 |
| An artistically reinterpreted picture of the Royal Couple and their prospective offspring. |
The recent announcement of the forthcoming marriage of Prince Harry and a 36-year-old, partially black divorcee is troubling for many people for a variety of reasons.
The most obvious and safest reason to object is the fact that the women is well past her sell-by date and clearly "on the turn," being three years older than Harry, and of an age at which a woman's ovaries start packing their bags. She also clearly has a long sexual history with a variety of partners. My guess is around 20 to 30.
Saying all this in 2017 may sound somewhat prudish, but the fact is that the legitimacy of the present House of Windsor is literally founded on the idea that marrying clapped-out American divorcees is unforgivable. Prince Harry is only the grandson of the present Queen because the Queen is the daughter of George VI, who became king in 1936 because it was thought unacceptable for his big brother Edward VIII to marry an earlier clapped-out American divorcee.
Of course, even without the Abdication Crisis of 1936, George would eventually have become king anyway, because Edward's American divorcee was over 40 and clearly infertile (there are rumours of a botched abortion in China). But the fact is that the title to the throne was passed to George VI based entirely on the fact that royalty can be nullified by union with an inappropriate partner.
Of more interest to the Alt-Right is the racial and identitarian angle, as Harry's chosen bride is a White-presenting mulatto.
In the past, European royalty was always noted for its "ethnic promiscuity," that is the tendency of its princes and princesses to marry across ethnic boundaries. Famously in World War I the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany, and the Czar of Russia were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria, who was herself a scion of several German families. The present Queen's husband, Prince Philip, is often described as "The Greek," but in fact is half German, a quarter Russian, and a quarter Danish.
The bloodline of the British royals is replete with infusions of Dutch, Danish, Austrian, Scottish, Welsh, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and even some English blood, although German clearly predominates.
Inter-ethnic royal marriages were a convenient way to establish alliances, while also maintaining royal status, because marrying within one's own state inevitably meant marrying someone of a lower social rank. The popularity of this kind of marriage, however, meant that almost every European state was ruled by an ethnically alien elite. In the case of England, you have to go back to the period before the Norman Conquest (1066) to find a genuinely English monarch.
Even after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and the rise of more integral and consciously nationalistic states, the royal elites remained extremely cosmopolitan in their marriage choices. But the saving grace of the system was that it never transcended race. In fact, the ability of various European populations to accept without a murmur ethnically alien rulers for centuries is testament to the principle of underlying racial unity that many in the Alt-Right emphasize. Thanks to this factor of tolerance within the race, the ethnic cosmopolitanism of European monarchs was allowed to remain invisible or was at least "forgiven."
The marriage of Prince Harry and his American actress is interesting because it challenges the racial basis on which the declining institution of monarchy has been accepted by those populations that still have it. It is also interesting because it highlights the difference between the past cosmopolitanism of royals and its present-day form.
In the past the cosmopolitanism of royals had a certain rationale, connected to maintaining status and setting up alliances. The new type of cosmopolitanism that we see creeping in seems to have more to do with the international celebrity status that members of royal families now enjoy. Essentially they are little different from Hollywood stars, motivated by hedonism, attention grabbing, and moral signalling. As an antiquated hierarchical element in culturally – but not financially – egalitarian societies, royalty may have a particularly strong need to "signal" moral and social worth.
Referring these general elements to the specific example before us, there is much speculation at present about Miss Markle's array of sexual techniques, but there is clearly also much value to the neglected second son of the family in her ability to épater la bourgeoisie – "shock the bourgeoisie" – whether one means this pleasantly or unpleasantly.
By marrying her, Harry is using essentially the techniques of sub-racism to jostle out from under the shadow of his more accomplished older brother, who has been monopolising the spotlight of late with his largely successful marriage to Kate Middleton. Marrying Markle allows Harry to show himself as somehow more "daring" and "progressive," while attracting cheap plaudits from the peanut gallery and the mass media.
But this is definitely a slippery slope.
It is no accident that the British Royal Family has become associated with the meme of "reptilian lizard people". Cosmopolitanism is an inherently alienating phenomenon. In the present age, any royal family that loses touch with its "host" population is in danger of spiralling off into insignificance and oblivion.
The sin of cosmopolitanism in the past was mediated, softened, and ultimately absolved by the fact of racial similitude, which served as a corrective. However, the new cosmopolitanism of the present age threatens to destroy this. While there are still comparatively few mixed race royal marriages, this trend could be about to accelerate. Plus, what happens when some soppy royal sow decides to emulate the practices of pop stars and Hollywooders by adopting five or six kids from the Sudan or Somalia into the royal bloodlines?
While royal families can get away with being different from the populace, it is much more questionable if they can get away with looking different.
With European royalty, racial purity is actually much more important than it is with any other group. This is because Royals serve a symbolic function, which means their visual appearance is everything. Because of the degree to which elite royal families still associate with each other and intermarry, even a relatively small admixture of non-European blood into the royal bloodlines will give the class, as a whole, an "alien veneer." Combined with the sense of "reptilian otherness" that people already feel, this is likely to drive an increasing wedge between the royals and the plebs.
Some might say that this "de-Whiting" will make them "more acceptable" to other "rising demographics," but the truth is that mystery meat looks alien to everyone.
Those in charge of the royal brand may wish to dwell on these truths and the dangers that marriages like this ultimately pose to the institution of royalty. They may also wish to consider what actions they can take. If this is not worth "a car crash in Paris" to them, then one wonders what is.
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.
The most obvious and safest reason to object is the fact that the women is well past her sell-by date and clearly "on the turn," being three years older than Harry, and of an age at which a woman's ovaries start packing their bags. She also clearly has a long sexual history with a variety of partners. My guess is around 20 to 30.
Saying all this in 2017 may sound somewhat prudish, but the fact is that the legitimacy of the present House of Windsor is literally founded on the idea that marrying clapped-out American divorcees is unforgivable. Prince Harry is only the grandson of the present Queen because the Queen is the daughter of George VI, who became king in 1936 because it was thought unacceptable for his big brother Edward VIII to marry an earlier clapped-out American divorcee.
Of course, even without the Abdication Crisis of 1936, George would eventually have become king anyway, because Edward's American divorcee was over 40 and clearly infertile (there are rumours of a botched abortion in China). But the fact is that the title to the throne was passed to George VI based entirely on the fact that royalty can be nullified by union with an inappropriate partner.
*************
In the past, European royalty was always noted for its "ethnic promiscuity," that is the tendency of its princes and princesses to marry across ethnic boundaries. Famously in World War I the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany, and the Czar of Russia were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria, who was herself a scion of several German families. The present Queen's husband, Prince Philip, is often described as "The Greek," but in fact is half German, a quarter Russian, and a quarter Danish.
The bloodline of the British royals is replete with infusions of Dutch, Danish, Austrian, Scottish, Welsh, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and even some English blood, although German clearly predominates.
 |
| George I never got the hang of English. |
Even after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and the rise of more integral and consciously nationalistic states, the royal elites remained extremely cosmopolitan in their marriage choices. But the saving grace of the system was that it never transcended race. In fact, the ability of various European populations to accept without a murmur ethnically alien rulers for centuries is testament to the principle of underlying racial unity that many in the Alt-Right emphasize. Thanks to this factor of tolerance within the race, the ethnic cosmopolitanism of European monarchs was allowed to remain invisible or was at least "forgiven."
The marriage of Prince Harry and his American actress is interesting because it challenges the racial basis on which the declining institution of monarchy has been accepted by those populations that still have it. It is also interesting because it highlights the difference between the past cosmopolitanism of royals and its present-day form.
In the past the cosmopolitanism of royals had a certain rationale, connected to maintaining status and setting up alliances. The new type of cosmopolitanism that we see creeping in seems to have more to do with the international celebrity status that members of royal families now enjoy. Essentially they are little different from Hollywood stars, motivated by hedonism, attention grabbing, and moral signalling. As an antiquated hierarchical element in culturally – but not financially – egalitarian societies, royalty may have a particularly strong need to "signal" moral and social worth.
 |
| Somebody tell Harry he wasn't the first. |
By marrying her, Harry is using essentially the techniques of sub-racism to jostle out from under the shadow of his more accomplished older brother, who has been monopolising the spotlight of late with his largely successful marriage to Kate Middleton. Marrying Markle allows Harry to show himself as somehow more "daring" and "progressive," while attracting cheap plaudits from the peanut gallery and the mass media.
But this is definitely a slippery slope.
The sin of cosmopolitanism in the past was mediated, softened, and ultimately absolved by the fact of racial similitude, which served as a corrective. However, the new cosmopolitanism of the present age threatens to destroy this. While there are still comparatively few mixed race royal marriages, this trend could be about to accelerate. Plus, what happens when some soppy royal sow decides to emulate the practices of pop stars and Hollywooders by adopting five or six kids from the Sudan or Somalia into the royal bloodlines?
While royal families can get away with being different from the populace, it is much more questionable if they can get away with looking different.
With European royalty, racial purity is actually much more important than it is with any other group. This is because Royals serve a symbolic function, which means their visual appearance is everything. Because of the degree to which elite royal families still associate with each other and intermarry, even a relatively small admixture of non-European blood into the royal bloodlines will give the class, as a whole, an "alien veneer." Combined with the sense of "reptilian otherness" that people already feel, this is likely to drive an increasing wedge between the royals and the plebs.
Some might say that this "de-Whiting" will make them "more acceptable" to other "rising demographics," but the truth is that mystery meat looks alien to everyone.
Those in charge of the royal brand may wish to dwell on these truths and the dangers that marriages like this ultimately pose to the institution of royalty. They may also wish to consider what actions they can take. If this is not worth "a car crash in Paris" to them, then one wonders what is.
__________________________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.
Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History hasn’t been marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profoundly alternated among forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave way to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’? Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And a huge chunk of what was once Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. Also, the historical lessonof democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, almost invariably leads to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.
For democracy to survive, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that says stuff like "there is no such thing as French Culture" or "Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’." America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom that was nevertheless bound by powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. Democracy without fascist themes to keep it bound to a people and culture will become like a hot air balloon that euphorically lifts into the air only to run out of gas and then come down crashing like the one in the opening scene of ANDREI RUBLEV.
Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ to any bunch of mobs who want to invade Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is "poorer folks move to richer folks", Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.
That is precisely what is happening to the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if left unchecked, it will mean their doom and downfall. A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people of a particular nation. A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population deracinated by PC.
Deracinators or Deracists are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.
Harry reminds me of Jeb Bush, low energy and low self-confidence.
ReplyDeletePeople are saying this is just Harry, who cares? But this could so easily have been William. And what if Prince George turns out to be gay and decides to adopt an African orphan. how do you stop that Black orphan becoming king? Isn't an adopted son equal to a son by birth is today's world? How would they even go about stopping this without seeming homophobic and racist?
ReplyDeleteContemptible parasites, all of them. From the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThe royal family similar to the banking cabal is known to have engaged in intermarriage between relatives a.k.a incest which can also explain their physical deformation similar to mental ones.
ReplyDeleteBut,this isn't really "NEW" - is it ? This basic theme and suggestion was aired very briefly some 3 or 4 years ago,it seems to me. The idea that some royal should marry a Negro from the Third World. And,Harry seemed to "fit the bill" best of all those available,as he had spent so much time visiting in the Third World,etc. The "specs" have changed just a bit. But,the most important specification has been retained and realized to a certain degree.
ReplyDelete