Was there ever a more modern, a more fashionable, marriage than that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? The bride really does seem to have been designed by a committee of progressive cosmopolitans to show that our stuffy old monarchy has been brought bang up to date. She has everything – American, divorced, an actress, a convert to Judaism – now safely converted back to Anglicanism (just how sincere can such convenient conversions really be?) – and, best of all, mixed race. The committee set up to modernise the monarchy after the death of Diana has done it’s work well.
Yes, I know it’s cheap to sneer, and the newspapers endlessly gush that the young (well, youngish) couple are madly in love, and I’ve no reason to doubt that he is. But love is by no means the whole story; Royal marriages are now, as they have always been, political above all else. In the past, when the King married, say, a French princess it was said that England “married” France; in this wedding we see a marriage between the traditional State of throne and altar and the modern State of diversity and equality, and we racial nationalists (who by temperament are usually throne and altar types) find that our place in modern Britain is even more squeezed than we thought it was. What joy for our establishment to rub the noses of traditionalist fuddy duddies and “racists” in diversity!
To add even more colour to the event, the sermon is to be preached by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the American branch of the CofE). He is black, left wing and very political. It always baffles me that bishops, who are certainly aware of Jesus’ injunction to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (i.e. leave politics to politicians) so regularly choose to ignore it. It is said that the bishop’s preaching style is “boisterous and energetic” – meaning black – so those of you who condescend to watch this pantomime are in for a treat.
So where does that leave we racial nationalists, with our belief that we must maintain our racial identity free from non-European contamination? Needless to say it doesn’t affect us at all; or at least not directly. Indirectly may be a different matter: we lie at one end of a spectrum of patriotic attitudes to which most of our fellow countrymen and women subscribe and in which an element of “racialism” – however closeted – is often present. By this I mean the recognition that a nation is not just a territory, nor a government, nor a state, nor a collection of institutions, but a people bound together and distinguished from all others by a common ancestry and a common history.
The nation, I have said, is not only a collection of institutions. That is our view, but there are others who disagree, who hold that loyalty to the institutions of the British state is all that is required to be British. This “Tory” view, as I think of it, is civic patriotism. The British monarchy is probably the most glamourous, and therefore the most powerful, institution of civic patriotism in the world. Many people can, and do, identify the nation itself with the monarchy – there was a silly little quiz in the Daily Express the other week: “How Patriotic Are You?” and almost all of the questions were about the monarchy (pleased to say I failed and am therefore unpatriotic) . The admission into the monarchy of a mixed race person directly counters that sense of the nation as a community of people bound together by common ancestry and common history and thus has the potential to further weaken our already depleted moral defences against race mixing.
To what extent, though, will that potential be realised? I noticed in the news a week or two ago that a suggestion that communities should organise street parties to celebrate the wedding has met with a cool public response, and there will be few, if any, such parties. No doubt, if one or two are held, broadcasters will zoom in on them and present them as typifying a national spirit! Interestingly, a very recent Yougov opinion poll reaffirmed this apparent public coolness – 66% are “not interested” while 60% are planning to have an “ordinary weekend” (perhaps including the really important business on Saturday – watching the Cup Final). I try to avoid reading the usual newspaper guff about the wedding but, as you can tell, I sometimes fail; and I have noticed in the readers comments which accompany these articles that Ms. Markle is not universally popular. Only rarely does a comment on her race make it past the censors, but there are many comments about her general unsuitability to be a royal bride. Are such comments sublimated racialism? – I have no idea, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Anyway, as always at times when yet another chip is knocked off the battered structure of our racial identity, we should remind ourselves why it is so vitally important to protect it. Our racial identity is who we are as individuals, as a people, as a nation – certainly one of the most creative and successful nations ever to grace the Earth. To mix our blood to some extent with that of racially similar people – Europeans – does little harm, and has of course been going on throughout our history; but to mix our blood with racial aliens, with those whose physical, temperamental and intellectual qualities are different, destroys what we have always been. This is no criticism of those racial aliens, they too have racial and national identities which they may wish to protect, but it is most certainly a criticism of those of our own kind who, in their perverse loathing of our traditional identity, have facilitated mass immigration and dismantled our moral defences against race mixing. No tolerance for those who hate our race and nation!
By Frederick Dixon © 2018
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]# # # #
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Rightly or wrongly we once looked up to the Royal Family as a role model, providing some sort of moral leadership, and in many ways our Queen has been able to retain the dignity of monarchy despite all the baleful pressure of the contemporary world. How utterly tragic therefore that despite what may have been said and thought behind the scenes, the whole concept and principle of nobility should have been so wantonly jettisoned in favour of a degenerate celebratory culture.
Frederick Dixon
- Edit
Perfectly put Mike. What I took a whole article to say you have expressed in two sentences!
Richard Edmonds
- Edit
“So where does that leave we racial nationalists, with our belief that we must maintain our racial identity free from non-European contamination ?”
This has been a long time coming: The Queen in her 2004 Christmas broadcast declared, George Orwell 1984-style, that Diversity is Strength. Addressing the nation from a Sikh temple in Hounslow, West London, Her Majesty lamented that discrimination still exists; She spoke of the victims of the muggers and then in the next breath she assured us that there is so much to be gained from reaching out to others, and everyone is our neighbour, no what matter race or creed or colour. Finally she opined how lucky we were to live in a country where our children can grow up in a society consisting of every race and culture and religion.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Richard, It should leave racial nationalists looking for a new monarch. ‘Royalty’ and ‘loyalty’ go hand in hand, and I would suggest that ‘royalty’ means absolutely nothing when it is devoid of ‘loyalty’ to our people!
James
- Edit
I would agree with ‘wrongly’ sentiment. The more you learn about the royals, the more you realise they are themselves a very big part of the NWO.
Wolf Stoner
- Edit
It is the end of English monarchy. They should go. The shadow rulers by their tricks of this kind (the whole affair with this wedding is the well planned insult for British and European dignity) only accelerate the coming end of their rule.
John Stephens
- Edit
My weekend will be one of country walking. Not only is this physically healthy, at 20 minutes per mile, (almost tabbing), but it gives one a mental detox.
I will then sustain my energy levels, with a healthy light meat salad, a portion of chips, and a nice cup of tea at the usual country village pub.
The silence and serenity of all this, will I have no doubt, be equalled with a similar silence, on the subject of your article.
Richard Edmonds
- Edit
When in 1977 Prince Charles chose to visit and to show solidarity with the Black community in South East London on the occasion of the mass-arrest by the Police of a gang of Black muggers who had being preying upon vulnerable elderly white folk in Lewisham, John Tyndall, the National Front chairman at the time, commented that we, British Nationalists, support the institution of the Monarchy here in Britain, but it does not have to be the House of Windsor who are our Royals.
SerpentSlayer
- Edit
I am glad to know I am not alone in that view. Ever since their distant ancestors usurped the throne this island has been run for the financial benefit of a small elite.
Our last chance of keeping our legitimate monarchy died at the battle of Culloden and I have no idea where we would find a new royal house but I would like us to do so.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
The Institution of the Monarchy has importance and provides much needed countervalence to the egalitarian doctrine as promulgated by “Progressives”. The Monarchy has never been popular with the Left, who have relentlessly sought its abolition.
However the forthcoming marriage of Prince Harry and the non- white Meghan Markel has delighted the Progressives as it gives due prominence to mixed race couples and is effectively promoting what is understood as miscegenation.Within this context, the left are for the moment more accepting of the monarchy as it is making some concession towards “Diversity”.
Although nationalism and republicanism are not mutually exclusive, nationalists tend to support the institution of the monarchy as it serves an important purpose in countering the doctrine of egalitarianism, rather than embracing the infantile and servile attitude indulged by many “royalists”.
In view of the above and with reference to John Tyndall’s observation as provided by Richard Edmonds, we may need to replace the House of Windsor with a more fitting and noble representation.
rerevisionist
- Edit
He should have married a transvestite to be truly ‘correct’. And marry wearing a dress. It would suit him.
Max Musson
- Edit
If current trends continue, I am sure the time will come when a royal will either decide they are ‘trans’, or decide to marry one. Let us redouble our efforts to bring a return to sanity.
Albert
- Edit
The last King of The English died in Battle with a sword in hand with his Men at Hastings,
Their was a time when the only immigrants to get into England was to land by sea with a Axe & Shield fighting to get off the landing grounds, only the very best made it, the rest died trying.
We got the very best of Europe,
Today all the crap of the World are allowed to just walk in permited by traitors, which includes the present Royal Family.
Folkvar
- Edit
I’m not a royalist and never have been but under the circumstances all I can say is thank god for William. How Harry can marry a twice divorced (okay one divorce and one annulment) women is beyond me. He will also destroy his bloodline and the media will revel in it, unsurprisingly given most of it is Jewish and given they’re the ones attacking us as they’ve always done. Again thank god for William.
I can also attest to the unpopularity of this union given the response from so many in the comments of multiple online newspapers. As usual it’s overwhelmingly women that seem to support this nonsense.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
For my part, I’m delighted at this tawdry event. Our royal family have betrayed themselves finally and clearly as no better than cheap celebrities and demonstrated an inability and unwillingness to raise their blood above that of the miscegenating herd. No British Racial Nationalist with a shred of sense can now remain attached to this biologically bankrupt sideshow, and that is a good thing. As is the opportunity (indeed, necessity) to look elsewhere for our ‘aristocracy’, for leadership of blood. And that, in my view, must come from the best of the movement for racial resistance and renewal, the Political Soldiers if you like. Onward and upward.
Aurelian
- Edit
I cannot believe that it is a coincidence that Prince Harry has married a mixed race women at a time when the mainstream media continually provide images of mixed race couples and mixed race individuals. I believe that our culture is guided from above according to a long term plan and that we have now reached that part of the plan where a royal is expected to endorse mixed race marriage by their choice of partner. As the royal family are supposed to be role models and are elevated high above the masses this is powerful endorsement indeed. The plan cannot allow Prince Harry to marry a pure negro because that would be too much of a culture shock even for the most committed anti racist, so half negro Megan has been chosen instead.
Max Musson
- Edit
I don’t believe matters of this sort are controlled to quite that degree. I think it was inevitable that sooner or later a member of the royal family would miscegenate and one of Princess Diana’s two sons were the hot favourites as a result of the example set by their mother.
As for Harry’s choice of Megan Marble, I think she was chosen by Harry in preference to the many fully Negro women he would have encountered on his charity work in Africa simply because, as an individual who is three-quarters White at least, she is a ‘Black’ woman who is rather more European and therefore attractive in appearance and behaviour.
Albert
- Edit
Diana dragged the Royal family down and this Actress with a bit of luck will finish them off.
Fyrdman
- Edit
David Starkey, constitutional historian, stated that the Queen throughout her reign has said and done nothing of note. Since her coronation, Britain has, piecemeal, declined and degenerated into a lawless, Babylon-type society. As for the wedding, it was a reflection of the times.
John Wrawe
- Edit
I never understand why British Nationalists at this late hour still place faith in the institution of the Monarchy, even if it’s the futile gesture of saying that the Windsors are bad but ‘we can have another family instead’.
Who would we replace them with?
The reasons why a nationalist would sympathize with ‘the monarchy’ I can loosely understand… a historically illiberal institution and a patriotic elite above both commerce/finance and sectional interest. This kind of ‘Richard the Lionheart style’ Monarchy no longer exists and will never ever come back.
The modern royal family is completely merged with the liberal capitalist bourgoisie and its pomp and cirumstance merely a charade. The Royal Family are kidding themselves and unfortunately kidding the British people into a false sense of patriotism and security.
We need to build a radical, third positionist and republican movement.
JW
James
- Edit
“Only rarely does a comment on her race make it past the censors” – this is a very interesting note from the above article, given that the mods from this site have an unpleasant tendency to alter or even omit comments that mention race or comments which don’t appear to exactly fit their own views. Even when comments do get published, oftentimes a firm slap-down can be expected from Max and I’m expecting a firm slap-down for challenging him here.
Maybe clear guidelines of what will and won’t be published here should be offered on all pages that comments are supposed to welcome?
As it is, I don’t see this as a productive community where views can be aired and shared, and I’m sure many others have come and gone before me that have felt them same.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi James, most comments by most people make it past my editorial eye without moderation or censorship.
.
What I find however is that certain individuals seek to abuse the facility to post comments here, often indulging in statements that are an incitement to racial hatred and by definition illegal, or statements that are potentially libellous. In such cases, I save myself, this website and the irresponsible commenters themselves from the consequences of their folly by either moderating, editing or in extreme cases deleting their comments in their entirety. That is my privilege as the website editor.
.
Some others persist in trying to use the comments facility as a free advertising hoarding for their rival brand of politics. This is not something that we wish to encourage.
.
This website is not a forum for the ideas of those who disagree with us, it is a forum for the ideas of our members and those who support us, of which there are many.
John Stephens
- Edit
I have many comments unpublished.
Max Musson
- Edit
That is correct. This website provides a facility for you to leave comments, not to make speeches or use this facility as an advertising medium.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
And long may that continue. There are a myriad other websites to post on. Anyone who doesn’t like the editorial policy of this site can vote with their mouse.