Tuesday, 24 January 2023

MGTOW Is The Wrong Path

MGTOW stands for Men Going Their Own Way and it is a reaction to Feminism and the path that society has gone down over recent decades. It basically says women are not worth the hassle and that instead men should build the best version of themselves. That society and women have turned so viciously against men that you are putting yourself in danger, not just emotionally but mentally, financially and legally. To many this strikes them as a very extreme stance to take but you don't have to look far to find extreme cases of men being treated very badly. Men not being allowed to see their children, men paying for children that are not theirs, men losing money and property, men being accused of sex crimes that they didn't commit, the list is long.

Personally I completely understand why a man would support MGTOW, the life that my father had has been denied to me. And I don't see it getting easier for younger men. In one sense I too am MGTOW, in one sense I am an incel. I understand, it is not something foreign to me, I live it, I get it.

Why set yourself up to fail?

Why go out of your way to want something that doesn't want you?

Why set yourself up to go to jail?

Why set yourself up to go broke?

The rewards that romance, marriage and family once brought have vanished. A man can do everything right and he can still pay a price that is outrageous. For some men it has become time to say enough is enough, or to put it another way, the only way to win the game is not to play.

So if those things are true, and they are true, how can MGTOW be the wrong path?

Some people genuinely don't want a relationship or to have children, if you are that person then nothing I write here will make a difference. However for most people that simply isn't true and they are the majority of those who have gone MGTOW.

There are three reasons why you should not go MGTOW or if you have why you should choose another path

1. Being lonely and unloved is not how life is supposed to be, it is unnatural and being forced to live a life that is unnatural should make you angry. You should never embrace their plan for you. They want you to be lonely and unloved and that is why they are evil. Never fall into line with their evil plan for you, or for anybody else. 

2. The old saying is true, misery really does love company. Men should not pass on their anger and bitterness to others. We should not allow ourselves to pass them on like they are a contagious disease. We should never say to another man "I'm miserable, follow me I can help you to be miserable too". This has a feminine energy that men simply shouldn't do.

3. Men should lead, we should provide answers, solutions, that is what we are here to do. Surrendering to 'fate' is not leadership and it is not an answer.  

So do I have any answers, yes I do, I have three, men, women and organisation.

Men needs to develop male friendships, we need to develop male friendship groups and we need to develop male only activities. The internet is great but real change can only take place offline in the real world. Go and join a darts club, help set up tournaments at the gym, form your own games group. It hardly matters what you do or what you become involved in, what matters is forming connections with other men. Don't be alone.

This might be the most controversial thing I write here, but women are not the enemy. Everything unjust thing that has been done to men has been done to women. Loneliness and despair is not confined to only one sex. Always remember that women are lied to everyday, they are told that they are beautiful whether that is true or not. That they are smart, whether that is true or not. That they can have everything, which is never true. So how can women be one of the answers?

Because loneliness is the enemy and women can provide an answer to that. I can hear your complaints, we tried that and we had it thrown back in our face. To which I reply that having connections with women is also part of what keeps us connected to reality. We can't afford to think that it is possible or desirable to live in a world without women in it. Be friendly towards women, even be friend with a women. The friendzone is when you want than friendship from a women and that is all she gives in return. I am not talking about that because your right don't be in the friendzone. Forming friendly connections to women is normal, hating them is not.

One thing that I have never understood is why don't men organise, we form armies, empires, chess clubs. Men organise and yet that is exactly what we have failed to do. For fifty years no fault divorce has been busy destroying our society and what have men done about it?

We don't organise, fund raise, keep lists of good lawyers. Instead every man feels like he is the first one to go through the meatgrinder. The truth is that we have multiple issues that we should be organising around, why don't we?

MGTOW is here to fill the vacuum left behind as our society destroys itself. It is not inexplicable as so many seem to believe, it makes sense. However that doesn't mean that it's good. Wanting to watch the world burn might make sense but it's not good. Men and women need each other and anyone or anything that gets in the way of that is wrong, I would go further, what ever stops that is evil and we should always oppose evil.

To Help Support My Work

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


Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Paid Maternity Leave Is A Bad Idea

Thursday, 12 January 2023

Is Human Nature Fixed Or Malleable?

On the Right we often talk about human nature, we assume that it exists and that the people that we are conversing with understand what we mean. But many of us have also noticed that on the broad Left human nature is regarded very differently. We regard it as constant and unchanging and they regard it as something malleable as something that can be changed and even perfected.

Does human nature exist and if so just what is the nature of human nature?

Human nature is the part of us that distinguishes us from animals, because they also have natures. A nature is the way we behavour and the way that we do things. A cat has a nature and that nature is different to a moth, which also has a nature. All living things have natures and that includes humans. Sometimes you will hear the argument that human natures doesn't exist because we are just meat machines or automatons, we don't control what we do but instead some other force controls us. Our emotions, the chemical reactions within our body or maybe some external force. This idea is an extreme and rare position and I think it's rare for a reason. Most people accept that human nature exists but they disagree upon it's nature, is it fixed or malleable?

People can be promiscuous or asexual, they can be violent or pacifist, they can be strong willed or weak willed. People can also change from one thing into another thing. Which leads to the idea that human nature is malleable, that there is no fixed human nature. But it has also been observed that people follow the same patterns, that changing from one thing to another is a part of this. It is not outside of human nature but instead is consistent with it. Which must mean that human nature is fixed. But if it can change how can it also be referred to as fixed and unchanging?

The answer is that human nature exists within a range and that most of that range is narrow. For example most men will go to war, but we really notice the extremes, those who will not go or those who excel at war. That extends to every human activity and behavour, everything exists within a range and that range can be narrow, most of us are alike, and at other things it can be wide, our differences matter. Which gives the illusion that human nature is malleable, that it can be changed and that it can be perfected. 

Which it cannot be.

 

To Help Support My Work

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


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Nuclear Terror And The Extinction Of Man

Wednesday, 11 January 2023

The One Hundred And Eighteenth Month

It's a bit presumptuous of me to be writing about the last month when I wrote exactly zero content. This being the first and only month in nine years in which that has happened. To be honest I wasn't even going to write this, but I wrote an article that will go up tomorrow. Today I was asked what I was writing and I got a comment and they both inspired me. To be honest I'm really sick of shouting into the wind. The article in question, The Problem Of The Independent Woman, has 37 views and as of now one comment. Which really makes me question things. I once had the idea that this blog was advancing a cause, but a cause of 37 people seems a bit absurd.

My best day this month was the 22nd December when I had 515 visitors. My worst day was the 28th December when I had 14. In total I had 1,780 visitors, which is quite low but better than I deserved considering.



Sweden
564
Germany
544
United States
186
Russia
162
Australia
146
Canada
43
United Kingdom
23
Singapore
22
Thailand
15
Indonesia
12
Egypt
9
Spain
6
Netherlands
6
United Arab Emirates
4
Vietnam
4
Bulgaria
3
Hungary
3
Portugal
3
Switzerland
2
Other
29

  

Sunday, 11 December 2022

The One Hundred And Seventeenth Month

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

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


United States
1.07K
Germany
482
Vietnam
471
Australia
408
Sweden
178
Israel
99
Canada
61
United Kingdom
28
Russia
24
Brazil
21
Italy
20
Zambia
19
France
17
Indonesia
16
Netherlands
14
Turkey
12
Ukraine
12
New Zealand
11
Singapore
11
Other
88

Sunday, 4 December 2022

The Problem With Conservatism

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

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

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

Why does Conservatism keep losing?

Because it's philosophy demands it.

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


To Help Support My Work

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


Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Some Problems With The Frankfort School Idea

Wednesday, 30 November 2022

The Problem Of The Independent Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


To Help Support My Work

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

      

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

How Big Business Destroys Small Business

Saturday, 26 November 2022

How Did Dictator Dan Get Re-elected?

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

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

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

There are also policy problems 

Immigration

Multiculturalism

Trans Rights

Homosexual Rights

Feminism

Global Warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


To Help Support My Work

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


Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Liberalism Versus Conservatism