I suppose it’s quite normal and predictable for people to gush over a baby, (even if the more reserved among us might find it a little embarrassing). At least such gushing is usually confined to a family and its friends, but not when the baby is a royal baby because royal babies belong to all of us. There was huge excitement when Prince George was born in 2013 because one day he is going to be king (if the monarchy survives long enough), but even that excitement pales in comparison with the media melt-down which has accompanied the arrival of “Baby Sussex”, or Archie Windsor as I suppose we must now get used to calling him.
This media melt down is of course because of his race. Examples, if you can bear to read them, include this from the Telegraph “the infant is believed to be the first mixed-race child born to a senior member of the royal family for centuries, and is a REFLECTION OF MODERN BRITAIN with its culturally diverse population”. Also this “poster boy for A BRAVE NEW BRITAIN”. From the opposite end of the media spectrum (The Sun) we have this by someone called Tessy Ojo, described as Chief Executive of the Diana Award, “there are millions of families across the UK who have mixed heritage. This is representing WHAT MODERN BRITAIN LOOKS LIKE.” Midway between the Telegraph and the Sun is the Mail where we find this from that old race warrior, Trevor Phillips “When I was born a mixed race child like you was a rare and often shameful secret, all too frequently put up for adoption by horrified grandparents. But by the time you are ready to attend senior school, half of us with a Caribbean slave ancestor are more likely than not to also have a white parent or grandparent.”
There was plenty more such pap in all the newspapers, and it is very reminiscent of the rubbish with which the media larded itself at the time of Prince Harry’s marriage to Ms. Markle. But why the intense and highly approving emphasis on the child’s race? When Prince George was born six years ago I can remember only one reference to his race – that he was one of the sixty five per cent of babies born in England and Wales that year to be White British, but there was certainly no gushing approval of his Whiteness.
The universal welcome for young Archie’s mixed race heritage is in fact a welcome for the fact that he is NOT White; it is – as a Black American might say – “sticking it to Whitey”. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but there is certainly an anti-White consensus at work. This consensus is apparent in every sphere of public life; in “hate speech” laws designed to prevent those who believe as we believe from expressing our views; in school curricula which emphasise Britain’s role in the slave trade but not our pioneering work in abolishing it (designed to make White British children feel bad about their Whiteness); in the universities’ resolve to “decolonise the curriculum” by reducing White cultural and historical content; in films and television dramas in which “Whitey” is always the villain and “people of colour” always innocent (an inversion of the truth of course); in dramas which portray people of colour in places and periods where they would not have been present (stealing our past); in the wildly excessive presence of mixed race persons and families in television advertisements. And then, on the horizon, a malignant import from the United States – “Whiteness Studies”- to delegitimise not only the cultural roots of White power and civilization, but the White race itself.
The extracts from newspapers which I have quoted above are quite correct. The new baby does indeed reflect an aspect of modern Britain and does reflect the royal family doing what it always does, trying to make itself relevant. That the baby reflects an aspect of modern Britain is the result of that anti-racist consensus. It has deprived our people of all ability to resist racially mixed relationships even in their own families. To do so, most of us have been persuaded, is to be a “racist and a bigot” and therefore the worst of sinners. That the great majority of White British people are still in relationships with other White people is not due to any racial preference (that would be quite immoral!) but to the simple fact that we are still the majority and therefore more likely than not to meet others of the same kind. As the non-White population swells so will the number of mixed relationships. It is already the case that two thirds of children of Afro-Caribbean ancestry in this country have a White parent. So we are defenceless before the onslaught of state approved and state sponsored race mixing, and now this endorsement from the highest in the land sweeps away the last vestiges of resistance.
Or does it? Are we entirely defenceless? No we are not; our cause is wholly moral and the assault on our racial identity is motivated by wickedness. We need to be aware, and to make others aware, that race mixing – the interbreeding of two distinct human sub-species (e.g. White/Black) or two markedly different races of the same sub-species (e.g. White/South Asian) – is a wholly destructive process which terminates a biological line which may be hundreds of generations long, and substitutes for the ancestral population an impure line which would be unrecognisable and unwelcome to earlier generations of our folk. Of course, change happens all the time and our forebears of a hundred years ago (those heroes of the First World War who fought to save our country from foreign invasion) would find much in the modern world to unsettle them, but at least they would find that most modern Brits look like those they knew long ago – of course they do, they are their own descendants! But race mixing will destroy all that; it is genocide, nothing more, nothing less, wholly wrong.
So there we have our moral case; race mixing is the destruction of a natural variety as much to be deplored and avoided as the destruction of all natural varieties. But in making our moral case we must not cut the ground from under our feet by descending to race hatred, or indulging in theories of White supremacy or superiority. All we want is to remain ourselves in our own homeland.
In fact, our case has been made for us by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that great hero of the resistance against the lies and oppressions of the Left. Speaking at the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, in words of great clarity and wisdom which we would all do well to take to heart, he said: “In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of the Divine intention”.
By Frederick Dixon © 2019
# # # #
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
Has any one ever heard about the “last straw breaking the camel’s back”? Well, what with the Brexit betrayal there seem to be quite a few straws in the wind. I don’t expect the English people to suddenly abandon their sangfroid but the latest Royal insult to our racial integrity is bound to cause a seismic change in popular feeling, quite beyond the comprehension of Anna Soubry and her piebald crew at “Change UK”.
frederick dixon
- Edit
It may be that we can get a hint of this “last straw” in the on-line media. In contrast to the ecstatic reception by the media outlets, comments by members of the public (where they are allowed) have been surprisingly downbeat. The Telegraph has allowed no comments on its countless pap pieces about the royal baby. No doubt the paper has learnt a lesson from the vigorous comments which appear whenever it has had a piece on Ms. Markle in the recent past.
SteveA
- Edit
I came across this while ago, I have no idea who the author is.
As for white supremacy….We have white supremacy, whatever exactly it may be, because for 2,500 years we, the white race, have produced the best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the most complex and organised societies.
We have white supremacy because we have been the earth’s most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with it.
We put probes on Mars and invented the technologies need to do it.
We invented the symphony orchestra, the highest form of musical expression.
We invented the aeroplane, the computer, the internet and tennis shoes (trainers).
Putting it compactly, we invented the modern world. A degree of privilege, however you may conceive it, goes with the territory.
As a race we are happy for you, for anyone, to enjoy the benefits of our civilisation, but that is exactly what it is—our civilisation.
I have often heard blacks demanding reparations for slavery and colonialism. All right I agree. It is only fair.
I will pay a half a million pounds to each person who has evidence that they were/are enslaved or deprived by my family, and free them immediately.
Further, I believe that all blacks are entitled to a similar amount for every year in which they were slaves.
However, I think that you blacks owe us royalties for the use of our civilisation, which can be regarded as a sort of software.
There should be a sort of licensing fee. After all, every time you use a computer, or a door knob, you are using something invented by us.
Every time you sharpen a pencil, or use one, or read or write, you infringe our copyright, so to speak.
We have spent millennia coming up with things – literacy, soap, counting – and it is only fair that we receive recompense.
The accounting burden would be excessive if we tried to distribute royalties in too fine a granularity, such as three pence per use of a boom box, or a pistol, so we should probably use a bundled approach – so much per year for the use of the wheel, refrigerator and television.
Now it isn’t that we whites want to be supreme. It is just that we haven’t been able to help it.
It isn’t our fault that we produced Newton, Archimedes, Einstein and all those mutants, they are just birth effects, things that happen to even the best families. You have to play the hand that you are dealt.
A little sympathy would be appropriate.
The admixture of black blood to the white race, no matter its proportionality, dilutes all that we are.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
It may have been a gentleman named Fred Reed. I’d diverge with him over Einstein.
I always find it ironic to hear a non-Aryan complaining about ‘cultural appropriation’ whilst using the English language to do so. I suppose that irony is lost on them, principally owing to a deficit of intelligence.
Albert
- Edit
The biggest enemy to white people are white people..mostly white middle class Liberal self haters on a guilt trip, These people preach diversity and multiculturalism, but will send their children to fee paying schools which are 100% white, their children go through their early years not knowing a Black, Asian, or god forbid a White working class person who they hate with a vengeance.
But at the end of the day as Britain fast becomes Third World and eventually
Civil War breaks out these people will pay a heavy price and become some of the first targets to cop it…Only themselves to blame and this time they wont have the working classes spilling their blood to keep them in power.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
Indeed. The pathological altruism of our race has mutated, in some of our people, into an ethno-suicidal tendency. So many of these Liberals are atheists, for whom a certain Arabic religious text prescribes death. A heavy price indeed.
LJP
- Edit
Without revealing my own views, I listened with interest to the opinions of a group of younger people than myself on the latest royal progeny. If they are typical of views of the younger generations the establishment should be very worried for the future. While very few disparaging remarks were made as to child’s mixed race, none of the comments on the royal baby and the royal family were positive. The lapdog media can try and sell it as a blessing on us all but few appear to be buying. How long can an institution survive on indifference at best, or hostility at worst? I will be extemely surprised if we see another George on the throne of this country, although I doubt if I’ll be around to see the final demise of the House of Windsor. As for Archie, being of dual nationality, he can always go and live in his mother’s homeland, that is if it still exists which in its present form I doubt.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
It is possible to support the institution of the monarchy without being enamoured by the individual members of the royal family: The progressives detest the monarchy as it is construed as elitist and in contradiction to their promulgation of egalitarianism. However the House of Windsor has shown itself to be spendthrifts and wasters, with little redeeming qualities. The monarchies of the Scandinavian and the Low countries live much more modestly than their British counterpart and are less remote figures.The recent nonsense appertaining to the recent royal birth seems to have left many people cold and bemused despite the best efforts of the Establishment and associate interests to promote it as something commendable and positive.
Such degeneracy and nonsense is a sign of the times and may only have limited mileage!
Alec Suchi
- Edit
It should further be noted that “Progressives”who had traditionally opposed the monarchy which they consider elitist, have welcomed the marriage of the Clown Prince to somebody of mixed race, as it is supposedly reflective of our multicultural and multiracial society. In other words the hypocritical left are celebrating recent outcomes in an institution they detest to promote their own vision for the UK and Western society as a whole.Whilst the justification for the monarchy hinges on the fact it stands above party politics and thus untainted, if it fails to uphold the traditional patriotic values of its subjects, then perhaps new possibilities should be considered.This could involve the abolition of the monarchy or replacing the House of Windsor with a new line of blue blood, perhaps from the old Anglo-Saxon lines.
Albert
- Edit
Diverse Multicultural societies which has been force on the British people can only look like they are working by draconian race relations laws and strong state intervention to stop people getting out of line…As the working class traitor Danny Baker has found out.
John Stephens
- Edit
Alas, the “Melting Pot” will not save at least 50% of our true Aryan kinfolk. My theory is that, because Whites are merely 8% of the globe’s populace now, and even the so-called Royals are not immune, along with death through violence, rapes, and the media-led race-mixing agenda, weaker minded people will simply cease to exist.
This is where movements like Western Spring come in. Technology and military intervention, will also have an effect on our chances of survival. Thus, networks must be formed now. We have seen how mostly, White, spoiled Middle-Class liberals, and “Whitebread born” Socialists, like Corbyn, plus ANTIFA paid thugs, have destroyed/blocked legal options for democracy based push-backs. It is only a secrecy-based society, that mirrors the one we, and our modern ancestors were born into, that can sustain a future plan for us to not only survive, but thrive.
Folkvar
- Edit
It was too late long before this birth, most of our people are completely controlled and conditioned. They think this is normal. Newer generations know nothing but this.