No country has had a more inglorious beginning than Australia. Australia began as a prison, no other country can say that. And it all began on the 26th January 1788 and every year on that date we celebrate Australia Day, our national day. But this Australia Day was like all the others in recent memory, a day for Liberals at all levels to complain about Australia. It's too racist, it's celebrating an invasion and the genocide of the Aboriginal people. And it's not just the Left but also the Government gets in on the act, every year we have the media and the Government complaining that we are not a Republic. Why is modern Liberalism so unpatriotic?
Classic Liberalism was Patriotic, it believed in the Nation-State, it believed that there were things worth fighting for and dying for. It believed in National destiny, that each State should have it's own people and that each were unique and distinct and that they should remain that way. Social-Liberalism was unpatriotic in peacetime but just as Patriotic as Classical Liberalism in wartime, particularly if they were the Government. But from the 1960's it became obvious that was no longer Liberalism's opinion, it had changed.
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that every person should be free to be self made. But they believed that that should happen within a man's own society. So Patriotism was quite right and proper, because a man can only be self made within his own society so that society must be protected and defended. The Liberals idea of society also needed protection and those ideas meant that the nation deserved the love of it's people. It was only natural in Liberal eyes that a Liberal nation should be loved by it's Liberal people. They were one people sharing a common heritage, a heritage that was celebrated because it had created a Liberal society and that together they had a common Liberal future.
Of course there were always dissenter's who believed in universal love, that Patriotism meant war and that war was not a Liberal value. But these opinions were normally private. Most Liberals did not see any problem with Patriotism.
The death of Classical Liberalism changed that, in fact it changed it so much that many people even think of Classical Liberalism as Conservative!
The idea that we are one people sharing a common heritage was now regarded as negative instead of as a positive. A common heritage meant that others were excluded, that heritage was bigotry. That Race, Ethnicity and Religious denomination were also bigotry because they were by definition exclusive and anything that is exclusive means that people miss out. Equality came into Liberalism in the 1830's, it wasn't always a popular idea but it became popular mainly because of Democracy. One man one vote was supported because it made all men, regardless of their social class equal. But equality is quite a radical idea, it cannot stop, logically equality means leveling, making everyone the same, removing all distinctions between people. Removing all barriers between people. Only then can we all really be equal, or as Liberals like to put it "become fully Human".
But Patriotism is an obstacle to this, if you love one people than you are being exclusive, you are being a bigot. If everyone is equal than Patriotism is wrong, it might even be evil. All people are equal, all cultures are equal, to love one small part of the world is just small minded.
To the Liberal mind this is logical and to be honest it is logical. It is entirely consistent with Liberalism, If people are to become Autonomous Individuals then all the things that define them must be destroyed, their Race, their Ethnicity, their Religion, their Sex, their Family and their Nation must be done away with. People cannot be allowed to love their country, that would be denying them the ability to become Liberal, to "become fully Human". The problem with this whole idea is that Liberalism itself is illogical. To love your own people, to love your own country, in other words to be Patriotic is entire natural, but Liberalism denied that we have a nature. To deny human nature is surely illogical.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Housewives, Good for the Economy and Society
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Friday, 22 January 2016
From Class Warfare to White Genocide
I don't often use the term "Cultural Marxism" because people use it as an easy answer. The term implies that our enemy is Communism, but Liberalism is not Communism and our main enemy is Liberalism. That of course does not mean that the two have nothing in common or that they have never influenced each other. They do have things in common and of course they have influenced each other.
They both believe that man is God and that man is capable of perfection. They are both of the broad Left, but they are not the same. But one idea that started out as communist has become an accepted part of Liberalism particularly Left-Liberalism and I intend to chart it's birth, mutation, current location and it's possible future. That idea is Class Warfare.
Class Warfare started as a Communist idea, as a reaction against Liberalism. It sort to find a way out of a Liberal or as Communists took to calling it the Capitalist system. Because the Liberal economic system is Capitalism, the idea that capital, or in everyday English money, should be unrestricted. That it should be free to invest in any industry or country without restriction. Communism was one of a number of Political Philosophies that did not agree with this and wanted it to end. Class Warfare became for Communists a way of both describing what was wrong with Liberal Capitalism but also how the system would bring about it's own destruction.
In short Class Warfare is the idea that there are two classes the Oppressed Class and the Oppressor Class. And that if you are being oppressed then you are in the Oppressed Class and that if you are not being oppressed than you are an oppressor and are a member of the Oppressor Class. What must never be forgotten is that no one is allowed to be neutral, if you are not being oppressed than you are an oppressor, Class Warfare is perpetual.
This idea is the most important idea within Communism, rivaled only by Historical Materialism, the idea that history is deterministic and that a Communism world is ultimately the way history will end. But Class Warfare is at heart a conspiracy theory, it believes like Nazism and Feminism that the basic nature of reality is conspiratorial. That there are special classes of people who are engaged in a conspiracy and that only they can see the true nature of this conspiracy and therefore only they can combat it and defeat it. Communism believes that the Rich conspire against the poor, Nazism believes that the Jews conspire against everyone else and Feminism believes that men conspire against women.
Once upon a time Liberalism rejected this kind of thinking, sadly those days are over. One branch of Liberalism came to accept many of the criticisms made against Liberalism. That it was exploitative, even though it didn't mean to be. Their response was to accept some Socialist ideas into Liberalism. this was Liberalisms first split. It took roughly 70 years before the contradictions within Liberalism lead to an even greater split in the 1950's.
Now within Communism Class Warfare was quite literal, it was warfare between different social classes. But within Left-Liberalism, Class Warfare wasn't called by that name, instead it didn't really have a name, but the idea came to dominate Left-Liberal thinking. The idea that there are special classes of people who are oppressed and that that means that there are classes of people who oppress. The opponents of Liberalism would come to call it "Identity Politics".
Why would Liberalism, any branch of Liberalism come to think like that?
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that people are born as individuals but that society constricts and controls the individual. That all people are equal and that people should be free to be anything or anyone they want to be. That freedom is unlimited. If you believe that freedom is unlimited then people must be freed from the restrictions within their life. It is really the only moral option. So if you see that some types of people are not doing as well as other types of people then that is immoral and must be opposed. Liberalism then went looking for people who fitted that description and they found the Civil Rights movement.
Liberals had supported the Civil Rights movement even before it formally existed. But it was a fringe element, the early starters so to speak. Now that Identity Politics was front and centre the Civil Rights movement really took off. It is no coincidence that the 1960's was a very successful decade for the Civil Rights movement. It is no coincidence that the 1960's were a very successful decade for Feminists either. They both could claim that they were oppressed and they both did. And they both obtained much support, the same would happen for Indigenous Rights and for Gay Rights. Each made a case that they were oppressed and they joined the the list of approved oppressed peoples.
In 1964, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, what is of particular interest is that to achieve this Liberals destroyed one of Liberalism's prized ideals. The idea of freedom of association, that every one had to right to associate with any other person that they wished to and by definition the right not to associate with anyone they didn't want to associate with. In a fight between Classical Liberalism and Identity Politics, Identity won.
In Communist societies those who were class enemies were destroyed, they lost their money and their power, they lost prestige, often they lost their lives and this continued even onto subsequent generations. In Liberal societies Left-Liberalism and Feminism are not dominate, although they are powerful, so they cannot be as direct as the Communists were. They must try to remove the oppression, as they see it, piece by piece. They throw up new ideas and accusations constantly, and some stick. In recent times one of the ideas that has stuck is White Privilege.
The Left-Liberal argument is that Whites are a class, an oppressor class and they continue to be so successful because they have privilege. Unstated is that privilege is unearned and undeserved, I bet you have never heard someone say that but you still knew it. The idea of White Privilege appeals to Left-Liberals as it explains why their attempts to create what they believe to be a more equal society have failed. It has failed, they believe, because there are people who opposed it even though they claim to be on the side of the oppressed. No matter what you think or say or do if you are white then you are guilty.
This is the same argument the Nazi's used against the Jews. That they had unearned privilege, that they oppressed others simply by existing, that the only way to protect everyone else was to destroy the Jews. Millions of innocent people were murdered because of a conspiracy theory.
But Liberals are not Communists or Nazi's, Mass Immigration proves that. Not even Communists thought it was a great idea to invite millions of foreigners into their countries and to do it for more than 50 years. Liberals thought of that one. And they have been remarkably successful, it is rare to hear people say this is bad or wrong, instead you will hear people complain about it's "excesses", as if the basic idea is fine. White Genocide is not something that will happen in the future, it is something that is happening right now. Mass Immigration is White Genocide, the destruction of the family is White Genocide, the hollowing out of the real economic is White Genocide as they all prevent the formation of families, they prevent the birth of children and they will make White's a minority in every land where they were once the majority. Liberalism in all it's forms is coming to mean White Genocide.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Marriage Just a Piece of Paper
They both believe that man is God and that man is capable of perfection. They are both of the broad Left, but they are not the same. But one idea that started out as communist has become an accepted part of Liberalism particularly Left-Liberalism and I intend to chart it's birth, mutation, current location and it's possible future. That idea is Class Warfare.
Class Warfare started as a Communist idea, as a reaction against Liberalism. It sort to find a way out of a Liberal or as Communists took to calling it the Capitalist system. Because the Liberal economic system is Capitalism, the idea that capital, or in everyday English money, should be unrestricted. That it should be free to invest in any industry or country without restriction. Communism was one of a number of Political Philosophies that did not agree with this and wanted it to end. Class Warfare became for Communists a way of both describing what was wrong with Liberal Capitalism but also how the system would bring about it's own destruction.
In short Class Warfare is the idea that there are two classes the Oppressed Class and the Oppressor Class. And that if you are being oppressed then you are in the Oppressed Class and that if you are not being oppressed than you are an oppressor and are a member of the Oppressor Class. What must never be forgotten is that no one is allowed to be neutral, if you are not being oppressed than you are an oppressor, Class Warfare is perpetual.
This idea is the most important idea within Communism, rivaled only by Historical Materialism, the idea that history is deterministic and that a Communism world is ultimately the way history will end. But Class Warfare is at heart a conspiracy theory, it believes like Nazism and Feminism that the basic nature of reality is conspiratorial. That there are special classes of people who are engaged in a conspiracy and that only they can see the true nature of this conspiracy and therefore only they can combat it and defeat it. Communism believes that the Rich conspire against the poor, Nazism believes that the Jews conspire against everyone else and Feminism believes that men conspire against women.
Once upon a time Liberalism rejected this kind of thinking, sadly those days are over. One branch of Liberalism came to accept many of the criticisms made against Liberalism. That it was exploitative, even though it didn't mean to be. Their response was to accept some Socialist ideas into Liberalism. this was Liberalisms first split. It took roughly 70 years before the contradictions within Liberalism lead to an even greater split in the 1950's.
Now within Communism Class Warfare was quite literal, it was warfare between different social classes. But within Left-Liberalism, Class Warfare wasn't called by that name, instead it didn't really have a name, but the idea came to dominate Left-Liberal thinking. The idea that there are special classes of people who are oppressed and that that means that there are classes of people who oppress. The opponents of Liberalism would come to call it "Identity Politics".
Why would Liberalism, any branch of Liberalism come to think like that?
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that people are born as individuals but that society constricts and controls the individual. That all people are equal and that people should be free to be anything or anyone they want to be. That freedom is unlimited. If you believe that freedom is unlimited then people must be freed from the restrictions within their life. It is really the only moral option. So if you see that some types of people are not doing as well as other types of people then that is immoral and must be opposed. Liberalism then went looking for people who fitted that description and they found the Civil Rights movement.
Liberals had supported the Civil Rights movement even before it formally existed. But it was a fringe element, the early starters so to speak. Now that Identity Politics was front and centre the Civil Rights movement really took off. It is no coincidence that the 1960's was a very successful decade for the Civil Rights movement. It is no coincidence that the 1960's were a very successful decade for Feminists either. They both could claim that they were oppressed and they both did. And they both obtained much support, the same would happen for Indigenous Rights and for Gay Rights. Each made a case that they were oppressed and they joined the the list of approved oppressed peoples.
In 1964, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, what is of particular interest is that to achieve this Liberals destroyed one of Liberalism's prized ideals. The idea of freedom of association, that every one had to right to associate with any other person that they wished to and by definition the right not to associate with anyone they didn't want to associate with. In a fight between Classical Liberalism and Identity Politics, Identity won.
In Communist societies those who were class enemies were destroyed, they lost their money and their power, they lost prestige, often they lost their lives and this continued even onto subsequent generations. In Liberal societies Left-Liberalism and Feminism are not dominate, although they are powerful, so they cannot be as direct as the Communists were. They must try to remove the oppression, as they see it, piece by piece. They throw up new ideas and accusations constantly, and some stick. In recent times one of the ideas that has stuck is White Privilege.
The Left-Liberal argument is that Whites are a class, an oppressor class and they continue to be so successful because they have privilege. Unstated is that privilege is unearned and undeserved, I bet you have never heard someone say that but you still knew it. The idea of White Privilege appeals to Left-Liberals as it explains why their attempts to create what they believe to be a more equal society have failed. It has failed, they believe, because there are people who opposed it even though they claim to be on the side of the oppressed. No matter what you think or say or do if you are white then you are guilty.
This is the same argument the Nazi's used against the Jews. That they had unearned privilege, that they oppressed others simply by existing, that the only way to protect everyone else was to destroy the Jews. Millions of innocent people were murdered because of a conspiracy theory.
But Liberals are not Communists or Nazi's, Mass Immigration proves that. Not even Communists thought it was a great idea to invite millions of foreigners into their countries and to do it for more than 50 years. Liberals thought of that one. And they have been remarkably successful, it is rare to hear people say this is bad or wrong, instead you will hear people complain about it's "excesses", as if the basic idea is fine. White Genocide is not something that will happen in the future, it is something that is happening right now. Mass Immigration is White Genocide, the destruction of the family is White Genocide, the hollowing out of the real economic is White Genocide as they all prevent the formation of families, they prevent the birth of children and they will make White's a minority in every land where they were once the majority. Liberalism in all it's forms is coming to mean White Genocide.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Marriage Just a Piece of Paper
Monday, 11 January 2016
The Thirty-Fourth Month
A good month overall, my fourth best ever!
Although practically every country is down on last month. My work situation is slowly improving, it has really taken a toll on me and the blog. I need for that to change and to get back to more sensible hours.
I have also added a new link Right Wing Fighter, check him out!
My best day this month was the 13th December when I had 117 visitors, my worst day was the 27th December when I had 26.
11th December-11th January
11th November-11th December
Ireland is the only country that is up this month and it is back in the top 10!
Although practically every country is down on last month. My work situation is slowly improving, it has really taken a toll on me and the blog. I need for that to change and to get back to more sensible hours.
I have also added a new link Right Wing Fighter, check him out!
My best day this month was the 13th December when I had 117 visitors, my worst day was the 27th December when I had 26.
11th December-11th January
11th November-11th December
Ireland is the only country that is up this month and it is back in the top 10!
India is basically the same and every other county is down. Russia was over 300 at one point so it has fallen quite a way.
I have also had visitors from the following countries Belguim, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Turkey, U.A.E., Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Burma, Malaysia, Philippines, Egypt, South Africa, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Trinadad and Tobago, Brazil
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Friday, 8 January 2016
The Five Types of Modern Liberals
When we think of modern Liberalism we can often think of them as one common "blob", all alike with nothing to distinguish between them. But that is of course not true. I often read on blogs, particularly but not exclusively American ones, Liberals being referred to as Communists and while it is true they share things in common the two ideologies are quite different. (Liberalism, Why We are not Liberals) (Communism, Why We are not Communists)
The five types of modern Liberalism are:
Classical Liberalism
Feminism
Left Liberalism, AKA Social Liberalism, AKA Wets
Right Liberalism, AKA Economic Liberalism, AKA Dries
Neo-Conservatism
The oldest of these is of course Classical Liberalism, in the 1800's Classical Liberalism was simply Liberalism. It looked like this:
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
But from the 1880's Socialism began to have a profound influence upon Liberalism and from around 1900 Liberalism changed, many in it's economic ideas. It looked like this:
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Socialist
(Government intervention in the economy, the welfare state)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
Then in the 1950's the contradictions within Liberalism became too great and it split at first in half and then in the 1960's it produced another splinter.
It split into Left Liberalism, Right Liberalism and then in the 1960's Neo-Conservatism.
The fifth branch of modern Liberalism is Feminism. It's history goes back to the 1840's, there were Feminist thinkers and writings before then but there was no movement. Only from the 1840's can Feminism be regarded as a movement. It's history with Liberalism was complex, Liberalism gave Feminism more support then it received from any other Political Philosophy. But it also turned it's back on Feminism for decades at a time and during these times Feminism was no more than a crackpot philosophy, even to Liberals.
Since the 1950's each branch of Liberalism has it's own beliefs and it's own spectrum of the ideas of Liberalism.
Classical Liberalism
It has remained more or less as it was, but has become an ever smaller branch of Liberalism. Most Classical Liberals took to calling themselves Conservatives, they are not.
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
Right Liberalism
Here was were Classical Liberalism broke apart as they rejected Socialism and wanted to return to Liberal economics. Economics is supreme, trumping both politics and society. They are also known as Dries, because all they were interested in was dry economics
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Mixed
(Some are Conservative, but sadly most reject even the concept of Society)
(Over time it moved from one to the other)
Economically: Socialist
((Government intervention in the economy, the welfare state)
Socially: Radical
(Society exists for the benefit of the individual, multiculturalism, mass immigration)
Neo-Conservatism
The idea of a new Neo Conservatism is simply silly, if your neo you cannot be a Conservative. Neo-Conservatives believe that they were loyal Liberals who got left behind by Left-Liberalism. They continue to believe that Liberalism is a moral force and that war can spread the benefits of Liberalism because people want freedom more than life, in their opinion a life without freedom is not life.
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative/Mixed
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society, although some deny that society exists)
The five types of modern Liberalism are:
Classical Liberalism
Feminism
Left Liberalism, AKA Social Liberalism, AKA Wets
Right Liberalism, AKA Economic Liberalism, AKA Dries
Neo-Conservatism
The oldest of these is of course Classical Liberalism, in the 1800's Classical Liberalism was simply Liberalism. It looked like this:
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
But from the 1880's Socialism began to have a profound influence upon Liberalism and from around 1900 Liberalism changed, many in it's economic ideas. It looked like this:
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Socialist
(Government intervention in the economy, the welfare state)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
Then in the 1950's the contradictions within Liberalism became too great and it split at first in half and then in the 1960's it produced another splinter.
It split into Left Liberalism, Right Liberalism and then in the 1960's Neo-Conservatism.
The fifth branch of modern Liberalism is Feminism. It's history goes back to the 1840's, there were Feminist thinkers and writings before then but there was no movement. Only from the 1840's can Feminism be regarded as a movement. It's history with Liberalism was complex, Liberalism gave Feminism more support then it received from any other Political Philosophy. But it also turned it's back on Feminism for decades at a time and during these times Feminism was no more than a crackpot philosophy, even to Liberals.
Since the 1950's each branch of Liberalism has it's own beliefs and it's own spectrum of the ideas of Liberalism.
Classical Liberalism
It has remained more or less as it was, but has become an ever smaller branch of Liberalism. Most Classical Liberals took to calling themselves Conservatives, they are not.
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society)
Here was were Classical Liberalism broke apart as they rejected Socialism and wanted to return to Liberal economics. Economics is supreme, trumping both politics and society. They are also known as Dries, because all they were interested in was dry economics
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Mixed
(Some are Conservative, but sadly most reject even the concept of Society)
Left Liberalism
The majority of Liberalism turned left, it did not reject Socialism or Communism. It instead believed that it could absorbed them and turn them Liberal. It succeed up to a point, it did turn Socialists and Communists into Liberals. But it didn't seem to notice, or mind, that it become influenced by both philosophies. Politically it started Liberal and moved towards a more Socialist model. This is most obvious when it comes to speech. It started by trying to be as open about free speech as possible. Free speech was the greatest of rights, it was what distinguished the Western free world from the Communist unfree world. But over the last 50 years that has died and at each stage it has been taken overby political correctness.
Politically: Liberal/Socialist/ Identity Politics
(Over time it moved from one to the other)
Economically: Socialist
((Government intervention in the economy, the welfare state)
Socially: Radical
(Society exists for the benefit of the individual, multiculturalism, mass immigration)
Neo-Conservatism
The idea of a new Neo Conservatism is simply silly, if your neo you cannot be a Conservative. Neo-Conservatives believe that they were loyal Liberals who got left behind by Left-Liberalism. They continue to believe that Liberalism is a moral force and that war can spread the benefits of Liberalism because people want freedom more than life, in their opinion a life without freedom is not life.
Politically: Liberal
(Free speech, freedom of association, etc.)
Economically: Liberal
(Free Trade, free movement of labour, free movement of money)
Socially: Conservative/Mixed
(The individual is important but the family is still the bedrock of society, although some deny that society exists)
Feminism
Feminism is such a mixed bag, for nearly every issue you can find Feminists who oppose each other, pro and anti pornography for example. As a general rule Feminism is Liberalism as applied to women. Most Feminists are of a Socialist bend, but we should never forget that Feminism quietly in the background supports Right-Liberalism as well. The Corporate world is a big a supporter of jobs for the girls just as much as the Governmet and the NGO sector.
Politically: Socialist/Liberal
(More Socialist than Liberal)
Economically: Socialist/Liberal
(More Socialist than Liberal)
Socially: Radical
(What is good for Feminist women and the broad Left, it changes on which is more important women or the Left.)
Many people will tell you that Libertarians are Liberals, but Libertarians are Anarchists who support business. I do not think that Anarchists are Liberals. Although if Liberalism was to create the society they wanted only Libertarians and Anarchists would be around.
It is important to be able to tell the difference between the different types of Liberals that we see. I hope this helps!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
(More Socialist than Liberal)
Economically: Socialist/Liberal
(More Socialist than Liberal)
Socially: Radical
(What is good for Feminist women and the broad Left, it changes on which is more important women or the Left.)
Many people will tell you that Libertarians are Liberals, but Libertarians are Anarchists who support business. I do not think that Anarchists are Liberals. Although if Liberalism was to create the society they wanted only Libertarians and Anarchists would be around.
It is important to be able to tell the difference between the different types of Liberals that we see. I hope this helps!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminists Versus Women
Thursday, 31 December 2015
Destroying the Family
In the last 50 years the Family has gone from strong to weak, from being the bedrock of society to being seen by many as just one of many options in life.(The Family Versus Liberalism) The destruction of the Family continues today and will continue into the future. The way that it has been destroyed is an interesting look at how Liberalism operates in practice.
First of all Liberalism pushed the idea of personal liberty, your you're own person, you can do as you want, don't let anyone tell you what to do. Not your parents, not your teachers or your church, don't obey the law if you feel it is unjust. Do as you want, do as you feel because that is what makes you free. When people try to bring you back into the fold they are oppressors and Fascists, you cannot let people like that run your life, be free, don't allow them to restrict you. Coupled with this was a very old idea that made a comeback in the 1960's, that idea was Free-Love. Which is not about love at all but about lust. This idea is much older and has a spotty history with Liberalism. But under Left Liberalism it became official. Today we live in a Free-Love society.
Along with that went the idea that marriage should not be a sexual prison, people within marriage should be free to express themselves. If someone committed adultery they shouldn't be punished, it was a problem between two people, only those within the marriage could have any problem. It was not something that society, the church or the Government should have any say in. Of course that rewarded the adulterer and punished the innocent party. But if marriage is not to remain a sexual prison then that is the price that must be paid.
Liberalism has talked about equality since the 1830's, that people were all the same under the skin and that nothing really divide's the Human race. In line with that came Feminism, it was roughly the same again as Equality within Liberalism. But it really came into it's own under the patronage of Left Liberalism. As a part of Identity Politics it was perfect, it helped break up the natural bond between men and women by saying to women "You know all the things in life that upset you? Well they're the fault of men and we can fix them!" Fix the problems or fix men, Feminism likes to be a bit ambiguous on this point. But it did nothing to encourage men and women to be caring and supportive of each other. Instead Feminism encouraged women to become Bachelors
Allied to Feminism was another form of Identity Politics, Gay Liberation. Or as we Conservatives call it the Homosexual Agenda. What was so destructive about the Homosexual Agenda was the idea that there was nothing normal. Everything was normal, everything was natural, everything should be allowed and once it is allowed it becomes endorsed and supported. It was not homosexuality itself that was so much the problem as the ideas that came attached to it. The idea that everything is normal is very destructive.
At around the same time Governments began to provide financial support for women who became pregnant out of wedlock. This encouraged women to be promiscuous, it discouraged marriage because if a women married she would lose her benefits, it stopped men from being proper fathers as poor men cannot compete with the resources of the Government and this lack of stability has an impact upon men, women and children. While it provides short term relief, it causes long term problems. (How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage)
But the most damaging of all was No Fault Divorce. The rest might have faded away over time but No Fault Divorce is the plague that just keeps on giving. The idea was that people trapped in a loveless or harmful marriage should be able to divorce, okay maybe thats right, maybe they should be able to. But No Fault Divorce goes that step further and says it might be embarrassing for people to have to admit why they want a divorce so it is better if we ask no questions and just grant the divorce. Before this if someone wanted a divorce they needed a good reason, but now any reason would do. So instead of people trying to make their marriage work because they had too, they now could get divorced. It destroyed marriages, it destroyed families, it destroyed lives and it still does. But maybe worst of all is that it destroys the idea that marriage is permanent, that marriage is a real commitment. It destroys the idea that marriage is forever.
And this list is only those things that the Left Liberals brought to bare, it doesn't include the economic consequences of Mass Immigration or Free-Trade. The Family is under threat, the very idea of the Family is under threat. People have grown so used to the way the world is today that they think things are normal. But nothing about these times is normal. We need to remember that and to let others know, we need to wake people up.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article /you Might Like?
The Paradox of Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
First of all Liberalism pushed the idea of personal liberty, your you're own person, you can do as you want, don't let anyone tell you what to do. Not your parents, not your teachers or your church, don't obey the law if you feel it is unjust. Do as you want, do as you feel because that is what makes you free. When people try to bring you back into the fold they are oppressors and Fascists, you cannot let people like that run your life, be free, don't allow them to restrict you. Coupled with this was a very old idea that made a comeback in the 1960's, that idea was Free-Love. Which is not about love at all but about lust. This idea is much older and has a spotty history with Liberalism. But under Left Liberalism it became official. Today we live in a Free-Love society.
Along with that went the idea that marriage should not be a sexual prison, people within marriage should be free to express themselves. If someone committed adultery they shouldn't be punished, it was a problem between two people, only those within the marriage could have any problem. It was not something that society, the church or the Government should have any say in. Of course that rewarded the adulterer and punished the innocent party. But if marriage is not to remain a sexual prison then that is the price that must be paid.
Liberalism has talked about equality since the 1830's, that people were all the same under the skin and that nothing really divide's the Human race. In line with that came Feminism, it was roughly the same again as Equality within Liberalism. But it really came into it's own under the patronage of Left Liberalism. As a part of Identity Politics it was perfect, it helped break up the natural bond between men and women by saying to women "You know all the things in life that upset you? Well they're the fault of men and we can fix them!" Fix the problems or fix men, Feminism likes to be a bit ambiguous on this point. But it did nothing to encourage men and women to be caring and supportive of each other. Instead Feminism encouraged women to become Bachelors
Allied to Feminism was another form of Identity Politics, Gay Liberation. Or as we Conservatives call it the Homosexual Agenda. What was so destructive about the Homosexual Agenda was the idea that there was nothing normal. Everything was normal, everything was natural, everything should be allowed and once it is allowed it becomes endorsed and supported. It was not homosexuality itself that was so much the problem as the ideas that came attached to it. The idea that everything is normal is very destructive.
At around the same time Governments began to provide financial support for women who became pregnant out of wedlock. This encouraged women to be promiscuous, it discouraged marriage because if a women married she would lose her benefits, it stopped men from being proper fathers as poor men cannot compete with the resources of the Government and this lack of stability has an impact upon men, women and children. While it provides short term relief, it causes long term problems. (How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage)
But the most damaging of all was No Fault Divorce. The rest might have faded away over time but No Fault Divorce is the plague that just keeps on giving. The idea was that people trapped in a loveless or harmful marriage should be able to divorce, okay maybe thats right, maybe they should be able to. But No Fault Divorce goes that step further and says it might be embarrassing for people to have to admit why they want a divorce so it is better if we ask no questions and just grant the divorce. Before this if someone wanted a divorce they needed a good reason, but now any reason would do. So instead of people trying to make their marriage work because they had too, they now could get divorced. It destroyed marriages, it destroyed families, it destroyed lives and it still does. But maybe worst of all is that it destroys the idea that marriage is permanent, that marriage is a real commitment. It destroys the idea that marriage is forever.
And this list is only those things that the Left Liberals brought to bare, it doesn't include the economic consequences of Mass Immigration or Free-Trade. The Family is under threat, the very idea of the Family is under threat. People have grown so used to the way the world is today that they think things are normal. But nothing about these times is normal. We need to remember that and to let others know, we need to wake people up.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article /you Might Like?
The Paradox of Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
Friday, 25 December 2015
The Family Versus Liberalism
The Liberal attitude to the family has changed over time. Classical Liberalism was supportive of the family, in practice if hostile in theory. But modern Liberalism is hostile in both practice and theory. Why did this change?
Classical Liberalism was hostile to the family in theory, it believed in liberty over tradition, it believed that Priests, Kings and Fathers had too much power and they did much to reduce the power of all three. They believed in equality, they liberalised divorce laws, gave women property rights and extended the electoral franchise, first the Middle class, then the Working class and then Women. They sort to destroy the old world of certainty and to create one of opportunity. But at the same time they were very Socially Conservative. Religion played a big part, both for those who were devout and for those who saw religion as a tradition. They saw marriage as the logical and as the moral place for men and women to congregate. They rejected such Radical ideas as Free Love, Polygamy or Group Marriage. They believed in marriage being between one man and one women for life, except in extreme circumstances.
Furthermore they were big supporters of privacy, in the doctrine that a mans home was his castle. That the law had to have a valid reason to enter the home. And Liberal law was very strict in this regard. It was proof of their strong commitment to property law and to personal liberty.
But what should be obvious is that much of these ideas were at cross purposes, in Lawrence Austers phrase, they were Unprincipled Exceptions. An Unprincipled Exception is where Liberalism proclaims a grand idea, usually a Universal idea and then decides that their are exceptions to their universal idea, exceptions that are entirely unprincipled. So they simultaneously support the institution of marriage and reducing the power of Fathers, the granting of divorce and giving women property rights, which came at the expense of these womens Fathers and Husbands.
Around 1900, Liberalism moved into a new phase, Socialism, which ironically came into being as a reaction and as a rejection of Liberalism, came to be very influential within Liberalism. In fact it worked both ways. Liberalism came to influence Socialism, just as Socialism came to influence Liberalism. But this Socialist Liberalism was still Socially Conservative. It was primarily in economic matters that things changed and while society was slowly becoming less religious the older standards still stood. Marriage was regarded as an institution, one that didn't need any reforming.
That all changed with the death of Classical Liberalism in the 1950's. Once the idea of Class Warfare entered Liberalism from Communism then everything started to change. Within Communism, Class Warfare says that there are two kinds of classes, the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class. You are either in one class or the other class, there are no neutral people, everyone is either oppressed or the oppressor. And Class Warfare is perpetual, it never ends until true Communism arrives. Class Warfare destroys both the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class and results, according to Communist theory at least, in a Classless Society.
Once this idea entered Liberalism, Liberalism split and the part we are interested in here is Left or Social Liberalism. Because it is upon this part that this idea fell. Within Liberalism, Class Warfare came to be known under many different names, but behind each one is this core idea. It was known as Civil Rights, Womens Rights, Indigenous Rights, Gay Rights. What has come to be called Identity Politics. In each case a coherent argument could and was made that these were not Radical causes they were simply a plea to give Liberal freedoms to people who had unfairly been denied that freedom. But Liberalism believes something that Communism doesn't. Communism believes that there is only so much power to go round, something Conservatives agree with. However Liberalism believes that power is unlimited. So a Communist understands that if one man has power that power has to come from somewhere, it came at someone elses expense, and because their belief in Class Warfare they approve of that. Liberalism believes that if one man has power then he has joined everyone else who has power. Power has a magical ability to be unlimited.
With that in mind, giving power to groups who believe they have been denied power is expanding the amount of people who are free and have power. Liberalism see's this as a great advance, as all positive and no negative. But sadly as a Conservative I think the Communists are right (I bet that sentence has never been written before!). That power is limited and that if you give it to one group you must take it from another. That is most obvious when you look at what Women as a Class have obtained, it has come at the expense of Men as a Class. It has never been portrayed that way, it is always portrayed as all good, but taking away a man's ability to gain employment and promotion has serious consequences, for men, for women and for society. But Liberalism ignores all of these things, because it believes in the Individual and not in Society.
Left Liberalism is no longer Socially Conservative and Right Liberalism even denies that there is such a thing as Society. The Family is something they do not respect or believe to be important. The idea of preparing for the future has left them as they can see their perfect society coming into form. It is an illusion, they think that the destruction of Society, of the Family will lead to a Classless Society. A World without Racism or Discrimination, they believe that such a world is close. But without the Family there can be no future.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Did Business Turn Against Family?
Classical Liberalism was hostile to the family in theory, it believed in liberty over tradition, it believed that Priests, Kings and Fathers had too much power and they did much to reduce the power of all three. They believed in equality, they liberalised divorce laws, gave women property rights and extended the electoral franchise, first the Middle class, then the Working class and then Women. They sort to destroy the old world of certainty and to create one of opportunity. But at the same time they were very Socially Conservative. Religion played a big part, both for those who were devout and for those who saw religion as a tradition. They saw marriage as the logical and as the moral place for men and women to congregate. They rejected such Radical ideas as Free Love, Polygamy or Group Marriage. They believed in marriage being between one man and one women for life, except in extreme circumstances.
Furthermore they were big supporters of privacy, in the doctrine that a mans home was his castle. That the law had to have a valid reason to enter the home. And Liberal law was very strict in this regard. It was proof of their strong commitment to property law and to personal liberty.
But what should be obvious is that much of these ideas were at cross purposes, in Lawrence Austers phrase, they were Unprincipled Exceptions. An Unprincipled Exception is where Liberalism proclaims a grand idea, usually a Universal idea and then decides that their are exceptions to their universal idea, exceptions that are entirely unprincipled. So they simultaneously support the institution of marriage and reducing the power of Fathers, the granting of divorce and giving women property rights, which came at the expense of these womens Fathers and Husbands.
Around 1900, Liberalism moved into a new phase, Socialism, which ironically came into being as a reaction and as a rejection of Liberalism, came to be very influential within Liberalism. In fact it worked both ways. Liberalism came to influence Socialism, just as Socialism came to influence Liberalism. But this Socialist Liberalism was still Socially Conservative. It was primarily in economic matters that things changed and while society was slowly becoming less religious the older standards still stood. Marriage was regarded as an institution, one that didn't need any reforming.
That all changed with the death of Classical Liberalism in the 1950's. Once the idea of Class Warfare entered Liberalism from Communism then everything started to change. Within Communism, Class Warfare says that there are two kinds of classes, the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class. You are either in one class or the other class, there are no neutral people, everyone is either oppressed or the oppressor. And Class Warfare is perpetual, it never ends until true Communism arrives. Class Warfare destroys both the Oppressor Class and the Oppressed Class and results, according to Communist theory at least, in a Classless Society.
Once this idea entered Liberalism, Liberalism split and the part we are interested in here is Left or Social Liberalism. Because it is upon this part that this idea fell. Within Liberalism, Class Warfare came to be known under many different names, but behind each one is this core idea. It was known as Civil Rights, Womens Rights, Indigenous Rights, Gay Rights. What has come to be called Identity Politics. In each case a coherent argument could and was made that these were not Radical causes they were simply a plea to give Liberal freedoms to people who had unfairly been denied that freedom. But Liberalism believes something that Communism doesn't. Communism believes that there is only so much power to go round, something Conservatives agree with. However Liberalism believes that power is unlimited. So a Communist understands that if one man has power that power has to come from somewhere, it came at someone elses expense, and because their belief in Class Warfare they approve of that. Liberalism believes that if one man has power then he has joined everyone else who has power. Power has a magical ability to be unlimited.
With that in mind, giving power to groups who believe they have been denied power is expanding the amount of people who are free and have power. Liberalism see's this as a great advance, as all positive and no negative. But sadly as a Conservative I think the Communists are right (I bet that sentence has never been written before!). That power is limited and that if you give it to one group you must take it from another. That is most obvious when you look at what Women as a Class have obtained, it has come at the expense of Men as a Class. It has never been portrayed that way, it is always portrayed as all good, but taking away a man's ability to gain employment and promotion has serious consequences, for men, for women and for society. But Liberalism ignores all of these things, because it believes in the Individual and not in Society.
Left Liberalism is no longer Socially Conservative and Right Liberalism even denies that there is such a thing as Society. The Family is something they do not respect or believe to be important. The idea of preparing for the future has left them as they can see their perfect society coming into form. It is an illusion, they think that the destruction of Society, of the Family will lead to a Classless Society. A World without Racism or Discrimination, they believe that such a world is close. But without the Family there can be no future.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Did Business Turn Against Family?
Thursday, 17 December 2015
Was Ronald Reagan a Conservative?
Ronald Reagan was a movie actor, Governor of California and most famously the 40th President of the United States. His policies helped end the Soviet Union and the Cold War, historically he is a very important man. But my question is, was he a Conservative?
The short answer is no.
But you probably want the long answer.
When Ronald Reagan was an actor he was a Liberal, very Liberal. He supported many of the fashionable Leftist causes of the 1930's. He supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, he supported civil rights, he was a stock standard Liberal. Although he was very Patriotic, in 1937 he became a Reserve Army Officer and served during WWII, first in the Cavalry and from May 1942 in the Army Air Force. He never served overseas due to his poor eyesight, instead he made movies, mostly training films for the Armed Forces.
Between 1941 and 1959 he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild 7 times, the only US President to have be a member of a Union. It was during this time that he started to become more conservative or maybe as many Liberals complained they didn't change but their party did. In fact he often said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. They left me.". Certainly during this time the Democratic Party was changing. But three things drove Ronald Reagan from being a Democrat to becoming a Republican.
The first was a strike in the late 1940's when he saw violence on the picket lines and Communist organisers organising it. He may have been Liberal but he was never a Communist or a fellow traveler.
The second was the huge tax bill's that he paid during the 1950's. The 1950's were a time of large Government expenditure and unlike today were we have large Government expenditure and low tax and high debt, back then it was paid for by tax. As much as 90% income tax, which meant that he sometimes didn't work because he didn't make enough money. It showed him that Socialism didn't work and turned him against high taxes.
The third was his becoming the spokesmen for General Electric, in the 1950's Businessmen were much more Conservative than now. They believed in free enterprise, they were patriotic and they were socially Conservative. As he spent more time with General Electric he came to see that they shared much more in common than he had first thought. It was his involvement with General Electric that lead to his political career.
In 1964 he support Barry Goldwater, another Conservative who was always a Classical Liberal, for the Presidency. His campaigning for Mr. Goldwater saw him recruited to be the Republican candidate for Governor of California. In 1966 he won the election, he supported the death penalty, but only used it once as there were legal problems with the California Supreme Court. He was very anti-Hippy and he was against the welfare state. I should also add that he was very much in favour of the war in Vietnam, unlike most who started by supporting the war and turned against it, he never changed his mind in private or in public.
However he also legalised abortion and no fault divorce. In fact he was the first Governor to do either. He later said that he regretted making abortion legal and that he was inexperienced as a Governor when he signed it into law, if he had been given the law later on in his career he wouldn't have signed it.
He also let his personal feelings get in the way by passing into law No Fault Divorce. He is the only President to have ever been divorced. Before No Fault Divorce you had to prove to a Judge that there was a valid reason for the divorce and he found it humiliating. So he thought it would be better if you did not need to show a reason in court. He also came to regret this decision.
In 1980, on his third attempt he became the Republican nominee for President of the United States and of course he won. He was very good on Foreign policy, mostly. He stood up to the Soviets, he built up America defence, he invaded Grenada and stopped it from becoming a smaller Cuba. He set out to win the Cold War, something every other President had decided was too dangerous, and he did.
On the flip side his policy in Lebanon resulted in the US Marines seeing their worst single day since Iwo Jima in WWII. It was so bad it was really a non-policy. He allowed Pakistan too much room and we are still paying for that today. It wasn't the US who armed the Islamist's in Afghanistan but Pakistan, with Americas money.
On the economic front his policies defeated inflation, the great destroyer of wealth and living standards. In the 1970's it seemed unbeatable, so his achievement was great.
However he also supported Free Trade and trade liberalization, he supported Wall Street over Main Street and he never balanced a budget. He left America with a massive debt.
Now in time of war it is acceptable for a Government to get into debt, even massive debt. The Cold War was a war and President Reagan used debt as a weapon to help defeat Communism. He believed, correctly, that the Soviet Union as a country that had a Socialist economy simply could not find the money to build up it's military, particularly in technology. He outspent the Soviets and bankrupted them. It was a brilliant strategy, to use money to destroy Communism. And if during the past 25 years the US Government had paid off that debt, America would be unbeatable, however it has gone into ever greater amounts of debt.
But his greatest mistake as President was the Immigration Amnesty of 1986, or to give it it's proper name the Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986. The idea was that an amnesty would be signed to make illegal Immigrants legal and in return to make Congress enforce the law more vigorously. The Act did legalise the illegal Immigrants, but it did not lead to more vigorous enforcement of the law. It was a total victory for the left. After he left office President Reagan said it had been a mistake and he regretted it. But how could he not know that rewarding illegal activity is wrong? He not only rewarded it but he praised it to the skies when he signed it into law at Ellis Island.
Now lets get back to whether President Reagan was a Conservative, here are the five criteria for a Conservative:
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to your own People
5. Loyal to your own Heritage
Now lets look at each.
He legalised Abortion and No Fault Divorce, Socially Conservative, No!
He got America into massive debt and he never balanced a budget, or even tried too, Fiscally Conservative, No!
He saw Wall Street replace Main Street, the financial economy replace the real economy and he approved of it. He supported trade liberalization over American manufacturing, Economically Conservative, No!
He granted Amnesty and rewarded illegal activity and America has paid a massive price for that. He did nothing to stop legal Immigration. Was he loyal to his own People, No!.
Was he loyal to his own Heritage, Yes!
No Conservative could ever support No Fault Divorce or Abortion on demand, there may be arguments for either in limited circumstances but never as a right. These are Liberal ideas and he made them law, Ronald Reagan was a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative, but as the modern meaning of Conservative seems to mean "not a Socialist"", he was called a Conservative and even believed he was one. But he was not and we should not keep calling him one.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism Just Another Branch of Liberalism II
The short answer is no.
But you probably want the long answer.
When Ronald Reagan was an actor he was a Liberal, very Liberal. He supported many of the fashionable Leftist causes of the 1930's. He supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, he supported civil rights, he was a stock standard Liberal. Although he was very Patriotic, in 1937 he became a Reserve Army Officer and served during WWII, first in the Cavalry and from May 1942 in the Army Air Force. He never served overseas due to his poor eyesight, instead he made movies, mostly training films for the Armed Forces.
Between 1941 and 1959 he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild 7 times, the only US President to have be a member of a Union. It was during this time that he started to become more conservative or maybe as many Liberals complained they didn't change but their party did. In fact he often said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. They left me.". Certainly during this time the Democratic Party was changing. But three things drove Ronald Reagan from being a Democrat to becoming a Republican.
The first was a strike in the late 1940's when he saw violence on the picket lines and Communist organisers organising it. He may have been Liberal but he was never a Communist or a fellow traveler.
The second was the huge tax bill's that he paid during the 1950's. The 1950's were a time of large Government expenditure and unlike today were we have large Government expenditure and low tax and high debt, back then it was paid for by tax. As much as 90% income tax, which meant that he sometimes didn't work because he didn't make enough money. It showed him that Socialism didn't work and turned him against high taxes.
The third was his becoming the spokesmen for General Electric, in the 1950's Businessmen were much more Conservative than now. They believed in free enterprise, they were patriotic and they were socially Conservative. As he spent more time with General Electric he came to see that they shared much more in common than he had first thought. It was his involvement with General Electric that lead to his political career.
In 1964 he support Barry Goldwater, another Conservative who was always a Classical Liberal, for the Presidency. His campaigning for Mr. Goldwater saw him recruited to be the Republican candidate for Governor of California. In 1966 he won the election, he supported the death penalty, but only used it once as there were legal problems with the California Supreme Court. He was very anti-Hippy and he was against the welfare state. I should also add that he was very much in favour of the war in Vietnam, unlike most who started by supporting the war and turned against it, he never changed his mind in private or in public.
However he also legalised abortion and no fault divorce. In fact he was the first Governor to do either. He later said that he regretted making abortion legal and that he was inexperienced as a Governor when he signed it into law, if he had been given the law later on in his career he wouldn't have signed it.
He also let his personal feelings get in the way by passing into law No Fault Divorce. He is the only President to have ever been divorced. Before No Fault Divorce you had to prove to a Judge that there was a valid reason for the divorce and he found it humiliating. So he thought it would be better if you did not need to show a reason in court. He also came to regret this decision.
In 1980, on his third attempt he became the Republican nominee for President of the United States and of course he won. He was very good on Foreign policy, mostly. He stood up to the Soviets, he built up America defence, he invaded Grenada and stopped it from becoming a smaller Cuba. He set out to win the Cold War, something every other President had decided was too dangerous, and he did.
On the flip side his policy in Lebanon resulted in the US Marines seeing their worst single day since Iwo Jima in WWII. It was so bad it was really a non-policy. He allowed Pakistan too much room and we are still paying for that today. It wasn't the US who armed the Islamist's in Afghanistan but Pakistan, with Americas money.
On the economic front his policies defeated inflation, the great destroyer of wealth and living standards. In the 1970's it seemed unbeatable, so his achievement was great.
However he also supported Free Trade and trade liberalization, he supported Wall Street over Main Street and he never balanced a budget. He left America with a massive debt.
Now in time of war it is acceptable for a Government to get into debt, even massive debt. The Cold War was a war and President Reagan used debt as a weapon to help defeat Communism. He believed, correctly, that the Soviet Union as a country that had a Socialist economy simply could not find the money to build up it's military, particularly in technology. He outspent the Soviets and bankrupted them. It was a brilliant strategy, to use money to destroy Communism. And if during the past 25 years the US Government had paid off that debt, America would be unbeatable, however it has gone into ever greater amounts of debt.
But his greatest mistake as President was the Immigration Amnesty of 1986, or to give it it's proper name the Immigration Reform and Control Act 1986. The idea was that an amnesty would be signed to make illegal Immigrants legal and in return to make Congress enforce the law more vigorously. The Act did legalise the illegal Immigrants, but it did not lead to more vigorous enforcement of the law. It was a total victory for the left. After he left office President Reagan said it had been a mistake and he regretted it. But how could he not know that rewarding illegal activity is wrong? He not only rewarded it but he praised it to the skies when he signed it into law at Ellis Island.
Now lets get back to whether President Reagan was a Conservative, here are the five criteria for a Conservative:
1. Socially Conservative
2. Fiscally Conservative
3. Economically Conservative
4. Loyal to your own People
5. Loyal to your own Heritage
Now lets look at each.
He legalised Abortion and No Fault Divorce, Socially Conservative, No!
He got America into massive debt and he never balanced a budget, or even tried too, Fiscally Conservative, No!
He saw Wall Street replace Main Street, the financial economy replace the real economy and he approved of it. He supported trade liberalization over American manufacturing, Economically Conservative, No!
He granted Amnesty and rewarded illegal activity and America has paid a massive price for that. He did nothing to stop legal Immigration. Was he loyal to his own People, No!.
Was he loyal to his own Heritage, Yes!
No Conservative could ever support No Fault Divorce or Abortion on demand, there may be arguments for either in limited circumstances but never as a right. These are Liberal ideas and he made them law, Ronald Reagan was a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative, but as the modern meaning of Conservative seems to mean "not a Socialist"", he was called a Conservative and even believed he was one. But he was not and we should not keep calling him one.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism Just Another Branch of Liberalism II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)