Sep 9, 2022·edited Sep 9, 2022Liked by John Carter
John, I will say that this was a thoughtful, but exceedingly mild rebuke. The Bully Pulpit positions taken by that woman and her family have been those of a group actively seeking the demise of the people they rule. If any of the accusations made about her and Phillip (the children of the Kamloops school, Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Ball, and Louis Mountbatten) are true, then we should wish that she and all her closest friends and family were holding hands around the maypole as it was struck by lightening.
I deliberately avoided the Saville question, and all the related innuendo, as at this point it remains rumor. There's a fine line between criticizing the recently departed and slandering them, and I didn't want to cross it; my intent here was to stay respectful.
If evidence comes to light regarding such issues, obviously, that will strongly influence my position.
There has been NO search for actual physical evidence. Not a single shovel has pierced the sod. The "searches", so far, have been restricted to archives and sundry repositories of church and government documents - (with much political posturing, on both sides).
Pretty sure that there's been a busted flush using GPR on the claimed "Injun Chile Burial Ground" - upon which point the Injun-activists declared that they have to use the GPR elsewhere on the 650,000 sq.m. property.
As with all the "Stolen Generations" malarkey in Australia - two things have to be borne in mind:
① a good number of the chilluns "stolen" from their native parents were likely to die of "normal" infant mortality (which was ~1 in 5 globally at the time) - so the expected number of child graves is most certainly not ZERO;
and
② a significant number of the chilluns were mixed-race chilluns who were looked upon disfavourably by the indigenes (this was certainly the case among Aborigines in Australia: a 'yellafella' with a white Dad/Black Mum was generally ejected from the tribe, along with the mother). For some non-trivial proportion, being at the Mission was the best of a set of otherwise-worse alternatives.
FWIW: I have plenty of sympathy for natives, being part-native myself (FWIW: Maori; 25%; Ti Ate Awa - o runga te rangi, te toki te tangatanga i te ra), but I have zero time for "professional" natives.
Since the OP was about the recently dead old English-German lady who got to live in palaces because reasons: now's as good a time as any to repudiate the false basis by which the 'Crown' claims that Maori ceded sovereignty to pakeha in 1840.
Wai 1040 has made clear that the rangatira (chiefs) wanted the Crown to control WHITE people; to secure this end, the chiefs granted kawanatanga ('governorship') to the crown, not rangatiratanga ('sovereignty or chieftainship').
I LOVED this post. Thank you very much for putting so eloquently and heart touchingly what I thought amorphously and could never have expressed so well.
"Perhaps she had a brief intimation of what she’d permitted when her emasculated grandson invited the venal harpy Meagan Markle to use the royal platform to inject her racial venom into their public appearances."
nothing better than a sentence that nails 3 fools to the same cross at once!
Sep 10, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022Liked by John Carter
Harry and Meghan Markle are fools (and Meghan is much worse than just a fool) but ER2 was not. She was constrained by the fact that she no longer had any real authority over royal marriages (the law requiring Royal Assent is now irrelevant) and given the experience of Princess Margaret she had to be ultra careful.
Parliament is a democracy, a pure one, ruling over the UK, with the City looming over it and making the rules. Plato told us that democracies always end in tyranny. What we all missed was that when the legislature becomes a pure democracy, especially beset, like the late Roman republic, by vested industrial and financial combines, fueled by Chaldean-style financial manipulation (the Chaldean slaves brought their financial malfeasance with them and taught the Romans, before ultimately moving on to Venice, then Amsterdam, before the current hole up, the City of London.
The US has its own version of a pure democracy, the Congress has total control over DC, the possessions. and all federal lands. This is the fulcrum where the upside down totalitarian model proposed by a Princeton professor meets the Earth.
Most people forget that the reason why the people have a vote is to encourage social cohesion, in keeping the legislature from drifting too far away from the interests of the citizens and subjects. This popular vote is now seen by the “oligopolies” that rule as a distasteful pressure group, instead of the safety valve and pressure relief mechanism that it is.
the safety circuits are being deactivated one by one. The direction is portentous.
Parliament is not really a democrcay...it is a legacy of of the pre-democratic era. As the franchise was extended it was marketed as a democracy. Nothing pure about any of it then or now. The franchise was extended to guarantee social stability and prevent civil strife. Cohesion was/is (and always should be IMHO) pre-political.
Blaming 'Chaldaeans'? Why not Lizard People? Ancient astronauts? People with Aspergers? The Chaldaeans had regular debt-jubilees (just like the ancient Israelites). It was the Romans who made a point of explicitly rejecting debt-cancellation on principle because it is incompatible with Roman property law. As for Venice, Amsterdam, London...finance follows/enables trade...where you have trade you need finance. And why no mention of the Templars, Provencals, Lombards, Genoa, Florence, Geneva or Zurich (all pioneers in the history of finance in Europe)?
my point about parliament is that it has no checks and balances, which then functions as a pure democracy. The Chaldean system and its effects are a key, but not the only key, to this history. That system and its practitioners was such a problem that the first actual world war, the war of the league pf cambray, was commenced to deal with Venice.
the one check and balance is the Royal prerogative, which has not been used for two centuries. Perhaps Charles, as arrogant and priggish as he is, will see the handwriting on the wall, and start to use that that prerogative to reduce risk to the whole system, aligning to the people in this instance. His disdain for his version of the deplorables will have him resist that... time will tell.
Diversity SEEMS like such a noble idea and was an idea that I once supported. But, I've come to realize that it can be used by the oligarchs as a weapon to destabilize and divide societies giving them an excuse to further impose totalitarian control.
Human beings are hard-wired to be tribal. We don't do well in larger groups with people whose values are radically different. Whether we like it or not, and for complex reasons which we're only just beginning to understand, those who migrate may not be willing or able to identify with or adopt the values of the culture that they are migrating to.
This mass migration is largely caused by imperialist policies and practices which impoverish nations and strip them of their resources. In fact, most of the wealth of rich nations comes from those countries they've colonized. This is simply a fact of civilization. Once a human settlement can no longer support itself using the resources of its own land, it will seek out and either trade with or colonize other lands. Often violently.
I highly recommend the work of Derrick Jensen, whose 2 volume, exhaustively researched book 'Endgame: The Problem of Civilization / Resistance' outlines all the ways that cities accelerate social, economic and environmental collapse. https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/ Hrte's a short list of the book's premises: https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
That's pretty close to my feelings. I've lived as a foreigner in several countries myself, and the last thing I wanted to do was replace them, or have them change their customs to accommodate me. To the contrary, I wanted to learn from them. I was a guest in their house, not a burglar.
Thank you for the nuanced additional reference which complements my point perfectly. I agree that race is and should be irrelevant which is why I didn't mention it. It's cultural values that should be our primary focus when discerning whether multi-culturalism is functional, or not.
I would argue she did have power... never forget the Crown is fabulously wealthy, and pays no taxes and none are allowed to track their money. Likely some goes into the pockets of the elites, I would argue it is likely not that Elizabeth stood by and did nothing but rather she pushed it forward. It only began when she assumed office.
I like some constitutional rulers, but Elizabeth is a figure I think who deserves much more scrutiny, given the disasters that went down during her reign, and how most of the Windsors tend to be pretty weird. Her dad was a solid King though.
Exactly! I suspect that left-wing policies Enoch Powell was speaking out against, Bessie may have had more than a hand in funding, and funnelling money to. I can never confirm it, but we must bear in mind how close she and Charlie the Turd are, or how hateful Philip was towards the majority of the human race with his comments about wanting to wipe us all out.
John, my admiration for your political acuity knows no bounds. You correctly identified the only instances where ER2 is known to have intervened in politics (Rhodesia and South Africa). Remarkably few people ever twig to this.
In her defence, ER2 had no choice. The US wanted the UK to force the hand of the Rhodesian and South African governments. The US had the means to pressure her, had they wished to do so.
The pound has been subject to pressure from the US since the war. Eisenhower used threats to the pound during the Suez crisis. After the Cold War George Soros made a fortune at the expense of the pound....and I assure you his hedge fund had political protection from Washington/Wall St when he did so. The UK only repaid its principal post-war reconstruction debt to the US in 2006. I think that they may still owe debts to the US from WW1.
The Queen was also mindful that the US controls the UK intelligence services and political elite. She was a client of an empire. George VI was the last King-Emperor; the empire formally expired with him as the Queen was never formally proclaimed Empress of India.
The Queen failed to protect the freedoms of her people. Had she tried to do this, she would have been destroyed and her destruction would have wrecked the country and left a legacy of bitterness and civil strife that you could barely imagine. England was ruined by two world wars, rather than by civil war or revolution. Generations past made that choice. It is childish to think that we know better in hindsight...all we know is our own preferences, but these have been formed by experiences that no one could have anticipated.
ER's function was to keep people reassured and calm. She did this brilliantly. With her gone the British must now face the truth of their predicament. The political settlement of 1688 is crumbling and the ways of life enabled by it will go too. This has consequences for us all.
By way of explanation, I am old enough to have known genuine monarchists and Empire Loyalists of the old school, was raised in a family that took such things seriously and was, in fact, named after the Duke of Edinburgh. I gave up any naive beliefs in the monarchy years ago, but am not ashamed to admit that ER2's death has shaken me. It is a very grim moment. And a fearful one too.
Not sure I want to make any comments about this situation at the moment as I need to gather my thoughts on this subject. I love the English people and my wife is half English, her mother coming to this country after marrying her father who was stationed in England in the 50s. Needless to say, I have had a few pints in some pubs over there!!! England is not what it was even 30 years ago, but then again, neither is the U.S.. I'm afraid under Charlie III, things will only get worse over there as he is a WEF puppet. We are witnessing the downfall of civilization, I'm afraid.
I suspect your sentiments are shared by many. During the jubilee earlier this year I heard a lot of people reminisce about previous ones (wasn’t in-country then). This time around it appears to have been almost entirely a TV spectacle. No buntings, no street picnics, just indifference.
Your comment of Rhodesia and South Africa is very good. Where we differ though is on the term "The Apartheid system" While the Nationalist Party had implemented a segregation policy it was a policy for survival.
The term Apartheid was a label created and used to exploit a situation by he very Afro-Marxists led by a terrorist as you correctly elucidated. The word “apartheid” actually is a word in a language called Afrikaans. It was a modified language of a group of initially white people in South Africa originating from the Netherlands. The word actually means separate development.
People need to understand that the Afrikaners were no different from any other group of people in history who wanted to be self-governed and believe in self-determination. It is no different from the Amish belief system, of religion, culture vales and value systems, aspirations, like-thinking and life-style or being “like-minded”. It originates from Alsatian Anabaptistism. Many Afrikaners were Baptists and are Christians.
We ( White Minority of many different creeds) here now in South Africa sit in a quagmire run by socialists and Marxist communists who are destroying the country and the Afrikaner community. We all know that we are next after the Afrikaners.
Note that the British Empire deserted the Rhodesians and South Africans. My Grandmother arrived here in 1910. Both sides mother and father were British and supporters of the royals. I changed sides in 1970 to support the minority of Afrikaners who are other than the Jewish Race on of the most scapegoated people.
There's a lot of deep misconceptions about South Africa and the Boers and Afrikaaners out there, based on a combination of black propaganda and projection of the American experience into a context where it does not belong. I had the good fortune to meet several people from those communities some years ago, who educated me on the history of the region. What's been done to them, and is still being done, is criminal.
Ethnic stereotypes die very hard indeed...the yellow journalism of the Boer War era set the tone and it has been unrelenting ever since. The projection of the US experience onto race-relations everywhere else is a serious problem...everything gets reduced into a parody of the Civil Rights era...and most of what people think they know about that is contestable or at least worthy of more nuance and less shrillness.
A few years ago I read a very rare and hard to get novel about contemporary South Africa translated from the Afrikaans (MIDNIGHT MISSIONARY by the pseudonymous Kleinboer). It was very well written, eye-opening and covered a lot of everyday stuff that never gets into the narrative in the West: what it is like to be a non-elite white in a black-run country. Needless to say, it was unreviewed in the West.
The ANC are performative Marxists...they use the rhetoric and were supported by the Soviet Bloc and its clients during the Cold War, but are in no way ideological the way the East European Marxists were. They are simply tribalists who use progressive posturing for the sake of their international PR.
What is sinister is the willingness of Washington and London (and multinationals) to support them. They have created a crony capitalist system that has pioneered race-based social engineering (Black Economic Empowerment). This is now being adapted for implementation in the US itself.
From the handful that I have met, the white Rhodesians are (or were) the most impressive Anglos on the planet: candid, resourceful, unpretentious and without self-pity. The Foreign Office detested them, largely because of snobbery. They were colonials without the right pedigrees (unlike the settlers in Kenya).
Never had the chance to meet any actual Rhodesians. Read a book about the Bush War some years back, written by a veteran of the Rhodesian SAS, which was my introduction to the subject. I was deeply impressed by their exploits. The sacrificial murder of Rhodesia was a classic example of cutting down the tall poppies, and then uprooting them and salting the earth for good measure.
I have only met a few and IMO Rhodesia vindicated colonialism...at least on an ethical and cultural level. A generation or two in conditions of autonomy, pro-social culture, stable families and opportunities and you see people thrive. Rhodes would have been pleased by his legacy and Teddy Roosevelt would have welcomed their company. Could I say anything better of anyone?
The late Victorian colonial experience in Australia, South Africa and elsewhere was caught up in developing solutions to the class problems at home. The ambition, generosity of spirit and pragmatism involved has a lot to teach us, certainly a lot more than the rancid social policy stuff today. The rise and development of the Dominions was a real challenge for Whitehall too: competent white men without the right pedigrees are a perennial nuisance for the great and the good. You can see why the current system is so determined that none develop that way today.
I think of QE2 as the worst monarch that we have ever had. This may seem harsh but no other monarch has left the people of this country in such a weakened state and has not lifted a finger or, as you say, raised a voice, to help.
I wish I could be as reasonable as you. Seriously. My thoughts and feelings are not even remotely reasonable, or even able to be expressed on a “free speech “ platform.
Sep 10, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022Liked by John Carter
Well Said. Shared it on social media. The caretaker do nothing queen, who let down all people by not checking the extant nefarity. She did support brexit, but let things go on too long. She had vast executive powers that could have forestalled a lot of this tragic scene. I became mixed up in the Poll Tax Riots in London. I had to run for refuge into St. Paul’s near Trafalgar. That was another instance where she failed to support her “subjects.” And now the subjects will have to find better guards for their liberty.
In truth she was nought but a front for the financiers that have taken over the Anglosphere. A puppet queen giving a patina of tradition to a revolution from above.
We need to find a new monarch from among our own to raise up to her position. Charles III will be even worse than his mother.
I think the project is about the recreation of European global empire under the fake rubric of global ‘governance’. They all expect a piece of the action.
Charles the Turd is LITERALLY (literally literally, not figuratively literally) the front-man for the WEF's "Great Reset".
He's LITERALLY the Official Patron.
FWIW I love that Charles decided to be Charles III - hence Charles the Turd.
It gels nicely with the fact that Dubya was the 3rd US Prez called George (hence "George the Turd") which bookends US history nicely between two scions of privilege called George the Turd.
(Taking a longish view, US history will be viewed as having basically finished in about 2007; the rest has been death throes. Likewise the UK was finished as a credible global power after Auckland's Folly... the rest being death throes. There is much ruin in a nation...)
It’s all actually fixable. The question is whether whether it will be allowed to be fixed. And how much pain and suffering it will take to get to the point that it will be fixed. Every effort has been taken over the last 30 years to suck the country dry. And that’s an acceleration of the sucking that began in 1913.
Finance helped build the both the UK and US empires in the first place, John, and the relationship between the Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors and their bankers is a sensitive and complex subject. Theories of state-capture by finance are ahistorical. It pays to look into the detail and this is always difficult to come by.
Charles III will not have a happy reign. He presides over a state whose legitimacy is in a slow-burning crisis. He cannot rely on any advisers and is surrounded by regime-compliant types who would sell him out in a heartbeat. In the old days (preWW2) the aristocrats kept the monarchs in touch with reality (to a degree) but the old court life disappeared forever with the war. The Windsors are not intellectuals and IMO are unlikely to figure things out.
The great kings were war-lords and the last English king to lead an army was George II. Your longing for an Anglo Mu'adib is understanable, but not realistic IMO.
Queen Elisabeth the borderless,
left the whole realm penniless.
Her borders unmanned
She sold out the land
Leaving the whole realm orderless
Pinned.
John, I will say that this was a thoughtful, but exceedingly mild rebuke. The Bully Pulpit positions taken by that woman and her family have been those of a group actively seeking the demise of the people they rule. If any of the accusations made about her and Phillip (the children of the Kamloops school, Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Ball, and Louis Mountbatten) are true, then we should wish that she and all her closest friends and family were holding hands around the maypole as it was struck by lightening.
I deliberately avoided the Saville question, and all the related innuendo, as at this point it remains rumor. There's a fine line between criticizing the recently departed and slandering them, and I didn't want to cross it; my intent here was to stay respectful.
If evidence comes to light regarding such issues, obviously, that will strongly influence my position.
Hasn't the searching for evidence to support the claims at Kamloops turned up empty?
It has.
There has been NO search for actual physical evidence. Not a single shovel has pierced the sod. The "searches", so far, have been restricted to archives and sundry repositories of church and government documents - (with much political posturing, on both sides).
Also true. One side is terrified that something will be found; the other, that nothing will be.
Pretty sure that there's been a busted flush using GPR on the claimed "Injun Chile Burial Ground" - upon which point the Injun-activists declared that they have to use the GPR elsewhere on the 650,000 sq.m. property.
As with all the "Stolen Generations" malarkey in Australia - two things have to be borne in mind:
① a good number of the chilluns "stolen" from their native parents were likely to die of "normal" infant mortality (which was ~1 in 5 globally at the time) - so the expected number of child graves is most certainly not ZERO;
and
② a significant number of the chilluns were mixed-race chilluns who were looked upon disfavourably by the indigenes (this was certainly the case among Aborigines in Australia: a 'yellafella' with a white Dad/Black Mum was generally ejected from the tribe, along with the mother). For some non-trivial proportion, being at the Mission was the best of a set of otherwise-worse alternatives.
FWIW: I have plenty of sympathy for natives, being part-native myself (FWIW: Maori; 25%; Ti Ate Awa - o runga te rangi, te toki te tangatanga i te ra), but I have zero time for "professional" natives.
Since the OP was about the recently dead old English-German lady who got to live in palaces because reasons: now's as good a time as any to repudiate the false basis by which the 'Crown' claims that Maori ceded sovereignty to pakeha in 1840.
Wai 1040 has made clear that the rangatira (chiefs) wanted the Crown to control WHITE people; to secure this end, the chiefs granted kawanatanga ('governorship') to the crown, not rangatiratanga ('sovereignty or chieftainship').
There appears to be a bit of a rabbit hole here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC-TxRdjVdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd5-oH9RELM
https://rumble.com/v1kvzn1-ceremonial-magic-hugo-talks.html
Who knew Liz was inducted into the Druids?
And the date of death coincides with:
https://bit.ly/3SabS1t
The Queen Sep 7 2022 - looks well, dead the next day
https://bit.ly/3RbpEiM
I LOVED this post. Thank you very much for putting so eloquently and heart touchingly what I thought amorphously and could never have expressed so well.
"Perhaps she had a brief intimation of what she’d permitted when her emasculated grandson invited the venal harpy Meagan Markle to use the royal platform to inject her racial venom into their public appearances."
nothing better than a sentence that nails 3 fools to the same cross at once!
Harry and Meghan Markle are fools (and Meghan is much worse than just a fool) but ER2 was not. She was constrained by the fact that she no longer had any real authority over royal marriages (the law requiring Royal Assent is now irrelevant) and given the experience of Princess Margaret she had to be ultra careful.
Parliament is a democracy, a pure one, ruling over the UK, with the City looming over it and making the rules. Plato told us that democracies always end in tyranny. What we all missed was that when the legislature becomes a pure democracy, especially beset, like the late Roman republic, by vested industrial and financial combines, fueled by Chaldean-style financial manipulation (the Chaldean slaves brought their financial malfeasance with them and taught the Romans, before ultimately moving on to Venice, then Amsterdam, before the current hole up, the City of London.
The US has its own version of a pure democracy, the Congress has total control over DC, the possessions. and all federal lands. This is the fulcrum where the upside down totalitarian model proposed by a Princeton professor meets the Earth.
Most people forget that the reason why the people have a vote is to encourage social cohesion, in keeping the legislature from drifting too far away from the interests of the citizens and subjects. This popular vote is now seen by the “oligopolies” that rule as a distasteful pressure group, instead of the safety valve and pressure relief mechanism that it is.
the safety circuits are being deactivated one by one. The direction is portentous.
Parliament is not really a democrcay...it is a legacy of of the pre-democratic era. As the franchise was extended it was marketed as a democracy. Nothing pure about any of it then or now. The franchise was extended to guarantee social stability and prevent civil strife. Cohesion was/is (and always should be IMHO) pre-political.
Blaming 'Chaldaeans'? Why not Lizard People? Ancient astronauts? People with Aspergers? The Chaldaeans had regular debt-jubilees (just like the ancient Israelites). It was the Romans who made a point of explicitly rejecting debt-cancellation on principle because it is incompatible with Roman property law. As for Venice, Amsterdam, London...finance follows/enables trade...where you have trade you need finance. And why no mention of the Templars, Provencals, Lombards, Genoa, Florence, Geneva or Zurich (all pioneers in the history of finance in Europe)?
I agree that things are portentous.
my point about parliament is that it has no checks and balances, which then functions as a pure democracy. The Chaldean system and its effects are a key, but not the only key, to this history. That system and its practitioners was such a problem that the first actual world war, the war of the league pf cambray, was commenced to deal with Venice.
Good point - the Crown in Parliament (essentially parliament) was supreme, but constrained by the common law.
Can't comment on Venice...am very interested in reading Paolo Sarpi (a huge influence on English political thinking).
the one check and balance is the Royal prerogative, which has not been used for two centuries. Perhaps Charles, as arrogant and priggish as he is, will see the handwriting on the wall, and start to use that that prerogative to reduce risk to the whole system, aligning to the people in this instance. His disdain for his version of the deplorables will have him resist that... time will tell.
Try Babylon’s Banksters for a dive in that topic
Agreed Clever - A very well constructed, and accurate, sentence. Apparently effective creative writing is still taught in Barsoom.
I've literally never taken a course in creative writing. Entirely self taught.
Literally, or literarily? ;)
Diversity SEEMS like such a noble idea and was an idea that I once supported. But, I've come to realize that it can be used by the oligarchs as a weapon to destabilize and divide societies giving them an excuse to further impose totalitarian control.
Human beings are hard-wired to be tribal. We don't do well in larger groups with people whose values are radically different. Whether we like it or not, and for complex reasons which we're only just beginning to understand, those who migrate may not be willing or able to identify with or adopt the values of the culture that they are migrating to.
This mass migration is largely caused by imperialist policies and practices which impoverish nations and strip them of their resources. In fact, most of the wealth of rich nations comes from those countries they've colonized. This is simply a fact of civilization. Once a human settlement can no longer support itself using the resources of its own land, it will seek out and either trade with or colonize other lands. Often violently.
I highly recommend the work of Derrick Jensen, whose 2 volume, exhaustively researched book 'Endgame: The Problem of Civilization / Resistance' outlines all the ways that cities accelerate social, economic and environmental collapse. https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/ Hrte's a short list of the book's premises: https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
I suppose It is why (generally) most people choose to be friends with people who share similar interests to themselves.
Great link! Thank you.
That's pretty close to my feelings. I've lived as a foreigner in several countries myself, and the last thing I wanted to do was replace them, or have them change their customs to accommodate me. To the contrary, I wanted to learn from them. I was a guest in their house, not a burglar.
Thank you for the nuanced additional reference which complements my point perfectly. I agree that race is and should be irrelevant which is why I didn't mention it. It's cultural values that should be our primary focus when discerning whether multi-culturalism is functional, or not.
I would argue she did have power... never forget the Crown is fabulously wealthy, and pays no taxes and none are allowed to track their money. Likely some goes into the pockets of the elites, I would argue it is likely not that Elizabeth stood by and did nothing but rather she pushed it forward. It only began when she assumed office.
I like some constitutional rulers, but Elizabeth is a figure I think who deserves much more scrutiny, given the disasters that went down during her reign, and how most of the Windsors tend to be pretty weird. Her dad was a solid King though.
Precisely so. She's been insulated from rightist scrutiny for far too long by a first rate public relations strategy.
She also mostly avoided getting down into the mud of politics, thus she stayed above the partisan political crap for the most part.
Did she maneuver behind the scenes? Maybe, but we don’t know the full story as people don’t divulge what the queen has said to them.
Perhaps as time goes by, there will be a reexamination of her role over the course of her reign.
Exactly! I suspect that left-wing policies Enoch Powell was speaking out against, Bessie may have had more than a hand in funding, and funnelling money to. I can never confirm it, but we must bear in mind how close she and Charlie the Turd are, or how hateful Philip was towards the majority of the human race with his comments about wanting to wipe us all out.
John, my admiration for your political acuity knows no bounds. You correctly identified the only instances where ER2 is known to have intervened in politics (Rhodesia and South Africa). Remarkably few people ever twig to this.
In her defence, ER2 had no choice. The US wanted the UK to force the hand of the Rhodesian and South African governments. The US had the means to pressure her, had they wished to do so.
The pound has been subject to pressure from the US since the war. Eisenhower used threats to the pound during the Suez crisis. After the Cold War George Soros made a fortune at the expense of the pound....and I assure you his hedge fund had political protection from Washington/Wall St when he did so. The UK only repaid its principal post-war reconstruction debt to the US in 2006. I think that they may still owe debts to the US from WW1.
The Queen was also mindful that the US controls the UK intelligence services and political elite. She was a client of an empire. George VI was the last King-Emperor; the empire formally expired with him as the Queen was never formally proclaimed Empress of India.
The Queen failed to protect the freedoms of her people. Had she tried to do this, she would have been destroyed and her destruction would have wrecked the country and left a legacy of bitterness and civil strife that you could barely imagine. England was ruined by two world wars, rather than by civil war or revolution. Generations past made that choice. It is childish to think that we know better in hindsight...all we know is our own preferences, but these have been formed by experiences that no one could have anticipated.
ER's function was to keep people reassured and calm. She did this brilliantly. With her gone the British must now face the truth of their predicament. The political settlement of 1688 is crumbling and the ways of life enabled by it will go too. This has consequences for us all.
By way of explanation, I am old enough to have known genuine monarchists and Empire Loyalists of the old school, was raised in a family that took such things seriously and was, in fact, named after the Duke of Edinburgh. I gave up any naive beliefs in the monarchy years ago, but am not ashamed to admit that ER2's death has shaken me. It is a very grim moment. And a fearful one too.
Very good article John and will be linking it tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Not sure I want to make any comments about this situation at the moment as I need to gather my thoughts on this subject. I love the English people and my wife is half English, her mother coming to this country after marrying her father who was stationed in England in the 50s. Needless to say, I have had a few pints in some pubs over there!!! England is not what it was even 30 years ago, but then again, neither is the U.S.. I'm afraid under Charlie III, things will only get worse over there as he is a WEF puppet. We are witnessing the downfall of civilization, I'm afraid.
Agreed on all points. Chuckles is a rent boy for the WEF, so he'll be no improvement, and likely far worse.
The entire anglosphere has become a grim mockery of what it was. It's a terrible thing to feel like a stateless individual.
Greg Reese has an interesting short video today that everyone needs to watch
The Dark Ugly Past of the Climate Crisis King
https://rumble.com/v1jid3e-the-dark-ugly-past-of-the-climate-crisis-king.html
It is a shithole now and it gets worse every single day.
Pubs, I doubt there will be any left by next year at this rate.
I suspect your sentiments are shared by many. During the jubilee earlier this year I heard a lot of people reminisce about previous ones (wasn’t in-country then). This time around it appears to have been almost entirely a TV spectacle. No buntings, no street picnics, just indifference.
Thankyou John,
Your comment of Rhodesia and South Africa is very good. Where we differ though is on the term "The Apartheid system" While the Nationalist Party had implemented a segregation policy it was a policy for survival.
The term Apartheid was a label created and used to exploit a situation by he very Afro-Marxists led by a terrorist as you correctly elucidated. The word “apartheid” actually is a word in a language called Afrikaans. It was a modified language of a group of initially white people in South Africa originating from the Netherlands. The word actually means separate development.
People need to understand that the Afrikaners were no different from any other group of people in history who wanted to be self-governed and believe in self-determination. It is no different from the Amish belief system, of religion, culture vales and value systems, aspirations, like-thinking and life-style or being “like-minded”. It originates from Alsatian Anabaptistism. Many Afrikaners were Baptists and are Christians.
We ( White Minority of many different creeds) here now in South Africa sit in a quagmire run by socialists and Marxist communists who are destroying the country and the Afrikaner community. We all know that we are next after the Afrikaners.
Note that the British Empire deserted the Rhodesians and South Africans. My Grandmother arrived here in 1910. Both sides mother and father were British and supporters of the royals. I changed sides in 1970 to support the minority of Afrikaners who are other than the Jewish Race on of the most scapegoated people.
Thanks for your article.
There's a lot of deep misconceptions about South Africa and the Boers and Afrikaaners out there, based on a combination of black propaganda and projection of the American experience into a context where it does not belong. I had the good fortune to meet several people from those communities some years ago, who educated me on the history of the region. What's been done to them, and is still being done, is criminal.
Ethnic stereotypes die very hard indeed...the yellow journalism of the Boer War era set the tone and it has been unrelenting ever since. The projection of the US experience onto race-relations everywhere else is a serious problem...everything gets reduced into a parody of the Civil Rights era...and most of what people think they know about that is contestable or at least worthy of more nuance and less shrillness.
A few years ago I read a very rare and hard to get novel about contemporary South Africa translated from the Afrikaans (MIDNIGHT MISSIONARY by the pseudonymous Kleinboer). It was very well written, eye-opening and covered a lot of everyday stuff that never gets into the narrative in the West: what it is like to be a non-elite white in a black-run country. Needless to say, it was unreviewed in the West.
not to mention that the tribes claiming sovereignty were not even south african...
The ANC are performative Marxists...they use the rhetoric and were supported by the Soviet Bloc and its clients during the Cold War, but are in no way ideological the way the East European Marxists were. They are simply tribalists who use progressive posturing for the sake of their international PR.
What is sinister is the willingness of Washington and London (and multinationals) to support them. They have created a crony capitalist system that has pioneered race-based social engineering (Black Economic Empowerment). This is now being adapted for implementation in the US itself.
From the handful that I have met, the white Rhodesians are (or were) the most impressive Anglos on the planet: candid, resourceful, unpretentious and without self-pity. The Foreign Office detested them, largely because of snobbery. They were colonials without the right pedigrees (unlike the settlers in Kenya).
Never had the chance to meet any actual Rhodesians. Read a book about the Bush War some years back, written by a veteran of the Rhodesian SAS, which was my introduction to the subject. I was deeply impressed by their exploits. The sacrificial murder of Rhodesia was a classic example of cutting down the tall poppies, and then uprooting them and salting the earth for good measure.
I have only met a few and IMO Rhodesia vindicated colonialism...at least on an ethical and cultural level. A generation or two in conditions of autonomy, pro-social culture, stable families and opportunities and you see people thrive. Rhodes would have been pleased by his legacy and Teddy Roosevelt would have welcomed their company. Could I say anything better of anyone?
The late Victorian colonial experience in Australia, South Africa and elsewhere was caught up in developing solutions to the class problems at home. The ambition, generosity of spirit and pragmatism involved has a lot to teach us, certainly a lot more than the rancid social policy stuff today. The rise and development of the Dominions was a real challenge for Whitehall too: competent white men without the right pedigrees are a perennial nuisance for the great and the good. You can see why the current system is so determined that none develop that way today.
I think of QE2 as the worst monarch that we have ever had. This may seem harsh but no other monarch has left the people of this country in such a weakened state and has not lifted a finger or, as you say, raised a voice, to help.
Precisely so.
Perhaps they will call her Elizabeth Evening Star, after the last steam locomotive. As presiding over the end of the British race.
That's too beautifully poetic, sadly. Although perhaps appropriate.
I think an appropriate moniker for her would be precisely what she means to us. Elizabeth the Indifferent.
Oooof. Savage.
I wish I could be as reasonable as you. Seriously. My thoughts and feelings are not even remotely reasonable, or even able to be expressed on a “free speech “ platform.
Well Said. Shared it on social media. The caretaker do nothing queen, who let down all people by not checking the extant nefarity. She did support brexit, but let things go on too long. She had vast executive powers that could have forestalled a lot of this tragic scene. I became mixed up in the Poll Tax Riots in London. I had to run for refuge into St. Paul’s near Trafalgar. That was another instance where she failed to support her “subjects.” And now the subjects will have to find better guards for their liberty.
In truth she was nought but a front for the financiers that have taken over the Anglosphere. A puppet queen giving a patina of tradition to a revolution from above.
We need to find a new monarch from among our own to raise up to her position. Charles III will be even worse than his mother.
It is only likely to get a lot worse. Charles seems to have been supporting the things that were happening.
Yep. He's fully on board with the globalist dystopian agenda.
I think the project is about the recreation of European global empire under the fake rubric of global ‘governance’. They all expect a piece of the action.
Charles the Turd is LITERALLY (literally literally, not figuratively literally) the front-man for the WEF's "Great Reset".
He's LITERALLY the Official Patron.
FWIW I love that Charles decided to be Charles III - hence Charles the Turd.
It gels nicely with the fact that Dubya was the 3rd US Prez called George (hence "George the Turd") which bookends US history nicely between two scions of privilege called George the Turd.
(Taking a longish view, US history will be viewed as having basically finished in about 2007; the rest has been death throes. Likewise the UK was finished as a credible global power after Auckland's Folly... the rest being death throes. There is much ruin in a nation...)
It’s all actually fixable. The question is whether whether it will be allowed to be fixed. And how much pain and suffering it will take to get to the point that it will be fixed. Every effort has been taken over the last 30 years to suck the country dry. And that’s an acceleration of the sucking that began in 1913.
Everything is fixable, given enough ingenuity.
Except perhaps the House of Windsor.
Finance helped build the both the UK and US empires in the first place, John, and the relationship between the Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors and their bankers is a sensitive and complex subject. Theories of state-capture by finance are ahistorical. It pays to look into the detail and this is always difficult to come by.
Charles III will not have a happy reign. He presides over a state whose legitimacy is in a slow-burning crisis. He cannot rely on any advisers and is surrounded by regime-compliant types who would sell him out in a heartbeat. In the old days (preWW2) the aristocrats kept the monarchs in touch with reality (to a degree) but the old court life disappeared forever with the war. The Windsors are not intellectuals and IMO are unlikely to figure things out.
The great kings were war-lords and the last English king to lead an army was George II. Your longing for an Anglo Mu'adib is understanable, but not realistic IMO.
Democracy is a cynical sham with the purpose of the people getting what they voted for. And the power players alleviating their guilt.
We face de-population, destruction and holocaust and it is ok. Because democracy.
The peoples century this is not.