'I always vote Left, if I didn't the rich would eat the poor, I'm not even exaggerating!'
'I always vote Right, if I didn't we would pay 100% in taxes, I'm not even exaggerating!'
Have you ever been in one of these conversations?
Have you ever uttered something similar?
Don't worry it's a game everyone falls into once or twice. Supporting your team against the other side. The nightly news encourages each and every one of us to play the game, to support 'our side'.
'Your candidate is ugly and stupid!'
'Well at least their not as stupid and ugly as yours!'
As our Civilization crumbles around us, as our society disappears, as we are replaced and betrayed, people keep playing this game. Political sport, my team versus your team. Even though none of the teams represent us. Nor do most of the players. It's not even our sport anymore. And everything that I've said about politics applies to sport.
All of these things are circuses, distractions. We all need an escape, but we should not be cheering for our enemies. Nor should we be financing them if we can help it. Once these things, politics, sport, entertainment belonged to us, they were part of us. Sadly those days are gone.
It is not that they do 100% wrong, they sometimes do do good. Sometimes they are unfairly attacked and you defend them. But remember to praise them because they did something good, or to defend them when they are unfairly attacked....but not because they are on a team. Whether that is Team Left or Team Right. You should support people who are on your side, they need to join your team, our team.
If someone is not on your side, why would you be on theirs?
We need to stop treating politics as if it is a sport. We need to treat it as our enemies treat it, as combat!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Do Women Have Agency?
Sunday, 29 December 2019
Saturday, 28 December 2019
Why Aren't Men As Sexy As They Used To Be?
Actually I don't think men are sexy at all...but a rather large portion of the population do think their sexy, for arguments sake lets call them women. It is entirely normal and natural that women should be sexually attracted to men. That is true now and it was true in the past. However the things that make a man attractive to a women have been diminishing for quite some time. If you follow your family tree back you will find that at some point two of your ancestors had 12 children. Today a women who has 2 children is above average.
My contention is that in the past men were much sexier to women than they are today. I'm not saying that there is no truth to the normal explanations, that in the countryside children are additional workers and in the city they bring no economic benefit. Or that women's education has no effect. What I'm saying is that it neglects the fact that in the past two centuries human life has changed enormously. And that that change has had just as big a change on the things that women find sexy in men.
The thing that each sex finds attractive in the opposite sex is that we find the things that we do not possess attractive. Men are hard, women are soft, men are tall, women are short, we are attracted to the opposite, physically and mentally.
Men are attracted principally to a women's physical beauty as her physical attributes are signals to her ability to produce healthy babies. The length and shine of her hair, the clearness of her eyes and skin, etc.. Even if a man's conscious mind does not understand this, his subconscious mind does. Only then do her personality, intelligence and other qualities come into view.
For a women attraction is not as simple, certainly she is attracted to a man's look and his physical appearance. How a man affects her emotionally is much more important, because a women is attracted to masculine qualities that are in conflict with each other. Women want safety and security, however they also want excitement and spontaneity. Men can provide these things but they are in conflict with each other.
Natural has provided a large number of ways for women to be attracted to men, to make men sexy to women. In other words things that make women want to have sex with men. The advancement of our civilization has removed some of these things, somethings by accident, sometimes on purpose.
Men and women need to be dependent upon each other, we need to be needed and we need to depend upon other people. Independence is a lie. That dependence has been taken away from us. Even though we need it.
Today a women can own property, she can have a job outside of the home, she can live independently. Once a women needed her husband to provide those things, she was dependent upon him just as he was dependent upon her. That dependence means that the other person is important, vital. You want to take care of something that is important and vital.
In the past most men were farmers, they worked the land and they smelt of the earth and hard work. Smells are attractive to women. A man who smells is something women like. And smell is not the same thing as stink. Women are not attracted to stink. When a women falls in love she wants to wear her mans clothes, because she has nothing to wear? Of course not, because his clothes smell of him. Women are attracted to a mans natural smell. Today we work in jobs were we don't smell, we wear clothes that have been washed, our bodies are washed and often smell of artificial smells, instead of our natural smell.
Women love candles, the flicker of the flame, the smell. The same is true of a log fire, in fact both are considered romantic. Before electricity the candle, the log fire, the lantern were how we lit the darkness. Why do women find this attractive? Because it's natural, in a sense it is another natural light source. The light that protects us and keeps us warm. Now our homes are heated and lit by electricity. For all the benefits of electricity it is not romantic.
The Police have usurped men's rightful role as the protector of his women. Once women had to reply on men to protect them. Not random men in uniform, but their fathers, brothers, husband. Today if there is a problem they call the police or firemen, instead of the men in their lives.
Women have bad blood circulation, men have good blood circulation. When a women sleeps with a man he really did keep her warm. Today with central heating and electric blankets, what does she need a man for?
Sex is not only pleasurable but it aids in our happiness and health. It also produces emotions and binds us together. This is much more true for women although it is also true for men. That is why virginity was always viewed as so important for a women. So that her first sexual experience and emotional bonding with a man would be her husband. Promiscuity harms this. Instead of bonding to one man and loving him, her emotions are conflicted and confused. This makes it harder for her to bond with a man in the future.
Society once, only a few decades ago, did everything in it's power to make men more powerful than women. Why? One reason was because women find powerful men sexy. I'm not simply talking about Princes or millionaires, but even the average man was powerful compared to the average women. He provided her with status, with money, with a home, with security and safety. Men and women were dependent upon each other.
Neither men nor women have been served by making men less sexy to women. Men don't like it. Women don't like it. Both know that things aren't right, that once society worked and now it doesn't. We need to make men sexy again by making them important and vital, both men and women will approve!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Levellers, Then And Now
My contention is that in the past men were much sexier to women than they are today. I'm not saying that there is no truth to the normal explanations, that in the countryside children are additional workers and in the city they bring no economic benefit. Or that women's education has no effect. What I'm saying is that it neglects the fact that in the past two centuries human life has changed enormously. And that that change has had just as big a change on the things that women find sexy in men.
The thing that each sex finds attractive in the opposite sex is that we find the things that we do not possess attractive. Men are hard, women are soft, men are tall, women are short, we are attracted to the opposite, physically and mentally.
Men are attracted principally to a women's physical beauty as her physical attributes are signals to her ability to produce healthy babies. The length and shine of her hair, the clearness of her eyes and skin, etc.. Even if a man's conscious mind does not understand this, his subconscious mind does. Only then do her personality, intelligence and other qualities come into view.
For a women attraction is not as simple, certainly she is attracted to a man's look and his physical appearance. How a man affects her emotionally is much more important, because a women is attracted to masculine qualities that are in conflict with each other. Women want safety and security, however they also want excitement and spontaneity. Men can provide these things but they are in conflict with each other.
Natural has provided a large number of ways for women to be attracted to men, to make men sexy to women. In other words things that make women want to have sex with men. The advancement of our civilization has removed some of these things, somethings by accident, sometimes on purpose.
Men and women need to be dependent upon each other, we need to be needed and we need to depend upon other people. Independence is a lie. That dependence has been taken away from us. Even though we need it.
Today a women can own property, she can have a job outside of the home, she can live independently. Once a women needed her husband to provide those things, she was dependent upon him just as he was dependent upon her. That dependence means that the other person is important, vital. You want to take care of something that is important and vital.
In the past most men were farmers, they worked the land and they smelt of the earth and hard work. Smells are attractive to women. A man who smells is something women like. And smell is not the same thing as stink. Women are not attracted to stink. When a women falls in love she wants to wear her mans clothes, because she has nothing to wear? Of course not, because his clothes smell of him. Women are attracted to a mans natural smell. Today we work in jobs were we don't smell, we wear clothes that have been washed, our bodies are washed and often smell of artificial smells, instead of our natural smell.
Women love candles, the flicker of the flame, the smell. The same is true of a log fire, in fact both are considered romantic. Before electricity the candle, the log fire, the lantern were how we lit the darkness. Why do women find this attractive? Because it's natural, in a sense it is another natural light source. The light that protects us and keeps us warm. Now our homes are heated and lit by electricity. For all the benefits of electricity it is not romantic.
The Police have usurped men's rightful role as the protector of his women. Once women had to reply on men to protect them. Not random men in uniform, but their fathers, brothers, husband. Today if there is a problem they call the police or firemen, instead of the men in their lives.
Women have bad blood circulation, men have good blood circulation. When a women sleeps with a man he really did keep her warm. Today with central heating and electric blankets, what does she need a man for?
Sex is not only pleasurable but it aids in our happiness and health. It also produces emotions and binds us together. This is much more true for women although it is also true for men. That is why virginity was always viewed as so important for a women. So that her first sexual experience and emotional bonding with a man would be her husband. Promiscuity harms this. Instead of bonding to one man and loving him, her emotions are conflicted and confused. This makes it harder for her to bond with a man in the future.
Society once, only a few decades ago, did everything in it's power to make men more powerful than women. Why? One reason was because women find powerful men sexy. I'm not simply talking about Princes or millionaires, but even the average man was powerful compared to the average women. He provided her with status, with money, with a home, with security and safety. Men and women were dependent upon each other.
Neither men nor women have been served by making men less sexy to women. Men don't like it. Women don't like it. Both know that things aren't right, that once society worked and now it doesn't. We need to make men sexy again by making them important and vital, both men and women will approve!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Levellers, Then And Now
Tuesday, 24 December 2019
David's Favourite Movies - Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Twenty One
Recently I was asked to list my five favourite movies, this episode David Hiscox from XYZ lists his five favourite movies. The Return of the Jedi, The Enemy Below, Serenity (2005), The Matrix Trilogy and Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure.
Length: 30 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Twenty One
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalists Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Six
Length: 30 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Twenty One
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalists Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Six
Friday, 20 December 2019
Liberalism, What It Is And Why you Should Reject It
Liberalism is the defining political philosophy of our age, it surrounds us and affects every area of our life. Not only is it the defining philosophy of our age but of our parents age and of their parents. In the English speaking world it has been dominate since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Nearly every political party is a party of Liberalism, the Liberal party, the Labor party, the National party, the Greens. They all support Liberalism, they are merely variants upon the same theme.
So what is Liberalism?
Liberalism believes that freedom and liberty are what man wants. That he wants to be free to make his own decisions, to create his life as he see's fit. That he should not be restrained by the decisions of others. That he should be self made. That not only he, but his money, his labour and his goods should also be free from restraint. They should be able to be free to move without restrictions from place to place, from country to country.
However Liberalism is also a progressive philosophy, it never sits still, it is constantly changing, adding and subtracting parts from itself. This means that there are different types of Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, Right-Liberalism, Left-Liberalism, Libertarianism and Feminism are the important ones.
Like all of the political ideologies, Communism, Fascism, etc., Liberalism came out of Christian thinking. Specifically from Protestant thinking. In Catholicism between man and God is the priest. Man does not have a personal relationship with God. In Protestantism there are no priests, man has a personal relationship to God. Man prays directly to God and if he wants God speaks back. What happens to a man's faith when God does not speak back...ever?
Some men reach the conclusion that either God doesn't care or even that God does not exist. Atheism is as old as religion, but Secularism isn't, it's as old as Protestantism. And secularism is the idea that God gets in the way and that he needs to be removed, or at least curtailed. That man must rely upon his own mind and spirit because God cannot be relied upon. Slowly, very slowly, man replaces God. Slowly, very slowly man becomes God.
As man can no longer rely on God, man must also replace heaven after death with a man made paradise. One that man can exist in while alive. A utopia.
A utopia is a man made paradise where perfect people live under a perfect government within a perfect economic system. And at the heart of the Liberal version of utopia is the Autonomous Individual.
The Autonomous Individual is the end goal of Liberalism. Such a person is entirely self made, they can choose every facet of their lives. Their gender, their occupation, their religion, their experiences, where they live, everything. Such a person cannot be held back by attachments or loyalties. Those things are restraints and when a person is free, autonomous, that cannot be allowed. Life cannot have consequences. Life must be lived without restraint.
The Autonomous Individual may have children but they will not raise them as that would be a restraint, an obligation, a consequence. The Autonomous Individual cannot marry or love as that is an attachment. Lust is allowed, but not love.
The irony is that as more and more Autonomous Individuals are created the size of the government goes up. All other attachments are being removed, the churches, communities, ethnic loyalties, families. They are all being attacked and discredited. Only the government will be left. It will be all powerful, it will be the Autonomous Individuals parent and employer, their spouse and their friend. Because all other relationships will be as superficial as they can be made to be.
For those who think that this is too far fetched, that this could never come to pass, that no one would ever believe such outrageous things. I say you need to pay more attention to whats happening around you right now.
No fault divorce was not something people campaigned for, there were no marches or demonstrations demanding it. But we got it anyway. Just think, that 50 years ago most people in Australia had never met someone who had been divorced. It didn't just happen, it was made to happen.
Men and women have always argued, but at the same time they still fell in love, married and had children. Why is that breaking down now?
It's not accidental, it's not incidental, it's not happenstance. It is entirely how it was planned to happen. One of Liberalisms great strengths is it's patience. It can wait generations, and has.
While conspiracy forms a part of Liberalism it is a mistake to think of it as a conspiracy. It is much better to think of Liberalism as a Logic. Each step is the next logical step, because the end goal, the Autonomous Individual, is understood. Each person knows the correct direction to go in, so while mistakes are made and misdirection's take place, that is of no consequence as it can be corrected because the end goal is always known.
Which leads to the question do Liberals, and remember that nearly every political party is Liberal, understand what they are supporting?
In some case's it's easy to know, but in most I am left to wonder, are they so stupid that they don't know what their philosophy believes or are they so evil that they know and support it?
One of the reasons that the right has failed is that we have not focused on our greatest enemy. Until we understand it we cannot defeat. Until we identify it we have no hope of victory and a world in which Liberalism has won is a nightmare!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
They Don't Understand Us?
Nearly every political party is a party of Liberalism, the Liberal party, the Labor party, the National party, the Greens. They all support Liberalism, they are merely variants upon the same theme.
So what is Liberalism?
Liberalism believes that freedom and liberty are what man wants. That he wants to be free to make his own decisions, to create his life as he see's fit. That he should not be restrained by the decisions of others. That he should be self made. That not only he, but his money, his labour and his goods should also be free from restraint. They should be able to be free to move without restrictions from place to place, from country to country.
However Liberalism is also a progressive philosophy, it never sits still, it is constantly changing, adding and subtracting parts from itself. This means that there are different types of Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, Right-Liberalism, Left-Liberalism, Libertarianism and Feminism are the important ones.
Like all of the political ideologies, Communism, Fascism, etc., Liberalism came out of Christian thinking. Specifically from Protestant thinking. In Catholicism between man and God is the priest. Man does not have a personal relationship with God. In Protestantism there are no priests, man has a personal relationship to God. Man prays directly to God and if he wants God speaks back. What happens to a man's faith when God does not speak back...ever?
Some men reach the conclusion that either God doesn't care or even that God does not exist. Atheism is as old as religion, but Secularism isn't, it's as old as Protestantism. And secularism is the idea that God gets in the way and that he needs to be removed, or at least curtailed. That man must rely upon his own mind and spirit because God cannot be relied upon. Slowly, very slowly, man replaces God. Slowly, very slowly man becomes God.
As man can no longer rely on God, man must also replace heaven after death with a man made paradise. One that man can exist in while alive. A utopia.
A utopia is a man made paradise where perfect people live under a perfect government within a perfect economic system. And at the heart of the Liberal version of utopia is the Autonomous Individual.
The Autonomous Individual is the end goal of Liberalism. Such a person is entirely self made, they can choose every facet of their lives. Their gender, their occupation, their religion, their experiences, where they live, everything. Such a person cannot be held back by attachments or loyalties. Those things are restraints and when a person is free, autonomous, that cannot be allowed. Life cannot have consequences. Life must be lived without restraint.
The Autonomous Individual may have children but they will not raise them as that would be a restraint, an obligation, a consequence. The Autonomous Individual cannot marry or love as that is an attachment. Lust is allowed, but not love.
The irony is that as more and more Autonomous Individuals are created the size of the government goes up. All other attachments are being removed, the churches, communities, ethnic loyalties, families. They are all being attacked and discredited. Only the government will be left. It will be all powerful, it will be the Autonomous Individuals parent and employer, their spouse and their friend. Because all other relationships will be as superficial as they can be made to be.
For those who think that this is too far fetched, that this could never come to pass, that no one would ever believe such outrageous things. I say you need to pay more attention to whats happening around you right now.
No fault divorce was not something people campaigned for, there were no marches or demonstrations demanding it. But we got it anyway. Just think, that 50 years ago most people in Australia had never met someone who had been divorced. It didn't just happen, it was made to happen.
Men and women have always argued, but at the same time they still fell in love, married and had children. Why is that breaking down now?
It's not accidental, it's not incidental, it's not happenstance. It is entirely how it was planned to happen. One of Liberalisms great strengths is it's patience. It can wait generations, and has.
While conspiracy forms a part of Liberalism it is a mistake to think of it as a conspiracy. It is much better to think of Liberalism as a Logic. Each step is the next logical step, because the end goal, the Autonomous Individual, is understood. Each person knows the correct direction to go in, so while mistakes are made and misdirection's take place, that is of no consequence as it can be corrected because the end goal is always known.
Which leads to the question do Liberals, and remember that nearly every political party is Liberal, understand what they are supporting?
In some case's it's easy to know, but in most I am left to wonder, are they so stupid that they don't know what their philosophy believes or are they so evil that they know and support it?
One of the reasons that the right has failed is that we have not focused on our greatest enemy. Until we understand it we cannot defeat. Until we identify it we have no hope of victory and a world in which Liberalism has won is a nightmare!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
They Don't Understand Us?
Wednesday, 18 December 2019
Creating Ghetto's
When people say Tony Abbot was a conservative remember this. As Prime Minister he let in 12,000 people from Syria and Iraq. Today only 12% of them are employed and 20% say that they understand English 'not at all'.
I would like to say that I am shocked but I am in no way shocked. In what way does any of this benefit me, you or Australia?
Don't we have enough problems without importing it?
A survey amongst these people says that they are all optimistic about their childrens future in Australia. Which means that they have absolutely no idea of their predicament. They look around them and see a prosperous society and they think that while times are tough now they will be better for their children. This is exactly the environment in which our current batch of Jihadi's were raised in.
Parents were grateful to be here and thought that their children would fit in. Instead the children realise that they are a strangers in a strange land. That they do not fit, that they do not belong and resent it. Who wouldn't?
So they go looking for answers, where do they fit? Where do they belong? What should they do about it?
They then do what their ancestors did in their homelands. They wage some type of war, fraud, crime, jihad, against the society that has wealth and won't give them what they consider their fair share. In every way we get to pay the price.
Sure percentage will fit in ans some might even do well, how does this help me, you or Australia?
More competition, more pretending that the foreign is not foreign. So that even their success is not our success. But those who think that they are our betters don't care about that. If they cared about us then they wouldn't be creating future ghetto's.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Donald Rumsfelds "Known And Unknown" A Book Review
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Donald Rumsfelds "Known And Unknown" A Book Review
Tuesday, 17 December 2019
Mark's Favourite Movies - Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Twenty
A few weeks ago I was asked to list my five favourite movies, so here is the list. The Last Valley, Troy and the three Lord of the Rings movies. David Hiscox from XYZ helps me along.
Length: 44 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Twenty
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Protect The Innocent, Not The Guilty
Length: 44 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Twenty
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Protect The Innocent, Not The Guilty
Sunday, 15 December 2019
Some Link Love VIII
It has been a very busy weekend so I am cheating. Instead of an article from me I will give you three links to fantastic articles, articles I wish I had written.
People are always asking what can I do to fight back? Here is a list of things, passive, active and hyper, that people can do. Really great advice. Pick three and start doing them!
What Can You Do Today?
I have never written an article on the Israel/Palestine question as I think it gets far too much airtime. This article basically sums up my own position on the subject.
Captain Airhead And The Israel-Palestinian Conflict
The fake right tries and tries to corral us into supporting their wrong headed ideas. In this article, which is number 3 although it can be read by itself , the position of America's founder fathers is explored. Did they think the new nation was merely a proposition?
Gatekeepers Of The Failed Right pt-3
Enjoy!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Leftism And Occultism
People are always asking what can I do to fight back? Here is a list of things, passive, active and hyper, that people can do. Really great advice. Pick three and start doing them!
What Can You Do Today?
I have never written an article on the Israel/Palestine question as I think it gets far too much airtime. This article basically sums up my own position on the subject.
Captain Airhead And The Israel-Palestinian Conflict
The fake right tries and tries to corral us into supporting their wrong headed ideas. In this article, which is number 3 although it can be read by itself , the position of America's founder fathers is explored. Did they think the new nation was merely a proposition?
Gatekeepers Of The Failed Right pt-3
Enjoy!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Leftism And Occultism
Thursday, 12 December 2019
Part Of The Treason Lobby
Did you know that 1 in 4 Australians are prejudiced?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism Is Racist
Did you know that 1 in 4 people in Australia are being discriminated against in a major way?
Did you know that this costs $45 billion a year?
Did you know that 40% of Australians have little to no contact with minority groups?
All of these absurd claims come from Inclusive Australia.
Who are they?
It turns out that they are part of the well funded treason lobby. This lobby is dedicated to our destruction. They argue that what they want is for a more inclusive Australia. But what does that even mean?
According to them:
'Inclusive Australia is a social movement rooted in behaviour-change science'
That's an interesting description, trying to be both a grass roots movement and a top down science based organisation. To get a better idea of what they are up to, lets have a look at their founding-partners.
Australia Post
BehaviourWorks Australia
Pwc (formerly PriceWaterhouseCooper)
Scanlon Foundation
The Shannon Company
Proximity
Mutiny
Six Degrees
BehaviourWorks Australia is part of Monash University
'BehaviourWorks is a world leading, applied research centre in behaviour change, for a healthy and sustainable future'
'The Scanlon Foundation is philanthropic organisation dedicated to the transition of migrants into Australian society'
'The Shannon company is a behaviour change communications company that inspire change'
Rich organisations, Orwellian designs, the destruction of our way of life, the destruction of our people, mass immigration.
But it gets worse, lets have a look at the organisations that have joined since:
Carsales.com.au
ACOSS (Australian Council Of Social Services)
Brotherhood of St. Lawrence
Coles
Coolaustralia.com
Corporatecitizenship
La Porchetta
'Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason' John Harrington 1561-1612Once we have stopped calling this treason then they have won....never stop calling this treason!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism Is Racist
Wednesday, 11 December 2019
The Eighty-First Month
Another good month, slightly down from last month, but only by around 200 views. I haven't managed a post every day but I have done 24 which is a good rate. I am also having some of my articles posted on XYZ, which I'm really happy about. I'm also quite happy that my Australian numbers are up and that at the same time the number of countries that visit my site has gone up. This year has been a hard one for me personally, politically it has been nearly all good.
This month I have had 4,684 visitors, my best day was the 12th November when I had 332 visitors, my worst day was the 22nd November when I had 50 visitors.
November-December
This month I have had 4,684 visitors, my best day was the 12th November when I had 332 visitors, my worst day was the 22nd November when I had 50 visitors.
November-December
October-November
Australia, Ukraine, Canada and Russia are all up.
The United States, Unknown Region and Germany are basically the same.
France and the United Kingdom are both down.
Argentina has entered the top 10 and the Netherlands has left.
I have also had visitors from the following countries: Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., India, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Ghana, Nigeria, New Zealand, Mexico, Nicaragua, Brazil, Peru.
I look forward to seeing you all again.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Tuesday, 10 December 2019
Out Of Touch
Touching, the physical act, is out of style. That also extends to words of affection. I remember in the 1970's & 80's that touching other people was not forbidden, in fact children were encouraged to touch each other, to hug, kiss, hold hands, to wrestle and to know when it was inappropriate to touch someone. That began to change in the 1980's and 90's.
There grew an irrational fear of sexual abuse of children, that fear persists. It is not that children are not at threat from such people, it is that the threat is extended out of all proportion. That fear was encouraged by the media. In the 1980's that fear was directed at fathers, grandfathers and uncles. Sadly some fathers, grandfathers, uncles are perverts and are a threat to children. Now that we have had multiple generations of fatherless children we know that the greatest risk a child has of being sexually abused is from someone who is not a relative. In other words, a child having a father present in their life protects them from sexual abuse....common sense really.
But this fear spread throughout society including to the schools. The answer was simple, remove the threat and there would be no sexual abuse. Men commit most crime, including sexual crime, so remove men from the schools. Stop teachers touching their students, no hugs, no holding hands, no pat on the back. Threaten teachers with disciplinary action if they do, fire them, call the police to have them investigated. Remove all common sense from human affairs.
But what about if a child abused a child?
The fear continued to spread and with the removal of common sense how could it not. If adults can abuse children then children could abuse children, best to remove any hint of abuse. Children could now not touch other children. Normal human contact, a basic need, particularly for a child was made into a crime, or at least treated as if it was a crime. Something unwholesome, something unnatural, something perverse.
Yes it was perverse, to treat something natural as something unnatural is very perverse. We must follow the rules that are designed to protect children even when these very laws do them harm. It is important for children to learn how to treat other people. It is important that they learn these things as children, not once it is too late.
We must not think that these ideas are simply people being overzealous, it exists by design. The fear was spread on purpose and it continues to be used as a weapon. If you say children should be touched it is taken as something sexual. That is to project adult feelings and attitudes onto children. Children do not possess such thoughts or feelings. Children need touch, they need to have their minds and their bodies engaged. They need to experience the world and their place in it.
Of course we would not be in this place if we had not handed our children over to the care of others. In schools and childcare we must trust that our children, who remain out of our sight and out of our ability to protect them, are being treated right.
The real problem is that the fear of abuse leaves us thinking a quite unrealistic thought, that children can and should be protected from all harm. It is possible and reasonable to minimize harm, but to think it is possible or even desirable to stop all harm is madness. It's magical thinking and magic doesn't exist.
We must accept that there is a difference between harmless touching and inappropriate touching. We must accept that for children touching is good for their mental health and growth. Children need to be protected, both from perverts and from the madness of ideas. In this case that touching is bad, it's not.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employee Or Cultist?
There grew an irrational fear of sexual abuse of children, that fear persists. It is not that children are not at threat from such people, it is that the threat is extended out of all proportion. That fear was encouraged by the media. In the 1980's that fear was directed at fathers, grandfathers and uncles. Sadly some fathers, grandfathers, uncles are perverts and are a threat to children. Now that we have had multiple generations of fatherless children we know that the greatest risk a child has of being sexually abused is from someone who is not a relative. In other words, a child having a father present in their life protects them from sexual abuse....common sense really.
But this fear spread throughout society including to the schools. The answer was simple, remove the threat and there would be no sexual abuse. Men commit most crime, including sexual crime, so remove men from the schools. Stop teachers touching their students, no hugs, no holding hands, no pat on the back. Threaten teachers with disciplinary action if they do, fire them, call the police to have them investigated. Remove all common sense from human affairs.
But what about if a child abused a child?
The fear continued to spread and with the removal of common sense how could it not. If adults can abuse children then children could abuse children, best to remove any hint of abuse. Children could now not touch other children. Normal human contact, a basic need, particularly for a child was made into a crime, or at least treated as if it was a crime. Something unwholesome, something unnatural, something perverse.
Yes it was perverse, to treat something natural as something unnatural is very perverse. We must follow the rules that are designed to protect children even when these very laws do them harm. It is important for children to learn how to treat other people. It is important that they learn these things as children, not once it is too late.
We must not think that these ideas are simply people being overzealous, it exists by design. The fear was spread on purpose and it continues to be used as a weapon. If you say children should be touched it is taken as something sexual. That is to project adult feelings and attitudes onto children. Children do not possess such thoughts or feelings. Children need touch, they need to have their minds and their bodies engaged. They need to experience the world and their place in it.
Of course we would not be in this place if we had not handed our children over to the care of others. In schools and childcare we must trust that our children, who remain out of our sight and out of our ability to protect them, are being treated right.
The real problem is that the fear of abuse leaves us thinking a quite unrealistic thought, that children can and should be protected from all harm. It is possible and reasonable to minimize harm, but to think it is possible or even desirable to stop all harm is madness. It's magical thinking and magic doesn't exist.
We must accept that there is a difference between harmless touching and inappropriate touching. We must accept that for children touching is good for their mental health and growth. Children need to be protected, both from perverts and from the madness of ideas. In this case that touching is bad, it's not.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employee Or Cultist?
Monday, 9 December 2019
Merry Christmas - Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Nineteen
This week David Hiscox from XYZ and I talk about Christmas and our family traditions. We talk about Marlon Brando and On the Waterfront, females harassing males and talk about what men should or should not consider harassment.
Length: 33 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Nineteen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Hate About The Left
Length: 33 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Nineteen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Hate About The Left
Sunday, 8 December 2019
Making Money From Poverty
You would think that it would be very hard to make money off people who don't have much of it. However many businesses do exactly that. It's not a by-product it's the main game. One of those industries is the Payday Loan companies.
The reason people go to these companies is because their credit rating is so low that they cannot get a loan from other financial organisations. That may be because they are someone who is part of the working poor, or unemployed, or on a pension of some kind, or they might just be really bad with money. In other words these people are amongst the most vulnerable people in society. And the payday companies make nearly all of their money from such people.
The loans are not massive, from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Most are taken out to cover an unexpected emergency. The payday companies argue that they help people get through difficult financial situations. They argue that they help vulnerable people. Thats true, sadly it's not the whole truth.
If it was interest rates of 400% wouldn't exist!
In Australia this is legal!
If you don't live in Australia, don't be surprised if it's also legal where you live.
Most people if they needed a few hundred or even a few thousand would go to family to help them. For whatever reason these people cannot do that. It might be a good reason or it might be a bad reason. In the old days the church might be able to help. Today the payday loan companies exist.
It is not that such companies should not exist, it is that they should not be given free reign to commit plunder. Financial companies, big and small need to be held accountable for their actions, something that they currently are not!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Financing Liberalism
The reason people go to these companies is because their credit rating is so low that they cannot get a loan from other financial organisations. That may be because they are someone who is part of the working poor, or unemployed, or on a pension of some kind, or they might just be really bad with money. In other words these people are amongst the most vulnerable people in society. And the payday companies make nearly all of their money from such people.
The loans are not massive, from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Most are taken out to cover an unexpected emergency. The payday companies argue that they help people get through difficult financial situations. They argue that they help vulnerable people. Thats true, sadly it's not the whole truth.
If it was interest rates of 400% wouldn't exist!
In Australia this is legal!
If you don't live in Australia, don't be surprised if it's also legal where you live.
Most people if they needed a few hundred or even a few thousand would go to family to help them. For whatever reason these people cannot do that. It might be a good reason or it might be a bad reason. In the old days the church might be able to help. Today the payday loan companies exist.
It is not that such companies should not exist, it is that they should not be given free reign to commit plunder. Financial companies, big and small need to be held accountable for their actions, something that they currently are not!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Financing Liberalism
Saturday, 7 December 2019
Crowded Housing
As the price of housing continues to rise in Australia and the number of foreigners here continues to rise, more and more young people are living with their parents. 66% of people aged between 18-24 live with their parents.
Now living with your parents is not shameful, nor is it socially bad. Extended families are a good thing. However this is not a sign of a healthy economy or a healthy society society, it is not even government policy. The government has not intended to create extended families, were multiple generations live under one room. It is instead a sign of the pressures that people are now under.
Instead of young people being able to forge a path for their own they are now being forced to forgo starting an independent future. Marriage and children are also being delayed so that money can be saved simply to have a roof over their heads. Fifty years ago most people bought a house when they were young adults, 18-24. They married and had children at that age.
While the economy has changed since that time, the great change has been government policy. The desire by governments to increase the price of housing at any cost. The high price of housing is heralded as a great economic boon. However it only helps those who already own a house...and who want to sell it. And those with high income.
Even renting has become harder, with ever increasing pressures, with more and more people being crammed into our cities. While young people lack both money nor references to help them get ahead. It is also hard for the poor to afford housing. It s a major reason why we have so many homeless people and why we even see beggers in our suburbs. Something unheard of in times past.
To fix these problems we need to stop our open policy and return to a closed policy. Whereby mostly Australians buy Australian houses. Limit foreigners owners to people who come from countries where we can buy houses in their country. To stop bring people into the country and to enact a policy of remigration.
It's time our government returned to being loyal to us!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Voices From Palestine 1890s-1948 - A Book Review
Now living with your parents is not shameful, nor is it socially bad. Extended families are a good thing. However this is not a sign of a healthy economy or a healthy society society, it is not even government policy. The government has not intended to create extended families, were multiple generations live under one room. It is instead a sign of the pressures that people are now under.
Instead of young people being able to forge a path for their own they are now being forced to forgo starting an independent future. Marriage and children are also being delayed so that money can be saved simply to have a roof over their heads. Fifty years ago most people bought a house when they were young adults, 18-24. They married and had children at that age.
While the economy has changed since that time, the great change has been government policy. The desire by governments to increase the price of housing at any cost. The high price of housing is heralded as a great economic boon. However it only helps those who already own a house...and who want to sell it. And those with high income.
Even renting has become harder, with ever increasing pressures, with more and more people being crammed into our cities. While young people lack both money nor references to help them get ahead. It is also hard for the poor to afford housing. It s a major reason why we have so many homeless people and why we even see beggers in our suburbs. Something unheard of in times past.
To fix these problems we need to stop our open policy and return to a closed policy. Whereby mostly Australians buy Australian houses. Limit foreigners owners to people who come from countries where we can buy houses in their country. To stop bring people into the country and to enact a policy of remigration.
It's time our government returned to being loyal to us!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Voices From Palestine 1890s-1948 - A Book Review
Friday, 6 December 2019
Destroying Our Heritage
A 114 year old house in the Melbourne suburb of Rosanna known as Arden Chase, was slated for destruction last month. The house was built in 1905 and was a weatherboard farmhouse. The suburb in 1905 being farmland. The local council tried to have the building saved, 500 people signed a petition to have it saved. However the Victorian Planning Minister Mr. Richard Wynne declined to give the oldest building in the suburb heritage protection.
In it's place will be seven townhouses.
This is the story all over Melbourne of grand and humble buildings being destroyed. All for money and to fill up with immigrants. Greed and treason.
In time these buildings grow in beauty and in value, including financial value. We have seen it for decades with suburb after suburb. The older the building the more it increases. Think of poor old St. Kilda road. One of the finest boulevards in the world and today it is filled with ugly high rise buildings. Before 1970 it was filled with mansions which had been built when Melbourne was known as Marvelous Melbourne, the second richest city in the British Empire. Today only one still exists and the only reason it does so is because it was owned by the Army.
Imagine how much money those mansions would be worth today!
We need to protect our heritage and that includes our physical heritage.
Everywhere we look we seen more construction, more of our heritage butchered and destroyed.
All for greed and treason.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Real Enemy Is Liberalism
In it's place will be seven townhouses.
This is the story all over Melbourne of grand and humble buildings being destroyed. All for money and to fill up with immigrants. Greed and treason.
In time these buildings grow in beauty and in value, including financial value. We have seen it for decades with suburb after suburb. The older the building the more it increases. Think of poor old St. Kilda road. One of the finest boulevards in the world and today it is filled with ugly high rise buildings. Before 1970 it was filled with mansions which had been built when Melbourne was known as Marvelous Melbourne, the second richest city in the British Empire. Today only one still exists and the only reason it does so is because it was owned by the Army.
Imagine how much money those mansions would be worth today!
We need to protect our heritage and that includes our physical heritage.
Everywhere we look we seen more construction, more of our heritage butchered and destroyed.
All for greed and treason.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Real Enemy Is Liberalism
Thursday, 5 December 2019
Child Brides
When people praise immigration they like to say 'how goods the food?', but what about all the other benefits that immigration has brought....like child brides!
To be fair it's not only girls but also boys who are are getting married before the age of 18 in Australia. In Victoria in 2018-19 there were 31 reported cases. But everyone agrees that it is not the real figure, it has been described as only the tip of the iceberg. The number of reported cases has tripled since 2017-18.
The problem is so bad that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have been conducting an information campaign in schools to discourage this illegal activity. But of course it goes on regardless.
A spokeswomen for the AFP said 'It is often difficult for victims to come forward, for a range of reasons, many of which reflect the inherent vulnerabilities associated with the crime.'
Which is one way of pointing out that this crime is rarely punished as within the communities that these activities take place they protect their own. They do not see this as a crime at all.
Ohhh the joys of living in a multicultural society!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Free-Love And Traditional Conservatism
To be fair it's not only girls but also boys who are are getting married before the age of 18 in Australia. In Victoria in 2018-19 there were 31 reported cases. But everyone agrees that it is not the real figure, it has been described as only the tip of the iceberg. The number of reported cases has tripled since 2017-18.
The problem is so bad that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have been conducting an information campaign in schools to discourage this illegal activity. But of course it goes on regardless.
A spokeswomen for the AFP said 'It is often difficult for victims to come forward, for a range of reasons, many of which reflect the inherent vulnerabilities associated with the crime.'
Which is one way of pointing out that this crime is rarely punished as within the communities that these activities take place they protect their own. They do not see this as a crime at all.
Ohhh the joys of living in a multicultural society!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Free-Love And Traditional Conservatism
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
1 Million Jobs In The Future
The Australian government has announced that by 2024 their plan is to create 1,075,000 jobs. The good news is that there are currently 700,000 unemployed so I guess unemployed will end in five years time!
This jobs growth is forecasted to be made up of:
252,600 in healthcare and social assistance
172,400 in professional, scientific and technical services (everything from Law to IT)
129,300 in education and training
113,700 in construction
Although since 2013 1,500,000 jobs have been created and unemployment has not ended. You see it could end if these jobs were created in a closed system. A system whereby local companies created local jobs that only locals could get. However we work in an open system whereby we are competing against foreigner workers, both here and overseas. This great economic boon will not be of benefit to us at all. Instead it will fuel ever greater immigration. Ever greater dispossession.
That is of course if the government can even create these jobs, because while government is very happy to talk about job creation they are not happy to talk about job loses. And the reality is that jobs are being lost all the time. Not simply jobs, but entire industries.
For 45 years Australia has imported more than it has exported. Every year we grow poorer. The economic model that we live under is a giant transfer of wealth from First World countries to the Third world. It is socialism on an enormous scale.
Once upon a time the Australian people believed that the Australian government worked for them. Those days are long gone.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Some Link Love VI
This jobs growth is forecasted to be made up of:
252,600 in healthcare and social assistance
172,400 in professional, scientific and technical services (everything from Law to IT)
129,300 in education and training
113,700 in construction
Although since 2013 1,500,000 jobs have been created and unemployment has not ended. You see it could end if these jobs were created in a closed system. A system whereby local companies created local jobs that only locals could get. However we work in an open system whereby we are competing against foreigner workers, both here and overseas. This great economic boon will not be of benefit to us at all. Instead it will fuel ever greater immigration. Ever greater dispossession.
That is of course if the government can even create these jobs, because while government is very happy to talk about job creation they are not happy to talk about job loses. And the reality is that jobs are being lost all the time. Not simply jobs, but entire industries.
For 45 years Australia has imported more than it has exported. Every year we grow poorer. The economic model that we live under is a giant transfer of wealth from First World countries to the Third world. It is socialism on an enormous scale.
Once upon a time the Australian people believed that the Australian government worked for them. Those days are long gone.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Some Link Love VI
Tuesday, 3 December 2019
V for Vendetta - Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Eighteen
In this episode David Hiscox from XYZ and I talk about the ethnic orgins of actors and we give our take on the movie V for Vendetta.
Length: 30 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Eighteen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Is There A Path For Men Anymore?
Length: 30 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Eighteen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Is There A Path For Men Anymore?
Sunday, 1 December 2019
So Much For Right Wing Terrorism
Earlier this year the head of ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) was asked by a committee of the Australian Senate about right wing terrorism in Australia. He downplayed the risk, stating that no right wing group was listed as a terrorist organisation. However 26 groups are listed as terrorist organisations by the Australian government.
Every group listed is Muslim, 22 are Islamist, 3 are anti-Israeli, 1 is both Islamist and anti-Israeli and 1 is a leftist group that is also Muslim.
With this knowledge it would be prudent to restrict Muslim immigration. Of course the Australian government is not prudent. Instead if you point out the fact that every terrorist group listed by the Australian government is Muslim you are told that you are either a racist or a trouble maker. It is claimed that to point out these facts invites a terrorist attack.
If that is so then why are Muslims allowed to immigrate here?
If it is not true then why are they allowed to impinge upon an entire group and imply that they are terrorists? Isn't that both immoral and illegal?
Of course without mass immigration then the threat to our internal security would be negligible. But whats the problem with a terrorist attack, or two, or two hundred when your on the road to Utopia.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Myth Of The Level Playing Field
'Under the law, there are two ways for an organisation to be identified as a terrorist organisation. The prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an organisation is a terrorist organisation as part of the prosecution for a terrorist offence. Alternatively, the organisation may be specified in Regulations as a terrorist organisation. This process, known as 'listing', requires certain processes set out in the legislation to be followed.'
Every group listed is Muslim, 22 are Islamist, 3 are anti-Israeli, 1 is both Islamist and anti-Israeli and 1 is a leftist group that is also Muslim.
With this knowledge it would be prudent to restrict Muslim immigration. Of course the Australian government is not prudent. Instead if you point out the fact that every terrorist group listed by the Australian government is Muslim you are told that you are either a racist or a trouble maker. It is claimed that to point out these facts invites a terrorist attack.
If that is so then why are Muslims allowed to immigrate here?
If it is not true then why are they allowed to impinge upon an entire group and imply that they are terrorists? Isn't that both immoral and illegal?
Of course without mass immigration then the threat to our internal security would be negligible. But whats the problem with a terrorist attack, or two, or two hundred when your on the road to Utopia.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Myth Of The Level Playing Field
Saturday, 30 November 2019
Women's Work Is Poison!
The National Australia Banks Independent Schools Survey was released this week and it found that
Cleaning, laundry, ironing, cooking, etc....these things are only allowable when they occur outside of the home and are being done for money. Then 'women's' work becomes glamorous. However inside of the home they are poison!
Unless boys do them. Or is it that poisoning boys is a good thing?
Of course if these jobs are done for money outside of the home then no poisoning occurs. It's their professional knowledge that makes them immune, or is it the money?
Hard to say.
What you should remember is this, any work that women did in the past is poison, any work men have done is glamorous. Always remember that men and women are equal and in no way different. However if a women does a job that women traditionally did then that job is poison, if she does a job that men traditionally did then that is fantastic and in absolutely no way poisonous. Of course men should be encouraged to do more women's work...even though this is poisonous. Don't forget that men and women are equal and in no way different.
Of course this would all be much easier if women stopped being women and became men. And of course if men stopped being men and became women. You see the problem today is that women are still women and men are still men and that creates inequality....even though men and women are equal and in no way different. Of course once women are men and men are women, problem solved!
If non of this makes sense, that means, your still sane.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Death Of Tolerance
'girls were doing old-fashioned "housewife" chores to earn their pocket money'When will parents learn that 'women's' work is not okay!
Cleaning, laundry, ironing, cooking, etc....these things are only allowable when they occur outside of the home and are being done for money. Then 'women's' work becomes glamorous. However inside of the home they are poison!
Unless boys do them. Or is it that poisoning boys is a good thing?
Of course if these jobs are done for money outside of the home then no poisoning occurs. It's their professional knowledge that makes them immune, or is it the money?
Hard to say.
What you should remember is this, any work that women did in the past is poison, any work men have done is glamorous. Always remember that men and women are equal and in no way different. However if a women does a job that women traditionally did then that job is poison, if she does a job that men traditionally did then that is fantastic and in absolutely no way poisonous. Of course men should be encouraged to do more women's work...even though this is poisonous. Don't forget that men and women are equal and in no way different.
Of course this would all be much easier if women stopped being women and became men. And of course if men stopped being men and became women. You see the problem today is that women are still women and men are still men and that creates inequality....even though men and women are equal and in no way different. Of course once women are men and men are women, problem solved!
If non of this makes sense, that means, your still sane.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Death Of Tolerance
Friday, 29 November 2019
Creepy Report
A report has been released in the Victorian Parliament, news.com.au reported it under this headline - Victorian sex creep bureaucrats under reported. The report prepared by the Auditor-General states that within the Victorian public service 1400 people had experienced sexual harassment in the last 12 months.
Wow really!!!!
So convicted criminals don't follow rules...I really don't know what to say.
Is sexual harassment a serious problem or is it simply intersectionality?
I think we all know the answer.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Order, Why Do Conservatives Believe In Order
Those who were most likely to be a victim were women aged 15 to 24, those earning less than $75,000 a year, and those from a minority such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or LGBTQI, according to the report.Who's sexually harassing the LGBTQI people? I mean shouldn't sexual harassment be sexual in some way? Either other LGBTQI people are doing the harassing or sexual harassment means whatever they want it to mean. Which is both true and somewhat lessens the seriousness of the whole thing.
In 2018, 61% of Victorian public servants were women, 24% of Victorian public servants were born overseas. 20% of Victorian public servants speak a language other than English at home!“I have witnessed a manager saying that the only good place for a female is in a porn movie,” one person told the audit.Another said, “He pressed his penis against me when I was bending over to pick something up, and he asked me, ‘Is that your preferred position?’”
Workers in the Department of Justice who were working with offenders were the most likely to experience sexual harassment.
Wow really!!!!
So convicted criminals don't follow rules...I really don't know what to say.
Is sexual harassment a serious problem or is it simply intersectionality?
I think we all know the answer.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Order, Why Do Conservatives Believe In Order
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
A Question Regarding Liberals
All of the major political parties in the West are Liberal parties, they support Liberalism. In the churches, businesses, charities, media, schools and universities the majority view is a Liberal one. Liberalism is the mainstream philosophy.
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, who is the end point of Liberalism. The utopia. A person who is entirely self made and self serving. Living life without consequences , free from restraint, free to live their life without restrictions. Because the Autonomous Individual is fully human, something that, according to Liberalism, you and I are not. In short the Autonomous Individual is a better person than you or I. They are perfect people, living under a perfect system of government within a perfect economic system.
Now if someone put the above paragraph into their campaign literature, would you vote for them?
Do you believe that it is possible to create perfect people living under a perfect system of government within a perfect economic system?
Who could?
Which leads me to my question, I understand Liberalism, but Liberals, those who support Liberalism.
Are they so stupid that they do not understand the philosophy they profess to believe, or are they so evil that they entirely understand it and they are prepared to lie and cheat to achieve what they believe?
Because their is no third option.
I have meet Liberals who are intelligent, but who are stupid when it comes to Liberalism, they have no idea what it's aims are. I have met Liberals who are evil, who entirely understand Liberalism's end point and who will do whatever it takes to further it's goals. But the majority of them I don't know.
Those who are stupid can be worked on their 'faith' can be shattered. Those who are evil should be identified and avoided, you cannot convert them.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Foreign Aid And Traditional Conservatism
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, who is the end point of Liberalism. The utopia. A person who is entirely self made and self serving. Living life without consequences , free from restraint, free to live their life without restrictions. Because the Autonomous Individual is fully human, something that, according to Liberalism, you and I are not. In short the Autonomous Individual is a better person than you or I. They are perfect people, living under a perfect system of government within a perfect economic system.
Now if someone put the above paragraph into their campaign literature, would you vote for them?
Do you believe that it is possible to create perfect people living under a perfect system of government within a perfect economic system?
Who could?
Which leads me to my question, I understand Liberalism, but Liberals, those who support Liberalism.
Are they so stupid that they do not understand the philosophy they profess to believe, or are they so evil that they entirely understand it and they are prepared to lie and cheat to achieve what they believe?
Because their is no third option.
I have meet Liberals who are intelligent, but who are stupid when it comes to Liberalism, they have no idea what it's aims are. I have met Liberals who are evil, who entirely understand Liberalism's end point and who will do whatever it takes to further it's goals. But the majority of them I don't know.
Those who are stupid can be worked on their 'faith' can be shattered. Those who are evil should be identified and avoided, you cannot convert them.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Foreign Aid And Traditional Conservatism
Tuesday, 26 November 2019
The Superannuation Fail
In the 1980's the Australian Government had a look at future financing as it understood that age demographics were changing. To put it another way, people were living longer and that would have a longer affect on both tax revenue and upon expenditure. But the biggest problem was the size of the baby boomer population.
When old age pensions were introduced in Australia in 1909, every pensioner was outnumbered by 5 workers. That ratio is now heading towards 1 retiree for every 2 workers. To pay for that in 1992 the Australian Government introduced compulsory Superannuation. Superannuation was once only available to senior executives, it was a payment, normally 10%, of a man's salary that was invested and was only available upon his retirement. So that not only did they get a salary but they got a large lump sum payment upon retirement.
So if a worker for example has a salary of $50,000 then around $5,000 dollars is paid into that workers superannuation. That money is on top of their salary.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia announced in July that the average person was way behind in what they should have in their superannuation. To comfortably retire a single person should have at least $545,000 and a couple $640,000.
Currently the average man aged 30-34 has $35,768 and the average women has $30,129, the industry advice is to have by 34, $93,000.
The average man aged 45-49 has $99,305 and the average women in that age bracket has $65,796. The industry says that they should have $257,000.
Why is the average person so far behind?
1) The system is complex
A person can put in up to an additional $1000 a year into their superannuation without any issue. It is possible to put in more money but if it is considered excessive then it is taxed at a rate of 31.5%. That is just one example, it gets much more complex.
2) Money in superannuation is 'dead' money
Superannuation is, except in very rare circumstances, not available until a person retires. Therefore people have little attachment or engagement with it. It's very important once you retire but until then it may as well not exist as it cannot help you.
3) The system was designed for an economy with Full Employment.
Today we not only don't have full employment but we have the gig economy. Mass unemployment, mass underemployment, university education and immigration. Anyone who has experienced unemployment, or underemployment or who is university educated, or who is an immigrant cannot get the full benefit of superannuation. The system was designed for a person to be employed from 18-retirement. Today that is rare.
Superannuation is a good idea, I think it is good policy. But today even the good ideas are failing.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Wish I Had Written
When old age pensions were introduced in Australia in 1909, every pensioner was outnumbered by 5 workers. That ratio is now heading towards 1 retiree for every 2 workers. To pay for that in 1992 the Australian Government introduced compulsory Superannuation. Superannuation was once only available to senior executives, it was a payment, normally 10%, of a man's salary that was invested and was only available upon his retirement. So that not only did they get a salary but they got a large lump sum payment upon retirement.
So if a worker for example has a salary of $50,000 then around $5,000 dollars is paid into that workers superannuation. That money is on top of their salary.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia announced in July that the average person was way behind in what they should have in their superannuation. To comfortably retire a single person should have at least $545,000 and a couple $640,000.
Currently the average man aged 30-34 has $35,768 and the average women has $30,129, the industry advice is to have by 34, $93,000.
The average man aged 45-49 has $99,305 and the average women in that age bracket has $65,796. The industry says that they should have $257,000.
Why is the average person so far behind?
1) The system is complex
A person can put in up to an additional $1000 a year into their superannuation without any issue. It is possible to put in more money but if it is considered excessive then it is taxed at a rate of 31.5%. That is just one example, it gets much more complex.
2) Money in superannuation is 'dead' money
Superannuation is, except in very rare circumstances, not available until a person retires. Therefore people have little attachment or engagement with it. It's very important once you retire but until then it may as well not exist as it cannot help you.
3) The system was designed for an economy with Full Employment.
Today we not only don't have full employment but we have the gig economy. Mass unemployment, mass underemployment, university education and immigration. Anyone who has experienced unemployment, or underemployment or who is university educated, or who is an immigrant cannot get the full benefit of superannuation. The system was designed for a person to be employed from 18-retirement. Today that is rare.
Superannuation is a good idea, I think it is good policy. But today even the good ideas are failing.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Things I Wish I Had Written
Monday, 25 November 2019
Mixed Bag - Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Seventeen
In this episode David Hiscox from https://www.xyz.net.au/ and I talk about a mixed bag of subjects, including the Richmond Save Injecting Room, why drugs should stay illegal, no nut November among other topics.
Length: 26 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Seventeen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types Of Modern Liberals
Length: 26 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Episode Seventeen
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Five Types Of Modern Liberals
Saturday, 23 November 2019
Youtube Troubles
These troubles are divided into two parts.
Last Monday, the 18th of November, David Hiscox and I did a new podcast. I tried to upload it the same day, however I forgot to press 'publish' and it timed out. I'm afraid the real problem is I'm Boomer Tech and I'm not even a Boomer!
So I had to wait until Friday to start again. By Friday the entire upload interface had changed. As far as I can tell I'm doing everything correctly, Youtube disagrees, so no upload yet.
The other trouble is potential, Youtube has recently announced that it has a few changes coming. The big one is Coppa (Children Online Privacy Protection Act), a law passed in 1998 to protect children online. The U.S. Government has decided that Youtube has not been doing it's job and is now going to monitor Youtube and it's content creators. And issue large fines if it feels it is warranted. The real problem is that the law is very vague. As the Melbourne Traditionalists podcast is clearly not for children, I don't see this affecting us much.
Another change is in it's new terms of service there is a clause stating that channels that don't make money can be deleted by Youtube for not making money. Youtube has never made more money than it spends and it has been trying to fix this for years and clearly this is an attempt to do that. However, again it is quite vague about what it will mean in practice. At first glance it means that we will be deleted. Honestly I don't think that will happen. I read one article that said that it was code for any, including political, content that it doesn't like can be deleted. The article did not approve or disapprove of this, but the commentors on the article most certainly did approve.
Hopefully with some help I will be able to fix my Youtube problem early this week.
In regards to the potential problems we will continue on as we have been until they become actual problems.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Thursday, 21 November 2019
The Road To Power - A Book Review
The Road To Power is the second book from Sanne Wijker over at A Thrifty Homemaker. It tells the story of Eric Ericsson and his adventures. Even though the story has rayguns in it, it's really an old fashioned swashbuckling tale. With political intrigue and some romance thrown in with assassinations, successful and unsuccessful, a plenty. Once you think the story is about to settle down onto one path it switches tack and moves along. It is never dull, with a fast moving pace pushing the story forward.
I enjoyed the story and recommend it to anyone who likes a bit of political intrigue mixed with adventure. Here is a very brief snippet which I think sums up the main character quite well.
To Find my review of her first book: The Long Way Home - Book Review
You can also get The Road To Power as an ebook at Lulu.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Change And Decay
I enjoyed the story and recommend it to anyone who likes a bit of political intrigue mixed with adventure. Here is a very brief snippet which I think sums up the main character quite well.
She shook her head indignantly. "Surely you understand what Haakon will do to you if he hears of this? You are playing with fire."
"That's what I like to do, play with fire! Have been doing it all my life." (Page 113)Playing with fire is I hope her next book title, as it perfectly encapsulates the type of adventure story that Sanne likes to write.
To Find my review of her first book: The Long Way Home - Book Review
You can also get The Road To Power as an ebook at Lulu.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Change And Decay
Wednesday, 20 November 2019
Full Employment - A History
Between 1945 and 1975 in most of the Western world there existed a policy of full employment. While what that exactly meant was different from country to country and at different times. In Australia it meant an unemployment rate of under 2% and long term unemployment being regarded as anything longer than 3 months. Most other countries had much the same aims.
The reason that full employment was such an issue was due to the Great Depression. It is hard at this distance for most people to understand just how traumatic those times were. It wasn't just how hard life was, that people couldn't afford to buy things or that men didn't have jobs. It was the trauma, they had been told that hard work and following the rules were the correct way to live life. During that time non of that matter, good men lost their jobs and became destitute. He had to send his wife and his children away so that they could live under someone else's roof. And for him he had to join the soup kitchen or become a tramp and travel from place to place to try to gain any work he could.
Those people who did not become destitute knew that it could happen to them. They had to bring in family members and house them and feed them. Housewives would get men knocking on the door asking for food and asking for work, chopping wood, gardening, any work. In the countries less affected 1 in every 5 men were unemployed. In the most affected countries that number was 1 in every 3 men. In 1940 in Britain while the Battle of Britain was being fought there were still more than 1,000,000 men unemployed. In the same year the unemployment rate in America was 15%, that's 8,000,000 men unemployed.The effects of the Great Depression were both deep and long.
By 1942 nearly every country had a labour shortage. Those men that had been unemployed were now in the military or in war related work. This was financed by high wages, high taxes and high enforced saving. Those enforced savings were driven by a low consumer economy during the war as most manufacturing was directed towards the war, which meant that there wasn't that much to spend your money on. Added to it were war bonds which were compulsory to buy and then there were war bond drives to encourage people to buy even more war bonds. This meant that at the end of the war people had good savings. This is important as those savings drove the post war boom and financed full employment.
During the war people started to ask themselves questions, how is it that in peacetime there was mass unemployment but during the war everyone had jobs? If peace was superior to war why was it that during war unemployment vanished? People knew how hard war was, they were living it, so why couldn't full employment which existed during the war also exist during peace time?
These questions were asked by many people, including by those in power. Politicians, Government workers, Businessmen, Unionists and of course ordinary people, all wanted to know how to stop a depression returning when the war ended. Full employment became a key position on which the post war economy was to be based. While most Western countries were not that interested in Communism, they were interested in Socialism. The idea that the Government should run the economy, manage it. Full employment is not a Socialist idea but in the post war period it was. What is remarkable about full employment is how nearly every political, economic and social group supported it. No one wanted a return to the depression.
Full employment was part of what was called the post war consensus, the idea that had been encouraged by the Great Depression and the war that while we may have differences in reality we are on the same side. And it was popular with nearly every group, it was regarded as not simply good policy but common sense. Although full employment had an ally that was never in any original plan. That ally was the Cold War. During the war there were no plans to disband the military or to end building weapons, but there was an idea that those things would play a small part in the post war world. People wanted peace, however the Cold War meant that larger military's then planned existed and so did massive industries to supply those military's. Which increased employment.
During the 1940's, 50's and 60's full employment was hardly criticized, in some quarters it was taboo to question it. During that time it worked and it was seen to work. But slowly it was criticized because like all the works of man it was not perfect, it did have flaws and over time those flaws became bigger and easier to see.
Business which had suffered greatly during the depression, now thought of the depression as ancient history. They wanted to save money on wages by introducing technology. Full employment got in the way.
Unions went in two different directions at the same, one became more militant which would lead to a massive backlash against unions. The second agreed that the big economic issues had been settled, now the big questions were about racism and sexism, the cultural issues. The union movement lost it's focus and helped to destroy what it had achieved and it has never recovered from this mistake.
Politicians understood how popular full employment was but they were faced with a rather big problem. High taxes were not popular and while full employment could exist without high taxes, that would take the issue out of their hands and give it to private enterprise, who were losing interest in the issue.
The Bureaucracy kept the faith longer than most but as the world moved around them they were forced to align themselves with everyone else.
Among Classical Liberals there was a growing disquiet that the post war economy was not a Liberal economy. In this they were correct. In the 1950's what was a small but growing revolt started, it's aim was to return Liberalism to it's original ideas. By the 1970's it was starting to win that fight.
In the 1970's four massive changes would end full employment. The first was that the money that had been saved during the war had been spent. The only reason it had ever existed was because people were forced to save, when the war ended no matter how good people were at saving that money was slowly but surely being depleted.
The second issue was immigration, each decade the pressure from immigration increased. Full employment cannot work in an open system, it can only operate in a closed system. An open system means that new things can be added to the system, a closed system means that you can only use what is already in the system. Immigration is an open system and open systems increase competition. In this case that competition is for jobs.
The third issue was tariff's. In the post war economy free trade was dead. It died in the depression, although it had been dying since the First World War. Tariffs were popular as they protected local companies and local jobs from competition.
The fourth issue was women, particularly Feminism. The 1950's are famous for it's housewives, the 1970's are famous for the liberated women. It is not a coincidence that full employment existed in the 1950's but began to end in the 1970's. Women worked in the 1950's and since the 1890's the percentage of women working has increased every decade. But the 1970's was a tipping point, as were the policies that encouraged the employment of women at the expense of male employment.
Today we do not have full employment, instead we have mass unemployment. Quite the shift.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems Of Monarchy
The reason that full employment was such an issue was due to the Great Depression. It is hard at this distance for most people to understand just how traumatic those times were. It wasn't just how hard life was, that people couldn't afford to buy things or that men didn't have jobs. It was the trauma, they had been told that hard work and following the rules were the correct way to live life. During that time non of that matter, good men lost their jobs and became destitute. He had to send his wife and his children away so that they could live under someone else's roof. And for him he had to join the soup kitchen or become a tramp and travel from place to place to try to gain any work he could.
Those people who did not become destitute knew that it could happen to them. They had to bring in family members and house them and feed them. Housewives would get men knocking on the door asking for food and asking for work, chopping wood, gardening, any work. In the countries less affected 1 in every 5 men were unemployed. In the most affected countries that number was 1 in every 3 men. In 1940 in Britain while the Battle of Britain was being fought there were still more than 1,000,000 men unemployed. In the same year the unemployment rate in America was 15%, that's 8,000,000 men unemployed.The effects of the Great Depression were both deep and long.
By 1942 nearly every country had a labour shortage. Those men that had been unemployed were now in the military or in war related work. This was financed by high wages, high taxes and high enforced saving. Those enforced savings were driven by a low consumer economy during the war as most manufacturing was directed towards the war, which meant that there wasn't that much to spend your money on. Added to it were war bonds which were compulsory to buy and then there were war bond drives to encourage people to buy even more war bonds. This meant that at the end of the war people had good savings. This is important as those savings drove the post war boom and financed full employment.
During the war people started to ask themselves questions, how is it that in peacetime there was mass unemployment but during the war everyone had jobs? If peace was superior to war why was it that during war unemployment vanished? People knew how hard war was, they were living it, so why couldn't full employment which existed during the war also exist during peace time?
These questions were asked by many people, including by those in power. Politicians, Government workers, Businessmen, Unionists and of course ordinary people, all wanted to know how to stop a depression returning when the war ended. Full employment became a key position on which the post war economy was to be based. While most Western countries were not that interested in Communism, they were interested in Socialism. The idea that the Government should run the economy, manage it. Full employment is not a Socialist idea but in the post war period it was. What is remarkable about full employment is how nearly every political, economic and social group supported it. No one wanted a return to the depression.
Full employment was part of what was called the post war consensus, the idea that had been encouraged by the Great Depression and the war that while we may have differences in reality we are on the same side. And it was popular with nearly every group, it was regarded as not simply good policy but common sense. Although full employment had an ally that was never in any original plan. That ally was the Cold War. During the war there were no plans to disband the military or to end building weapons, but there was an idea that those things would play a small part in the post war world. People wanted peace, however the Cold War meant that larger military's then planned existed and so did massive industries to supply those military's. Which increased employment.
During the 1940's, 50's and 60's full employment was hardly criticized, in some quarters it was taboo to question it. During that time it worked and it was seen to work. But slowly it was criticized because like all the works of man it was not perfect, it did have flaws and over time those flaws became bigger and easier to see.
Business which had suffered greatly during the depression, now thought of the depression as ancient history. They wanted to save money on wages by introducing technology. Full employment got in the way.
Unions went in two different directions at the same, one became more militant which would lead to a massive backlash against unions. The second agreed that the big economic issues had been settled, now the big questions were about racism and sexism, the cultural issues. The union movement lost it's focus and helped to destroy what it had achieved and it has never recovered from this mistake.
Politicians understood how popular full employment was but they were faced with a rather big problem. High taxes were not popular and while full employment could exist without high taxes, that would take the issue out of their hands and give it to private enterprise, who were losing interest in the issue.
The Bureaucracy kept the faith longer than most but as the world moved around them they were forced to align themselves with everyone else.
Among Classical Liberals there was a growing disquiet that the post war economy was not a Liberal economy. In this they were correct. In the 1950's what was a small but growing revolt started, it's aim was to return Liberalism to it's original ideas. By the 1970's it was starting to win that fight.
In the 1970's four massive changes would end full employment. The first was that the money that had been saved during the war had been spent. The only reason it had ever existed was because people were forced to save, when the war ended no matter how good people were at saving that money was slowly but surely being depleted.
The second issue was immigration, each decade the pressure from immigration increased. Full employment cannot work in an open system, it can only operate in a closed system. An open system means that new things can be added to the system, a closed system means that you can only use what is already in the system. Immigration is an open system and open systems increase competition. In this case that competition is for jobs.
The third issue was tariff's. In the post war economy free trade was dead. It died in the depression, although it had been dying since the First World War. Tariffs were popular as they protected local companies and local jobs from competition.
The fourth issue was women, particularly Feminism. The 1950's are famous for it's housewives, the 1970's are famous for the liberated women. It is not a coincidence that full employment existed in the 1950's but began to end in the 1970's. Women worked in the 1950's and since the 1890's the percentage of women working has increased every decade. But the 1970's was a tipping point, as were the policies that encouraged the employment of women at the expense of male employment.
Today we do not have full employment, instead we have mass unemployment. Quite the shift.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Problems Of Monarchy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)