One Sad "Royal" Wedding

It was amusing to see Prince Harry wed Meghan Markle. Obviously very few Britons believed in this, because they recognize an ethnic stab-in-the-back when they see one. Who came out? Well, the usual people who favor Leftism and want to abolish white people of course.

We might call this wedding an exercise in "capture the flag." The Left wants to seize a symbol of whiteness; Diana's boys, who hate their father and his family and love their mother despite her bad behavior, are prime targets. William married an airline stewardess, and Harry has married an American actress -- which is bad enough! -- who is also of mixed race. These boys want to destroy their heritage because they are angry and resentful.

This might explain why the great diversity experiment has failed to impress indigenous Britons.

Few people understand this, but in nature, reproduction is the issue for all organisms. The organisms that survive are those which reproduce, which is why nature often prioritizes this above the individual.

If their genetic profile gradually improves, they triumph; if it radically changes, they have been erased and have ceased to exist. Someone who wants to destroy an organism will target its genetics above all else.

Diversity was sold to us as tolerance of others who would come live among us and adapt to our ways. Instead, it has brought on terrorism, constant ethnic conflict, victimhood identity politics, and in the end, our erasure as we are bred into an entirely different organism, radically transforming who we are and destroying the old.

As this becomes more obvious, the backlash against diversity takes the form of generalized skepticism. People are not yet anti-diversity, but they are no longer pro-diversity. The days of saying "diversity is our strength" to universal approval are over.

Thus it is not surprising that skepticism of high-profile diversity events has spread:

A global audience will be watching when Prince Harry weds his U.S. fiancee Meghan Markle on Saturday, but most Britons don’t care much, a YouGov poll said on Monday.

The poll, commissioned by anti-monarchist pressure group Republic, found that 66 percent of Britons are not interested in the event, with 60 percent of Britons planning to have a normal weekend.

...An opinion poll published last week showed that most Britons are in favor of the monarchy continuing in Britain.

We have two data points here: most Britons want the monarchy to continue, but two-thirds of them are not interested in the marriage between Prince Harry and mixed-race American 56%er Meghan Markle.

In other words, they like the monarchy, just not this version of the monarchy. Despite having married a commoner, Harry's brother William remains popular, as does his wife Kate. Other royals are also favored by the public. Somehow, the mixed-race royal filament does not make the cut.

Neither Harry nor William married within their caste; William married the daughter of an entertainer, and Harry is set to marry an actress. We might ask why they are so inclined to turn their back on English identity? It turns out that even "one drop" of foreign blood can make people turn their back on their nation.

The mother of the English princes, Diana Spencer, had significant non-English ancestry:

Princess Diana was the daughter of The Honourable Frances Roche and Edward John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. She was of mostly English, as well as Scottish, ancestry. She had smaller amounts of Irish, Anglo-Irish, French, and German, roots, as well as likely 1/64th Indian (through her matrilineal line), ancestry, and even smaller amounts of Dutch, European Royal, Welsh, Danish, Channel Islander (Jersey), and Belgian ancestry.

Princess Diana is widely believed by DNA researchers to have a matrilineal ancestor, Eliza Kewark, who was Indian, or of Armenian (paternal) and Indian (maternal) descent; if this is the case, it would make Princess Diana of 1/64th or 1/128th Indian ancestry.

When one comes from a fractured line, the sense of identity is not present as strongly as it is among those who have unbroken heritage. That in turn reveals to us the point of Harry marrying Meghan Markle: to shatter the English line and doom it forever so that it will never again obstruct the raving mob.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aborting Down Syndrome Babies Is An Absolute Moral Imperative

Image
Conservatives have played it dumb throughout history mainly because they have no faith that social order will actually change. Having accepted defeat, and decided to work with a broken system, they then contort their beliefs to rationalize the decay, and focus on symbolic issues in order to unify themselves since they are basically dispirited and confused. One symbolic issue that plagues conservatism is abortion. At its core, we dislike abortion from a sanctity of life argument: terminating a unique new life simply for sexual convenience is, after all, a sign of extreme moral decline and an ugliness that spreads a utilitarian view of life to other areas. However, the nature of symbolic issues is that they become manipulative, since reality is forgotten in favor of symbolism. Over at The Federalist , David Marcus, writes in disapproval of aborting Down's Syndrome babies : No decent parent rejects a child’s love because the child is imperfect. Nobody casts aside an eight-yea...
Read more

An Interesting Argument For Monarchism

Image
From the USmonarchy group on Reddit , a series of arguments: I recognize a real and tangible need for our country to re-evaluate our principles, values, and what we expect from our government; most people can agree that some manner of fundamental change would be in our best interest. What we seldom agree on, however, is what changes should be made... So why monarchism? Why in the world would America need a king ? Reason I: Integrity. From the lowest representative up to the head of the executive branch, almost all our government officials appear to be bought and paid for, beholden to the special interest groups and lobbyists that fund their election campaigns. That means that the power to regulate, one that is supposed to be invested in the populace, actually resides in the pockets of the wealthy and well-connected. The reality is, what ails our political system cannot simply be remedied by voting; only power in the right hands can do that. A monarch h...
Read more

On Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock And Comfortable Media Narratives

Image
We know a lot about Stephen Paddock, the gunman who killed fifty-eight people at a Las Vegas concert with bump stocks and semiautomatic rifles, but the pattern makes so little sense that we know nothing at all of the man himself. In fact, it seems as if he went out of his way to obfuscate his own life before going on what he surely knew was a suicide mission. And now, the media narrative emerges in its final form : A jailed man who gave a statement to authorities in November said he encountered a man he believed was Stephen Paddock and who told him that Federal Emergency Management Agency “camps” setup after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were “a dry run for law enforcement and military to start kickin' down doors and...confiscating guns.” “Somebody has to wake up the American public and get them to arm themselves,” the man said Paddock told him less than a month before the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. “Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.” These statemen...
Read more