Credit Image: © Amanda Rose/Avalon via ZUMA Press

You could argue that the British Empire began with Queen Elizabeth I and ended with Queen Elizabeth II. “I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and to the service of our great imperial family, to which we all belong,” said Queen Elizabeth II at the beginning of her reign. An ABC segment cited this quote but left out “our great imperial family.” The network may have been trying to avoid controversy, and posthumously exonerate the queen. Still, for many, the embarrassment about “our great imperial family” indicates the hopeless state of not just the United Kingdom, but the entire Anglosphere. Guilt and rot run deep.

In truth, “the imperial family” was gone before she even became sovereign in 1952. “It is with deep grief I watch the clattering down of the British Empire with all its glories and all the services it has rendered to mankind,” said Winston Churchill in 1947. He was arguably responsible for destroying it. His queen had far less power, but certainly did nothing to hold on to empire. However, it’s not true that she never used her authority.

Author Robert Lacey argues in Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II that the queen opposed the racial consciousness that built the British Empire.

Elizabeth II did not share the imperial nostalgia of her mother. She took personal pride in the achievements of the dozen and a half independent nations that were born on her watch. She had visited every capital, opened virtually every new dam and university, and felt she played a personal part in their creation.

“On the apartheid issue, she has always been on-side,” says David Owen. “It’s the one-man, one-vote principle. On racial matters she is absolutely colour-blind, and her non-white Commonwealth premiers were very conscious of that.” (page 318)

This made all the difference with Rhodesia. The United Kingdom called Rhodesia’s “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” “illegal” and kept Rhodesia out of the “imperial family.” Ian Smith, who had fought heroically for the British Empire during World War II, found his most dangerous opponents not among the black guerillas his armies habitually defeated, but in the United Kingdom and the United States.

By the time Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, the Portuguese Empire had fallen and South Africa had stopped supporting Rhodesia. Under American pressure, Smith managed to cobble together a compromise: He would share power with less militant black leaders, not just hand the country over to Robert Mugabe. Thatcher, according to Monarch, was “inclined to accept this compromise,” for she had “little instinctive sympathy with black Africa’s leaders and their call for 100 percent majority rule.” (316)

However, the queen reportedly pressured her to attend the 1979 Commonwealth Conference in Zambia, which supported the “Lancaster House peace process that would bring unfettered black majority rule to Rhodesia.” (317) This had consequences:

Mrs. Thatcher came to feel that the Lancaster House settlement negotiated in London early in 1980 was her own achievement. The agreement ended the fourteen-year embarrassment of UDI [Unilateral Declaration of Independence], restored legality, ended the war, and produced democratic elections. From the queen’s point of view, her family of nations now contained one more independent country that was free to follow its own destiny. (321)

That destiny was catastrophe. Robert Mugabe plunged the country into poverty after viciously persecuting his black political enemies and then the remaining whites. Today, what is left of Zimbabwe is financially dependent on China. It left the Commonwealth in 2003. Almost all whites have fled, and South Africa is trying to keep black Zimbabweans from flooding the country.

Under Smith’s compromise, blacks and whites would have been better off and perhaps could have lived in peace, if not unity. American and British fanaticism prevented this. Marveling at this rabid hostility against a kindred people that had fought loyally for the Empire, British immigrant Peter Brimelow wrote in 1979: “In the Rhodesians, we saw ourselves as we were and might have been. And we hated us.”

South Africa, which also fought for Britain, was essentially expelled from the Commonwealth in 1961 because of its racial policies. Nelson Mandela hailed this as a “historic step forward.” Queen Elizabeth II evidently revered Mandela.

Elizabeth II had “one of the outstanding experiences of my life” in March 1995 when she set foot on South African soil for the first time in nearly five decades. She was greeted as “Elizabeth” by Nelson Mandela, her host for a state visit. (He and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia were the only world leaders to call her by her Christian name without causing offense.) She had initially met him in 1991 during a conference of Commonwealth heads of government in Zimbabwe. As leader of the ANC, Mandela had been invited only as an observer, and South Africa still remained outside the Commonwealth. Lacking head of government status, he technically couldn’t be included in the Queen’s traditional banquet. But Robert Fellowes urged the Queen to make an exception. “Let’s have him,” she responded instantly. At the time, her decision was potentially controversial; just four years earlier Margaret Thatcher had branded Mandela a terrorist. (384)

This is how Queen Elizabeth II was a “colonialist.” She bullied white populations to submit to black rule. This worked because conservatives and whites respected her. And she did nothing to preserve the indigenous British people’s majority in their ancient homeland.

Of course, journalists and academics say only whites can be “colonialist.” By that standard, Queen Elizabeth II was a fervent anti-colonialist. By consciously and deliberately dismantling an empire she ostensibly led, she may be the greatest anti-colonialist in history. She wanted a colorblind Commonwealth built on ties of affection.

Her affection was not returned. Carnegie Mellon University professor Dr. Uju Anya’s wish that the Queen of a “thieving raping genocidal empire” suffer “excruciating” pain is the most notorious.

She had at least one defender.

However, there were countless others who responded heartlessly to the queen’s death.

The South African Economic Freedom Fighters Party was especially cold considering that the queen’s racial treason is a major reason they can strut around pretending they have a functional country.

One historian tweeted:

Considering the state of once-Great Britain, why shouldn’t Britons look to the past?

“Mainstream” journalists made racial complaints while supposedly reporting the news.

A Washington Post reporter:

Despite it all, the indigenous British respected their queen and look favorably upon their new king. The link between monarch and nation remains in the United Kingdom, at least among whites. Britain can be understood with these two videos. A mostly white crowd mourns its monarch, while leftists march with revolutionary slogans for an “aspiring rapper” whom the police shot to death.

Sky News mistakenly linked a protest march to a remembrance of the Queen. This led to more outrage. British rulers didn’t listen to Enoch Powell, so they have imported American-style race problems. These controversies will continue as long as blacks occupy Britain.

Monarchy is a symbol of unity, but many mocked the video of whites mourning their Queen.

This is hatred. These people see the queen as a white symbol, they hate whites, and they enjoy white sorrow.

Why do they hate? The queen didn’t have much power under the constitution. However, what she had, she used to help blacks at the expense of whites. Still, blacks – correctly – saw her as white Britain’s sovereign. Many whites, including the queen, keep appealing to common ground that isn’t there.

I support monarchy, and not just as a symbol. We need hierarchy — a sovereign as the link between the people and the sacred, and the union of state and people. Nations are built on myth, blood, and heroism, not legal contracts.

Monarchy represents this. In a democracy, politicians try to defeat opponents by any means, including replacing them physically. In a democracy, every “fellow citizen” is a potential political enemy. Legitimacy rooted in “public opinion” is dangerous because public opinion is manipulated. It is laundered oligarchy. Worse, it’s dishonest laundered oligarchy because even though it is controlled from the top down, mass democracy’s values come from the gutter. Equality and victimhood become ideals rather than greatness and sacrifice.

Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and other degraded monarchies show that monarchy by itself can’t check degeneracy. Traditional institutions can be harmful when they force conservatives into leftist positions out of misplaced reverence. Queen Elizabeth II’s reign is a clear example.

However, monarchy at least offers an alternative to endless decline. It doesn’t even require a government. The Zulus don’t have a nation-state, but they have a king who commands great respect among his people. He deserves respect from other peoples, including us. He shows a gracious alternative to the way other blacks behave.

What’s next? Australia, New Zealand, and Canada may shuck the king and become republics. Progressives want to build new negative identities based on aboriginal, Māori, and “First Nations” victimhood.

The Welsh, Irish, and Scots helped build the Empire, but the truly powerful will never let regional nationalists be “victims” like blacks. Irish nationalists wailing about the Black and Tans will never get the worshipful media attention and prestigious prizes blacks get even in the Irish Republic.

If groveling is what Irish independence led to, the struggle was pointless. Cromwell did less damage.

There can be no hope for King Charles III. Still, His Majesty knows Traditionalist René Guénon’s work and can defend hierarchy. “In these uprooted times, there is a great need for constancy, a need for those who can rise above the clamor, the din, and the sheer pace of our lives to help us to rediscover those truths that are immutable and eternal, and a need for those who can speak of that eternal wisdom which is called the perennial philosophy,” he said to a traditionalist conference.

In an age of constant leveling, that counts for something. We fight for our people, but also for something more. Our foes have linked “whiteness” with greatness. I’ll accept that gift.

Nick Fuentes put it well:

Ultimately, we need institutions that are by, for, and about the upward development of our race and nothing else. However, such things can’t emerge from nothing. Tradition has value and our ancient institutions are important. They should be respected. Our future will be rooted in our past. It is all part of the same story that will never end so long as even one white family lives.

The white crowds who mourned their queen understand this in their bones, even if they don’t have words for it. “Men never respect what they have made themselves,” wrote Joseph de Maistre. True loyalty is organic, inherent, in the blood. It is powerful because it is “irrational.” Thus, monarchy endures, while the democratic politicians supposedly holding the real power seem small.

Perhaps Charles III will recognize those who support him are the white Britons who built the empire and still embody what’s best in that once-great people. I doubt it. For now, all we can do is give him a chance — and remember that blacks will never see him as theirs, no matter what he does. He is still a white symbol, whatever his own wishes may be. Blacks don’t respect what we do. Let’s stop trying to pretend otherwise.

God Save the King. Non-whites certainly won’t, no matter how much he grovels.





Source link

By GIL