The recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II is a sad occasion. It’s comforting that she lived to an advanced age, however. Moreover, she remained physically able, kept her wits about her, and the end was peaceful and not prolonged. Fate was kind to her in that regard. Of course, she lived a remarkably charmed existence in general. She exemplified propriety and dignity, qualities of which I am notoriously deficient. Speaking of contrasts, she was quite a lovely lady, and meanwhile I have a face that can stop a clock.
Of course, it’s all well and good to focus on the positive at a time like this, at least as much as reasonably possible. Still, there’s a nagging question that arises while contemplating her legacy. Failing to address something that monumental would amount to not noticing an elephant in a living room: Why didn’t the Queen do anything to oppose the British government’s treacherous anti-white policies, such as population replacement migration? The answer has some deep implications for the future of the British monarchy.
This question has been much discussed on our side, to which I’ve contributed my thoughts earlier. Here I’ll expand on these. From the beginning, I state my intention to be as respectful as possible toward those with other perspectives here, and of course to the departed.
Tradition, benign neglect, or . . .?
Much has been said about the royal tradition of refraining from politics in the name of national unity. There are reasons for that, and indeed it’s pragmatic not to make political enemies with potentially controversial statements. (For a royal family that might be considered dead weight by some, it’s wise not to ruffle feathers unnecessarily!) That said, they actually do make political gestures on occasion. For a benign example, Princess Diana was well-known for AIDS awareness activism and opposing the use of land mines. That much, in my opinion, was unobjectionable.
All told, there are circumstances in which it’s suitable to break the rules. For example, if you’re driving someone suffering from a medical emergency to the hospital, then committing a traffic infraction is justifiable if it can be done safely and will get you there faster. Likewise, when the stakes are high enough, it’s proper to defy a self-imposed gag order about not talking politics. Refraining in the name of national tradition doesn’t make sense when the nation itself is at stake.
What could’ve been done? For one thing, the Queen could’ve said, “Upon careful consideration, I agree with Enoch Powell.” Even that much could’ve made a difference. If she had done so during the decades before Leftist ideology became the purity-spiraling ethnomasochistic death cult it is lately, there would’ve been relatively little political risk. She would’ve received tremendous grassroots support by telling the British people that she was on their side, and they — meaning everyone from the Tory shopkeeper to the Labour coal miner — would’ve been emboldened by a few modest words of encouragement from on high. Sure, a few Leftist pukes would’ve started their usual hooting about it, but they never supported her, anyway. Moreover, if she’d defied the self-imposed royal gag order about politics, what would’ve been the penalty: Her Majesty being fed Brussels sprouts or something?
Another possibility that’s been raised is that if a monarch were to take any positive action, then it might be countered by malevolent forces in the political establishment. Such action might include measures to curtail the monarch’s already limited powers. The problem is that the potential for this kind of opposition is a pretty meager justification for inaction. Failing to take action because of the possibility of being deprived of the ability to take action doesn’t make sense. Even if it came to pass, then there would’ve been nothing anyone could have done to stop her from exercising the soft power of her influence — like saying that Enoch Powell was right.
All told, intimidation through potential retaliation is a familiar tactic. It’s the reason why so many people who know the score nonetheless won’t do anything to save their society. “But what if I lose my job?” (A good reply is, “Wouldn’t you like to live in a society with no cancel culture, where people can speak their minds freely without looking over their shoulders?”) It’s one thing for someone living paycheck to paycheck at a Woke Capital corporation that will happily throw employees under the bus for opinions expressed outside of work. That excuse runs thin, however, for someone with unfathomable wealth. It’s not like the Queen would’ve been in danger of having to take up bartending or fill out a job application at the local Wimpy’s.
Another line of discussion is that the British royals are figureheads who have no real power — that is, aside from the tremendous soft power that they can wield simply by making a speech. There is something to that, but not what we might think. Discussion on the topic here brought up a recent article at VDARE by two native Britons addressing that point: “The Queen Is Dead. Long Live. . . The Anglosphere?” The author, Peter Brimelow, a man who is well aware of what deviltry I’m capable of, quotes extensively from Sean Gabb, who lists the powers that British monarchs do retain. Granted, they haven’t exercised veto power for the last three centuries, and probably have not exercised their other enumerated powers, either. However, that’s not to say these royal prerogatives couldn’t be exercised, if circumstances demanded it. Resorting to these long-neglected powers would’ve impressed upon the public that this was a matter of tremendous importance.
The real reason
This brings us to another matter. The Queen’s perceived inaction was neither from tradition nor benign neglect. Although she grew up in an elite position in a normal society, this doesn’t mean that she was anywhere near our side. She wasn’t. We may wish otherwise, but wishful thinking and five bucks is worth a cheeseburger these days.
Apparently she got mixed up with globalism, which was quite fashionable with the upper crust on both sides of the pond. That includes the ethnomasochistic anti-white mentality so trendy among limousine Leftists. She had a choice between protecting the British people or siding against them. She didn’t abstain from taking action; she made the wrong choice. As Sean Gabb put it, also in the above-referenced article:
There have been many times since when she should have acted. At all times, she could have sacked the Government and dissolved Parliament without provoking riots in the street.
But so far as I can tell, the Queen has acted only twice in my lifetime to force changes of policy — typically, on behalf of the emerging Politically Correct consensus. In 1979, she bullied Margaret Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to a bunch of black Marxists. In 1987, she bullied Margaret Thatcher again to give in to calls for sanctions against South Africa.
Rather than remaining apolitical as commonly assumed, the Queen willfully pressured the Prime Minister. It was aggressive enough to be described above as bullying. This is merely what’s come to light, of course. Heaven only knows what other sorts of badgering of public officials took place behind the scenes over the years. That one floored me. I thought that Margaret Thatcher was enough of a wormy backstabber in her own right, hardly needing encouragement to break campaign promises and betray British voters!
The implications, sad to say, are less than glorious. By siding with Marxist terrorists and against the embattled Rhodesians, the Queen helped put the thug Robert Mugabe in power. Likewise, she assisted the rise of Nelson Mandela, another Marxist terrorist. Perhaps she thought that Mandela’s bombing campaign was youthful exuberance, and that Mugabe was a compassionate liberal deep down. If so, that didn’t show the best judgment. It’s better for those who don’t know what they’re doing to butt out.
These actions contributed, at least in small part, to the ongoing dispossession and brutalization of whites in these former colonies of the Empire. British people stranded there are still not permitted to return to their ancestral homeland. This is despite the United Kingdom’s government otherwise letting in every two-legged primate that can fog a mirror, giving them preferential treatment in housing and otherwise showering the darlings with welfare bennies. Of course, lest we forget about the people whose lives matter, rule by Leftist tyrants in Zimbabweh and Sow Affikah worsened conditions horribly for the precious Bantus, too. These places, which used to be orderly First World countries under white rule, became Third World hellholes with drastically worsening poverty and crumbling infrastructure. (Golly, who could’ve seen that one coming?) Well, at least dey got deir freeeedom from da downpression by da wypipo.
This is not to say that the Queen was a monster. That distinction belongs to the Mugabes of the world and their goon squads. But unfortunately, she did enable them. It’s easy to be a limousine Leftist if one lives in a palace surrounded by guards, rather than in a jungle like Brixton or Rotherham. It’s the same in the United States, where the loudest “anti-racist” do-gooders and ethnomasochistic airheads usually live in gated communities or lily-white parts of the country. Although some only care about displaying their phony righteousness, and others are twisted with self-hatred, the rest actually are nice people — too nice for their own good, in fact. They have little occasion to experience the street crime and vibrancy they’re indirectly supporting.
This puts the late Queen in the same category as, for example, those Northern liberals who backed the “freedom riders” during the 1960s; some even becoming outside agitators themselves. They believed Southerners just needed to give up their ignorant prejudices, and they’d see that everyone is the same because race is only a skin color. They preached that we must overcome Jim Crow, heed the wise prophet St. Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and everlasting harmony would then blossom between the races. We all know how well that turned out, of course.
Since they were insulated from the personal consequences of their telescopic magnanimity, they didn’t learn a thing. After all, they weren’t the ones getting run out of their own neighborhoods following desegregation. The same types jumped on the bandwagon for another smelly anti-white cause, telling the people in South Africa what was good for them. As the late Dr. William Pierce described their demonstrations so long ago, “One man one vote, one man one vote, bleat bleat baa baa.”
Again, these sheeple weren’t evil; they were well-meaning, but horribly naïve. Their value system was so twisted that these Gutmenschen thought they were doing the Lord’s work. If at all possible, we need to figure out how to undo the brainwashing so they’ll stop doing damage, especially the limousine Leftists.
What is monarchy for?
Spider Man has it right: with great power comes great responsibility. Every government’s rightful Job Number One is protecting the nation, and that’s exactly what the nobility used to do. We tend to think of the British peerage system, everyone from baronets to dukes, as Old Money families with a lot of land. That much is pretty much correct. But under feudalism, there was more to it than that. They were military commanders. Back in the day, even kings took to battle, and not as pogues. That worked out well enough for Alexander the Great, but not so spectacularly for Richard III.
Times have changed, of course. This is especially so now that absolutist monarchy has gone the way of the dinosaur in every major country other than Saudi Arabia. Although the remaining royals generally play a ceremonial role as national symbols, this shouldn’t mean living a luxuriant lifestyle in which tremendous prestige is bestowed without any attendant duties other than attending banquets and glamorous junkets. That would validate the old-school Leftist critique that they’re freeloaders who don’t deserve special recognition or a place on the public gravy train. Monarchs are meant to be leaders at least in some capacity, not merely to look good wearing a crown — so lead they must.
Another thing is that oaths mean something. They’re not just pretty phrases in a ceremony. (If people commonly believe that’s all there is to it, then all sorts of trouble will result. Perhaps they’ll break vows of marriage because “I’m not happy,” with the unspoken premise that someone else is responsible for modulating their emotional state.) Failing to uphold an oath sworn before a cleric is the moral equivalent of perjury. British monarchs take on the title Defender of the Faith, among other things, beginning with their coronation ceremony. In modern times, the Crown has allowed Britain to be colonized by millions of Muslims and Hindus. What was the Defender of the Faith doing about it? If Episcopalians made similar encroachments on Saudi Arabia, their King certainly would be doing something about it.
Is the House of Windsor washed up?
Some hope that King Charles will be an improvement. I wish I could be so optimistic; I certainly wouldn’t place any bets on it. Some other members of the family are even less encouraging. Prince Andrew, entangled in the sordid Epstein affair? Why isn’t he in prison? On that note, the Royal Family unwisely put up with the evil kiddy fiddler Jimmy Savile, until he licked Princess Diana’s hand. It seems they didn’t do their research. If things keep following the same downward trajectory, it might be prudent to at least reboot the monarchy with a new dynasty.
Then there’s Prince Harry, who referred to America’s First Amendment as “bonkers.” Where were those fine scruples about not talking politics? Worse, he had the atrocious taste to pop off like that while residing in the United States. (He’s a repeat offender — as a foreigner living here while using the mantle of his celebrity status, he had the chutzpah to tell us who to vote for. His recommendation, of course, was the senile crook who lately reignited the Cold War. Really, His Royal Highness The Prince Harry should shut his cake-hole.) Kid, it was because of pompous, over-privileged, out of touch, imperious twats like you that we seceded from the Empire!
Other than that, Meghan Markle — need I even get started here? Actually, I think I will. There were those who played the ethnic angle to the hilt during the royal wedding. Exhibit A was the arch-bozo Al Sharpton’s statements on the matter, such as “When you got little white girls in Wales saying, ‘I want to be like Meghan,’ there’s a shift worldwide that white male supremacy is on its last breath.” To me, that sounds more like he’s engaging in the psychological projection of an inferiority complex. Is it me, or does that seem to suggest blacks haven’t really made it until they marry whites? Really, dude? That particular article got some fierce commentary, for example:
It’s pretty pathetic that blacks champion one of their own being married off to a rich, privileged white male halfway across the world as some sort of accomplishment. It is reminiscent of some Medieval battle where one side would slingshot its infected corpses over the besieged castle walls of its foe to infect everybody inside with the Black Plague. I’m convinced the American black exists as a walking suicide bomb to destroy the white race. These people were created by us and they resent it so much that our demise is their only serenity.
You had one job Harry!
Your one job in life was to not marry an American mulatto divorcee.
Congratulations on fucking up the easiest and most luxurious job on planet Earth.
I also wrote about it shortly after the ceremony. I was tempted to hold my tongue, as it seemed mean to piss in the punchbowl. On the other hand, the whole thing looked like a deliberate and insulting attack on tradition, one coming at the worst possible time for the British people. Later, I reprinted an expanded version of it in Deplorable Diatribes. This included additional commentary, including the following in the next section, reflecting my traditionally fascist view about monarchy, which is relevant in this instance as well.
Who needs them, anyway?
Is monarchy even relevant today? Royalty does have a certain air of awe and mystique about it. Still, kings and princes didn’t do anything to attain their roles. They were just born into the job through luck. That’s no guarantee of ability, talent, or reliability. Sometimes they’re weak, inbred, dissipated, or out of touch. There have been some good monarchs in the past, but as political figures, too often they’re fair-weather friends at the very best. The events propelling their families into power usually happened centuries in the past. Therefore, those guys aren’t really all that special today.
It’s more impressive when someone fairly ordinary, perhaps even a salt-of-the-earth commoner, puts in years of effort and rises to the top because he has the right stuff. A few will be those who bring their countries out of a time of crisis. For such a Great One, the fame of his deeds will immortalize him after he’s gone. If he’s overwhelmed in the end — such as Napoleon, for example — this shows merely that he was a man and not a god. If he’s vilified by his enemies, future generations will see more clearly.
Typically, royal dynasties started when a barbarian chieftain took over a country. Several generations later, the heirs aren’t always so awe-inspiring. Sometimes quality starts slipping pretty seriously. Monarchy did serve a purpose when over 95% of citizens were illiterate peasants and only the upper classes were educated. In modern times, there isn’t much reason to keep them around even as figureheads. If Britain needs a mascot, they could pick a bulldog. Wouldn’t a doghouse be cheaper to maintain than a castle?
Why all the hoopla in the first place? At this point, Britain’s House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha Windsor is essentially just a prominent Old Money family. They certainly aren’t even trying to act as real leaders. Not only did British royals relinquish their power long ago, they customarily refrain from voicing their opinions. This gag order is entirely by their choice. So what’s their purpose today?
On the other hand, setting aside my cynicism for a moment, it’s understandable that an ancient tradition like monarchy might have a deeply emotional appeal. This is especially so in a former superpower that’s falling apart at the seams through globalist-engineered population replacement immigration. It’s thus a shame that the figures so greatly revered by the public turned a wedding ceremony into a tone-deaf propaganda show. In more ways than one, this is one of those moments where a royal dynasty’s quality starts skidding downhill.
The way it came across seems rather like a message to encourage the British people to burn some coal themselves, and otherwise accept their planned extinction, eventually to disappear inside a global melting pot. This will seriously erode the Royal Family’s remaining relevance and credibility. Historians will look back on this virtue-signaling stunt as when the House of Windsor jumped the shark.
If we’re to look for a better example, there was Queen Elizabeth I, a doer of great deeds — one might even say a Woman Against Time. For just one matter, colored flotsam was beginning to arrive in London even back then, forming an unassimilable lumpenproletariat, and surely up to the usual sorts of vibrancy. (In later times, this problem recurred which would be named — more politely than I did — the “black poor,” and dealt with similarly.) She was greatly displeased by these “negars and blackamoores” and arranged for them to be sent back to their ancestral homelands. There wasn’t a bit of moralistic hand-wringing or lachrymose hesitation about returning the wretched refuse of Africa’s teeming shores to where they belonged. To paraphrase Skrewdriver, they had to get on that boat and go, go, go. Thus, among many other accomplishments during her reign, the most excellent royal redhead decisively headed off a race problem before it took root, and thereby kept British blood pure. Glory to Elizabeth the Great!
In the present situation, it’s understandable that the white public wants to rally around what remains of our cherished institutions. However, this is a two-way street. For those institutions that won’t stand up for us — or worse, will turn against us in this time of crisis — then the regrettable conclusion is that they’re no longer worthy of our support. Also, it would be wonderful to have celebrities and high-placed ceremonial figures on our side, ones who might even use their influence to help us. We can’t count on that. Instead, we’ll have to expect to go it alone and save ourselves.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
The Homeland Institute’s Third Poll, Part Two: Is National Divorce a Solution?
The Union Jackal, November 2023
G. Gordon Liddy’s When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, Part 2
G. Gordon Liddy’s When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, Part 1
Closing Down the Stations of the Cross
Must Jews Be Able to Feel Safe in Germany?
A Postmortem on Tommy Robinson’s Armistice Day Rally