Third Worlders have a strange form of racial pride. A patriotic white person will boast of the historical and contemporary achievements of his folk, the empires built, the scientific wonders discovered, the battles won, the art and high culture created. Third Worlders act differently. Aside from vague references to being “kangz” in a bygone age, Third Worlders boast about their ability to degrade someone else’s civilization.
In a debate about immigration, once the pretense that non-white settlement actually helps Western nations is dismissed, Third Worlders will rip off the mask and righteously assert that immigration is “revenge” for colonialism. Naturally, this is an implicit admission their presence is harmful to our societies and that they recognize this fact. When they enter white institutions, be it a parliament, university, or company, they themselves regard it as a victory over that institution, rather than an opportunity to further its power or glory. Nothing is created, the cultural pattern is simply to cannibalize and consume. As one memorable forum post put it, their final victory will be “twerking on the ruins of Western Civilization.”
Which brings us to the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The jubilant reaction by the media has been instructive. Few argue that Markle is adding a touch of grace and elegance to the royal family, that she will add to the dignity of The Crown, or even that she will simply do a good job performing the official duties expected. Instead, this is being portrayed as something of a victory over Great Britain and the monarchy itself, “some much-needed representation in the British Monarchy, an institution that’s historically and almost-entirely white.”
In passing, we must note the casual claim of ownership over the British Monarchy, in particular how casually they make the unsupported assertion that it “needs” blacks in it. It has never troubled my sleep that my descendants will likely never enter the royal household of Swaziland or that my firstborn is unlikely to marry one of the Crown Princesses of Japan, yet if we don’t get a sub-Saharan African somewhere in the Danish line of succession these hysterical children regard it as a hate crime. The entitlement, and the endless malevolence against any white institution or symbol defies description.
Markle’s age of 36 and status as a divorcee are also leading to hateful celebration. Her acquisition of Harry gives the hypergamous hordes hope, as now every middle-aged housewife who wants to dump her husband after reading “Eat Pray Love” can dream she’ll snag a prince of the blood. Reports circulated earlier this week that Markle had listed “stripping” as one of her qualifications on her CV – such articles are now being taken down after SJW hectoring, and, presumably, pressure from the Palace. The most common picture of Markle’s first husband, a producer in the cesspool of Hollywood, features them at an ADL event. In Roman times, a member of Markle’s profession would not even be allowed to circulate in polite society, let alone with royalty.
Markle’s status as a divorcee is especially significant, as it was Edward VIII’s decision to marry a divorcee which led to him giving up the throne, a decision which helped pave the way for the second European civil war and the collapse of the British Empire. As disastrous as that was for Britain and Europe, at least the king’s departure showed some semblance of standards. Today, the Church of England’s officials are conducting prayers for Prince George (age 4) to be gay. Markle’s conversion to the C of E is thus hardly encouraging.
Throughout most of history, a royal wedding was an arranged wedding. Indeed, marrying someone else and thus securing titles, alliances and property was the whole purpose of existence for much of the European nobility. It’s therefore tempting to suggest Harry is being married to this biracial actress for political reasons, either at the hands of her matchmaker or by the Crown itself. The conspiracy theory years ago was that the Queen had Diana killed for shacking up with a non-white; the conspiracy theory now is that Her Majesty is marrying off her grandson to a nonwhite to keep the monarchy relevant in the emerging Third World Britain.
Of course, Markle is not likely to ever be queen. Prince Harry was always given a bit of leeway being the “spare” rather than the “heir,” and this may simply be another form of that forbearance. The royal family gets to cloak itself in the protective garb of “anti-racism” and positive press. Meanwhile, barring disaster, Prince Charles will advance to the throne, followed by William, followed by George, with the Duchess of Cambridge performing heroically in her royal duty of churning out as many legitimate heirs as possible. And, as many are already joking, Markle’s child bearing years may already be behind her.
Such theories about the political intent of the engagement are doubtful, though, in this timeline, nothing would surprise me. Indeed, such a conscious intention would be more encouraging than the possibility that the royals are simply marrying random celebrities and useless socialites based on their whims. Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein married a black “fashion designer,” so we already have that precedent.
But if there was a political purpose to the marriage, it’s not going to do much good. Like the actions of a cuckservative politician who operates on the Left’s premises, a royal house trying to “modernize” itself won’t become more popular but more despised.
The match has likely already received all the positive coverage it is ever going to get. The Guardian and other leftist rags are already complaining that Prince Harry selecting Markle is still racist, because Markle is mixed race and therefore a recipient of the “beauty privilege” denied to her duskier brethren victimized by Eurocentrism. The engagement is being celebrated as a blow against the “division” in Britain promoted by “fascism,” a way to “begin again” after the evils of Brexit and Trump. But of course, such initiatives never actually bring the promised unity, but simply create new opportunities for discovering racism. Thus, the engagement is also blamed for uncovering “quiet racism.”
What seems likely is that the calculating Markle, who reportedly has always been driven by status, will be put under pressure to habitually denounce the Right. At age 11, she was offended by a commercial suggesting women should do dishes. The Palace is already having to issue statements lecturing the British press about avoiding racial undertones. I don’t know whether this includes the recent spate of articles claiming the happy couple wants a “banana wedding cake.” It’s quite possible considering the hysteria even a casually discarded banana peel can cause at an institution of higher learning. But given how everything is now racist, and Markle is an outspoken leftist, it’s pretty clear Markle will be eager to use her platform to denounce nationalist movements.
In theory, such activism is prevented by royal protocol. But how durable is protocol? The traditions of a thousand generations and the sacrifices of tens of millions of lives over the centuries hold less sway over the typical person than a three-minute video on HuffPoGay Voices. If protocol or tradition meant anything, the royal family wouldn’t be where it is. Even as the United Kingdom has practically abolished its entire society in the interests of egalitarianism, even as the indigenous English people live under what can only be termed an anti-racist police state, even as the British are now a minority in their own capital city (governed by a Muslim), there will always be hysteria about racism. How could Markle not speak out? She’ll be called a traitor to her people if she doesn’t.
We’re likely to end up with “woke” royals who will use every opportunity to denounce racism and oppression. While it will lead to positive press in the short term, it will only undermine the institution in the long term, as the nonwhite residents of the U.K., (which is to say, the people who aren’t British), will always regard the Crown and the nation as somehow not really theirs, no matter how much groveling occurs. Each attempt to make the monarchy more universally appealing will simply hollow out the symbols even more. The monarchy may last or it may not, but fewer and fewer people will care. When it does go, it will be like a sitcom being canceled.
But it won’t mean the end of monarchy as such. Royalty is something intangible, a will-of-the-wisp, similar to how Raspail described the spirit of the true Right. Royalty can survive scandal, defeat, or revolution, but it can’t survive contemptuous indifference. It can’t afford to look ridiculous. It can’t lose that mysterious, ethereal quality that draws men to it.
The power of monarchy doesn’t lie in wealth, military might, or legalistic claims to sovereignty. The onetime “emperor” of the Central African Republic, Bokassa I, spent an estimated $22 million (in 1977) on his Napoleonic style coronation, but the effect was comical, not awe-inspiring. For all the gold and jewels paraded before the hapless Africans (paid for, naturally, by grants from Europe) Bokassa’s coronation was no different in effect than that of the “Emperor of Haiti,” Faustin I Soulouque, I, whose first crown was made out of cardboard. “From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step,” a real Emperor once said.
All royalty is, ultimately, a form of priesthood. The sovereign, whether charged with real political power or serving mostly as a symbol, is the head of the tribe, the link between the people and the gods (or God). But what if even the actual priests are a mockery of religion? What if the “people” have been deconstructed? What if the entire history and tradition the crown relies upon for legitimacy has been redefined as a source of shame? God, Himself is largely intangible, how much more incorporeal are those delicate strands of mystery, majesty and tradition which support a throne? And how can you support an institution based on the very principle of inequality by trying to pander to the mob through egalitarian games?
After all, if the monarch ever tried to exercise any actual power, he or she would instantly be pushed aside. The recent play “Charles III” examines just such a scenario. The now King Charles, disturbed by a parliamentary initiative to regulate the press, denies his royal assent and dissolves Parliament in order to oppose the government, which, after all, theoretically works for him. Of course, even though the king is actually acting to guard the liberties of the people, the masses are disgusted by this “undemocratic” action and Charles is deposed, with King William taking over at the head of a now entirely symbolic monarchy.
But what if the new role of the monarchy is not to exemplify the nation, but simply to serve as a kind of supra-celebrity? In some ways, the transition to a monarchy reigning over a set geographic area populated by a variety of different peoples is a return to an older conception of kingly rule. It wasn’t until the French Revolution that the French kings styled themselves “Kings of the French” rather than “Kings of France and Navarre,” though that didn’t last very long. Nationalism and monarchy have always been in an uneasy partnership. (Our own last king, George III, was the first of the Hanoverian line to even speak English as a first language.)
Great Britain itself has been all but unmade. The United Kingdom was fundamentally a Protestant creation, but the mainline Protestant churches in the kingdom are devoid of strength. The Archbishop of Canterbury spends his days moaning about how Christians could vote for Donald Trump. A languid official church which seems to embarrass its own officials is hardly a support for the throne. One suspects Prince Charles would be quite wiling to begin the process of redefining the monarchy away from the “defender of the Faith” to a “defender of faith” and eventually to “defender of the one god and his prophet.” Considering his current constitutional duty is to defend ridiculous creatures like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who can blame him?
As Britain itself has lost its identity, or, more accurately, has had it ripped away, so too has the monarchy. And this seems true of Prince Harry himself.
Many are calling Prince Harry a “cuck.” But it’s likely more complicated. One year ago, the charge would have seemed absurd. By all accounts, Prince Harry is quick-witted, charismatic, and above all, brave.
He performed well in Afghanistan and faced danger. He expresses disgust with the media (always a positive character trait). He was criticized for being a “lad” rather than a prince, but in truth, there is something admirable even about this, as he acted like a comrade with his fellow soldiers. And though he drank, caroused, and occasionally got himself into trouble with politically incorrect humor (the latter also a positive character trait), his behavior is hardly scandalous by historical standards. (Edward VII, Queen-Empress Victoria’s successor, didn’t just sleep with actresses and socialize with prostitutes but cheated on his wife his entire married life.)
As a young man, Prince Harry likely slept around with beautiful young women; few heterosexual men would do otherwise given the advantages of his position. Besides, as he is not, and never was, the heir to the throne, he has faced the strange burden all his life of enduring the scrutiny and expectations that come with being royalty, without the respect, deference, power, and majesty that comes with being the man who will one day wear the crown. He also lost his mother in a violent accident in full view of the entire world. Then, he has had to deal with all of the above while reporters follow him around and try to publicize everything he does. If anything, he’s shown far greater poise than most would in his position.
Harry doesn’t seem like a cuck or a wimp and he’s certainly no coward. Nor does he seem like a Great Man. He’s just a likable guy, probably a lot of fun to hang out, drink, or party with, who was born into an extraordinary position he never asked for and is doing the best he can. Absent royal birth, he’d probably be a decent military officer. (Interestingly, “Charles III” posits him wanting to become a commoner.)
But as he himself says, he sees his identity as a burden and wants, in some way, to disappear.
As the prince put it:
“My father’s always trying to remind me about who I am and stuff like that. But it’s very easy to forget about who I am when I am in the army. Everyone’s wearing the same uniform and doing the same kind of thing. I get on well with the lads and I enjoy my job. It really is as simple as that.”
The simplest, and most charitable, explanation may well be the best. Markle makes him happy. Sure she doesn’t really fit the role of what a royal should be, but what does he care? He never really wanted that status anyway. He’s not the heir to the throne, William and Kate have kids, what he does isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things and he should be able to do what he wants.
He should, in short, get to be like everyone else. Like the Archbishop of Canterbury, Prince Harry doesn’t really believe in the institution he is a part of. Prince Harry is not like everyone else. To act like “everyone else” is to undermine the principle which creates the institution in the first place.
In a larger sense though, Prince Harry is like all of us. We in the post-West are liberated from faith and tradition. Many are eager to shed identity and duty so as to disappear into a consumerist paradise where we are only divided by what brands we patronize. Such a dream isn’t “evil,” it seems like the most natural thing in the world. After all, being part of a people is hard work, and is kind of exclusionary. Accepting duty is a limitation. And as the new 21st-century British monarchy is showing us, the one dream we all share is becoming a “celebrity.”
The West’s Faustian civilization can conquer the stars, but it also leads us to reject even those natural limits which constitute our identity. Thus it is men and women in the West reject their race, their nation, even their gender or species in the name of an entirely self-created identity. But such a faux identity is as flimsy as the cardboard crown of some Haitian emperor. Life is more than the “pursuit of happiness,” and those who chase that ever-shifting goal appear small, laughable, and petty to those that came before.
We do not create ourselves entirely, we simply can become who we are. To believe otherwise leads to that madness which is tearing apart our entire civilization.
But if we are to become great again, men our ancestors would recognize, we are going to have to do it ourselves. Fate is not going to give us any breaks. It would be far-easier if some institution, any institution, would cut us a break if the right person could take it over. Fate seems to have other plans.
The dream of rescue is a tempting vision, a romantic vision, in some ways a neo-Jacobite vision. It used to be people would raise a secret toast to the “king across the water.” Today it’s for a “God-Emperor” seizing the White House. A “Deus Vult” traditionalist pope. A “based” British royal. Yet no one else is going to save us. Those in a position to use institutions in defense of the West are either cannibalizing them or, like Prince Harry, simply running out the clock before these hollow institutions crumble away entirely.
New sources of authority, of legitimacy, and of spirituality will have to come from within our own community. There’s no one else to look to. There’s no one else left. The only question is whether we can meet the challenge of history.