Why are Whites Always to Blame?

When reconciliation between White Australians and Aborigines stalls or fails.

When the dream of a colour blind world fails in the United States or South Africa.

When the multicultural dream fails in Europe.

You notice a recurring theme, the reason the dream has failed is white people. If only white’s had given up more, then the dream would have worked!

Because at the heart of this idea is the old Communist one of the Class Struggle, also known as Class Warfare. Class Struggle says that there are two Classes the class that has wealth and power and the class that has neither wealth nor power. The class with wealth and power is call the Oppressor Class and the class that does not is the Oppressed Class.  Further, Class Struggle says that there are no neutrals, everyone is involved in the struggle and they are a part of one class or they are a part of the other. If you are not being Oppressed then you are an Oppressor.

Class Struggle will only end when both classes have been destroyed and a classless society comes into being, what Communists call a Communist society.  The more Class Struggle, the closer society is to becoming classless. That is why Communists want strife because they believe it will bring about a perfect society quicker.

Now Communism didn’t have much to say about race or sex, it said that Class Struggle was scientific and that made it inevitable. They also believe that this applies to all people throughout time, so there was no need to have different rules for different peoples.

But over time this Communist idea made it’s way into Liberalism, into Left-Liberalism to be more precise. But it’s wasn’t an interest in social class than interested them, it was idea that classes of people existed. That this idea could be used for an idea that both Communists and Liberals were interested in, Leveling. For a classless society such as Communists want and for the Autonomous Individual that Liberals want, Leveling would be required. Leveling is the idea that there can be no poor or rich, no stupid or smart, that all people must be on the same level, they must be equal. That requires raising up those who are down and bringing down those who are up.  When people are equal then society will be perfect.

Left-Liberalism took this idea into areas that Communists had never thought of, race, sex and sexual orientation. Why are races or ethnic groups unequal? Why are some richer, why do some do better in school or in the economy. People have come up with many answers, biology, temperament, intelligence, history, opportunity, religious belief, environment, amongst many others. But if all people are equal then most of these answers just aren’t good enough. There must be some other answer and Class Struggle gave a way forward, it provided an answer for why some people get ahead and why others don’t. It gives a method of creating a perfect society and the end result of a classless society without a Communist government is a world of Autonomous Individuals.

So why are whites as a class doing so well compared to other racial or ethnic groups? It must be because they are the Oppressor class and all other races and ethnic groups are the Oppressed class. If Whites could be Leveled down, and at the same time the other races and ethnic groups could be Leveled up, then an equal society could be created.

So when something goes wrong in this little fantasy world that Liberalism has created, they blame the only people they can blame, whites. There is no one else to blame because you cannot blame the Oppressed can you?

All of this is logical if you believe that people and society are perfectible. Conservatives reject the very idea that either people or society are perfectible, we accept that people are flawed and that they always will be. The idea that one group of people are responsible for everything that goes wrong is absurd and we should always point this out.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Multiculturalism, The Conclusion

Where Have I Been?

Some of you may be wondering where I've been for the last (nearly) two weeks? My modem broke and it took a week to get a new one, then add on two weekends and then some technical issues and I've been away much longer than I wanted to be. If it's not one thing it's another, but I'm back on board now and as work has slowed down (knock on wood), things should get back to how they were. My goal is three posts a fortnight, I would be happy with that. So sorry for deserting you but now I'm back in the ranks ready to serve!

Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Are you Human?

I ask because for well over a century Liberals have used a very curious phrase "to be fully human". What a strange turn of phrase! If you are human, aren't you already fully human? Not according to Liberalism.

Liberalism seeks to create the Autonomous Individual, a person who is totally free and who possesses unlimited potential.  The Autonomous Individual is fully human!

You and I are not fully human because we are flawed, we are held back because we are defined by our race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, religion, class, amongst many other things, all of which stop our potential. We are neither free nor do we possess unlimited potential. That is why Liberalism put's so much importance into the idea that we are all equal. Because if we are all equal then we can be free, free from our race, free from our ethnicity, free from our sex, free from our religion, free from our class. We would become equal with everyone else, we would be made free of those things that hold us back, we would be made free of those things that divide us.  We would be empty vessels with unlimited potential. 

We could then choose our own ethnicity, our own race and sex, we would be empty vessels that would need to be filled. We would also need to be totally free. To be totally free we cannot have commitments or loyalties, they do not make a person free!

To be totally free we must not have nations to be loyal too, we must not have any form of group loyalty. There can be no loyalty to race or class or sex or family, all of these things are things that keep us committed and being committed makes us unfree. They must all be done away with. The Autonomous Individual only has one loyalty, to Liberalism of course.

To be quite blunt, being fully human sounds quite inhuman and it sounds that way because it is. The Liberal idea of making us into Autonomous Individuals is not a perfect world, it is a hell on Earth. Fully human...no thanks I'll stay flawed.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Childrens Rights, Do Children Have Rights

The Thirty-Fifth Month

I cannot believe it's the 11th again and that I have only done 3 posts this month!

While I am happy with what I have written I really thought I would get more done this month. Things at work have slowed down but I'm still trying to catch up with the rest of my life and anything I do means I cannot do something else. There is only so much time and I only have so much energy, sad but true. I really need to get back on track as I have many more ideas for posts. I have also been meaning to reply more to those who post comments, I really appreciate your thoughts and comments.

It takes me about 3 hours to write a post, my monthly update doesn't take that long at all, around 30-60 minutes. It takes about 3 hours as I find other things I need to do (in other words I procrastinate, which normally helps), I think about what I'm writing, I reread, I rewrite, reread, rewrite, as many times as I think I need to. I also need to be properly rested or it becomes quite a trial to write. Normally writing is enjoyable even though it requires discipline, stamina and imagination.

My best day this month was the 15th January when I had 104 visitors, my only day over 100!

My worst day this month was the 2nd February when I only had 43 visitors.

11th January-11th February

Entry Pageviews United States 967 Australia 265 Russia 110 United Kingdom 64 Germany 62 Ireland 58 France 48 China 28 Canada 26 Ukraine 26

11th December-11th January

Entry	Pageviews
United States	1073
Australia	271
Russia	82
United Kingdom	66
France	47
Germany	46
Ireland	35
China	32
India	28
Canada	20

Russia, Germany, Ireland and Canada are all up, the Ukraine is back in the top 10.

The United Kingdom and France are basically the same.

Australia and China are slightly down, the United States is quite down, to have it under 1000 is quite disappointing.

India has left the top 10.

I have also had visitors from the following countries Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Serbia, Romania, Turkey, Syria, Israel, U.A.E., Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Sudan, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina.

I hope to see you all again soon!

Mark Moncrieff 

Liberalism, Transgenderism and the Olympics

In November 2015 the International Olympics Committee (IOC), released a report IOC consensus meeting on sex reassignment and hyperandrogenism. It's only 3 pages long and quite readable, despite  the title, I recommend reading it.

The report treads a fine line between trying to be inclusive and trying to maintain standards. That all people should be able to participate in sport and that "The overriding sporting objective is and remains the guarantee of fair competition.". The three most interesting parts are here:

E. To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights.

F. Nothing in these guidelines is intended to undermine in any way the requirement to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code and the WADA International Standards.

G. These guidelines are a living document and will be subject to review in light of any scientific or medical developments.

E means that if you say your a particular Gender, then you are and G uses the dreaded words "These guidelines are a living document". So that means you can expect each and every Olympics to become a fight over whether a particular Transgender person is really what they say they are. It also means that this document is not the final word, it is simply a staging post. So while this document is probably as sensible as it can be, it will be used to push for further change in the future.

Further down it says this:

1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.

2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:

It's probably not that big an issue for women who say they are now men to compete against men. However it is interesting that there are 4 criteria for men who say they are women. It is here that the real (by real I mean practical) problem arises. Men are much stronger and faster than women so when a man says he is now a women he has an enormous advantage. If a country or a person is so consumed with the desire to win at all costs then this leaves the way open for legal cheating.

Soon you will start to see female records being broken left right and centre. We will all be told it's because female athletes aren't holding back now, their training is that good, they are that dedicated and motivated. We will be told that we must spend more on female sports because they are doing so well That women should get the same prize money as men as their just as good. And rarely if at all will we be told that Erica used to be Eric.

If these records are broken too quickly there will be a backlash, if however they occur in 15 years time then people most likely have been seduced by gradualism, the idea that over time people just get used to things, even crazy things. Then most people will simply go along with it.

But over time this will start to break the idea of the Olympics, Faster - Higher - Stronger. Because as people lose confidence that the Olympics are the best they will turn off, they will not want to compete, watch or finance the games. For Liberalism this a good thing. Competitors compete for their country at the Olympics and they win prices. Modern Liberalism isn't too keen on either idea, people should compete for their personal glory and ambition, not for their country. Furthermore graded prizes are not the idea of Equality, it would be better if each person was rewarded for attending not for proving that they were better then others.

Real athleticism is not what Liberalism wants because it shows the idea that all people are equal to be a lie. Maybe Liberalism will be able to make the Olympics an unprincipled exception, but Transgenderism doesn't point that way at all, it points to more Liberalism ideology. Put simply the Olympics cannot survive too much of that.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Lawrence Auster January 26 1949 March 29 2013

Why aren't Liberals Patriotic?

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

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