Wednesday, 1 December 2021

Never Forget The Personality Issues

I was over at Taki Magazine when I read this article by David Cole, Antiwhite 'Woo-Woo' Woos Whites, in which he highlights something that we should highlight more. That so often politics is about fixing the problems that someone has encountered in life. In other words, people often use politics to fix their personality issues. 

Something is wrong with them or at some point something bad has happened to them. Politics provides a certainty, a ballast that keeps them upright and that stops them from drowning. It also gives them a focus, something to concentrate upon that isn't themselves or their problems. While at the same time providing a target that they can use to blame and to vent their anger against. That doesn't mean that everything is personal, I have no doubt that they believe what they claim to believe. That they may even want a better world and sincerely believe that this is the way to achieve that. But it is a very common thing to look at what these people want and to think that it is crazy. How often have you thought, 'how could any sane person think that?'.

Most of these people are not insane, but it does help to explain how people come to a point where they can believe things that if implemented would be insane. Of course we live in a world in which many insane ideas are in operation. Ideas that we are told that if we don't believe, then we are the one who is insane. 

But what if these ideas are not simply ideological ideas, but that they are also psychological ideas. Ideas that are presented as being able to fix society and it's problems, but which also exist to fix the disturbed personality, to make right the wrong that have been done. Then politics starts to look a bit different. 

Over the years I have very much noticed this being an issue with Feminists, the more you learn about them the more they need fixing. Something has gone wrong in their life, rape, bad relationships, divorced parents, an abusive childhood. Feminism is about fixing that wrong and societies problems are a way of pretending that this isn't personal. This is selfless and about stopping others from suffering the injustice that they once suffered. 

Sadly, no political ideology can fix issues like rape or bad relationships. But when your trying to fix yourself maybe that's not the point.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Days Of Rage - Americas Radical Underground - A Book Review

Sunday, 14 November 2021

Kill The Bill

On Saturday the 13th November 2021 I went to the Kill the Bill rally in Melbourne, Australia. The rally was to the 'Kill the Bill', meaning it was organised to stop The Public Health and Wellbeing  (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021. The bill has already passed the Lower House of the Victorian Parliament. It is to go before the Upper House later this month. I hadn't attend any of the previous rallies and I was feeling a bit guilty about it. I had two friends who were going and I said that this time I was going. But on the day I was feeling a bit lazy, with the weather outside not helping. It was typical Melbourne weather, sunny, followed by rain, which alternated. Then around midday I got a phone call from one of them saying that he and his teenaged son were in the city and asking 'were are you?'

I had to admit that I was still at home but as he was there I would get moving and meet him near Parliament, which is were the rally was taking place. On the way I received another call from my other friend asking if I was going in. I was, he was also running late so I didn't feel so bad now. But it took over an hour to get into the city, the traffic was back to how it had been before the lockdowns. I finally got in, parked at a $10 all day carpark and walked to the corner of Bourke and Exhibition Streets. Which started the game of phone tag between me and my two friends.

I started walking down Bourke Street as the crowd which was to gather at Parliament was heading away from Parliament. No one seemed to know why, but we were happy to do as the organisers wanted. I decided to sit down and wait so that I could catch up with one of my friends. I didn't have to wait long as within minutes my friend and his son had caught up with me. We then stayed together until the rally ended. The crowd was big, very big, easily in the thousands, possibly in the tens of thousands. It's hard to estimate when your on the ground in the middle of it all. 

I started to regret my decision to wear a jumper and a heavy coat, but it had been raining when I set out and now the sun was out and it was getting warm. Within 10 minutes of me voicing my concerns it was raining, hard. It continued to rain hard at least three more times during the march, it may have dampened our bodies but it did not dampen our spirits. The crowd was overwhelmingly White, boisterous and very happy to be amongst fellow-thinkers. There were lots of signs and chanting, and whenever a car blew it's horn in support it aroused a great cheer from the crowd. They were happy warriors.

We turned from Bourke Street into Elizabeth and headed down towards Flinders Street Railway Station. Someone joked to me that 'it looks like we're all catching the train home'. But before we reached the station they turned us around and we headed back the way we had come. But this time we went up Collins Street and headed towards the old Treasury Building and then came towards Parliament from the side. 

The three of us decided to move back towards Bourke Street which was much less crowded the Spring Street, which is were Parliament and the old Treasury Building are located. We could hear the speakers quite well, although I have no idea why we had to hear some guys bad rap song. The crowd seemed to like the speakers. About 3:30 the rally ended and my friend and his son left, I said that it was good to catch up and then I realised that this was the first time I had seen his son in two years.

Along the way on Collins Street I saw Peta Credlin, the Sky News commentator. On Bourke Street I saw Avi Yemini and his crew interviewing people. After the rally I saw Craig Kelly, the Federal MP who has left the Liberal Party and who has joined the United Australia Party. All of these people were friendly and people could and were talking to them, shaking their hands and getting pictures with them.  

I never caught up with my second friend, sometimes you win phone tag and sometimes you don't.    

To Help Support My Work  

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Sex And Traditionalism

Thursday, 11 November 2021

The One Hundred and Fourth Month

Another average month, the only news to report is the disappearance of DforDoom. He has taken down his site, The Politically Incorrect Australian, which is a great shame. Over the years he had written some really good stuff. So I hope he's doing alright.

This month I have had 3,120 visitors with my best day being the 25th October when I had 214 visitors, my worst day was the 9th November when I had only 51 visitors. I had a gap of a week and a half were I didn't write anything. It happens. 

United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand

 Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The One Hundred And First Month

Monday, 8 November 2021

Lessons For The Right - Criticism And Tactics

Let us imagine that there is an Activist who has called for a protest, he says he is going to shut down this town. He gets a lot of publicity and everyone is expecting something big. But instead it is a total fizzer, the media reporting on the event outnumber the protesters. Here is where the difference between the Left and the Right are revealed.

If he was a Leftist then they simply go silent and if pushed to give an explanation they will deflect, 'you misunderstand his aims', 'this was a call to arms not a call to action', etc. etc. etc. What they never do in public is criticise.  

If he was a Rightist then he would be criticised from every corner, 'what an idiot', 'couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery', ' and he's ugly!'. All in public for everyone to hear.

Now this is an area where the Left get it right!  


All criticism should be done in private, your Mother is correct, if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.

Not because people, causes or events are above criticism, but because you should never be handing the enemy ammunition. Which is what public criticism ends up being. But even worse is it discourages further activity. If this is what doing something is going to get you then why should I bother?

Why should I devote time to a cause or event if all I can expect is criticism for it?

It further discourages people from supporting the wider movement, because they only want to associate with people that they already know and trust. This even extends to the leadership of different groups. To be honest it is an absurd situation to be in. Everything that we love is being abused and destroyed right in front of our eyes and we still cannot unite to defend ourselves, let alone fight back.

Criticism should be done in private and it should be as constructive as possible. The aim should not be to shut people down, as is the current mode, but to help them build a foundation, to improve what they have to offer. Constructive criticism is criticism that can lead to improvement. We need to build up our people.


Every activity that we engage in has to be of benefit to us, that may seem obvious but it isn't. I have seen this over and over again were something is done simply to be provocative. Unfortunately the Liberal system that we live under does not allow us to be free from Liberalism. Any philosophy or ideology that cannot be co-opted by Liberalism will be treated as what it really is, as a threat. 

That means that the rules that apply to the Left do not apply to us. The Left is not an enemy of the system it is a part of the system. Which is why it is allowed to do things that we cannot. We will always be treated as a threat to the system and therefore we must always take that into account. Our activities must be of benefit to us. Poking the beast is dangerous.

So do nothing?


Do guerrilla tactics, organise in secret, maintain security and fight the enemy were they are weakest. These things are true in politics as they are in warfare. You can see the Left doing all of these things. What you also need is a support group, people who support you in private, but rarely if ever in public. The Left also has this.

The Right needs to get better at what it does, because what we stand for matters!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Multiculturalism And The Holocaust

Wednesday, 27 October 2021

Women and Niceness

Most people love their mothers and one of the things that they love is her niceness. The way that she cared, how she looked after you, her empathy, how nice she was. It is something that men want when they marry or have a girlfriend, that she be nice. When a women is nice its a beautiful thing, something that men, women and children find attractive. Because it is something that is totally normal and natural, a part of feminine nature. Now of course it is not always on display, even in our mothers, but it is there and when women are not nice people don't tend to like those women. 

But if something has a rightful place, such as something that is normal and natural, then it also has a wrongful place, a place that it should not be. Niceness has a rightful place, however it also has a wrongful place. Women value niceness, even when they are not nice they like others to be nice. They even admire it. Which means that as women have been given more prominence in society the idea that niceness is important has grown.

Now men can be nice, being nice is even considered to be a prerequisite for being a gentlemen. Diplomacy requires a degree of niceness as does dealing with women and children. Most male interaction is nice. However men see it as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Which is why women gaining prominence changes things. For men being nice is a means of travel, a way of getting through the day, for women nice is the destination, the place to live. 

But being nice can be a problem, have you ever been told that if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything at all?

In most personal communication that is great advice. But outside of personal communication it is terrible advice, because it encourages lies, silence, cowardice, disaffection over truth and without truth life is a miserable place be. Not total truth because that is too much, just as total lies are too much. But niceness pushes us to lie, to keep the peace, to put up a front, to become something that we are not. To be nice is something that we are capable of, but it has limits and it must have limits. 

No bullying, welcome refugees, don't hate or discriminate are all about being nice. They aren't about thinking, you are not supposed to think you are supposed to worry about peoples feelings. The Covid-19 arguments are about being nice to others, get the vaccine be nice, don't get the vaccine don't be nice. We are told to think about others, which in reality means, don't think instead feel. Have empathy for the planet, it wouldn't feel nice to give someone Covid, don't pick on people it makes them feel bad. But thinking about why or about whether these things have consequences or if there are other options is not encouraged at all. Being thinking means that you might not be nice, as people can think both good and bad thoughts. Better just to be nice.

Niceness has a place, but there are places were niceness should not be. Places like truth and thinking.

To Help Support My Work

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

Sunday, 24 October 2021

Take The Jab, Eat The Bugs

Recently I was contacted by a member of the Melbourne Traditionalists. He told me that as he had refused to get the covid-19 vaccine, the jab, he had been put on unpaid leave by his workplace. Which means no money, which raise's the question how do you live without money?

So we have now entered a time when to live you need to do anything and everything that the government demands. I heard someone from the government on the radio last week say that ever worker needed to get the vaccine as this will not be a temporary thing and that they would not be able to simply 'wait it out'. I thought of that famous quote about the stock market, 'the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.'. But we are all used to being threatened by the government now days. 

I have no plans at all to take the vaccine, but so far I haven't had any real pressure put on me. I would like to think that even if I was put under pressure that I would still say no. But I can also think of situations in which I would have little choice, even though I don't want it. Others are under a great deal of pressure, while others, like me, are not. When people ask how have things gotten so bad, this is one of the answers. That the problems are not experienced by everyone at the same time or to the same degree. 

I am writing this because I want to say two things.

The first is that taking the jab should be your choice. There are good reasons to take it and there are bad reasons. If your over 70 or you have multiple medical condition they are good reasons because these are the people most likely to die from Covid-19. But younger and healthy people are not at risk of dying, or to be more precise the risk is so small as to make worrying about it a form of paranoia. But in the end it should be your choice and if you decide to take the jab then I support you and if you decide not to take the jab then I also support you!

Because it should always be your choice.  

The second is that if we can be forced to take the jab, then the government can make decisions about what we put into our body. About what we eat, what we drink and about what type of exercise or health regime we partake in. Not what we choose but what they think is best for us. 

Covid-19 shares a lot of characteristics with Climate Change, every answer always leads to us needing to give more and more power and authority to the government. Because everything is presented as an all or nothing affair. Either the government gives us total protection or we will die!

Which of course is not true.

The Climate Change zealots have been talking about the need to ban meat to save the planet for quite some time now. If we can be forced to take the jab then why couldn't they force us to become vegetarians?

Or to eat the bugs?

Or that no one is allowed to have more than a certain percentage or body fat?

Or that no one is allowed to have less than a certain percentage of body fat?

As they decide, because if they can force us to take the jab then they own us and they can do what they like with us.

To Help Support My Work 

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Political Man

Thursday, 21 October 2021

Victoria Police - A Photo Essay

Victorian Policemen selected for UN duties in Cyprus, 1968

Uniform introduced in 1979                   

Victoria Police before 2013....less than a decade ago!            


Victoria Police Uniform being modelled in December 2012

Notice the body armour and the low slung pistols

Victoria Police on policing really this dangerous?

Victorian Police Officers at a protest

Public Order Response Team AKA Robocops

This book was published in 1995, how times have changed!

To Help Support My Work

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

Monday, 18 October 2021

Two Posters

Today I'm out and I stop by the shops and what do I find.

Pro- Vax means that they aren't Pro-Choice.

Pro-Union means that they support the Union over the Workers.

Anti-Fascists means that they hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. 

Then right at the bottom it says ' Always was, always will be Aboriginal land'.

This is an interesting phrase because it reveals more than they intend. The way that all non-Whites are used by them as weapons to attack us, particularly Aborigines. The way that they put words into other peoples mouths, regardless of whether these people believe or support the ideas. Because it is quite clear this is not Aboriginal land, It also reveals that their message is about creating division, The Left wants to destroy our civilization so that a new one can arise, their 'perfect' society.

But what the poster really means is that they are 100% Pro-Government!

Don't believe me?

Have you seen an Antifa flag at any of the anti-lockdown demonstrations?

Of course not, because the great rebels against the system are the system!  


I understand what 'Get the jab' means, but what does 'Don't scab' mean?

Maybe I should just be thankful that the White guy is actually White!

To Help Support My Work

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

Friday, 15 October 2021

Tyranny And Liberalism

Liberalism has always championed freedom, freedom from Kings, Popes and Aristocrats. Freedom from Fascism and Communism. Freedom from marriage and responsibility. Everyone and everything that opposed Liberalism represented tyranny and Liberalism represented freedom. Christianity said that there was only one way to the Father and that was through the Son. Liberalism said that there was only one way towards freedom and that was through Liberalism.

Critics of Liberalism had noticed that to achieve what it called freedom always meant the destruction of anything that stood in it's way. Either in total or by degrees. That while it talked about freedom what it never meant was freedom from Liberalism. In fact it was all embracing, either things worked to support Liberalism, or they were destroyed. Normally that destruction took a long time and was achieved through subversion. By undermining the things that provided support and by denying their legitimacy. 

In their place Liberalism supported money interests, merchants and banking. It is from these people that it gained it's strength. They provided it with money, ideas and in time votes. This provided it with a firm base upon which it could build itself. A base that wanted more freedoms, the freedom to use money as they saw fit, the freedom to worship in a manner that the official churches didn't, the freedom to say things about people that they didn't like. It was always freedom that advanced their interests. 

But it always kept it's objectives vague, for example 'freedom' was whatever people thought it meant, freedom for my country, my beliefs or even from morality. Whatever people thought it meant then that is what it meant. But Liberalism isn't about freedom, it's about advancing an ideology. Ideology is often defined as a system of belief. But believing in ghosts, or not believing in ghosts, is not an ideology. No matter how much you support either position. An ideology is a system of belief that believes in the perfectibility of man and his institutions. As well as the end of history, the idea that man can and will exist in a perfect world, one without war, or poverty or any other serious troubles. 

For most people who think about Liberalism, they think it's about freedom, or about choice, or about equality. But these are simply ideas that Liberalism believes, or at least has believed, will lead to the end of history. To the perfectibility of man. 

Since the end of the Cold War liberals have come to think that they are the only ideology left, they have no opposition. From that point on they could and would set the agenda. The world would be as they wanted. Which lead to two things happening, the first was that it encouraged the craziest ideas to advance. Because there was now no opposition. Secondly it made them think that they have nearly succeeded. The world that they want is within sight.

Do you think that man is nearing perfectibility?

Of course not, but they do, or to be more correct they see the circumstances in which it can happen as being within reach. 

Of course that's not true, which encourages even more crazy thinking and behavour. Climate change isn't about the climate and Covid-19 isn't about disease. They are all about encouraging the right way of thinking so that the project to create the perfect man can come into being.

But what happens if people resist being made perfect?

What should those in power do?

Should they just let perfectibility slip away, or should they do whatever it takes to make it happen?

Ideologues always believe that people need to be forced into being perfect. 

We have seen freedoms that we once took for granted vanish before our eyes. Some argue that that is not real Liberalism, but it is a new tyranny. But those of us who have critics of Liberalism have always said that this way was it's here!

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Do Women Have Agency?

Monday, 11 October 2021

The One Hundred And Third Month


This has been a good month, nothing spectacular but still good solid numbers.

I have had 3,570 visitors this month, with my best day being the 21st September with 306 visitors. My worst was the 13th September when I had 45 visitors.
United States
United Kingdom

Saturday, 9 October 2021

Why Did Liberalism Stop Working?

Liberalism once worked, between roughly 1850-1950 it is hard to argue that it didn't. Certainly it had problems but the truth is that most people who lived under Liberalism found it hard to believe that their system of government wasn't the best. During this period the standard of living rose substantially, scientific and technological advanced greatly. Law and order, including policing worked and were seen to work and so did political stability. Not universally, but the more liberal a state the more stable it tended to be. 

One of Liberalisms greatest achievements was to keep it's worst excesses in check. While it extoled the individual, it always tried to use that as a collective system. A man should have a living wage, was translated into all men collectively should have a living wage. All individuals should be able to vote, meant in reality that all people over a certain age could vote. Rights intended to highlight the importance of the individual were not about selfishness, instead they were about a persons obligations to the collective. To their family, society and their government and the system of government. Liberalism rewarded people for supporting it.

Of course even back then Liberalism was about destroying the past, including peoples ties to their own past. Don't rely upon your family or your community, rely on new ties like Unions, or financial institutions (banks, credit unions, fraternal societies etc.) and as time went on, the government. Even so it was rarely openly anti-family or anti-religious. For most of this period it controlled it's worst excesses, even though they were always there and Traditionalists constantly warned against.

But as time went on and it continued to have successes, it built upon the work that it had done. It slowly moved from the idea that the individual had obligations to the collective to the idea that the collective had an obligation to the individual. Something that Traditionalists and other critics had warned about. We said that it was only a matter of time before the ideas that were in the background would come into the foreground. That in fact it was inevitable that the individual would become more and more important and that the collectives, the family, society and religion would all be the losers. That is exactly how it has turned out.

This has all affected Parliament and then the court system. In English speaking countries these are adversarial, each side is engaged in intellectual combat against the other. Cooperation is not supposed to take place until this intellectual combat has been engaged in, openly, and a winner has been decided. Even then the opposition is supposed to keep the government, or in court the prosecution, honest by questioning their assumptions and their achievements. The so called 'free' press was also supposed to do this. However over time it has became much easier to make decisions in secret, at first for convenience, which then became the standard way to do things. 

Bipartisanship is the antithesis of how government in a Parliamentary system is supposed to work. Today it should not be hard to see why people talk about the 'uniparty'. That there is now no difference between one side of politics and the other and that they are simply two sides of the same coin.

Then we have the issue of our Parliamentarians. If you look at the past what you see is that members of Parliament had real differences. Even when they same from the same class they represented different areas with different interests. The Parliament was not of one mind, but instead took it's responsibilities to engaged in intellectual combat seriously. Individual members also took their independence seriously. But over time the political parties have become much more important then the individual members. Nearly all members became Parliamentarians because they were part of a party. That is were their political support comes from, their financing and that means that that is where their loyalty lies. Not with the area that they 'represent'. It also helps that they are now recruited from such a narrow stream. 

Nearly all follow this stream. Go to University, join a political party at University, join an existing Politicians electoral office, be selected for a seat in Parliament by the political party, serve until they lose their seat or retire. Of course once in Parliament they receive a large salary, with expenses and then they retire with the same. None of which helps them relate to ordinary people. 

No life experience outside of University or politics. No job outside of politics, no idea of the world outside of politics and the party. If they upset or disappoint the party then the results can be professionally and personally disastrous. 

People like this cannot represent anyone except their political masters. 

Liberalism has become more extreme because that is the only direction in which it can go.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

How Socialism Helped Destroyed Marriage


Saturday, 2 October 2021

Dictator Dan

I do not normally focus on individuals as my goal has always been to explain the underlying structure of liberalism. But in this case, Dan Andrews, the Premier of Victoria needs to be looked at. Currently all of Victoria has restrictions and Melbourne is under lockdown, with a nightly curfew. We have a heavy push for people to get vaccinated and the idea is being spread around that the unvaccinated will become second class citizens.

Because of the political dominance of the Labor Party in Victoria's Parliament there is no oversight of the government or of the police. For all intents and purposes Daniel Michael Andrews is the Dictator of Victoria. 

He started working for the Labor party after he left university. Then after 6 years he became not just a member of Parliament, but a government minister. He has never been a backbencher. After Labor lost the 2010 election he became the parties Leader.

A problem with Parliament is that no matter how poor you were when you went in, the pay is good. That connection to the electorate that you once shared has been replaced with the problems of a higher tax bracket. What about people like Dan Andrews who have never worked outside of politics? 

How much do you think they understand your life, or mine?

To truth is that they live very different lives, because they can afford too. They even live different lives to those in business. After all tax isn't about profit or loss. The fact that small and medium companies are going under is of little concern to them because they don't understand that type of life at all.

So why are police shooting people with rubber bullets on the streets of Melbourne?

Because people have tolerated Dan Andrew. He is a fanatic, an all or nothing kind of guy. But he isn't running his life, he is now running all of our lives. Who we can see, when we can leave the house, what stores we can shop in, whether we can work or make a living. He's the boss of us!

He has said that life can get back to normal when there are zero cases.

He has said that life can get back to normal when 80% of people are vaccinated.

But he likes being the boss of us, so how likely is that to be true?

Imagine if they had said zero cases of polio, or AIDS, or the flu. But in the past such a thing is unthinkable. 

This can only end in Victoria by the removal of Dan Andrews, barring an act of God, only the Labor party can really get rid of him. Sadly I don't see any sign of that at all.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

We Don't Need Them For Clown World

Tuesday, 28 September 2021

Victoria - The Dystopian State

Victoria used to known as 'The Garden State', we were peaceful and even Australia's second largest city had big beautiful gardens. Today we are living in a Dystopian state. A place were everything is against the law, expect doing exactly as you are told and agreeing with it. I wrote about how we got here in From Freedom To Dystopia. But today I want to talk about where we are in Victoria in particular as well as Australia and the world generally.

In Victoria we have a Labor government, which at the last election was returned to power in a landslide. This government has done what Labor governments do. They spend lots of money, create jobs, particularly union jobs and they make a lot of people happy and prosperous and loyal. But it always ends the same way, the money is borrowed and the government gets so far in debt that even with 'creative accounting' it becomes obvious that we are going bankrupt. Which brings a temporary end to Labor rule.

The other major party is the Liberal party, currently the opposition party. It suffers from two decades of pathetically weak leaders. Men who are so mild and bland that when a new one replaces the old one we hardly even notice. Men who like to talk tough about how bad Labor is, but who when you pay attention you can't find any way in which they differ. 

While we have elections, Victoria is in effect a one party state. Labor so totally controls the Parliament that there is no oversight, the government can do as it wishes. Which we can see.

Add to that Australia's federal government, until 2020 most Australians, myself included, thought that the federal government was stronger than the state governments, even combined. But it appears that weak Liberal party leadership is not simply a state issue. Our current Prime Minister has hardly interfered in the state running of this crisis. A crisis created by and for government. 

Victorians have been especially patient with the restrictions put in place by the state government. We are currently in our sixth lockdown. Over 200 days out of around 600, 112 days in a row in 2020. Before 2020 the term 'lockdown' was used in prisons, not in civil society. But we have step by step gone from thinking that we are free to thinking that we have no freedom.

Each step we have had 'conspiracy theorists' saying the most outrageous things and then the government coming out with these same ideas. Vaccine passports, compulsory vaccines, no shopping unless you are vaccinated.

The lockdowns have enjoyed wide support, in 2020 we were all bribed by the federal government. Most people got more money and time off, business even got a lot of that money. Small business suffered but big business made out like bandits. This year the government hasn't been as generous and the good will is vanishing. 

Not entirely of course, the government and the lockdowns still have support. The media pressure is intense and constant. For older people for whom television and radio are companions as much as sources of information or entertainment, it is hard to resist. Add to that that they really are the most at risk from Covid. 

Currently there are daily protests on the street and Victoria Police have come out in full force. I remember back to April 2015 at the Reclaim Australia rallies, the police were quite surprised and continued to be surprised. Only 6 years ago and the police were dressed like ordinary police, today they look like robocop and act like it. But it was from there that the police realised that the hatred in the community was real and that it wasn't going away. Today it is directed not at immigration but at the government. Not at a policy but at the institution that pays their bills. They have trained and trained for this, they have equipped themselves for this. Body armour, rubber bullets and armoured vehicles. None of which they had 6 years ago.

The police have over many decades become a para-military force. When police were first created in Britain in the early 1830's, there developed what are now known as the Peelian principles. Of the 9 principles, 4 are basically saying the same thing, that the police need the co-operation of the public. Number 7 goes like this:

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Does the actions of the police over the past 20 months or so seem like 'the police are the public and that the public is the police?

What about 'the police being only members of the public'?

That's because there is no oversight, the police belong to the Labor party and no institution has complained about it at all. Not the churches, business, the Liberal party, the unions or the Prime Minister. 

All seem to think that firing rubber bullets into peaceful crowds is A Okay!  

To Help Support My Work

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

Tuesday, 21 September 2021

American History X - A Movie Review

American History X is a movie that was released back in 1998 and it wasn't that successful commercially. It cost $20M to make and made $23M, Hollywood considers a movie successful if it makes back three times what it cost to make. But it is certainly a well known movie and one I had seen before but not for quite some time.

The movie is very well made and the acting is superb, this was the first and nearly the last movie that the Director made, he has mostly made music videos and shorts. The script had been floating around for a few years and it had a reputation as being the best script that no one wanted to make. Maybe the lack of mainstream success of the Director shows why.

Edward Norton plays the main character, in fact he plays three different versions of the same character, all believable. In fact the only character I didn't believe was the father, who has a short scene near the end of the movie. Here we get to see an actor trying to deliver lines he really doesn't agree with and it shows. 

The story is told in three time periods, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) is a Neo-Nazi who's father was a firemen who was murdered while doing his job in a black neighbourhood. He kills two black criminals and goes to jail. Released after three years he has turned against what he once believed. Another character who weaves in and out of the story is his younger brother, Danny.

The politics of the movie is quite interesting, it seems to be giving you entry to a world that you would not get to see otherwise, but it is also a case of close but not close enough. It is Hollywood's idea of what Neo-Nazi's should look and sound like and not an attempt to accurately portray anyone as they were. I think in particular of the words, a few times throughout the movie real political issues are raised, such as illegal immigration, black crime etc. Nearly everything said is true, but in other areas the moviemakers don't believe the words spoken. In the background is a Svengali like character pulling the strings. Neo-Nazi's don't really believe what they say, they are simply misguided and ill-informed. Once shown the right path then they will and can and should be reformed. 

The movies attitude to blacks is a bit confused, there is not one but two black saviours and yet black crime is ever present and not excused away. The black Principal who gives Danny a school project entitled 'American History X'  and Derek's black prison buddy who protects him in prison. But at the same time their father was murdered by blacks, blacks tried to steal Derek's car leading to him killing them and black criminality continues right to the end of the movie. 

Something that I've noticed is that Hollywood often gets Jewish actors to play Non-Jews and Non-Jews to portray Jews. The actress who plays Derek's Neo-Nazi girlfriend is Jewish. 

If Derek were a real person, today he would have a black wife and children and he would make his living denouncing Whites. His turnaround is that complete. In the deleted scenes there is a scene where he has this interaction with a little black girl. He goes from hate to love.

Also three years for killing two people, one by shooting them and the other by curb stomping them!

The subtext is that Nao-Nazi's are protected, which love them or hate them, ain't true. But the most unrealistic part of the movie is Derek's giant swastika above his heart. Every time I saw it it looked as fake as it really was.

On IMBD this movie is rated 8.5 out of 10, I would give it 7.5 but only because like most movies it is propaganda and here it's showing a bit too much.

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Sydney Siege And The Governments Duty To Us

Tuesday, 14 September 2021

Covid, Climate Change and Mass Immigration

The current hysteria isn't new, it seems new but in reality it's simply a higher plateau on the uplands of Liberalism. We have seen this before even though we haven't travelled quite this far. In each iteration we get the same crisis in which we must sacrifice ourselves for the greater good. But in which we only need to mouth platitudes and in which there is little personal sacrifice at all. The sacrifice is paid by the next generation. The generation that we are told we are doing this all for.  

The two world wars proved that people are prepared to sacrifice. It further proved that a crisis brings people together. Now we have real crisis and manufactured crisis, but we have to work out which is which by ourselves. You may have noticed before the current permanent crisis that we would have a new crisis every few months. It would become the most important topic in the world and then it would fade away. 

But I can't help thinking that the current permanent crisis, Covid, shares a lot in common with two other permanent crises, Mass Immigration and Climate Change. All share the idea that unless we support this we are holding back the future, that we are all in this together, when in reality it divides us. Further it is always about us the people giving up power and control and the government gaining more of both.

If you oppose mass immigration you are portrayed as someone who isn't a team player. The language that is legitimate in a real crisis is used as if this manufactured crisis was the real thing. This is for the good of the country, for the good of us all. Unless we have mass immigration then how will we be able to survive in the future?

Of course only one answer, their answer, is allowed. 

We see all of these arguments being used in support of the Covid crisis.  

Climate change also uses all of these arguments, but it adds a few of it's own. It isn't just the country that is at stake but the future of the entire planet. Every person on Earth is at risk, rich people and poor people. Even the poor animals, the coral reefs and don't forget the plants. This is a Catastrophe, a world ending event. Stop being selfish and help those who care end climate change!

Why is it that we cannot adapt to climate change?

That answer is never the correct one, no, the only answer allowed is their answer. Whereby the government gains more power at our expense.     

So much of the climate change argument is at odds with itself. Our level of technology and our consumer lifestyles are apparently to blame, but have you seen a decrease in advertisement to discourage this type of lifestyle?

Tariffs to stop imports?

You may however have noticed the hypocrisy of people living in big houses, driving big cars and travelling in big jet airliners, telling everyone else about how bad climate change is. How you need to make sacrifices, but for them it's more about being virtuous.

The contradictions are part of it's appeal, it divides the righteous from the unbelievers. This "affects everyone" is also a weapon of division.   

Now we come to Covid, just as we seem to think that things are starting to become sane, we find that insanity is the order of the day. The flu has largely disappeared and Covid has appeared. We are told that we need 70% of the population vaccinated. We are told that we need zero cases. We are told that lockdowns, masks and travel restrictions are all sane responses. But as with climate change and mass immigration, the contradictions are all part of the package. Who is on their side and who isn't?

The health threat is tiny for the total population, like all diseases there are people who are very much at risk and others who aren't. However common sense is not welcome. I have tried telling people that in Australia in 2019 an average of 434 people died everyday. Which means that we have suffered less than 3 days worth of deaths from Covid in 20 months. But these people aren't interested. They have chosen a side and it ain't our side, to be far it isn't even their side. But they chose it anyway.

None of these things are about the issue that they pretend to be about. They are all about finding out who is in and who is out. It's all about who is virtuous and who isn't. It's about dividing us so that we can be controlled while calling for unity. 

To Help Support My Work

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

2018 Review