Saturday, 16 May 2015

Melbourne Traditionalist Guiding Principles

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

1. Loyalty to the Crown of Australia

2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage

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

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

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

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

uponhopeblog (at)

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

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


  1. "Opposition to Liberalism, Right Liberalism, Left Liberalism and Feminism." What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and Right Liberalism? Where do Libertarians fit in the spectrum of political categories? (Are they strict Classical Liberals, Right Liberals, or a mix between the two?) Why does Feminism have its own separate category and is not apart of Left Liberalism, also known as Progressive Liberals In America?

    1. My reply is here

  2. Loyalty to our British and Western heritage

    I agree strongly with that.

    The problem is that a traditionalist conservative can't any longer have the objective of conserving our heritage or our civilisation. They no longer exist. We would first need to recreate that heritage. Which is certainly what I would like to do.

    The bigger problem then is that if we would like to turn back the clock to a better age, how far would we have to turn it back? There's no point in wanting to go back to the 1950s. The forces that destroyed our civilisation were already well entrenched by then. The foundations of civilisation had already been well and truly undermined.

    Even the end of the 19th century might not be far enough. By then Christianity had already been fatally weakened, Freud had begun the task of destroying family life, the cults of modernism and progressivism had begun their unholy crusade, secularism was taking over, feminism was on the rise.

    The roots of the collapse of our civilisation go back a long way. Possibly as far as the Enlightenment.

    1. Mr. Doom

      We cannot go back, even if that were possible, we can only go forward. I think the real problem is the Reformation, not because Protestantism is right or wrong thats a separate question, but because it was an open rebellion against traditional authority. It not only successed it but created a split within Christendom that allowed a gap for the poison to get in.

    2. We cannot go back, even if that were possible, we can only go forward.

      Yes, I agree. So the problem is how to go forward while being traditionalists. We have to figure out which elements of traditionalism have a chance of gaining some kind of traction in today's world.

      I'm very much a monarchist but that's a difficult sell these days. Which is odd in some ways - when you consider how much most people despise elected politicians it should be possible to sell a stronger monarchy as a check on the excesses and follies of politicians. What we have today is not a constitutional monarchy in which the monarchy helps to balance the power of elected officials. We have a mere figurehead monarchy.

      Christianity is a problem. Don't get me wrong - I'm pro-Christian. But the mainstream churches are just so thoroughly infiltrated by leftists and atheists that they're now part of the leftist establishment.

    3. I think the real problem is the Reformation

      Again I agree. The Reformation fatally undermined the moral authority of Christianity. Reform of the church was needed but what we got was not so much reformation as destruction and hopeless fragmentation. That left Christianity in a very weak position to oppose the worst aspects of the Enlightenment, and virtually powerless to oppose the growing tide of secularism.

      In some ways Islam has the right idea - they tend to pursue a policy of making no concessions at all to modernism and secularism. Whatever you think of Islam (and I don't think much of it) I think that's a sounder strategy. The Christian strategy is to make concessions, to compromise, and once you start doing that you're doomed because in the long term the Cultural Left will never ever compromise. Christianity's mistake was to believe they could reach an accommodation with the Cultural Left - a sad delusion.

      We need to start learning from our enemies - that compromise is the slippery slope to perdition.