Some Thoughts On The Australian Election, 2022

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population clock:

'On 24 May 2022 at 09:16:47 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:  

25, 896, 010

Last Saturday the number of people enrolled to vote was:

17, 228, 900

The number who actually voted was:

12, 756, 111

The Australian Labor Party won office with this number of first preference votes:

3,972,105   

They currently have 75 seats out of a Parliament of 151 seats, with 76 seats they would have a majority within the House of Representatives. In this election they won 32.8% of the first preference votes out of those who voted. 23% of those enrolled to vote and 15.33% of all Australians.

In a country were it is compulsory to vote, 4.5 million did not even bother., of those who did turn out to vote 644, 677 voted informally, which means that they filled out the ballot incorrectly so their vote was not counted. There is 5,000,000 people who didn't vote. 

On the Right we put a lot of faith in One Nation, Pauline Hanson's Party and the United Australia Party, together they got around 1.1 million votes, 589,896 for One Nation, 499,631 for the United Australia Party. Unlike Labor and the Liberals who's share of the vote went down both parties votes went up. After the past two years it was disappointing to not see a bigger share go to them.

The system is rigged to support the major political parties, in the past it was considered to be against the national interest for a minority government to exist. This view was held by most Australians and by the major political parties. But over the last thirty years the share of people who vote for the major parties has declined. Today people want minority governments and the system isn't designed for that, which means that people are becoming more disenchanted with the entire process.

The Liberal government was punished for the last two years, for it's lies and it's pretending to be on our side when it wasn't, for shutting the country down over Covid. The current narrative is that the election was about climate change, well for some electorates that was true. 7 of the 10 richest electorates voted for more action on climate change. But the issue has brought down two Prime Ministers before, because the issue is simple in concept but it is very complex and costly in reality. No one has been able to square that circle and I believe that on that score nothing has changed. 

Unfortunately whether the Liberals or Labor win an election the Uniparty always wins!

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

The Tragedy-of the Euro

Comparing The Two Doctor Strange Movies

A week ago I went to see the most recent Doctor Strange movie, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and I was disappointed. Now I'm a man in my fifties so why did I go and see it in the first place? 

Lets be honest the movie wasn't made for me. I saw it because the original Doctor Strange was brilliant, it was entertaining, thoughtful and insightful. I rewatched it this week and I enjoyed it even more. I was afraid that some of the stink from the more recent movie would rub off on it, glad to say that that did not happen. From now on I will call them Strange I and Strange II to distinguish between the two movies. 

I had been looking forward to Strange II since Strange I told us that Doctor Strange would return. But I had heard some disquieting things and I decided to put those feelings aside and see Strange II anyway. Right from the start things felt different, the original started off more like a drama, Doctor Strange is a surgeon, a real person, in Strange II he attends the interracial marriage of the women he loves and her husband is a 'fan' of Doctor Strange. He leaves the wedding to fight a monster, this could have been in any superhero movie, with any superhero fighting. Right here is the difference between the two movies, Strange I is about a man who feels real, Strange II is about a superhero who doesn't feel real.

Strange I is about a man who becomes a magic user in a world filled with Superheros and it succeeds because at all times it feels real. Like it is something that could actually happen. Which is achieved by making the movie into a drama, which includes mysticism, comedy, action and Superheros. However it never allows those things to take away from the story, instead each of these elements adds to the story. Each part is built upon what has came before it. To be honest I find it difficult to find fault with this movie, my one complaint was that it moves too fast, but with multiple viewings it no longer has that problem. I would not have made the Sorcerer Supreme a White women, I would have kept them as an Asian man, but Tilda Swinton is excellent, bald head and all. In fact I like the entire cast, the villain has a good reason for acting and for believing what he does, the script is very underrated and the special effects are amazing.

I wish I could say these things about Strange II, alright the special effects are still amazing, but thats about it. I didn't even like the actors who reappear from the first movie as much. I didn't hate them, nor did I hate the actors who appeared for the first time here. However the story and script is no where as good as they should be, which means that the actors, old and new don't have the material to work with. In fact the movie exists as if the first movie doesn't exist. At the end of Strange I a new villain reveals himself, with a great backstory and motivation which is all ignored. Instead we get a new villain who wreaks havoc because she wants to be a mother. She is the best character in the movie, but her motivation is demented because her children don't exist in our version of the multiverse, but do in others. I liked how she was defeated as it made sense and it was unexpected. The rest was really a case of 'whatever', it filled in a few hours but I will never watch it again. It was just another generic Superhero movie, something that Strange I was not. 

What makes this even more ridiculous was that Doctor Strange is not even that important in his own movie. Sure you can say his character did this or that, but really he is along for the ride, that is not what I paid my money to see. 

When I checked around the 9th May both movies were rated on IMBD as 7.5 out of 10, which for a new big budget movie is terrible. A week late Strange II has lost.1 and is now at 7.4, below Strange I. My prediction is that Strange II will settle at 6.3

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Link Love XIII

The One Hundred And Tenth Month

This month has been quite a good one and it all started with reading a bizarre job description on SEEK, which I wrote about in Lets play a game, whats the job title? Which had nearly as many people check it out as viewed the blog last month. I was encouraged to start an Upon Hope telegram group, which I have done, I post each day using older articles from the site, from the Youtube Melbourne Traditionalists and The Melbourne Traditionalists on Podbean. 

On telegram I have had thousands of views, my top article has 4504 views, my worst two both have 11, it's really all over the place. 

On Youtube I have reached 250 subscribers, but it has done nothing to increase my viewer numbers. For a long time I was around 220 and for a time I even lost subscribers, so to see it up is good but I must admit it doesn't make much sense. 

On Podbean I have 16 followers, for awhile I was getting about half listening to a post, recently it is about a quarter. As always these sites give you raw numbers but they don't tell you much.

On Subscribestar I have 4 subscribestars and 1 inactive, so I am right on the cusp of possibly losing that support. When I joined I needed 5 subscribestars before my account was considered active, I'm not sure what happens if I go under 5, I keep waiting for that to happen. But if you would like to get my content early you can sign up for $1, or more if your feeling generous.

My best day this month was the 21st April when I had an amazing 920 views!

My worst was the 5th May when I had only 31 views, this past month I have had 4,510 viewers.

This is also an unusual month as my Australian visitors have outnumber my American visitors, I think this is the fifth time that has happened in nine years.

Australia	2,475
United States	1,428
New Zealand	64
Germany	61
United Kingdom	58
Russia	55
Canada	35
France	35
Singapore	20
Netherlands	19
Poland	14
India	11
Taiwan	11
Belgium	9
Indonesia	9
Italy	8
Turkey	7
Brazil	6
Hungary	5
Other	176

Australia

2.48K

United States

1.43K

New Zealand

64

Germany

61

United Kingdom

58

Russia

55

Canada

35

France

35

Singapore

20

Netherlands

19

Poland

14

India

11

Taiwan

11

Belgium

9

Indonesia

9

Italy

8

Turkey

7

Brazil

6

Hungary

5

Other

176

The Northman - A Movie Review

I haven't been to the movies in over a year, but I kept hearing good things about The Northman and when I found out it was leaving Australian cinemas this week I decided to get off my bum and see it. This movie cost $60m to make, which means for it to be considered a success it needed to make 160m. So far it's made about $40m. Which is a shame as it's well worth seeing.

I love historical movies, I love seeing how people lived in different times and in different places. But I also want it to really feel like it is a different time and place. I don't want to see current attitudes, clothes or hairstyles. I want to be transported to another time and place. I often have to compromise, to accept the things that are given and to ignore the things that are too much like today. With this movie you don't have too. It is the movie the Vikings themselves would have made. 

The modern world does not intrude into this story and that is the great strength of this movie. It looks and feels like that period of history, it's attitudes are of that time. Here we have a movie were everyone is White and were the main character takes part in a slave raid. It does not pander to modern attitudes. Instead it takes the past seriously and shows us something that we would never see or be a part of. 

The other thing that I really liked was how Norse mythology and mysticism was a big part of the film. It is an extremely Pagan film, even if it starts with the legend AD 895. It shows a pagan world view uncompromisingly, it's glory and it's brutality. There are parts were it is unclear if something is really happening or not, but that fits perfectly. Because this is a saga, an epic tale that is historical and mythical at the same time. 

So do I have any complaints?

Actually most relate to the female cast, Anya Taylor-Joy  is both beautiful and extremely odd looking. In The Critical Drinkers review of the movie he asked if she was an alien. Although her acting is great. 

Nicole Kidman can also act, but her face is an abomination to man and God!

You really can have too much plastic surgery and she is well beyond that point. It was the one thing that took me out of the movie.

Thirdly, why does the Valkyrie have braces on her teeth?

Last is that it can be hard to understand what is being said at times, sometimes they speak English, at others very accented English and at others in Old Norse. 

Okay none of these are a deal breaker and none of it relates to the plot or action. This movie looks amazing and it is well worth two hours of your life, check it out!

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

If You Need To Lie

Can Traditionalism Exist In The Future?

When you think about Traditionalism you think about the past. The word tradition implies the past, in fact we are encouraged to think of something that is traditional as something that is both from the past and of the past. However a tradition is something that comes from the past, continues in the present and is something that we intend to go on with in the future. What it is not is something dead or extinct.

But don't Traditionalists believe in Monarchy and in the Church having a role in society?

Certainly we do. But something that confuses both Traditionalists and non-Traditionalists alike is the idea that we support these things because they existed in the past and therefore we wish to recreate the past. But no such thing can occur, we can never recreate the past, it will never be 1661 or 1991 ever again. The past is for better and for worse gone. But that does not mean that the events of the past never occurred, nor does it mean that we cannot learn from the past. We can, we should and if we are serious about fixing the world we must.

The reason that we look to the past for answers is because the past provides us with numerous opportunities to see how things went wrong and how things were protected or recovered. The past is a place where we can learn without suffering any immediate cost. Something that is often not possible in the present and of course we cannot study the future, we can only speculate or surmise what the future will hold. 

In all philosophies there is a conflict between the world as we believe it should be (theory) and the way the world actually works (reality). Traditionalism is at it's strongest when it aligns itself with reality, with the traditional ways of doing things. So what do I mean by the traditional ways of doing things?

I mean the things that conform to human nature, because at the heart of Traditionalism is human nature, not the way the world should be but the way the world really works. In short, human nature is reality and the more that we take that in to account the better.

But there is a trap within human nature and that is that it is part of our nature to deny our nature. We can become more than we were in the past, we can be smarter, more moral, simply better. That appeal to our vanity is inherent in everyone of the ideologies, including the one we all live under Liberalism. Traditionalism says no that is not true, in reality there are limits to our power and there should be. That we should not set people up to fail, but that we should instead set people up to succeed.

That our nature wants us to love and to be loved, that men and women are designed to fit together, to support each sexes weakness with the others strength. That people want to marry and that they want to stay married. That they want their own children and that they want to be in control of those children. That we are hierarchical and instead of looking up to actors and the like, that we should look up to those who support our society and it's future. That we should respect the past and work towards the future, while always remembering that we live in the present. That we are not mere individuals, that we are at one and the same time members of families, communities, ethnicities, nationalities and of races. 

Human nature will continue to exist in the future and therefore so must Traditionalism. 

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Australia, More People, Less Australians

Arthur Calwell Was The Problem Not The Solution

Over at XYZ a well written and well research article has appeared, The Democratic Labour Party: A Poisoned Legacy. In this article the author Australian Nativist makes the argument that if the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) had not split from the Australian Labor Party (ALP) then when Arthur Calwell became leader of the ALP the White Australia policy could have been saved. Which would or at least could mean that the world of mass immigration and multiculturalism that we live in today might not exist.

However I am not convinced when it comes to Arthur Calwell, or to the idea that the ALP could ever have saved us. 

It is certainly true that Arthur Calwell, who lead the ALP in the 1966 election, was the last major politician to support a White Australia. He was very open and forthright on this point. But like his opponent in that election, Sir Robert Menzies, he often spoke in support of both mass immigration and for restrictive immigration. Well how can you speak in support of both?

Yes these both did.

I will quote from Sir Robert Menzies book Afternoon Light: Some Memories Of Men And Events published in 1967.  

The first quote is from a letter to the Prime Minister of South Africa, written on the 2 July 1960, page 201:

In Australia, as you know, we have a very strict immigration policy, primarily because we don't wish to see created in our own country the tremendous racial problems which you have to encounter.

Page 225

Throughout its history, the Commonwealth of Australia has had - and both sides of the Parliament have supported it - a restrictive immigration policy designed in substance to build up a homogenous population, and to avoid the creation of internal racial problems of a kind which are to be found in the United States and in South Africa, and are, indeed, beginning to emerge in Great Britain.

Page 286

In the United States of America, the word 'liberal' is used in contradistinction to 'conservative', but it seems in recent years, to have acquired a special connotation. When I resided in America for some months in 1966-7, I thought that it threated to become a word which had special reference to racial relations; to 'civil rights'; to the vexed questions of 'integration' and 'segregation'

Thanks to a wise immigration policy, we are free of this problem in Australia, and I hope that we shall never permit ourselves to acquire it.

 Yet on page 59 of his book, Sir Robert writes this:

It had for many years been the settled attitude of the Trade Union Movement that there should be no assisted migration into Australia so long as there was any unemployment in Australia.......

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 centre of unionism, the Trades Halls.

The very large immigration which was then begun, and continues to this day, has been a great factor in Australia's national development and the enrichment of her social life. My own party enthusiastically favours it. But I doubt whether it could have got off to such a good start so soon after the war had it been compelled to encounter trade union resistance.

What must never be forgotten is that Arthur Calwell was Australia's first Immigration Minister, he pushed it behind the scenes. He got the Trade Unions to support such a policy and he got the Labor Party to support such an idea. He also got the Liberal party to support the idea. 

Sure it was supposed to be White immigrants, but that is never where these ideas stay. Each idea is build to support the next idea. So that in time the small breach that has been made in the dam becomes a tidal wave that never ends. The idea that the man who created mass immigration into Australia was our savour is not an idea that can stand on it's own. 

I did an entire podcast on Arthur Calwell and another on Sir Robert Menzies

Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Twelve (27 minutes)

Sir Robert Menzies - The Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Thirteen (27 minutes)

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article That You Might Like?

Thinking Other Peoples Thoughts

Lets Play A Game - What's The Job Title?

This is a real job advertised in Melbourne Australia, it was published on Seek a major job site on Good Friday, 15th April 2022. I won't include the link as I'd really like to see some ideas on what job title people think this job went under.

Applicant needs great organizational skills & be able to multi-task under pressure. Must be self motivated, needs to have strong attention to detail and fabulous people skills. Need to be proactive, savvy, creative, lateral thinking, confident and be able to resource well including having an excellent phone manner. Experience with a PC (all office programs) and MAC system. Our preferred candidate would have technical skills for basic video & photo editing, and an interest and knowledge in Social Media is a plus. This position requires someone who has lots of energy and enthusiasm and a 'can do' attitude and not afraid of hard work or long hours. We are looking for a long term team member. You must be a natural problem solver, we need the solution before the problem!  

I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the job description.

What's the job title?

It didn't take long, here is the correct answer:

Anonymous21 April 2022 at 14:32

admin assistant

That's right, this job description is for an Admin Assistant role!

To Help Support My Work

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

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like?

Will Wokeness Win?