Weddings are usually cause for celebration, and royal weddings are cause for national rejoicing. Even we colonials are fascinated by the British royal family.
Because of the hype. For most Americans, the British Royal Family is just an extension of celebrity culture. No wonder the trashy Princess Diana was the most famous and popular among all the Royals in both US and UK. The Bimbo had nothing on her mind but pop culture.
The monarchy is seductive, and there’s a temptation to defend it when leftists attack it. Thus, when Prince Harry married the divorced actress Meghan Markle in 2018, the glee many felt at the monarchy’s humiliation was painful.
Monarchy doesn't lead. It follows. Its demise demonstrates all too well the worst aspects of both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism can lead to stasis and stagnation, the loss of vitality, like with Ancient Egypt, Traditional China, and Byzantium. One part of the Royal Family became like a Wax Museum, a hall of mummies. But the Family's increasing appetite for publicity and mass approval in accordance to changing fashions illustrates the bad side of liberalism. (As royalty lost power, what did it have left but publicity?) Spinelessly bending whichever the wind blows. No backbone. If conservatism can be overly rigid and lead to enervation — bones that aren't exercised become more brittle, a kind of osteoporosis — , liberalism can fall into the habit of surrendering to the latest fads as 'new liberations'. (But then, as these 'liberations' become ever freakier and more perverse, as with globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense, greater social control and repression are necessary to impose them as the new holies, resulting in minority-tyranny.)
The Royal Family exhibits both characteristics of conservatism-gone-wrong and liberalism-gone-wrong. Things just got progressively worse since the Royal Family awarded the Beatles. The Beatles were great, but it was a case of pandering and profits. Prince Charles and Princess Diana respectively exhibited conservative dissipation and liberal dissolution. Charles came across as insular and stood for nothing but privilege. And Diana came across as vain and hollow, eager to hobnob with the celebs. The result was Harry, though there have been speculations that Charles isn't his real father, which makes it even worse as it means cuckoldry.
The perennially hopeful thought is that integrating the royal family would help unite the United Kingdom. However, having ignored Enoch Powell and imported the American race problem, the British are learning that integration doesn’t strengthen an institution. It hollows it out and may even destroy it.
UK's fate follows America's because both are under Jewish Domination, something Jared Taylor's American Renaissance is loathe to discuss. But there's another reason. After the fall of empires, the two of the biggest former players, UK and France, decided to turn their own nations into Potemkin Empires. If UK and France could no longer rule the world, their own nations would be turned into micro-facsimiles of what their empires had been. The UK would maintain the Commonwealth and reach out to former colonies. Also, by welcoming the very people who'd kicked them out, the British and French might gain the moral upperhand. "YOU kicked us out, but WE let you in. You hurt us, but we hug you." By welcoming immigrants and migrants, the white nations would display their tolerance in contrast to the 'xenophobia' that inspired the anti-imperialist uprisings across the empire. It was a subtle way of signaling the non-whites are the 'real racists' because they'd kicked out the white colonialists who were trying to create a New World Order, i.e. the non-whites refused the forces of progress like the Germanic Barbarians long ago halted the grand Roman experiment.
But of course, there were reasons other than Empire-Nostalgia. The Leftist intellectual elites found a new pet cause in non-white immigration as they'd grown tired of the native proletariat(that just become the new consumer class). They loved to white-knight as the defenders of these struggling immigrant communities from 'nativism', 'racism', and 'xenophobia'. They beat their chest and virtue-signaled as the people of compassion. The nastier types on the Left knew mass immigration would lead to violence and trouble, but they were excited by the prospect of radicalism and revolution. They were addicted to anarchy; it's like Antifa rioting in Portland over US immigration laws. And given the plummeting birthrates and increasing disdain for low-level employment among the whites, the business class grew ever more reliant on immigration labor. If the left was active in pushing for diversity, the right became increasingly passive in accepting it. Morally defensive in a world where 'racism' and 'antisemitism' were the biggest evils, the Right either feared being called 'racist' or felt that the Decline of the West was inevitable due to historical forces beyond control. And there was Jewish Power pushing it along to use increasing diversity among goyim as divide-and-rule tool for the Jews.
Anyway, the latest Royal debacle isn't the start of anything new. It's just icing on the cake for the Negrobalists. UK has become so Afro-cucked, Globohomo-cucked, and Judeo-cucked over the years that the royal comedy is just a late-stage manifestation of the mass infestation that has spread all throughout British Society. Notice Harry married a light-skinned mulatto who doesn't look quite black. Just wait until some princess marries a dark-skinned Negro. There was a movie called UNITED KINGDOM that celebrates the sexual union of a British woman and a Negro man. The message is clear: Africa is the dominant penis, and Europe is the submissive vagina. That is the Ideal Union according to the New Narrative in UK that has black boxers and other athletes as 'national heroes'. And white girls routinely bump-and-grind with Negro men in the streets and clubs of UK. Conservatives are hardly better. Niall Ferguson abandoned his white wife and kids for some worthless Somali Negress who, as the tool of Neocons, would have us believe that MOOOOSLIMS are the main threat to white women when, if anything, the two biggest enemies of white women are Jews and Negroes. The gall of that black whore; she steals a man from his wife and kids but crows about the dangers of Islam. Jews control the media and encourage white girls to act like sluts and skanks, and Negroes are the most criminal race, not least in sexual assault. But just like one bunch of white cowards are too wussy to call out on Jewish Power but rag on China & Iran instead, another bunch of cowards focus on the MOOOOSLIMS.
As Joe Sobran wrote in 1997, "Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible." He added that other races still feel subjugated even after the end of Western imperialism. Furthermore: "The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call 'minorities'."
This is rubbish. In truth, non-whites bash whites because whites bash themselves, and whites bash themselves because Jews colonized their minds. Eventually, Sobran came around to addressing the Jewish Issue but soon got 'canceled' by William F. Cuckley.
White-Bashing has three main reasons: (1) Jewish control of media and academia. Jews instilled whites with 'white guilt' and promoted 'scape-whiting'(scapegoating of whites) among the non-whites. (2) Endless white virtue-signaling about 'white guilt'. Whites themselves made white-bashing into a Western Value. So, ironically enough, when non-whites bash whites, they are actually following in the footsteps of whites. (2) White Loss in sports to blacks. Sports is the main generator of idols, and when blacks beat up whites, blacks lost respect for whites and whites lost self-respect; whites became cucked, and over time, non-whites around the world came to see blacks as the alphas towering over wussy white cucks; it's like yellow boys in China worship NBA stars(even though blacks are using their muscle power to pummel immigrants in Chinatown).
If whites ruled the West, exhibited racial pride, and set the terms, most non-whites in the West would be full of respect and admiration for whites. Indeed, isn't it odd that there was more non-white respect for whites in the Age of Empire when whites were proud and ruthless? Back then, despite all the resentment and animus, there was also respect and admiration. So, what happened? Whites followed the Jews and began to hate themselves, and as the non-white world follows the white world, it began to hate on whitey because white self-hatred was the new whiteness. Indeed, non-whites in Europe, Canada, & US who show respect & sympathy for white folks are likely to be treated less well by educated whites. White elites feel virtuous in their white-bashing and insist that non-whites join in the chorus of white-bashing. Michelle Malkin isn't anti-white, but so many whites hate her for that very reason.
Last summer, the Duchess even supported ridiculous hate-crime claims from 18-year-old Althea Bernstein, who said four “classic Wisconsin frat boys” tried to set her on fire.
Althea Bernstein, a Jewgro? Jews are champion liars and so are blacks. Then, a Jewgro is naturally a super-liar. Of course, Madison Wisconsin is White Guilt Capital. Whites there love to virtue-signal about how anti-white they are.
What kills me about this idiot Meghan is her total lack of self-awareness. If she's so into blackness and equality, why did she pursue and marry a White Prince? Why not marry a coal-black truck driver? Go blacker and live among regular folks. But she wants to be at the top while pretending to care for the downtrodden(among the blacks of course, as we never heard her say anything in support of Palestinians or Syrians). But then, this hypocrisy defines the Western Elites who are mostly status-obsessed go-getters who send their kids to the toniest schools and hobnob with the fancy crowd but also make much noise about 'social justice' and 'equity'.
Still, as ridiculous as Althea Bernstein's accusations, they were somewhat in line with America's founding. In truth, the British were NOT tyrannical over the American colonies. After a grueling war with French Canada(which the colonials insisted upon), the British slightly raised taxes on the colonials, which was justified given the costs of war. Only 1/3 of colonials had problems with the Brits. 1/3 supported the king, and the other 1/3 remained neutral. And the rebellion succeeded only because of the intervention of the French monarchy that was far more 'tyrannical' than the British. Colonials who called for independence banked on French intervention to secure victory against the wishes of 2/3 of the colonials who didn't join the Revolution. So, America's very founding was built on mass hysteria and a big lie(though, to be sure, the Founding Fathers were men of immense talent and intelligence, which can't be said for the current morons of PC).
In the honor culture that the monarchy emerged from, strength and duty justify power.
The problem with monarchy is inheritance of power invariably leads to decadence and insularity. Spain under monarchy grew weaker and even freakier. Most kings were fools, and most princes were idiots. Tsar Nicholas was a moron, and Kaiser Wilhelm a petulant jerk. While it takes a strong man to gain the throne by war and conquest, princes just inherit the power and grow up pampered. So, 'honor' was mostly talk, mostly BS, just like 'democracy' is today.
In our modern culture, claims of victimhood are the path to power. Today, we’re seeing the conflict between victim culture and honor culture.
Not really. If it were so, does anyone really think American Indians gain lots of power by bitching about victimhood? How come Palestinians don't have power in Europe or the US even though they made endless cases of their victimhood at the hands of Jews?
It's not the case that talk of victimhood leads to power. Rather, those with power use their control of victimhood narratives and iconography to shore up their own power and/or to favor their allies. So, no amount of Palestinian talk of victimhood will lead to power or guarantee sympathy from the West. No amount of American Indian historical gripes will lead to real power.
Jewish victimhood matters because Jews got the power. They control media & academia; as such, they get to decide the Official Narrative or compulsory narrative. And US politicians cuck to Jews endlessly. It's plain as day that Zionists victimize Palestinians, but both political parties favor Jews and Israel. So, where is Palestinian power despite the Palestinian plea for sympathy? Is BDS movement getting anywhere? Even Democrats attack BDS, and most 'leftists' would rather focus on trannies and BLM than on Palestinians or countless Arabs killed by US Wars for Israel. Of late, Utah passed anti-BDS legislation. Why would a conservative white state do that when Jews are mostly Democratic and push anti-whiteness? Because Jews got the power to mold white minds and make-or-break white success. As far as Jews are concerned, their supremacist domination depends on white cuckery. That's why Jews use their immense power to emphasize black victimhood while minimizing the tragedy of Palestinians and Arabs in general. Jews can tie black victimhood to 'white guilt', whereas Palestinian victimhood is most inconvenient to Jewish Power.
So, victimhood is really the tool of those with power. Indeed, white American history was also full of victim-narratives. When whites had the power, they were the victims... though ultimately with the wherewithal to become the victors. They were moral tools used by powerful whites to justify their power and expansion. So, even though whites were moving into Indian territories, the narrative was often about noble white settlers being attacked by 'hostiles' and 'savages'. Yellow journalism spread wild stories about Spanish authorities sexually abusing American women to inflame popular support for war. Even though the US was secretly aiding the British in World War I, it played the innocent victim when Lusitania was sunk. The US knowingly drove Japan to desperation and wanted it to attack to justify American entry into war, but the Pearl Harbor narrative would have us believe totally innocent and peace-loving America was violated by an act of infamy. Even though US was butchering countless people in Vietnam, it portrayed itself as defending the world from communist tyranny. And look at the whole US establishment today. US surrounds China, Iran, and Russia but bitch about Chinese aggression, Iranian aggression, and Russian aggression. US foreign policy is pure Bill Laimbeer. It commits all the fouls but cries foul about the various Axis of Evil.
And consider Christian History. Christians went on and on about the victimhood of Jesus as the Son of God. They reminded themselves and the world of how the early Christians been fed to the lions. But was it such victimhood talk that led to their power? No. If anything, on their path to power, they flattered the Romans and tended to blame the JEWS for the killing of Jesus. It was once they gained power that they began to use the victimhood card as a moral justification for their power-lust. So, even as Christianity became the official religion of the empire and even as Christian mobs were smashing pagan temples and burning people at the stake, they were making endless noises about their victimhood at the hands of pagans. The Christian Way, which pioneered the politics of victimhood, was to gain the power and then to use the power to bemoan their victimhood to justify their increasing power.
The powerless gain little traction with their victim-narratives. Just like you gotta spend money to make money, you gotta have power to gain more power via victimhood narratives.
What we have today isn't so much victimhood leading to power but the power exploiting the victimhood narrative. Jews got the power. They control the banks, media, academia, and law firms. They got the politicians in their pockets. And so, Jews endlessly push 'Muh Holocaust' narrative while suppressing BDS and Palestinian narratives. Also, Jews flatter blacks as moral allies. As blacks have been (selectively) associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Movement — never mind that all of black 'history' was about savagery, slavery, and brutality in the Dark Continent — , having them as allies means that Jews have the blessing of Noble Negroes. This gives Jews a free hand to oppress Palestinians. I mean, how can Jews be bad when their allies are the Noble Negroes?
It goes to show that much of current 'morality' is less about ideology than about idolatry. So, never mind that the Jews are acting supremacist and 'racist' toward Palestinians. And never mind blacks are aiding and abetting Zionist Apartheid and also racially attacking non-blacks. If ideology ruled, Jews and blacks would be judged like everyone else and be called out on their own acts of 'racism'. But as Jews are iconized as the Holocaust Race and as blacks are idolized as the Slavery Race, they are always justified no matter what they do. As their very identities have been 'sacralized', they are judged for what they ARE than for what they DO.
So, as long as Jews have blacks as allies, how can they be 'racist'? Blackness is idolized as 'struggle against racism' in the US Narrative, and if blacks are allied with Jews, it means Jews are also associated with 'anti-racism'. Of course, Jews have also been banking on their Holocaust Iconography that says Jews are the Shoah Race, the victims of 'racist' Nazis. Thus consecrated, it doesn't matter that it's the Jews who've been acting like Nazis against the Palestinians. No matter what Jews do, they are a bunch of Anne Franks, and to the extent that Palestinians resist them, they are the Arab 'Nazis'.
But white 'conservatives' are no better. They too indulge in Moral Idolatry. Why are they so eager to have Jews on their side? It's because of what Jewishness symbolizes: Holy Holocaust Victimhood. So, never mind what the Jews are doing and how it resembles apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow in the US South. Never mind such ideological considerations because idolatry is all that counts. Jews got the power to elevate themselves as the Holy Holocaust People, and white 'conservatives' want to be associated with such symbolism regardless of how Jews really act.
So, never assume that victimhood narrative alone leads to power. Current America is not about victimology but victorimology(or victor-victim-ology). As Patton said, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Why do Jewish victimhood and black victimhood count for so much? Because they are victors and winners in their respective fields. Jews have proven themselves as the brainiest people, and mind-power leads to money and influence. In other words, Jews are awesome, and THAT is why the Holocaust was so terrible: It victimized a superior people, the real master race. And blacks have proven themselves as the brawniest people, and muscle-power leads to fame and fortune in sports. As Patton said, "Americans admire the toughest boxer, the fastest runner." Well, they are blacks. Also, Americans love pop music dominated by blacks with stronger voices, and in our sexualized age, whites got jungle fever for black buns and dongs. And that is why Americans care about black victimology. Whites feel especially guilty because they feel they enslaved the superior race of top athletes, rappers, and long-dong-silver & twerking T'keymah.
In contrast, brown Mexicans haven't gained much traction in victimology because they're mediocre in all areas. So, even as whites are ideologically or rationally committed to 'equality', they 'idologically' and emotionally feel about brown Mexicans, "They've been a bunch of slaves, servants, and low-wage workers because they suck at everything." It's just how things are. It's like men will they regard all women as equally worthy as human beings. But such ideological considerations go out the window when they see a pretty babe. She is favored over the plain janes. Idolatry > Ideology, and Jews know this.
She never did anything to reverse the demographic transformation of her realm, but if she had, it might have meant the end of the monarchy.
The problem is Britain came to identify itself as an empire than as a nation. Thus, the King or Queen was no longer just the sovereign over national folks but everyone in the empire. When Britain ruled over India, the Hindus and Muslims there were told that the British monarch was their rightful and kindly ruler as well. This mentality has stuck. Like the Romans, the British became so flush with power and domination that Britishness became less a matter of national identity than pride in imperial might and domination. Of course, back in the Age of Empire, the Brits tried to have it both ways. They insisted upon their non-white subjects to accept 'inclusion' in the empire and revere the British King or Queen as their own sovereign WHILE, at the same time, being very race-conscious and emphasizing the white-pride element of imperial glory. It was a contradiction not unlike that which came to rack the Roman Empire. Both empires allowed great deal of participation from subject folks, but there was also a barrier between the conquerors and the conquered. As a corrective of past imperial mistakes, globalism envisions a New Empire where the West would rule the world again BUT with total and full participation of the darkies. An empire of 'equity'... at least on paper, as the globo-homo empire is really about various goyim serving their Jewish Supremacist masters. Jews certainly don't want to be equal with anyone.
Prince Harry’s approach has been different, but he doesn’t lack admirable qualities. He risked his life as a soldier for his country,
Did he now? For his country? But how is the occupation of Afghanistan related to British interests? Britain is merely serving as sidekick to the US military that serves Jewish Supremacism. So, even Harry's 'service to his country' was really just an indirect cucking to Jews. If he really wanted to serve his country, he would have called out against the insane Western policies in the Middle East. But no, ever the mindless dog, he served in the military to perpetuate the Jewish globo-homo war in the Middle East. The trite notion that a man who serves in the military is some patriot serving his country must GO. No, most US soldiers are not heroes or patriots. They are mercenary goons who signed up for benefits. They are perfectly willing to bomb and murder foreigners for future career prospects. And they are mindlessly fighting illegal wars and killing innocent people. And British military is just a sidekick of the US military. The hoary nonsense about soldiers-as-heroes is a sad joke. Soldiers are heroes ONLY WHEN they defend the motherland from invasion.
The Duchess also understands that her (part) black skin privilege has more real power than any claim to nobility.
Jews need white submission. So, Jews especially use blackness to guilt-bait whites. Thus morally paralyzed, whites seek redemption, and then, Jews pull a bait-and-switch by saying whites can redeem themselves by supporting Zionism and more Wars for Israel.
Black Power cannot be understood apart from Jewish Power. As for Oprah Winfrey, the fat whore is totally a Jewish-media creation. If Oprah cares so much about victimhood, how come she's never done a show about the plight of Palestinians or what Obama's policies have done to Arabs and Africans in Middle East and North Africa? That fat baboon is just a tool.
Once a member of Jeremiah Wright’s radical congregation, she concealed her own racial grievances until her position was unassailable.
Oprah was made by the Jews, but then, most famous blacks are. Notice she bashes whites but never ever Jews. Even blacks who bash Jews are enticed with lots of prizes if they were to only bash whites and turn a blind eye to Wars for Israel. When certain blacks bash Jews and whites, whites and Jews react the same way. Whites denounce those blacks of anti-Jewishness, and Jews denounce those blacks of anti-Jewishness. Jews don't denounce both the anti-white and anti-Jewish vitriol. If the blacks apologize only to Jews while still lambasting whites, Jews are only too happy to work with them. Take Al Sharpton. He used to call Jews 'diamond merchants', but he got lots of money and has been a good Negro ever since, at least to Jews. Jews control the gods and the gold. Indeed, so much of US politics and culture could be explained in terms of..."Jews give you money." It certainly goes a long way to describe why GOP and Democratic politicians act the way they do. Jews don't care how much blacks hate on whites. If anything, Jews add fuel to the fire. Jews get antsy only when blacks turn on Jews. The understanding between Jews and blacks is "We Jews give you money" and "We blacks bash whites but never Jews."
But are white cuckservatives any different? GOP's relation to Jews is, "Throw us some money and don't bash us too badly, and we will praise Israel to high heaven and never ever call out on Jewish behavior." Even Jared Taylor, though totally deplatformed by Jews, clings to the fantasy of white-Jewish alliance, a day when the superior race of Jews will finally see the light and join forces with whites against the darkies. What an idiot.
A black billionaire used her massive platform to give a privileged mulatta a chance to claim she was a victim.
In a way, the very institution of royalty invites victimhood mentality. Take the story of the princess and the pea. She arrives at the castle and insists she's of royal blood. So, how do they find out if she's telling the truth? They put a pea in the bed to see how sensitive her skin is. When she complains about the pea, they know she must be of royal blood because of her preciously sensitive skin.
We associate fancy-pantsism with elitism, but elitism is linked with victimism. Elites have higher standards and feel offended by anything that doesn't meet their highfalutin criteria. For most ordinary folks, a regular cup of coffee is good enough, but only the best coffee will do to an elitist who will feel 'victimized' by inferior coffee, like the scene in MULHOLLAND DR.
In the film SWEPT AWAY, who feels more victimized by being shipwrecked? The poor Southern Italian male or the rich Northern Italian blonde lady? It's the latter because she's used to finer things. Why do educated elites feel so 'triggered' by everything? They believe themselves to be TOO GOOD for most jobs; they want the best and look down on working class 'deplorables'. Even as they virtue-signal about 'justice', they have fancy-pants view of themselves and feel wronged whenever something doesn't go their way.
In ROB ROY, the fancy-pantsers feel wronged or 'victimized' by the slightest infraction. What most people accept as 'Life' is downright 'triggering' to the fancy-pants neo-aristo elites. So, paradoxically, victimhood mentality spread precisely because things got better for most people who got to feeling like divas. Take the boomers. They had it much easier than their parents who lived through hard times and war. But they felt sooooo victimized by everything. And they raised their kids to feel entitled and oh-so-special.
Why are blacks bitching more than ever, indeed far more than blacks who really had it tough in the past and had to work from sunup to sundown for cornbread and ripple? They don't know hunger, they all got smart phones, and they all want to be Jay-Z or Rhianna. Celebrity culture has spread a kind of vulgar-royalty mindset around the globe. And globo-homo made it worse cuz homos and trannies are among the most narcissistic snot-nosers around. When you see some tranny getting hysterical about being addressed as 'he' than 'she', it reeks of royalty or aristocratic mentality. So, in a way, victimhood mentality ironically flows not only from the mob but from the snob. Take PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. John Candy the fatso Deplorable is pretty accepting of the pitfalls of life, but Steve Martin the affluent professional snivels and sneers at all-things-common and feels 'wronged' by having to rub shoulders with regular joes. And every minor trifle was a major victimization moment for Princess Diana, oh boo hoo hoo. This is why the French Revolution did nothing wrong when it killed so many fancy-pantsers. With Meghan Markle-Mertz-or-whatever, victimhood has turned into victim vanity with nouveau-aristo flair. That pea in the bed was just too much for her, boo hoo hoo.
Black sensitivity has gotten worse because they consider themselves to be the new royals of the West. After all, so many black athletes, rappers, and stars are idolized by whites. Black soul is regarded as holier. MLK and Mandela are bigger than god and jesus. Oprah was praised by white liberals and conservatives alike as Soul-Nanny of America. Such cultural climate was bound to affect black attitudes and expectations. When blacks were struggling for simple equality, their minds were focused on basic matters. But after several decades of MLK worship, Magic Negro adulation, Jungle Fever, and Blacks Sports idolatry, blacks have developed a vulgar royal mindset and feel entitled to be respected and served by everyone. So-called 'reparations' are really tributes and offerings, i.e. non-blacks as lesser-beings exist to work, pay taxes, and present gifts to blacks gods and kangz. Jews feel much the same way. And homos now regard themselves as highfalutin aristocrats of the West and feel oh-so-offended if we don't praise all things 'gay' everyday. They take umbrage at any criticism of homosexuality or the homo agenda, much like an aristocrat was outraged that a mere peasant dared to act uppity towards him. An aristocrat was someone who materially victimized the peons but felt emotionally victimized if the peon said, "I don't want to be your dog anymore." Today, blacks like Meghan and others feel 'victimized' by non-blacks who insist it isn't their sole purpose in life to kiss black ass and wash black feet. In a way, what goes by the name of 'victimology' is about certain groups taking on aristocratic airs about history. You see, they are oh-so-very-special and it was such a grave injustice that history didn't treat them better. In truth, of course, history has been a bitch to all peoples, and it's just the way of the world. Just ask the Palestinians.
The Duchess made several charges. She said a member of the royal family worried her son Archie might be too “dark.” Who said that? She wouldn’t say.
Well, one thing for sure, she didn't want to marry someone who's dark. She married lily-white Harry. If she's so proud to be black, why didn't she marry a coal-black dude? She is the product of black-white mixing and she chased after whiteness, but she's bitching that whites are color-conscious. If she really loves blackness, why not move to Africa and marry Bongo-Wongo? Total lack of self-awareness. In a way, her endless yammering about blackness seems a cover for her white-preference. She wants to be with a white man and have a white-looking kid, but lest she lose her credentials as a Noble Negress, she whines endlessly about 'racism' to maintain her street cred. It's like she married into the exclusive world of royalty but yammers about 'equality' and 'inclusive' as deflection of her own snobbery(or at least hobnobbery).
The true irony is that this story really is about the privilege of a sacred bloodline. That bloodline is Meghan Markle’s black ancestry. A wealthy white woman complaining that the press is mean probably would win no praise.
Not necessarily true. Think of all the love Princess Di got, and she was a royal pain the arse(though Charles, the conversationist with flowers, was no better). You can get a lot of love even if you're white and rich. All you got to do is associate with the right causes. Princess Di, the celebrity-hog, got very cozy with the fruitcakes and was so adored by Elton John and the like. So, even if whiteness has fallen out of favor, it can be half-redeemed via association with Jews, blacks, and homos.
This is what happens when traditional intuitions are “integrated.” Non-whites welcomed with great fanfare turn on their benefactors. Joe Sobran is probably right. Blacks who suddenly “lead” something whites created can’t help thinking it’s foreign. They feel no duty or loyalty towards something their own people could never have built.
Why don't you name the Jews? Gee, could it be that the problem began when the West 'emancipated' and then 'integrated' Jews into white institutions? Could it be Jews 'deconstructed' whiteness and reconstructed it into a form of demonology?
While integration or 'inclusion' have their problems, I don't believe it necessarily leads to subversion from within UNLESS whites have lost all pride & dignity and the new grand theme is 'whites are evil'. When whites lack self-respect, why would(or should) non-whites respect whites? When whites bash themselves, why wouldn't non-whites do likewise because, after all, whites still set the tone in the West? This anti-white trend didn't begin with integration of non-whites into white institutions. Rather, anti-whiteness spread among whites first even before this integration gained momentum. And whites became this way in large measure due to Jewish Power and influence.
The foundations of monarchy are hierarchy and sacral order. Monarchy can’t pursue “equality” without destroying itself.
Monarchy can destroy itself in many ways. Tsar Nicholas certainly didn't pursue equality but totally destroyed his domain. Also, as you've said, the problem isn't so much that the British Royalty is pursuing real equality but bending to the rise of Afro-Nobility, or Black Lives Matter More. But then, the British elites and monarchy bent to Jewish Supremacy already. When Jews gained both money and moral supremacy, they were like the gods of UK.
I would argue the French and British Monarchies would have done better if they'd practiced a bit of genuine equality long ago with their own folks. Instead of enclosing themselves in fancy pants palaces and dining on fancy cakes, how about if they'd opened their bloodlines to the regular folks? Suppose princes were encouraged to marry common women(of virtue) and if princesses were encouraged to marry common soldiers(of valor). Such would have kept the monarchies real and in touch with the people. It also would have infused some fresh blood into the family. Look how anemic most royal families got. Who is the finest wife in movie history? It's Jesse James' wife Zee in THE LONG RIDERS. She has common dignity and personal pride, a quality you don't find among the fancy-pantsers. Indeed, look at what all the inbreeding did to the Spanish Royal Family. It turned them into freaks. The great thing about National Socialism was it opened the elite ranks to common Germans who proved their worth.
There is only one way to win the diversity game. Don’t play. You are racist no matter what you do.
There's a better way. Name the Jew. Mention how Jews use diversity as divide-and-rule tool. Also, given Jewish hostility to whites, tell whites to seek White Liberation from Jewish Power and Privilege. Tit-for-Tat. Stop cucking to Jews who push jungle fever on whites. Jared Taylor calls for 'white advocacy', but that is so wussy. 'Advocacy'? At this point in history? No, whites must call for white liberation, and ask 'what from?', the answer should be obvious: Jewish Supremacism that controls everything and props up black supremacism and homo-supremacism.
The Sovereign — and everyone in her family — must be something more than celebrities.
That ship has sailed long ago. There is nothing left about the Family but celebrity gossip. It's total trash and must go. You can revive a comatose person but not a dead person. The Royal Family is deader than a doorknob. It is only good for jokes.
A post-Brexit United Kingdom could retain relevance by strengthening ties with the white nations it created, with the monarch as the unifying symbol.
ROTFL. Post-Brexit, the UK has imported more non-whites than ever. Brexit was not about cutting UK from the non-white world. It was about cutting UK from Europe and inviting more non-whites to be New Brits. It was retarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment