Can Traditionalism Exist In The Future?

When you think about Traditionalism you think about the past. The word tradition implies the past, in fact we are encouraged to think of something that is traditional as something that is both from the past and of the past. However a tradition is something that comes from the past, continues in the present and is something that we intend to go on with in the future. What it is not is something dead or extinct.

But don't Traditionalists believe in Monarchy and in the Church having a role in society?

Certainly we do. But something that confuses both Traditionalists and non-Traditionalists alike is the idea that we support these things because they existed in the past and therefore we wish to recreate the past. But no such thing can occur, we can never recreate the past, it will never be 1661 or 1991 ever again. The past is for better and for worse gone. But that does not mean that the events of the past never occurred, nor does it mean that we cannot learn from the past. We can, we should and if we are serious about fixing the world we must.

The reason that we look to the past for answers is because the past provides us with numerous opportunities to see how things went wrong and how things were protected or recovered. The past is a place where we can learn without suffering any immediate cost. Something that is often not possible in the present and of course we cannot study the future, we can only speculate or surmise what the future will hold. 

In all philosophies there is a conflict between the world as we believe it should be (theory) and the way the world actually works (reality). Traditionalism is at it's strongest when it aligns itself with reality, with the traditional ways of doing things. So what do I mean by the traditional ways of doing things?

I mean the things that conform to human nature, because at the heart of Traditionalism is human nature, not the way the world should be but the way the world really works. In short, human nature is reality and the more that we take that in to account the better.

But there is a trap within human nature and that is that it is part of our nature to deny our nature. We can become more than we were in the past, we can be smarter, more moral, simply better. That appeal to our vanity is inherent in everyone of the ideologies, including the one we all live under Liberalism. Traditionalism says no that is not true, in reality there are limits to our power and there should be. That we should not set people up to fail, but that we should instead set people up to succeed.

That our nature wants us to love and to be loved, that men and women are designed to fit together, to support each sexes weakness with the others strength. That people want to marry and that they want to stay married. That they want their own children and that they want to be in control of those children. That we are hierarchical and instead of looking up to actors and the like, that we should look up to those who support our society and it's future. That we should respect the past and work towards the future, while always remembering that we live in the present. That we are not mere individuals, that we are at one and the same time members of families, communities, ethnicities, nationalities and of races. 

Human nature will continue to exist in the future and therefore so must Traditionalism. 

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Australia, More People, Less Australians

Arthur Calwell Was The Problem Not The Solution

Over at XYZ a well written and well research article has appeared, The Democratic Labour Party: A Poisoned Legacy. In this article the author Australian Nativist makes the argument that if the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) had not split from the Australian Labor Party (ALP) then when Arthur Calwell became leader of the ALP the White Australia policy could have been saved. Which would or at least could mean that the world of mass immigration and multiculturalism that we live in today might not exist.

However I am not convinced when it comes to Arthur Calwell, or to the idea that the ALP could ever have saved us. 

It is certainly true that Arthur Calwell, who lead the ALP in the 1966 election, was the last major politician to support a White Australia. He was very open and forthright on this point. But like his opponent in that election, Sir Robert Menzies, he often spoke in support of both mass immigration and for restrictive immigration. Well how can you speak in support of both?

Yes these both did.

I will quote from Sir Robert Menzies book Afternoon Light: Some Memories Of Men And Events published in 1967.  

The first quote is from a letter to the Prime Minister of South Africa, written on the 2 July 1960, page 201:

In Australia, as you know, we have a very strict immigration policy, primarily because we don't wish to see created in our own country the tremendous racial problems which you have to encounter.

Page 225

Throughout its history, the Commonwealth of Australia has had - and both sides of the Parliament have supported it - a restrictive immigration policy designed in substance to build up a homogenous population, and to avoid the creation of internal racial problems of a kind which are to be found in the United States and in South Africa, and are, indeed, beginning to emerge in Great Britain.

Page 286

In the United States of America, the word 'liberal' is used in contradistinction to 'conservative', but it seems in recent years, to have acquired a special connotation. When I resided in America for some months in 1966-7, I thought that it threated to become a word which had special reference to racial relations; to 'civil rights'; to the vexed questions of 'integration' and 'segregation'

Thanks to a wise immigration policy, we are free of this problem in Australia, and I hope that we shall never permit ourselves to acquire it.

 Yet on page 59 of his book, Sir Robert writes this:

It had for many years been the settled attitude of the Trade Union Movement that there should be no assisted migration into Australia so long as there was any unemployment in Australia.......

It was in the face of these difficulties that Arthur Calwell convinced not only his colleagues but also the Trade Unions that a large immigration programme should be taken in hand. This was a bold and courageous action. It could have been taken successfully only by a Minister who was known as a life-time Labour man of the strictest orthodoxy, and was both well-known and extremely popular at the centre of unionism, the Trades Halls.

The very large immigration which was then begun, and continues to this day, has been a great factor in Australia's national development and the enrichment of her social life. My own party enthusiastically favours it. But I doubt whether it could have got off to such a good start so soon after the war had it been compelled to encounter trade union resistance.

What must never be forgotten is that Arthur Calwell was Australia's first Immigration Minister, he pushed it behind the scenes. He got the Trade Unions to support such a policy and he got the Labor Party to support such an idea. He also got the Liberal party to support the idea. 

Sure it was supposed to be White immigrants, but that is never where these ideas stay. Each idea is build to support the next idea. So that in time the small breach that has been made in the dam becomes a tidal wave that never ends. The idea that the man who created mass immigration into Australia was our savour is not an idea that can stand on it's own. 

I did an entire podcast on Arthur Calwell and another on Sir Robert Menzies

Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Twelve (27 minutes)

Sir Robert Menzies - The Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Thirteen (27 minutes)

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article That You Might Like?

Thinking Other Peoples Thoughts

Lets Play A Game - What's The Job Title?

This is a real job advertised in Melbourne Australia, it was published on Seek a major job site on Good Friday, 15th April 2022. I won't include the link as I'd really like to see some ideas on what job title people think this job went under.

Applicant needs great organizational skills & be able to multi-task under pressure. Must be self motivated, needs to have strong attention to detail and fabulous people skills. Need to be proactive, savvy, creative, lateral thinking, confident and be able to resource well including having an excellent phone manner. Experience with a PC (all office programs) and MAC system. Our preferred candidate would have technical skills for basic video & photo editing, and an interest and knowledge in Social Media is a plus. This position requires someone who has lots of energy and enthusiasm and a 'can do' attitude and not afraid of hard work or long hours. We are looking for a long term team member. You must be a natural problem solver, we need the solution before the problem!  

I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the job description.

What's the job title?

It didn't take long, here is the correct answer:

Anonymous21 April 2022 at 14:32

admin assistant

That's right, this job description is for an Admin Assistant role!

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Will Wokeness Win?

Fear Voting

We have been told our entire life that people vote for what they believe in.

But is that true?

I would say no it is not true, people do not vote according to what they believe, even though that is what people will always tell you. But when you look at elections what you notice is that voters are extremely conservative, they vote for the same party in nearly every election. The amount of people who vote for the same party always outweighs the swing voters. Voters who from time to time do change who they vote for. This is how governments change and seats change hand. Even then they don't tend to be for any third party option, instead it is between the two major parties, or in those countries were it is normal for multiple parties to run it still tends to be a contest between two parties.

In Australia we have the Liberals who we are told represent business and fiscal responsibility. Then we have Labor who we are told look after the working class and the underprivileged. Currently we have a Federal election underway. One of these two parties will form government.

Over the past two years Covid restrictions closed down much of the economy, we are massively in debt and the government has printed a ton of money to pay for everything. The Liberals have right royally screwed over business and the idea that they are fiscally responsible is also an idea that is no longer valid. 

On Saturday I heard the leader of the Labor party talking about how we need more immigration. For the working class and the underprivileged less competition is always good, but his party supports, as it has since WWII, more competition. 

Neither the Liberals or Labor can be said to support the things that people claim they support. But people will still overwhelmingly vote for these two parties at the next election. So the question is, why?

The answer is because people do not vote FOR something, they tend to vote AGAINST things. The Labor voter isn't voting for Labor but against his worst fears of what the Liberals are capable of. In turn the Liberal voter isn't voting for the Liberal party but is instead voting against his worst fears of the Labor party. This fear voting is encouraged all the time. Think about what you hear from each party, it's a bit about what they will do but it is mainly about why you should fear the other party. This thinking keeps everything in a comfortable position for each party. Everyone gets into the right mood, I hope my team beats that other team. 

It's no different to a football match. 

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

What It Is To Be French

The One Hundred and Ninth Month

I'm still finding it hard to write, even though I have a bunch of topics in my head. I need to write as I don't want to lose the blog. I also have things that I want to say, so hopefully the next month will be better. Although if you need something of mine to read I have written over 900 articles, so there is a lot of content on here. 

This past month my best day was the 27th of March when I had 104 visitors, my worst day was five days before that on the 22nd March when I had only 19 visitors. This month I have had a total of 1,630 visitors. 

United States

690

Australia

443

Russia

150

Germany

52

Canada

48

Bulgaria

37

United Kingdom

36

Netherlands

14

France

11

Ireland

9

Indonesia

8

New Zealand

6

Poland

6

Sweden

6

Spain

5

Finland

5

Egypt

3

India

3

Argentina

2

Other

92