what is and what is not a Nation-State. As I've already stated the Nation is the people, so some examples of Nations are the Welsh, English, French or Germans. They are all distinct ethnic groups with their own culture and history, distinct from other Nations and identifiable from them. A Frenchman for example knows that he is distinct and different from the others mentioned because of his culture, language and ethnicity.

A State however is the Government so Welshman and Englishman share the same State, while the Frenchman and the German have their own distinct States. However the German having a State is less than 150 years old, before that Germany was divided into many different States. Not every Nation has a State and some States are and were made up of many Nations.

In the Dark Ages the Kings of Europe were often the Kings of a particular people, King of the Franks instead of being the King of France. The King of the Angles instead of being the King of England. But as the idea that this land and this people would be one and the same the titles changed and the Kings became Kings of places.

Over many centuries the State has become more powerful than the Nation and one reason for that is that no one really thought that the State would try to destroy the Nation. The idea that each Nation required its own State is Nationalism. And Nationalism as an idea is Liberal in origin. But Nations existed for a 1000 years before the philosophy of Nationalism came into being. It was simply common sense that you were loyal to your own people and to the Government that served that people.

In Eastern Europe there were few States but many Nations, in Italy and Germany there were many States but only one Nation in each place. In the 19th Century, the idea that each Nation should have its own State became the accepted idea within Liberal Europe. First Greece and Latin America, then Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. After WWI Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States as well as Hungary and Austria. After WWII the European colonies became independent, although not many of these can really be termed Nation-States, but most were called that anyway.Today we see the same question being fought over in the Ukraine.

But two institutions arose to challenge the legitimacy of the Nation-State, both arising from Liberal ideals that now rejected one of its own creations Nationalism. Those institutions being the United Nations and the European Community. Both were created to stop war, or to at least curtail war. Both were proclaimed as being morally superior to the Nation-State and both have been used to try and delegitimize the Nation-State.

The United Nations has always been held up as a means of achieving a World Government, but unless we are attacked from outer space the chance of that happening are quite small. Because the United Nations has no independent support base, it is simply a club which seems much more powerful than it is because some of its members are very powerful. But the club itself is not. And while there have been times when it has had its own ambitions and dreams of great power, it has experienced reality and it knows better than most how complex the world really is.

The European Union has had a number of names but it has always been much more ambitious than the United Nations. And the reason is because it does have a support base and that base exists in Government and in a smaller way amongst the people of Europe. The two World Wars, Socialism and economic security, NATO which was never intended to be anything other than an Alliance,  all helped the push for a United Europe. A super State, but not a Nation, for the super State to exist it must compete and win against the Nations of Europe. The Nations had to be convinced that they weren't very important and that the Nation wasn't something distinct, but universal. Once all Nations believe that to be of that Nation you had to be of that people, all Welsh were ethnically Welsh for example. Of course there were always exceptions, small numbers of exceptions. But now there was a push for Welshness to be whatever someone wanted it to be, not something that it had been for centuries.

Today this idea exists all over the Western world, that our Nation is not important, only the State is. But I don't think that will last. The State needs money to survive and it needs money and economic success to give it legitimacy. The Nation does not need either of those things. Once the current system runs out of money it will end. Sadly I think it will end in bloodshed. But in the current political climate either the State survives or the Nation does and I believe it all comes down to whether the State runs out of money.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
We Live in World Where....  

Thursday, 23 April 2015

Some Link Love IV

I'm technically cheating here, I've had a very strange week and it looks set to continue, so everytime I sit down to write something my brain says, "hey you know that great topic you had earlier, I'm not going to help you with it". So instead of posting nothing I'm putting up these short links really to let you all know I'm still alive and I hope to get my brain back on my side...soon!

Three teenagers were arrested last weekend for plotting terrorist attacks in Melbourne, the Conservative columnist Tim Blair has a short but I thought quite funny (and sadly accurate) post concerning it.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/invisible_people_of_no_description_from_nowhere/

Andrew Bolt is Australia's most read newspaper columnist, he is called a Conservative, and on some issues he really is, Immigration is one of them. On others he's a Right-Liberal. Phillip Ruddock was Australia's Immigration Minister, hardline against illegal Immigration, very soft on legal Immigration.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ruddock_warns_of_blowout_in_immigration_intake/

Another short link asking a very good question, why aren't Arab nations taking in Arab refugees?

http://pvewood.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/asylum-seekers-are-transforming-europe.html

Enjoy and I'll get back to work soon, I promise.

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