Saturday, 17 September 2022

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Things I Hate About The Left

Wednesday, 14 September 2022

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Kingship Is Life

Sunday, 11 September 2022

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'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

11 August -11 September

United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand

Friday, 9 September 2022

The Queen Is Dead, Long Live The King

Yesterday we lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, today we live in the reign of King Charles III. The new monarchy ascending to the throne the instant that the late monarch passes so that the Kingdom is never without a monarch. It was a shock to hear the news of Her Majesties death, I had assumed for a long time that she would live to 100, I even thought she could live much longer. She always looked young for her age, even the photos of her swearing in the new British Prime Minister two days before her death she looked in her 80's not her 90's. If you are younger than 71 then you have known no other British monarch, as none has existed in your lifetime, she was Queen for 70 years.

We must also get used to saying King Charles when for 73 years we have known him as Prince Charles.  

For those who read my blog it is no secret that as a Traditionalist I am also a Monarchist. So I want to address a controversies that exists. 

The Queens responsibilities for the calamity that has befallen the White Realms.

There is no question that the last 70 years have been a calamity for Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, the White Realms. In 1952 we were supreme, or so it seemed, in our our own lands. We had built these countries, they belonged to us, we had successfully defended them in war and we thought that these lands would remain the property of the British race forever. However in 2022 it is clear that all that was abandoned and instead we live in multi-racial countries, something that we never sort, that we never asked for, fought to obtain or voted for, instead it was forced upon us by Liberalism and the supporters of Liberalism.   

However there are some on the Right who place all or part of the blame upon the Queen. They argue that this all happened while she was the monarch and that means that she was in total or in part responsible for these calamities. But is that true?

First off the Queen did not tell us her political opinions, we don't even know if she had them, some people don't. The evidence is unclear, at times she appeared quite conservative at others as a stock standard Liberal, certainly many of her speeches in recent decades were filled with multicultural platitudes. But were they her opinions or the opinions of her speechwriters? 

You might argue that she shouldn't have said something if she didn't believe it, but neither you or I know what went on behind the scenes. Maybe she fought valiantly and sometimes won and sometimes lost, maybe she never complained, maybe over 70 years all these things were true. But what I find interesting is that for so many on the Right there is always someone to blame but themselves.

Lets say for a moment that the Queen opposed what happened 100%, then she failed. But don't you oppose what happened 100%?

Or is it 95%, or 76% or 5%?

But you oppose it right, you would change it if you had the power wouldn't you?

The mistake is to think the the Queen had power, because she did not. The sad and even pathetic truth is that modern monarchs in the West do not have power. In theory she could declare war, but she never did because in reality that power was no longer hers. In theory she could deny assenting to any Act of Parliament, the last time that happened was in 1819, that power is long gone. Everything the government does is done in her name, whether she personally likes it or not.

How is that different to you or I?

Things are done in our name whether we like them or not. We are told that in a Democracy we control the government, how in control do you feel?

You might argue that she should have abdicated, or refused to play the game, she should have done more. But the exact same argument can and has been made about you. Why do you keep paying taxes to a government that hates you?

Why do you keep working when you could be a full time revolutionary trying to overthrow the government?

Why haven't you done more?

Why haven't you been more successful at stopping things?

Why have you and your parents and your Grandparents done so little to stop the rot?

But in truth how much power do you have?

Not much.

The Queen had influence and she had prestige, but both were won by her continuing to play the game and in the end she had to deal with Liberals. So her arguments would, maybe did, fall upon deaf ears. Ears that listen but do not hear.

There is a further argument that she broke her coronation oath to protect her people, but she never swore to protect her people. Here is her coronation oath:

the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

Nothing about protecting her people, instead she swore to 'govern the people.........according to their respective laws and customs'. Which in reality meant that she, like you and I, had to go along with the real power, Parliament and the law.

A Queen should have power and most people automatically thought that she did, but she did not. Influence and prestige yes, but not power. She was instead bound by laws and customs that restricted what she was allowed to say and do, just as we are. 

I would like to make one final point, she was a Queen and traditionally Queens lose power. I once had someone who was interested in alternative history complain to me that so many alternative histories were about which rich White guy became President of the United States. He argued that no matter who was elected it wouldn't have made much of a difference. He then said that if Queen Victoria had instead been King Victor then history would be very different. 

I think he was right, a long reigning King would have lost much less power than a Queen did. I am uncertain if that was true of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, as maybe there was no real power to preserve by the time she became Queen.

The calamities that have befallen us did not only occur during the Queens reign, but during our lifetime. It's time we asked ourselves why have we allowed these things to happen and to start doing more than complain about them. To stop asking why hasn't someone ELSE done something because we are that someone.

It's up to us and it always has been.  

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Industrial Relations And Conservatism


Saturday, 27 August 2022

South Africa's Brave New World - A Book Review

South Africa's Brave New World ' The beloved country since the end of Apartheid', is a political history of South Africa from 1994 - 2009.  I'm a bit late to the party with this book having first been published back in 2009, but it has some very interesting information and insights. Normally a reviewer talks about the good, then the bad but I think I'm going to start with the bad, then move on to the good and finish with some minor criticisms. 

The book is far to long, it could have conveyed much of the same information in half the pages and the main reason that it go's on is because it is disorganised. I was interested in what befell the police and the army after Apartheid and he does talk about these things. But as short detours in the middle of chapters that are quite large, unfortunately this is a recurring theme. The book could have really used a Dramatis Personae or list of characters. So many names are mentioned, who then reappear chapters later in a new job, it is very confusing and could have been done better.

The glossary at the start of the book, where all glossary's should be, was a big help.

But I actually think that this book provided a good deal of insight into South Africa, the ANC and the period of ANC rule up until 2009. One insight that I found interesting is his assertion that South Africa has since independence in 1910 been ruled by a Nationalist ideology. The first from 1910-1947 was British Empire loyalty, the idea that South Africa was British or in South African terminology 'English'. Which was replaced between 1947-1990 with a Afrikaner nationalism, that replaced loyalty to the Empire to one of loyal to Volk, particularly the Afrikaner Volk. Which in turn was replaced in 1994 with a Black African nationalism, which continues. The period between 1990-94 was one where much of the Afrikaner nationalism was being dismantled. It is an interesting idea that the current government is more of a continuation than a new start. 

He also writes about the different factions within the ANC that made up the first government in 1994. The smallest but most prestigious were the prisoners like Mandela, the second largest were the Exiles, who had lived outside of South Africa. Most of these where Communists who believed in the revolution and in the inevitable destruction of Capitalism. The largest group by far, but at the same time the least prestigious as well as the least influential where the Inxiles, who had remained in South Africa. It was to be the Exiles who benefited the most from the end of Apartheid. They were organised and unlike the Inxiles disciplined enough to take control of most of the senior government positions as well as those in the ANC. In effect the Inxiles were frozen out of the victory that they had struggled for, 

My favourite subtitle heading in the book is 'Crony Capitalism for the Comrades' as it sums up in one little phrase what happened when Communists realised that they could be rich!

Because now that they were back in south Africa they did realise that now was the time to make up for the personal sacrifices that they had made. It also helped that they had seized the commanding heights of the government and the ANC. Which means that much of the history since 1994 has been the efforts of the Exiles to consolidate their position, not just in politics but in money. BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) was meant to be a way for Blacks to get a foothold on the economic ladder. Companies would need Blacks to in effect 'legitimise' them. Which meant that the companies wanted the most powerful and connected Blacks, people like the Exiles. Which came to mean that in reality BEE helped a few hundred families in a country of about 50 million people.

The author is scathing in his criticism of BEE and Affirmative Action, I don't recall him having anything good to say about them. The ANC is not far behind in his criticism. He regards Mandela as a popular non-entity, a man who came to power when he was too old to influence events. To be far he did influence the peaceful transfer of power and he did believe in the 'rainbow nation'. Most of his contempt is directed towards Zuma, both as Vice President and as President. He blames him for much of the mismanagement that occurred during those 15 years and while I don't disagree with him. I do feel that the ANC and it's structure is the real issue that has not been addressed and maybe never will be. 

What I find interesting is that he is a Liberal and the Liberal promise of the end of Apartheid was that non-Whites would get to live the lives that Whites enjoyed. It was not that a new select group would arise and take the place of Apartheid, or that Apartheid in a new form would be enacted. But he realises that that is exactly what has happened. He also writes about how galling it has been to see the future that he wanted for South Africa not appear but that the 'racists' as he calls them were right. South Africa has become a richer version of the rest of Black Africa, a kleptocracy were theft is the reason that you go into government. mismanagement and race baiting.     

Part of the problem is that as a Liberal he keeps trying to be race blind and it is interesting to see him struggle with what he believes and what he can see with his own eyes. Africa is not just a product of it's past but also of it's present. The civilization that covers the world is not African it's European, which means that they are trying to government under the rules of someone else's civilization. The truth is that if South Africa was an all White country, it would be a lot more successful than if it was an all Black country, even if those Blacks were of the same ethnic group.

I want to leave you with an excerpt from the book about his attending an Anti-Racism conference in South Africa, September 2001. (p.350)

'Indigenous people' were invited from all over the world and the cause of ethnic minorities anywhere in the West was taken up with great indignation. Arriving in Durban for the conference, I found what could only be described as a crazed millenarian expectation and furious blaming. Black Americans, Roma, Inuit and many other minorities were there in strength and were all, apparently, angry. Even many of the whites attending the conference were anti-white. A great theme was the rights of indigenous peoples but this did not seem to work at all. Thus whites were condemned for colonialism abroad, and were also blamed for not making ex-colonial people welcome enough in their own countries. I asked many delegates whether there was anywhere that whites had rights as indigenous people themselves. There was apparently no such place.


Tuesday, 23 August 2022

Feminists Love Capitalism

When we think of a Feminist we think of someone who is on the Left. Someone who supports radical ideas. In the 1800's they supported the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol. But one idea that they always seem to have supported and that you hear them talk about today is Socialism. They love collectivism, they love the idea of people working together without the profit motive, without people getting rich at other peoples expense, coupled with the idea of wealth redistribution. However there is a fly in that ointment.

If you take a look at the modern Capitalist economy you notice that it supports and propagates Feminist ideas. It does even more than that, it it filled with women living the ideal Feminist lifestyle, many of whom will tell you that they are Feminists. How is it that Feminists are so happy to be a part of Capitalism? 

I think the answer lies not in ideology but in women's nature. One of the interesting things about the division of sex into male and female is how each sex has different roles in life. One of the primary male roles is being a provider, providing economic resources that keeps the rest of his family alive. Whether in goods or in the form of money. The role of the female is to manage those resources, to put it another way she is a collectivist, someone who redistributes resources. The man provides, the women manages.

Which means that Socialism is a natural fit for women, they understand many of the basic concepts without even needing to think about it. It is simply the family upscaled to the entire society. In fact once women gained the vote the electorate took a turn to the left, where it has continued to go ever since. Although to be fair it only accelerated a process that was already underway. But at the same time there is a contradiction and that is that women manage the resources of their own family, not of other peoples families. So there are two powerful forces at work each struggling against the other. Women believe simultaneously all of society should act like a family, but that society should never take away resources from my family.

In the real world most women aren't Socialists, but they are sympathetic towards the idea.

Women also have mixed feels about Capitalism, they don't like the competitive nature of the beast, but they do like the results. It does something that they greatly admire and that is that it provides resources. Before Liberalism decided that it loved Feminism, something that it didn't always, men received those resources and they in turn gave them to women. The natural order was upheld. Over the past 50 years that order has been actively subverted, increasingly women have received those resources directly. Leading many women to believe that they don't need men.

At the same time while Liberalism said loudly that the thing that made Capitalism better than Socialism was it's competitive nature, competition was being curtailed. Today we live under Crony Capitalism, competition is increasingly side lined in favour of winners being picked. 

So far that has not meant a decrease in resources and while those resources keep coming in then women will continue to see Capitalism as something that they can get behind. Which includes Feminists.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

There Really Are 57 Genders But Only Two Sexes

Tuesday, 16 August 2022

Are Words Magical?

The Z Man has written about this as have I at various times, but it's a point that I thought should be highlighted again. The people who rule over us, the people who think they are our betters are highly educated, I would say highly overeducated. They do not think like you or I, or like most people because they believe that words are reality. That if you say or write something that that can and does override reality. Like writing a new computer program. 

But believing that words can change reality is a concept that goes back to Prehistory and we all know the name of this concept, it's called magic. 

One of the sub-concepts within magic is the ability to use words to change or control reality, we call these spells. Think about what we hear from the media, from government, businesses, churches and from the overeducated. We hear phrases repeated, we hear how they want the world to be not how the world is, we hear words that have solid meanings used in new and bizarre ways. All of these are attempts to change reality by changing words or by changing the combination of words, these are a form of magic, a spell. It has long been believed that the right words or sounds can produce magic. 

I don't want to push this idea to far, but it is important to understand that what they believe is not rational, even though it has a logic to it. It is magical thinking, that words can change reality. But it also fits right into an overeducated world. At school words matter, words decide how you get ahead. A better writer will get higher grades and respect than a not so good writer. They will also get better opportunities, which if you have struggled to get you don't want to pass up. So you accept ideas that are magical, you try to fit in and you do something that we told is wrong but that we all do anyway. You look down on others and while you talk about equality and inclusion, you discriminate and exclude those who do not think as you have learnt to think.  

The overeducated tell us that they love science but to them science serves the same purpose as magic. It allows them to justify their beliefs, but you might have noticed that they also use this to negate things that they don't believe. They also use science as a way to test for heresy, to keep their side in line and to keep unbelievers out. Because words create their reality.

Which is why they seek to stop others from speaking, it is not just that it offends them, it is also that they don't want to be seduced by someone else's spell. When they say that such and such a person or philosophy should not be allowed to speak they believe that these rival spell's should not be cast. That they should not be allowed to change reality because that is their right, no one else's.

So are words magic?

In a sense yes, but if you accept that as the only reality then you have missed the mark. All writers, such as I, believe that words have magic, that we can changes peoples minds simply by using words. That in a sense we can change reality or at least the perception of reality with mere words. We have all had the experience of being enchanted by a phrase in a song, poem, book. Some people will even tell you that a particular book changed their lives. In some sense the ability to write your thoughts and have people read them in some far away place or time is a type of magic.

But can you really change reality by thought or words?

The answer is of cause yes and no, you are more likely to succeed at a task or endeavour if you are positive about it. But you can be positive and still fail. It might increase your chances but it does not guarantee anything. 

In another sense words do change our reality, take the word 'gender' for example. It has replaced the much older and accurate word 'sex'. Sex refers to your biology, which no matter how much you interfere with you cannot change. But gender is a social construct, in other words it's made up. You can have 500 genders, you can change it and you combine it because it's not real. But today many people, including older people who really should know better, use gender as if it means sex. Which has helped spread the trans confusion. An example of words changing reality, at least for some.

We see this repeated over and over again, whereby words have their meaning in popular culture changed. But there is absolutely a limit to how much words can change reality. No matter how often or elegantly I write about how crime should end, it will not. Words, not mine not anyone's, can change reality that much. For the overeducated that lesson is still to be learnt.

To Help Support My Work  

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Immigration Pos Never Ends