Enoch Powell - A Review of his Biography 'Like The Roman'

Enoch Powell is arguably the most important British politician of the twentieth century never to be Prime Minister.  His ideas are still thought about and debated and of course the thing that he is most famous for is the so called 'rivers of blood' speech that he gave against mass immigration. The books title 'Like the Roman' is a phrase from that speech.

Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell by Simon Heffer took me 11 months to read, it's a massive book at 1024 pages. It's not a hard read but it is an exhaustive one, this is as complete as any one volume biography is likely to get. 

Most men are referred to by their surname, but most people referred to Powell as Enoch, which was his middle name, his Christian name was John, which he didn't like and stopped using in his early teens. So I shall also refer to his as Enoch. Enoch was an only child and was quite academically gifted. He became the youngest Professor in the British Empire and even taught at Sydney University in the late 1930's, where he taught Ancient Greek. At the start of the Second World War he joined the British Army and left in 1945 after 6 years service, leaving as a Brigadier. That means that he was promoted every year and twice in two of those years. He didn't see any combat as he worked in staff and intelligence roles in North Africa and India. In 1945 he was 33 years old.

In 1950 he became a Member of Parliament, which he would continue to be for 36 years. From 1950-1974 as a Conservative and from 1974-1987 as a Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland. Between 1960-1963 he reached his highest level of office when he was Minister of Health.

So why is he still important?

Because in 1968 he gave a speech that a large portion of the British voting public was ready to hear, but that the British Establishment was in no way ready to to hear. In fact the Establishment started condemning him right away and that condemnation has continued to this day. In his speech he talked about how

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.

But this madness is something that the political establishment all around the world don't want us talking about. I sometimes read on the internet that everything used to good but in the 1990's things started to go wrong. The rot has been going on longer than most people have been alive. Enoch said that civil war because of mass immigration was inevitable and every year it looks more and more likely. Certainly things aren't getting better. 

Enoch was the only main stream politician in the Western World, not just Britain to openly and loudly oppose mass immigration. Which he opposed until his death thirty years later.   

The other major issue that he contributed to was the fight against inflation. From the 1950's to the 1980's inflation was a major economic issue. Governments put the blame on high wage demands, which increased prices which lead to inflation. Enoch argued, when it was very unfashionable to do so, that inflation was caused by the Government. That Government could print money and when it printed too much, normally to cover overspending, the value of each pound was diluted and that that was the real cause of inflation. 

Today basically everyone agrees, but when he made these arguments he was in a very small minority. It wasn't until the 1980's that the Monetarist policies that he advocated would enter the mainstream of politics. Today we have Modern Monetarist policies, which are quite different to Monetarism.

Enoch liked to be different and some of his critics and even some of his friends said that this trait was his downfall. He was very academically minded and wrote articles and books on many subjects. Which sometimes meant that people praised him for making the argument even though they thought that he had said the very opposite to what he had actually said. This was particularly true when he spoke or wrote about economics.

The third subject that he sacrificed for was in keeping Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. He was very critical of every British Government after 1969, believing that their actions and muddle through approach encouraged the IRA and their terrorist campaign. Because it gave the IRA hope that if they kept up the pressure then they could succeed. However the IRA had already won a war against the British Government in 1922 and I think that played as big a part in them thinking that they could win as any misstep in London. 

The fourth issue was that Britain should not be in the EEC, the European Economic Community, today known as the EU or European Community. He said that joining would strip Britain of it's sovereignty, so Enoch would have been very happy with Brexit. However it should be remembered, and it was by his critics, that when Britain first tried to join the EEC in the early 1960's he was a cabinet minister and he voted in favour of joining and spoke out publicly in favour of it. Within 5 years he changed his mind and when the Conservative Government decided to try again to join he advised people to vote for Labor, which is why he stopped being a Conservative Member of Parliament.

However there were three issues that Enoch supported, not with the energy that he supported the issues above, but none the less that he did support. He supported the ending of capital punishment and he supported the legalising of homosexuality. Maybe if he could see the consequences that both have wrought he would regret his decision, maybe not. 

He was also very anti-American and was against Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent. He did support Britain having large conventional forces and thought that the United States should not be involved in world affairs to the degree that it was. In 1967 he publicly said that US strategy in Vietnam would fail, nearly a decade before South Vietnam fell. 

Enoch said that he was a born Tory, but in many ways he was a 19th century Liberal. His views on every subject above could comfortably have been held by a 19th century Liberal. However in the 20th century he was a political oddity. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Why Is Western Art So Bad?

Why Boomers Think Young People Waste Money - Short

 This is an excellent analysts and I have to admit that I had not thought about these things.

Men Only Want One Thing - Short

 

"Never Shall An Enemy' - Extract of a Speech to the Australian Parliament by John Curtin

16th December 1941, Australia's Prime Minister gave this speech to the Australian Parliament, of which this is a short extract. Japan had attacked us on the 8th December 1941. Japan attacked the British Empire hours before it attacked the United States but because of the International Date Line it wasn't the same date.

The third thing is that more than 150 years this country has stood. Never shall an enemy set food upon the soil of this country without having at once arrayed against it the whole of the manhood of this nation with such strength and quality that this nation will remain for ever the home of sons of Britishers who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race. Our laws have proclaimed the standard of a White Australia. We did not intend that to be and it never was an affront to other races. It was devised for economic and sound humane reasons. It was not challenged for 40 years. We intend to keep it, because we know it to be desirable. If we were to depart from it we should do so only as the result of free consent, not because it was sought to be taken from us by armed aggression..

When people wrote, spoke and thought of a White Australia, they meant a British Australia. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

2022 Some Thoughts On The Australian Election

My Response To Replies to 'Arthur Calwell and his Memoirs'

My last article, Arthur Calwell and his Memoirs 'be just and fear not' received two replies. 

The first from Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative fame who basically gave some more information on Calwell's views before WWII.

Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.

The second comment was from the world's most prolific author 'Anonymous', who gave a very reasonable and intelligent response. However I think that it is wrong and I will outline why after his comment.

I will attempt to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory positions of Calwell supporting both mass immigration and White Australia.

Calwell (along with many other Australian leaders during World War 2) felt that Australia was precariously vulnerable to being overwhelmed by Imperial Japan due to Australia's small population relative to Australia's land size.
Calwell (along with other Australian leaders at the time) concluded that Australia (for national defence reasons) needed a quick and massive population boost above and beyond what increased birth rates or importing Anglo-Celts from the British Isles was likely to achieve.
So Calwell (and other Australian leaders) expanded the White Australia Policy from English-speaking Anglo-Celts to include the near similar Europeans in general.
Which means that the Calwell era immigration following World War II until the mid-1970s was not in fact the first stage of multiculturalism, but more accurately a continuation of the White Australia Policy with a pan-European population base rather than being limited to mostly Anglo-Celts.

I was surprised when reading Calwell's book, which I have since found out was ghost written by Graham Freudenberg, that not once was the phrase 'populate or perish' used. In the post-war period this was a well worn phrase that was trotted out. It meant that Australia's population was too small to defend it and that we needed more people if we were to do so. 

But that phrase and the mass immigration policy that it supported don't really make sense. By the end of WWII Australia's population was about 8 million, Japans was about 80 million. Exactly how many people we needed to 'populate' wasn't talked about and I have never heard a number. What number would allow us to survive?

 It was all very abstract, what was never discussed was when would enough be enough?

If our enemy has a population of 80 million, how big does our population need to be to successfully defend it?

140 million, 80 million, 40 million, 20 million?

Our most likely enemy today has a population of over 1,000 million, how many people do we need to defend ourselves against that?

Defending Australia was never the reason mass immigration was started because there was never a population target to reach and it was never designed to be turned off, only started.

The second point that I would like to make is that the term 'White Australia' was always a misnomer. The truth is that the word white did not mean to most people in the English speaking world, European. It meant a particular type of European, someone from Northern Europe. In other words White people were WASP's, White Anglo Saxon Protestants. While this term wasn't used in Australia, it's an American term, it comes closest to what the word White meant when people spoke about the 'White Australia' policy.

Even countries with similar backgrounds and histories are not exactly the same. Unlike America, Australia has always had a high proportion of Catholics. So Catholics from the British Isles were included as White. In the United States people still ask are Italians White?

Similar concepts but not quite the same.

When the 'White Australia' policy was put forward it wasn't just to stop a million Chinese from arriving in Australia. It existed just as much to stop a million French people from turning up. Under the policy non-Whites did immigrate to Australia, but numbers were in the thousands over decades. The purpose was to keep Australia a bastion for the British peoples with other people in smaller numbers also being allowed in. Numbers matter.

Mass immigration after WWII was a half way house between the 'White Australia' policy and multiculturalism. It most certainly wasn't a continuation of that policy, it was it's replacement.  

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Unions and Traditional Conservatism

    

Arthur Calwell and his Memoirs - 'be just and fear not'

Sunday night 27 October 2024 just before midnight I'm reading an article in Quadrant when a writer casually mentions Arthur Calwells memoirs. I thought " Arthur Calwell wrote a memoir!". So I get out of bed and get on the computer and it took me about half an hour to find an actual copy of the book. There are a lot of pages that talk about the book but I only found one copy for sale. So I bought it, over $60 for a nearly 50 year old paperback. 

By the end of the week I had it in my hands.

Why read a nearly 50 year old book? 

Published in 1978 about a man who has been dead for over 50 years, he died in 1973.

Because Arthur Calwell was a quite peculiar man, the man who campaigned for mass immigration into Australia and the last main stream politician to openly support a White Australia. 

How do you reconcile those two things?

I hoped that the book might give some insight, while it does give some insight into other areas, it sadly does not explain at all why he supported mass immigration even though there is an entire chapter on immigration. 

Chapter 12. The immigration saga

It starts with Prime Minister Curtin stating that Australia needs a Ministry of Immigration and Calwell being appointed by Curtins replacement, Chifley as the first Minister for Immigration on July 13 1945, before the war was even over. But it does not say anything at all of the policies prehistory, it just starts fully formed, with no discussion, no debate, nothing. In that sense nothing has changed.

Sir Robert Menzies in his book 'Afternoon Delight' writes on page 59 "It was in the face of these difficulties that Arthur Calwell convinced not only his colleagues but also the Trade Unions that a large immigration programme should be taken in hand. This was a bold and courageous action. It could have been taken successfully only by a Minister who was known as a life-time Labour man of the strictest orthodoxy, and was both well-known and extremely popular at the centres of unionism, the Trades Hall."

Thats more information then Calwell gives, but he does write on what happened once he was Minister. On August 2, 1945 he gave his first Ministerial statement to Parliament of which I have selected the most relevant parts, page 97-98

"If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific war....it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our descents unless we greatly increase our numbers.

...Immigration is, atbest, only the counterpart of the most important phase of population building, natural increase. Any immigration policy, therefore, must be intimately related to those phases of government policy that are directed towards stimulating the birth rate, and lowering the infant mortality rate in Australia itself. It must, further, be related to the whole social service program of creating greater economic economic security and a higher standard of living, as an inducement to young Australian couples to have larger families."

....In view of the alarming fall in the birth rate, and the decline of the average Australian family from six children in 1875 to three children in 1925, and then to slightly over two children at present, our immediate problem will be to hold our population figures without some migration."

Calwell writes about the wish for British migrants, but then he moves seamlessly onto Europe, page 100.

"In forming our immigration policy, we were lucky to obtain the services of an outstanding six-man fact-finding committee which toured Europe on our behalf in November and December 1945. In fact. the mission consisted of representatives of the Commonwealth Parliament and of employers and employees organisations, who went to Paris for an International Labour Office conference."   

So right from the start, the political parties the unions and the employers groups were in. The Australian people were never asked and have never been asked. 

Chapter 14. Black Power and a multi-racial society

Page 117

"Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm. Those who talk about a multi-racial society are really talking about a polygot nation. Some people talk about a multi-racial society without knowing what the term really means, while others talk about it because they are anxious to change our society. No matter where the pressures come from, Australian people will continue to resist all attempts to destroy our white society."

Chapter 27 Permissiveness destroys society

Page 244

"But the hedonistic doctrine now being popularised is that a women has the sole right over her own body and can alone decide on an abortion for some reason, or no reason. Even's her husbands consent, and he is the father of the child, will not be required, and neither will the opinions of qualified specialists. All this adds up to infanticide, and every nation in history that has practised infanticide, whether with or without the connivance of the authorities, has been destroyed and deserved to be destroyed. God is not mocked. Race suicide does not pay. Those who advocate abortions on demand should not be tolerated in any civilized community."

Obviously in a book by a politician who served for over 30 years in the Australian Parliament there is a lot on politics, events and personalities. Was it worth reading?

Yes but I found it quite frustrating, the central reason I bought the book wasn't addressed. However I did realise that like Menzies who I've also criticised for his failure to see the consequences of his actions, Calwell is guilty of exactly the same thing. He could not see that a policy of mass immigration could neither be turned off or kept small. That instead it forms it's own economy that must be fed. Government and business are now dependent upon immigration. 

      

  

50 More Movies For Traditionalists To Watch 51-100

I had about half of this written and thought I might finish it and put it up, enjoy.

1. Northwest Passage (1940) War

Based on a real event in the Seven Years War in North America. American soldiers raid an Indian village that has been raiding them. Really shows the hardship and brutality that happened. Even though this movie was made in 1940, it always make me think of the Chindits in Burma in 1943-44. 

2. In Which We Serve (1942) War

This was made as a propaganda movie and should not be as good as it is. The acting, writing, direction and plot are all first rate. A war movie that can be watched by anyone who can sit still.

3. The Cruel Sea (1953) War

While this is based upon a novel, the author served and did this type of war service. This might possibly be the best movie about war at sea ever. I really think it's that good. 

4. Khartoum (1966) Drama TS

General Gordan is sent to the Sudan to end a revolt and is killed. A good historical story, a little slow and stilted by todays standards but still solid. 

5. Monty Pythons The Life of Brian (1979) Comedy

It is really is as good as it's reputation, full of classic lines and very funny. What many people miss is how this is much more about politics then religion, religion is simply the vehicle.

6. Blackadder (1982)

There are four seasons, each set in a different period, the one linked above is set in Medieval times, the second in the 1500;s, the third around 1800 and the fourth in the trenches of the First World War. This series is some of the best British comedy that there is. If you haven't seen this check it out.

7. This Is Spinal Tap (1984) Comedy

The first Mockumentary, whereby a movie tries to look like a documentary but is instead a satire. This movie is famous for a reason, very understated but hilarious. 

8. Glory (1989) War

Excellent movie about the first black regiment raised in the North during the American Civil War. My only criticism is that it tries to include the story of other black troops and it clouds the story. For example every black soldier in the regiment could read and were freemen, but the movie shows them differently.

9. Black Robe (1991) Historical

A French priest goes to the wilds of Canada in the 1600's to convert the Indians. While this is based upon a novel it is very accurate with a sympathetic but unromantic view of traditional Indian life.

10. Assault at West Point (1994) Crime Drama

A black cadet at West Point is found tied up and is court martialed . The movie follows the trial and has an interesting view of race relations. It is very liberal in it's viewpoint but I would look at what is shown and it shows some things that you might not expect. 

11. Operation Dumbo Drop (1995) Comedy

A silly movie about elephants, aeroplanes and the Vietnam War. Based on a true story but 95% Hollywood. A good dumb movie. 

12. Star Trek: Fist Contact (1996) Sci Fi

The best Star Trek movie with the best villains The Borg. 

13. The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) Adventure

This is a very underrated movie, a railway is being built in Africa and two maneating lions attack and this is about the efforts to hunt them down. Loosely based on a true story. The lines in the movie really stand out. 

14. L.A. Confidential (1997) Crime Drama

Corruption isn't just about money, while violent this is also a philosophical movie with quite a few twists and turns.

15. Mrs Brown (1997) Historical

Queen Victoria has a new man servant by the name of Mr. Brown, this is about their relationship. 

16. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) Drama 

What starts out as a story about a social climber becomes so much more.

17. Uprising (2001)  War

A made for TV movie that is better than you might expect. It tells the story of uprising of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in 1943. 

18. War Photographer (2001) Documentary

This documents the work of James Nachtwey as he photographs war. Can be quite graphic.

19. Spiderman (2002) Superhero

This is in my opinion the best of the Spiderman movies and I think it works because it stays true to his origin story while also adding just enough to keep it fresh.

20. Hellboy (2004) Superhero

There are things that go bump in the night and these guys are the ones who bump back. I like the first half better than the second but the first half I really like. 

21. The Incredibles (2004) Animation

Superheroes exist but are illegal. 

22. Team America: World Police (2004) Comedy

If you don't like sex, swearing or violence then this movie is not for you. While it is gross and over the top it has a great message and is hilarious. 

23. Batman Begins (2005) Superhero

The first of the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy, a movie that has no right to be this good. Highly recommended.

24. Miss Potter (2006) Biographical TS

A good movie to watch with the wife or girlfriend. A look at the author of the Peter Rabbit books with some fantastical flourishes. 

25. United 93 (2006) Drama TS

A very underrated movie on how the passengers and crew fought back against the hijackers on their flight on 9/11. A slow burn that reaches a crescendo.  

26. 30Rock (2006) Comedy Series

I must confess that I have not seen every episode but the ones that I have seen I liked. It is both inmature and has mature themes so if that's not your thing beware.

27. Into The Wild (2007) Drama TS

Young man goes into the wild to test himself and things don't go well. A contemplative movie.

28. Burn After Reading (2008) Comedy

A Coen Brothers movie in which everyone is unlikeable but what happens to them is entertaining. Swearing, implied sex with some graphic violence.

29. Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008) Sci-Fi War

A trashy movie that is good fun and has some surprising takes.

30. Passchendaele (2008) War Drama

Set in both Canada and the Western Front during WWI, while this not a bad movie, at some points it is really good at bringing out the feeling of the period. I really wish it was better as it had the potential to be really good.

31. The Dark Knight (2008)

Batman, what can I say, it's good.

32. Julie & Julia (2009)

One to watch with the wife or girlfriend. A women decides to cook all the recipes in Julia Childs cookbook. This is also a look at Julia Childs life. 

33. Hugo (2011) Drama/Children

A movie that I find hard to pigeonhole, it is about a young boy and an old man and the early history of filmmaking, but it nearly all takes place in a train station. Most suitable for older children.  

34. Too Big To Fail (2011)

A movies that tries to explain the 2007 Global Financial Crisis and doesn't do that bad of a job. Unfortunately they made the US Treasury out to be the good guys when they were as guilty as anyone. 

35. The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Superhero

Batman has been my favourite superhero since I was 4 and I was very happy with the Dark Knight series.

36. Game Change (2012) Political Drama TS

A look at John McCain's Presidential campaign in 2008 and his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. It must be kept in mind that this is based off of a book and that it's take might be more impressionistic than correct. Having said that I thought it gave an interesting insight. 

37. Gravity (2013) Sci Fi

The space shuttle has an accident and a women  must find a way to get back to Earth. It looks fantasical and I liked the story.

38. American Sniper (2014) War

A character study of a SEAL sniper in the Iraq War. Violent, confronting but never patronising.  

39. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) Sci-Fi

This one was very surprising, funny with great special effects.

40. Wolf Hall (2015) Historical Drama

Based on the award winning novels this series in slow and brilliant. The acting, the writing, in fact I cannot think of a single thing that I do not like about this nearly 6 hour long series.  

41. Silence (2016) Historical Drama

Made from a novel which is based upon real historical events. Long, at times hard to watch, but I found it quite moving. Two Priests go to Japan where Christianity is outlawed and their faith in God, man and themselves are tested.

42. Zoolander 2 (2016) Comedy

This movie is stupid, but in a good way. If you liked the original Zoolander then you might like this, it's not as good but it's fun.

43. The Vietnam War (2017) Documentary 

A Ken Burns documentary series that is 16 1/2 hours long in 10 episodes. While I have some issues with the series, most minor, however the detail and coverage is very impressive. Very focused on America even though it does try to do justice to both North and South Vietnam. 

44. I, Tonya (2017) Drama TS

A story about violence and figure skaters, not a subject that you would think go today, because they aren't supposed to. A good portrayal of the incident and the events surrounding it.

45. Incredibles 2 (2018) Animation

Superheroes and their troubles.

46. Kursk: The Last Mission (2018) Drama TS

A Russian submarine sinks and the efforts to find out if anyone has survived. A sad story. 

47. 7 Days in Entebbe (2018) Drama

Terrorists highjack a plane and take it to Entebbe airport in Uganda and Israel sents troops to get them out. 

48. Country Music (2019) Documentary

Another Ken Burns documentary series, 16 hours long in 8 episodes. I thought this was excellent, if your interested in American country music this is as good as it gets. 

49. Glass (2019) Superheroes

M. Night Shyamalan has a mixed record, but his superhero series is a look at how they would exist without us noticing them. This is better if you have seen the other movies in the series. 

50. The Spy (2019) Drama TS

A women spies for Sweden during WWII, a little slow but still interesting. 

Keeping Traditions Alive

How often do we hear that the old traditions are dying out?

How often do we say much the same thing?

But what are we doing personally to keep these traditions alive?

Recently I was talking with one of my brothers and I mentioned that I only received one Christmas card this year. He replied he hadn't sent any out and that it seemed that it was a tradition that was dying out. Which made me realise that I was part of the problem as I never send out Christmas cards. If I want this tradition to survive then maybe I should do something to keep it alive. Like telling people that I want Christmas cards sent to me, maybe even going the radical route and sending some out myself.

This week I have been out and about doing Christmas shopping and everywhere I have been I have been wishing people Merry Christmas and people like it. People want to be a part of the festive season and they like it when other people are nice and pleasant to them. I have seen people smile, I have had people then wish me a merry Christmas. What I have not encountered is any pushback. If we want to keep our traditions alive then we need to keep them alive.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Death Of Classical Liberalism

Why Aren't We Having More Children?

In the 1990's the Left shared an African proverb, 'it takes a village to raise a child'. They loved that this traditional phrase called upon a collective for child raising. What they failed to notice was that in an African village nearly everyone is likely to be a relative of that child. It is not about a collection of random people or of professionals raising a child, but the importance of the extended family in looking after itself.

From Italy to South Korea there is hardly a country in the developed world that doesn't have a baby shortage. This is even spreading to the third world. Here we are witnesses to a civilizational issue, not simply one restricted to one country or society. Which means that to understand the issue we must look more broadly. 

Men and women want children, but we are not simply creatures of instinct. We think, which means that what we think can be influenced by things other than our instincts. The environment in which we live and the ideas that exist around us also influence us. As does the reality of raising children. They take up time, money and resources. Even though people want children, children come at a cost.

However in the past people seemed to be willing to pay that price and today more and more people seem to be unwilling or unable to. The standard answers as to why are always economic. People moved from the farm to the city and children went from being an asset that could provide labour to a burden that instead cost money. That as women become more educated they wanted less children. Each idea suggests that these things are rational and logical. Even that having a large family is indulgent and selfish.

In 1700 no matter where someone lived they were nearly always surrounded by family. Everyone in the town, village or district is related in some way to the other people who also live in that place. Which means that there was a vast network of people who could help in the day to day raising of children. But when a family moved to the town or city they left behind that support and they disrupted two communities. We are familiar with the idea that the village is disrupted, but so too is the community that someone moves too. A stranger arrives and is now competing against the locals. Ties are broken and that includes those of the extended community. If no one can look after the children then it makes less sense to have more. It is not economics or logic that encourages less children. But instead the reality that it is much harder to look after them. 

There is an old saying, 'many hands make light work', meaning that if a job is done by many people each persons share of the work is reduced. In the past motherhood used this principle, many people other than the mother took some of the burden. Mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, cousin, niece, daughter, all pitched in. When a women is in a new place amongst new people then all of that changes. Motherhood becomes a much bigger and harder part of her live. 

We see this in modern times, a couple have a child together and it is a very trying time for them. The husband feels as if he is doing everything that he can to support his brand new family, working, helping out, providing emotional support for her and often she is frustrated beyond belief, why is he doing so little to help she wonders? 

Which has a big impact on how many children this couple will have. It is an enormous test for their relationship. The answer is other women, specifically her mother, then her aunt, sister and any other women who are related or experienced with children. It is an unfortunate modern trend for the father to take the place of all the women in the village, it's too much.

Then in the middle of the 20th century we had a massive population boom, the rapid growth of population in the third world as it received the benefits of transport, new rapid growth crops and pharmaceuticals. In 1927 the worlds population was around 2 billion, in 2023 it has gone over 8 billion, but nearly everywhere the fertility rate has declined.

In the West we had the babyboom between 1944-1964, but that created it's own problems as new families left older communities and started new lives amongst new people. Those older family ties and formations broke down and today we are seeing that continue although with new challenges. One of those new challenges is how hard it is to get into an economically stable position and then to remain there. In the past a great deal of effort was made to get families to form and to make sure that jobs were available and that prices were kept under control. Today none of that is true.

It is still required for a man to have a stable job and to pay, but permanent employment is harder to obtain. Competition from women, mass immigration all make family formation harder. Marriage has  been made unstable. 

I have mixed feelings about the fertility decline, in 1086 when Willian the Conqueror had the Domesday book compiled there were around 1,700,000 people in England, today there are more than 56,000,000. I can't help feeling that that is insane. Sure about 20% of that is from immigration, but even 45,000,000 is a lot of people. That problem is now all over the Earth. Capitalism, the handmaiden of Liberalism says that a bigger population leads to a bigger economy and thats what really matters. I'm a bit more agnostic on population, I'm not convinced that a smaller population is a bad thing. 

Having said that, if we want people to have more children then we need to make family formation easier. family stability a priority and to make women more important to society than to the economy. Today we are burning the candle at both ends because in theory it increases the economy. But if increasing the economy leads to our extinction then that isn't a good deal at all. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Debt Is King I

Capitalism Or Socialism?

Liberalism puts forward the idea that we must choose between two extremes, if you don't support free speech then you support all speech being controlled. If you don't support free trade then you don't believe in trade. The choice between Capitalism and Socialism is one of those extreme positions, because like most people I actually think that a good economy has a bit of both, but not too much of either.

But to understand this better we must define what is meant by Capitalism and Socialism, because one thing that allows Liberalism to continue this absurd idea is that the terms are not defined. People are left to argue without any agreement about what they are arguing about.

Strictly speaking Capitalism only means collecting money (capital) for investment. That is what Capitalists do, they collect money so that they can use that money to invest. However many people also use the word Capitalism to mean the ownership of private property or the ability to make money from your own labour or endeavours. 

The rise of Communism in the 20th century encouraged this idea as they were against all of these things. But Socialism and Communism, while related, are not the same thing. Both say that the economy should be controlled by the government, but the degree to which that government should control the economy differs greatly. For Socialists the degree is astonishing, some are very light and others go all the way to Communism. For the 'light' it might mean that extreme poverty is the enemy, so no one should go hungry or be homeless. For others it might mean that the government makes decisions on how the economy is run. Others don't like excess and rich people offend their sensibilities. But most Socialists believe that Socialism can exist in nearly any political system. Communists do not believe that, they believe that anything less than a Communist government is just not good enough. 

When I write about Capitalism I mean the strict version and about Socialism the 'light' version. 

The problem with big business is that it seeks to be richer and more powerful, which means that it destroys competition. Which it claims to love, but doesn't. Instead it seeks a big slice of the pie, whether that pie is bigger, small or stable in size. That includes in power, it sucks power away from other areas, just as it does the same to finance. Unless some limit is placed upon big business it will destroy the economy, including itself.

Certainly there are some companies that do need to be big, just as some industries should be controlled by the Government, but they should be exceptions. 

But to give that power to the Government is also destructive, of course the Government needs power. But everything needs limits, everything needs to be kept under watch and nothing should be allowed to get out of control. An economy that allows small and medium companies to predominate is an economy that serves the most people and at the same time allows people to make the decisions about that economy. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Who Owns Australia

50 Movies For Traditionalists To Watch

Like many of you I avoid movies or TV programs that I think are going to have too much of 'the message', or race swapping, or feminism or you get the point. But I still own a large collection of DVD's and the like and I still find good movies, old and new. Sometimes I'm asked for recommendations and I decided that I should put together a list of movies that others could watch. Of course we should remember that interests differ, tastes differ and our tolerance for nonsense differs, so just because I like something doesn't mean that you will. Having said that I still think that you will find movies to enjoy on this list.

Rather than having an impossibly long list I decided to limit this to 50 movies. These are not necessarily my favourites, but I have enjoyed them all.

All links go to IMBD. TS means True Story

1. Citizen Kane (1941) Drama

A good story, well acted and important in the history of cinema. 

2. The Song of Bernadette (1943) Mystery/Biography TS

A young women has a vision of the Virgin Mary. Treats religion with respect.  

3. Sunset Blvd. (1950) Drama

Was surprised that I liked this one. The movie asks what happens when you are no longer famous?

4. The Desert Rats (1953)War 

A character study set during the siege of Tobruk during WWII.

5. The Silent Enemy (1958) War/Biography TS

A very accurate movie about the underwater battle between Italian and British frogman over Gibraltar during WWII.

6. Cleopatra (1963) Drama/ Biography TS

The movie was so expensive that it put the studio that made it out of business and you can see everything that they spent up on the screen. Long, effectively two movies and spectacular.

7. The Sand Pebbles (1966) Drama/Adventure

In 1926, a U.S. Naval engineer gets assigned to a gunboat on a rescue mission in war torn China.

8. The Producers (1967) Comedy

A movie made by Jews about Jews, with Nazi's. 

9. Easy Rider (1969) Drama

I watched this recently and was surprised that I liked it. Well made, well acted, many don't like this movie and I understand why. The ending is very heavy handed with one of the earliest anti-White endings around.

10. The Wicker Man (1973) Horror/Mystery

The only horror in this movie is at the end, a really great movie.

11. Seven Little Australians (1973) Family Drama Mini-Series

A strict military man marries a much younger women who is now mother to 6 of his children and the seventh between them. A series to watch with the family.

12. Young Frankenstein (1974) Comedy

Very funny parody

13. I, Claudius (1976) Historical/Biography Min-Series TS

The story of the Roman Emperor Claudius, this is clearly filmed on a stage, but the acting and plot are very good. 

14. Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones (1980) Drama/Biography Mini-Series TS

The story of how one man created a cult and convinced over 900 people to commit suicide. 

15. Tron (1982) Sci-Fi

This is an important movie because it introduced computer graphics into film and it helps explain the background to the other and I think better TRON: Legacy (2010).

16. Do the Right Thing (1989) Drama

A surprisingly honest look at race relations.

17. Gettysburg (1993) Drama/War TS

One of the best movies about a battle, long but totally worth it.

18. Once Were Warriors (1994) Drama Crime

Very violent New Zealand movie about a Maori family. Not for the faint of heart.

19. Pride and Prejudice (1995) Romance Mini-Series

Classic novel dramatized, a series to watch with the wife or girlfriend.

20. The Day of the Roses (1996) Drama TS

A bridge collapses on a train filled with passengers, very good. 

21. American History X (1998) Drama

I did an entire review of this movie here.

22. The Insider (1999) Drama/Biography TS

Story of a man who decides to make public, insider knowledge of the tobacco industry.

23. Galaxy Quest (1999) Comedy/Sci-Fi

A fictional crew are mistaken for the real thing and hilarity ensures, at least I thought so.

24. The Lost Battalion (2001) War TS

WWI American battalion becomes 'lost', a made for tv movie that is better than it should be.

25. About Schmidt (2002) Drama

A man retires and looks at his life.

26. Panic Room (2002) Thriller

I think this is the only Thriller on the list and it is here because it makes sense. A mother and her daughter move into a house and have to use the panic room. 

27. Wallis & Edward (2005) Drama TS

TV movie on the reason King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936.

28. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) Fantasy

I recommend all of the Narnia movies but I like this one the best, great for family viewing.

29. The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) Drama TS

German movie on the Left wing terrorist group of the same name

30. Red Cliff (2008) Historical/War TS

Chinese movie about a famous battle in the 200AD's. Sort of historical and sort of fantastical.

31. Generation Kill (2008) War Mini-Series TS

An accurate picture of the invasion of Iraq, 2003.

32. 127 Hours (2010) Drama/Biography TS

Man goes hiking by himself and gets his arm trapped, should be boring, isn't.

33.. TRON: Legacy (2010) Sci-Fi

A man travels into a hidden electronic world.

34. Parer's War (2014) drama TS

TV movie that is good but not great, About an Australian war correspondent in WWII.

35. The Monuments Men (2014) War/Drama TS

An old fashioned war movie about men who were recruited to save art during WWII.

36. Trumbo (2015) Drama/Biography TS

Left wing screen writer blacklisted in the 50's. Well made, acted and as far as I know accurate. Interesting look into how Hollywood and the Left view one of their hero's.

37. Bridge of Spies (2015) Drama TS

During the Cold War a man is sent 'unofficially' to get a pilot back from Communist captivity. A good story that I think you get more out of the more you know.

38. O.J.: Made in America (2016) Documentary/Biography

Nearly 8 hour long documentary on O.J. Simpson. Made by Left Liberals, it definitely has their point of view. However in that time it reveals things about race in America that really highlight points that we make about race. Great footage and interviews, with the highlight being the coverage of the murders and the trial, quite revealing.

39. The Lost City of Z (2016) Drama/Biography TS

A movie that I wish was better than it is, B when it should have been an A. Man explorers the jungles of South America. Worth seeing even though it's not top-notch.

40. Arrival (2016) Mystery/Sci-Fi

For some this will have too much diversity, but I thought the story held up well enough for it to not be as bad as some. Aliens arrive and we cannot communicate with each other.

41. Sully (2016) Drama/Biography

Pilot lands plane on a river, the investigation was never the witch hunt shown here, but a good heroic tale none the less. 

42. All the Money in the World (2017) Drama TS

Grandson of the worlds richest man is kidnapped. Good but it should have been better, still worth watching.

43. The Senator Original title: Chappaquiddick (2017) Drama/ Biography TS

Senator Ted Kennedy and that night at Chappaquiddick.

44. Borg McEnroe Original title: Borg VS McEnroe (2017) Drama/Sport

I'm not much of a sports fan but here the story is really about the rivalry between two men, who happen to be tennis players. 

45. Stan & Ollie (2018) Drama/Biography TS

Laurel and Hardy go on a tour of Britain in the early 1950's, a lovely tribute with superb acting.

46. A Quiet Place (2018) Horror/Sci-Fi

Aliens attack noise and people make noise.

47. First Man (2018) Drama/Biography TS

First man to walk on the moon, slow and there is no American flag on the moon, but apart from that. 

48. Tolkien (2019) Drama/Biography

Story of Tolkien's early life

49. 1917 (2019) War

A bit too much diversity in the background. But other than that this is quite good.

50. Apocalypse Now: Final Cut (2019) War

This movie was released in 1979, then a Redux version was released in 1999, this is the Final Cut which was released in 2019. Watch this version, it is the best.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Marriage - The Second Attack

Politicians And The Rules Of Seduction

It takes a certain type of person to become a politician. It is not just ambition, although that is certainly present. They are a curious mixture of positive and negative attributes. Most have a built in optimism about the world and their role in it. That the world can be a better place than it currently is and that they have the will, the ability and the belief to make a positive change in the world. An idealism that is missing from most people. 

But at the same time they have both a practical and a cynical nature, which can be hard to separate as each lives so close to the other. They believe that betrayal, lies and cynicism are practical things. That they are in fact essential to achieving the things that they believe that they and only they can achieve. Of course not all politicians become involved because they are idealists, but I do think that those who are any good do start from an idealists position. It may wear off, or fade in and out of existence, but rarely is it absent entirely.

At heart politicians are seducers, they whisper sweet lies into people ears and hope that what they have whispered is better then what the other professional liars have whispered. My Mother said that children don't lie, they instead tell you what they want to be true. For example a child will break a vase and then say that they didn't break it, what they mean is that they didn't intend to break it. In their mind it is not a lie but what they wish was true. Politicians are like that, they lie but they wish those lies were true. They wish they could build that hospital they promised, or end war, or cut taxes and increase spending without consequences. Even though they know that the things that they say are lies, a good liar believes in the lies that they tell. Because while children may not lie, politicians most certainly do.

Why do they lie?

Because people insist that they lie, people will tell you that they hate lies but that is itself a lie. The truth is that people love lies because the truth is harsh and we find that we already have enough harshness in our lives. We need the softness of lies to cushion the harshness of truth. The truth is that maybe we can't really afford that hospital, that no one can end war and in fact war loves that you hate it and cutting taxes and increasing spending will have consequences. Instead of dealing with that harshness maybe it is better to live with the promise that maybe things can get better. We want to hear lies and because we want to hear them we are told them. We are being seduced and I know of two rules of seduction.

The first rule of seduction is that you do not tell the person you are seducing the truth, instead you tell them what they want to hear. 

The second rule of seduction is that the easiest person to seduce is the person who wants to be seduced. 

If a politician wants to be successful then they need to learn these rules. Although learning something is different to putting it into practise and we often see them fail. 

Lastly politicians need the practical nature that I wrote about above, they need to be able to deal with people, systems and processes. And they need to be able to change, to go with the flow. It is something that they are criticised for, fairly and unfairly.

To Help support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Future Of The Nation State

No To The Voice

Australia's Labor government has decided that they want to change our constitution and to give a 'voice' to Aboriginal people. The argument put forward has been 'go on be nice to Aborigines', of course the other argument is 'if you don't vote yes your a racist, bigot, White supremacist'. 

So what is 'the voice'?

That's a good question that it's proponents cannot agree on. At one extreme are those who state that every law affects Aboriginal people, therefore every law will need to be approved by a consultative body, 'the voice'. In effect it will have veto powers over all Australian laws and it will use this power to push for more radical positions. At the other extreme are those, including the Prime Minister, who insist that this is simply mentioning Aboriginals in the constitution. Along with a consultative body that can offer advice to the government on matters that pertain to matters that overwhelmingly affect Aboriginal people. Constitutional experts claim the proposed amendment is so badly written and confusing that it will lead to decades of legal challenges.

Even simple questions about 'the voice' remain unanswered.

How many members will make up 'the voice'?

Will they be voted for or selected and if so by whom?

Will 'the voice' have a budget?

Will 'the voice' have staff?

Vote yes and only then will we be able to find out if it was all a mistake or not.

I'm not prepared to vote for handing the country over to radicals and I'm also not prepared to recognise Aboriginals in the constitution. Not when the people who actually wrote it aren't recognised in it.  

I cannot think of a single reason to vote yes, which means it's definitely a no from me.

Vote No

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Left Or Social Liberalism

Can We Ban This Now?

In the past whenever people like myself have wondered why something couldn't be banned we were told that it was against our Liberal traditions. But not now, in fact this surprising article from the Lowy Institute makes exactly this point, Banning nazi salute opens pandoras box.

If we are going to ban things from a regime we defeated 80 years ago, it becomes hard to argue that we should not ban things that insult many of our sensibilities now.

Things such as:

The burka

 Facial tattoos

Drag Time Story Hour

Treason

And so much more.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Loyalty

Liberalism Abandons Another Principle

One of the things that made Liberalism popular was the idea that people should be free. You were free to have your own thoughts and opinions. which included the freedom to say those things. Freedom of Speech or to use an older term Freedom of Conscience. This included symbols, which included flags, insignia, stickers and all manner of things. But it seems that Liberalism is abandoning these principles 

Liberalism has done this before with Freedom of Association. In the early 1800's workers tried to form unions to campaign for better wages and conditions. But the government said no, unions were clubs for radicals and revolutionaries. The workers argued that they had the right to associate with whomever they wished. The government passed laws saying that that just wasn't true and men who broke those laws were punished. Liberals said that people did have a right to freely associate with the people that they wished to associate. In time they won that fight and the law was changed, freedom of association was the law of the land. But in the 1950's and 60's that right was taken away, because freedom of association also meant that you didn't have to associate with people if you didn't want to. Freedom of Association is now banned, you cannot stop people from associating with you because you don't want to associate with them, instead now we are told that everyone is equal and interchangeable. 

Principles that Liberalism said were universal and true at all times in all places and for all people it seems can be changed.

Australia's Jewish Attorney-General announced this week that a new law would be introduced to Parliament to ban Nazi symbols from public display and sale in Australia. Anyone who breaks this could face up to 12 months in prison. This follows similar laws that various states have passed. 

This is being passed as an Anti-Terrorism law, but on the Attorney-General Departments webpage on Counter terrorism laws, it states:

Terrorist acts

A terrorist act is an act, or a threat to act, that meets both these criteria:

• it intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

• it causes one or more of the following:
  • death, serious harm or danger to a person
  • serious damage to property
  • a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
  • serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

Advocating, protesting, dissenting or taking industrial action are not terrorist acts where the person doing the activity does not intend to cause serious harm to a person or create a serious risk to public safety.

Which of these things will banning Nazi symbols stop?

Of course the Uniparty will vote for this and who will vote against it?

Now that will be interesting to note. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Industrial Relations And Conservatism

When Equality Fails

Liberalism once believed in hierarchy, that certain people were better at things than other people. That included individuals, races, sexes and social classes. It did not believe in equality and it took until after WWII for this idea to become mainstream within Liberalism.

Today we have lived for 50 years or so with the idea of equality. We are told about it constantly, we cannot escape it's influence. Which convinces many that the idea must be true, that there really is no difference between different people. Even though we learn through experience that different people are, well different. We hear the word so often that we rarely think about what the word even means. For something or someone to be equal means that they are the same as something or someone else.

All apples are equal because all apples are the same, which at first glance seems reasonable but isn't. 

Is a big apple the same as a small apple? 

Is a rotten apple the same as a fresh apple?

Is a green apple the same as a red apple?

And on it goes, the idea of equality is accepted because it is so easy to understand. If everyone is the same then we can pretend that any problems that exist can be fixed and that they are not unsolvable, that differences between races or the sexes are minor inconveniences. All that needs to be done is to remove official differences between groups and to remind people, constantly, that we are all equal and in time everything will fix itself. Because at the heart of this idea is that these differences are artificial and not real.

For half a century or more these ideas have been pushed and instead of differences vanishing they are persistent. The differences between the sexes are still here, the difference between races are still here. The thing that was supposed to happen has not taken place. Laws were changed, social attitudes were changed, the law was moved in favour of these groups, massive amounts of money have been spend and still the differences remain. Liberals are now left with a question that continues to grow in size and that is why?

Why haven't things changed?

The first thing to remember is that their basic assumptions have not changed, people are equal, equality is a real thing. So something else must be to blame and their answer is Structural Racism. They also call it Systematic or Institutional racism. Which effectively means that society is at heart racist, both the people and the institutions. Built into the foundations is racism. Which is why White Supremacy is so much of an issue to Liberals. 

Of course ordinary people are confused by this as it doesn't make sense. How can it be that the more society has turned against racism, it has at the same time become more racist?

Well it can't, the entire idea is ridiculous. 

But the only other place that Liberalism can go is to admit that equality is not real. That different people are in fact different. Which they are not prepared to accept. But when you hear the words White Supremacy, Structural Racism, Systematic Racism or Institutional Racism, Liberalism is trying to use these terms to square a circle of it's own making...and failing.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Problems Of Monarchy

Who's Really Responsible?

Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action in Afghanistan. Most Australians are happy to accept that he is a hero who deserves our respect. However there has always been some who did not feel that way about him. Both within the military and the media. He was accused of bullying behaviour towards other soldiers and more seriously of mistreating prisoners, at least one of whom it is alleged was killed upon his orders. 

In fact the Australian SAS (Special Air Service) has been accused of mistreating prisoners and even of 'blooding' soldiers. Blooding is where a less experienced soldier is ordered to kill a prisoner to prove that he is capable of killing and that he is loyal. It has been alleged that 39 Afghans were murdered in 23 separate incidents. Now accusations are not proof and far to often in these stories accusations have been treated that way. But these are serious accusations and they tend to get laid at the feet of just one man. 

I do think that the SAS was given too much leeway in Afghanistan. That the supervision and oversight that should have existed, existed in theory but not in practice. That they were stretched and overused, that they were burdened with too much responsibility. Responsibility that lay elsewhere. Wars of insurgency are political wars that require that military force be used to support political solutions. It appears that the SAS was instead used as if it were fighting bandits. 

Why is it that it seems that the more junior, the more responsible someone is held to be?

Why were the SAS given so little oversight?

Why weren't these problems picked up while they were going on?

Why was the debriefing of soldiers so poor?

The question that I have most of all, is where was the senior leadership?

Why aren't Generals and politicians being asked these questions?

I have heard it said that a soldier gets in more trouble for losing his rifle than a general does for losing a war and it's all true. No ones responsible unless the system wants you to be responsible and then it doesn't matter if your responsible or not. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The White Civil War

Is The Liberal Party Dying?

Apart from Tasmania every state and territory has a Labor government as does the Federal government. In Victoria last year the Liberals couldn't win against a premier nicknamed Dictator Dan. At the last Federal election seats that in the past had been regarded as safe Liberal seats were lost to Liberal party types who decided that they weren't into climate change and divisive social issues enough. It makes you wonder about what is going on in the Liberal party.

The Liberal party has always been a strange beast, it was, as is the tradition in Australian politics, the anti-Labor party. Made up of people with very different views but who all agreed that Labor must be opposed. For decades it worked, but there has always been the question, 'what does the Liberal party stand for'?

In the past it stood for individual liberty, small government, fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. 

But the truth was that it has always been ready to drop support for one or more of these if it was convenient. In fact a common theme in the history of the Liberal party has been it's attempts to out Labor the Labor party. Which of course fails, because when people have a choice between the real thing and the fake thing they will choose the real thing.

Which leads me to the Victorian Liberal Party, a party that couldn't win against a government that locked it's citizens up for 200 days in 2 years. It has no plan for what it will do once it is in government. It claims that it opposed the tyranny of the state Labor government, but if you took the time to look you found out that they only mildly disagreed with that government. If they had been in government the only difference might have been that things were not so bad because they lacked the backbone that Dictator Dan possessed. Dictators have backbones, not something that can be said for the Liberal party.

It expelled one of it's members for going to a pro-women rally.

That same party is now looking into having more ethnic minorities and more female members of parliament. So a party that claims that it values the individual is looking at quotas. It just cannot decide what it really believes or stands for. 

That extends to finances, it used to be accepted that Labor ran up debt and the Liberals were responsible with money. But that is simply no longer true. Neither are responsible with money, both run up debt, both print money. I still encounter people who think that the Liberals will sort out the debt, but I have to wonder in what world are they living in?

This decade Victoria is going to relive the 1990's, were the state nearly went bankrupt. Labor is spending money that we simply do not possess and that will come back to bite us. In the 1990's the Liberal party saved Victoria, at least financially, but today we cannot rely upon them even for that. 

Maybe it is a good thing if the Liberal party does die. It has no answer but more to immigration, the same answer it has towards debt. If this country is to survive it should die and why not at it's own hands.

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Patriotism Versus Nationalism

The Coronation of Australia's New King

A new King of Australia has been crowned, although you might think of him under a different title. Which got me to thinking about the role of the monarchy in Australia and within Liberalism more generally. 

When I was growing up it was very common to be told by the talking heads of the media that we should enjoy the monarchy while it lasted because no new Monarchists were being born.  In other words it was old fashioned and in time it would die out. Most commenters said that Queen Elizabeth II would be the last monarch of Australia, because it was only her personal popularity that kept it alive. A King Charles III was an absurdity that was just laughable, he had neither the charisma nor the popularity to keep it going. Yet here we are with King Charles III and no popular movement towards becoming a republic. 

Sure there are people who are Republicans, there are those who think an inherited head of state is weird and there are those who aren't that interested at all. And yet every commercial television station, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Sky news broadcast it live. It obviously generated a great deal of interest. There are a lot of people out there who do think that this is important. 

Because monarchy has a strength that other forms of government do not have, it is centred around family and individual people. Not for an election cycle but for their entire life. The life of both the royal and of the non-royal. That personal connection is a rarity when it comes to politicians and when it exists much more fragile. 

I was expecting much more criticism and hostility but both have been quite subdued. Republicans came out of the woodwork, but I still got the impression that the media was more interested in generating controversy than anything. I hear that a commentator on the BBC said that the royal family was too white. But all par for the course. 

For decades rumours have circulated that this coronation would be very multicultural and multi-faith, so I was half expecting the worse. But to be honest I was pleasantly surprised with how traditional it was, including how White, British and Christian it was. I also heard some say that the ceremony was a break from tradition, but the truth is that every coronation has features that are unique to it and this one was no different in that regard.

The coronation proves something that we on the right should always take to heart and that is that no matter what we are told the things that we love can go on and all that we have to do is to keep faith with what we believe. Never give up.

So let me say

LONG LIVE THE KING OF AUSTRALIA, KING CHARLES III

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Pornography And Liberalism

 

The Rise of Slogans and Emotionalism

When I was a teenager back in the 1980's one of things that impressed me about Liberalism was that it was prepared to debate issues. Controversial issues were regarded as controversial and they were debated, even on television. Back when everyone had a very limited choice about what they could watch. 

Even back then I noticed that there was real opposition to debating issues openly and honestly, I also noticed that the debates were biased. One side always seemed to get the better deal, yes the Left side. As I watched more I started to realise that these debates were not open and honest. They were instead a way of letting people know what the correct opinion was. A way of short circuiting any opposition, look we gave this a fair hearing and it just couldn't make it's case, time to move on and get with the program. 

It was also a lesson to watch the men and women who ran these programs become increasingly side lined as debate became unfashionable. In it's place was something that Left-liberalism had been playing with for a while, sloganeering. Instead of having a debate or an argument you had a slogan. This way the rational part of the brain was bypassed and you could engage with the emotional part of the brain. 

This was a big thing for Liberalism as it had always prided itself on it's rationalism. Liberals championed the idea that their philosophy was logical and rational and that it was these factors that would lead to it's inevitable triumph It's opponents however, had always noticed its emotionalism. That it often sort to use emotions and to then claim that that was rationalism.    

Since the 1960's rationalism has been in decline, although it really declined from the 1990's onwards. In it's place were slogans and emotionalism. Arguments were required to counter the middle class and the institutions. Once they had largely been won over then they moved on to using a weapon that people find hard to fight. How do you fight a slogan?

"One man, one vote"

"Love is love"

"All men are equal"

"Equality between the sexes"

It is incredibly difficult because it is so light it can avoid any blow. A slogan becomes a mantra, something that can be said without any understanding of the issue and yet it gives the speaker the feeling of knowing everything. What else can there be to know?

Slogans appeal to the emotions, it bypasses the intellect, which is what gives it its strength. As the saying goes, you cannot argue someone out of a position they were never argued into. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Report From The Melbourne Reclaim Australia Rally