The One Hundred And Seventeenth Month

I have doubled my output from last month, so I guess that's a good thing. once a week is better than once a fortnight. I'm starting to think that the odd country spikes I get are from VPN's or the like redirecting traffic to these 'odd' countries. But to be honest I don't really know.

My worst day was the 24th November when I had 36 visitors, my best day was the 9th December when I had 611 visitors. Overall I have had 2439 visitors in the past month. 

United States

1.07K

Germany

482

Vietnam

471

Australia

408

Sweden

178

Israel

99

Canada

61

United Kingdom

28

Russia

24

Brazil

21

Italy

20

Zambia

19

France

17

Indonesia

16

Netherlands

14

Turkey

12

Ukraine

12

New Zealand

11

Singapore

11

Other

88

The Problem With Conservatism

I was reminded recently of why I no longer call myself a Conservative. I was listening to someone on YouTube who said that the problem for Conservative parties is that they support the status que so they find it hard to advocate for change. Which, they said, was required as people vote for change. It was such a muddleheaded way of thinking and it really highlights why Conservative are not the way out of this mess. 

The argument goes something like this, the other side of politics wants to give dogs the vote. Conservatives say how ridiculous, how stupid, how absurd. Then at some point giving dogs the vote becomes law, so from that point on Conservatives must defend the status que....which now includes dogs having the vote. Which means that the Conservative position is to defend the very thing that they fought against.

Most people think that when they support Conservatives that they are trying to stop the rot, to even reverse the rot. But that is not how Conservatives themselves see things because they are a part of the system. What they want is slow change and what the other side wants is fast change. The Conservative idea that they support the status que has a big flaw and that flaw is that the status que keeps changing. They oppose the change before it takes place, but not once it has taken place.

Why does Conservatism keep losing?

Because it's philosophy demands it.

As I wrote above Conservatism is part of the system, which means that it is supports the system. So when you hear Conservatives talk about how they oppose Liberalism, they absolutely do not oppose it. It is the system that we live under in the West. They are not the generals leading an army against Liberalism, no, they are the rear guard of the Liberal army. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Some Problems With The Frankfort School Idea

The Problem Of The Independent Woman

Do you know how the custom of men opening doors for women began?

It began because in the past a good solid door was made of hardwood which was both big and heavy. So when a man opened a door for a woman it was a very practical thing, not an act of chivalry. Over time doors have become much light and now it is simple courtesy and only mildly practical.

When I was growing up women had a reputation as bad drivers, today that reputation is no where as bad. One thing that has changed in cars is that today cars have power steering. Back then they did not and the only way to steer a car was by using your arm muscles. I had the experience of driving an older car without power steering for a few months and without any other exercise but driving I built up my arm muscles. That's how much effort was required. 

I mention these things because we often forget that technology has changed the relationship between the sexes. Men were once, not that long ago, needed because they were bigger and stronger. The world was not designed to be easy like it is today. Men were tougher and more masculine because that was required by society, even simple things like driving a car built muscles. 

These changes in technology have had an enormous effect upon the sexes. Things that once defined each sex, that gave each unique powers and tasks have now been reduced so that we still mentally want these things but we no longer need them, strictly speaking. By that I mean that we still want these things because we need them, but we can now pretend that we do not. One of these things is men as the provider.

We are constantly told that women don't need a man, that she can and should be independent, that she should never be in a position whereby she is dependent upon a man. Which leaves us with a problem and that problem is human nature. Humans, like other creatures with sex, have different roles for each sex to fulfil. The division of labour by sex is the base upon which both nature and society is built. One of those divisions is that men are the provider, not absolutely of course, but still overwhelmingly. One of the roles of men is to be the one who interacts with the world, one of the roles of women is to interact with other people, particularly women and children, to be the nurturer. 

To put it another way men went out and earned resources, either goods or money, to provide for his family. The role of women was to use those resources to look after him, herself, their children and anyone else important to them. He made the money, she spent the money. The division of labour was clear, each had a role and each role was vital. Each role was distinct so that they did not waste time or resources doing the same thing or in competition to each other. 

A story I have heard over many decades is how women earn their own money and end up in debt. Right next to that story is the man who earns and saves, but who leads a very frugal life. If that man and that women were together then they would be living very different and I suspect much happier lives. But instead we have these two distinct stories, but why should they be so different?

Because they are, without realising it, living out their role, the one nature set out for them. That he should be the provider and that she should be the nurturer. But each is doing it wrong, he isn't supposed to be just looking after himself. She still needs to nurture but instead of doing it for her man and her children, she does it for herself, or her 'fur babies' or for society at large. None of which leaves her happy as it is like scratching an insatiable itch. What she is doing is not natural, it is an imitation of what nature desires.

The sad reality of independence is that it is a lie, something entirely unnatural. Men and women are supposed to be dependent upon each other, we are supposed to need and to desire each other. Independence means loneliness and loneliness is never winning.

To Help Support My Work

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

      

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

How Big Business Destroys Small Business

How Did Dictator Dan Get Re-elected?

 Labor has won re-election here in Victoria under the leadership of Dictator Dan and you have to ask yourself how could such an outcome occur. I mean he has lead a government that locked people in their own homes for a total of 200 days. He banned outdoor activities, he shut down schools and businesses, he was okay with police shooting people with rubber bullets and we are in debt to about $160 Billion. Which is more debt then New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. So how did he and his government get re-elected?

In Victoria, although this is true in much of Australia, the main opposition party is rubbish. The Liberal Party once had values and it fought hard to uphold those values, but since the 1980's it has become harder and harder to tell the Liberal and Labor parties apart. Yes the rot really has been going on that long and it keeps getting worse. The problem is that they keep trying to out-left the left, which is impossible. People will always vote for the real Leftist over the fake Leftist.

There is also a leadership problem, the Parliamentary Liberal party is so small that there is no real leadership at all. Since 1999 each and every leader of the Liberal party in Victoria has been a total nonentity. I said to someone this week that for all Dictator Dan's faults he was a good politician because he was a Sociopath, but the leader of the Liberals was not a good politician, because he was not a Sociopath. Dictator Dan is a strong leader and the truth is that many people want that and they will go along with nearly anything as long as he is strong. 

There are also policy problems 

Immigration

Multiculturalism

Trans Rights

Homosexual Rights

Feminism

Global Warming

The truth is that on these and many other issues there is no substantial difference between the Labor and Liberal parties, they are the uniparty. So why should people vote in favour of something that is in no way different from it's opposition?

Labor has also benefited from mass immigration. It is a well established fact that immigrants vote to the Left. In fact they vote very far to the Left. Both the Liberals and Labor, in fact most of the political parties, support this policy, but Labor is the benefactor.  

A lot of people vote for Labor because it creates jobs in both the public and in the private sector. Of course these jobs are always paid for by the taxpayer, sooner or later. The public sector is expanded, government departments and other government bodies get funding to increase jobs. In the private sector Labor makes sure that it looks after the unions and the construction industry. We current have in Victoria what is called 'The Big Build', it is a series of big construction jobs that cost a lot of money and keeps a lot of people employed and looks after a lot of companies and union people. These people vote heavily for Labor and why wouldn't they?

A central feature of Democracy is bribing people with their own money and it won't stop for one simple reason, it keeps working.

Of course there is a major problem with this, it costs money, lots of money, which explains why Victoria is in so much debt. But debt is easy to ignore when there is still more money available. Here we are in a tried and true Labor situation. Parties of the Left are interested in the idea of wealth redistribution, but they have little to no interest in how that wealth is created. What they are interested in is spending money, not in making it. So they often get into debt because to them money is a form of magic, something that it is impossible to run out of. But of course there comes a point where debt becomes such a burden that it stops being magical and it needs to be paid back. We haven't reached that point in Victoria yet, but when we do it will hurt quite badly. Like it did in the 1990's when this exact same thing happened.

The good news of the election is that Labor lost about 7% of it's support, unfortunately that is off a very high base. The last election it got 57% of the vote, the highest it has ever been and that loss occurred in safe Labor seats. Which in the long term could spell very bad news for Labor. The Liberals lost about 2%, but a lot of votes, somewhere between 15-20% went to smaller parties. Now those parties are politically all over the place, Left, Right and Centrist, but they are not the major parties. That number does not include the Greens who got around 12% and should have around 6 seats, in the last Parliament they had 2.  

Over the past 30 years the two major parties share of the vote has declined from 90% to just under 70%. It still has a long way to go, but it is going.

Let's be honest this is a very disappointing result, it would have been glorious to see Dictator Dan defeated. But it is what it is and those of us who opposed him and everything he stood for shouldn't let this get us down. We must always be prepared for the fight and I think we will get one. So be ready.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

The Absolute Answer Is Wrong

Liberalism likes the absolute answer, it likes the idea that near at hand is an answer that will completely solve a problem. But that answer is always wrong, just as all universal answers, also known as a panacea, must be. Because most of life at every level is not about solving problems but about managing them. Most problems don't go away, they might take a rest, but they come back, they recur. Some never let up, they never go away even for an instant. So the idea that there exists an absolute answer can be very appealing. 

Whenever there is a gun crime the call goes out to ban all guns, Covid-19 we were told could be eliminated, Climate Change can be solved as long as we do as we are told. We are also told that domestic violence, bullying, racism, transphobia will be shown zero tolerance. For issue after issue the idea is pushed that there exists an absolute answer. That these issues not only can be solved but will be solved. That these issues will disappear. Liberalism has all the answers, including the ultimate answers. 

Most people still believe in the traditional place of man, that we are mere mortals who in the old language are 'fallen', but in the new language are 'messed up'. We are so prone to mistake and misdeed that the idea that we are capable of being perfect is ridiculous. But right there is also it's appeal, the idea that we can go from misfits to being the masters of the universe, that we can go from mere mortal to God. Liberalism believes in the absolute answer because like all of the ideologies it believes that man can and will become God. 

That gives it the confidence to be able to believe in absolute answers. No problem is too much for a God to solve. If Climate Change is a problem because we accidently changed the climate, no problem, all you need to do is to be able to change the climate on purpose. Change the entire climate by controlling the temperature. Why shouldn't a God be able to do that?

That is their solution to all problems and the fact that you and I don't agree, well that just means that we are the problem and not the solution. Which justifies why they think of us so badly and why they feel justified in doing whatever it takes to win. In doing whatever it takes to beat us. But we must always remember that what they want and what they believe is insane and that we are right to oppose them and their absolute answers.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalists Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why The Church Is Important - A Secular Argument 

The One Hundred And Sixteenth Month

Last month I was working and now I'm not. I have had the strangest experience I have ever had at a job. I was hired for a specific role because I had done that job in a different industry. Which means that I could do the job but I needed to know how this industry worked. When I started my boss told me that my job was to watch him and learn from him, so I sat across the desk from him and watched him do my job. But in reality he didn't want to train me because the company was his and he didn't want someone else touching his company. To him it wasn't a job it was a lifestyle and he didn't want me to interfere with that. I never thought that I would be paid the most I have ever been paid to watch someone else do my job, but all absurd things must come to an end and when it did I was both disappointed and relieved. 

My worst day this month was the 5th November when I had 49 visitors and my best day was the 7th November when I had 592 visitors. Overall I have had 3990 visitors this past month, this is also the first month that a country other than Australia or the United States has been at the top!

Israel

980

United States

943

Germany

506

Australia

423

Sweden

150

Russia

141

France

45

Canada

33

United Kingdom

31

Indonesia

24

Saudi Arabia

19

Ukraine

11

Singapore

10

Netherlands

8

New Zealand

8

India

7

Japan

4

Finland

3

Thailand

3

Other

47

Nazism, The Liberal Response

Nazi Germany's rule over Europe was harsh and as the war went on it became clear that mass murder was organised, deliberate, ongoing and widespread. The rule of Imperial Japan was equally harsh and murderous but received much less criticism. Today, while the crimes of Nazi Germany are infamous, the crimes of Imperial Japan are much less well recognised. But the world was shocked and sickened by these crimes and they wanted the perpetrators punished and new international laws that would prevent such behaviour in the future. 

Liberalism has sort to create a world where violence is limited and whereby the rule of law prevails. It decided that international organisations would be created and that they would enforce international law. But at the same time they didn't totally trust these organisations and they made sure that they didn't have much teeth. But there was also another idea here, that Liberalism always wants to look nice and in that vane it came out strongly against Genocide. I'm not suggesting that those sentiments weren't real, they very much were. 

Something I find quite interesting is how different thinking came about after the Second World War. Thinking that you find very rare before the war, such as anti-colonialism, racial equality and mass immigration. I'm not saying that these ideas didn't exist but they didn't exist in official circles. But after the war they quickly gained a place and that continues today. 

The Nazi's are the greatest threat that Liberalism has ever faced, but that threat was not just physical, it was also spiritual and metaphysical. Liberalism believes in evolution, although it normally uses the word progress. The idea that things start simple and primate and that that they evolve or progress over time always becoming more complex and at the same time better. Which includes human behaviour, we as a species were becoming more and at the same time better people. But it is extremely hard to reconcile that with what happened during the Second World War. It was a profound shock, maybe what Liberals believed about Liberalism wasn't true?

Liberalism decided that it needed to oppose those things that had created the Nazi's. Not just the economic and political circumstances, but even the beliefs of the Nazi's. Even though they had said similar things before the war. The Nazi's supported the idea of a national people (the Germans), they supported racial purity and they supported racial supremacy. But before the war you can find quite respectable Liberals supporting such things. But the reaction against the Nazi's was so extreme that Liberalism would gradually over time come to reject those things that it once found completely acceptable. But how could they convince others to rethink their position and to support positions that they had once opposed?

In two ways, firstly they did it over decades, they allowed those who still supported the older way of thinking to move through and then out of the system. While at the same time teaching the younger generations that we didn't fight WWII because nation-states had legitimate conflicting interests that lead to war. The way nearly every other war is portrayed, but as a war against injustice. Principally that race hate and supremacy were the villains  and the cause of the war. That if these things can be eliminated then the war might not have happened and in fact future wars may be avoided. That the war, for example, was not fought to defend the interests of the British people or even of the British state but that it was instead a war about values. Our values against their values. We fought a war whereby self interest was barely a factor, instead we fought a war of high principles, we even fought on behalf of other people. 

This line of thinking put Liberalism back on track, it had not only defeated the Nazi's in the war but they would create a better world and defeat them yet again. In a world without race hatred, racial supremacy and without nations, then Nazism was not only defeated but it was extinct. So they told people that there was only one race, the human race, that race was only skin deep, that racial differences only existed because of circumstances, change the circumstances change the reality. But nation-states still existed, one people ruled by one state, but wasn't that one of the core reasons for the rise of the Nazi's and the war?

If nations could be eliminated then that would go a long way towards stopping anything like that from happening again. The reason different people didn't get along was simple prejudice. People needed, by law if necessary, to mix, to get to know each other. This idea is called Contact Theory, the theory goes that the more contact people have the more people understand each other and the better they will get along. But how do you achieve this when people are pretty much all the same?

By immigration.

You bring in people who the locals would normally never have a chance to be in contact with. In places like the United States where there is already such a population, then you change the law so that you must have contact with each other. Critics have made the point that non-White people do not have a right to be near White people. But the law is designed to say actually that they do have such a right, in fact that is the express purpose of the law. 

We have all met those who claim that we are a nation of values, not a nation of people. We have met someone who says that there is no difference between different peoples. This is all because of Liberalism's response to Nazism.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Liberalism Is A Christian Heresy

Has Liberalism Been Replaced?

There are those who argue that we no longer live under Liberalism, that what we now live under is something new. I however have always said that that is not true, that as Liberalism is a progressive ideology it must constantly change and it does. Someone who became a Liberal today has joined a different Liberalism to someone from 1972 and to someone from 1922. Liberalism does not sit still.

It has supported Imperialism and Anti-Colonialization, the Nation-State and the subversion of the Nation-State, homosexuality and anti-homosexual laws, that society should be divided by class, sex, race and that it should not be divided by class, sex and race. Not unreasonably it makes people think that the same philosophy cannot support these contradictions, but Liberalism can and does.

The reason why is because unlike most Ideologies it has both a public and a private face. It has it's core beliefs that are not really talked about in public because they sound like what they are, crazy. So instead it puts forward it's public face which talks about slogans. These slogans are designed to fulfil two functions, firstly they are there so that people can project onto it whatever they want, secondly it is there to stop people from thinking. 'I support liberty', okay but what does that mean? 'I support the environment', okay but what does that mean, and on and on we go. What do these words mean? They have a dictionary definition, but rarely can someone define what these slogans mean, instead they repeat the slogan or something very close to it.

Because at the core of Liberalism are a set of beliefs that very few people support and very few would vote for. All Ideologies are Christian heresies, because Christianity is the foundation upon which everyone of them is built. They believe in the need to create a heaven on Earth, complete with it's own Gods. Not a God, but all of us being Gods. in Man replacing any need for God. Instead we will be perfect people living under a perfect system of government within a perfect economic system. 

These are the core beliefs of Liberalism and the only thing that separates it from the other ideologies is how to reach it's endpoint. Liberalism has two virtues, it's patience and it's ability to work within the system. Which also means that it rarely seeks violent solutions to it's problems. It always try's to appear to be the good guy in any situation. But at it's core is the idea that you and I and indeed the entire world is perfectible.

Do you believe that?

Would you vote for someone who said that they supported perfectibility?

I know I wouldn't, because that would be crazy and right there is why I don't support Liberalism, in either it's old or it's new version.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Fighting WWII Was Right

  

The One Hundred And Fifteenth Month

I haven't written anything in 3 weeks because I have started a new job. I get home and my brain doesn't want to work and the weekends haven't worked either. I hope that gets better soon, I guess we will both have to wait and find out at the same time.

I have had 5310 visitors in total in the past month, my worst day was the 18th September when I had 62 visitors and my best day was the 27th September when I had 758 visitors.

Surprisingly my numbers haven't been that bad, although I still have the problem of working out if these numbers are real. In the list below check out where Israel and Sweden are!

United States

2.18K

Israel

1.06K

Sweden

946

Australia

260

Russia

239

Germany

122

Netherlands

96

France

92

United Kingdom

81

Indonesia

33

Thailand

26

Canada

20

Vietnam

19

Ukraine

14

Romania

13

Ireland

12

New Zealand

10

Ethiopia

5

Italy

5

Other

72

Values Versus Money

On the Right values, what we believe, are important to us. That is also true on the Left, even if we disagree about those values. But whenever we take our values to the voters we lose. Why is that?

I think that it is because values are something that matter in the long term and voting, democracy, encourages people to think short term. To put it another way people are more concerned with todays issues than in dealing with tomorrows. So what are todays problems?

It seems that they are always economic or to it put another way it is always about money. Money of course represents resources and sometimes food or some other item takes the place, temporarily, of money. Now money is how we pay for resources to live and to enjoy life, without these things life can seem quite pointless. However it seems that we come to view these things as being of such importance that we will sacrifice things that should never even be threated. 

Mass immigration is a prime example, some people financially benefit from mass immigration, including some people who don't even know it. But at the same time it hurts lots of people and of course many of those who are benefitting today will in time find that it has hurt them. The here and now of money overrides so many peoples objections. When of course this should never have even been an option. To replace your own people with foreigners is in no way acceptable and yet it goes on, in large part because it brings in money. Money wins over values.

 Of course it isn't restricted to only that, look at Industrial Relations. If your over 50 you will remember that strikes were once common place. Today strikes are rare. While there are a number of reasons for that, one reason is that today workers don't want to lose money by going on strike. Business finally worked out that paying workers good wages keeps them on the job better than anything else. 

Why have so many of our old beautiful buildings been demolished?

Because the demolition makes people money and so does putting a new building on the site. The value that that old building gave has to compete with money. 

Money solved a complex economic problem, how do you store and exchange wealth in a relatively safe and convenient form. But like all solutions it created it's own problems, money is not the problem, human nature is. Human nature says that today is more important than tomorrow or yesterday because we live here, today. Money overrides values, something that we need to keep in mind as we go forward in our fight.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Things I Hate About The Left

Why should Australia remain a Monarchy?

Australia now has a new Monarch, King Charles III, King of Australia. Currently the Australian government has an Assistant Minister for the Republic. So we have a King and a government committed to us become a Republic.

Many people look at the monarchy and think to themselves that it is old fashioned and that it doesn't make sense that we have a King that no one voted for. But those two objections to having a monarch are the very reasons that we should not get rid of what we have.

Australia has never been a Republic, not for one day, not even for one minute. The Aboriginal people did not have Kings, they were ruled by the elders, people who got to be in charge because they were initiated into tribe lore and they were the oldest and hopefully the wisest men in their tribe. That might not be Monarchy but it isn't Republicanism either, because to become an elder you had to be born within the tribe, in a real sense you were born to the position, it just took you a long time to become an elder. In short Republicanism is not part of Aboriginal culture, tradition or lore.

White Australia has been a Monarchy from before there were White Australians. Our link to Monarchy is ancient, our people, the peoples of the British Isles have had Monarchies going back into Prehistory. For thousands of years we have served Kings, in war and in peace. It is not something alien to our tradition, it is the base upon which so much of our history, culture, politics, law, medals and honours are built. 

One of the aims of the Republican movement is to alienate us from our past, to give the time honoured but wrong argument that the new is always better than the old. But it is exactly that 'old fashioned' thing that is of value. That thing that not only have we as a people served, but which has also at one and the same time served us. Because that is the truth, the Monarchy serves us. It provides a kind word in a harsh world, a pageantry that few can equal and even fewer can exceed and it connects us to our brothers in New Zealand, Canada and in Britain itself. 

It is an ancient institution that we have a right to be a part of, most in the world do not and they envy it. Some realise it and some don't but all over the world people didn't call our late Queen a Queen, no she was The Queen. The Queen was also our Queen, I wonder of King Charles will also be referred to as The King?

All over Australia there are traditions, customs and ceremonies that we continue from those older times. Things that maybe we don't want lost and discarded like a old oily rag. Some argue that these things can still be kept, but we know that they won't be. Some argue that they are not important, but they say that about everything, they say it about our traditions, our customs, our ceremonies and even about our people. They want to see them all discarded and replaced. But these things do not belong to them, they belong to us.

Monarchy is also the only political system that has the family at it's heart. It is also one of the few political systems that says that inheritance is right and proper. That your property is yours and that you have the right to pass it on to your children. Liberalism once placed property rights at the centre of it's beliefs, but each year it gets less and less true. If they can dismiss the Royal family then why can't they dismiss yours?

The existence of a Royal family is a defence, at least in part, that family is normal, right and proper. Because the very existence of the family is slowly being eroded. 

Finally there is an idea that the only legitimate leadership that can exist is elected, but that's not true. Was your boss elected or did he come to his leadership position in some other way?

What about your parents, did you elect them?

The truth is that we accept unelected leadership all the time, it is nothing unusual. In fact it is the norm. The Monarch is also something stable and steady in a world that is often not. Sure there can be scandal and strife within the Monarchy, but that is true of other organisations and families. Because that is what makes the Monarchy so special, it is at it's heart a family and that means that we can relate to it. They have births and marriages and deaths and successes as well as failures. Just like our own lives. 

You might say that politicians can provide all of those things, sure but rarely for our entire lives. As an example The Queen had 16 Prime Ministers, but we only had one Queen. Who remembers the births, marriages and deaths in those Prime Ministerial families?

But in most of our families you will find someone who can tell you who is related to who, how and why within the Royal family. We share a history with them that no politician can even come close too.

I can however think of one advantage of Republicanism over Monarchy, no more Royal gossip. But if France or the United States are any guide, even being a Republic doesn't allow you to escape that.  

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Kingship Is Life

The One Hundred And Fourteenth Month

I took Mrs. Borrink's advice, which he gave last month, and I installed Statcounter. However it has only added to my confusion, giving me different numbers to what Blogger gives me and lower numbers. Are they accurate? I just don't know. It also doesn't  help with the 'other' problem, whereby Blogger simply lists most websites as 'other'. Statecounter does allow me to follow users around the site, which I must say I find a bit creepy. On YouTube it tells you when people stop watching a video, it is depressing to see just how small the number of people who get to the end of a video really is. So more information is not always good, but knowing where people come from doesn't sound like much to ask, but I guess it is.

Recently I have had good numbers on a post I wrote back in March 2019 after the Christchurch massacre They Don't Understand Us. Why? How does a new group of people know that this exists? Is it linked somewhere? I have no idea.

In the last month I have had 3410 visitors, my best day was very good, on the 27th August I had 969 visitors, my worst day was the 14th August when I had a mere 21 visitors.

Another interesting thing has happened on the blog this month and in particular this past week. Normally the United States is in first place followed by Australia, this week Israel is in first place...it's a rare week in which I get more visitors from a country other than the United States!

Top 5 countries for the week of  5th September - 11th September 

 Israel                                                                                                                                  191

United States

146

Australia

99

Sweden

54

Netherlands

50

11 August -11 September

United States

2.27K

Australia

358

Israel

293

Sweden

116

Germany

71

Netherlands

66

India

50

Ukraine

22

United Kingdom

20

Canada

17

France

17

Russia

16

Belgium

8

Ireland

8

New Zealand

5

Bangladesh

3

Brazil

3

Taiwan

3

Greece

2

Other

62