Prince SimpRobert Hampton
Nothing humiliates the British royal family more than an American divorcee.
King Edward VIII gave up his throne to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson in 1936. Now Edward’s great-great nephew, Prince Harry, is resigning from the royal family to please his wife, Meghan Markle, a previously-divorced mulatto actress. Something must be amiss in the Windsors’ genetic line . . .
Prince Harry’s decision exemplifies the stupidity women inspire in men and the sordid state of monarchies. We expect royals to be better than mere mortals. But in our current age, they’re just simps to modernity. (Simp, for the older readers, is slang for “Suckas Idolizing Mediocre Pussy.”)
Harry and Meghan have enjoyed unprecedented media adoration since their engagement was announced in 2017. The press couldn’t get enough of the most eligible bachelor in the world settling for an older, mixed-race feminist (Markle was born in 1981, Harry in ’84.) Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch said the marriage would change Britain’s understanding of race forever and make it “impossible to argue that being black is somehow incompatible with being British.”
The marriage fulfilled the wish expressed by the Lady Gavron in 2000 that Prince Charles should’ve married a black woman to symbolize Britain’s new multicultural society. It may not be Charles, but his second son is close enough. Markle’s royal resignation was defended as a reasonable reaction to Britain’s inherent racism.
The media loved Markle because she indulged the narcissistic fantasies of affluent white female liberals (AWFLs). Here’s a feminist who doesn’t settle for less who nabbed a literal prince. As a royal, Markle dedicated herself to advocating for left-wing causes, such as MeToo and the gender pay gap. One of her chief causes was “decolonizing” the curriculum in British higher education and demanding the nation’s universities hire more non-whites and women. She even shouted “Oh my god!” when presented with the number of white male professors in the UK. As an 11-year-old, Markle fought against the terrors of sexist advertising. She carries on her mission as a royal, saying, “If things are wrong and there is a lack of justice and an inequality, someone needs to say something — and why can’t it be you?”
Most royals focus on apolitical causes—Markle decided this restriction was beneath her.
Like the stereotypical AWFL, she plans to raise her son in “a gender-neutral way.”
Her wedding also tried to diversify royal tradition. She chose Episcopalian minister Michael Curry—a black American who devotes most of his time to Black Lives Matter and LGBT causes—to deliver the wedding sermon. Curry offered a typical black minister performance that seemed to unnerve the royal family. A highlight was him declaring “dat’s FIAH.”
Michael Curry speaks on Hebrew Scriptures and frequently mentions Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the power of love (fire) #RoyalWedding #HarryandMeghan #Meghan pic.twitter.com/CrB4C8QXA6
— אלברט בנימין הווארד (@AlbertHoward888) May 19, 2018
Additionally, a black gospel choir replaced the traditional choir at the wedding.
Markle walked alone down the aisle because she didn’t want her father to attend the wedding. She also made sure that the vows were feminist-friendly.
Since joining the royal family, Markle has tried her best to cause drama within the family. Her behavior caused a rift between Harry and his brother, Prince William. The beloved couple didn’t attend the royal family’s Christmas to avoid Harry’s relatives.
AWFLs have loved this brown-skinned feminist shaking up things in Buckingham Palace. It’s just like their favorite romantic comedies, complete with a stuck-up family not ready to accept the new world. Prince William and Kate Middleton—paragons of what royals should aspire to—make for the perfect villains. They’re just too white and stale. Markle is a diva who won’t take shit from anybody—not even a Queen!
“A half-black, American divorcee from a humble background is not supposed to tell the Queen of England she believes she can create a better life for herself and her son, without her, her family, or their pomp and circumstance,” Daily Beast columnist Keli Goff writes. “And yet that’s just what Markle did.”
And thankfully, she has her obedient man to follow behind her every step of the way. Behind every strong woman is a weak man serving her every need. Harry’s behavior is atrocious and shamefully beta. At a recent event, Harry approached Disney executive Bob Iger and pathetically begged the billionaire to give his wife a film role, any role, even a voice acting gig. This is a strapping young royal bending the knee before a Jewish media mogul. Twenty-first century power dynamics could not find a better representation.
They are trying to take down this video of Prince Harry asking the CEO of Disney to give Meghan a job! Be a shame if this went viral. Pls do not RT pic.twitter.com/SKlCImSN83
— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) January 13, 2020
Markle’s new fantasy is milking her husband’s family brand for profit. The couple is seeking a global trademark for “Sussex Royal,” which will allow them to slap their royal affiliation on a host of cheap products. So noble, so virtuous, so empowering, so independent. Markle’s strong independent woman facade would be impossible without her husband’s name and simping.
Prince Harry’s humiliation testifies to the destructive power of pussy. Men with the world before them will give it all away just for coochie. Harry could literally have any woman he wants; he chose Meghan Markle. Harry should’ve never dated her, and he should’ve never married her when he learned of how much her own family despises her. Otherwise smart, reasonable men will make the most braindead decisions when it comes to women. They’ll allow women to control them and ruin their lives. They’ll alienate friends, family, and dreams all on behalf of a conniving femoid. Game blogs are not without vices, but they at least offer men better advice than simping. Harry could’ve saved himself from disaster with just a few hours of reading Heartiste.
Harry’s behavior calls into question the superiority of monarchy. Many within the Dissident Right long for royal rule. They admire the accomplishments of the Habsburgs and Stuarts. They say they’re better than the mob rule we suffer today. They will dismiss the personal flaws of modern monarchs as the fruits of heresy, usurpation or some other sin.
The Windsors certainly have their flawed representatives. Harry’s uncle, Prince Andrew, is a scumbag who was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein and had sex with underage girls. Harry’s father, Prince Charles, may not have married a black woman, but he wants to embrace Britain’s multiculturalism by becoming the Defender of Faiths; Defender of the Faith is no longer good enough. Prince Charles’ uncle and mentor, Lord Mountbatten, was likely a pedophile. There is also the aforementioned King Edward VIII who abdicated his throne for coochie, altering world history for the most pathetic of reasons.
Some reactionary contrarians like to insist the Stuarts would never sink to such depths, but that’s a questionable point. The Habsburgs, another reactionary favorite, was filled with sexual deviants and idiots. Franz Josef’s only son, Crown Prince Rudolf, murdered his lover and blew his brains out in what may have been a suicide pact. This disgraceful episode was in line with the rest of Rudolf’s sordid short life. Wilhelm Habsburg, a would-be king of Ukraine, was a promiscuous bisexual who sold out his countrymen and friends with relish.
Many current monarchs support the dispossession of their own countrymen through immigration. Prince Charles said mass immigration skepticism is similar to the “dark days of the 1930s.” King Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden constantly tells Swedish leaders to do more to help migrants. King Harald V of Norway delivered a passionate speech in 2016 outlining his support for mass immigration, diversity, and LGBT causes.
Some identitarians imagine monarchs as divine saviors, but they’re really just globalist elites in swankier outfits. A restored Bourbon/Habsburg/Stuart House would act the same as the Windsors—possibly even worse—in our age. Rather than resisting modernity, monarchs submit to it.
Our hope for salvation lies with the people, not with princes who sell their birthright for a crumb of coochie.
It was inevitable that if this marriage ran into choppy waters, the cause would be discovered to be the ‘racism’ of the British establishment, press and public.
As the article notes, this narrative has been gleefully endorsed by leftist journalists generally indifferent or hostile to the antics of the British Royal Family. And naturally it finds universal acceptance among Her Majesty’s BAME (Black and Minority Ethnic) subjects, who treasure the Duchess of Sussex as one of their own.
We see this syndrome again and again: an ‘ethnic’ person is elevated to some position of civic duty and responsibility, falls short, and ‘plays the race card’. The employing institution is plunged into crisis, litigated against and a witch hunt for ‘institutional racism’ commences. And yet we are told that such persons are integral to the future of public organisations and the nation itself.
The University of Manchester, seeking to burnish its reputation, has recently hired ‘woke’ Guardian journalist Gary Young as Professor of Sociology. Mr Young, who does not hold a doctorate, has repeatedly invoked his experiences as a black man to berate Britain and the US for what he sees as entrenched and intractable racism.
Who would dare speculate on the likely outcome of his new academic turn, or the fallout for his employer?
Is not the definition of insanity trying the same thing again and expecting different results?
Maybe, just, maybe, consider that neither christianity, nor paganism is the balm that will heal the western soul?
Pardon my confusion, but are you honestly suggesting that the answer to Western Man’s current troubles is to embrace Judaism? That would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. I certainly agree with Mr. Wood that there is something terribly wrong with Christianity, the chief issue (in my estimation, at least) being the perverse worship of a Jew as God, and I commend him for seeing its problems and moving on. But Judaism is the answer? For gentiles?
Let’s understand something: Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures are for Jews, not for gentiles. These pathetic Hebrew roots Christians and others who have left Christianity altogether to embrace the Jewish faith are a laughingstock. They are trying to be something they are not, never were, and never will be. Judaism is an ancestral faith, peculiar to Jews. It’s in the DNA, so to speak. The slightest amount of research into the Jewish mindset will make this very clear to the sincere seeker.
I say again, a Jew then, is not the same as a Jew now.
The Gospels are full of Jesus’ condemnations, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of the father ye will do.”
Remind you of anyone?
I urge you to re-read the Gospels having in mind the notion that you are witnessing a “power play” between two factions; the foreign imposter/usurpers having gained the upper hand in controlling the temple, and the genuine Jews trying to regain control, led by Jesus the Son of God.
Does this scenario match anything you are witnessing today. Ring any bells?
Then, read the OT and some of the Talmud. What do you think? Written by the same people?
A lot of smart people here, but sometimes the smart ones miss the obvious.
Surely they are not entirely different. And why should whites identify with people on either side of a Jewish quarrel?
Sorry, but the argument that amounts to, “Jesus hated ‘the Jews’ as much as I do, so let me bow down and worship that particular Jew, Jesus, for his admirable antisemitism,” seems, to put it as delicately as I can, wacko.
We can both certainly agree that there was enough of a Graeco-Roman influence in the gospels to draw a distinction between the character of the Christ and the character of those nasty Jews — who really haven’t changed much since then. But gentile influence notwithstanding, the central premise of orthodox Christianity remains the worship, as God, of a descendant of David of the house of Judah — it’s in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, for crying out loud. If you can square that with your White Nationalism or whatever it is you believe in, then you deserve this year’s award for Best Cognitive Dissonance.
As I said to a friend who’s been trying to get me interested in this royal debacle, I do not support the Windsors, even though I am an ardent monarchist. We live in the 4th turning, and all institutions of the past are irreparably corrupt. New monarchs and new dynasties will arise which are worthy of the Mandate of Heaven, and the Windsors will hopefully be jettisoned, forgotten and never spoken of again.
I think William and Catherine and their three children are setting a fine example for the future of the Monarchy so far. What’s not to love.
Yes, agreed, but also agree with Alexander O that there is still hope with William and Catherine. There is something worse than having a monarchy of whatever type, and that is not having a monarchy. A New Zealand Republic for example would be irredeemably banal – as if it isn’t bad enough already. We’d have a president selected from some ‘sports celebrity’, or some other puerile dunderhead, like we have had with many of our Governor Generals over the past few decades, when tradition gave way to PC.
Why is modern Western Man so bent on destroying himself? He thinks he will be loved and admired for his generosity, his openness, his tolerance, his altruism; but his enemies see only an opportunity to destroy the entities they have hated all along. They see these qualities as weaknesses to be exploited — not as the strengths which Western Man thinks of them as.
I blame Christianity. It has provided in its ethical code and various cultural manifestations a formula for self-destruction. One can only hope more people will wake up and see this connection before it’s too late.
I don’t know. I, myself, am an agnostic. But I don’t think we can blame this on Christianity. Christianity has been around for 2000 years and this sort of craziness hasn’t started till recently. There are many Christians who are not Christian Zionists or Racial Egalitarians. See Occidental Dissent, for example
Jud, oh I agree that there is much more at work here. Namely, certain people, groups, and social, political and philosophical movements bent on destroying Western Man. I guess what I meant to say was that Christianity softened us all up — it has made so many in the West passive to this aggression by its very teachings. You know, “turn the other cheek”, “do not repay evil with evil”, and the whole martyr complex, “suffering for the kingdom’s sake”, i.e. the next life rather than focusing on this one. I am speaking from personal experience when I say it was ingrained in me at a very early age in my Christian upbringing that worrying about things such as race and ethnicity and other such “worldly pursuits” were not only misguided but morally wrong. The important thing was worshiping a particular Jewish man as God — bringing the irony full circle.
Without Christianity there would have been no “Western Man,” not Western high culture; what part of ‘pacifism’ and cosmopolitanism were expressed in the Gothic West?
Are you seriously contending that there was no higher culture until Christianity came along? Do Greece and Rome ring a bell? I’d rather not so readily give up on so much of our glorious heritage.
Your remark about the “Gothic West” undermines your point, since everything manly and warlike about the Germans was already long established – and being observed by outsiders – well before the first tonsured monk showed up. Take a look at the Heliand (the Saxon Gospel) to see to what lengths the missionaries had to alter the Christian message in order to make it palatable. That such a syncretic form with a strong current of pagan values should take a long time to disappear is unsurprising. Today we live amid the detritus when those elements are worn away….
Mr Donaldson, the reference was to “the West”, not to classical Greece and Rome; distinct culture organisms.
Please enlighten me as to how we get to “Western man” by disregarding Greece and Rome. And it’s not just a matter of the ancient world, but of the Renaissance as well. I suspect that to keep this nebulous concept afloat, we have to perform some sort of no-true-Scotsman-like mental surgery to cut away all that is not Christian? Then we can congratulate ourselves on discovering that the West and Christianity are synonymous.
To add a postcript to my comment, gossip has it that the Vancouver Island house that Harry and Meghan stayed at is owned by one of the Russian millionaires. If I get the name I’ll post it
A brilliant article. For a moment I thought I was reading The Daily Stormer.
Don’t be alarmed…this is indeed high praise.
Otto von Habsburg, former head of that dynasty, was for many years a good friend and sponsor of “count” Coudenhove-Kalergi, we must assume that he agreed with the infamous Kalergi Plan to transform Europe into an Afro-Asiatic extension of the Middle East.
No, Otto took over the Pan-Europa movement and sought to make it a different movement from Kalergi’s. His ideal was a corporatist Europe that rejected both Marxism and plutocracy, inspired by traditional Catholic social doctrine.
Otto “friend of the Turk” Habsburg.
His ancestral namesake is turning in his grave.
Prince Charles, may not have married a black woman
Diana was a ditzy party girl – the only difference between her and Megan, apart from her race, was a lifetime of learning British social codes and thirty years’ evolution of virtue signal values.
In her biography, the author makes the mistake of starting off with about thirty pages of Diana’s own words, disclosing the airbrained bimbo beneath the courtly comportment.
Wasn’t she a virgin when she met Charles? She seemed more like a prole than anything else. Proles like to go to the disco, but most of them aren’t Paris Hilton level. Her son also, seems more like a regular brainless British lad lacking in values than some cringe beta.
Bad and all as the Windsors are, one must expect that the only reason Harry was allowed to marry La Markle in the first place was due to his own questionable origins. Even the Queen must balk at the idea of an illegitimate mongrel on the British throne.
Imagine if (God forbid) the line of succession got rubbed out and Archie I came to the throne. Perhaps The Rev Dr Al Sharpton could place the crown upon the the young octoroon’s nappy haid during the coronation. He did say after the fairy tale wedding of Markle and Windsor, “Ah believes dat white supremacy is almost daid.”
I’m glad that Prince Harry has embarrassed himself. I hope this gets much worse and he becomes a laughingstock. It would undermine the narrative that mixed race relationships are a positive.
>Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch said the marriage would change Britain’s understanding of race forever and make it “impossible to argue that being black is somehow incompatible with being British.”
LoL It seems that Markle just did.
Being Black or any of the other 50 shades of Brown, is incompatible with being English. The Brexit vote is indirectly saying this as well. Lovely, green, rose-covered cottage England is just not the same anymore since the invasions began.
It’s still there. I know for a fact. But the invasion has definitely endangered it, along with the internet making the secret ‘true’ England too accessible (photogenic, you see – goes down well on instagram). English Heritage is being pushed to ‘diversify’ for dubious reasons, so the ‘green and pleasant land’ is certainly within their sights. But i know the views of the real people of England, and we don’t like it one bit, and when we get to talk honestly in private, we agree that the browning is not what we want.
Of course, let’s not forget who boasted about introducing Markle to Harry.
My first thought on learning of the coupling–‘has this guy ever been to even a second-rate strip club?’
Meanwhile, here in Trumplandia, we have the lowest Black unemployment since slavery! 😀
But seriously, I have a hard time getting into the British royals–or any modern royals, for that matter–because they’re really just more vapid celebrities with annoyingly conventional opinions. Now, if they actually ran anything, that might make them more interesting … but it’s been a long time since that was the case.
Mob rule? What we suffer is Jew rule. I would gladly suffer under true democracy, if only we could finally be rid of Jewligarchy!
You didn’t know that was just a cheezy cover-story? The reality is that Edward VIII was forced off throne more because of his politics than because of love life: he was privately an admirer of Mussolini and Hitler, and seeing Bolshevism as a far greater threat to Britain than either Fascism or National Socialism, he hoped to avoid any wars with Germany or Italy. Edward VIII may well have been Britain’s last based monarch. Needless to say, that didn’t sit well at all with the rest of the (((Brit establishment))).
Just to be balanced about men going bonkers for sexual favors, some established and purportedly sane men have gone ga-ga for bum-boys, Jeremy Thorpe and Lord Brown come to mind.
As a loyal British subject with dual citizenship in the Markle’s new country of choice I thought that you wrote a most enlightening article.
Currently the Markle’s are vacationing on Vancouver Island which is”o’er the water” from here and is perhaps the whitest corner of Canada. (Lovely $10million waterfront house they were roughing it at).
Whether the two are hypocrites, wanting their cake and eating it too or are part of some elaborate scheme to do with Brexit remains to be seen. The speculation is that Harry will be our next Governor General based in Ottawa and Meghan will host a TV show near her friend Jessica Mulroney, daughter of the ex P.M., all to facilitate trade between the two nations.
Has the Royal Family finally met it’s match or is she just another fly that stepped into the parlour?? Stay tuned and avoid tunnels late at night.
I thought Vancouver was basically China West at this point.
It is. But Hamburger there is a common confusion between Vancouver, the city, and Vancouver Island. They are separated by the Georgia Strait and an hour and a half ferry ride.
The best (i.e., funniest) part of Curry’s performance was how everyone, from the BBC to the NYT etc. called him “an American bishop” or “a bishop from Chicago.” The Episcopal Church is called such because all the top folks are equally bishops — no “archbishops,” no cardinals, certainly no popes. However, they do need a leader, so they elect a “Presiding Bishop” for a term. That chap happens to be Curry. So calling him “an Episcopal minister” is like calling Pope Francis “a priest from Rome.” I can assure you, everyone at the HQ on Second Ave. in NYC was quite upset. Ha!
An interesting essay on feminism:
Devastating article, and true in every word.
On the subject of monarchy, I would only respectfully suggest that the Hohenzollerns generally did better than most when it came to choosing wives; at the very least, their choices were not disastrous, and at best they were actually beneficial.
Of the European ruling houses, they were the best of the bunch, from a dissident-Right point of view; and when they still had the right instincts but lacked genius, they generally knew to whom to delegate the decision making (Bismarck).
It’s not insignificant that it was their state specifically that was legally wiped off the face of the earth after WWII, though the NS power base was in Bavaria, not Prussia. Germany has not been the same since Prussia was completely and utterly deleted. The Allies knew that they were doing: they effectively lobotomized Germany by exterminating Prussia, or at least permanently de-clawed it, to the detriment of us all.
Corinna von Hohenzollern
If you ever feel bad about having done X or not done Y in your life, and that you’re enslaved by your circumstances, consider this:
This guy had it all. He’s rich, attractive, tall, served in the Royal Marines, is a literal prince, and could’ve basically married any 20-something girl in the entirety of the UK.
But instead, he chose to marry an older, divorced, mixed-race woman who alters her physical appearance in order to look more While, all the while denigrating White people.
He had it all, choose poorly, and has now lost it all, being de-facto exiled from the Royal Family. Whereas you, dear reader, would’ve almost certainly made better use of your life circumstances had you been born into the same social strata he did.
Small white pill, but I’ll take it. Thank you.
The flip side, interestingly, is that it was his very affluence which allowed him to make such a blunder, once that harpy had her hooks in him. More than a few of us were probably similarly simp-like in our younger years to manipulative Shakespearean-Cleopatra types, but were only prevented from screwing up royally (pun intended) by surrendering our lives to them by our impoverishment.
If i had been in his position i would have never made it beyond that afghanistan stuff and would then be on trial for war crimes.
if thats a thing.
can a monarch be charged for war crimes?
Something must be amiss in the Windsors’ genetic line . . .
Ahem, i think you mean Saxe-Coburgs… Windsor was a rebranding exercise to Anglicise them.
Btw this lot have been a load of cobblers for quite some time. Just going to leave this little-remembered gem here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ZMC8cV3to
They are illegitimate, a bunch of clowns. Harry’s mother went off with an Egyptian playboy after ditching Charlie FFS. The great-grandmother was just a deb like Diana. At least Wills is trying to make a proper go of it with Chaz. He was always the one with the sense of duty. His brother had to pay a penance for his tabloid headline mistakes like calling a squaddie friend ‘paki’, and dressing in a Nazi outfit for a party. That’s why they let him go with the mulatto. If Harry had showed up with an African princess he picked up at Mahiki before the line of succession was secured through Wills, they would have given it the kibosh immediately.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment