Counter-Currents
1,048 words
When anyone on planet Earth spoke of “the Queen,” nobody ever asked, “Which Queen?” Everyone knew that “the Queen” meant Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. In that sense, she was the Queen of the world. In the global imagination, Elizabeth II stood for all the queens of the world, indeed all the monarchs of the world, as well as standing for the UK and its various offshoots and possessions all around the globe as their head of state for more than 70 years.
I am an American of largely English and Scottish descent. Culturally at least, I am part Canadian. In my upbringing, I was steeped in British manners, history, high culture, and popular culture, most of the time without even knowing it. So I like to think I came by my Anglophilia honestly.
Ethnic identity is largely an unconscious thing until something forces you to reflect upon it. For most Britons, that would be a trip abroad. In my case, I never knew just how much of an Anglophile I was until I visited England for the first time. It did not feel like going abroad. It felt like coming home. It hit me again when Brexit went through, and I found myself tearing up to the sound of “The Land of Hope and Glory.”
It hit me even stronger when the Queen died. It felt like losing a member of my extended family, which is technically true, but in a much more attenuated sense than the people who actually grew up as Elizabeth’s subjects. I can only imagine what some of them are feeling. They have my sincerest condolences.
How should race-conscious whites respond to the death of the Queen?
First and foremost by not simply treating it as an opportunity for drawing attention to oneself and one’s politics. Instead, how about beginning by offering condolences, if you can do so sincerely? That’s harder to do the further one is from England and its culture. But a little bit of imagination and empathy should bridge the gap. How would you like to be treated if a member of your extended family died? If that stirs nothing, silence is always an option.
Eventually, though, we will feel called upon to comment politically. How we do so depends on our sense of mission and our sense of audience.
As I see it, our primary focus should be persuading people who are persuadable. Given that our movement has limited resources, we need to fish where the fish are. In the case of the Queen’s death, that means our largest target audience is the vast majority of Britons with a sufficient sense of identity to feel affection for the Queen and loss upon her demise.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
If that is our audience, then whatever we say, we should strive not to sound like the legions of Marxoids and non-whites who are publicly gloating over the Queen’s death. Indeed, we should be using such reactions as an opportunity to point out the unworkability of multiculturalism. That’s an opportunity we forfeit if our own reaction is indistinguishable from Marxoids and Third Worlders.
If, however, one has chosen a more boutique approach to white identity politics, seeking to sway Leftists and Third Worlders over to some sort of neo-Strasserism, then by all means imitate their rhetoric. I support a big-tent approach, including outreach to the mainstreams (Trump voters, British patriots) and the margins (vegans, homosexuals, Marxists, Third Worlders). Just don’t expect your efforts to produce the same return on investment that more mainstream approaches will.
But don’t the people who condemn the Queen for not doing something about the decline of the UK have a point? After all, she was the head of state. She had the power to veto legislation, and the armed forces swore allegiance to her. Imagine what a nationalist monarch could have done in her position.
But this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the British monarchy. The monarch is supposed to be a symbol of the nation as a whole. As such, he or she must be above partisan politics. A monarch has not vetoed an act of Parliament in more than 300 years. And during her 70 years on the throne, the Queen never said a word that did not reflect the consensus of the political establishment as a whole.
Unfortunately, that consensus includes globalization and multiculturalism. It wasn’t the Queen’s job to shape that consensus. It wasn’t her job to challenge it, either, even if she had the imagination and the courage to do so, which she clearly didn’t. Her job was to be a figurehead, a symbol, to preside with grace and dignity over a ship of state whose course is set by other people. Sadly, Britain is following in the wake of the Titanic. Perhaps the Queen’s lot is to be compared to the orchestra on that ship, who did their duty with grace and dignity as well. Now the baton has been passed to Charles III.
When one’s country has gone disastrously wrong, it is natural to wish for friends in high places. That sort of wishful thinking fed the Q-Anon psyop in America, and it feeds many of the angry polemics of British nationalists toward the Queen today.
Sadly, though, we don’t have friends in high places. Salvation will not come from on high, and it is a waste of time and energy to wait and wish for it. Salvation will only come from below, from political outsiders like us who have the imagination and courage to challenge the ruling consensus about immigration, globalization, and white guilt. In short, salvation will only come from our movement. It is a sobering thought, because we’ve got such a long way to go. So the sooner we stop wishing for salvation and start working for it, the better.
During her 70 years on the throne, the Queen gave Britons a real but superficial sense of continuity while aliens transformed their society beyond all recognition. Now that the Queen is dead, many are reflecting on their nation’s decline and may be receptive to our message about what must be done to reverse it. If so, in death the Queen might give nationalists the help she was unable to extend during her reign. But only if nationalists do the work.
* * *
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!
39 comments
Great essay. Greg is such good writer. He’s getting into Sam Francis territory as far as eloquence and incision is concerned.
Thank you
Dr. Johnson is a penetrating thinker and admirably clear writer. But he has a ways to go before he (or anyone else I can think of writing today) shall be said to have mastered Francis’s inimitable wit. I think it was the latter’s humor that set him a bit above every other rightist writer working today (Goad can be pretty funny, I admit, but he in turn has a ways to go before he can be said to possess Francis’s erudition). Sam Francis has proven irreplaceable thus far.
I don’t think we have to defend the Queen in order to appreciated the feelings some people have at her passing. For those most deeply affected by the Queen’s death, it’s not about what she did or didn’t do. Most people have no idea what the Queen does outside of her ceremonial duties. I know I don’t. But it’s the ‘Elizabeth’ as a ceremonial figure that people are going to mourn. Elizabeth occupied the throne the longest of any English monarch. She’s been a fixture on the scene for a very long time and the removal of that thread from the tapestry of some people’s lives is very painful for them. Queen Elizabeth was not an advocate for her race and, as such, was not really an advocate of the England she inherited from those who came before her. In this, she is not unlike millions upon millions of Whites from her generation. Which either humanizes her or casts doubt on the utility of royalty. I cannot decide.
not to sound like the legions of Marxoids and non-whites who are publicly gloating over the Queen’s death
On one of the Russian sports TV channels, a certain person spoke publicly about the death of Queen Liz: “The creature (he means bitch, of course) died, and that’s where she belongs.”
***
While the whole world is mourning the death of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Russian TV decided to insult the memory of the late monarch. It is noteworthy that this was done on the sports channel Match TV live on the program “There is a theme!”. Media manager Konstantin Dolgov was not shy in his expressions. By the way, no one in the studio even thought to stop Dolgov. “The British monarchy killed, tortured, sold into slavery hundreds of millions of people all over the planet. And the attempts of some citizens to make God’s dandelion (which means somethink like “a nice Grandma”) out of this grandmother (Elizabeth II) is, you know, such a fraud, an attempt to keep us all, excuse me, for suckers. So: The creature is dead – and that’s where she belongs. Who came to replace – Charles III. Wasn’t he insulting our president in 2014? Compared him to Hitler…”, Dolgov said.
One British conservative for whom I have a lot of respect is Peter Whittle. In a brief video commentary on the Queen’s death, he remains thoughtful and composed, yet one can easily see the deep anguish and grief on his face. It’s very striking, and a very understandable and common reaction among decent British.
While I have been critical of the Queen’s passivity in some areas, and non-passivity in others, the symbolic value of the monarchy is tremendous. I think that there are still many Britons who are yearning for the kind of continuity which you mentioned. It’s a healthy yearning, and those people don’t have much of a voice except in a very limited way, in times like this when they can mourn the Queen. They not only mourn the passing of a monarch, but of a woman who showed personal decency of an old-fashioned kind.
I’ve seen Britain take on the worst aspects of American and “global” culture in the last few decades, with once-rightly-respected institutions such as the BBC descend into the same kind of cultural and political gutter. I remember my jaw dropped to the floor in the early 2000’s when I saw how low British TV in general had sunk. But Brexit and a few more recent developments indicate that the old British Lion isn’t dead yet. In a way, the public grief for the Queen is a hopeful sign. And it’s wrong for our side to dismiss Britain and “Spitfire nationalism,” as I think some have called it. Britain has its own history, unique and yet intertwined with the continent.
A woman going by “Courtney from Alabama” has a somewhat related, worthwhile essay at Occidental Observer, “In Defense of British Men.”
“But don’t the people who condemn the Queen for not doing something about the decline of the UK have a point? After all, she was the head of state. She had the power to veto legislation, and the armed forces swore allegiance to her. Imagine what a nationalist monarch could have done in her position.”
The people voted a bunch of fabianists and now they are wondering why the Queen did nothing.
Like it was the Queen quilty because the people voted with their feet.
Like it was the Queen quilty because there were and stil are so many communists, Russian, Muslim, Indian, and Chineese spies and traitors in the government and political parties.
Simply, the Queen defended till the last breath what could be defended. If everyone would do at least that and stop voting with his feet it would be an epochal marvel.
My wife weeps everyday now, all the ceremonies are live broadcasted in Romania, and it is incredible moving.
The class, the dignity, the great tradition of an never conquered people, the uniforms and standards. You can not fall love with all these.
The rabid anti-monarchic propaganda was heavily subsidized by the soviets and the Russians. And it should be no wonder why.
Long live the King!
The rabid anti-monarchic propaganda was heavily subsidized by the soviets and the Russians.
Reading Russian media (not only state owned, but either private or “independent”), watching TV or looking into Russian I-net, you really get impression, that the Russians have some strange obsession (and negative one) with two nations: the English and the Poles. You maybe can find there something good or at least neutral about Americans, French, Germans, Italians, (Anatolyan) Türks, Chinese, but never about Poles and Britons.
This tweet thread explains some of that. One of the more widely read Russian thinkers (unlike Dugin, who is better known outside his country) has a theory that the USSR was a cryptocolony of the British.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1533134048716988416
“Galkovsky argues that while officially the UK and the US are allies in reality they are the most bitter enemies as the only two superpowers in the world. The UK only seems to be weaker, but that’s an illusion because Russia, China and others are secretly British cryptocolonies”
Elizabeth did zero to secure the existence of the british people. Zero. Zip. Nada. On the contrary, she allowed England to be flooded with muds from every part of the Empire, was a friend of the Chosen Ones and approved miscegenation within the Royal Family (and Im not talking only about Megan Markle, there are many royals married with jews).
Nothing of value was lost with her death.
It’s as if you read nothing.
As a Brit I feel nothing at her death (I just don’t think she did anything of note that couldn’t have been achieved by another monarch, even some striking images were the work of artistic men, Elizabeth I that would have been a death to get emotional about), but my feelings are irrelevant on the national scale, the British people overall do care (I imagine she was a safe postive White British identity symbol for people who are too afraid for overt pro-White British identity) and now is a good time to attract British people.
Even if you hate the queen and the whole family, you can hold back those views and point out to a normie how London streets are whiter than usual, even making a joke about it, in their heads they may get to thinking about the lack of diversity in mourning and what that means. You can think of other things to say to a normie who actually does care about the queen to get them thinking about race.
Nothing of value was lost with her death.
correct, the Empire died with the formation of the UN. the monarchs were not really defenders of the faith or whatever. So yes you are correct.
I suggest all readers pair Dr. Johnson’s sensitive remembrance with this brutal jeremiad from a British ethnonationalist also published yesterday:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/09/14/elizabeth-the-evil-a-malign-monarch-dies-and-is-succeeded-by-chuck-the-cuck/?unapproved=358604&moderation-hash=851c35feb89f98b40161d50319f481d6#comment-358604
I did not know that QE2 was an actual enemy of our racial brethren in Southern Africa. I thought her racial indifference was born of foolishness or ignorance or a typically theologically erroneous understanding of Christian “compassion”. Or a selfish interest in placing the monarchy’s preservation ahead of the nation’s. I had not thought she was actually disloyal to her race (and to a lesser extent, her faith).
The Monarchy is like the Church (Catholic, Orthodox) or the old Protestant churches of Europe. They just support whatever the government does. Their main business is managing real estate, preserving cultural treasures and providing traditional pageantry on occassions. It’s foolish to expect more of them.
Or less. The only fault I find with the Queen is the family affairs: the divorces, Andrew & Epstein, and Harry’s marriage.
But there’s dutiful William & his steely wife & beautiful children, and they make up for the rest of the bunch.
The other thing about the Queen is generational. She wasn’t even a Boomer, she was a mother of Boomers. Old folks rarely understand the desperation of Generation Y and Z and the gravity of the situation that we are in.
The first 5 minutes of the Margaret Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady — not really a biopic, more like a contemplation about old age and dying — captures this brilliantly. Retired Baroness Thatcher, slowly losing herself to dementia, steps out of her apartment and goes to the nearby grocery store to buy milk. There’s loud black music in the shop and Pakistanis in brightly colored sweatsuits. She buys the milk, goes home, and — still very much the pre-WWII shopkeeper’s daughter — complains about the price of milk to her husband. It’s impossible not to feel pity for the woman, whatever she did or didn’t do in her prime.
The Thatcher anecdote is very apt. Yes, older generations are very cut off from younger generations, especially so in the case of someone like the Queen, who lived in a rarefied bubble with exposure only to outlier minorities. There weren’t even occasions for her to pop out and buy some milk.
One issue I have against the lachrymose expressions about the Queen’s passing is that some nationalist beta males are taking every opportunity to genuflect at a person they’ve never met, while failing to take responsibility for their own lives and being an example for their race. If you believe the Queen represents something substantial of history and the nationhood, fine, but make sure you live in accordance with traditionalist principles and start making something of your life instead of complaining about how unfair life is, and blathering about MGTOW and how the majority of women are not attracted to you, when you very clearly never cultivated the personality traits that would make women of any era attracted to you, and then taking the time to praise the Queen at a time when it’s politically advantageous to exhibit some “class.” So I suppose the issue here is that there is some groveling by low-status males who’ve been looking for a very long time at such an opportunity to grovel at some female figure, and lacking the self-awareness over how transparent their behavior is. As Eminem says, “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.” This is the preening opportunity some betas have waited their whole lives for.
What happened? Has your train derailed?
There is nothing wrong with respecting or honoring the Queen. The problem is with the traditionalist MGTOW types who complain that women do not like them, politically frothing with rants about the “gynocracy,” and then somehow their low status, reflected by not being wanted by women, is mitigated with some politically opportune praise of the Queen. It’s like their praise of the Queen or royalty is proof that they aren’t low-class beta males after all. As Eminem says, “When I say or do something, I do it.” We need to be doers for our race, not passive men imagining ourselves as part of some digital racial aristocracy using this unfortunate news as an opportunity to prance.
Sir, you’ve reached your lifetime allotment of Eminem quotes.
I promise you will never get laid this way. The only thing more embarrassing than may that you mentioned is just how obvious you are jockeying other men to prove how much more manlier you are. You need a manwich. I’ve so had it with simps and gynocentrism. It adds nothing to the conversation.
Looking ahead: King Charles III has some sympathy for Traditionalism. He has read his Guénon and is patron of London’s Temenos Academy which lectures on the “Perennial Philosophy”.
Co-founder Kathleen Raine wrote: “Since knowledge is universal we seek to learn from all traditions. Within western civilisation, Temenos follows the Platonic and Plotinian tradition from its pre-Socratic origins to the present day.”
Let us pray that His Majesty eventually gets around to reading Julius Evola.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up re ever so politically correct Charles. As I wrote previously,
Charles has been notorious for decades for his obsequiousness towards Islam (and the “ideal” – whose, exactly? – of a “multicultural Britain”). Some have even hypothesized that he might be a secret Muslim (maybe, just maybe, he’s one of those “Traditionalists” attracted to Sufism; well, from a classic Occidentalist perspective, you know, the perspective that defends the White, Christian West, what of it?) :
https://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/01/is-prince-charles-a-convert-to-islam
I suspect the new King is a well-meaning, personally decent, somewhat bumbling and not very intellectually acute man of immense privilege who really understands nothing about Western civilization, Christianity (theologically or ethno-historically), or the sacred duty of a Christian monarch to defend his people – the indigenous of his core, blood and soil [non-imperial] realm – from all external and especially internal civilizational threats.
He will not be the King England so desperately needs. Indeed, I think he is far more likely to do great damage to the rotting carcass of the UK. Maybe his son will be better (though I doubt it; the Royals today are all about self, not national, preservation). Or maybe Charles will surprise everyone. But is that likely for a 73 year old?
Love the queen and all, but she was kind of old and you had to expect it.
I think that the monarchy has existential concerns as well. They are not invulnerable. There’s a very strong anti-monarchy movement in Britain. I was only there for two weeks but I definitely picked up on it. I got several spiel’s about Britain’s “love affair with the Windsors,”and how much money how they make tens of millions of dollars just for being them. I heard much more about that than any anti immigration talk, which I heard none of in fact.
if you watch the movie the queen, you’ll pick up on this, how there are very strong populous factions against them, wanting to dissolve the monarchy. Clearly this is spearheaded by your globalist usual suspect types. Probably the goal is to weaken the monarchy so it can never be a political force, like opposing certain things, or dissolve an ethnically traditional British institution. That would be their ultimate goal.
That may be the reason prince Andrew was consorting with all those people like Epstein. To sort of get them to call off their dogs to some extent. They have interest as a family too, inpreserving the monarchy and their official positions. Selfish interests I guess. There is also the opinion that may be why Prince Harry married a non-white, that royalty is diversifying in its side branches in order to avoid criticism of their institutions. I think there was an article on that in countercurrents or unz review, I don’t remember which.
The royal family did oppose Iraq war I think. And they refused to induct tony blair into the order of the garter, which is a sort of elite knighthood which all the Prime Minister’s have been inducted into in retaliation for getting Britain into the war. So they’re not completely without spine.
There’s a very strong anti-monarchy movement in Britain.
There were very strong anti-monarchy movements in Iran in 1976-78. Many thought the Shah is obsolete and tyrannical ruler, and wanted “democracy”. You know the end of that story.
A very gracious and heartfelt essay, and an inspiring platform from which we can continue our fight against immigration, diversity and globalism. I have been gently arguing with an English friend in Sheffield for years now, but he has an aversion to politics. However, since he also lives near Rotherham, he is at least aware of the ‘grooming crisis’ in that vicinity.
As for diversity in England, the women swathed in black crepe clash quite dramatically with green meadows and white sheep.
I’ve mostly visited the area of South Yorkshire, and, as well, as far down as Oxfordshire, a glorious, totally English landscape, four times before 2020, when Covid put an end to my travels. How I miss England.
Thanks also for all your kind words about the Queen. All of England has my condolences on their loss.
And thanks also for your introduction (for me at least) of a new word into the English Language — “Marxoids”! A perfect description of our woke types worldwide! Hope it makes the Oxford Dictionary soon.
“Unfortunately, that consensus includes globalization and multiculturalism. It wasn’t the Queen’s job to shape that consensus. It wasn’t her job to challenge it, either, even if she had the imagination and the courage to do so, which she clearly didn’t. Her job was to be a figurehead, a symbol, to preside with grace and dignity over a ship of state whose course is set by other people.”
If the nation and country are dying, the duty of the king (or queen) is to save it, or die in combat. It is a duty taken over directly from God, if the monarchy have any level of authenticity. In the case of queen Elizabeth II, it is a parody of monarchy.
You wish it were true, but that doesn’t make it true.
The monarchic ideal is not a product of my “wish”, it was a pillar of statehood of European nations, before royal families degenerated. Elisabeth II was one example of that degeneration.
Once again Jim Goad, you’ve destroyed me with your comment. I was actually thinking that very thing while perusing this posting. Thanks for making an old person laugh out loud.
One Eminem quote is one too many.
What I commented here a few days ago remains apt (insofar as this discussion continues):
[The Queen’s defenders] are correct about her lack of formal, real power. They are utterly mistaken about her (potential) persuasive power, her ability to call forth public patriotism in defense of the nation itself, especially when doing so was most needed and would have been most efficacious (on the old principle that “a stitch in time saves nine”; I myself was publicly denouncing {American} immigration in high school in the late 1970s).
The silent but highly visible immigration invasion of the UK began in the late 40s (though there were alien races present in tiny numbers on British soil going back centuries, due to the personal greed of aristocrats in taking servants, as well as the allowing of the sons of foreign nobility to attend 19th century Oxbridge, the dirty aristos always having more fellow-feeling with their foreign counterparts than their own ethnic brethren), and was already picking up speed throughout the early years of her reign. By no later than 1960, the Queen should have been aware of what was going on within her most immediate realm, and given the extent to which she was regularly made aware of domestic events, she almost certainly was. When were the first UK race riots? Were there any in the 60s? I distinctly recall British riots during my undergrad time in the early 80s –> 40+ years ago!
How many millions (or is it in the tens?) of migratory colonizers have been admitted to the UK just in the past four decades?
If the Queen had merely spoken in complete confidence to Margaret Thatcher (and choice senior members of her government), conveying to the latter (who was already on record having expressed misgivings about immigration) her deep unease about current trends, I am absolutely convinced Thatcher would have made immigration reduction reform a priority (and that this would have achieved desirable ethnonationalist results). Or better, she could have broached the matter in a public address to the whole nation in, say, 1960, nearly a decade into her reign when the UK had already shed much of its Empire; when many people were bitterly resentful of that; when there were tens of millions of living WW2 (and WW1) vets; when whites were much less indoctrinated than today (or than in 2000, or 1980, etc), and much tougher in moral and racial character; and when there was very little alien ethnic power yet established on UK soil. My parents visited the UK in the early 70s (leaving me, alas, with my grandparents), and they have always said it was still very white then, though forever after they would say that “England had better stop admitting these Moslems and Hindus”!
My point is that, early in her reign, or even in the middle of it, QE2 could have spoken out forcefully against the invasion as an existential threat to the survival of the nation. Sure, the far Left (but not all of Labour’s working class base) would have hated her – but, sweetie, they were never your supporters anyway!! The monarchy’s fervent apologists have always been found most among rural (Middle England) Tories, where one also finds, as any moron would expect, most of the patriotism and opposition to mass migration.
QE2 would have risked little in taking a public stand against race replacement. But she was unwilling to do even that. She was a dutiful monarch in small and unimportant ways, but she ignored her greatest duty – Defender of the Faith and Realm, while passively acquiescing in the legislatively engineered destruction of her people and nation. History is not kind to fools, cowards or traitors, and there is no reason to think it will make an exception for her.
[Note: I’m not anti-monarchical in the least, even if it’s not my ideal form of government. But I oppose all those who are public figures, political or hereditary, who enjoy their privileges but fail to perform their true duties.]
Not 40 years ago, it’s true, but 25 years ago the press was castigating merciless the royals after the shenanigans of the late Lady Diana. I don’t know if she could really do something about keeping the borders closed without being crucified. The nineties was probably the decade with the most absurd public discourse and behavior.
Unfortunately the silent majority is not only silent but also inert. The problem is the extremely loud people around the Buckingham palace. Louis XVI was beheaded not by the loyal peasantry of Vendee, but by the people of Paris instigated with lies by an unhinged press.
The leaders are not living among their own people, but in the Capital, among a different breed. In reality the destiny of a people depends too much at this very moment on the mood of the inhabitants of the Capital and the press.
This essay is wise counsel.
While it is correct that the ideal of the monarch is to be above politics, nevertheless the reality behind the scenes is naturally quite different.
The Queen successfully interfered in a parliamentary bill that would have exposed her private wealth, as the Guardian gleefully reported: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
If she was able and willing to influence the course of politics when it affected her personal affairs, do you really believe she was unable to do so on behalf of the nation at any point in her seven decade reign?
The 1861 poem, The Foxes Prophecy, foretold the rotting of England with the degenerates sons of the squires rising high while the manly sports fade away. The Faith collapses and course people replace the refined as gold becomes our god but in the end “Old England’s sons shall raise again
The Alter and the Crown.”
And in the Kiplingnesque manner “The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on her fields
For monuments to endure.”
which will usher in a reborn Merrie Olde Englande
Long live the King
This article, the one by Jef Costello, and the many pro-Elizabeth and pro-royal family comments that readers have left here over the last week are plain puzzling. Have you folks been to London lately? Have you had a look around? Is your memory really that short?
And please, let’s have no more of this hogwash about how there was nothing that Elizabeth could do about her people were being progressively wiped out in plain view under her stewardship. There was something she could have done. She could have verbally opposed it, condemned it as evil, denounced it as morally wrong. She didn’t need political power to do those things.
Elizabeth, Charles and the entire royal family except for the little ones are monstrous traitors to the people. In a just world, regicide would be on the table. Precedent for execution does exist. The English King Charles I was executed for treason in 1650.
It is as if you didn’t read anything.
Queen Victoria was a source of frustration for English monarchists, because she lacked zeal to participate in the endless parade of public ceremonies they saw as the monarch’s only real role. After the death of her beloved husband Prince Alfred, Victoria wanted to have a private life, which to her was real life. That is how she became Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown. This is probably to the credit of Victoria, the woman, but it was not good for the monarchy as an institution.
With Elizabeth II, monarchists got their dream queen. History does not show any individual more dedicated to her institutional role, to the expert and orderly performance of ritual, and to Confucian virtues regarding tradition and ceremony. Elizabeth was beautiful, healthy, intelligent, well-married, amply fertile, very long-lived, as nearly tireless in duty as human flesh can be, punctual, amiable with the commoners, patient with the pompous and tedious, never a gambler or a squanderer, perfectly controlled in every appetite, and without any hint of scandal or vice of any kind. (If there were any scandals or vices, she kept them private, and that too was her job.) A track record nearly a century long suggests that Elizabeth loved performance of her ritual duty more than life, more than her own children, and more than the continued existence of her race and nations.
Suppose Elizabeth’s ghost asked monarchists: in what respect was I not the sort of monarch you once said you wanted, and in what respect was I not the person I promised to be? There is nothing to suggest.
We should not vilify Elizabeth — leave that to the antiwhites who hated her because she was White and the queen of the British family of White nations.
Instead, we must think about what we should really want. We should want people in positions of actual and symbolic authority, we should want both people who do things and people who legitimate things, to be explicitly pro-White. They must love our race, and they must advocate for us, in season and out of season. They must fight the good fight. This is not too much to ask for; we need to ask for it, because without that love we are ruined, as before-and-after pictures of Queen Elizabeth II’s London will show.
This is a lesson from Elizabeth II’s long life and ruinous reign: Without explicit pro-Whiteness, there is no list of virtues, no matter how long or how perfectly embodied, that will do anything more than put a respectable face on our destruction.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment