Melbourne was in the 1990's regarded as one of the few cities in the world to have retained it's Victoria heritage. Since then the destruction of that city continues with little respite. Today $15,000,000,000 is being spend on skyscrapers within the CBD, Docklands and Southbank, with 60% of that for residential use. In other words more foreigners.
Premier Tower $250,000,000
180 Flinders Street $300,000,000
Aurora Melbourne Central $730,000,000
Victoria Police HQ $750,000,000
Olderfleet $800,000,000
Australia 108 $900,000,000
Queens Place $1,000,000,000
Westside Place $1,000,000,000
Collins Arch $1,250,000,000
Melbourne Quarter $1,900,000,000
Melbourne Square $2,800,000,000
That leaves a further $3,000,000,000 for other destructive building.
Today there are 123 cranes in use in Melbournes.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong
Friday, 30 August 2019
Thursday, 29 August 2019
The Two Party Tyranny
Samuel T. Francis, better known as Sam Francis had a joke about the two party system.
A Soviet delegation comes to Washington D.C. where they meet a Senator. The Senator informs them "In your country you have a one party system, but in America we have a two party system. We have the Stupid Party and the Evil Party, I'll glad to say that I'm a member of the Stupid Party!"
"The Stupid Party supports stupid things, the Evil Party supports evil things, but sometimes we like to do things that are both stupid and evil....we call that bipartisanship!"
When there is only one party, them it's easy to see that there is little freedom. The Government can do more or less as it likes. How do you complain?
The two party system is held up as the answer to this lack of freedom. Here you can vote for either the party in Government or for the party in Opposition. You have a choice, you have a vote, you the humble voter gets to decide who governs over you.
This system came into being in the late 1600's in England. The King appointed a First Minister to run his Government, today the First Minister is known as the Prime Minister. The First Minister had to be a member of either the House of Commons (the lower house) or the House of Lords (the Upper House). His job was to run the Government, to get bills passed through the Parliament making them laws and most importantly of all to maintain supply. Supply means the supply of money, in modern terms to get the budget passed.
It might interest you to know that until the 1880's Parliamentarians did not get paid, not even for expenses. Only the First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the Treasurer) were paid. All others, including Ministers were not paid, men went into Parliament to serve and to obtain power.
In 1600's there also came into being the Leader of the Opposition. Until the 1830's political parties did not exist, instead there existed alliances around power or influential men. The Leader of the Opposition called themselves The Loyal Opposition, this phrase is important. It meant that while he opposed the First Minister and his policies, he remained loyal to the Crown. the Crown being the King and the Kings laws, which were now passed not by the King but by Parliament.
The Parliament was very much like the courts, in the English speaking world they are both adversarial, if you will they are intellectual combat. Two opposing ideas in contest with each other, it is not decided by consensus but by defeating ideas with different ideas, combat. This is how it is still supposed to be.
However in the Twentieth Century there were four great crisis that changed he character of Parliament, the First World War, the Depression, the Second World War and the Cold War. If any of these had occurred then maybe nothing would have really changed, but they happen in rapid succession. Each crisis encouraged the idea that within a country our differences didn't matter, instead what matters is cooperation. This idea influenced generations of Parliamentarians throughout the world.
That consensus was better than division, there was even a name for this it was called the Post-war consensus. In that article they say it ended with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979. Behind the scenes it never ended, instead the two major Liberal camps, Left-Liberals and Right-Liberals decided to leave each other alone. To each look after their own areas of interest. As time has gone on this has become more and more the case. And what you see on the news each night, the venom and the outrage that is for the roughly 15% were they don't agree. Which means that for roughly 85% of everything that they do agree.
Consensus is not intellectual combat.
Each party takes turns to rule, but as they support 85% of everything their opposition does it's not much of a problem. The two party system is now a sham, a fake Democracy, after all Democracy means rule by the people. Instead of us ruling we are ruled by either the Stupid Party or the Evil Party. What a choice!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Kingship is Life
A Soviet delegation comes to Washington D.C. where they meet a Senator. The Senator informs them "In your country you have a one party system, but in America we have a two party system. We have the Stupid Party and the Evil Party, I'll glad to say that I'm a member of the Stupid Party!"
"The Stupid Party supports stupid things, the Evil Party supports evil things, but sometimes we like to do things that are both stupid and evil....we call that bipartisanship!"
When there is only one party, them it's easy to see that there is little freedom. The Government can do more or less as it likes. How do you complain?
The two party system is held up as the answer to this lack of freedom. Here you can vote for either the party in Government or for the party in Opposition. You have a choice, you have a vote, you the humble voter gets to decide who governs over you.
This system came into being in the late 1600's in England. The King appointed a First Minister to run his Government, today the First Minister is known as the Prime Minister. The First Minister had to be a member of either the House of Commons (the lower house) or the House of Lords (the Upper House). His job was to run the Government, to get bills passed through the Parliament making them laws and most importantly of all to maintain supply. Supply means the supply of money, in modern terms to get the budget passed.
It might interest you to know that until the 1880's Parliamentarians did not get paid, not even for expenses. Only the First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the Treasurer) were paid. All others, including Ministers were not paid, men went into Parliament to serve and to obtain power.
In 1600's there also came into being the Leader of the Opposition. Until the 1830's political parties did not exist, instead there existed alliances around power or influential men. The Leader of the Opposition called themselves The Loyal Opposition, this phrase is important. It meant that while he opposed the First Minister and his policies, he remained loyal to the Crown. the Crown being the King and the Kings laws, which were now passed not by the King but by Parliament.
The Parliament was very much like the courts, in the English speaking world they are both adversarial, if you will they are intellectual combat. Two opposing ideas in contest with each other, it is not decided by consensus but by defeating ideas with different ideas, combat. This is how it is still supposed to be.
However in the Twentieth Century there were four great crisis that changed he character of Parliament, the First World War, the Depression, the Second World War and the Cold War. If any of these had occurred then maybe nothing would have really changed, but they happen in rapid succession. Each crisis encouraged the idea that within a country our differences didn't matter, instead what matters is cooperation. This idea influenced generations of Parliamentarians throughout the world.
That consensus was better than division, there was even a name for this it was called the Post-war consensus. In that article they say it ended with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979. Behind the scenes it never ended, instead the two major Liberal camps, Left-Liberals and Right-Liberals decided to leave each other alone. To each look after their own areas of interest. As time has gone on this has become more and more the case. And what you see on the news each night, the venom and the outrage that is for the roughly 15% were they don't agree. Which means that for roughly 85% of everything that they do agree.
Consensus is not intellectual combat.
Each party takes turns to rule, but as they support 85% of everything their opposition does it's not much of a problem. The two party system is now a sham, a fake Democracy, after all Democracy means rule by the people. Instead of us ruling we are ruled by either the Stupid Party or the Evil Party. What a choice!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Kingship is Life
Wednesday, 28 August 2019
The Narrative of White Genocide
Flood every White country with hundreds of millions of non-whites
Create laws that stop Whites from having any countries, states, provinces, counties, shires, cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods or schools to themselves
Institute "diversity" policies to replace Whites's in employment
Promote race-mixing and demonize those who oppose it
Create "Hate Speech" laws that make it a criminal act for Whites to object
Dehumanize Whites by insisting that they have unearned "privilege"
Say that race is a "social construct" and therefore Whites are not worth preserving
Demonize White history and achievements, while canonizing the history and achievements of non-whites
Covering up and ignoring crimes committed against Whites, no matter how large the problem
Silence, harass, threaten, fire, demonize or physically assault anyone who opposes the above policies
Non of the above is mine, I saw it on facebook today and not for the first time. I have no idea who first wrote it or how long it's been around, but it's all true....every single word of it!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Party That Lost Its Soul: The Australian Labor Party
Create laws that stop Whites from having any countries, states, provinces, counties, shires, cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods or schools to themselves
Institute "diversity" policies to replace Whites's in employment
Promote race-mixing and demonize those who oppose it
Create "Hate Speech" laws that make it a criminal act for Whites to object
Dehumanize Whites by insisting that they have unearned "privilege"
Say that race is a "social construct" and therefore Whites are not worth preserving
Demonize White history and achievements, while canonizing the history and achievements of non-whites
Covering up and ignoring crimes committed against Whites, no matter how large the problem
Silence, harass, threaten, fire, demonize or physically assault anyone who opposes the above policies
Non of the above is mine, I saw it on facebook today and not for the first time. I have no idea who first wrote it or how long it's been around, but it's all true....every single word of it!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Party That Lost Its Soul: The Australian Labor Party
Tuesday, 27 August 2019
Melbourne Traditionalist Episode Seven
Only four days since the last Episode, but just because we are late with one doesn't mean we have to be late with the next. In this episode I use country music from the 1960's to show how long the rot has been around.
40 minutes long including music
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Seven
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Hate About the Left
40 minutes long including music
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Seven
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Hate About the Left
Saturday, 24 August 2019
Some Facts About the Boomers
The Baby Boomers get given a lot of grief, some of it earned, much of it misdirected. Here is an excellent article from The New Yorker:
The Misconception About Baby Boomers and the Sixties by Louis Menand
Just a brief taste
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Doers and Thinkers
The Misconception About Baby Boomers and the Sixties by Louis Menand
Just a brief taste
The boomers get tied to the sixties because they are assumed to have created a culture of liberal permissiveness, and because they were utopians—political idealists, social activists, counterculturalists. In fact, it is almost impossible to name a single person born after 1945 who played any kind of role in the civil-rights movement, Students for a Democratic Society, the New Left, the antiwar movement, or the Black Panthers during the nineteen-sixties. Those movements were all started by older, usually much older, people.Enjoy, I know I did!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Doers and Thinkers
Friday, 23 August 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Six
In this episode we talk about war, would you fight for your country, remembrance and we also have a debate about "Brother Wars".
29 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Six
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Parable of the Liberal and the Conservative
29 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Six
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Parable of the Liberal and the Conservative
Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Rejected Abortion Amendments
Abortions are presented to us as medical procedures, as a safe medical procedure, like getting a tooth pulled out. But like all medical procedures, even getting teeth pulled, there is a failure rate. It's something that the Abortion industry and it's supporters don't like to talk about.
The Australian Christian Lobby has this Article on the recent NSW Abortion Law that has been passed by the Lower House. In this article they provide some statistics and information on the rejected amendments.
The first rejected amendment was that a baby that survives an Abortion should be given medical care.
The Third rejected amendment asked for women to receive counselling and wait 72 hours before obtaining an Abortion.
The Fifth rejected amendment is that sex selection is not banned. That normally means that more girls are aborted than boys, which leads to big problems as you can imagine.
When you see things like this we have to remember that the clowns that run clown world are evil.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Immigration Pos Never Ends
The Australian Christian Lobby has this Article on the recent NSW Abortion Law that has been passed by the Lower House. In this article they provide some statistics and information on the rejected amendments.
The first rejected amendment was that a baby that survives an Abortion should be given medical care.
The second rejected amendment relates to girls under the age of 16.The first one is of tremendous significance - an amendment to ensure babies that are born alive are rendered medical care. That is, the same neonatal care that would be afforded any other child born at the relevant stage of gestation if it were a wanted child.Astonishingly, the parliament said no. Babies born alive as a result of botched abortion procedures must be left to die.In Victoria between 2009 and 2016 there were 304 babies born alive because abortions failed, but were then left to slowly die on operating tables and rendered no care.In Western Australia between 1999 and 2015 at least 26 babies were born alive after failed abortion attempts. They too were left to die.Gemma Tognini writes in The Daily Telegraph, “An amendment to provide medical care to babies that survived abortions was somehow voted down. Voted down. Say that aloud if you dare. A baby born alive who needs medical help is left to die. My heart breaks.”
The Second amendment that was voted down was an amendment to require that abortions performed on children under 16 are reported to the relevant authority.The parliament said no. They voted against it.So, a pregnant minor may seek an abortion and no investigation is made regarding possible child sexual abuse. It's not even brought to the attention of any authority.The bill in its current form in fact contains provisions for overruling the wishes of parents when an abortion is requested by their child who is a minor.We know that girls who abort rather than carry a pregnancy to term are five times more likely to seek help for psychological problems thereafter, three times more likely to report trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report marijuana use.Yet they wouldn't allow an amendment to this bill that would require a doctor to make a report when a child, a girl, under 16 comes in for an abortion.
The Third rejected amendment asked for women to receive counselling and wait 72 hours before obtaining an Abortion.
The Fourth rejected amendment was that no Doctor can refuse to provide a referral due to their personal objection to Abortion, that includes any religious or philosophical objections.An independent counsellor in those circumstances may be rather helpful. Three-month post-abortive women have a three and a half times greater incidence of clinical depression and one fifth higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. That's not just some random fringe study - the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommend this: “a woman's physical, social, emotional, and psychological needs should be taken into account in the course of decision making and pre- and post-termination counselling by appropriately qualified professionals should be made available.”
The Fifth rejected amendment is that sex selection is not banned. That normally means that more girls are aborted than boys, which leads to big problems as you can imagine.
This law is current before the NSW Upper House, but it is based on laws that are already in operation in Queensland and Victoria. The article that this information comes from is part of a talk given by Martyn Iles, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby and is well worth checking out.Melbourne doctor Mark Hobart was disciplined by the Medical Board of Victoria for declining to refer a couple for an abortion because the child was a girl. They wanted a boy.Whilst Dr Hobart was disciplined by the medical board, the doctor who performed the abortion was not.Nature magazine says some 45 million girls worldwide were never born because of the use of sex selective abortions during the past half century.
When you see things like this we have to remember that the clowns that run clown world are evil.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Immigration Pos Never Ends
Tuesday, 20 August 2019
The Good Law/Bad Law Test
Is a law bad just because you don't like it? Is a law good just because you do like it? You and I are human and that means that sometimes our attitudes to law are that simply. I think you will agree however that that is not the most objective way to decide if a law is good or bad.
What if you were a conquered people, with foreigner overlords and there was no dispute at all that that was how things were. They make the rules and you have to live by them. Well even in such a situation laws would still need to be made to keep social order. Things as simple as traffic laws, or trading laws. In most cases you wouldn't enough notice that such laws existed.
But what about those laws that you did notice?
Again most would not be outrageous, the speed limit goes up or down, trading hours are extended or cut back. What about laws that were outrageous?
Here is where the good law/bad law test comes into play.
If your foreigner overlords brought in a law that provided abortion on demand, would you think that they had it in for you?
If your foreigner overlords brought in a law that provided for no fault divorce, would you think they had it in for you?
When your own Government introduces a law ask yourself this question:
If this law was introduced by a foreigner overlord would I oppose it?
If the answer is yes then it's a bad law.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Read More History
What if you were a conquered people, with foreigner overlords and there was no dispute at all that that was how things were. They make the rules and you have to live by them. Well even in such a situation laws would still need to be made to keep social order. Things as simple as traffic laws, or trading laws. In most cases you wouldn't enough notice that such laws existed.
But what about those laws that you did notice?
Again most would not be outrageous, the speed limit goes up or down, trading hours are extended or cut back. What about laws that were outrageous?
Here is where the good law/bad law test comes into play.
If your foreigner overlords brought in a law that provided abortion on demand, would you think that they had it in for you?
If your foreigner overlords brought in a law that provided for no fault divorce, would you think they had it in for you?
When your own Government introduces a law ask yourself this question:
If this law was introduced by a foreigner overlord would I oppose it?
If the answer is yes then it's a bad law.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Read More History
Monday, 19 August 2019
Melbourne Traditionalist Conference 2019 in Two Months
While not as well advertised as last year the Conference is all go!
We have all 5 speakers sorted, the venue is booked, all we need is for people to pay and attend.
The location of the venue will only be announced to Conference attendees the week of the Conference. However it is in the inner suburbs of Melbourne and as good as the last venue.
If anyone who is attending has any dietary or mobility requirements it's best to let me know via email.
Date: 18 October, Friday 7pm, Meet and Greet
19 October, Saturday, 10am-5pm Conference
7pm Banquest
Venue: Inner suburb of Melbourne
Cost: Concession $75
Full Price $110
(Everything in Australian Dollars, if your unsure if you are Concession or Full Price send me an email)
Register: To register and pay for the Conference go to trybooking
Lecture Topics:
1. Shelley and the origins of Liberal thought
2. E.F. Schumacher: Small is Beautiful
3. From ABC to XYZ: Alt Media in Australia
4. International Banking and You
5. Class Warfare and White Genocide: The origins of Cultural Marxism
What do you get for your money? 5 lectures, Lunch and Banquet, all non-alcoholic drinks and if last year was anything to go by some really great attendees.
If anyone has any questions please send me an email uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Upon Hope Blog - mA Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Myth of Equality
We have all 5 speakers sorted, the venue is booked, all we need is for people to pay and attend.
The location of the venue will only be announced to Conference attendees the week of the Conference. However it is in the inner suburbs of Melbourne and as good as the last venue.
If anyone who is attending has any dietary or mobility requirements it's best to let me know via email.
Date: 18 October, Friday 7pm, Meet and Greet
19 October, Saturday, 10am-5pm Conference
7pm Banquest
Venue: Inner suburb of Melbourne
Cost: Concession $75
Full Price $110
(Everything in Australian Dollars, if your unsure if you are Concession or Full Price send me an email)
Register: To register and pay for the Conference go to trybooking
Lecture Topics:
1. Shelley and the origins of Liberal thought
2. E.F. Schumacher: Small is Beautiful
3. From ABC to XYZ: Alt Media in Australia
4. International Banking and You
5. Class Warfare and White Genocide: The origins of Cultural Marxism
What do you get for your money? 5 lectures, Lunch and Banquet, all non-alcoholic drinks and if last year was anything to go by some really great attendees.
If anyone has any questions please send me an email uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Upon Hope Blog - mA Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Myth of Equality
Friday, 16 August 2019
11 Million Victorians
When I was born in 1970 there were 3 million people living in Victoria, today that number is 6 million. The Victorian State Government has recently released a report Victoria in Future in which they predict that by 2056 there will be 11 million people here.
Nearly every Government prediction about our population has been wrong. In nearly every case it has been higher than predicted. If that is the case then Melbourne will be 10 million people strong. It will reach Geelong, Ballarat, Seymour and Warragul making them all suburbs. As well as having a huge number of high rise buildings.
This is not a plan, it is not governing, it is insane. Bigger is always better they insist. Like being fat is better than being skinny. People can be too skinny, being too skinny can have health problems. However the same is true for being fat. Bigger is not always better, it comes at a cost.
Melbourne today is congested. Today I went to visit a family member, they live in what up until a decade ago was farmland. Now it is an ever expanding suburb. That is happening on every boundary of Melbourne. The traffic is heavy, even in the newest suburbs. The governments plan at Federal, State and Local level is more immigration. A never ending supply.
For most of Australia's history it's population has been primarily urban. In fact while most people inside and outside of Australia think of our bushland, 86% of Australia's population live in a city. Most of those live in Melbourne or Sydney. That means that most immigrants are also heading to Melbourne or Sydney.
The Federal Government has recently said it wants to make new immigrants live for 5 years in a regional area. Which means that small towns and cities across Australia will receive a group of people who they have nothing in common with who will eat up resources before leaving for Melbourne or Sydney. Every small town in Australia will get to opportunity to become an airport lounge. Loads of Foreigners who are just passing through.
Don't run!
There is no where to go, we will all be enriched!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalist Episode Two
Nearly every Government prediction about our population has been wrong. In nearly every case it has been higher than predicted. If that is the case then Melbourne will be 10 million people strong. It will reach Geelong, Ballarat, Seymour and Warragul making them all suburbs. As well as having a huge number of high rise buildings.
This is not a plan, it is not governing, it is insane. Bigger is always better they insist. Like being fat is better than being skinny. People can be too skinny, being too skinny can have health problems. However the same is true for being fat. Bigger is not always better, it comes at a cost.
Melbourne today is congested. Today I went to visit a family member, they live in what up until a decade ago was farmland. Now it is an ever expanding suburb. That is happening on every boundary of Melbourne. The traffic is heavy, even in the newest suburbs. The governments plan at Federal, State and Local level is more immigration. A never ending supply.
For most of Australia's history it's population has been primarily urban. In fact while most people inside and outside of Australia think of our bushland, 86% of Australia's population live in a city. Most of those live in Melbourne or Sydney. That means that most immigrants are also heading to Melbourne or Sydney.
The Federal Government has recently said it wants to make new immigrants live for 5 years in a regional area. Which means that small towns and cities across Australia will receive a group of people who they have nothing in common with who will eat up resources before leaving for Melbourne or Sydney. Every small town in Australia will get to opportunity to become an airport lounge. Loads of Foreigners who are just passing through.
Don't run!
There is no where to go, we will all be enriched!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalist Episode Two
Tuesday, 13 August 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Five
This week we talk about the new Long Tan movie Danger Close, the fall of South Vietnam, Epstein's improbable suicide and my political red pilling.
34 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Five
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Read More History
34 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Five
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Read More History
Sunday, 11 August 2019
The Seventy-Seventh Month
Last month I said I was going to try something different, well I did!
I have done 22 posts since my last monthly report, which is excellent considering I was doing 4 a month for most of the year. I have also begin doing a podcast each Monday for the Melbourne Traditionalists. Four episodes so far, our goal being to keep them to around 25-30 minutes long. The last month has been very good.
Over the last month I have had 3,769 visitors, with my worst day being the 29th July when I had 57 visitors. My best day was the 31st July when I had 296 visitors.
Australia has nearly doubled in the last month and while the United States is down from last month, it got down to nearly 500 in the last month.
July - August
June - July
I have done 22 posts since my last monthly report, which is excellent considering I was doing 4 a month for most of the year. I have also begin doing a podcast each Monday for the Melbourne Traditionalists. Four episodes so far, our goal being to keep them to around 25-30 minutes long. The last month has been very good.
Over the last month I have had 3,769 visitors, with my worst day being the 29th July when I had 57 visitors. My best day was the 31st July when I had 296 visitors.
Australia has nearly doubled in the last month and while the United States is down from last month, it got down to nearly 500 in the last month.
July - August
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1282
|
Australia
|
687
|
Ukraine
|
259
|
Russia
|
236
|
Netherlands
|
210
|
United Kingdom
|
160
|
Unknown Region
|
123
|
Germany
|
93
|
France
|
93
|
Canada
|
81
|
June - July
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
1519
|
Australia
|
380
|
Unknown Region
|
147
|
Ukraine
|
104
|
United Kingdom
|
97
|
Russia
|
96
|
India
|
71
|
Canada
|
58
|
Germany
|
38
|
Brazil
|
29
|
Australia, the Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada are all up.
The United States and Unknown Region are both down.
The Netherlands and France both back in the top 10.
India and Brazil have both left the top 10.
I have also had visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Georgia, Turkey, U.A.E., India, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Columbia
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Seventy-Sixth Month
I have also had visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Georgia, Turkey, U.A.E., India, Bangladesh, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria, South Africa, New Zealand, Brazil, Columbia
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Seventy-Sixth Month
Saturday, 10 August 2019
Australia's Immigration Slippery Slope
In the 1800's Australians feared the huge populations to our North. In 1941 that fear became reality when Japan sort to expand it's Empire into South-East Asia. Australians believed that we would also be invaded. At that time our population was 7 million.
In 1943 the Australian cabinet decided that after the war our population would increase through immigration. A policy known as "Populate or Perish", with the success of the Japanese attacks used o scare people into accepting something that they did not support. At that time it was thought that that increase in population would be mostly from the British Isles.
But Europe after WWII was in a mess and the European countries asked those countries outside of Europe to assist. Millions of Displaced Persons (DP's) lived a very precarious life in make shift camps right across Europe, but concentrated in Germany. With so much destruction accommodation was scarce and DP's were put in old barracks, ex- Prisoner of Wars camps, even ex- Concentration camps were used to house people.
The United Nations asked nearly every country outside Europe to accept DP's as permanent settlers. A friend of mine who's Polish told me his parents were given the choice of going to Venezuela or Australia. Europe was devastated, people went hungry, it was down and out. It was a real humanitarian crisis. With great reluctance Australia accepted people, so many of them came from the Baltic countries that for decades these people were called Balts.
The Australian people did not want these people, they accepted them as the price to be paid for peace and prosperity. They had sacrificed during the war and now they were being asked to make another sacrifice. The government at first resisted accepting these DP's, as did all of the countries asked. But once it had accepted them it quite liked them.
This was the start of the slippery slope, the Australian people had accepted these people reluctantly, but the government noted that they had accepted them. It began to expand it's reach. It started with Italians. Then in the 1950's to Greeks and Yugoslavs, in the 1960's to Turks, in the 1970's to the Vietnamese. In the 1970's all restrictions on race or ethnicity were withdrawn. Today people from nearly every country on Earth live in Australia.
Australia went from trying to boost it's population to resist a future foreign invasion to our own government forcing a foreign invasion upon us. That slippery slope they keep trying to insist doesn't exist is quite slippery.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Liberalism Versus-the Working Class
In 1943 the Australian cabinet decided that after the war our population would increase through immigration. A policy known as "Populate or Perish", with the success of the Japanese attacks used o scare people into accepting something that they did not support. At that time it was thought that that increase in population would be mostly from the British Isles.
But Europe after WWII was in a mess and the European countries asked those countries outside of Europe to assist. Millions of Displaced Persons (DP's) lived a very precarious life in make shift camps right across Europe, but concentrated in Germany. With so much destruction accommodation was scarce and DP's were put in old barracks, ex- Prisoner of Wars camps, even ex- Concentration camps were used to house people.
The United Nations asked nearly every country outside Europe to accept DP's as permanent settlers. A friend of mine who's Polish told me his parents were given the choice of going to Venezuela or Australia. Europe was devastated, people went hungry, it was down and out. It was a real humanitarian crisis. With great reluctance Australia accepted people, so many of them came from the Baltic countries that for decades these people were called Balts.
The Australian people did not want these people, they accepted them as the price to be paid for peace and prosperity. They had sacrificed during the war and now they were being asked to make another sacrifice. The government at first resisted accepting these DP's, as did all of the countries asked. But once it had accepted them it quite liked them.
This was the start of the slippery slope, the Australian people had accepted these people reluctantly, but the government noted that they had accepted them. It began to expand it's reach. It started with Italians. Then in the 1950's to Greeks and Yugoslavs, in the 1960's to Turks, in the 1970's to the Vietnamese. In the 1970's all restrictions on race or ethnicity were withdrawn. Today people from nearly every country on Earth live in Australia.
Australia went from trying to boost it's population to resist a future foreign invasion to our own government forcing a foreign invasion upon us. That slippery slope they keep trying to insist doesn't exist is quite slippery.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Liberalism Versus-the Working Class
Thursday, 8 August 2019
Victoria's Top Export Earner
Victoria, where I live was once Australia's industrial heart, but today nearly all of that is gone. But don't despair as we now have a new money maker. Each year we import hundreds of thousands of students, last year 230,000. And in return they give us $11.8 billion!
Wow thats fantastic, I'm rich!
Ohhh wait my contract position finished and now I'm unemployed again and unemployment benefits in Australia haven't gone up in 25 years. But clearly someone is getting rich. At an average of $51,000 for each student I'd say quite a few people are getting rich. But not everyone, no when it comes to immigration scams not everyone can rich. Did I say scam?
Well you see if you stay long enough in Australia then you can apply for permanent residency. You might live here or you might go home, but that permanent residency means you don't have to leave Australia for ever. The length of a degree is time enough.
I have read some of the survey results from students at our Universities and they make sad reading. The Indian student who paid big money to come here to study. He returned home to no job and a lot of debt. The standard of education we give is an embarrassment. Because we long ago sold our integrity for their money. We have cheated both of us.
Australia is a country with 50 Universities and we import doctors.
Immigration is a scam at every level.
Education isn't far behind.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Liberalism Fights Back
Wow thats fantastic, I'm rich!
Ohhh wait my contract position finished and now I'm unemployed again and unemployment benefits in Australia haven't gone up in 25 years. But clearly someone is getting rich. At an average of $51,000 for each student I'd say quite a few people are getting rich. But not everyone, no when it comes to immigration scams not everyone can rich. Did I say scam?
Well you see if you stay long enough in Australia then you can apply for permanent residency. You might live here or you might go home, but that permanent residency means you don't have to leave Australia for ever. The length of a degree is time enough.
I have read some of the survey results from students at our Universities and they make sad reading. The Indian student who paid big money to come here to study. He returned home to no job and a lot of debt. The standard of education we give is an embarrassment. Because we long ago sold our integrity for their money. We have cheated both of us.
Australia is a country with 50 Universities and we import doctors.
Immigration is a scam at every level.
Education isn't far behind.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Liberalism Fights Back
Wednesday, 7 August 2019
Advertising White Genocide
The media tell us that White genocide is a myth, a conspiracy theory, something that is not at all real. So imagine my surprise when in Melbourne's best selling newspaper, I read not one, but two articles on White genocide....side by side!
First we have "The world would be better off with fewer royal babies" by Darren Levin, on page 23 from Monday, August 5, 2019. In which he writes that he has three children but "it's not our fault, we had twins", but thats for him not for you. His advice to you is:
Then we have the second article "We should take migrants from more nations" by Theo Theophanous, who was the state Member of Parliament for Thomastown, just down the road from me. Mr. Theophanous writes about his recent trip to Europe where he visited Italy and Greece.
Quite true!
When we talk about White genocide this is what we are talking about. One article tells us Whites to have less children and the second tells us that we need more immigration. If Whites were encouraged and supported in having their own children then we would not need immigration to create a bigger economy. And encouraging people from poor countries to come to the West increases environmental issues. But each in their own way supports our destruction, at each turn they want less Whites and more foreigners.
I would also point out that many people inside and outside Australia think that Australia's immigration policy is the height of good policy. However what Mr. Theophanous writes is correct:
"We are reshaping the composition of Australia without any debate or planning."
It is all about ideology, not whats good for the country or it's people.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Game of Thrones and Female Leadership
First we have "The world would be better off with fewer royal babies" by Darren Levin, on page 23 from Monday, August 5, 2019. In which he writes that he has three children but "it's not our fault, we had twins", but thats for him not for you. His advice to you is:
According to research from Sweden's Lund University, the greatest contribution you could make to the fight against climate change is to have one less child.He uses the recent announcement by Prince Harry that they will be only having two children as the hook.
If you consider that the average Brit emits nearly 10 times as much carbon as someone in India or Vietnam each year - and more than 100 times more than your average Ethiopian - can you imagine how much carbon a royal baby would spew into the atmosphere over the course of their privileged lifetime?This will be of interest soon.
Then we have the second article "We should take migrants from more nations" by Theo Theophanous, who was the state Member of Parliament for Thomastown, just down the road from me. Mr. Theophanous writes about his recent trip to Europe where he visited Italy and Greece.
We are reshaping the composition of Australia without any debate or planning.
Quite true!
Many people I spoke to in Europe told me how much they admired our policy of stopping the boats.
But what these supporters of our policies may not know is that alongside our tough policy of stopping a few hundred refugees coming by boat, there has been a massive official immigration program of almost 200,000 each year over the past decade that is changing the demography of Australia. And what most Australians don't know is that there has been an explosion in the number of people flying to Australia in visitor visas and then applying for refugee protection visas: up from 8547 in 2014-15 to a staggering 27,931 in 2017-18.
As a result, Australia has more than eight million overseas-born residents or about 30 per cent of it's population. The US has about 14 per cent, Germany 15 per cent, and other European countries have even less.He sounds quite concerned, he even sounds like he agrees with us. But thats just fluff.
I think we need a high migrant intake because we are still building Australia. Study after study has shown that it is good for our economy. And as long as people we admit are supportive of our democratic values and respect our laws, I am OK with that.
But as I have argued, we must diversify our intake. If we want to retain social cohesion, if we want a truly multicultural nation, we should not have a concentration of immigrants from two or three countries.
When we talk about White genocide this is what we are talking about. One article tells us Whites to have less children and the second tells us that we need more immigration. If Whites were encouraged and supported in having their own children then we would not need immigration to create a bigger economy. And encouraging people from poor countries to come to the West increases environmental issues. But each in their own way supports our destruction, at each turn they want less Whites and more foreigners.
I would also point out that many people inside and outside Australia think that Australia's immigration policy is the height of good policy. However what Mr. Theophanous writes is correct:
"We are reshaping the composition of Australia without any debate or planning."
It is all about ideology, not whats good for the country or it's people.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Game of Thrones and Female Leadership
Monday, 5 August 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Four
How did you get on the Right side of politics?
That's such a good question that I asked David Hiscox from the XYZ about his political journey.
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Four
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Three
That's such a good question that I asked David Hiscox from the XYZ about his political journey.
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Four
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Three
Friday, 2 August 2019
A List of Britain's Enemies
A letter that I found at Amerika by a Mr. Seth Tillman who has posted it at his own site, The New Reform Club. A letter to The Irish Times regarding who supported Remain in the vote to leave the European Union, with commentary at the start and finish by Brett Stevens:
If anyone still wonders why Great Britain can’t seem to ever quite hit above the Mendoza Line in the last six or so decades, there’s your answer. Figure out what the people (that which remains of them) favor, and all “the smart ones” reflexively and implacably rise to block it. Not since William The Bastard forced Saxon peasants to do business in The High Speech has a governing class felt more disgust or contempt for the average civilian.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
Antipathocracy. A government of, for, and by those who hold their governed subjects in total and utter disdain and contempt. This, right here, is what an Antipathocracy looks like.
“Who, in the Brexit referendum, was on the Remain side?”
Her Majesty’s Government was for Remain.
The leading opposition parties were for Remain.
All the primary regional parties (DUP excepted) in Scotland (SNP), Wales (Plaid Cymru), and Northern Ireland (Sinn Fein) were for Remain.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was for Remain.
The EU, its diplomats, and the wider diplomatic community, including Ireland’s government and diplomats, were all in for Remain.
Cameron, the then incumbent Prime Minister, along with all his living predecessors, were for Remain.
George Osborne, the then incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer, was for Remain, and he even threatened the voters—via his next proposed budget—should they have the temerity to vote Leave.
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, then and now was for Remain.
The majority of members of Parliament were for Remain.
President Obama was for Remain.
The Bank of England and the bureaucracy were for Remain.
The labour unions were for Remain.
Academia was overwhelmingly for Remain.
Industry (eg, the Confederation of British Industry) was for Remain.
The BBC and the largest part of both the old and new media (Murdoch’s broadsheets excepted) were for Remain.
All the highbrow magazines were for Remain—The Spectator excepted.
The actors & arts communities were for Remain.
The vast majority of student activists were for Remain.
Owen Jones and all the wannabe student activists were for Remain.
The vast majority of the bar and the legal profession were for remain … but I repeat myself.
Now ask yourself, precisely: “Who, in the Brexit referendum, was on the Leave side?”
Just some voters.
If anyone still wonders why Great Britain can’t seem to ever quite hit above the Mendoza Line in the last six or so decades, there’s your answer. Figure out what the people (that which remains of them) favor, and all “the smart ones” reflexively and implacably rise to block it. Not since William The Bastard forced Saxon peasants to do business in The High Speech has a governing class felt more disgust or contempt for the average civilian.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
Thursday, 1 August 2019
Don't Waste Our Resources
In 1986 one of my brothers came to our house with a microwave oven, which he gave to our mum. We both told him that it was a waste of money and that it would simply sit in the corner and never get used. Well we were wrong, about how much we would use it and about it being a waste of money. About three hours ago I used that exact same microwave to heat up some pies. Yes, 33 years after we got it, it is still working!
I wonder how long your last microwave lasted?
Because it's true that things do not work as well as they used too. Machines are made to break down, to last until the warranty ends. I remember buying a TV and buying a warranty with it, the next year they sent me a renewal so I bought an extra years warranty. The third year they again sent me a renewal, with worked out well as the TV broke. I took it in to get repaired and was told that I should not have been sent that third years renewal. Unhappily they repaired the TV.
Traditionalists should be concerned with waste. Resources are not infinite and we should be mindful of that fact, neither is money. We should try to buy quality and try to keep it for as long as possible. Many people want newer models to keep up with the very latest technology. Much of this is quite silly, advances that are minor. If you have a black and white TV and a colour TV comes out, now that is a big change in technology. But if the technological change is so tiny that no one will notice. Do you really need it?
When we have finished with it, what happens to that machine? Normally we dispose of it and never give it another thought. Out of sight out of mind. But of course it continues to exist in most cases. And while we are told about recycling, most things cannot and are not recycled.
The conservation of resources is important. I don't want to be stupid about it, we use resources and we should. But there is a difference between eating to satisfy hunger and gluttony. Just as with food we should not be gluttons with our resources.
Upon Hope Blogs - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Leftism and Occultism
I wonder how long your last microwave lasted?
Because it's true that things do not work as well as they used too. Machines are made to break down, to last until the warranty ends. I remember buying a TV and buying a warranty with it, the next year they sent me a renewal so I bought an extra years warranty. The third year they again sent me a renewal, with worked out well as the TV broke. I took it in to get repaired and was told that I should not have been sent that third years renewal. Unhappily they repaired the TV.
Traditionalists should be concerned with waste. Resources are not infinite and we should be mindful of that fact, neither is money. We should try to buy quality and try to keep it for as long as possible. Many people want newer models to keep up with the very latest technology. Much of this is quite silly, advances that are minor. If you have a black and white TV and a colour TV comes out, now that is a big change in technology. But if the technological change is so tiny that no one will notice. Do you really need it?
When we have finished with it, what happens to that machine? Normally we dispose of it and never give it another thought. Out of sight out of mind. But of course it continues to exist in most cases. And while we are told about recycling, most things cannot and are not recycled.
The conservation of resources is important. I don't want to be stupid about it, we use resources and we should. But there is a difference between eating to satisfy hunger and gluttony. Just as with food we should not be gluttons with our resources.
Upon Hope Blogs - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Leftism and Occultism