Keeping Traditions Alive

How often do we hear that the old traditions are dying out?

How often do we say much the same thing?

But what are we doing personally to keep these traditions alive?

Recently I was talking with one of my brothers and I mentioned that I only received one Christmas card this year. He replied he hadn't sent any out and that it seemed that it was a tradition that was dying out. Which made me realise that I was part of the problem as I never send out Christmas cards. If I want this tradition to survive then maybe I should do something to keep it alive. Like telling people that I want Christmas cards sent to me, maybe even going the radical route and sending some out myself.

This week I have been out and about doing Christmas shopping and everywhere I have been I have been wishing people Merry Christmas and people like it. People want to be a part of the festive season and they like it when other people are nice and pleasant to them. I have seen people smile, I have had people then wish me a merry Christmas. What I have not encountered is any pushback. If we want to keep our traditions alive then we need to keep them alive.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Death Of Classical Liberalism

Why Aren't We Having More Children?

In the 1990's the Left shared an African proverb, 'it takes a village to raise a child'. They loved that this traditional phrase called upon a collective for child raising. What they failed to notice was that in an African village nearly everyone is likely to be a relative of that child. It is not about a collection of random people or of professionals raising a child, but the importance of the extended family in looking after itself.

From Italy to South Korea there is hardly a country in the developed world that doesn't have a baby shortage. This is even spreading to the third world. Here we are witnesses to a civilizational issue, not simply one restricted to one country or society. Which means that to understand the issue we must look more broadly. 

Men and women want children, but we are not simply creatures of instinct. We think, which means that what we think can be influenced by things other than our instincts. The environment in which we live and the ideas that exist around us also influence us. As does the reality of raising children. They take up time, money and resources. Even though people want children, children come at a cost.

However in the past people seemed to be willing to pay that price and today more and more people seem to be unwilling or unable to. The standard answers as to why are always economic. People moved from the farm to the city and children went from being an asset that could provide labour to a burden that instead cost money. That as women become more educated they wanted less children. Each idea suggests that these things are rational and logical. Even that having a large family is indulgent and selfish.

In 1700 no matter where someone lived they were nearly always surrounded by family. Everyone in the town, village or district is related in some way to the other people who also live in that place. Which means that there was a vast network of people who could help in the day to day raising of children. But when a family moved to the town or city they left behind that support and they disrupted two communities. We are familiar with the idea that the village is disrupted, but so too is the community that someone moves too. A stranger arrives and is now competing against the locals. Ties are broken and that includes those of the extended community. If no one can look after the children then it makes less sense to have more. It is not economics or logic that encourages less children. But instead the reality that it is much harder to look after them. 

There is an old saying, 'many hands make light work', meaning that if a job is done by many people each persons share of the work is reduced. In the past motherhood used this principle, many people other than the mother took some of the burden. Mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, cousin, niece, daughter, all pitched in. When a women is in a new place amongst new people then all of that changes. Motherhood becomes a much bigger and harder part of her live. 

We see this in modern times, a couple have a child together and it is a very trying time for them. The husband feels as if he is doing everything that he can to support his brand new family, working, helping out, providing emotional support for her and often she is frustrated beyond belief, why is he doing so little to help she wonders? 

Which has a big impact on how many children this couple will have. It is an enormous test for their relationship. The answer is other women, specifically her mother, then her aunt, sister and any other women who are related or experienced with children. It is an unfortunate modern trend for the father to take the place of all the women in the village, it's too much.

Then in the middle of the 20th century we had a massive population boom, the rapid growth of population in the third world as it received the benefits of transport, new rapid growth crops and pharmaceuticals. In 1927 the worlds population was around 2 billion, in 2023 it has gone over 8 billion, but nearly everywhere the fertility rate has declined.

In the West we had the babyboom between 1944-1964, but that created it's own problems as new families left older communities and started new lives amongst new people. Those older family ties and formations broke down and today we are seeing that continue although with new challenges. One of those new challenges is how hard it is to get into an economically stable position and then to remain there. In the past a great deal of effort was made to get families to form and to make sure that jobs were available and that prices were kept under control. Today none of that is true.

It is still required for a man to have a stable job and to pay, but permanent employment is harder to obtain. Competition from women, mass immigration all make family formation harder. Marriage has  been made unstable. 

I have mixed feelings about the fertility decline, in 1086 when Willian the Conqueror had the Domesday book compiled there were around 1,700,000 people in England, today there are more than 56,000,000. I can't help feeling that that is insane. Sure about 20% of that is from immigration, but even 45,000,000 is a lot of people. That problem is now all over the Earth. Capitalism, the handmaiden of Liberalism says that a bigger population leads to a bigger economy and thats what really matters. I'm a bit more agnostic on population, I'm not convinced that a smaller population is a bad thing. 

Having said that, if we want people to have more children then we need to make family formation easier. family stability a priority and to make women more important to society than to the economy. Today we are burning the candle at both ends because in theory it increases the economy. But if increasing the economy leads to our extinction then that isn't a good deal at all. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Debt Is King I

Capitalism Or Socialism?

Liberalism puts forward the idea that we must choose between two extremes, if you don't support free speech then you support all speech being controlled. If you don't support free trade then you don't believe in trade. The choice between Capitalism and Socialism is one of those extreme positions, because like most people I actually think that a good economy has a bit of both, but not too much of either.

But to understand this better we must define what is meant by Capitalism and Socialism, because one thing that allows Liberalism to continue this absurd idea is that the terms are not defined. People are left to argue without any agreement about what they are arguing about.

Strictly speaking Capitalism only means collecting money (capital) for investment. That is what Capitalists do, they collect money so that they can use that money to invest. However many people also use the word Capitalism to mean the ownership of private property or the ability to make money from your own labour or endeavours. 

The rise of Communism in the 20th century encouraged this idea as they were against all of these things. But Socialism and Communism, while related, are not the same thing. Both say that the economy should be controlled by the government, but the degree to which that government should control the economy differs greatly. For Socialists the degree is astonishing, some are very light and others go all the way to Communism. For the 'light' it might mean that extreme poverty is the enemy, so no one should go hungry or be homeless. For others it might mean that the government makes decisions on how the economy is run. Others don't like excess and rich people offend their sensibilities. But most Socialists believe that Socialism can exist in nearly any political system. Communists do not believe that, they believe that anything less than a Communist government is just not good enough. 

When I write about Capitalism I mean the strict version and about Socialism the 'light' version. 

The problem with big business is that it seeks to be richer and more powerful, which means that it destroys competition. Which it claims to love, but doesn't. Instead it seeks a big slice of the pie, whether that pie is bigger, small or stable in size. That includes in power, it sucks power away from other areas, just as it does the same to finance. Unless some limit is placed upon big business it will destroy the economy, including itself.

Certainly there are some companies that do need to be big, just as some industries should be controlled by the Government, but they should be exceptions. 

But to give that power to the Government is also destructive, of course the Government needs power. But everything needs limits, everything needs to be kept under watch and nothing should be allowed to get out of control. An economy that allows small and medium companies to predominate is an economy that serves the most people and at the same time allows people to make the decisions about that economy. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Who Owns Australia

50 Movies For Traditionalists To Watch

Like many of you I avoid movies or TV programs that I think are going to have too much of 'the message', or race swapping, or feminism or you get the point. But I still own a large collection of DVD's and the like and I still find good movies, old and new. Sometimes I'm asked for recommendations and I decided that I should put together a list of movies that others could watch. Of course we should remember that interests differ, tastes differ and our tolerance for nonsense differs, so just because I like something doesn't mean that you will. Having said that I still think that you will find movies to enjoy on this list.

Rather than having an impossibly long list I decided to limit this to 50 movies. These are not necessarily my favourites, but I have enjoyed them all.

All links go to IMBD. TS means True Story

1. Citizen Kane (1941) Drama

A good story, well acted and important in the history of cinema. 

2. The Song of Bernadette (1943) Mystery/Biography TS

A young women has a vision of the Virgin Mary. Treats religion with respect.  

3. Sunset Blvd. (1950) Drama

Was surprised that I liked this one. The movie asks what happens when you are no longer famous?

4. The Desert Rats (1953)War 

A character study set during the siege of Tobruk during WWII.

5. The Silent Enemy (1958) War/Biography TS

A very accurate movie about the underwater battle between Italian and British frogman over Gibraltar during WWII.

6. Cleopatra (1963) Drama/ Biography TS

The movie was so expensive that it put the studio that made it out of business and you can see everything that they spent up on the screen. Long, effectively two movies and spectacular.

7. The Sand Pebbles (1966) Drama/Adventure

In 1926, a U.S. Naval engineer gets assigned to a gunboat on a rescue mission in war torn China.

8. The Producers (1967) Comedy

A movie made by Jews about Jews, with Nazi's. 

9. Easy Rider (1969) Drama

I watched this recently and was surprised that I liked it. Well made, well acted, many don't like this movie and I understand why. The ending is very heavy handed with one of the earliest anti-White endings around.

10. The Wicker Man (1973) Horror/Mystery

The only horror in this movie is at the end, a really great movie.

11. Seven Little Australians (1973) Family Drama Mini-Series

A strict military man marries a much younger women who is now mother to 6 of his children and the seventh between them. A series to watch with the family.

12. Young Frankenstein (1974) Comedy

Very funny parody

13. I, Claudius (1976) Historical/Biography Min-Series TS

The story of the Roman Emperor Claudius, this is clearly filmed on a stage, but the acting and plot are very good. 

14. Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones (1980) Drama/Biography Mini-Series TS

The story of how one man created a cult and convinced over 900 people to commit suicide. 

15. Tron (1982) Sci-Fi

This is an important movie because it introduced computer graphics into film and it helps explain the background to the other and I think better TRON: Legacy (2010).

16. Do the Right Thing (1989) Drama

A surprisingly honest look at race relations.

17. Gettysburg (1993) Drama/War TS

One of the best movies about a battle, long but totally worth it.

18. Once Were Warriors (1994) Drama Crime

Very violent New Zealand movie about a Maori family. Not for the faint of heart.

19. Pride and Prejudice (1995) Romance Mini-Series

Classic novel dramatized, a series to watch with the wife or girlfriend.

20. The Day of the Roses (1996) Drama TS

A bridge collapses on a train filled with passengers, very good. 

21. American History X (1998) Drama

I did an entire review of this movie here.

22. The Insider (1999) Drama/Biography TS

Story of a man who decides to make public, insider knowledge of the tobacco industry.

23. Galaxy Quest (1999) Comedy/Sci-Fi

A fictional crew are mistaken for the real thing and hilarity ensures, at least I thought so.

24. The Lost Battalion (2001) War TS

WWI American battalion becomes 'lost', a made for tv movie that is better than it should be.

25. About Schmidt (2002) Drama

A man retires and looks at his life.

26. Panic Room (2002) Thriller

I think this is the only Thriller on the list and it is here because it makes sense. A mother and her daughter move into a house and have to use the panic room. 

27. Wallis & Edward (2005) Drama TS

TV movie on the reason King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936.

28. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) Fantasy

I recommend all of the Narnia movies but I like this one the best, great for family viewing.

29. The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) Drama TS

German movie on the Left wing terrorist group of the same name

30. Red Cliff (2008) Historical/War TS

Chinese movie about a famous battle in the 200AD's. Sort of historical and sort of fantastical.

31. Generation Kill (2008) War Mini-Series TS

An accurate picture of the invasion of Iraq, 2003.

32. 127 Hours (2010) Drama/Biography TS

Man goes hiking by himself and gets his arm trapped, should be boring, isn't.

33.. TRON: Legacy (2010) Sci-Fi

A man travels into a hidden electronic world.

34. Parer's War (2014) drama TS

TV movie that is good but not great, About an Australian war correspondent in WWII.

35. The Monuments Men (2014) War/Drama TS

An old fashioned war movie about men who were recruited to save art during WWII.

36. Trumbo (2015) Drama/Biography TS

Left wing screen writer blacklisted in the 50's. Well made, acted and as far as I know accurate. Interesting look into how Hollywood and the Left view one of their hero's.

37. Bridge of Spies (2015) Drama TS

During the Cold War a man is sent 'unofficially' to get a pilot back from Communist captivity. A good story that I think you get more out of the more you know.

38. O.J.: Made in America (2016) Documentary/Biography

Nearly 8 hour long documentary on O.J. Simpson. Made by Left Liberals, it definitely has their point of view. However in that time it reveals things about race in America that really highlight points that we make about race. Great footage and interviews, with the highlight being the coverage of the murders and the trial, quite revealing.

39. The Lost City of Z (2016) Drama/Biography TS

A movie that I wish was better than it is, B when it should have been an A. Man explorers the jungles of South America. Worth seeing even though it's not top-notch.

40. Arrival (2016) Mystery/Sci-Fi

For some this will have too much diversity, but I thought the story held up well enough for it to not be as bad as some. Aliens arrive and we cannot communicate with each other.

41. Sully (2016) Drama/Biography

Pilot lands plane on a river, the investigation was never the witch hunt shown here, but a good heroic tale none the less. 

42. All the Money in the World (2017) Drama TS

Grandson of the worlds richest man is kidnapped. Good but it should have been better, still worth watching.

43. The Senator Original title: Chappaquiddick (2017) Drama/ Biography TS

Senator Ted Kennedy and that night at Chappaquiddick.

44. Borg McEnroe Original title: Borg VS McEnroe (2017) Drama/Sport

I'm not much of a sports fan but here the story is really about the rivalry between two men, who happen to be tennis players. 

45. Stan & Ollie (2018) Drama/Biography TS

Laurel and Hardy go on a tour of Britain in the early 1950's, a lovely tribute with superb acting.

46. A Quiet Place (2018) Horror/Sci-Fi

Aliens attack noise and people make noise.

47. First Man (2018) Drama/Biography TS

First man to walk on the moon, slow and there is no American flag on the moon, but apart from that. 

48. Tolkien (2019) Drama/Biography

Story of Tolkien's early life

49. 1917 (2019) War

A bit too much diversity in the background. But other than that this is quite good.

50. Apocalypse Now: Final Cut (2019) War

This movie was released in 1979, then a Redux version was released in 1999, this is the Final Cut which was released in 2019. Watch this version, it is the best.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Marriage - The Second Attack

Politicians And The Rules Of Seduction

It takes a certain type of person to become a politician. It is not just ambition, although that is certainly present. They are a curious mixture of positive and negative attributes. Most have a built in optimism about the world and their role in it. That the world can be a better place than it currently is and that they have the will, the ability and the belief to make a positive change in the world. An idealism that is missing from most people. 

But at the same time they have both a practical and a cynical nature, which can be hard to separate as each lives so close to the other. They believe that betrayal, lies and cynicism are practical things. That they are in fact essential to achieving the things that they believe that they and only they can achieve. Of course not all politicians become involved because they are idealists, but I do think that those who are any good do start from an idealists position. It may wear off, or fade in and out of existence, but rarely is it absent entirely.

At heart politicians are seducers, they whisper sweet lies into people ears and hope that what they have whispered is better then what the other professional liars have whispered. My Mother said that children don't lie, they instead tell you what they want to be true. For example a child will break a vase and then say that they didn't break it, what they mean is that they didn't intend to break it. In their mind it is not a lie but what they wish was true. Politicians are like that, they lie but they wish those lies were true. They wish they could build that hospital they promised, or end war, or cut taxes and increase spending without consequences. Even though they know that the things that they say are lies, a good liar believes in the lies that they tell. Because while children may not lie, politicians most certainly do.

Why do they lie?

Because people insist that they lie, people will tell you that they hate lies but that is itself a lie. The truth is that people love lies because the truth is harsh and we find that we already have enough harshness in our lives. We need the softness of lies to cushion the harshness of truth. The truth is that maybe we can't really afford that hospital, that no one can end war and in fact war loves that you hate it and cutting taxes and increasing spending will have consequences. Instead of dealing with that harshness maybe it is better to live with the promise that maybe things can get better. We want to hear lies and because we want to hear them we are told them. We are being seduced and I know of two rules of seduction.

The first rule of seduction is that you do not tell the person you are seducing the truth, instead you tell them what they want to hear. 

The second rule of seduction is that the easiest person to seduce is the person who wants to be seduced. 

If a politician wants to be successful then they need to learn these rules. Although learning something is different to putting it into practise and we often see them fail. 

Lastly politicians need the practical nature that I wrote about above, they need to be able to deal with people, systems and processes. And they need to be able to change, to go with the flow. It is something that they are criticised for, fairly and unfairly.

To Help support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Future Of The Nation State

No To The Voice

Australia's Labor government has decided that they want to change our constitution and to give a 'voice' to Aboriginal people. The argument put forward has been 'go on be nice to Aborigines', of course the other argument is 'if you don't vote yes your a racist, bigot, White supremacist'. 

So what is 'the voice'?

That's a good question that it's proponents cannot agree on. At one extreme are those who state that every law affects Aboriginal people, therefore every law will need to be approved by a consultative body, 'the voice'. In effect it will have veto powers over all Australian laws and it will use this power to push for more radical positions. At the other extreme are those, including the Prime Minister, who insist that this is simply mentioning Aboriginals in the constitution. Along with a consultative body that can offer advice to the government on matters that pertain to matters that overwhelmingly affect Aboriginal people. Constitutional experts claim the proposed amendment is so badly written and confusing that it will lead to decades of legal challenges.

Even simple questions about 'the voice' remain unanswered.

How many members will make up 'the voice'?

Will they be voted for or selected and if so by whom?

Will 'the voice' have a budget?

Will 'the voice' have staff?

Vote yes and only then will we be able to find out if it was all a mistake or not.

I'm not prepared to vote for handing the country over to radicals and I'm also not prepared to recognise Aboriginals in the constitution. Not when the people who actually wrote it aren't recognised in it.  

I cannot think of a single reason to vote yes, which means it's definitely a no from me.

Vote No

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Left Or Social Liberalism

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

Is The Liberal Party Dying?

Apart from Tasmania every state and territory has a Labor government as does the Federal government. In Victoria last year the Liberals couldn't win against a premier nicknamed Dictator Dan. At the last Federal election seats that in the past had been regarded as safe Liberal seats were lost to Liberal party types who decided that they weren't into climate change and divisive social issues enough. It makes you wonder about what is going on in the Liberal party.

The Liberal party has always been a strange beast, it was, as is the tradition in Australian politics, the anti-Labor party. Made up of people with very different views but who all agreed that Labor must be opposed. For decades it worked, but there has always been the question, 'what does the Liberal party stand for'?

In the past it stood for individual liberty, small government, fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. 

But the truth was that it has always been ready to drop support for one or more of these if it was convenient. In fact a common theme in the history of the Liberal party has been it's attempts to out Labor the Labor party. Which of course fails, because when people have a choice between the real thing and the fake thing they will choose the real thing.

Which leads me to the Victorian Liberal Party, a party that couldn't win against a government that locked it's citizens up for 200 days in 2 years. It has no plan for what it will do once it is in government. It claims that it opposed the tyranny of the state Labor government, but if you took the time to look you found out that they only mildly disagreed with that government. If they had been in government the only difference might have been that things were not so bad because they lacked the backbone that Dictator Dan possessed. Dictators have backbones, not something that can be said for the Liberal party.

It expelled one of it's members for going to a pro-women rally.

That same party is now looking into having more ethnic minorities and more female members of parliament. So a party that claims that it values the individual is looking at quotas. It just cannot decide what it really believes or stands for. 

That extends to finances, it used to be accepted that Labor ran up debt and the Liberals were responsible with money. But that is simply no longer true. Neither are responsible with money, both run up debt, both print money. I still encounter people who think that the Liberals will sort out the debt, but I have to wonder in what world are they living in?

This decade Victoria is going to relive the 1990's, were the state nearly went bankrupt. Labor is spending money that we simply do not possess and that will come back to bite us. In the 1990's the Liberal party saved Victoria, at least financially, but today we cannot rely upon them even for that. 

Maybe it is a good thing if the Liberal party does die. It has no answer but more to immigration, the same answer it has towards debt. If this country is to survive it should die and why not at it's own hands.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Patriotism Versus Nationalism

The Coronation of Australia's New King

A new King of Australia has been crowned, although you might think of him under a different title. Which got me to thinking about the role of the monarchy in Australia and within Liberalism more generally. 

When I was growing up it was very common to be told by the talking heads of the media that we should enjoy the monarchy while it lasted because no new Monarchists were being born.  In other words it was old fashioned and in time it would die out. Most commenters said that Queen Elizabeth II would be the last monarch of Australia, because it was only her personal popularity that kept it alive. A King Charles III was an absurdity that was just laughable, he had neither the charisma nor the popularity to keep it going. Yet here we are with King Charles III and no popular movement towards becoming a republic. 

Sure there are people who are Republicans, there are those who think an inherited head of state is weird and there are those who aren't that interested at all. And yet every commercial television station, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Sky news broadcast it live. It obviously generated a great deal of interest. There are a lot of people out there who do think that this is important. 

Because monarchy has a strength that other forms of government do not have, it is centred around family and individual people. Not for an election cycle but for their entire life. The life of both the royal and of the non-royal. That personal connection is a rarity when it comes to politicians and when it exists much more fragile. 

I was expecting much more criticism and hostility but both have been quite subdued. Republicans came out of the woodwork, but I still got the impression that the media was more interested in generating controversy than anything. I hear that a commentator on the BBC said that the royal family was too white. But all par for the course. 

For decades rumours have circulated that this coronation would be very multicultural and multi-faith, so I was half expecting the worse. But to be honest I was pleasantly surprised with how traditional it was, including how White, British and Christian it was. I also heard some say that the ceremony was a break from tradition, but the truth is that every coronation has features that are unique to it and this one was no different in that regard.

The coronation proves something that we on the right should always take to heart and that is that no matter what we are told the things that we love can go on and all that we have to do is to keep faith with what we believe. Never give up.

So let me say

LONG LIVE THE KING OF AUSTRALIA, KING CHARLES III

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Pornography And Liberalism

 

The Rise of Slogans and Emotionalism

When I was a teenager back in the 1980's one of things that impressed me about Liberalism was that it was prepared to debate issues. Controversial issues were regarded as controversial and they were debated, even on television. Back when everyone had a very limited choice about what they could watch. 

Even back then I noticed that there was real opposition to debating issues openly and honestly, I also noticed that the debates were biased. One side always seemed to get the better deal, yes the Left side. As I watched more I started to realise that these debates were not open and honest. They were instead a way of letting people know what the correct opinion was. A way of short circuiting any opposition, look we gave this a fair hearing and it just couldn't make it's case, time to move on and get with the program. 

It was also a lesson to watch the men and women who ran these programs become increasingly side lined as debate became unfashionable. In it's place was something that Left-liberalism had been playing with for a while, sloganeering. Instead of having a debate or an argument you had a slogan. This way the rational part of the brain was bypassed and you could engage with the emotional part of the brain. 

This was a big thing for Liberalism as it had always prided itself on it's rationalism. Liberals championed the idea that their philosophy was logical and rational and that it was these factors that would lead to it's inevitable triumph It's opponents however, had always noticed its emotionalism. That it often sort to use emotions and to then claim that that was rationalism.    

Since the 1960's rationalism has been in decline, although it really declined from the 1990's onwards. In it's place were slogans and emotionalism. Arguments were required to counter the middle class and the institutions. Once they had largely been won over then they moved on to using a weapon that people find hard to fight. How do you fight a slogan?

"One man, one vote"

"Love is love"

"All men are equal"

"Equality between the sexes"

It is incredibly difficult because it is so light it can avoid any blow. A slogan becomes a mantra, something that can be said without any understanding of the issue and yet it gives the speaker the feeling of knowing everything. What else can there be to know?

Slogans appeal to the emotions, it bypasses the intellect, which is what gives it its strength. As the saying goes, you cannot argue someone out of a position they were never argued into. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Report From The Melbourne Reclaim Australia Rally

Should You Buy Gold?

Recently someone said to me that they were planning to buy some gold which many people talk about. But is it a good idea?

Well like many things in life there are good reasons and bad reasons for buying gold. So why is gold valuable?

For two reasons, firstly it is rare, if all of the gold ever mined was put into the middle of a football field, the type of football is unimportant, you could sit in the stands and look at it all. If you tried the same thing with Silver, it would fill to the brim multiple football fields. Secondly gold does not rust, which means that it's durable. 

Until the Twentieth Century weddings rings were gold because they didn't rust and it symbolically meant eternity. But in times of trouble it had great value as gold rises in price during such times. So you can sell your wedding ring at a good price to help you through bad times, then when good times return and the price of gold goes down you could buy a new gold ring. Gold is a good, although imperfect, way to measure the health of the economy and of the international situation.

Which leads on to why you should buy gold, gold becomes more valuable in times of crisis and goes up in value. It's small and even shavings of gold can have value. It's also easy to hide and to carry and the worse things get the better it is to have.

However there are quite a few downsides to buying gold, as an investment, unlike nearly every other form of investment, it costs you money. You need to store and protect it. It does not earn investment and if times don't get worse you can lose money. A lot of money. And if you have gold how much is enough?

That is a very difficult question to answer.

However there is also another issue that I never hear people talk about when it comes to gold, what happens if the government decides to make the private ownership of gold illegal?

Now you might be thinking that that would be a pretty extreme situation and you would be right. But that exact thing happened a number of times in various countries during the Twentieth Century. Including in Britain and the United States. The private ownership of gold was illegal in Britain during both World Wars and it was illegal in the United States for 21 years, 1933-1954. Gold had to handed in for bonds or cash and you didn't get a choice about it. 

Gold as part of a balanced portfolio is I think a good thing, but most investments should be in things that will provide a financial return. If your investing more than 10% of your portfolio in precious metals I think your doing yourself a financial disservice.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Liberalism, Transgenderism And The Olympics

Upon Hope The Book

 In reply to my tenth birthday post Lindsay Byrnes posted this:

There are many excellent essays that could form the basis of a book that can be self self published using Amazon for only a very token cost. You might be able to promote it and get some modest sales, but more impotently preserve 10 years of your thoughts and best efforts on an important political philosophy as an enduring legacy.

By registering copies with both national and state libraries you afford future generation the opportunity to read about a traditionalists view at that time..

Which was both a very nice thing to say and an interesting idea. So after much thought I have decided to see how far I can go with this idea. I spoke to an editor that I know and he said that a book of around 100 articles is doable, I want to do 120 articles, one from each month. But at the same time I don't think I'm the best person to decide what should be cut. I have started recruiting people that I know but there may be people here who would be interested in helping out.

What I want is for me to select a random month and for people to number the articles from 1 (the best) to whatever number there is for that month. In reality the first and second are the most important. 

If anyone is interested send me an email: uponhopeblog(AT)gmail.com

Why Are They Doing All Of This?

Yesterday I received an unexpected phone call, a friends wife called to talk to me about the WEF, the World Economic Forum. She has had a rapid, in her words, awakening. Over the past few months she has started to notice their agenda and how it affects us. During our conversation she said 'it's all about money'. But is it?

I mean she certainly isn't the only person to make this claim and it has a certain logic to it. People like money and one interesting thing about having money is that you notice that no matter how much you have someone else has more. Even if your the richest man on Earth there are still institutions and governments richer than you. Which can give some people the impetus to get richer, even when they are already absurdly rich.  Greed certainly has a place in answering the question, why are they doing all of this.

However it also has it's limits, it might explain how greed plays it's part, but how does it explain people who can never benefit financially?

Why are they going along with these ideas?

I think the answers lies in two areas, non-involvement and belief. Non-involvement is all those people who are complacent, scared or otherwise doing nothing. They go along with it because they don't want to be involved, they don't rock the boat. So they just do whatever they need to do, no matter how bad that is.

But many people do it because they believe it. They believe that these ideas or actions will lead to a better world and that they are one of the things that will create this better world. Amongst those who believe they can be further divided into two further groups, true-believers and ideologues. True-believers are those who truly believe in the ideas that they are pushing, They believe that it is urgent and viral, that others are naive and even evil for not believing as they do. The ideologues also believe what they push but they are more cynical. Because while they believe they also support other ideas and causes and they will betray any particular idea or cause for what they regard as the bigger cause. Their ideology.

Finally these ideas are not exclusive, it is possible for someone to believe and for them to be greedy for example. But what you can be certain of is that they are not doing for no reason at all, they always have a reason.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Order, Why Do Conservatives Believe In It?

Hollywoodism: How The Jews Invented Hollywood (1998)

I came across this quite by accident and I decided to watch it and I'm glad I did. It is a look at the early movie Mughals of Hollywood, all of whom were Jewish. While this is very sympathetic to them and certainly has it's own position to push, I also found it quite insightful, particularly in showing why they had the views that they did and why they had them. The start of the documentary when they talk about the Pale in Russia is revealing not because of it's accuracy but because of what they believe to be true. Later on there is a point about how these ideas played out and still play out in Hollywood fiction.

There were also three areas that I felt should be highlighted.

34 minute mark: Where they talk about the Mughals attitude to intermarriage

52 minute mark: Where they talk about erasing their Jewishness

1:18 minute mark: Where they talk about the Mughals attitude to the mixing of the bloods

I have noticed that Hollywood historically did erase Jews which is why so many people, myself included, can be so surprised that it was run by Jews. A movie that is still famous is The Jazz Singer, which even though it was made in 1927 only became public domain on the 1st January 2023. It is the first 'talkie' and is about a Jew who wants to marry outside of his faith and decides he'd rather be famous then Jewish. This is the only movie I can think of for nearly the next 50 years to have a expressly Jewish story. other movies have Jewish sentiments and ideas, but they are not expressly about Jews. In fact religion is normally in the background and rarely in the foreground. The Catholic Church brought in the Hays Code which regulated the contents of Hollywood movies for over 30 years (1933-1968). This meant that nearly ever religious movie you have ever seen from the golden age of Hollywood is about the Catholic Church. Which meant that in a predominately Protestant America, Jews pushed Catholicism.  

It is incredible once you see it just how invisible the Protestant faith is from old time American movies. Often a 'Preacher' will preach in 'The Church', with no other identifying feature. 

Another area that they touch on and which I have noticed myself is how Jewish actors and actresses were turned into Non-Jews. I didn't know that Lauren Bacall was born Betty Joan Perske to Jewish parents. But I have noticed something which continues today and that is the blurring of the line between Jews and Non-Jews. I remember watching an episode of The Twilight Zone(1959_TV_series), where the main actor in a particular episode had a very English name and looked East European. Which got me to thinking about the idea that many actors who were clearly Jewish often played parts that were not Jewish. It further got me thinking about how many parts that were for Jews were played by Non-Jews. Which seemed a bit strange until you think about how often intermarriage and race mixing is supported and endorsed.....and not just by Hollywood.

(98 minutes long)

 

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

The Problem Of Small Families

Happy Tenth Birthday Upon Hope!

I was planning to make this my last post on the blog and maybe it will be. I have found it increasingly hard to write, not because I can't find things to write about but because I find it harder and harder to justify to myself. It is not that I have changed my mind, but that this past decade has involved a lot of activity and not much, if any, forward motion.

I know why I write, I write to try and fight back against the world as it is. I write because I want to do something about it. I write to find answers and to find a way forward. But those who hate me don't even know I exist and I cannot point to anything concrete that I have created. All of the organizations that I belonged to, even lead, have proven to be disappointments. People are mostly passive and they fear losing the things that they have, which means that we all lose more. The lack of agency is why we are where we are and why things are getting worse and why they will continue to get worse. Which leads me to wonder why am I writing?

 What purpose does it serve?

I have come to feel that it serves no purpose at all. This will be my 952nd post and about 900 of those are articles and only 1 has ever generated any long term interest, Remigration. Which was written back in 2014 and while others have said and written positive things it hasn't gone anywhere. And after 8 years it has been read 327 times, which isn't a lot. But still more than most articles. 

This is not new, I have written about this before so this has been building for years. Until mid 2019 I felt that the blog was growing and that while very little was happening in real life that there was still hope. But after that I think I was shadowbanned as things slowed down a lot. Then Covid hit and I wrote my first article saying this was all overblown on the 14th March 2020, Viral Crisis which was pretty early. I wrote numerous articles and podcasts on the topic and I had exactly zero people contact me about doing something about it. Which really highlighted that I wasn't a part of a movement, instead I was alone and ineffectual. 

When I started I had a plan and the blog was a part of it, to recruit like minded people, to fight back and to work out why things were so bad and what to do about it. Well I think I have answered why things have gotten so bad and I think I have given a way forward. But what I have absolutely failed to do is to find like minded people who wanted to fight back. It doesn't matter how good your manual on agriculture is if no one wants to be a farmer, it's pointless. 

So I made it 10 years but I guess it really ain't that happy.

The One Hundred And Twentieth Month

120 months is 10 years, which I will do a post on. My best day this last month was the 7th March when I had 165 visitors and my worst day was the 21st February when I had 26 visitors. In total I had 2, 274 visitors.

United States

1.28K

Australia

394

Israel

278

United Kingdom

42

France

39

Indonesia

36

Netherlands

30

Germany

29

Russia

29

Canada

14

Bulgaria

12

Egypt

11

India

9

Singapore

6

New Zealand

4

Romania

4

Serbia

4

Hong Kong

3

Belgium

2

Other

52

Is Liberalism A Logic or a Conspiracy?

Liberalism is the political philosophy that everyone in the West lives under and in the English speaking world it has been that way since 1689. Yet when people ask the question, what has gone wrong, many things get blamed, but rarely Liberalism. Even though it has been in charge for generations, for centuries. It's a family portrait that you never look at because it has always been there. 

But once you do notice it's quite a shock. The picture that it likes to put forward is one of benign and happy progress. Everything's good and getting better. You should just sit back and enjoy the ride. Many of us do notice that things are wrong, but Liberalism doesn't like you noticing. It then becomes the case that some things once seen cannot be unseen. Which then leads people to ask how does Liberalism work?

Is it a grand conspiracy?

Is it a series of small conspiracies?

Or is it a Logic, a mind set?

Many go down the path of grand conspiracy, it has a certain logic to it. But once you look at how long everything has been going on then it really needs a supernatural element to work. Which some claim to see, however the evidence for either the supernatural or a grand conspiracy are lacking. Even if I also find the idea tempting at times.

I know I've seen it, you may also have seen it, a Liberal changing their opinion on a topic instantly as they realise that what they have been saying is not supported by other Liberals. It's an amazing thing to see, eerie even. Today they are sometimes called NPC's, because in computer games Non Player Characters (NPC) have few if any options and so they only say what they are programmed to say.   

Which leads to a conclusion, that Liberals learn what to say and more importantly what to think from other Liberals. Which includes but is not limited to, Teachers, friends, the internet, TV, movies, radio and last but not least family. We learn things from other people even when we don't know it. However that doesn't explain why those at the top do this as well. They do it because they know what the next step should be, the next step is nearly always logical and they pay attention to what that next step will be. Not every next step is logical, but they normally fall by the wayside. Which means that Liberalism is a Logic, something that leads from one thought to the next and that means that it possible see where it will lead.

But at the same time Liberalism is also a series of constant small conspiracies. So what is a conspiracy?

Here is my definition

'A conspiracy is a plan formulated in secret by two or more individuals with the intention of carrying out some form of action.'

Most definitions state that it must also include a bad intent, but I disagree, Organising a surprise birthday party is a conspiracy. It also implies that only secret meetings with stated bad intentions are conspiracies and I think that is too limiting. Governments and other organisations meet in secret all the time, meetings that are rarely if ever revealed to ordinary citizens and for the most part it would be very boring knowing them all. But within those meetings things happen that do have bad intentions, even if those taking part do not think that that is true. I think that qualifies as a conspiracy.

But this can be taken too far, there is no question that conspiracies are real and that they have an effect. But Liberalism is at it's core a Logic, something that progresses from one thought to the next and that any conspiracies arising from it comes after the thought and in support of the thought.

Something to think about.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

We Are The Jews Now

  

 

The One Hundred And Nineteenth Month

Nothing much to report this month so I'll keep it short.

My best day was the 6th February when I had 977 visitors, my worst was the 29th January when I had 10. Quite a difference. My total for the month is 4,360 visitors, a big jump up from last month, most days are under 50, but then I get a few massive days and I never know why.

I have started to put older posts onto Telegram again at https://t.me/uponhope. On the 10th February I put up a post from 2013 The Bi-Polar Party, The Liberal Party Of Australia, the link to this article has been seen 1149 times and I have received 41 visitors to this site from it. a 3.5% return. I don't know if anyone else finds this of interest but I do. 

Germany

1.83K

United States

1.27K

France

401

Sweden

309

Australia

306

United Kingdom

37

Canada

35

Singapore

20

Russia

13

Italy

11

Egypt

10

Romania

10

Netherlands

9

India

8

Brazil

7

Switzerland

5

Spain

5

Hong Kong

4

Indonesia

4

Other

64