Globalism has helped to destroy the lives of millions upon millions of people in the West. Factories and the jobs that they provided have either been destroyed by cheaper competition or exported to countries that do things cheaper. We are told that this results in lower prices which increases our standard of living. However it turns out that free trade has an enormous cost associated with it.
Slowly but surely the wealth of the West is being exported to the third world. Victoria imported twice as much as it exported last year. Australia has imported more than it has exported, although not as badly as Victoria's figures, for the past 45 years. With no end in sight. In the West that is not a rare situation.
This has created a situation of chronic and persistent unemployment. In Australia the last time a political party talked about full employment was 1992. Since then the very lowest number of unemployed in Australia has been 400,000. Currently it is 700,000. But unless you are directly affected by it most people are not even aware of the problem. Even though it is something that impacts their lives in numerous ways.
Getting jobs back into the West is something that is very much needed.
One big issue has been outsourcing, whereby jobs have been exported to keep down costs. This is where the issue must be attacked, by making the cost benefit go away. Making it cost as much as it would if the job was still being done incountry.
The aim is end unemployment in Western countries.
Firstly, all jobs that can be done in the West should be.
Secondly, companies that outsource jobs overseas should have to pay a tax for that privilege.
Thirdly, workers outside of the West that work for Western companies should be paid the same hourly rates as if they worked in the West.
Fourthly, that should be phased in over a ten year period.
Fifthly, then those workers should receive the same benefits that Western workers get.
Sixth, immigration to force down wages should end.
Seventh, a worker who provides goods or services into the West is regarded as working in the West.
Eighth, this stops and goes no further when unemployment is below 2%, with long term unemployment being 3 months.
The aim is get our future back, to force attention back onto the workforce that already exists. The workforce every taxpayer has paid to educate.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Free Enterprise and Traditional Conservatism
Sunday, 29 September 2019
Saturday, 28 September 2019
Go Woke, Go Broke - Gillette
Earlier this year Gillette, the shaving company, released a quite Woke video.
We Believe: The Best Men Can Be
Since then the company has down written $8 billion, which it claims comes from a shrinking of the market and stiffer competition. However if that was the case why have they completely revamped their commercials?
Have a look at the latest Gillette ad from here in Australia.
Ben the Aussie Firefighter
Apparently he's a real fireman!
Here's the American version.
Daily Shaving for Sensitive Skin & Ingrown Hairs
What I find interesting is that comments have been disabled on all of these ads, except for the first one!
Which has quite a few negative comments and 1,500,000 dislikes to 803,000 likes.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems of Monarchy
We Believe: The Best Men Can Be
Since then the company has down written $8 billion, which it claims comes from a shrinking of the market and stiffer competition. However if that was the case why have they completely revamped their commercials?
Have a look at the latest Gillette ad from here in Australia.
Ben the Aussie Firefighter
Apparently he's a real fireman!
Here's the American version.
Daily Shaving for Sensitive Skin & Ingrown Hairs
What I find interesting is that comments have been disabled on all of these ads, except for the first one!
Which has quite a few negative comments and 1,500,000 dislikes to 803,000 likes.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems of Monarchy
Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Some Link Love VII
I'm sorry I'm not posting much, I was really happy with my posts last week, but since then I've not been doing well. A number of issues have decided to visit my doorstep all at once and I'm struggling a bit. Fortunately other people are writing interesting things as well. Today I wanted to put up three articles by women, all of them first rate!
Is Submission Always A Good Thing?
Dependent Slaves
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Family Versus Liberalism
Is Submission Always A Good Thing?
Have you noticed how shallow many modern women are? They are like empty vessels, without any original thought in their heads. They will blindly follow social trends and do or support whatever the MSM tell them is the latest coolest thing to do at the moment. They are always trying to fit in. I once personally witnessed a feminist lady walking into a traditional Eastern church where all the females wear headcoverings and start demanding that she's be given one, too, in order not to stick out. That made me wonder how many ardent feminists would actually support ISIS clothing guidelines if these guys ever came to power.Ladies It Is Not Your Job To Change Society
We, as women, are not supposed to fight for TradCon society and future. The whole idea we believe in -or at least I believe in- is that woman's place is at home. Not on barricades and heated political arguments. Women have never, ever achieved anything worth mentioning by fighting. Men do the fighting. They are good at it, thanks to testosterone.
Dependent Slaves
First, independence does not exist. It is an illusion. We are all dependent.Enjoy!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Family Versus Liberalism
Saturday, 21 September 2019
Feminism is a Test
In a recent article I asked do women have agency, in which I said that the traditional view was that men have agency and women do not. I further said that the traditional view was also the modern view. I then wrote another article feminism versus women, in which I said that feminism does not help or protect women. If that is true then why do women support feminism?
What benefit do women receive for supporting feminism?
To understand this we must accept that men and women are biological creatures, which means that we exist to fulfill a role, different roles. That is obvious if you compare the differences between the male and the female body. Men for example are much bigger and stronger than women. Today we see movies and tv programs were petite women are fighting and defeating large groups of big men. So many people are confused, on purpose, about how much stronger a man is compared to a women. One average man is as strong as two average women. Women at the peak of their physical fitness in their 20's have as much strength and stamina as a man in his mid-50's.
Women are both weaker and more passive than men. Men are attracted to his, just as women are attracted to the opposite. However in the real world men come in all shapes and sizes, physically and mentally. In a direct challenge men win, so women have had to find other ways of getting what they need or want. One method is to test men. Now most men find these tests very unfair as normally the test is done secretly, which they are, but for women they serve an important function.
There are a number of things we need to understand about tests.
1) They provide a way for a women to test a man without openly challenging him
2) Testing is normally done because a women feels insecure
3) Women do not always know that they are testing a men, it may be conscious or subconscious
4) Whether the test is conscious or subconscious she always knows if a man has passed or failed the test
5) Women are greatly comforted and attracted to a man when he passes a test and the opposite when he fails
6) Women want men to pass the tests they give them
7. A women will not help you pass your test, it's not her test, it's yours.
Like most things, testing can serve a good or a bad purpose, overdone it destroys trust, relationships, marriages and lives. Most of the time the man passes it and doesn't even realise or it creates frustrations between men and women. Men would like to know that they are being tested and women feel that that is a big part of the test. Women want men to lead, to make decisions and to have good judgement. That is why when a man passes a test women are comforted and attracted to the man.
What does all this have to do with Feminism?
Feminism is the female centred branch of Liberalism. Therefore it includes womens attributes. Women test men, Feminism is simply upscaled to include society. Instead of simply being between one man and one women, it is now between all men and all women. Which means that when Feminists insist on speaking for all women, it is men not women who must speak back. Women go along with it because they want to be lead, many want to know what to think. They are passive.
If men had simply said no to Feminism, then the world would be a very different place. But instead when Feminism made demands men accepted them. Which lead to more outrageous demands. And here is the sad truth about Feminism, the more it gets the madder it gets. It is insatiable because it doesn't want what it has or what it demands, what it wants is for men to pass the test. For men to accept their responsibilities and to provide leadership.
And even though women want men to pass this test they will not help us pass it, it's our test not theirs!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Welfare and Traditional Conservatism
What benefit do women receive for supporting feminism?
To understand this we must accept that men and women are biological creatures, which means that we exist to fulfill a role, different roles. That is obvious if you compare the differences between the male and the female body. Men for example are much bigger and stronger than women. Today we see movies and tv programs were petite women are fighting and defeating large groups of big men. So many people are confused, on purpose, about how much stronger a man is compared to a women. One average man is as strong as two average women. Women at the peak of their physical fitness in their 20's have as much strength and stamina as a man in his mid-50's.
Women are both weaker and more passive than men. Men are attracted to his, just as women are attracted to the opposite. However in the real world men come in all shapes and sizes, physically and mentally. In a direct challenge men win, so women have had to find other ways of getting what they need or want. One method is to test men. Now most men find these tests very unfair as normally the test is done secretly, which they are, but for women they serve an important function.
There are a number of things we need to understand about tests.
1) They provide a way for a women to test a man without openly challenging him
2) Testing is normally done because a women feels insecure
3) Women do not always know that they are testing a men, it may be conscious or subconscious
4) Whether the test is conscious or subconscious she always knows if a man has passed or failed the test
5) Women are greatly comforted and attracted to a man when he passes a test and the opposite when he fails
6) Women want men to pass the tests they give them
7. A women will not help you pass your test, it's not her test, it's yours.
Like most things, testing can serve a good or a bad purpose, overdone it destroys trust, relationships, marriages and lives. Most of the time the man passes it and doesn't even realise or it creates frustrations between men and women. Men would like to know that they are being tested and women feel that that is a big part of the test. Women want men to lead, to make decisions and to have good judgement. That is why when a man passes a test women are comforted and attracted to the man.
What does all this have to do with Feminism?
Feminism is the female centred branch of Liberalism. Therefore it includes womens attributes. Women test men, Feminism is simply upscaled to include society. Instead of simply being between one man and one women, it is now between all men and all women. Which means that when Feminists insist on speaking for all women, it is men not women who must speak back. Women go along with it because they want to be lead, many want to know what to think. They are passive.
If men had simply said no to Feminism, then the world would be a very different place. But instead when Feminism made demands men accepted them. Which lead to more outrageous demands. And here is the sad truth about Feminism, the more it gets the madder it gets. It is insatiable because it doesn't want what it has or what it demands, what it wants is for men to pass the test. For men to accept their responsibilities and to provide leadership.
And even though women want men to pass this test they will not help us pass it, it's our test not theirs!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Welfare and Traditional Conservatism
Thursday, 19 September 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Conference 2019 in One Month
Only one month until the Conference.
The location of the venue will 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 dietry 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 you are 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 Baking and You
5. Class Warfare to 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 at uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types of Modern Liberals
The location of the venue will 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 dietry 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 you are 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 Baking and You
5. Class Warfare to 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 at uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types of Modern Liberals
Wednesday, 18 September 2019
Feminism Versus Women
Feminism is the Ladies Auxiliary of Liberalism. It likes to think of itself as a separate and distinct philosophy. But it's job has always been to extend Liberal thinking from 'men only' to include women. What that means is that Liberal men support Feminism, because they correctly think of it as 'their' philosophy. Put another way Liberalism and Feminism are in most regards the same philosophy.
Liberalism makes many claims about itself, many of them quite grandiose, however it is quite shy about many of it's achievements. It does not like to talk about how it achieved it's long list of 'reforms'. In 1800, there was no civil divorce, women rarely got custody of the children, women couldn't own property, they couldn't vote and abortion was both a sin and illegal.
Today all of those things are legal, and they are regarded as great achievements that Feminism brought to the world.
So who made civil divorce legal? Liberal men did.
Who made no fault divorce legal? Liberal men
Who made sure that women got custody of the children? Liberal men
Who gave women property rights? Liberal men
Who gave women the vote? Liberal men
Who legalized abortion? Liberal men
Isn't Feminism supposed to be about female liberation?
But here is the dirty little secret of Feminism, it has hardly achieved anything by itself. It has always had men do the hard work while it took the credit.
Liberalism rejects human nature, man is not made in the image of God, man is self-made. Feminism says that women is also self-made. In other words we are not part of nature, but outside and above nature. We can transform nature and ourselves. It also means that our natural desires are unnatural, because we are not part of nature, so it is impossible for us to have natural desires. Breaking up human nature is part of the Liberal and therefore the Feminist projects.
It does not matter whether something is good or bad for people. If a particular policy hurts women, that is neither here or there, what matters is, is it good for the project? Is it good for creating the Autonomous Individual? That is what matters.
Feminism does not work to support or protect women, it serves a Master not a Mistress.
It's Master is Liberalism and Liberalism aim is to destroy the world as it is and to create a perfect world. A Liberal world, the world of the Autonomous Individual.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Destroying the Future
Liberalism makes many claims about itself, many of them quite grandiose, however it is quite shy about many of it's achievements. It does not like to talk about how it achieved it's long list of 'reforms'. In 1800, there was no civil divorce, women rarely got custody of the children, women couldn't own property, they couldn't vote and abortion was both a sin and illegal.
Today all of those things are legal, and they are regarded as great achievements that Feminism brought to the world.
So who made civil divorce legal? Liberal men did.
Who made no fault divorce legal? Liberal men
Who made sure that women got custody of the children? Liberal men
Who gave women property rights? Liberal men
Who gave women the vote? Liberal men
Who legalized abortion? Liberal men
Isn't Feminism supposed to be about female liberation?
But here is the dirty little secret of Feminism, it has hardly achieved anything by itself. It has always had men do the hard work while it took the credit.
Liberalism rejects human nature, man is not made in the image of God, man is self-made. Feminism says that women is also self-made. In other words we are not part of nature, but outside and above nature. We can transform nature and ourselves. It also means that our natural desires are unnatural, because we are not part of nature, so it is impossible for us to have natural desires. Breaking up human nature is part of the Liberal and therefore the Feminist projects.
It does not matter whether something is good or bad for people. If a particular policy hurts women, that is neither here or there, what matters is, is it good for the project? Is it good for creating the Autonomous Individual? That is what matters.
Feminism does not work to support or protect women, it serves a Master not a Mistress.
It's Master is Liberalism and Liberalism aim is to destroy the world as it is and to create a perfect world. A Liberal world, the world of the Autonomous Individual.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Destroying the Future
Tuesday, 17 September 2019
Do Women Have Agency?
Agency means 'anything which acts or produces a result'. Traditionally nearly ever culture has accepted that men have Agency, men made things happen and that also meant that men were responsible for the outcome of those actions. Men were responsible for the government, armies, religions and families. Because men were active.
Traditionally, women in most cultures, although not all, were seen as having no Agency. Their responsibilities were to people, normally relatives, not to institutions or to the wider culture or civilization. Women were regarded as passive, at best reactive. So when the Empire fell and the armies were scattered and the old Gods forgotten, it wasn't women's fault, because they had neither the power nor the responsibilities to maintain those things. It was men who had failed and it was men, other men, who had caused these things to pass. Because men are active and women are passive.
But because people are fallible this was not always adhered to, sometimes women did get the blame. Although the blame that attaches to women is nearly always about sexual and personal morality. You would think that all this would be a thing of the past, and that now that we are endlessly told about the equality of men and women it would not be an issue.
However all around us people and institutions hold on to the traditional view of agency, men are active and women are passive. If you listen to or read the news you will see story after story about events happening to women, not about how women shape events but how events shape women. Women are nearly always portrayed as being shaped by their environment. In a sense they are like rocks in a stream, shaped by the forces around them.
In those same news stories you will read about the most evil men, the smartest and the dumbest criminals, politicians, businessmen, sportsmen and what they all have in common is that they are active. They make things happen, they have agency. They are not shaped by events, they shape events. In a sense they are like water in a stream, they shape the environment around them.
This view of agency is not absolute, it is simply overwhelming.
Now one group who you would think would reject the traditional view of agency is Feminists. However much of Feminist thinking adheres rigidly to the traditional view. Whenever there is a dispute between a man and a women the man is responsible for things being this way. Men are active, men make things happen, men are responsible for the outcome of events. That is both traditional and Feminist thinking. Were they part company is that Feminism believes that women should also not be held responsible for either sexual or personal morality, something that tradition does.
Here Feminism is at cross purposes, on the one hand they insist that men are responsible in our personal life but not women. On the other they insist that women are fully capable of agency when it comes to politics and economics. There is no difference between a male and a female politician or CEO. But in dating, divorce, domestic violence, children and any number of other interpersonal issues women have no agency, these things happen to women and men are responsible.
To show how far they push this they insist that a women should be able to walk naked at 3 am through a pack of bikies and that nothing should happen to her. They believe, just as Liberalism does, that life should not have consequences. However most people would be quite shocked by this occurring, because we would wonder why a women would put herself in such a dangerous situation. Why would a women set herself up?
If something did occur to this women, Feminists would deny fervently that the women in question was in any way responsible. If women are passive and have no agency then they cannot be held responsible, because only people with agency can be responsible for an event occurring. Men have agency so anything that happens would be the responsibility of men. That's why Feminists insist that men should stop being rapists. A women cannot set herself up, men make things happen, women are passive, things happen to them.
Our civilization does not believe that women have agency, it sticks to the traditional belief. While still insisting that if a women chooses to have agency then she does have it. Communists call this an internal contradiction, and they say that this is what causes systems to fail. It might be one of the few things that Communists are right about!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Socialism, Why We Are Not Socialists
Traditionally, women in most cultures, although not all, were seen as having no Agency. Their responsibilities were to people, normally relatives, not to institutions or to the wider culture or civilization. Women were regarded as passive, at best reactive. So when the Empire fell and the armies were scattered and the old Gods forgotten, it wasn't women's fault, because they had neither the power nor the responsibilities to maintain those things. It was men who had failed and it was men, other men, who had caused these things to pass. Because men are active and women are passive.
But because people are fallible this was not always adhered to, sometimes women did get the blame. Although the blame that attaches to women is nearly always about sexual and personal morality. You would think that all this would be a thing of the past, and that now that we are endlessly told about the equality of men and women it would not be an issue.
However all around us people and institutions hold on to the traditional view of agency, men are active and women are passive. If you listen to or read the news you will see story after story about events happening to women, not about how women shape events but how events shape women. Women are nearly always portrayed as being shaped by their environment. In a sense they are like rocks in a stream, shaped by the forces around them.
In those same news stories you will read about the most evil men, the smartest and the dumbest criminals, politicians, businessmen, sportsmen and what they all have in common is that they are active. They make things happen, they have agency. They are not shaped by events, they shape events. In a sense they are like water in a stream, they shape the environment around them.
This view of agency is not absolute, it is simply overwhelming.
Now one group who you would think would reject the traditional view of agency is Feminists. However much of Feminist thinking adheres rigidly to the traditional view. Whenever there is a dispute between a man and a women the man is responsible for things being this way. Men are active, men make things happen, men are responsible for the outcome of events. That is both traditional and Feminist thinking. Were they part company is that Feminism believes that women should also not be held responsible for either sexual or personal morality, something that tradition does.
Here Feminism is at cross purposes, on the one hand they insist that men are responsible in our personal life but not women. On the other they insist that women are fully capable of agency when it comes to politics and economics. There is no difference between a male and a female politician or CEO. But in dating, divorce, domestic violence, children and any number of other interpersonal issues women have no agency, these things happen to women and men are responsible.
To show how far they push this they insist that a women should be able to walk naked at 3 am through a pack of bikies and that nothing should happen to her. They believe, just as Liberalism does, that life should not have consequences. However most people would be quite shocked by this occurring, because we would wonder why a women would put herself in such a dangerous situation. Why would a women set herself up?
If something did occur to this women, Feminists would deny fervently that the women in question was in any way responsible. If women are passive and have no agency then they cannot be held responsible, because only people with agency can be responsible for an event occurring. Men have agency so anything that happens would be the responsibility of men. That's why Feminists insist that men should stop being rapists. A women cannot set herself up, men make things happen, women are passive, things happen to them.
Our civilization does not believe that women have agency, it sticks to the traditional belief. While still insisting that if a women chooses to have agency then she does have it. Communists call this an internal contradiction, and they say that this is what causes systems to fail. It might be one of the few things that Communists are right about!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Socialism, Why We Are Not Socialists
Monday, 16 September 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Nine
Normally we do the podcast on a Monday morning, but last week and this week, due to circumstances we moved it to Thursday. So why are you getting this on Monday?
Because for some reason Youtube didn't upload the video. Today it did it in 15 minutes which unheard of for me. Anyway you should get two this week, one now and one Friday or Saturday.
This week we talk about women and a little about immigration, but mostly about women.
27 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Saturday, 14 September 2019
Competition or Collusion?
This weekend I am interstate, I'm visiting family in Adelaide and using my brothers computer to write this. I was hoping to move some furniture at the same time so I contacted some hire companies to hire a moving van.
I called Budget, one of the hire companies and spoke to a women in the Philippines who quoted me $109 which I queried as it seemed to cheap. The women insisted that the price was correct, but I didn't book a vehicle as it was smaller than I wanted. I then rang Eurocar who quoted me $642 for the exact same thing. I then called Thrifty and they said I had to hire the vehicle for 5 days at a cost of $1800!
The next day I went into my nearest Budget store to see if it really was $109, it wasn't. The Indian man who served me told me I had to hire the vehicle for 2 days and it would also cost $1800. I said no thanks and went home to see what quote the call centre would give me now. I called and spoke to Mr. X ( in these call centres they all have fake English names, some have very good English and others can hardly pronounce their fake names correctly), Mr. X is neither his real or his fake name.
I told him what I was after and then I asked him for a quote and he said to me that the computer system was down and that he would call me back when it came back online. I waited and waited and I was getting worried so I decided to call Avis. I called and the operator said his name was Mr. X, that's a coincidence I thought. I told him what I was after and then he said 'our computer system is down' at which point I realised it was no coincidence, I was speaking to the exact same operator!
I started laughing at which point Mr. X asked me 'is that you Mark!'!
At which point he started laughing and why not.
So now I know that Budget and Avis use the exact same call centre in the Philippines, the question is how many of these 'competitors' use this call centre?
Just how competitive is this industry?
I'd also like to know why an Australian in Australia trying to hire a vehicle to use in Australia, needs to speak to someone in the Philippines?
From the prices I was quoted I felt like I was buying gold instead of hiring a vehicle for a day. In the end I didn't hire anything. We are supposed to have a free enterprise economic system, whereby competition should drive down prices and that is our reward for the inequities of the system. There is no such thing as perfection in human affairs, most people accept that. Economics is no exception. Today the old arguments do not work, what justification exists for us being exploited by corporations for the exclusive benefit of corporations?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Merry Christmas From the Terror Capital of Australia
I called Budget, one of the hire companies and spoke to a women in the Philippines who quoted me $109 which I queried as it seemed to cheap. The women insisted that the price was correct, but I didn't book a vehicle as it was smaller than I wanted. I then rang Eurocar who quoted me $642 for the exact same thing. I then called Thrifty and they said I had to hire the vehicle for 5 days at a cost of $1800!
The next day I went into my nearest Budget store to see if it really was $109, it wasn't. The Indian man who served me told me I had to hire the vehicle for 2 days and it would also cost $1800. I said no thanks and went home to see what quote the call centre would give me now. I called and spoke to Mr. X ( in these call centres they all have fake English names, some have very good English and others can hardly pronounce their fake names correctly), Mr. X is neither his real or his fake name.
I told him what I was after and then I asked him for a quote and he said to me that the computer system was down and that he would call me back when it came back online. I waited and waited and I was getting worried so I decided to call Avis. I called and the operator said his name was Mr. X, that's a coincidence I thought. I told him what I was after and then he said 'our computer system is down' at which point I realised it was no coincidence, I was speaking to the exact same operator!
I started laughing at which point Mr. X asked me 'is that you Mark!'!
At which point he started laughing and why not.
So now I know that Budget and Avis use the exact same call centre in the Philippines, the question is how many of these 'competitors' use this call centre?
Just how competitive is this industry?
I'd also like to know why an Australian in Australia trying to hire a vehicle to use in Australia, needs to speak to someone in the Philippines?
From the prices I was quoted I felt like I was buying gold instead of hiring a vehicle for a day. In the end I didn't hire anything. We are supposed to have a free enterprise economic system, whereby competition should drive down prices and that is our reward for the inequities of the system. There is no such thing as perfection in human affairs, most people accept that. Economics is no exception. Today the old arguments do not work, what justification exists for us being exploited by corporations for the exclusive benefit of corporations?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Merry Christmas From the Terror Capital of Australia
Wednesday, 11 September 2019
The Seventy-Eighth Month
The last month has been my second best month ever!
In August I had 5,910 visitors, in the last 30 days I have had 5,477 visitors, which puts the last 30 days in third place. I'm very happy with those figures. My best day was the 31st August when I had 657 visitors and my worst day was the 16th August when I had 54 visitors.
I have been blogging for 6 1/2 years and at this time of year I give out the top 10 most read posts. This list is different from what is on the left of the front page, I believe the reason for that is that the list on the left is weighted towards more recent visitor numbers. While the list I will provide is not. Listed below are the top 12, the numbers in brackets are the number of times they have been clicked on.
(6362) What Do Traditional Conservatives Believe?
(3678) Free Trade Versus Protectionism
(3370) Why Don't the Poor Marry?
(3193) Why Do Conservatives Believe in Different Social Classes?
(2308) Feminism, Why We Are Not Feminists
(2211) What Is More Important, The Past, The Present or The Future?
(2058) The Balanced Society
(2016) The Problems of Monarchy
(2001) Housewives, Good For The Economy And Society
(1290) Multiculturalism, The Conclusion
(1268) Is There a Path For Men Anymore?
(1228) The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination
In the Seventy-Eight months that this blog has been running I have had over 91,000 American, 33,000 Australian and 15,000 Russian visitors.
August - September
July - August
As you can see I have had a massive increase from the United States!
In August I had 5,910 visitors, in the last 30 days I have had 5,477 visitors, which puts the last 30 days in third place. I'm very happy with those figures. My best day was the 31st August when I had 657 visitors and my worst day was the 16th August when I had 54 visitors.
I have been blogging for 6 1/2 years and at this time of year I give out the top 10 most read posts. This list is different from what is on the left of the front page, I believe the reason for that is that the list on the left is weighted towards more recent visitor numbers. While the list I will provide is not. Listed below are the top 12, the numbers in brackets are the number of times they have been clicked on.
(6362) What Do Traditional Conservatives Believe?
(3678) Free Trade Versus Protectionism
(3370) Why Don't the Poor Marry?
(3193) Why Do Conservatives Believe in Different Social Classes?
(2308) Feminism, Why We Are Not Feminists
(2211) What Is More Important, The Past, The Present or The Future?
(2058) The Balanced Society
(2016) The Problems of Monarchy
(2001) Housewives, Good For The Economy And Society
(1290) Multiculturalism, The Conclusion
(1268) Is There a Path For Men Anymore?
(1228) The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination
In the Seventy-Eight months that this blog has been running I have had over 91,000 American, 33,000 Australian and 15,000 Russian visitors.
August - September
As you can see I have had a massive increase from the United States!
Australia, Germany and Canada are also up.
Unknown Region is basically the same.
The Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Russia are all down.
The Philippines has entered the top 10 and France has left.
I have also had visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Israel, U.A.E., India, Bangladesh, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Belize, Panama, Brazil, Peru, Argentina
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
The Philippines has entered the top 10 and France has left.
I have also had visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Israel, U.A.E., India, Bangladesh, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Belize, Panama, Brazil, Peru, Argentina
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
Tuesday, 10 September 2019
Learn to Get Along - Or Else!
'Teachers are being trained as human rights ambassadors in a bid to stamp out racism, sexism and discrimination in Victorian classroom' Heard Sun, Sunday 1st September 2019, page 25.
Our old friends at the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission have eight schools undertaking this pilot program. And what a program it is, quite ambitious in it's effort to subvert reality. For that is what the program seeks to do. It all comes down to the lie of equality. The idea that we are all the same, interchangeable, which is a lie that everyone knows to be a lie. I mean it is state ideology, yet it remains a lie.
'Ms Smith said for some teachers, it was "an epiphany" to be told they had a responsibility to look out for racism and sexism in schools.'
So teachers will be looking out for anyone who notices that different races are different and for anyone who notices that the different sexes are different. These Jacobin's just keep going two centuries after the French Revolution. Reality must be denied and rejected. Children must be taught that the only opinion that's acceptable is the opinion that they have been told to have. Thinking your own thoughts is wrong and so is noticing, for heavens sake don't notice!
Equality means forcing every square peg into those round holes, everyone must fit in....or else!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Creating Wealth
Our old friends at the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission have eight schools undertaking this pilot program. And what a program it is, quite ambitious in it's effort to subvert reality. For that is what the program seeks to do. It all comes down to the lie of equality. The idea that we are all the same, interchangeable, which is a lie that everyone knows to be a lie. I mean it is state ideology, yet it remains a lie.
'Ms Smith said for some teachers, it was "an epiphany" to be told they had a responsibility to look out for racism and sexism in schools.'
So teachers will be looking out for anyone who notices that different races are different and for anyone who notices that the different sexes are different. These Jacobin's just keep going two centuries after the French Revolution. Reality must be denied and rejected. Children must be taught that the only opinion that's acceptable is the opinion that they have been told to have. Thinking your own thoughts is wrong and so is noticing, for heavens sake don't notice!
Equality means forcing every square peg into those round holes, everyone must fit in....or else!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Creating Wealth
Saturday, 7 September 2019
Melbourne "Parasite City-State"
Victoria imported $54,000,000,000 ($54 Billion) more than it exported last year. As 5,000,000 of the 6,000,000 people in Victoria live in Melbourne, this is really about Melbourne. Last year we imported $105,700,000,000 ($105.7 B) worth of goods and services, we exported $51,500,000000 ($51.5 B).
Dr. Bob Birrell is the Director of the Australian Population Research Institute and it was he who said that we are a "parasite city-state"'. He also said:
"Victorians were promised that under economic reforms of the past, the state would become a key exporter of knowledge intensive goods and services."
"This proved to be false."
Yes it did. Victoria was once Australia's manufacturing heart, today nearly all of that is gone. Not all, just most. There is still a high technology manufacturing base, but while it's products are of an extremely high quality it is not labour intensive. We, along with half of the Western world, were told that the old manufacturing jobs would go but new, better jobs would arrive. Yes, but what they didn't say was the total amount of jobs would be much less than before.
"Last year, our ETM (elaborately transformed manufacturing) imports increased by 9.9 per cent to $56.2 billion, while ETM exports remained steady at only $7.7 billion."
"The ETM deficit is actually growing, and that's because most of the industries that did have the capacity to export - including the car and telecommunications industries in bygone days - are mostly gone, and new ones have not emerged."
China is Victoria's main importer at $20.2 Billion and our main export country with $6.4 Billion exported.
This sad state of affairs is occurring all over the world, not just in the West. It is said that a fool and his money are soon parted....well what can you expect when we are all living in a fools paradise?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Is There a Path For Men Anymore?
Dr. Bob Birrell is the Director of the Australian Population Research Institute and it was he who said that we are a "parasite city-state"'. He also said:
"Victorians were promised that under economic reforms of the past, the state would become a key exporter of knowledge intensive goods and services."
"This proved to be false."
Yes it did. Victoria was once Australia's manufacturing heart, today nearly all of that is gone. Not all, just most. There is still a high technology manufacturing base, but while it's products are of an extremely high quality it is not labour intensive. We, along with half of the Western world, were told that the old manufacturing jobs would go but new, better jobs would arrive. Yes, but what they didn't say was the total amount of jobs would be much less than before.
"Last year, our ETM (elaborately transformed manufacturing) imports increased by 9.9 per cent to $56.2 billion, while ETM exports remained steady at only $7.7 billion."
"The ETM deficit is actually growing, and that's because most of the industries that did have the capacity to export - including the car and telecommunications industries in bygone days - are mostly gone, and new ones have not emerged."
China is Victoria's main importer at $20.2 Billion and our main export country with $6.4 Billion exported.
This sad state of affairs is occurring all over the world, not just in the West. It is said that a fool and his money are soon parted....well what can you expect when we are all living in a fools paradise?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Is There a Path For Men Anymore?
Tuesday, 3 September 2019
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Eight
This episode could have been posted yesterday if I had remembered to press publish! So I hope you agree with me that it's better late then never. This week we talk about Melbourne, it's urban sprawl both outwards and upwards and we disagree about skyscrapers.
28 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Eight
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Mr. Turnbull is Right About Something
28 minutes long
Click on the link and enjoy!
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Eight
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Mr. Turnbull is Right About Something
Sunday, 1 September 2019
The Common Good and Liberalism
Over at ozconservative Mark Richardson has written a post partial interest and the common good, in which he asks the question "Can a society that lacks the notion of a common good prosper?". Liberalism certainly used to believe in the common good, in the idea that society should serve and protect every class and segment of society, even if it didn't always live up to it's high ideals.
However the ultimate goal of Liberalism is the Autonomous Individual, a person who is completely free from all restraint and consequences. Someone who is self-made, independent from other people and without anything that binds them, no family, religion or nation, nothing that binds them to others. Such a person must be selfish, in fact there is no other option. Everything is about the self.
The question I have is, is a society of Autonomous Individuals really a society?
Isn't it an oxymoron?
So if that is true and I believe that it is, what purpose would a 'common good' serve?
Mr. Richardson lists four reasons why a society that lacks a common good will not prosper.
1. 'there will be a widening sense of incompatibility between those at the top and the rest of the population'
2. 'erode the conscientiousness and sense of duty that once helped motivate people to make and to keep their commitments to others'
3. 'it will be more difficult to persuade people to make lifelong commitments'
4. 'where then do these women find husbands with a similar or higher standard of education?'
These are all good Traditionalist questions, however I cannot help thinking that every one of these serves the ultimate goal of Liberalism. The creation of the Autonomous Individual.
What purpose does a common good serve to an Autonomous Individual?
I don't see any purpose. That seems to me to be a Government problem, not a concern for a selfish and rootless individual. Under Liberalism the Autonomous Individual is a hermit who lives with billions of other hermits. They may live cheek by jowl but they live separate and unconnected lives. To create these billions of individuals means destroying society. Each person must see everyone else as disposable. Otherwise people would form bonds and that is not an Autonomous Individual, because they explicitly must not form bonds.
The fact that different segments of society don't get along is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that we do not have a sense of duty to other people is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that people are not forming life term commitments is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that women cannot find suitable husbands is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that our society is not working is not an accident, it has been planned and designed. Not only does Liberalism want to radically change our relationship to each other, it also wants to radically change our relationship to the Government. Under Liberalism the Autonomous Individual looks towards the Government as it's family, it's religion and it's nation. The Government is all powerful, it's is your parent and your boss and your spouse. But the individual will be told how free they are and they will be given total freedom as long as it does not step on the toes of the Government. Each person will be free to love who they want, they will be free to define what love is, they will be promiscuous or not as they choose, they can eat, drink or do drugs as they want, go on holiday where they want, etc., etc., etc.
But they will never marry as that binds them and they will never raise their own children as that also binds them. Of course you can have sex and have offspring, but the Government will raise them freeing you from such a burden, whether you like that or not.
The common good serves no purpose in such a world, the individual is ill prepared for such responsibility, no, that responsibility will be borne by the Government.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Bi-Polar Party - the Liberal Party of Australia
However the ultimate goal of Liberalism is the Autonomous Individual, a person who is completely free from all restraint and consequences. Someone who is self-made, independent from other people and without anything that binds them, no family, religion or nation, nothing that binds them to others. Such a person must be selfish, in fact there is no other option. Everything is about the self.
The question I have is, is a society of Autonomous Individuals really a society?
Isn't it an oxymoron?
So if that is true and I believe that it is, what purpose would a 'common good' serve?
Mr. Richardson lists four reasons why a society that lacks a common good will not prosper.
1. 'there will be a widening sense of incompatibility between those at the top and the rest of the population'
2. 'erode the conscientiousness and sense of duty that once helped motivate people to make and to keep their commitments to others'
3. 'it will be more difficult to persuade people to make lifelong commitments'
4. 'where then do these women find husbands with a similar or higher standard of education?'
These are all good Traditionalist questions, however I cannot help thinking that every one of these serves the ultimate goal of Liberalism. The creation of the Autonomous Individual.
What purpose does a common good serve to an Autonomous Individual?
I don't see any purpose. That seems to me to be a Government problem, not a concern for a selfish and rootless individual. Under Liberalism the Autonomous Individual is a hermit who lives with billions of other hermits. They may live cheek by jowl but they live separate and unconnected lives. To create these billions of individuals means destroying society. Each person must see everyone else as disposable. Otherwise people would form bonds and that is not an Autonomous Individual, because they explicitly must not form bonds.
The fact that different segments of society don't get along is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that we do not have a sense of duty to other people is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that people are not forming life term commitments is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that women cannot find suitable husbands is perfect for creating the Autonomous Individual.
The fact that our society is not working is not an accident, it has been planned and designed. Not only does Liberalism want to radically change our relationship to each other, it also wants to radically change our relationship to the Government. Under Liberalism the Autonomous Individual looks towards the Government as it's family, it's religion and it's nation. The Government is all powerful, it's is your parent and your boss and your spouse. But the individual will be told how free they are and they will be given total freedom as long as it does not step on the toes of the Government. Each person will be free to love who they want, they will be free to define what love is, they will be promiscuous or not as they choose, they can eat, drink or do drugs as they want, go on holiday where they want, etc., etc., etc.
But they will never marry as that binds them and they will never raise their own children as that also binds them. Of course you can have sex and have offspring, but the Government will raise them freeing you from such a burden, whether you like that or not.
The common good serves no purpose in such a world, the individual is ill prepared for such responsibility, no, that responsibility will be borne by the Government.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Bi-Polar Party - the Liberal Party of Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)