Deplatforming the Left has used at least since the 1920's. The original Antifa was started in Germany in the 1920's with the aim of stopping rival political parties from meeting. The Nazi's formed the Brownshirts to protect their meetings and then to break up Communist political meetings. Antifa is back to it's old tricks, why?
Because we are a threat.
Liberalism has realised that the consensus for it's actions and beliefs is not as solid as it once thought. It has also become more extreme in it's actions and beliefs. Once it would have been horrified by what is now happening, by what it is now doing. But it is not horrified any longer, now it believes that the ends justifies the means because it thinks it can see total victory. So it's action while extreme are going to become even more extreme. It can accept no opposition.
However we do oppose it.
Thats means that we will continue to see everyday things become harder. We will find that the internet becomes a harsher and harsher place. That the deplatforming of our political beliefs on Facebook and Youtube will continue and get worse.
In Australia our oldest bank, Westpac, formed as the Bank of New South Wales in 1819, has begun to close the accounts of people and organisations that it doesn't agree with. The organisers of the United Patriot Front who staged the large protests in Melbourne in recent years have had their accounts closed. Jim Salem, who heads the Australia First Party has had both his personal account and the political parties accounts closed. All of this happened in the same week in June 2019. This has already happened in the United States and now it's here.
Companies and government departments are saying that if people don't support their values then they cannot work for the company. It's not longer good enough that you are a good worker, now you must be a supporter of everything they think. You are not entitled to your own thoughts and values. They use these values to hire, fire and only associate with their fellow thinkers.
So where does that leave those of us who did oppose them?
In the short term in a very bad place. That is why we need to build our own networks and communities. We need to help each other out, with jobs and support. Over time we need to find out who is on our side, or sympathetic to our side and support them. As Liberalism becomes more zealot we will find that those sympathetic to us will grow.
We are living in interesting times.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
How Socialism Helped Destroy Marriage
Saturday, 29 June 2019
Tuesday, 18 June 2019
We don’t need them for Clown World
Recently I
was watching Lana Lokteff from Red Ice Radio, she had been invited to give a
presentation at the American Renaissance Conference. Ironically it was on clown
world and how we are now all living in clown world. Quite true. But near the
end of her presentation she reads out some quotes and one was from Winston
Churchill. After reading his quote she states that “he was wrong about WWII”
and a portion of the crowd then clapped her.
I stopped
watching at that point as it is something I keep seeing and it great disturbs
me, we don’t need our enemies to live in clown world. I hate clown world, I
also hate it when clown world comes from my own side.
Every
single person has crazy irrational thoughts, every single person believes
things that aren’t true, that’s part of being human. We are fallible. But that
doesn’t mean that you should tell other people or that you should write it down
or that you should cheer crazy thoughts when it is being filmed for a
conference!
Winston Churchill
was on the wrong side in WWII.
Man never
landed on the Moon.
Liberalism
can be reformed.
Mass
shootings are stunts.
The
Holocaust didn’t happen.
If we
defeat the Jews, we win.
I know why
people think like this, we have all had to do a lot of thinking. We have had to
discard beliefs that we once held dear and that is a hard and painful process.
Once you start thinking it can be hard to stop, it can start to seem as if
everything must be questioned. It’s an easy trap to fall into, however it ignores
a vital fact. There are things that are real, not everything should be
questioned because not everything needs to be questioned.
I can
identify this within myself, I have come to believe things that I once would
have been outraged by. But I have not changed my mind on everything, reality
still exists and not everything has a meaning and not everything is political.
Sometimes hate is the answer for why something happened, sometimes love,
sometimes loyalty, sometimes things happen by mistake or miscalculation.
Reality is complex and we need to keep that in mind. We also need to remember
that not everything is ideology. Many of those for example who believe that man
never landed on the moon, also do not like the United States government.
However it is possible to dislike the United States government and for man to
have still landed on the moon. The two are not mutually exclusive, but ideology
can make it seem as if they are.
We need to
win, we know how clown world is and it’s madness. We cannot allow the future to
be controlled by them, we need to win. The reason we haven’t won is not because
of the Jews or anyone else, it’s because we are not ready for the big time. We
tolerate nonsense like the above list and we need to get serious. That means we
need to organize and to out think our enemies. Another thing we can do to help
win is to keep our crazy on the inside and not show it to the world. We don’t
need clown world, ours or their!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Tuesday, 11 June 2019
The Seventy-Fifth Month
This will be a short one this month, not much happened.
This month I have had 3,790 visitors in total. My worst day this month was the 19th May when I had 30 visitors. My best day was the 25th May when I had 999 visitors.
May - June
April - May
This month I have had 3,790 visitors in total. My worst day this month was the 19th May when I had 30 visitors. My best day was the 25th May when I had 999 visitors.
May - June
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
2494
|
Australia
|
356
|
Russia
|
324
|
Unknown Region
|
174
|
Ukraine
|
94
|
United Kingdom
|
89
|
Brazil
|
36
|
Germany
|
33
|
France
|
26
|
Canada
|
18
|
April - May
|
The United States, Russia, the Ukraine, the United Kingdom are all up.
Australia, Unknown Region, Brazil and France are all down.
Germany and Canada have joined the top 10.
Italy and Czechia have left the top 10.
I have also received visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Kazakhstan, U.A.E., India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Liberia, South Africa
I look forward to seeing you all again
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Sunday, 9 June 2019
Game of Thrones and Female Leadership
This article is about the TV series and not the books. I have wanted to write on this subject for years, the reason I did not was because I feared that the writers would change direction in the last season. Instead they stayed true to the traditional view of female leadership, that it is unnatural and poisonous.
Why was female leadership traditionally considered unnatural? Because men kill, but women give life. To be a good ruler you must be prepared to kill and if a women's role is to give life then she cannot be a good ruler. It poisons the relationships between men and women as it puts an obligation upon woman that should not be there burden. Men should defend women not the other way around. If women are defending men, who is defending the children?
Who is defending the future?
When men defend women and women defend children there are two rings of protection around children. When both men and women defend children then they only have one ring and women have no protection at all. They must have all of the strengths of a man, which they of course do not have.
Game of Thrones is a fascinating and at times bizarre combination of Medieval history, particularly England and Scotland in the 1400's. Fantasy books with an effort to subvert some common tropes or ideas within fantasy. And modern attitudes, particularly with regards to sex and sex roles, supporting sex and subverting the sex roles. As you can see not all of these work together and at times it shows.
At first there were the books written by George R.R. Martin which were then made into the TV series. Martin is the sole author of the books, but not the sole writer for the series. However he had input into the entire series and I have been watching talks he has given which are on Youtube. He has said that the characters that most changed from the books were Little Finger and Shae.
The two major characters I will concentrate on are Cersei and Daenerys Targaryen.
Cersei was the daughter of Tywin Lannister the richest and one of the most powerful Lords in the Seven Kingdoms. She was married to Robert Baratheon, the King of the Seven Kingdoms. She had spent her entire life next to the greatest political players in Westeros. Her brother Tyrion stated that her greatest vitues were "....you love your children and your cheekbones", whats clear is that she does not possess a third virtue. I believe her character can best be summed up after she has invited the Ladies of the Court to her tower for protection during the Battle of the Blackwater. Here she tells Sansa that if the enemy break through then the other women in the room "will be in for a little raping" whilst trying to suppress a smile.
After the death of her husband and the death of her children, Cersei seizes the throne and rules as Queen. Many commentators are very positive that she is always one step ahead of her enemies, but I tend to agree with her fathers assessment "...your not as smart as you think you are". She was certainly ruthless, merciless and vindictive but how often were her plans strategic?
Letting Ned Stark be killed? It was the act that started the War of the five Kings. Her son Joffrey had him executed, however she was convinced that she could control him and she could not. She was completely outclassed.
How about when she armed and gave Royal protection to the Church Militant? In fact arming the Church Militant lead to the complete destruction of two great Noble houses, the Tyrells and her own House. She was completely outclassed and her only solution was to blow up the Sept of Baelor, along with the leadership of the Church Militants, most of House Tyrell and a huge amount of the Nobility.
Her one strategic plan that worked was to seize Highgarden, the Tyrells castle and loot it, although it is unclear whether that was her or Jamie's plan. The series at different points told us it was her plan and at another that it was his. Whoever's plan it was it worked and was a great strategic outcome.
Did you notice that once she became Queen she did not have any courtiers, or Small Council? Compare her reign as Queen with Joffreys, he had courtiers and a Small Council., where were her's?
Then we have Daenery's Targaryen who started off as a victim, being married off so that her brother could obtain an army. George R.R. Martin used a sympathetic character to try to get us to ignore what was really going on. And here at the end of the series we have people saying that her burning a city to the ground was out of character. But they weren't paying attention to the character that was onscreen, instead they were watching the character that they wanted to be onscreen.
Daenery's was portrayed as being a transformative character, as she herself said "I want to break the wheel", she was a revolutionary. She lead her people out of the desert, ended slavery, stopped the masters from coming back into power. She changed peoples lives and mostly for the better. If that is true then how could her rule be seen as unnatural and poisonous?
To gain control she had to kill people, those she killed in war are not the issue, what is at issue is how she treated those under her protection. Her first monstrous act was to crucify 163 men for being Masters, in other words for being the wrong social class. Now many people defend her actions as 163 children had been crucified by the Masters to warn her away. However unlike the Masters she had accepted all of the people into her protection. She then crucified random members of a particular social class, no trial, no effort to decide who was guilty or innocent.
Then in an effort to intimidate the Masters, she has the leaders of the great Houses brought to her and then she feeds one, again at random, to her Dragons. Again no trial or effort to decide guilt or innocence. Some would argue that she did it to stop a rebellion, however the rebellion did not stop. Feeding people to beasts is something Ramsay Bolton would do, ohhh and Daenery's.
Once she arrives in Dragonstone and begins her military campaign against Cersei to gain the Iron Throne, she wants to attack the capital, Kings Landing. Now her advisers tell her that attacking Kings Landing will result in the killing of thousands of innocents. For an entire season she reluctantly agrees. In the mean time she attacks the Lannister convoy bringing the gold from Highgarden to Kings Landing. Most of the gold gets through but she destroys those forces that tried to stop her. Soldiers surrendered, including their commander Lord Randyll Tarly and his son Dickon. They are all offered the choice between joining her or being burnt alive by one of her Dragons. The two Tarly's refuse and true to her word she has them burnt alive. Once someone has surrendered then they are under your protection, once again she has killed people under her protection.
Then she decides that she will attack Kings Landing and she appears to agree that she will stop the attack when the cities bells ring out. But she did not agree. When the bells ring and it is clear that she has won, she does not stop but instead burns the city to the ground. Many people have then said that this was out of character for her, but that is simply not true. The evidence that she would do this was there for seasons and each season it built. People wanted a hero, but George R.R. Martin doesn't do heroes. When he writes one, he kills them.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Does Liberalism Hate the Family
Why was female leadership traditionally considered unnatural? Because men kill, but women give life. To be a good ruler you must be prepared to kill and if a women's role is to give life then she cannot be a good ruler. It poisons the relationships between men and women as it puts an obligation upon woman that should not be there burden. Men should defend women not the other way around. If women are defending men, who is defending the children?
Who is defending the future?
When men defend women and women defend children there are two rings of protection around children. When both men and women defend children then they only have one ring and women have no protection at all. They must have all of the strengths of a man, which they of course do not have.
Game of Thrones is a fascinating and at times bizarre combination of Medieval history, particularly England and Scotland in the 1400's. Fantasy books with an effort to subvert some common tropes or ideas within fantasy. And modern attitudes, particularly with regards to sex and sex roles, supporting sex and subverting the sex roles. As you can see not all of these work together and at times it shows.
At first there were the books written by George R.R. Martin which were then made into the TV series. Martin is the sole author of the books, but not the sole writer for the series. However he had input into the entire series and I have been watching talks he has given which are on Youtube. He has said that the characters that most changed from the books were Little Finger and Shae.
The two major characters I will concentrate on are Cersei and Daenerys Targaryen.
Cersei was the daughter of Tywin Lannister the richest and one of the most powerful Lords in the Seven Kingdoms. She was married to Robert Baratheon, the King of the Seven Kingdoms. She had spent her entire life next to the greatest political players in Westeros. Her brother Tyrion stated that her greatest vitues were "....you love your children and your cheekbones", whats clear is that she does not possess a third virtue. I believe her character can best be summed up after she has invited the Ladies of the Court to her tower for protection during the Battle of the Blackwater. Here she tells Sansa that if the enemy break through then the other women in the room "will be in for a little raping" whilst trying to suppress a smile.
After the death of her husband and the death of her children, Cersei seizes the throne and rules as Queen. Many commentators are very positive that she is always one step ahead of her enemies, but I tend to agree with her fathers assessment "...your not as smart as you think you are". She was certainly ruthless, merciless and vindictive but how often were her plans strategic?
Letting Ned Stark be killed? It was the act that started the War of the five Kings. Her son Joffrey had him executed, however she was convinced that she could control him and she could not. She was completely outclassed.
How about when she armed and gave Royal protection to the Church Militant? In fact arming the Church Militant lead to the complete destruction of two great Noble houses, the Tyrells and her own House. She was completely outclassed and her only solution was to blow up the Sept of Baelor, along with the leadership of the Church Militants, most of House Tyrell and a huge amount of the Nobility.
Her one strategic plan that worked was to seize Highgarden, the Tyrells castle and loot it, although it is unclear whether that was her or Jamie's plan. The series at different points told us it was her plan and at another that it was his. Whoever's plan it was it worked and was a great strategic outcome.
Did you notice that once she became Queen she did not have any courtiers, or Small Council? Compare her reign as Queen with Joffreys, he had courtiers and a Small Council., where were her's?
Then we have Daenery's Targaryen who started off as a victim, being married off so that her brother could obtain an army. George R.R. Martin used a sympathetic character to try to get us to ignore what was really going on. And here at the end of the series we have people saying that her burning a city to the ground was out of character. But they weren't paying attention to the character that was onscreen, instead they were watching the character that they wanted to be onscreen.
Daenery's was portrayed as being a transformative character, as she herself said "I want to break the wheel", she was a revolutionary. She lead her people out of the desert, ended slavery, stopped the masters from coming back into power. She changed peoples lives and mostly for the better. If that is true then how could her rule be seen as unnatural and poisonous?
To gain control she had to kill people, those she killed in war are not the issue, what is at issue is how she treated those under her protection. Her first monstrous act was to crucify 163 men for being Masters, in other words for being the wrong social class. Now many people defend her actions as 163 children had been crucified by the Masters to warn her away. However unlike the Masters she had accepted all of the people into her protection. She then crucified random members of a particular social class, no trial, no effort to decide who was guilty or innocent.
Then in an effort to intimidate the Masters, she has the leaders of the great Houses brought to her and then she feeds one, again at random, to her Dragons. Again no trial or effort to decide guilt or innocence. Some would argue that she did it to stop a rebellion, however the rebellion did not stop. Feeding people to beasts is something Ramsay Bolton would do, ohhh and Daenery's.
Once she arrives in Dragonstone and begins her military campaign against Cersei to gain the Iron Throne, she wants to attack the capital, Kings Landing. Now her advisers tell her that attacking Kings Landing will result in the killing of thousands of innocents. For an entire season she reluctantly agrees. In the mean time she attacks the Lannister convoy bringing the gold from Highgarden to Kings Landing. Most of the gold gets through but she destroys those forces that tried to stop her. Soldiers surrendered, including their commander Lord Randyll Tarly and his son Dickon. They are all offered the choice between joining her or being burnt alive by one of her Dragons. The two Tarly's refuse and true to her word she has them burnt alive. Once someone has surrendered then they are under your protection, once again she has killed people under her protection.
Then she decides that she will attack Kings Landing and she appears to agree that she will stop the attack when the cities bells ring out. But she did not agree. When the bells ring and it is clear that she has won, she does not stop but instead burns the city to the ground. Many people have then said that this was out of character for her, but that is simply not true. The evidence that she would do this was there for seasons and each season it built. People wanted a hero, but George R.R. Martin doesn't do heroes. When he writes one, he kills them.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Does Liberalism Hate the Family