all 46 comments

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not joining in on the anti-royal bandwagon either: all of the Leftard morons out there are ecstatic about it for all the wrong reasons.

Without the British Empire there would be literally no civilization in Australia and NZ. Just tribes of nonwhites killing and occasionally eating each other, and eating vile grubs. The Leftard dipshits have no idea how vastly Britain improved those lands: they went from Stone Age to first-world within a few centuries. The transformation was incredible.

Now look at Papua New Guinea, one of the world's worst countries. A much larger, sparser populated version of the PNG is exactly how these countries would look without the dreaded White Man, simply because Papuans are genetically very close to the natives of those countries.

Now, the royal family is literally the last thing that these countries have that connects them to Europe, and if that's severed, then these new republics will be fully part of the third-world SEA region as well as far more indigenized. A republic would be an absolute disaster for either country. They'd both elect some idiot celebrity for President, and the Constitution would be far more 'woke' than the recently proposed but rejected one in Chile. Of course, both countries have been de facto republics for decades, but a de jure republic would scrap the old constitution and put in something vastly worse.

Furthermore, the continuation of the constitutional monarchy in both countries is a massive 'Screw You' to Leftard indigenist morons. Sure, I don't care about any specific individual on the throne either (and I absolutely hate the insufferable Harry and Meaghan), but the constitutional monarchy is vastly superior to the absolutely woketarded dysfunctional cesspool that has the support of, and would be run by, all of the countries' worst inhabitants. The White politicians are already atrocious; they don't need to be replaced by petrol huffers who have it in for Ol' Whitey. We'd be better off just allowing the White politicians to be sidelined and eventually replaced within their own parties by Chinese, Indians and to a lesser extent other nonwhites (which is inevitable) than to let any indigenous body of government full of endless whinging voices be formed.

So... some borderline retarded 'indigenous' celebrity figure as Head of State rather than King Charles III? A new constitution full of queer and trans shit? A political system that has the representatives of the 'indigenous'—who probably won't even be elected or who will only be elected by the tiny 'indigenous' minority of the overall population—able to heavily condition public policy? That's a no from me, G. The constitutional monarchy is the very last bulwark against that: I don't believe in letting go of that just because there are plenty of arguments that we can make against the House of Windsor.

Imagine if we took the most woketarded 'native Americans' we could find, made them a de facto or possibly even de jure third tier of government through whom everything that goes through the Senate and House would then have to be passed. Plus we scrap the already garbage US Constitution and replace it with an even worse one full of Left-wing buzzwords that cedes all sorts of powers to that third tier. Plus we take the biggest dipshit of all of them and make xir the President. That would be akin to what these new republics would be.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Australia has s constitution??

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Assuming that Australia maintains the same Westminster system as Britain, presumably they have a similar, unwritten constitution.

[–]Nombre27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://t.me/Confederate1861/2492

Back in the old National Front days, we had an elderly member in Tower Hamlets, in occupied East London. A staunch patriot, Fred Adams loved the NF and the Queen.

He had no family, so when he came to write his will, this humble and decent old Londoner agonised for some time over whether to leave his £10,000 life savings to the NF or the Queen. In the end, probably encouraged by his solicitor, he chose the latter.

When Elizabeth received the money, she promptly gave every single penny to immigrant youth organisations in East London.

What you make of that is up to you, I merely put the facts on record.

pol pic of other item describing how non-Whites will always hate us

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

under whose reign

She had zero real power.

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

She had a lot of power in the form of political capital. She could have ended non-White immigration at any time by making a formal declaration that it be ended and explaining why it must end. The people would have been with her and the anti-White politicians would have relented under all the pressure exerted on them.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

She could have ended non-White immigration at any time by making a formal declaration that it be ended and explaining why it must end.

That is delusional. That would discredit her in the eyes of the entire cultural elite, turn all media and institutions against the monarchy, and result in its abolishment.

[–]WhiteZealotWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, a large majority of the people and at least half the politicians would not allow that to happen. If she really fought with everything available to her, she and her backers would have prevailed.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't understand the status of the monarchy in Britain or the political situation there. The monarchy is barely tolerated even by the conservative politicians, and is only grudgingly accepted as an aesthetic symbol. If you want to see what happens when a figure within the establishment tries to oppose it, you can take a look at the case of Enoch Powell - he was very popular, had political connections, and the people were with him, but he was nevertheless completely isolated by his own party and failed to accomplish anything.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, the monarchy is only tolerated in Britain because it has been neutered, liberalized, and supports the liberal values modern Britain represents. If it started challenging them then it would be abolished.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it started challenging them then it would be abolished.

What other choice do they got? A Monarchy in a 99% Non-White England sounds just as useless as not existing at all.

They got power to at least try and do something. If it fails, then the country can go down in dignity. Otherwise, they're just cowards.

The British Army swears loyalty to the King. If they refuse orders and rather defend diversity, then it should tell you the nation is finally lost.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It is obvious that you have some sort of grudge towards Britain - I am not really sure why - but either way, it is simply delusional to claim that Collett's post is in any way positive. He is as critical as can be expected within polite company. As to Joel Davis, he does not even make a direct statement about this on his Telegram - perhaps he does so elsewhere.

To be fully frank, I find this needless hostility towards the British monarchy kind of ridiculous. The monarchy has been powerless for centuries, the monarch serves an almost completely ceremonial role. If anything, the royal family is to be pitied. Faulting people for mourning the Queen also seems bizarre - having respect for one's traditions is admirable, and it is also pro-social behaviour. This kind of loyalty should be encouraged and channelled in the appropriate way, towards political reform, rather than being denigrated.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The monarchy has been powerless for centuries, the monarch serves an almost completely ceremonial role. If anything, the royal family is to be pitied.

I used to think the same until /u/Markimus brought up how much of their army is loyal to the crown. In practice they could easily disband the parliament, they have military, they have popular support, everything, it's just that they want to be degenerate celebrities instead of being rulers.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think that's seriously overestimating the power of the crown. In the first place, I doubt the royal family are even allowed to move around without handlers to observe and control them. They are supposed to be "apolitical" and this has been the case for a very long time. The political conditions are also not conducive to a coup of that kind. If a powerful clique of politicians, journalists, financiers and activists amenable to something like this existed, perhaps it could be done, but there are no such people. The current prime minister and head of the "conservative", traditionalist and monarchist party is apparently a republican. Not to mention that the senior officers of the British army constitute the most liberal military stratum in perhaps the whole Western world, and when it comes to self-coups it is precisely these senior officers that are important.

I think it is definitely evident that modern aristocrats in general, not just royals, have a kind of inferiority complex that makes them think they are unfit to rule and that their virtue is determined by how "democratic" and "liberal" they are, but I don't really think that's a conscious choice for them either. In my opinion, it is a result of demoralisation and general spiritual weakening, like with the rest of society.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In the first place, I doubt the royal family are even allowed to move around without handlers to observe and control them. They are supposed to be "apolitical" and this has been the case for a very long time.

The Queen supported BLM.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/europe/queen-elizabeth-black-lives-matter-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

Olisa was also asked whether the royal family support BLM. “The answer is easily yes,” he said.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are proving my point for me - you are quoting a member of the staff who attempts to speak on behalf of the royal family.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm not sure if that's a great defense. If they wanted to be apolitical, why allow someone to represent them and speak at all?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Examine the issue rationally. The royal family obviously needs to employ staff, some of whom are responsible for handling PR. Some of these staff will abuse their position. In cases like that, the appropriate thing to do would be to fire such people. The tricky part is that this is a lose-lose situation for the royal family, because no matter what they do - no matter if they choose to ignore this or to fire this person - they become the object of political attention. Do you understand?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I knew you were going to bring that up. Sorry, but I disagree. I've seen multibillion dollar companies refuse interviews or issue gag orders on employees avoiding certain topics.

If the Queen lacks such common sense, then she's stupider than I thought. Or just arrogant.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Or maybe you are the stupid one? Perhaps you should consider that.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Show your nose, rabbi.

[–]Wrangel 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Queen did an excellent job given her circumstances. Nearly every monarchy in Europe is gone, and the British one was hanging by a thread. She managed to save the monarchy and even popularize it during some of the toughest times for monarchy in history. That she once danced with a leader of another country while trying to retain an anticommunist influence over the country is ridiculous to stretch into something else.

The people who blame her for not seizing power and establishing the fourth riech need to realize how laughably unlikely that would have been to succeed.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people who blame her for not seizing power and establishing the fourth riech need to realize how laughably unlikely that would have been to succeed.

She didn't have to establish it. There was already a Third Reich... that she fought against in WW2.

That makes her scum in my eyes.

She lived the rest of her life on welfare while her own country ushered in knife attacks and grooming gangs.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

George V helped with toppling other European monarchies. WW1 was unnecessary and resulted in the abdication of Wilhelm and the end of the Habsburg monarchy as well as the massacre of his cousin Nicholas by communist scum.

Reading more on it, WW1 led to numerous abdications and the end of many German monarchies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_who_abdicated#:~:text=Ernest%20Augustus%20%C2%A0Duchy%20of%20Brunswick%20Duke%20of,of%20W%C3%BCrttemberg%2030%20November%201918%20Monarchy%20abolished

20 in Germany alone.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't feel sorry for British royalty.

Remember Rhodesia? Not only where they backstabbed, but Britain played a major role in imposing sanctions and stopping all shipments of oil to the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beira_Patrol

Rhodesia's government unilaterally declared the former colony's independence on 11 November 1965, after rejecting British preconditions for independence that involved racial equality and rule by the black majority. Ian Smith, the country's elected prime minister, continued in that role. The United Nations Security Council reacted by passing Resolution 217, calling for sanctions on Rhodesia. The resolution was later used by the British as legal justification for the blockade. Britain imposed its own national sanctions, including an oil embargo, but ruled out invading Rhodesia. The British were initially opposed to military action, instead relying on UN sanctions to pressure the Rhodesians. A majority of UN member states wanted expanded sanctions and military measures. The British initially attempted to block such initiatives.

Yet Britain never did the same for Israel. They literally went to war for them in 1956 against the Egyptians.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even anglo dissidents like Joel Davis and Mark Collett shill respect for her and so on.

Mark does it for PR reasons, Joel does it God knows why, severe autism.

That being said, it's not her fault that Britain has changed demographically, it's the fault of previous kings/queens and later PMs, MPs, etc., she and the rest of the Royal Family are just mere celebrities. It's like blaming Jennifer Lawrence for white decline in America.

But yeah, point being, we need to get rid of all rich people, they're just cringe, and in this case I won't either mourn or cherish her death.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am not sure what to think about the rich people issue. On the one hand, traditionally the function of the rich is to multiply their wealth and make it available to the ruling class and to society for the benefit of all, but on the other, the modern capitalist class appears to be both disloyal and useless, not to mention predatory.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Rich people are, as for now, a force of subversion. The capitalist system itself makes necessary for them being subversive, because the state exist both in order to protect and to limitate them. They always try to get rid of limitations - which means uncontrolled immigration, atomism, consumerism and so on. On the other side this system can't sustain forever in that form. It will be either some kind of socialism, with the state as ultimate master of economy, or the end of the modern state. If in the future they will start to talk about privatising parts of the army, you will know for sure that the modern state won't survive. At the point, maybe a new feudalism will fix the morality of the rich people.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Personally, I am assuming that the class problem will be actively resolved with some political solution, but I am not entirely sure what that political solution will look like. There are a number of options, such as mass nationalisation, the establishment of some kind of corporatism, the subjection of capital to authority as in the Chinese and Russian models, or something else entirely. Perhaps even a mix of several such options. The issue is figuring out what works best.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Generally speaking i'm on board with divine right monarchies, expecially for the germans, because that's a truly tradition of theirs

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

but only if those rulers treat their subjects justly, otherwise their authority from God is NULL. That's an aspect of christianity people often forget.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The whole point of divine authority is that the sovereign also determines the standard for what is just.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, that's Gods law

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Who is in charge of interpreting and applying God's law? Is it the Catholic Church? The Orthodox Church? Some Protestant denomination? Perhaps another group or authority?

You see my point.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You don't see my point.

Christians are meant to obey authority who have been chosen by God - but it is under the condition that they are just. If they are not just, then they have NO authority from God and are NOT to be obeyed.

This is the important aspect of romans that people forget to mention.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

"Iustus Est Necare Rex Impius" But I don't think it's up to us to judge those who held traditional authority. That's our own hubris, and if we do so, what's to the difference between us and those reject entirely the traditions? We must accept the authority even when we deem the individual unworthy.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We must accept the authority even when we deem the individual unworthy.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil."
"For he is God’s minister to you for good."

If you do good but are punished he has NO authority and there is no authority to "accept"

How can you accept something which does not exist? They derive their authority from God ONLY, and if they don't do good, then they are not of God and hence hold zero authority.

Authority under the law.

Read Acts 16 where Paul resist the "authorities"

Gods authorities have 4 "restrictions" that they must follow in order to be required to be obeyed by christians.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are repeatedly missing the point.

If you do good but are punished he has NO authority and there is no authority to "accept"

Who determines if your actions are good or evil? People disagree on this every day. In a traditional context, the legitimate judge is the divinely appointed sovereign, not the individual who presumes to cast judgement onto the sovereign as being in conformity or not in conformity with "God's law". When every man thinks that he has the right to casually judge and reject authority for himself, authority is completely dissolved. This is why loyalty to the sovereign has always been the moral core of traditional society. Obviously, we no longer live in traditional societies, but if we are discussing principles then we should discuss them properly.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What gave Paul the right to judge and resist the so-called "authorities"?

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Imagine blaming the Monarch with no power who has been not only neutered but liberalized by Britain's own liberal culture for what the UK has become.

Striker has retarded views about Monarchy and Aristocracy. He uses neutered and liberalized Monarchs to present them as allies of modern day liberal globalist order. The first enemy this liberal order had to defeat was land based aristocracy and monarchial power.

There is no reason to dance on the grave of the Queen because anyone paying attention can see her death is used by all the enemies of Europe to show their hatred towards Western power. The modern day liberal royals are product of liberal culture. Save your hostility for the treasonous cultural class and parliamentary politicians.

[–]asterias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Around the same time the bitch was signing the executions by hanging of those who protested the british rule of their land. These are the two faces of the colonial era.

[–]HeWhoGlows 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's because colonialism is globohomo and not based. The alt-right will never recognize that though.

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because it’s not true. imperialism is the natural order of things. It was only with the rise of Jewish capitalism & Marxism that it became unfashionable

[–]HeWhoGlows 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jewish capitalism literally created modern imperialism