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

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


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

Theage.com.au/victoria/dark-blue-hue-a-police-winner-2012

Notice the body armour and the low slung pistols




Victoria Police on patrol....is 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 coming....today it's here!


To Help Support My Work

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


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
1.54K
Russia
689
Australia
563
Indonesia
184
United Kingdom
119
Germany
85
Canada
59
France
53
Belgium
22
Czechia
21
Taiwan
21
Egypt
13
Thailand
13
Ireland
11
Netherlands
11
Turkey
9
Japan
8
Philippines
8
Sweden
8
Other
141

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

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


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

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


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

We Don't Need Them For Clown World