Can We Ban This Now?

In the past whenever people like myself have wondered why something couldn't be banned we were told that it was against our Liberal traditions. But not now, in fact this surprising article from the Lowy Institute makes exactly this point, Banning nazi salute opens pandoras box.

If we are going to ban things from a regime we defeated 80 years ago, it becomes hard to argue that we should not ban things that insult many of our sensibilities now.

Things such as:

The burka

 Facial tattoos

Drag Time Story Hour

Treason

And so much more.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Loyalty

Liberalism Abandons Another Principle

One of the things that made Liberalism popular was the idea that people should be free. You were free to have your own thoughts and opinions. which included the freedom to say those things. Freedom of Speech or to use an older term Freedom of Conscience. This included symbols, which included flags, insignia, stickers and all manner of things. But it seems that Liberalism is abandoning these principles 

Liberalism has done this before with Freedom of Association. In the early 1800's workers tried to form unions to campaign for better wages and conditions. But the government said no, unions were clubs for radicals and revolutionaries. The workers argued that they had the right to associate with whomever they wished. The government passed laws saying that that just wasn't true and men who broke those laws were punished. Liberals said that people did have a right to freely associate with the people that they wished to associate. In time they won that fight and the law was changed, freedom of association was the law of the land. But in the 1950's and 60's that right was taken away, because freedom of association also meant that you didn't have to associate with people if you didn't want to. Freedom of Association is now banned, you cannot stop people from associating with you because you don't want to associate with them, instead now we are told that everyone is equal and interchangeable. 

Principles that Liberalism said were universal and true at all times in all places and for all people it seems can be changed.

Australia's Jewish Attorney-General announced this week that a new law would be introduced to Parliament to ban Nazi symbols from public display and sale in Australia. Anyone who breaks this could face up to 12 months in prison. This follows similar laws that various states have passed. 

This is being passed as an Anti-Terrorism law, but on the Attorney-General Departments webpage on Counter terrorism laws, it states:

Terrorist acts

A terrorist act is an act, or a threat to act, that meets both these criteria:

• it intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

• it causes one or more of the following:
  • death, serious harm or danger to a person
  • serious damage to property
  • a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
  • serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

Advocating, protesting, dissenting or taking industrial action are not terrorist acts where the person doing the activity does not intend to cause serious harm to a person or create a serious risk to public safety.

Which of these things will banning Nazi symbols stop?

Of course the Uniparty will vote for this and who will vote against it?

Now that will be interesting to note. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Industrial Relations And Conservatism

When Equality Fails

Liberalism once believed in hierarchy, that certain people were better at things than other people. That included individuals, races, sexes and social classes. It did not believe in equality and it took until after WWII for this idea to become mainstream within Liberalism.

Today we have lived for 50 years or so with the idea of equality. We are told about it constantly, we cannot escape it's influence. Which convinces many that the idea must be true, that there really is no difference between different people. Even though we learn through experience that different people are, well different. We hear the word so often that we rarely think about what the word even means. For something or someone to be equal means that they are the same as something or someone else.

All apples are equal because all apples are the same, which at first glance seems reasonable but isn't. 

Is a big apple the same as a small apple? 

Is a rotten apple the same as a fresh apple?

Is a green apple the same as a red apple?

And on it goes, the idea of equality is accepted because it is so easy to understand. If everyone is the same then we can pretend that any problems that exist can be fixed and that they are not unsolvable, that differences between races or the sexes are minor inconveniences. All that needs to be done is to remove official differences between groups and to remind people, constantly, that we are all equal and in time everything will fix itself. Because at the heart of this idea is that these differences are artificial and not real.

For half a century or more these ideas have been pushed and instead of differences vanishing they are persistent. The differences between the sexes are still here, the difference between races are still here. The thing that was supposed to happen has not taken place. Laws were changed, social attitudes were changed, the law was moved in favour of these groups, massive amounts of money have been spend and still the differences remain. Liberals are now left with a question that continues to grow in size and that is why?

Why haven't things changed?

The first thing to remember is that their basic assumptions have not changed, people are equal, equality is a real thing. So something else must be to blame and their answer is Structural Racism. They also call it Systematic or Institutional racism. Which effectively means that society is at heart racist, both the people and the institutions. Built into the foundations is racism. Which is why White Supremacy is so much of an issue to Liberals. 

Of course ordinary people are confused by this as it doesn't make sense. How can it be that the more society has turned against racism, it has at the same time become more racist?

Well it can't, the entire idea is ridiculous. 

But the only other place that Liberalism can go is to admit that equality is not real. That different people are in fact different. Which they are not prepared to accept. But when you hear the words White Supremacy, Structural Racism, Systematic Racism or Institutional Racism, Liberalism is trying to use these terms to square a circle of it's own making...and failing.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Problems Of Monarchy

Who's Really Responsible?

Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action in Afghanistan. Most Australians are happy to accept that he is a hero who deserves our respect. However there has always been some who did not feel that way about him. Both within the military and the media. He was accused of bullying behaviour towards other soldiers and more seriously of mistreating prisoners, at least one of whom it is alleged was killed upon his orders. 

In fact the Australian SAS (Special Air Service) has been accused of mistreating prisoners and even of 'blooding' soldiers. Blooding is where a less experienced soldier is ordered to kill a prisoner to prove that he is capable of killing and that he is loyal. It has been alleged that 39 Afghans were murdered in 23 separate incidents. Now accusations are not proof and far to often in these stories accusations have been treated that way. But these are serious accusations and they tend to get laid at the feet of just one man. 

I do think that the SAS was given too much leeway in Afghanistan. That the supervision and oversight that should have existed, existed in theory but not in practice. That they were stretched and overused, that they were burdened with too much responsibility. Responsibility that lay elsewhere. Wars of insurgency are political wars that require that military force be used to support political solutions. It appears that the SAS was instead used as if it were fighting bandits. 

Why is it that it seems that the more junior, the more responsible someone is held to be?

Why were the SAS given so little oversight?

Why weren't these problems picked up while they were going on?

Why was the debriefing of soldiers so poor?

The question that I have most of all, is where was the senior leadership?

Why aren't Generals and politicians being asked these questions?

I have heard it said that a soldier gets in more trouble for losing his rifle than a general does for losing a war and it's all true. No ones responsible unless the system wants you to be responsible and then it doesn't matter if your responsible or not. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The White Civil War