Counter-Currents
1,932 words
I was shocked when, yesterday afternoon, a friend informed me that the Queen had died. I had only just heard a report that she was under medical supervision at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. A BBC news reader noted — twice — that she was “comfortable.” I didn’t like the sound of that, but I also didn’t expect that her death would come so soon.
I am at a loss for words. However, like most people lacking words, this has not stopped me from taking up my pen. I feel duty bound to mark this passing in some way. And Greg Johnson has reminded me that I am, after all, Counter-Currents’ royal correspondent (see here; but whatever you do, don’t see here).
Where to begin? I suppose with an answer to the inevitable question, “Why do you care?” It’s a simple matter, really. My mother was a great anglophile and revered the Royal Family; I was just raised with that. To this day I can dazzle and (mostly) perplex my friends with my knowledge of royal trivia.
And the Queen had been queen all my life. That’s the thing that’s really hardest to take. I don’t know a time without Elizabeth II. I was probably googooing at her image on the telly when I was only a few months old. And I googooed at her for the rest of my life. I got a warm feeling inside whenever I saw her. If her death has affected me, I can only imagine what it’s doing to the Brits. I truly sympathize.
Why did I have this affinity for the Queen, which my father once described as un-American? First, she represents a nation I used to love, from which haled my ancestors. In the last two or three decades, in my own eyes at least, she came more and more to represent the past. I once had a conversation about the Queen with a British friend of mine who is a fellow traveler. I told him that I was quite sentimental about the Royal Family. “Yes, Americans always are,” he said. And he went on to explain that, in his view, the monarchy simply served to legitimate the corrupt establishment – or, as he literally put it, “whoever is in power.”
I can’t really argue with that. Indeed, I admit that it is true. My friend went on to say of the Queen, “Why doesn’t she do something?” Meaning, something about the cultural rot in Britain. There was a peculiar intensity in his question, as if it genuinely pained him. The basic answer to him is that under the present system in Britain, which has been in place for a very long time, she can’t do much of anything (at least not the sort of thing my friend would like to see her do). Queen Anne was the last monarch to veto an Act of Parliament, and that was in 1708. It’s been downhill from there. By the end of Queen Victoria’s reign (in 1901), she had almost no personal power.
By the time Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, it had long been forbidden for the sovereign to express opinions about political matters (the only exception being her weekly audience with the Prime Minister, the details of which were always kept strictly confidential). The Queen was raised in this tradition, and both her father and (especially) her grandfather had been much loved by the British public, in part because they were seen as apolitical national symbols whom everyone could love and support, no matter what their political persuasion. (In Britain, even most Labour voters love the Queen — though there are significant exceptions, of course.)
So, the idea that Elizabeth II might have “done something” to have slowed the high-speed, downhill pace of British decline is a tad unrealistic. And what, in fact, could she have done? “Take a stand”? But in her eyes, that would have divided the nation (which is true) and would have effectively negated her primary role as national symbol and uniter (which is also true). In effect, she would have become a politician. This, at least, is how she must have seen things.
In 2008, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg refused to give his assent to a new law permitting euthanasia (presumably on religious grounds). Under the Luxembourg constitution, the grand duke “sanctions and promulgates” the laws. In response to this, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, a notorious drunk who later became president of the European Union, declared Henri temporarily unable to perform his duties. In other words, they simply went around him. The constitution of Luxembourg was subsequently amended to state that the grand duke merely “promulgates” laws, but that his assent is not required.
Thus, if Elizabeth II had tried to intervene in, for example, the Blair government’s disastrous decision to make Britain more “diverse,” they would have simply gone around her. Or worse. You see, when you are President of the United States you merely have to worry about the next four years or getting reelected for four more. But monarchy is the Queen’s family business. Her father, George VI, referred to the family (only half-jokingly) as “the firm.” The Queen would not have taken any actions that would have wrecked things for her son, grandson, and great grand- son.
And I don’t think I need to convince my audience that had the Queen “done something,” all hell would have broken loose, and those who truly rule might have rather swiftly transformed Britain into a republic, leaving the royals as exiles haunting the slopes in Gstaad and sitting on the board of directors of Revlon. After the death of the Princess of Wales, the Queen met with Diana’s butler Paul Burrell and advised him to be careful. “Paul, there are forces at work in the country of which we have no knowledge,” she is reported to have said.
You can buy Jef Costello’s The Importance of James Bond here
Besides, we don’t know that Her Majesty didn’t support “diversity.” It’s been suggested to me that she did, due to her commitment to the Commonwealth and also to her Christian upbringing (“We’re all God’s chillun” or something). And this brings me to another thing I admired about the Queen. I am no Christian, but the Queen’s faith seemed to be genuine. According to some accounts, in fact, she was rather devout. I respect that, even if I can’t get behind much of what she believed.
A word that keeps coming to mind is “dutiful.” There were controversies over the course of her 70-year reign, but never as a result of the Queen’s bad behavior. To the very last, she did her duty. She seemed selfless, in fact. As Princess Elizabeth she gave a speech in 1947, on the occasion of her 21st birthday. In it, she said, famously, “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” And she seems to have meant every word.
By contrast, we have the likes of Meaghan Markle and the Hollywood brain trust, whose idea of a moral life consists in retweeting woke garbage and signaling about “the current thing” — but not actually doing anything. The real answer to my friend quoted earlier is that the Queen did “do something.” She spent her life visiting the sick and dying in hospitals and working on behalf of charities that, in many cases, actually accomplished something. She positively affected the lives of countless people, in large and small ways. By the time of her death, she was perhaps the one thing that still united Great Britain. All of that was what she was supposed to do. And she did it flawlessly. She also loved horses and dogs, by the way, and there’s a special place in heaven for people like that (I imagine this is how I will eventually be able to meet her).
Folks, it feels like the last adult in the world has died. I fear we are now completely lost. I am realizing as I write this that so much of my fondness for the Queen had to do with the tacit thought “as horrible as the world is today, it still has the Queen in it. It still has one last representative of an older way of life; a representative of decency, service, duty, honor, and tradition.” And now, suddenly, that light has gone out. I know it’s a terrible cliché, but that is exactly how I feel: a light has gone out.
Now Charles is King – and, really, he’s not half bad. Many have dreaded this day coming. Charles has always been perceived as a bit aloof, a bit old-fashioned, possibly a bit too intellectual, and as lacking the common touch. (However, the strong stand he has taken against modern architecture, as well as his commitment to a kind of “soft traditionalism” have endeared him to folks like us.) I loved Helen Mirren’s portrayal of the Queen in the film of the same name, but in some scenes she plays the Queen as a bit too “grand.” If one watches footage of the real Queen’s interactions with ordinary people, she is extremely plainspoken. Why should she put on airs, after all? She’s the Queen.
For many, it remains to be seen whether Charles is capable of conveying the same naturalness. I think that he is. He may be a bit odd (and perhaps also a bit too grand), but by most accounts he is also kind and generous. And Camilla is a real trouper, the consensus being that she is quite down-to-earth. For years some people, especially Americans, have asked “Couldn’t they just skip over Charles and make William king?” This is absurd. It would require either Charles abdicating or Parliament passing a special constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen.
I predict that there will be a great outpouring of public grief over the death of the Queen, possibly approaching Diana-like proportions. (Almost, but not quite: The Queen’s death was expected, whereas Diana’s was a great shock.) It’s fascinating how fickle the public is. When Diana died, the knives were out for Charles — until he walked outside the gates of Balmoral holding little Harry by the hand to look at the flowers and cards that had been left there by ordinary people. The next day photos of Charles holding Harry’s hand were splashed all over the papers. “A Father’s Touch,” gushed one of them. And then all was forgiven, and the public realized they were mourning with Charles, not against him.
I predict that, in the wake of the Queen’s death, much sympathy will be directed at the former Prince of Wales, who is now 73. This will help a great deal with the transition. He might even become a beloved figure. After all, he’s old and grey now and it’s easy to love the elderly (unless they’re George Soros). No one dared criticize the Queen in her last 20 years. Charles’ oddness might come to be celebrated simply as British eccentricity. It’s really sort of like having Doctor Who as king, isn’t it?
In any case, I think that the monarchy will survive this. As the deposed King Farouk of Egypt once said, “One day there will be only five kings left in the world – the King of Spades, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts, the King of Diamonds, and the King of England.” Another reason I love the British monarchy, much to the consternation of my friends, is that even though it has been corrupted, like everything else in our world, the monarchy still carries on traditions that are thousands of years old. Concerns over the Queen’s health began a few days ago when she cancelled a virtual meeting of the Privy Council (no kidding). “Privy Council?” I can hear my liberal colleagues saying, “That sounds medieval!” Yes, exactly. I like that.
There’s a tendency to think that the monarchy is a great charade and that behind closed doors the Royal Family don’t really take seriously such things as heraldry and swan upping. But all accounts seem to suggest that they do. I’m very glad there are such people still left in our god-awful, vulgar world. Even if they do serve to legitimate “whoever is in power.” Call it a weakness of mine, if you like.
The Queen is dead. Long live the King!
* * *
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.
52 comments
Nomen est omen. That is not always so, but mostly. The names of ruler have their meaning, whether we like it or not. Russian history has three important rulers with name Vladimir, and all three Vladimirs were mass murderers, prince Holy Vladimir or Vladimir the Great in the 10th century, Bolshevik Vladimir Lenin 100 years ago, and new Vladimir now. England has two Kings with name Charles, and reign of both was unsuccessful. Civil war or Great Plague, I do not know what is worse.
“two Kings with name Charles, and reign of both was unsuccessful”
Not true about Charles II, as I described in a reply to your similar comment at Goad’s “Conservatism Without White Men”article. You’re stretching your “omen” way too far. The English monarchs named Henry were quite a mixed bag, as were the Williams, Richards, Edwards, Marys, etc.
Elizabeth II might have shared a sense of duty with “Good Queen Bess,” but the latter was much more effective in steering England towards success, publicly and behind-the-scenes.
Both Charleses were not BAD Kings, but just unlucky. Charles II was not guilty on the Great Plague or the Great Fire, but they both happened during his rule.
Good Queen Bess has had much more power and freedom of decision. She ruled, not merely reigned.
I agree with you that neither Charles I nor Charles II were bad. The words and actions of Charles I during his trial and right before his execution are awesomely moving. He dug himself into a hole at times, but was a very tragic figure.
And Charles II was a real straight white man. Very straight, I would say, maybe even too much straight. :)))
but by most accounts he is also kind and generous
I surely do not know anything about Charles and Camila beside written in newspapers and said on the TV, but I have read very interesting book of the great British journalist Chapman Pincher (1914-2014), Dangerous to know, and from this book I have got very positive impressions on both Prince and Camila, and very critical ones on Diana. As Mr. Pincher was maybe the last really CONSERVATIVE journalist, absolutely pro-English and anti-communist, I personally tend to believe him.
Critical impression of Diana, huh. Well, let’s see. Take a not excessively bright though not totally stupid, teenage girl, one traumatized by her mother abandoning the family, chat her up, marry her – all because you (an aging Prince Charles) are experiencing much pressure to hurry up and get married and produce heirs. Cheat on her with your old girlfriend, who knew about the marriage of convenience and all the while have the complete support of your powerful family, who expected the young wife to just look the other way during endless insults. Let the girl slowly go crazy.
I am not one bit surprised that Diana ended up liking brown fellas (Dr. Khan; Dodi Fayed and who knows who else). Somewhere along the line she came to believe that Muslim men are religious, nice, reliable husbands, etc. As to her interest in liberal causes, what young woman of her generation did not get roped in?
Fun fact: It is called the Privy Council after the custom established by pre-Norman king Lyndon who made his councilmen follow him into the privy when he wanted to relieve himself rather than stop speaking.
That cannot possibly be true. ‘Privy’ just means ‘private’ or, in this case, ‘privileged’ i.e. privileged to serve the Monarch directly, rather than as a mere functionary.
Great to see you back, Mr. Costello!
I have very mixed feelings about Elizabeth II. I admire her devotion to duty that you highlighted, and her dignity which she maintained much more than, obviously, Charles, William, Harry, Meghan and Diana put together, but as Peter Brimelow quotes Sean Gabb below, there were some disturbing cases in which she did “do something”….
“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.
And that was it” (https://vdare.com/articles/the-queen-is-dead-long-live-the-anglosphere)
Also, I believe recently she made a public statement on behalf of the Green agenda which could have come from Hollywood. Charles has unfortunately made similar rumblings about that and Multiculturalism.
Anyway, RIP to a woman who did do a lot of good otherwise.
I was a bit surprised that Jef didn’t mention the fact that King Charles III is a Traditionalist, at least of the “soft” sort, and is the patron of the Temenos Academy, which is an organization that propagates Traditionalism in the UK. He has studied Guénon and Evola, the former of which he alludes to here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnnXKmGQ4nI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zITpU225cG4
It is also worth mentioning that as Prince, Charles gave financial assistance to the Orthodox monastic community. You often see his portrait in Transylvania (where he has an estate on which he spends part of the year) because of this.
I never would have guessed that Charles had studied those two. My opinion of him has just moved up a notch.
You often see his portrait in Transylvania
He visits Transylvania because there he can easily get some fresh blood to prolong his life. Count Dracula dines there with him together.
O, come now! 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. Maybe his son will be better (though I doubt it; the Royals today are all about self, not national, preservation).
I suspect the new King is a well-meaning, personally decent, somewhat bumbling
Well, his Grandpa was stutterer (yes, of course I know it from the movie with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush) and not much intellectual, but a good-hearted and well-meaning King. That as itself is not bad. And, in the parliamentary monarchies you should not await to much of the monarchs with the restricted power. On the other side in the absolute monarchies we have no secure fool-protection for the case when the abolutist-king would be simply bad, stupid or malicious.
R.I.P sacred cow.
Long live the king? So I have once thought, but now I shout: down with the king!
Yes, Roumanian King has ordered the murder of Codreanu. But that was ANOTHER Carl.
“Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, a notorious drunk who later became president of the European Union, declared Henri temporarily unable to perform his duties. In other words, they simply went around him.”
Is Juncker Jewish? Sounds like good ol’ Catch-22: The king can only perform his duties if competent But if he refuses to sign a law we want, he must ipso facto be incompetent. Catch-22.
He’s not Jewish. But you are right about the Catch-22.
With Elizabeth’s prestige, I believe she could have intervened against traitor Tony Blair’s great acceleration of nonwhite immigration and avoided anything like the fate of Henri in Luxembourg.
Mad Dog Musings 8 Sep 2022 — Pepi II, Ramesses II, Elizabeth II — The Late ZOG-Age Collapse
Pharoah Pepi II reigned at the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom for 90 years and soon after his long reign the nomarchs / governors took over. Pepi II hung on too long and his kingdom rotted. Combined with regional climate change of cooling that caused the Nile to wither and the consequent famine (sound familiar today?) and the weakening of the central authority the end result was a 180 year mini-dark age called the First Intermediate Period until the 11th Dynasty and 12th Dynasty restored central order by taming the nomarchs/warlords and re-uniting Upper and Lower Egypt under a feudalistic taming centralizing military dictatorship under the Middle Kingdom around 2000 BC.
Within 30 years of the Late Bronze Age Collapse, Pharoah Ramesses II reigned for nearly 70 years lived 96 years and his 13th son Merempta too over in his 70’s and reigned a decade. Which is much the same as with Elizabeth II coming into power at 25 years and reigning 70 years and having her son Charles III coming to kingship in his 70s. Ramesses’ New Kingdom declined but survived the Late Bronze Age Collapse but the rot continued. Ramesses should have retired in favor of his sons while his life was strong.
Elizabeth II reigned 70 years died today at 96, and should have resigned in June or July in favor of her son. She reigned over the collapse of the British Empire. She simply was a caretaker in her nation’s decline. And like Ramesses’ Mighty Evil Empire soon enough the foreign Libyans and Nubians would take over the rulership just as their peoples displaced the native stock. Eventually the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans would rule until the Arabs took over as caliphs, then kings, then military dictators.
Pepi II, Ramesses II, Elizabeth II. All examples of monarchs who should have resigned in favor of chosen successors who would have maybe rejuvenated their decaying empires which were decaying beyond theys’ control because like in all empires, their native stock was displaced and destroyed, bred inwards towards the degenerate and bred out into oblivion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKKDBXcVrY
Looking from the outside in as a US citizen Charles III comes off as a complete globalist twat. His involvement with the WEF and the Great Reset are concerning. There were things to respect about his mother. With her died the last vestiges of the old England. That generation is passing and we’re all around the world moving towards the “bright” and I would say scary future. The whole British political establishment comes off as completely inept and unqualified. Unfortunately, Charles III doesn’t look much better.
As a Brit I share your friends sentiment regarding the late queen, and I agree with you about the reality of the monarchs role (post parliment dominance) and her dutifulness. However I heavily judge monarchs by the ages that they reign, and as such she is one of the worse, if not the worse, monarchs of British history in my opinion.
Also I have no idea why there are people fond of Charles for his supposed traditionalism, if he is a trad, its one that supports no British people;
“My hope is that we can consistently preserve and celebrate the histories of people of African, Caribbean and Asian heritage in Britain, and to expand this beyond Black History Month.
“Doing so will recognize the rich diversity of cultures and different minority ethnic groups that make this country so special – and in many ways unique.
“I pray it will also, in these turbulent times, serve to remind us of the important values of unity through diversity on which we pride ourselves as a society and which lie at the very heart of what we can achieve as a nation.”
“Also I have no idea why there are people fond of Charles for his supposed traditionalism, if he is a trad, its one that supports no British people…”
This and the supporting quote are right to the point.
We need leaders and symbols of all sorts that are explicitly pro-White, that support the physical survival and flourishing of our race. Weak, unreliable proxies such as “traditionalism” and “conservatism” are not an acceptable substitute for the survival of our race.
We need leaders and symbols of all sorts that are explicitly pro-White, that support the physical survival and flourishing of our race. Weak, unreliable proxies such as “traditionalism” and “conservatism” are not an acceptable substitute for the survival of our race.
Perfectly stated! Nothing is a substitute for the physical perpetuity of our race. QE2 was NOT a great monarch, but merely a dignified ghost from an earlier and better time, who, however, had the power (far more than any mere patriotic commoner) actually to do something to preserve her people – but, like Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener, she preferred not to, placing her self-interest in the institutional preservation of the monarchy over her primary duty to fight to preserve her people. History will not be kind to her memory.
For many people, it’s true that the royals are hallowed symbols of the nation and its traditions. However, they should’ve started acting the part long ago. Being King or Queen shouldn’t mean all the goodies of office with no responsibilities. There’s no way that a self-imposed political neutrality rule is more important than the fate of a nation. Decades ago, if they’d said that Britain is for the British, it could’ve made a difference and not been much of a risk at the time.
What Traddles revealed above shows something worse than neglect. When one lives in a castle, it’s awfully easy to feel virtuous by going along with the leftist fashion and selling out one’s kinfolk.
“There’s no way that a self-imposed political neutrality rule is more important than the fate of a nation. Decades ago, if they’d said that Britain is for the British, it could’ve made a difference and not been much of a risk at the time.”
Exactly! That’s it, in a nutshell. Those supposed “conservatives” in Britain like Peter Hitchens would blather on about how they admired the current monarchy as an institution, how it was such a stabilizing force, blah, blah, blah, and how the Queen exemplified such dignity and rectitude. Fat lot of good it did in conserving Britain and the British.
People say, well, the Queen might have voiced her concerns to prime ministers behind closed doors. Fat lot of good that did too, if it ever happened.
As others have said, I’m guessing the Queen was too wrapped up in the supposed multiculti wonders of the Commonwealth to appreciate the danger of what was ahead. She might have been well-meaning, but we know how disastrous that can be.
“There’s no way that a self-imposed political neutrality rule is more important than the fate of a nation. Decades ago, if they’d said that Britain is for the British, it could’ve made a difference and not been much of a risk at the time.”
Yes. That is is exactly right.
“What else could she have done?” is essentially to ask, “How could one expect her to act any way besides expediently?”
Well, call it naive, but if we expect ourselves and our co-ethnics to do more than just avoid being called “racists!” by our enemies, I sure as hell expect someone of her stature (with more influence than we’ll ever dream of having) to do the same.
The “unity” referred to (that she is supposed to have safeguarded) is a worthless platitude, a nice-sounding something that keeps pushing a snowballing catastrophe down the road for someone else to deal with.
I’d like to admire her better qualities, especially at a time like this. Even so, it’s impossible to overlook the fact that these were missed opportunities. All she had to do is say, “You know, Enoch Powell has a point.” For someone with a net worth which I imagine might be in the tens of millions of pounds at least, the “But I might lose my job” excuse becomes hollow. The reason she didn’t stand up to oppose population replacement migration is because she wanted to be “progressive”, not some reactionary – why, how dreadful! Again, it’s easy to be a limousine leftist if you live in a castle protected by armed guards and a tall iron fence.
Charles is a willing puppet of Schwab and Gates pushing the bogus climate change agenda. He’ll only use his new Kingship to further shove that nonsense down our throats, which is also now a blatant political opinion only supported by left Liberal drones.
Jef, I am flattered to see my poor words cited in your article, though your lines: ‘My friend went on to say of the Queen, “Why doesn’t she do something?” Meaning, something about the cultural rot in Britain. There was a peculiar intensity in his question, as if it genuinely pained him.’ puzzled me, for it didn’t pain or perplex me at all.
She didn’t do anything because she cared much more about the pathetic simulacrum of empire, the ridiculous multi-racial Commonwealth (which has nothing in common and no wealth, as Enoch Powell pointed out) than the White British. The difference between me and 99% of socially conservative White Britons is that I sensed her cold, reptilian, lizard like disdain for us (a trait that the perceptive diarist Sasha Swire also noted) and reciprocated it, with compound interest at a very high rate.
Now, watching her vain, feeble son on television, I think of the words that John Buchan put in the mouth of God’s Englishman: “if Oliver were the kingliest man in England, why then should Charles be king?”.
Lovely essay. Thank you for looking at this from many sides.
The fire went out of Western royalty long ago.
The last embers appealed to sentiments of time long passed when King loved folk and Folk loved king because they were both the same folk bound in destiny — but these last glimmers did not warm, nor did they light the way.
Forge sentiment to swords, bring fire, found new dynasties, and secure the existence of our folk & a future for white children!
I’m surprised no one else caught this:
https://youtu.be/Te7nc3mNQjg?t=373
Did Charles just snub that little black girl?
Perhaps he should abdicate and seek employment with Sesame Place in Philadelphia?
“Why doesn’t she do something?”
Henry Makow, himself a Jew, wrote and essay that began with ”
The last significant effort to defend Christian national values was the “First International Anti-Jewish Conference” held in Dresden in September 1882.
The conference attracted 300 prominent businessmen, aristocrats, politicians, clergy, lawyers, physicians, farmers and intellectuals from Germany, Austria, Hungry and Russia. They produced a manifesto addressed to “the Governments and Peoples of Christian Nations Threatened by Judaism” which shows how Jewish hegemony was a fait accompli 139 years ago, and explains why the West’s racial cohesion and Christian heritage are in serious disarray. ”
And ended with, “The 1882 Manifesto deftly describes the impotence of Christian leadership which is just as obvious today. There was no “Second International Anti Jewish Conference.” The participants recognized they were fighting a lost cause. They did not propose measures because “this nation of parasites has become much too deeply ingrained in the body of our societal and state life for this first congress to operate under the delusion that its potentially detailed propositions could be carried out today.”
Henry’s solution is to absorb them into the race which could have worked back then but in today’s land of the mixed multitude there is little left into which they could be absorbed. The complete essay can be found at https://henrymakow.com/2022/07/anti-jewish-dresden-manifesto.html
The late Queen’s failure to ever visit the State of Israel, formerly the British Mandate of Palestine, puzzled and disappointed many Jews, both Israeli and diaspora. Her Majesty had no such scruples visiting Islamist nations. Once again British hypocrisy and antisemitism to the fore?
Thank you, Mr. Costello for this fine memorial. You’ve echoed most of my thoughts on the old Queen and the new King. The 70 years of Elizabeth’s reign may have been a period of severe decline for the British nation, but she nevertheless always conducted herself according to the standards of a great country. That was the best that anyone could realistically expect of her. I see no reason to believe that Charles III will fail to do the same. If he can quietly push back against modernity in some small ways, then so much the better. The British royals have long ceased to be among the chief authors of history, but they can still serve as an example to others that it’s possible to live in a better way.
Charles is also a very prominent Davos man, propagating enthusiastically the “Great Reset”. He can build as many Poundburys as he likes, but who will appreciate or populate these when the English race will be gone and replaced?
Jef is implying here that she was putting the survival of her “firm” above the survival of nation she was supposed to represent. Let’s check in in a hundred years if the Windsors are still around to represent (because rule they do not) a Britain-in-name-only. I doubt they will, even if they manage to morph into a mixed-race clan with more successful attempts than Meghan Markle.
Royalty, as well as all us commoners, are caught up in the same conundrum — to speak against ‘diversity’ is to speak against “All Men are Created Equal”, which we have gone to the great length as children of English Law to enshrine in our Constitution. I am sure there is something in English Law, probably in the Magna Carta, which binds our hands and common sense. We White Nationalists can speak no more freely than could the Queen, may she rest in peace.
If you still believe “A.M.A.C.E.”, then take a glance at the mug shots of the murderer of Eliza Fletcher last week, and the other killer, Ezekial Dejuan Kelly, who shot 5, also in Memphis. His mug shot has to have been the only ‘triumphal, toothy grin’ I’ve ever seen.
This has been an interesting article with many insightful comments.
>> Alexandra O. wrote:
>> Royalty, as well as all us commoners, are caught up in the same conundrum — to speak against ‘diversity’ is to speak against “All Men are Created Equal”, which we have gone to the great length as children of English Law to enshrine in our Constitution. I am sure there is something in English Law, probably in the Magna Carta, which binds our hands and common sense. We White Nationalists can speak no more freely than could the Queen, may she rest in peace. <<
The U.S. Constitution never said a word about “All Men Are Created Equal,” and instead it was proclaimed to create a national government to provide for the General Welfare.
The idea that all were equal in the sense of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity that is used today would have been seen by them as laughably alien and unnecessary ─ even though had they included some such article overtly manifesting Blood and Soil, it would have proved providential for latter times. The Bill of Rights did not include any 15th Amendment giving citizenship to Negroes; such would scarcely have been imagined even by the insane.
Also, I am no lawyer but I learned the most about Constitutional Law from an elderly BYU theology professor named W. Cleon Skousen who had once been an FBI agent/attorney in Washington, DC and a legal assistant to J. Edgar Hoover ─ who disagreed with most of Hoover’s critics.
Skousen had also been a Police Chief in Salt Lake City and wrote the books, The Naked Communist (1958) and the The Naked Capitalist (1970), which together built a case that the Left and the Right spring from common origins (families and business fraternities) and who cooperate like the opposing pincers of a crab to destroy their prey ─ the petit-bourgeoisie or the middle classes for lack of better words.
Skousen is widely considered to have been a John Birch Society proponent, and was soft on what we would call the Jewish Question since he seemed to have considered the creation of modern Israel to follow Biblical prophecy. He was also not a race realist ─ as we would think of it today ─ but was against Civil Rights for the usual Conservative or ultra-Conservative reasons (as ineffectual as we know them to be today).
However, Skousen would be appalled at the degree that modern WN often ascribe this racial bolshevism, or “Modernity” as many might call it, to Anglo-Saxon Common Law. This is simply nonsense.
I am not trying to offend anyone, but to me when I hear terms like “Modernity” bandied about, it sounds like some kind of pining for long-lost traditional Christianity ─ the very animal that betrayed Western Civilization the utmost by forsaking who created it, i.e., the White race.
It sounds to me like the same Libertarian or E. Michael Jones-tier nonsense that if successful just dutifully kicks the can of tradition down the road and nothing more. A less politically efficacious course of action could scarcely be devised for Western Man by the Devil himself.
We live in times where people who are otherwise JQ-aware spread conspiracy-theories like the “fake moon landings” because they can’t believe that the government could ever have not lied.
Other podcasters, who amazingly call themselves Fascists, think that all the Founding Fathers were Jewish or Jewish tools. They don’t want to be pinned down on this ─ but they do know that Joos always lie. Hence everything is a lie. And therefore, the most Nationalist and intrepid of the Founding Fathers were ipso facto, the most Judaized of all liars.
My point is, if we live in a world where every pebble in the road is a conspiracy, then we will not only NOT make any progress on the Race or the JQ, but we will not get anywhere at all. Conspiracies are real, but we have to have a higher standard of proof than just saying so. I find this very frustrating.
As I said, the most insightful course on Con-Law that I ever had came from a John Bircher and BYU theologian who would have strongly taken issue with a “Papist” lie that Anglo-Saxon Law was and is tainted from the outset with a modern equivalent of Original Sin.
Plus, I’m old enough to remember many of these debates from the 1960s and 70s. My parents voted for Wallace in 1968 and I remember quite well when he was shot in 1972. I also remember the RFK shooting, but I’m not quite old enough to remember JFK, except adults talking about it.
“What Is To Be Done?” is a question that has bothered me for as long as I can remember. That is why I reach out to places like CC, and am thrilled when people like Jared Taylor can speak at places like ASU, or the NJP at Akron in support of victims of Black crime without it turning into a Charlottesville.
🙂
That’s pretty amazing! I wrote about Cleon Skousen once. He was onto something.
Yes, I found that. Very good essay. 😀
The British royal family is the reason I could never support a hereditary monarchy.
Why should that woman be evaluated by any standard other than look at what Britain has become?
I answer your question in my essay. Did you actually read the essay? The whole thing?
I did, and I find your overall thesis that her personal virtues outweigh her failure to fight for the survival of her nation unconvincing in the extreme.
So, the idea that Elizabeth II might have “done something” to have slowed the high-speed, downhill pace of British decline is a tad unrealistic. And what, in fact, could she have done? “Take a stand”? But in her eyes, that would have divided the nation (which is true) and would have effectively negated her primary role as national symbol and uniter (which is also true). In effect, she would have become a politician. This, at least, is how she must have seen things.
You are correct about her lack of formal, real power. You 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 immigration in high school in the late 1970s).
The silent but highly visible, passive invasion 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, she 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 riots there 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 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 the Labour 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.
I’ve read a number of your articles here. I read this one too, and found in this instance your points unconvincing.
The claim, for example, that she steered clear of political commentary so as not to divide people is not entirely accurate. For example, to my knowledge, she made no public comments about the 1000s of victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs. As recently as last year, however, the royal family came out in favor of appointing a “diversity czar” to modernize the British monarchy. That was done in response to criticism from Oprah Winfrey of all people. So she or her proxies have taken political stands over the years–stands in support of the status quo.
She didn’t need political power to voice moral outrage over the ongoing destruction of the British people and the transformation of that country into a left-wing tyranny. She she also supported her repulsive, degenerate and mostly likely pedophile rapist son Andrew to the end, a fact that you didn’t mention.
Stanley Kubrick could not imagine a world in which Elizabeth was not queen. Note the cap badge.
Here, here! Spot-on article. God bless Elizabeth R. Long Live the king!
Thank you.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment