1,340 words
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.
67 Comments
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?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.leavingjesus.net/LeavingJ/LeavingJesusdotNet_Leaving_Jesus_Book_Revised_Edition_06_12_2013.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwik9pPrkYbnAhWj_CoKHbL-C_8QFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw0nKQbBA_38ILqM7vMotBkE&cshid=1579109705349
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?
Jake:
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.
Messenger,
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
I think this analysis of Christianity as the cause for the West’s decline is wrong. For one, we’ve had Christianity for over 1000 years in Europe, but ethnomasochism for about 50. Correlation, causation and all that. Was Richard the Lionheart a cuck, too? How about Charlemagne? Ivan the Terrible? Was he an SJW?
For two, Marxism , and the Egalitarianism it espoused , is the much more likely culprit here. Marxism, of course being Atheist, and Marxist societies ALWAYS being anti-Church. Marxism, of course, is heavily Jewish. I believe Marxist-Socialist (and thus, Atheist) egalitarian values are much more at play than Christian humanitarian ones.
For three, a Christian identity is a much stronger bulwark against Jews and Muslims than an agnostic or an atheist one. An Atheist creed is inherently nihilistic and it’s very difficult to attach transcendent meaning to life from raw empiricism alone. Plus, even if you aren’t religious yourself, you must realize and admit that a religion is a good thing for a society to have. A moral compass, a spirituality, a common bond, common rituals, and a transcendent, permanent meaning and a foundation tale. These are common across all societies. Only the West since the 1960s lacks that. Even if you personally don’t buy it on principle, that’s not to say it isn’t beneficiary for the common good.
For four, the implication is that Whites are so deeply, deeply steeped in Christian values that we are trapped within the invisible walls of thinking along the lines of the New Testament…. I call bullshit on this. How many Whites have actually read the Bible? How many even care? Is the implication that radical SJWs (who outright reject Christianity, vociferously) are subconsciously Christian? I simply don’t buy this theory. I’ve crossed swords with many SJWs in my time and never once did I ever get the inference that they were even subconsciously influenced by Christianity. In fact, I got the feeling they were intensely opposed to the Christian faith as a matter of principle and that they viewed it as either:
A big lie to fool the masses into living a certain way
Yet another arm of the vicious dastardly beast known as White People (Crusades etc)
Promoting socially conservative values
Even if Christian values are subconsciously ingrained into our institutions, e.g., our laws, then this is quite an anomaly too when you consider that the law did not allow for mass colored immigration until some outgroups (Irish and Jewish) changed it; and all around the West, similar situations occured- Clement Attlee , the Labour leader who in the late 40s opened the gates of Britain to the world – I would really have a hard time believing he did so out of his subconscious Christian values.
Is it even accurate to say that humanist egalitarianism comes from Christianity? There’s ample evidence that Whites were always fairly egalitarian – from living in colder climes, we learned to co-operate with each other more. Desert people have less trust since in the easier climate they didn’t have to rely on strangers as much.
For five, Christianity actually did away with a lot of degeneracy that took place before it. The sanctity of the Child, for example, is a Christian ideal, that did not exist in ancient Rome or other European pagan societies. Monogamy too, among others. People on the Right love to tubthump about Rome, but actually, ancient Rome was pretty darn degenerate. I realize it was a product of its time and all that, but the case remains that the Christian middle ages, and the Romantic period, are much more akin to what we are striving for, than a society rife with slavery, sodomy, and all sorts of depraved violent / sexual acts taking place.
For six, belief in a Prime Mover is basic common sense (do Atheists seriously believe that Everything just came from Nothing?) and once you believe in a Prime Mover you may as well then comply with the most Euro-centric and most White iteration of that idea; namely, Christianity.
I also believe that Christianity is just a good fit for Whites – Whites, even in pre-Christian times, were always more empathetic and more respectful of women, and so on, than non-whites were. Put it this way: I don’t think White Sharia would ever work.
I do respect pre-Christian european religions as being our original faith/s, but the infrastructure does not exist to re-kindle these faiths (it might in the future though – who knows) whereas a re-awakening of Christian values is much more realistic and feasible. In fact I believe we will see a re-awakening of the Christian faith across the West in the near future. Some say this is fanciful; but it’s only ~50 years since a vast majority of Whites globally were practising Christians. Whereas it is many centuries since they were practising Pagans (of whatever variety). Also, a Christian identity is an implicit White identity. Christianity would bring back White society many things it lacks: monogamy, strong families, no birth control, large families, less hedonism.
When people say “Christian”, they mean “White”. Of course many christians are Non-White, but in terms of the achievements of Christianity, they all came from Europeans. Besides, it’s just as well that we did proselytize to these Africans and Amerindians; imagine the Muslims had got there first. I shudder to think – an entire Africa and an entire South America full of Muslims? Yikes.
I blame Marxism for our situation. I take the point about Christianity and its meek values – but what would be wrong with love thy neighbor type values if the country was homogeneous? Wouldn’t this actually, be desirable? Judaism, and the Jewish people, are founded on paranoid, backstabbing, low-trust values, and look at what sort of a people they are.
1. I think Pope Francis is a true Christian and Richard the Lionheart wasn’t. The church hid a lot of its teachings to convert the Germans, but the protective coating dissolved over time, especially when Protestants started actually reading the Bible and began LARPing as Jews.
2. Christianity was egalitarian long before Marxism.
3. Christianity makes believers spiritual cousins with Jews and Muslims. It is all the same God. And Christianity creates a porous community that allows in Jews and Muslims by simple conversion, even though both religions preach deception and oath-breaking as tools of advancing themselves.
4. Even if we grant that having a religion is better for a society than not, (1) Christianity is effectively dead in many European societies, so (2) if they were contemplating creating a new religion or reviving a dead one, why would you regard Christianity as better than a non-universalistic pagan folk-religion that would be truly impervious to Jews and Muslims rather than suckle at the same teat with them?
5. People obviously don’t have to read the Bible to be influenced by it, given that throughout most of the historical period when the West was Christian, the masses were illiterate and the Bible existed only in foreign languages. If Medieval peasants could be Christian in their values, then so can modern SJWs.
6. White people are probably more susceptible to egalitarianism. All the more reason to have a religion that opposes it.
7. Monogamy was a pre-Christian value for whites. Not sure what you are getting at with the “sanctity” of the child. Please say more.
8. As for the Prime Mover: It is Christians who believe that the universe was created out of nothing by God. A materialist doesn’t say the universe was created out of nothing. He says that it was uncreated. Why assume everything has to come from something else? An uncreated universe is, if you think of it, a prime mover — it is something that was not caused by an antecedent cause. Your system has an uncreated being, “God.” IF you can accept that God is uncreated, why not just simplify the picture by accepting the universe as uncreated?
9. Christianity is not the same as whiteness. There have always been non-white Christians. Soon there will be more non-white Christians and white ones. In fact, it may already be the case.
10. Marxism is only a small part of the problem. The bigger problem is the Jewish hydra from which the Marxist head was sprung. But none of that would have likely mattered if the white race had not been softened up by centuries of Christian indoctrination.
If White people were always more egalitarian, how can they then have been softened up by Christianity? What’s not to say that some kind of European religion wouldn’t have sprang up that would also be too soft given that this is the way we are?
Again, correlation ≠ causation. I think the modern Church’s zeal for SJW issues these days is more jumping on the cultural zeitgeist (Marxist-Jewish) bandwagon for relevance and hopeful of a following, than them showing their ‘true colors all along’.
The infrastructure is there for Christianity to grow again. There’s churches all over the place. I would like a more distinct European pagan religion taking off, but I just see it as more unlikely. I am sold on the idea that a society that has no faith at all is doomed to fail, though.
The further north you go, the more co-operative people get, out of necessity, to the extent that Eskimos will even share wives. This high trust, individualist spirit is inherent in Whites. I haven’t read Kevin MacDonald’s new book yet, but I would be interested to hear to what extent he gives Christianity as the reason for our decline.
The pro-life lobby is massively Christian. The idea of the child having a right to life – I dont know for certain but I think this came from Christianity.
Guillaume Faye has an interesting take on Christianity holding back transhumanism – in Sex & Deviance he actually seems to advocate creating/cloning new White people in petri dishes. While our birthrates are too low, that’s a bit outlandish for me. Unless it comes down to that, I think we should make babies the old fashioned way. I think the Christian idea of the sanctity of life is a good starter in that direction.
There are some things we do not understand and the origin of the universe is one of them. Not only that but modern (((science))) is full of Jewish lies – Einstein for instance. I am increasingly distrustful of mainstream science (those that aren’t Jews are literal shills for some company or government or other) and as more and more weird things happen I have learned the limits of an empiricist worldview. I also subscribe to the intelligent design theory of the universe. There is definitely order in nature.
It’s interesting to note that ‘The Movement’ seems to be becoming increasingly Christian. Nick Fuentes, Andrew Anglin, Owen Benjamin among others are embracing a Christian – specifically, Catholic – worldview. Christianity was always opposed to the over-sexual hedonism we see today. the counter-argument to this would be that Christianity – specifically Puritan versions of it – bottled up that which can’t be repressed and brought about its own demise. The only snag is that those who push the oversexed agenda are Marxists and Jews, so it wasn’t self-caused.
Christianity is of course not strictly synonymous with “White”, but it is similar to the way that when Ann Coulter says “Americans” in her books, she means “White people”. Increasingly “American” is no longer synonymous with “White” – is that to say that to be an American doesn’t connote being White?
People revolt against something when it is antithetical to their interests. Did Christianity suddenly become antithetical to White interests in the 1960s? I don’t think it did. I think Marxists and Jews hounded at Christianity and other pillars of our civilization e.g. Maleness and have eventually brought them down. I think White people long for a spirituality and a deeper meaning. Why did we reject Christianity? In order to be able to go to the supermarket on Sundays? Now of course we are coming to terms with the fact Christianity is too limp-wristed for the current backs-to-the-wall situation our race finds itself in; but a this retrospection about Christianity’s role in our demise is all being handily done after the event. Has Christianity had the effect on Africans and Hispanics that it has on Whites? Would Black and Hispanic churches let in White refugees? I doubt it, because ultimately I believe in the primacy of race, and those races are more collectivist than we are. I believe our predicament has come about from the natural agreeableness we developed as race towards each other, which has been extended to outgroups, primarily by Socialists and Jews within our ranks. I think it’s a bit of a push to say that Christianity is behind it, and is falling into a bit of a ‘post hoc ergo proper hoc’ trap.
White agreeableness is a potential good thing, in my view, since I would rather live in an agreeable society than a distrustful one. However we need to learn – and I think we are gradually learning – to believe once again in the primacy of race.
As for Muslims and Jews – I believe the primary cleavage between us and them is race, and not religion. Even if we were irreligious, or pagan, there would still be hostilities between our nations and there’s no real way of knowing what the role of Jews would have been if we hadn’t been Christian – they would still be nomadic usurpers, most likely. The current mass migration crisis of Muslims into Europe, and the weak-willed response to it from europeans, could come about due to Whites’ natural egalitarianism. Orban styles Hungary a ‘Christian illiberal democracy’ – the countries in Europe most against the demographic change are the most Christian ones. Is this a coincidence?
Ultimately I don’t think it matters if our society is Christian or not as long as its identity is based on race. A true christian society for example would not have a sub-par replacement rate, and would not allow for voluntary birth control – two of our biggest problems that we would still have even if we repatriated every foreigner tomorrow. As long as it was a sort of ‘White Christianity’ then I think having a national spirituality is overall better than not.
“All men are created equal” is a phrase that’s caused America a lot of headaches over the years, but it doesn’t mean we ought to flood the USA with non-whites who are ‘equal’ to us. By the same token the phrase in the Bible ‘you are all one in Christ’ is not a call to seize the means of production. Plus, for every example of sayings like this in the Bible, there’s counterexamples. A lot of the criticism of quotes is cherry-picked.
god speed:
You seem well aware of the negative influence of various elements of Jewish thought on the modern West, yet you seem to have a soft spot for Christianity and wouldn’t mind seeing it be the uniting force of the West going forward. Does it not bother you at least a little bit that the central tenet of Christianity is worshiping a Jewish man as God? Everything else you say about Christianity may be true, and Christianity can be a positive, uniting force in practice, but for me this one rather perverse and odious feature of orthodox Christianity rules it out as a viable spiritual path for self-respecting, racially conscious peoples of non-Jewish descent. Maybe I’m just a hard-headed idealist rather than a pragmatist, but in my view a strong, racially conscious and homogenous West that nonetheless worships a stinking, burping, pissing, flatulating first century Palestinian Jew as God seems a bit like an oxymoron to me.
A Jewish man then, and a Jewish man now, are entirely different things.
Muslims can be white (Albania etc.). Christians can be non-white (Copts et al). Japan has the same problems with replacement-level procreation as the west. Japan has a small native Christian population. Albania has below-replacement birthrates and is majority muslim.
Europeans made Christianity into a power structure for themselves, one that had more centralisation than the old religion. That structure was undermined over many years and ultimately usurped by scriptural puritanism which was not dissimilar in its credential attitude to the Levantine scribblings than the Bogomils and Cathars, excepting that they kept all the Jehovah rubbish from the old book (see dualist heresy). Britain had one of the oldest Churches in Europe, but was mostly free from the Levantines from the middle-ages on, until the puritans fucked it up and brought them back in under a surfeit of religious fervour in the 1650s. These nutters also founded the American colonies.
European society was kept in cohesion by Christianity almost uniquely by the fact that the church fathers adopted pre-Christian calendars and methods of marking times of the year. Harvest festivals were a very real and significant event throughout Europe until very recently. Read some old books, they often mention national holidays which were nominally Christian, yet had pre-Christian origins. I remember going to the harvest festival as a child in the 90s in a heavily atheised city in the UK. It was a big occasion and had little to do with the church or land, yet was still observed.
As soon as money became a means of control, aided by international networks and rapid communication, we were done for, frankly.
Some fair points, and some less persuasive. But the elided first issue is whether Christianity is metaphysically true, not its effect on white racial perpetuity, gender relations, capitalist ‘growth’, the JQ, or anything else.
If true, then we must accept it, and only then inquire into whether its current race-egalitarian version (which I acknowledge to be dominant today) is itself true or false. For myself, I do not know if Christianity (or any theism) is true. From my own religious study and upbringing, however, I am convinced that the SJW/race-egalitarian interpretation of Christianity is merely philosophically allowable (and then only in its softest or most sentimental aspects; antifa criminality, eg, is clearly unchristian), and not in the least mandatory.
My family is overwhelmingly practicing Christians, none of whom supports nonwhite immigration, coddling minority criminals, “slavery reparations”, ‘affirmative’ racism, or the reimagining of America as a ‘diverse’ instead of white nation. This was how most white Christians, at least in America and before the 1960s, saw things. For some reason, Dr. Johnson seems to think the newish SJW “Christians” are somehow more essentially “Christian” than my family and our ancestors (instead of merely recognizing that Christians can disagree about politics – within moral-theological limits – without ceasing to be “Christian”). There is perhaps some bare, intellectually prima facie plausibility to his claim, but it is obviously very far from being dispositive (and again, I intuitively think it’s quite wrong: even if, eg, it was thought that being a good Christian required one to aid {legitimate} Muslim refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria (a debatable proposition viewed from the totality of Christian charitable concerns), it in no way follows that that such aid must take the form of importing these racial and religious aliens into OUR countries, thereby causing initial disruptions to our innocent peoples and risking future conflicts, as opposed to helping them to be resettled into other Muslim/Arab nations).
If Christianity is metaphysically false, I contend it is nevertheless an open question whether a “racially reformed” or more “traditionalist” version of it might not still be superior, in terms of advancing white genetic and sociopolitical interests, to both atheism and any (sure to fail, imo) attempts to resurrect or create anew some form of indigenous eurofolkish religion. Christianity has stood the test of time. Dr. Johnson thinks it’s dying out in Europe. Perhaps what has died out is the political and juridical dominance of Christianity. Sadly, Christians no longer call the shots in European countries. But there is no reason to assume that what exists either must do so, or will do so forever (God help the white man if this is true!). That is a kind of “presentist” fallacy. There may be a renaissance of Christian belief in the future. More likely, I think, is that an ever larger percentage of future racially pureblooded whites will be Christian, even if they continue to exist in overwhelmingly secular societies.
Although the question of how white nationalists should think about the instrumental value of (herewith assumed) metaphysically false Christianity to the race struggle is a very complex one, with different perspectives all being able to marshall plausible arguments, I think we would do well to orient ourselves towards, first, challenging SJW Christianity theologically from WITHIN, to show that there is no contradiction between white preservationism and Christian morality; and second, emphasizing where we agree, or at least are compatible, with Christianity, as opposed to the fool’s errand of attacking Christians and their beliefs, which, esp in America, only further marginalizes us in the minds of those very moderate conservatives whom we most need to convert to race realism if we are to have any shot at achieving real power (even if it’s only the power to be allowed to segregate, separate, and form our own ethnostate).
“Christianity has stood the test of time.”
As if Christianity won out in a free market of ideas, rather than killing off its rivals as soon as it had the power to do so.
And once Christianity could no longer suppress its rivals, it began declining in Europe.
I see no reason why you expect an ever-larger percentage of pure-blooded whites to be Christian in the future, given that even conservative churches sanctify interracial marriages and facilitate interracial adoption.
I have repeatedly stated that our movement needs to be neutral on matters of religion and welcoming of all people who are willing to work with us for white racial preservation. But within that context, I think it is important to have open but civil debates about religion.
I think that like Dr. Johnson says, the movement should be neutral on religion.
Julius Caesar was likely surrounded by Jewish patrons just as much as any Christian leader has been. Also Plato and Pythagorus read and were influenced by the Old Testament when studying in Egypt.
It’s not as simple and generic as people make it out to be. Focus on the demographics. Religious disagreements are secondary.
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.
Who?
When-should our people emerge victorious in the coming racial conflict (which is a highly unlikely outcome, being that our enemy ZOG owns all the big guns, but allow me to be an optimist for the sake of making a point)-the time comes to rebuild and restructure the USA along explicity racial lines and principles (which is how this nation SHOULD have been founded in the first place), we absolutely must deal with the issue of our women. After we settle the problems of the “jewish question” and the “black and brown question” (in that order), we are going to need to address the “white women question”. We certainly cannot allow any so-called “empowered women”, their heads filled with decades of toxic jewish nonsense about “feminism” and other similar ideas, to be part of America 2.0. In short, they are all going to have to subjected to varying levels of re-education and mental retraining-which is, let’s not kid ourselves, going to consume many years to accomplish. There will be no place in our new cleansed ethnostate for jezebels (to use a term from what Professor Oliver called “the jewbook”). Before America can truly start over, it is imperative for our people to realize that our women have been fatally compromised by the enemy and, if we fail to work to bring them back to their senses and restore them to their correct place in society (meaning no more voting rights and no more women being in positions of authority over men, among MANY other things that need to be adjusted), then all of our labors to rid this country, finally and forever, of the jewish menace may end up being in vain. For once our racial enemies have been taken care of, we will still-unless our men have the courage and fortitude to do something akin to what I have here suggested-have female enemies remaining in this land to cause all sorts of potential havoc. I don’t think we in the dissident right can raise the curtain on America 2.0 and begin walking down the beautiful tree-lined morning path to our destiny without defeating ALL of our enemies first.
Oh, I believe there is a much easier solution that that.
Just ensure that all couples of mixed raced marriages are sent to the etnostate of the non-european.
In order to achieve your optimistic outcome, there are certain necessities that are required to be in place – namely, a cohort of European descended men that are physically and mentally hard enough, disciplined enough, and aggressive enough to WIN such a contest. If we can build/transform our men into such a group, our women will return meekly to the fold on their own long before our ultimate victory. No 12 step program needed (the few that don’t will be easily id’d as sociopaths and dealt with accordingly).
The restoration of our men (and women) to our great European archetypes is what Counter-Currents is all about, no? While I stiil have a long way to go in order to fully reclaim what was systematically denied me, CC has done wonders for me since I found it in 2015’ish.
What’s that saying about a nation that divides it’s philosophers from it’s warriors…? – AN
In general I agree with you. However, I wonder if both White males and females will need to adjust. To be really blunt about, having a bunch of women running around ‘barefoot, cookin’ and pregnant’ is likely to be a heady brew for some men and cause them to lose their heads…and perspective.
Get rid of contraception. Get rid of no-fault divorce. End affirmative action. A man who gets a woman pregnant marries her and stays with her.
Those things might restore ‘fidelity’ to the center of male/female relations.
In general I agree with you. However, I wonder if both White males and females will need to adjust. To be really blunt about, having a bunch of women running around ‘barefoot, cookin’ and pregnant’ is likely to be a heady brew for some men and cause them to lose their heads…and perspective.
If women can be said to have “left the fold” as A. Nailer claims, then men certainly have as well. White women report significantly greater feelings of racial solidarity than White men, and nothing about their respective behavior, from dating to hiring, suggests otherwise.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/08/19/new-survey-what-exactly-does-a-white-nationalist-look-like/
Something doesn’t ring about this article. Ad the author himself admits, the prince could have had any woman he wanted, yet Miss Markle just managed to get him wrapped around her little finger! I’m not buying it.
I’m not convinced that he could have had any woman he wanted. He is right homely. Most women could probably not stand to wake up to him every morning. Even Prince Charles had more going for him when he was young.
Also, as an aside, I suspect something is roiling inside of Harry. It is just a matter of time before he sees Meghan for what she is. The wish to be a half-time royal could only have come from her. Get the popcorn machine out, folks. This is going to be a good one.
Following is the opinion of the Thinking Housewife. She opines convincingly that Harry was attracted to Meghan precisely because he wanted out of the Royal Business.
Meghan has taken far too much blame for this. In focusing on her, I have been reporting on the general public reaction. But ultimately, this is Harry’s decision.
Sarah Vine, a writer for The Daily Mail, gives a good theory for why Harry was so attracted to Meghan. (I’ve posted enough links to the Mail here and every single article is surrounded by porn-like images. But you can find the piece online.) Harry wanted out of the whole royal show and Meghan came from an entirely different world. He liked her independent streak and knew she would not just go along.
Unfortunately, I think he will find Hollywood and New York to be just as confining, if not more.
However, I still think that Harry had not considered her entire character when he decided to hitch up with her. She may prove to be too much of a good thing.
The wish to be a half-time royal could only have come from her.
I don’t know. All I’ll say is that something is very seriously wrong when a White manbetrays his race and nation, and the proffered solution is a crackdown on women (restore them to their correct place) as per Anthony Kimball above.
Are White men incapable of acknowledging their own weaknesses, preferring to scapegoat women instead? It certainly looks that way.
@Lexi.
Are White men incapable of acknowledging their own weaknesses, preferring to scapegoat women instead? It certainly looks that way.
It is hard to disagree with you. Some white men’s “solution” is to force others (women) to change completely, instead of changing their own behavior (thereby attracting a better quality woman).
And poor Harry is so weak, so c*ntstruck, that he doesn’t seem to notice anything other than his pigmented parvenu. I don’t watch soap operas; I just wait for the royal family’s shenanigans.
Thats very interesting Lexi but you do know those same men can say “Are White women incapable of acknowledging their own weaknesses, preferring to scapegoat men instead? It certainly looks that way.” as well.
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))).
Yes. Edward VIII actually embodies a lot of what the dissident right would want in a Monarch; he had a visceral understanding of and empathy with his country, with even working-class people; he toured mining villages depressed in the 1930s and said “Something must be done for these men.” This is exactly the kind of One-Nation Hierarchy that we want to see; the perfect synthesis of Left and Right.
Edward’s descriptions of Abos etc. would fit in quite well with race-realist worldview, too.
Of course, marrying an American socialite divorcee roastie was a very bad move — perhaps Harry feels he has to ‘abdicate’ (or his version of abdicate) since he has also married an American socialite divorcee roastie. Edward VIII, however, was a very interesting character, and besides his mistress (and let’s face it, what powerful men of history haven’t had mistresses?) he was basically /ourguy/. If we are to have Monarchy then we would want them to be in his mould. Edward 8th as King and Oswald Mosley as Prime Minister … what a difference that would’ve been! Instead we got the stuttering chain-smoker and the paranoid dypsomaniac….
Markle also happens to be 1/2 black, with actual slaves in her lineage only a few generations ago – a farce for the Royal Family, really. She is also Catholic. She has also posed nude for men’s magazines. She is also of bad character – the burnt bridges with the family explain that. She is also 38 years old. All in all, it’s a complete joke, and their ‘resignation’ doesn’t come as a surprise, but it basically fits in with the picture.
I have always seen Edward VIII as a literally tragic figure, a potentially great man completely destroyed (and with him the fate of his nation) by his tragic flaw: his unforgivable uxorious weakness.
I might even forgive him if Wallace Simpson had been at least remotely aesthetically worthy of the obsession. But she reached Camilla Parker-Bowles levels of astounding ugliness at every stage of her life.
The Windsor simp-ness is matched only by the aesthetic awfulness of their taste in women.
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:
https://www.culturecritique.com/politics/western-women-standy-by-your-man/
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.
Nope:
Corinna von Hohenzollern
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corinna+von+hohenzollern&t=ffab&atb=v54-1&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.es%2FMedia%2F201205%2F15%2FCorinna-carl%2520alexander-hohenzollern–644×362.jpg
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.