Some Thoughts On Identity Politics

Vox Day has written many times that all politics is identity politics, over at Amerika, Mr. Brett Stevens has an excellent article critiquing International Womens Day. In this article he writes the following

" Like most minority-against-majority politics, it creates a false "identity" based not on membership to a larger group"

Now I agree with what both of these men have written, but if all politics is identity based how can there be a false identity? Doesn't a false identity imply that there is no real identity, or to put it another way how can a person not know their real identity?

First let me answer why I agree with these men and why even though it seems as if they are disagreeing they are not. The reason both men are correct is because of the Conservative principle of Order. Order is the idea that everything has it's rightful place but that also means that everything has a wrongful place, a place it simply should not exist. So here we have the two both saying that things have a natural order and then we have Mr. Stevens pointing out that when that is upset then there is a false identity. For example it is right that people of a particular ethnicity should side with each other. Because an ethnicity is part of the natural order, it is organic and self perpetuating.

Unlike Feminism which is unnatural and non perpetuating, instead it can only exist by breaking up what is natural. It creates a false identity, it alienates people from their past, their present and in too many cases from their future. And here is where we leave Conservatism and move to Liberalism to answer the second point. Why is there such a thing as minority-against majority? Why does there exist unnatural things such as Feminism?

Liberalism is an acid and it destroys everything it touches, it is a wholly destructive force. Now Liberalism has two tricks it pulls, first it allies itself with things people like as in "Liberal Democracy". If you ask a random person what Democracy is they will most likely have an answer. Ask them what Liberalism is and they won't and there is their second trick, to pretend it doesn't even exist. Liberalism to most people is vaguely good, and both words are important.

Liberals, Classical, Left, Right, Feminist, Anarchist, Libertarian, Neo-Conservatives, will all tell you that Liberalism or to be more precise their brand of Liberalism seeks to build a better world. A world in which people will be freer and more prosperous, they often like to use the word progress to describe their idea of the future. But when they say freer, what do they mean?

They mean you should be free from your parents, from having a spouse, from your country, your religion. Then and only then can you be truly free, free from responsibility, free from worry, free from thought, free from consequences, free from reality. You can then be free to be a Liberal.

But to move from this world to that means destruction, everything that stands between there and here must be destroyed. Everything they do is about destruction. Which means they go looking for things that will help with that destruction. They look for weak points and try to drive a wedge in to make them bigger. They find groups of people who have a grievance and push them forward, they give them give support, organisational, money, slogans, whatever they need to push their grievance. It's not hard to find people with grievances, but it is hard to push them into doing what you want. Liberalism uses everything it has to push, fellow-travelers, the law, illegal action, it uses everything.

It creates false identities because they are just as destructive as natural identities. Everything is aimed at destruction because they think that when they have destroyed everything then they will rebuild everything in the image that they want. But once they have destroyed everything there will be nothing to rebuild with!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Should We Still Call Ourselves Conservatives? 

The Conservative Dictionary: Racist

RACIST (pronounce: race-ist) noun

1. A person or group who is winning or has won an argument with a Liberal or Leftist
(eg. Only a racist would want to cut immigration by as much as 1%!)

2. A person or group who notices that race exists
(eg. Race does not exist you racist!)

3. A person or group who is loyal to their own race or ethnicity
(eg. White countries should be filled with White people! You're a racist!)

4. A White person or group that is not ashamed of being White
(eg. Only a racist wouldn't be ashamed of being white!)

5. A person or group that is involved in racing
(eg. Racing is a great sport, I'm so glad I could experience it with so many other racists!)


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

Why Do Men Like Pretty Women?

Have you ever heard someone say that men are superficial because they like pretty women? You may not have heard that said exactly like that but I'm sure you've heard something similar. I'm sure because I've heard it more than once. There is an idea out there that how a women looks should not be important. But that instead men should be attracted to her personality, temperament, her job or status, in extreme cases that men should find any random women attractive.

But men continue to be attracted to pretty women and there are some opinions about why. Some will tell it is because women are aesthetically pleasing, in other words women are like fine art, a thing of beauty that should be admired for it's own sake. Others will tell you that it is simple lust, that when a man looks at a women he is thinking of the beastly things he could do with this beauty. And there is truth in both, but not the whole truth.

Men and women are physical creatures, biological creatures and our bodies are designed to be attractive to the opposite sex. But men and women are different, they perform different functions and they serve different purposes and this fact is reflected in our bodies.

Why do women have long hair?

Why do women like it to be shiny?

Why is the size and clarity of a women's eyes important?

Why is the symmetry of a women's face and smile important?

Why is the condition of her skin important?

Why is the shape and firmness of a women's body important?

Why is her looking young important?

Because each of these things is a physical indicator of her physical health and the potential health of her babies. Now men don't consciously know this, but their subconscious does and it is this subconscious that often makes decisions for us in the background. How often have you heard the idea that you cannot help who you are attracted too?

So if all of this is about making babies what about when a man is after a women for a short time, instead of a long time? Shouldn't a man who is simply after sex be less fussy, certainly, but if he has a  choice he will choose the women he thinks is the most attractive.

Now women are not simply physical beings, they have other flaws and virtues, do these get a look in or is a man only interested in looks and nothing else? No, a man is interested in more than simply looks, in this order:

1. Looks

2. Personality

3. Intelligence

4. Everything Else

If a man is very interested in a women's money or status he is not really interested in her at all. The view I've put forward here could be described as Darwinian and that only pretty women need apply and all other women are condemned to a lonely life. But that fails to take into account a very important point, attractive women like attractive men. So what happens when a man isn't that attractive? He becomes less fussy and more realistic.

One final point, I haven't mentioned love and love is very important. It even has a bearing on a women's looks, when a man is in love than the women that he loves is the most beautiful women in the world. When you hear a very old man say that his wife, who is also very old, is beautiful he means it, because in his minds eye he still see's her as she looked in her glory days. It is one of the really beautiful things about a man's love for a women, he will always remember the beauty of the women he loves no matter how long ago.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Taxes, Budgets and the Economy

Amerika Interviews Me

Over at Oz Conservative there is a link to a site called Amerika. The site is run by Mr. Brett Stevens and he is a dynamo when it comes to turning out interesting and thought provoking articles. I'm stunned by the quantity and quality that he produces. Not all of the articles are written by Mr. Stevens, only the majority.

A few weeks ago I left a comment to one of his articles and he came and had a look at my blog. He wasted no time in asking to interview me and today he has published the interview. I was quite impressed with his questions as they showed that he had read the blog and saw it's unique faults and merits. Which made it a pleasure to answer his questions and it provides a look at the blog from someone else's perspective.

Interview with Mark Moncrieff of Upon Hope

Enjoy.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Paleo-Conservativism, Why We Are Not Paleo-Conservatives

Is There a Path For Men Anymore?

I was born in 1970 and when I was growing up there was a path for men to follow, at least in theory. The theory said get an education, get a job, meet a girl, fall in love, get married, have children, buy a house. Non of that sounds bad to me and it didn't then. But during my lifetime all of those things that allowed that life to be lived have been attacked. And today things are much worse and the truth was they weren't much fun back then.

Education is the easy part, your practically forced to get an education because there are no jobs for young people to go into. So everyone stays at school or goes on to some form of Higher Education simply because they don't have any choice. That fact is often hidden by providing a false choice, what course are you going to study? See it looks like it's all your choice, you get to make these choices. But as everyone is in the same boat and everyone is getting more and more educated your choice is nearly worthless. Because hardly anyone needs that level of education, it's make busy work and it's very hard to avoid.

Jobs, the last time Australia had full employment was in the 1970's. My older brothers and sisters told me how you could quit a job in the morning and get a new job in the afternoon. But that economy didn't exist in the 1980's, but people did talk about bringing back full employment. In 1992 the Australian Government released a paper on how to do it, of course it never happened and since then the whole idea has been dropped as if an economy with full employment never existed. Instead we have an economy with part time jobs, casual jobs and lots of unemployment. Unemployment is bad and I find that people who have never experienced it have no idea about it's effects. When your unemployed your life stops and that includes with women. If you do get a women have a good time because you sure won't have a long time. No women is interested in a man without money, not for long anyway. Add to that feminism, official Feminism that is, women get priority in employment and for promotion. They even have the gall to call it "equal opportunity"!

So that stops many men from rising up and if you'd like to go down the ladder and do a manual job, do you know Mandarin? The ever present and increasing Immigrant , they drive down standards, wages and opportunity just by turning up. So many men are left in the position were they cannot stay were they are because there are no jobs, they can't go up because those jobs have gone to women and they can't go down because of Immigrants. And every inch of it Government policy.

Well at least meeting a girl should be easy, I mean there are literally millions of 'em. If only that was true, sure you might be able to pick up a new girl every night but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about permanent relationships, but for millions of men those relationships aren't happening, and that means for millions of women as well. Feminism is a big problem here, the idea that women should concentrate on a career, the idea that relationships are traps, the idea that men are bad. Women have become quite standoffish, they reject men as they always have, but the dating game has gotten harder. In the past people meet through family or mutual friends, they met at work and everyone had the idea that this would lead somewhere, it wasn't undirected. But when so many women are concerned with careers that assumption no longer exists, in fact it is often explicitly denied. Men are treated as optional extras, instead of as the missing piece to a fulfilling life. Something else that makes dating worse now than in the past is technology, it puts another step in front of men that they now need to get past.

All of this means that it has become harder to fall in love, not lust, but love. It is extremely easy to fall in lust today. But here Feminism has done it's work again. It is amazing how many women will tell you they aren't Feminists and then behave as Feminists. I have heard a certain phrase for years "I don't need a man, I want a man!", but they never seem to understand that what men hear is "I didn't need this handbag, I wanted it and when I'm finished with it I'll get rid of it!". Because I assure you that is what men hear. Men, like women need to be needed, not wanted but needed. The, I couldn't live without you kind of thing. They need to know they have a purpose, but when women make their own money, men are denied the role of provider, but what is very clear is that women still expect a man to fulfill that role even when she is financially successful. Women having jobs make both men and women unhappy because women want men who are richer than themselves. And your much likelier to fall in love with someone your attracted to then someone your not.  

But lets just say a man does meet a women and fall in love, then marriage and children are the next step for most. But lets fact facts marriage isn't what it used to be. Once marriage was a byword for security, but we live today in the world of no-fault divorce and that means that no one is safe. Because there is no defence against no-fault divorce, no matter how smart, sexy, devoted or rich a man is. He can do everything right and still end up disposable. Men are not allowed to be fallible and that is simply an impossible standard for anyone.

No matter how things go you will always need a place to live, but even housing is becoming ridiculous. House prices are going through the roof in so many places. How do you raise a family when housing prices are so bad?

When I was growing up there was a path for men to follow, but so many men of my generation could not follow it, I couldn't. But at least there was a path, some guideline to follow. But today things are so bad for men that nearly all of this needs to be rebuilt. Women have changed and not for the better and that has been a miserable thing for men to see and experience. However that does not mean that women are entirely to blame or that nothing can be done to fix things. But it does mean that right now things are bad and they don't look like they are going to get better any time soon.

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

The Fall of Singapore and of the White Race

On the 15th February 2017 it was 75 years since Singapore was surrendered to the Japanese. In 1942 most of the world was run by White men, at that time there were less than 10 countries that were not. Today White men are losing control of even their own countries, let alone running other peoples. The fall of Singapore was the start of that decline.

Winston Churchill said the fall of Singapore was a British and Imperial defeat, it was also the end of all of the European colonial empires. The fall of Singapore is one of the most important battles in world history. That may at first seem like quite a claim to make but I don't think so.

By December 1941, the month Japan entered the war, Britain and her Empire was fighting a large war in Europe, Africa and in the Middle East. It's forces had been pushed out of Europe twice, first at Dunkirk in 1940 and then from Greece in 1941. Britain and Malta had both been bombed and the sea routes to both were under attack. But for most of the Empire the effects of the war were not felt, because the fighting was happening far way. The same was true of the French Empire for the most part and the Belgian and the Dutch. The war was nearly entirely, but not exclusively, a European war. But Japan's entry into the war  was to change that.

But the truth was that Japan and it's military were not taken seriously by most Western Governments. I have in my collection a military pamphlet published by the Australian army in 1941 about the Japanese army, my copy has the stamp of the Director of Naval Intelligence in it. This pamphlet is a very serious and accurate description of the Japanese army, how it trained, was organised, equipped, commanded. But even with all of that information available, before Japan attacked, we still underestimated the ability of the Japanese. Why? The answer is simple, Japan was regarded as a second rate power because it was an Asian power, or to be more correct because it wasn't a White power.

In the centuries that it took to create the European Empires and their successor states, like the United States and the other states of the Americas, defeat by a non European army was extremely rare. It is truly remarkable how small armies or fleets of Whites would outfight, out perform and out think non-Europeans. Now many people will say of course they did they had better weapons and technology, but even when they were equipped like the Europeans they still lost. That of course does not mean that Europeans always won, there are many instances of Europeans being defeated. But what is remarkable is not that they were defeated but how small the forces defeated were.

Japan had however defeated a major European power all by itself, it had defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. But this was regarded as a once off, it was dismissed because Russia was a backwards country, in the opinion of others hardly a European country at all and besides Russia was operating thousands of miles from it's supply base. Some of those complaints were real, Russia was backwards compared to other Western countries and it was operating very far from it's supply base. But the professionalism of the Japanese was quickly forgotten.

The general opinion before WWII was that of course Whites ruled the world, they were superior. Why they were superior was a matter of debate, even then, but not that they were superior. Was it because of their Race? There Greek and Roman heritage? Their Christianity? Their education system? Their science? Their technology? Their political organisation? Their manufacturing? Their financial system? In the end most people simply treated them as interchangeable, the fact was that they were in charge and nothing was going to change or challenge that.

But the fall of Singapore did change all of that. Because no one, apart from the Japanese, thought it was even possible. Britain, even in 1941 was a massive power. How could such an important colony as Malaya, the source of 70% of the worlds rubber, be lost? And in theory Malaya and Singapore should not have been lost. Singapore was a major naval base, but the ships that should have been there were instead in the Mediterranean or in the Atlantic. The planes that should have defended the skies were the left over machines that were obsolete and not wanted anywhere else. The soldiers that should have defeated the Japanese were under trained and were used poorly. Non of that was true of the Japanese forces, what made the fall of Singapore even worse what that the Japanese were outnumbered 4 to 1!

Twice British has lost an Empire, it lost it's first at Yorktown in 1781 and it lost it's second at Singapore in 1941. After Singapore, after the defeat, the humiliating defeat, it was hard to believe anymore that Whites were superior. Singapore lead directly to the end of the European colonial Empires in Asia. It destroyed the unspoken agreement that said the colonial subjects would be loyal and in return they would be protected. They were not protected, surprising they were not bitter about that fact, but they had lost the trust that was required if things were to return to how they had been.

Singapore did not mean that the Empires ended overnight, but after Singapore it was hard to maintain the idea that Whites were superior. Whites were fallible just like everyone else, they could be defeated, they were not invincible. The fact that the colonial Empires were effectively bankrupt after WII and that the Soviets and the Americans were opposed to Empires did not help. But it was Singapore, the victory of an Asian power over a White one that changed everything. After Singapore there was no going back, the world had changed.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
95th Anniversary 

Tradition in Strange Places

I argued back in August 2016 that game has undergone a profound change of heart. It was in the beginning about men getting more than their fair share from the sexual smorgasbord that Liberalism has provided. But over time, as those who have lived this life has gotten older they began to see a different Liberal world. A world in which items on the sexual smorgasbord were in reality poison.

I present to you two examples of exactly that.

First is from Roosh V, who started Return of Kings. I am amazed at how Traditional this video is, it is both insightful and sad. Just to deal with one thing in this video, I think most people, men and women, only need a 8th Grade education. Please do watch.

Why are women being educated?

The second is from Dalrock, who has also taken quite a Traditional viewpoint, have a read of this one:

Denying the Feminist Rebellion


Here are two men who only a few short years ago would have laughed at us, now saying the same things that we think.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Future of the Nation-State