Monday 30 November 2020

The Organic Economy

Around 1900 the meaning of Right Wing changed, before that time it meant that you supported the traditional way of life and the traditional form of government. After that time it came to mean that you did not support Socialism. That view has over time lead to some strange ideas on the Right, ideas that were once rejected outright.

Traditionalists are not Socialists, we do not believe in the government controlling the economy. But we oppose a lot more than just Socialism. Including when it comes to the economy. We also do not support Capitalism as it is Liberalism by another name. What we do support is as many people as possible having a stake in the economy. That means that we want as many economic enterprises to be owned by someone, instead of them being owned by faceless forces that we do not know or understand. For example every supermarket should be owned by someone, not like today were they are owned by a faceless and remote corporation. 

We want local ownership, were the owner lives near the enterprise that they own. Not globalism or even regionalism, but localism. Each local economy fuelling it's own local community, That each local economy feeds into the bigger economy. That decision making come from the local area in most cases and that top down decisions are minimised. In that way we can get back to the organic economy. An economic system that arises from local concerns.

There are those who will argue that that might be fine for retail or other such concerns, but what about manufacturing or mining?

Even in these areas the aim should be to support the local over anything else. But it is a valid concern that expertise cannot in all cases be supplied locally. Of course the practical also has a place in the organic economy. And while we do not want the big to dominate there are some areas of the economy were big is really the only option. When that is the only realistic option then of course we should accept that and fit that it. But at all times it must be understood that it is an exception. Unlike today when it is the rule. 

The aim of the organic economy should be twofold 1) the creation of wealth and 2) full male employment. 

Today we are increasingly living in an artificial economy, one created from above without our knowledge or consent. Without our concerns being a concern and that, needs to change!

To Help Support My Work 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalists Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Right-Liberal Socialism

Monday 23 November 2020

SAS Edition - Melbourne Traditionalist Podcast - Episode Sixty Six

This is a mish mash of topics, I start off talking about this channel and the future of the podcast. Then I move onto the SAS scandal and some of the outrageous things being done because of it. It's then onto the South Australian lockdown debacle. Followed by some more on the US election mayhem and I end with Covid-19 in Victoria.

Length: 28 minutes

Click on the link and enjoy!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Housewives, Good For The Economy And Society

Friday 20 November 2020

Excluding God - The Unintended Reformation - Chapter Review

Last month I found out about a book entitled  The Unintended Reformation by Brad S. Gregory, who is a Professor at the University of Notre Dame. I have been saying since 2014 that Liberalism has it's origins in the Reformation of the early 1500's. Professor Gregory wrote an entire book on it back in 2012, however his idea is even broader, his argument is that the modern world has it's origins in the Reformation and to understand the modern world you must understand how it got from there to here.

Interestingly this is making a similar argument to the one that Patrick Deneen makes in his book Why Liberalism Failed. Deneen is also a professor at Notre Dame. This book is quite controversial and the reviews that I read either said this is ground breaking, or this has all been argued before and it's wrong. I must say that it is an academic book published by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press and amazingly it was an ABC Australia best book on religion and ethics of the year. Not something I was expecting.

The book is as I said academic, it is not an easy read, it is intended for an academic audience. Which makes it slow to read and I find that if my attention drifts I cannot just move on, I must reread it, sometimes I have to reread it even when I am paying attention. Which is why I intend to review each chapter separately.

The first chapter 'Excluding God' is about how the Reformation started as a dispute about the right way to worship God and ended  up forcing such a division into Christianity that intellectuals started to exclude God and then to denying that God existed. There is the idea that science and religion are enemies and incompatible. I'm sure you've heard this argument, you might even have made it. But all Western intellectual provenance comes through Christianity, all modern science was once Christian science. The ancient Greeks were forgotten for centuries after the fall of Rome. The Dark Ages was a real time and there is a reason it is referred to as such. When that knowledge was rediscovered it was rediscovered and interpreted by one of the great Christian inventions of the Middle Ages, the Universities. 

Universities were religious institutions at that time, the main topic being Theology and every other subject being secondary. But the ancient thinkers were not ignored, nor were they discarded. Instead they sort to work out how these ideas fit into a Christian world. That continued for centuries until the Reformation slowly made Christianity such a toxic subject that it would be increasingly excluded from academic writing. This idea then lead to the idea that the reason they were separate was because they were enemies. In time that lead to the idea that you could believe in God or in science, but not both. 

However throughout this time Christian churches continued to run Universities and to do research on scientific subjects. While this is not in the book, Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the Catholic Church accepted his arguments in 1860. But the idea continues that science and religion are incompatible.    

Gregory says that it is because of a Univocal view of the world, univocal means 'unambiguous, a word that only has one meaning'. Increasingly within science there arose an idea that they knew the answers to how the world worked and that God had no place in that world or in any understanding that world. Gregory furthers states that this idea comes from a theological argument which traditional Christianity had always rejected. In traditional Christian theology God is outside of the universe that he created, he can be in all places at all times because everything is his creation. But at one and the same time he is outside of his creation. To put it another way God existed before he created our universe. 

Science however puts God at the top of creation, in other words he is part of his own creation. If God is outside of creation then he is mysterious because you cannot even comprehend such a being. However if God is at the top of his creation then he can be studied because he is simply a more powerful version of you and I. As most scientists do not study theology they are not even aware that that is how they view the subject. So God is no different from studying planets, man or plankton and as God is so resistant to study that leads directly to the idea that he cannot be studied because he does not exist.   

To my mind that makes sense, it does explain why this idea has taken hold and why discussing this idea with people of a scientific mind is so often fruitless and pointless. For science mysteries only exist to be solved.

To Help Support My Work 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Doesn't Liberalism Believe In Punishment?

Thursday 19 November 2020

Why Are War Crimes Committed?

This week there has a judicial report released in Australia concerning the conduct of SAS soldiers who served in Afghanistan. The report said that 39 people had been unlawfully killed and that 19 soldiers were responsible. It has been alleged that those killed were killed after being taken prisoner and once killed that weapons were planted on them to justify the killing. So far no charges have been levelled and no convictions have been obtained therefore none of this has been proven. I hope the Prime Minister and other senior figures remember that these men are innocent until proven guilty, at the moment they are skating quite close to thin ice in their comments.

But it raises a bigger question, why are war crimes committed? 

People seem to have two quite different ideas in their heads regarding war:

1) War is clean and soldiers conduct themselves to the highest standards

2) War is a free for all and anyone can kill anyone

Which can lead to further conclusions:

1) War crimes don't happen because our guys are not capable of that kind of thing

2) It happens all the time so why pick on these guys?

But war has rules and those rules are very old. Over time they have changed and there has certainly been inconsistencies in how they have been applied. But thats true of nearly everything not just the rules of war. Soldiers (I will use the term soldier to refer to all military personnel) are required to obey orders and that means that they must follow rules. One issue that arose out of WWII was that a soldier can no longer say that he was 'just following orders'. Many people find this confusing, after all how can a soldier be guilty of a war crime if he is required to follow orders?


A Guardsman is on guard duty outside Buckingham Palace in London. His Colonel, the most senior officer in his Regiment approaches him and hands him live ammunition and commands him to go into the Palace and kill the Queen. The same Queen that he swore his oath of allegiance to.

What should he do?

Should he disobey his Colonel or should he kill the Queen?

There is a correct answer.

A soldier is required to obey all lawful commands, not any command. Killing the Queen is obviously an illegal command. What should the Guardsmen do? He should inform the Captain of the Guard as quickly as possible.  

An order to attack a machine gun that will lead to almost certain death in battle is a lawful command. Killing random people is not a lawful command. War allows the killing of particular people in particular circumstances. The killing of enemy soldiers is lawful, killing the same man once he has surrendered is unlawful because he is now lawfully under your protection. 

 I think war crimes occur for 3 broad reasons.

1) Crime in War

Most soldiers are young men, most crime is committed by young men. This is more correctly a crime that has occurred in a war. I do not wish to trivialize this as the crimes committed can at times be quite serious. But in these cases war is incidental to the crime that has been committed. 

2) Commanded Crime

The command wants war crimes to be committed. During WWI the example, Germans had a policy called Frightfulness, which mean that they sort to stop any rebellion before it started by frightened people into not rebelling. War crimes are used to keep people under control or to extract revenge and/or for some type of financial or material gain. 

3) We are on our own!

The infamous My Lai massacre was caused by this. A unit or group of soldiers come to believe that they are in this by themselves, no one else is on their side and they turn inwards for support. Which means that they feel that they need to do anything to anyone in order to survive and that includes breaking any rule that they need to. Theft, rape, murder, what ever it takes. Now rape is not going to keep you alive, or in most cases kill you, but what happens is that once the rules start getting broken then rules that are not required to survive also get broken. None of this is possible with proper leadership or with proper oversight, but what you find over and over again is that those things are absent.

The first type of war crime can never be stopped as it is a problem of human nature. In theory the second and third types of war crimes can be stopped. Current international law has made the second type illegal and proper leadership and command oversight can fix the third. In reality I think that none of these will ever be be a thing of the past as at heart like the first they are all problems of human nature. That does not mean we should just throw up our hands as the war against crime is eternal and that remains true both inside and outside of war.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Problem Of Small Families

Wednesday 18 November 2020

Mutual Attraction - Melbourne Traditionalists Podcast - Episode Sixty Five

 We all know what we find attractive but rarely do we understand why. In this episode I look at what men and women find attractive in the opposite sex and why. I talk a bit slower than normal in this video, for some reason, so if you want to speed it up you should do that!

Length: 31 minutes

Click on the link and enjoy!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Civic Patriotism Is Wrong

Tuesday 17 November 2020

Political Fashion

Traditionalism is timeless, which is a problem because for something to be popular it must be fashionable. Liberalism is fashionable and it has been for quite some time now. That's the thing about fashion something can be fashionable for great periods of time and other things are unfashionable again in the blink of an eye.

When we think of fashion we normally think of clothes, which certainly do go in and out of fashion. But most things follow that ideas, the likes and dislikes of the crowd. Which can be big or small or any size in between. Fashion can also be either positive or negative, 'fashionable' or 'unfashionable'. Movies, music, books, ideas, social tastes, ideologies, even religions can and have and are falling into and out of fashion. Think of a song or movie that you once loved and now you encounter it and you think to yourself 'I really used to love this' and when you did love it you probably couldn't imagine a time when you wouldn't. But that time did come, it moved from fashionable to unfashionable. Which is a process that everyone goes through.

In my life time I have seen homosexuality go from being illegal in most places, to something that is publicly celebrated. That's how fashion works. I once watched a documentary on the Bee Gees and one topic was how they were phenomenally successful in the late 1970's and then how in the 1980's they were so unpopular that people joked that they couldn't get arrested. One commenter on the program said that American culture is like a Viking feast, everyone gorges themselves until they are sick and then they reject the thing that mad them sick. That thought has stuck with me, that we do tend to overindulge in whatever we find fashionable. Even homosexuality.

But just like the Bee Gees everything that is fashionable will end up becoming unfashionable. Even homosexuality. One day in the future it will fall from public taste and it will be as fashionable as bellbottom trousers. Just like the above trousers, that does not mean it will be unfashionable forever. Fashion is not always cyclical, but it can be. Classical architecture went out of fashion for more than 1000 years, then it came back into fashion and then it went out of fashion, but I would not be surprised if it came back, again and again and again.

Liberalism believes in the Cult of Progress, in the idea that things get better and that they can only get better. But that ignores the role of fashion in our lives, we all have ideas and tastes and we are all influenced by other people. All of which means that fashion is and will continue to be an influence in our lives. The only questions are what things will come in or go out of fashion and how long will that take?

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Capital Punishment Is Moral

Monday 16 November 2020

Is The West Indestructible?

My answer is no it is not indestructible, so if that's my answer why have I asked the question?

Because that's how Liberalism and Liberals behave, as if nothing that they or anyone else does to our civilization can really harm it. That it is the natural state of the world, eternal unchanging and unchangeable. It does help explain their rage, they demand change and it seems to them that the world does not change. Which might strike those of us on the Right as a bit bizarre, we have seen the world change more often than we care to think about. What's going on? 

How can they have this strange idea?

I think the answer lies in Presentism, which is the idea that the present is the most important time to think about and that the past and the future are both unimportant. Liberals like to think of themselves as people of the future, but they do not respect the future at all. They view it as simply a wish list, what they do not see it as is a real place. No matter what year it is, if that is when you are living then it is the present. Today is the present and tomorrow it will be the present and in a hundred years time it will be the present. We live our entire lives in the present, not in the past or the future. So the here and now is where Liberalism lives. Certainly it has plans that it puts in place for the future, but they look at it like this. Whenever those plans come about it will be the present. The future is a destination, not a place.   

The present isn't just today, Liberals live in a 30 year window, 15 years into the past and 15 years into the future. That is the present. Anything that happens outside of that window is no longer relevant or to far in the future to matter. Which means that their view of our civilization is a very small one. To them it seems as if nothing has changed, or that any change that has taken place has been so slow as to be barely noticeable. Which fuels their rage and makes them unable to see how destructive their ideas are.

But there also exists another idea that is central to Liberalism that at first seems to contradict Presentism and that is the Cult of Progress. This is the idea that history has an endpoint, it is inevitable and everything is always moving from worst to best. In other words things are always getting better. How can Presentism and the Cult of Progress be compatible?

It is the endpoint that makes them compatible, because it is like the tracks that a train travel upon. They stop the train from moving in odd directions. The train must remain on the tracks for it to arrive at it's destination. The Cult of Progress means that Presentism is always moving, even when it seems to be moving. It also means that any change is a good change. Which encourages positive thinking, everything will work out for the best, everything is heading in the right direction. How could something like that be harmful?

The destructive ideas that Liberalism pushes do not register at all as destructive to Liberals. We can see them twisting things out of shape and then saying that they are being forced to fix things that others broke. They lie, including to themselves, the self lies are very important. It allows them to do what they do. It makes them see things that a breakable as things that are unbreakable and that includes our civilization. 

Men of the Right have been saying and writing since the 1800's about fragile our civilization is and that if we continue to treat it badly it will end. Liberalism has ignored those voices because it does not see the world like that at all. Instead they believe that they can change everything, including human nature but at one and the same time that that will affect nothing. It is a most peculiar idea.

The French have a saying 'the most things change the more things stay the same', maybe it should become the motto of Liberalism!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future
Another Article You Might Like?

Sunday 15 November 2020

Why Is Socialism Getting Popular?

In recent years there has been a renewed interest in Socialism, to most people who saw the Soviet Union collapse that's quite a surprise. But should it be?

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing, although they are closely related. Communism says that true Socialism, i.e. Communism, can only come about in a Communist state. Socialists however come in a spectrum, from workers have rights, to the government should make life fairer, to the government should control and run the economy. When your at that level your pretty close to Communism. My point being that while Socialism can lead to Communism, it can also lead other different directions.

Socialism is not as old an idea as Communism, it came about in the early 1800's and it came about because of a particular reason. The Industrial Revolution and Capitalism. There are two broad definitions of Capitalism 1) any private business, farm etc. 2) A form of money lending used by banks to group capital together. Capital meaning money that is used for investing. This is normally done by big business. It is the later definition that I am using when I talk about Capitalism.

Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived and worked on farms and even people who lived in towns or as miners worked in, what today would be called a small business. That changed as factories got bigger. Working conditions could range from quite good to quite bad. But for most the real change was that they were no longer their own boss, instead they had to work to the clock. On the farm work was often hard and dirty but you were not so regimented. Work changed as the seasons changed and sometimes the work was relentless and at others very easy.

The best employers built housing for their workers and tried to look after them, when was the last time an employer built a house for you to live in? 

The worst helped birth Socialism into existence. They were not interested in their employees, as far as they were concerned there were plenty more were they came from. It encouraged the idea that bosses and workers were enemies. Ideas that Communism would codify and exploit. It is no coincidence that Socialism arrived and grew at the same time and in the same place as Capitalism. Workers saw Capitalism as the thing that attacked them and made their life bad. If it could be destroyed, or even brought under control then the lives of the workers would improve. 

We now live in a post-industrial world and the struggles of those times seem quite distant. However much of the same problems have come back in force and many wonder why? 

The answer is because Capitalism had been brought under control, or at least it worst excesses had been brought under control. However since the 1980's most of the Capitalist genies have been let loose again. We have returned to the first age of Globalisation before 1914. The free movement of capital, the free movement of goods, the free movement of people. Capitalism unrestrained, just as it had once been and when that happens it also unlease's it's nemesis, Socialism. Because the two are like the two sides of a coin, one cannot exist without the other. In fact they breed each other. Socialism encourages Capitalism, Capitalism in turn encourages Socialism.

Workers are once again in an environment were life is economically hard and uncertain. Where people are desperate for certainty and they are prepared to give up freedoms to secure a decent standard of living. The only real difference between now and then is that today these workers are over educated and back then they were under educated. But it is the same issues that have arisen. 

But they both have something in common, they both believe in big, big business or big government. The Traditionalist answer is to turn things around, to having business and government not as big as possible, but as small as possible. Some things need to be big, but that should be the exception and not the rule. 

As E.F. Schumacher said 'Small is beautiful'!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Five Types Of Modern Liberals

Saturday 14 November 2020

Days Of Rage: America's Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence - A Book Review

This book is a history of the radical Left of the 1970's and their attempt to wage war against the United States government. Groups like the Weatherman later renamed because it was sexist to Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the FALN, 'The Family' and the United Freedom Front. That last group ended in 1984, so this is a long and at times complex story, but always fascinating.

By 1970 many radicals thought that the West was heading into a revolutionary age. For the most radical the main topic was not if but how to make the revolution a reality. The Black Panthers were the inspiration for most of these groups and race and racism were the main enemies. Already you can see that these groups were targeting what today the Left calls 'systematic racism'. That the United States was a racist, White supremacist country and they were going to save the non-Whites of the world. Just like today the majority say that were themselves White and from well to do families.

Weatherman, named after a line in the Bob Dylan song, subterranean homesick blues, which you might think you've never heard but you probably have. The film clip is very famous, it's the one were the words are written on big cards which are then discarded after the line is said.  The lines in question are:

 You don’t need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows

To the radicals the wind was blowing towards revolution. The group started inside Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which was a Communist front organisation, but most of it's activity was directed against other Leftist groups who were regarded as ideologically wrong. In 1968 the people who would go on to lead Weatherman took over control of SDS in a coup, the rest of the organisation broke away and broke apart. They then set about getting rid of those they considered not revolutionary enough. In early 1970 they went underground with the idea of waging a bombing campaign to destroy peoples faith in the government.

SDS started with around 3000 people

After the coup they had around 300 

When they went underground they had around 30 members

Living underground meant not being part of normal society, having a false identity and changing it often. Not contacting family or friends, everything was provided by the movement. In reality most of the time they lived in poverty, although not the leadership.  

They went underground with the idea that revolutionary violence was great. But in 1970 their bomb maker blow up the townhouse he was in killing himself and two other members. The house was the former home of Charles Merrill, who co-founded Merrill Lynch and the next door neighbour was Dustin Hoffman. It was owned by one of the members of Weatherman's father, who was on holiday and thought only his daughter was staying there. This event changed the course of the movement. From now on they carried out most of their bombings at night.

What I find interesting about all of these groups is that they all had different ideas for waging war. But none of them seemed to have read classic revolutionary texts on how to conduct a campaign. There is a long tradition of Leftist violence, much of it written about but they seemed to have either not read it or ignored it. A delegation of Weatherman even went to Cuba and spoke to a delegation from North Vietnam. They took the advice of neither the Cubans or the North Vietnam. They had a series of actions but no overall strategy. Ever action would lead to the next action but the actions lead no where. They neglected to have an aboveground support network. Often they were struggling to get money, bomb making equipment, even food. 

Their small size and lack of aboveground support meant that they couldn't be penetrated. Security was watertight. In fact it was too good, even people who wanted to join or support them couldn't find them. Although the Symbionese Liberation Army was so desperate for members they went door knocking to recruit revolutionaries...and it worked!

I would recommend this book as it is full of interesting characters with very bizarre ideas and as a guide to how not to do things.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

What Would The World Look Like If The Liberal 'isms' Won?

Friday 13 November 2020

Election Fraud - Melbourne Traditionalists Podcast - Episode Sixty Four

In this episode I answer some more comments and I read out a post that I have done on my blog Upon Hope, about the election. I then flesh out my thoughts on the US Presidential election further.

Length: 25 minutes

Click on the link and enjoy!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Things I Wish I Had Written

Thursday 12 November 2020

Clown World - The Mary Wollstonecraft Edition

Mary Wollstonecraft was an early Feminist writer who lived from 1759-1797. She died 10 days after giving birth to the writer of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, nee Godwin. This week a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft was unveiled in London. This headline first got my attention.

“A metal barbie on the crest of an £143,000 turd”

Mary Wollstonecraft’s statue is a failed attempt to depict an “everywoman”

This is the statue from a distance, you really get the sense of the metal barbie don't you?

This is a close up of the "barbie", what a face, a face only a robot mother could love!

Ohh yes they decided to depict a Feminist Philosopher nude. Which apparently even in Feminist circles is controversial. So they decided that it is not a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft after all, but an "everywomen" who represents well every women, and that she is emerging from the first 'wave' of Feminism. One critic summed it up as a "Pornhub Christmas decoration". 

This was not the only option, on the left is a design by a man, Martin Jennings and on the right is one by a women, Maggi Hamblin.

The one on the left I think is quite good, so of course the one on the right was chosen. Maggi Hamblin has also done a tribute to Oscar're going to love it!

I believe that this is also a tribute to a replicator accident from Star Trek. 

Keats said that "Beauty is a joy forever", but he didn't live in Clown World...lucky bastard!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The End Of Any Consensus

Wednesday 11 November 2020

The Ninety-Second Month

This month has been a good one, but it all comes down to one article with a popular title, if you need to lie. This title seems to be clickbait, which was not my intention at all. I would much rather get people to my blog who are interested in it, then get people who click away as soon as they get here. Mind you I'm happier to more than less visitors. 

My best day in the past month was the 3rd November when I had 365 visitors. My worst day was the 20th October when I had 74 visitors. In October I had 4,706 visitors, this month I have already had 2,602 visitors. 

My visitors by country over the past 30 days.

1. 3360 United States 

2. 729 Australia

3. 248 Germany

4. 214 United Kingdom

5. 199 U.A.E.

6. 54 Canada

7. 49 Thailand

8. 44 Philippines

9. 31 Belgium

10. 29 Taiwan 

11. 22 France

12. 22 India

13. 20 Indonesia

14. 19 Argentina

15. 15 Malaysia

16. 15 Ukraine

17. 14 Nepal

18. 13 Russia

19. 12 Ireland

20. 354 Other (All visitors from countries that are not already listed above.)

I hope to see you all again.

Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Ninety-First Month

Tuesday 10 November 2020

Comments - Melbourne Traditionalist Podcast - Episode Sixty Three

 This is a short episode in which I reply to comments that people have made and at the end I talk about the Queensland state election results.

Length: 15 minutes

Click on the link and enjoy!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Paradoxes Of Anti-Racism

Sunday 8 November 2020

Don't Despair!

I have just seen that the news services have announced Joe Biden as President-Elect of the United States. Many of you will be feeling down and as if we have no future, but to that I say don't despair!

First the election is not over, as many of us have thought this will all end up in the courts. So the pronouncements are only the 'score' as of this minute. I would be quite surprised if those numbers don't change. That is no guarantee that President Trump will win, it is however hopeful. 

I don't want to count any chickens before they hatch but I would also be quite surprised if no voter fraud was found. There is a reason jokes about dead people voting exist. Because this is not the first time that the Democrats have done this. They also have a habit of getting their votes in last so that they can cook up the required number to win. It's a very old trick and I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that the popular vote that they crow about winning so much, isn't quite as honest as they pretend it is. 

In the past the Republicans have been to be kind too gentle, to be unkind Cucks, to fight and to hold the Democrats to the fire. President Trump is neither gentle or a cuck, he likes to fight, it brings out his best qualities. So I think this will run for as long as it needs to run. Even if he loses and President Biden becomes a reality, it will still run.

Then we have the Supreme Court of the United States, when President Trump came to office it was leaning left as it has for longer than most of us have been alive. Today it is a bit of an unknown quantity, in theory it leans to the right, the question is by how much?

The real question is will it make this mess clearer or will it cuck?

I don't think I'm the only one who will be looking on with intense interest.

But what happens if President Biden becomes a reality?

Will we all be heading to the Gulags?

No, Biden is 79 not 29, his wokeness is of the cynical politician variety. So yes he will say and do woke things, but he will seriously disappoint his woke supporters. Just as Trump disappointed his supporters. Candidate Biden has said that he supports and opposes nearly everything. He has tried to be all things to all people. What does he really believe?

One thing I find interesting is that in the past both Biden and Harris have been quite tough on crime, they have not hesitated to lock up blacks. Sadly America doesn't so much have a crime problem as a black crime problem. Would they do as they have done in the past or will they do as their supporters want and in fact President Trump has done and release criminals from jail?

I don't know the answer to that one.  

Trump went into the 2016 election talking tough, unfortunately he walked back on a lot of that. Not all, he was true to his word when it came to Free-Trade. But he has seriously disappointed when it came to immigration. White men voted for him because they wanted their country back, instead he went Civic Nationalist on them. Civic Nationalism is neither civic or Nationalist so it always disappoints. He, like so many, is still blinded by the rhetoric of a colourblind society and the idea of America as a melting pot. That is not why he was elected, that is not why he won in 2016. 

That is not to say that President Trump has achieved nothing, he has. But when you talk things up they had better go up. When he said lets Make America Great Again, people understood that America was great when it was overwhelmingly White, did he understand that?

To finish off I want to point out something that we on the Dissident Right should understand but often don't. Trump is not on our team, he is simply better for our team than Biden is. Remember that if we vote Left then things speed up, if we vote Right things slow down, but we are always heading in the same direction, the wrong direction. Our job is to organise, fundraise, to do what it takes to get us all back on the right path instead of continuing on this Liberal one!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Do Children Need Parents?

Tuesday 3 November 2020

US Presidential Election - Melbourne Traditionalist Podcast - Episode Sixty Two

In this episode I talk about the US Presidential election, in particular I talk about President Trump, has he succeed? Has he done what he promised at the last election? Should people vote for him? Would I if I could?

Length: 22 minutes

Click on the link and enjoy!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Why Do Children Need Parents?