All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:29:46
The Value of Monarchy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everyone, Gregory Hood here.
Welcome back to Left, Right, and White.
I am here with Joseph Ford Cotto, and today we are going to be discussing the death of Queen Elizabeth II, what she meant for the United Kingdom, what's next for the monarchy, and the relevance of monarchy in general to European populations.
Thanks for being with us, and you're something of an expert on the subject in terms of what you've written in the past.
Well, thank you very much for having me on.
I think, you know, monarchy is something that's very misunderstood, particularly in the U.S., although, unfortunately, in many other places as well.
I have, I guess, for someone born in the United States, a really unique history with monarchy.
I've been in favor of monarchy since I was a boy, actually, when my parents took me to Williamsburg, Virginia.
It's better known as Colonial Williamsburg.
And I saw this British settlement, English really, and I saw the governor's palace.
I thought to myself, this is better than anything I've ever seen in America.
And from that point on, I've just been very predisposed toward monarchism.
And over the years, I learned about the different strains of monarchism.
I'm in favor of constitutional monarchy.
And I believe I mentioned as much, but just to repeat myself,
because we say you're in favor of monarchy, unfortunately in the US,
some people think that you want like basically Kim Jong-il with the crown,
and that's obviously not it.
If anything, the US presidency is much more in that vein than anything you'd see from a constitutional monarch today,
but we can get into that a bit later.
So I really have had this deep attraction to monarchical governance.
As I think people probably know by now, I am a baron and a knight.
The late king of Rwanda was kind enough to award me these honors.
So I have, obviously, it's not just an intellectual, but a deeply personal now, tied to monarchical systems.
And I really believe that monarchy is something that would benefit people across the board more than what we typically see from republics.
Although before I throw the conversation back to you, Gregory, I will say that in some cases, republics do work.
I'm not pretending that republicanism is always bad.
But as I do stipulate, republicanism works well when you have a geographically small area, a relatively low level of population, And a fairly homogenous population.
In those situations, you can make a republic work.
Unsurprisingly, this is how republicanism worked back in Greece, ancient Greece.
And, you know, republicanism basically in the place of an empire does not work out well at all, as we saw with the Roman Empire and as we're now seeing with the American Empire.
So, that I think is great to get my perspective out there, at least starting off with monarchism.
Well, certainly, I have great respect for the rank.
I mean, as a follower of Baron Evola, I should call you Baron as well.
But, I mean, what you bring up from the... What you bring up with the... Well, several points.
First of all, I'm very familiar with the Governor's Palace as a graduate of the College of William and Mary.
I almost got arrested, actually, for hopping the fence at the Governor's Palace, so... Actually, very, very familiar with it.
It was part of the...
Three things you had to do as a William & Mary student, along with jumping in the river and something else, which I'm not going to get into.
But I always held that sort of opinion as well, that this was something Valuable that we had lost because it presents a sense of permanence and hierarchy and of course with the American Revolution Originally the way the colonists frame their grievances It was not that they were opposed or we were opposed I should say to King George the third But they were actually opposed to Parliament and they kept proclaiming their loyalty to the king while speaking out against his ministers and his government and
And it was actually fairly late in the process, the drive toward independence, where they finally broke with the king.
You could say the final blow was really after the failure of the Olive Branch petition.
And as Ben Franklin said, the Declaration of Independence was less something new and just more of a recognition of something that already had existed.
I mean, there was fighting.
Bunker Hill, of course, occurred well before the Declaration of Independence.
When you were talking about the king of Rwanda, I was reminded that there's actually a king of the Zulus who, when Queen Elizabeth died, you saw something pretty remarkable, which was overwhelmingly white crowds gathered at the palace to mourn the queen, and they sang God Save the King, which I'm sure is going to take some getting used to for some of them, considering how long she reigned.
But a lot of African Americans, but also blacks in Britain and really blacks around the world had some unbelievably vicious things to say which we chronicled that American Renaissance under Verified hate white tears edition where they basically were basking in the sadness of these crowds But the king of the Zulus who of course does not actually have a polity to rule drafted a gracious statement saying that he wished the British people best and how sorry he was for the loss and
It reminds us that there's a connection between a monarch and his people that doesn't necessarily require a state.
And in some cases, that connection is actually more powerful than the actual bond of the state, particularly now when so many states, as you point out, there's not really that connection anymore between the nation and the state.
I mean, it's I think we're both of one mind here that to speak of a modern America as a nation state is basically absurd.
I mean, we just there's just nothing holding people in common other than money.
And people always say, well, the Federalist Papers sort of disprove this idea that a republic has to be small.
I would argue, no, I think history has actually proved the Federalist Papers wrong on that point.
Certainly the government that has developed here, even Hamilton, I don't think would have been happy with how it's worked out.
But you still had this connection between the indigenous British people, by which I don't just mean the English, but also the Welsh and the Scots.
I mean, you saw Scots who supposedly hate England and hate everything English gathering in huge crowds for the funeral procession, just watching on the side of the road.
I can't think of no politician would ever get such a tribute.
Agreed.
And so what does this tell us about Queen Elizabeth II, the institution of the British monarchy, and is there still some spirit left in the British people?
Well, I think there's absolutely a spirit left in the British people, particularly those who are Welsh, English, Scottish, or Northern Irish, and the Northern Irish people are a hybrid of those who are Ulster Scots, Scots-Irish, Anglo-Irish people of English descent in Ireland, or on the island of Ireland, that's what I meant.
And then you have people who are of native Irish ancestry that decided to abandon the cause, or their forefathers did, of republicanism, and they came to embrace the crown.
So you have all these different groups, ethnic groups, that constitute modern, well, traditional Britain, and by and large they still constitute modern Britain.
And what you saw among those who were very, very sad at the passing of the Queen, and that would mean the majority of those who live in today's Britain, the people who were showing outpouring of grief, they were overwhelmingly those who were of a traditional British background, whereas those who were not at all sad to see the Queen go, in many cases saying absolutely terrible things, were not of a traditional British background, although some of them were.
I don't want to pretend that, you know, just because one is of a traditional British heritage, that this automatically made them loyal to the crown and to
the Queen's memory. Absolutely not.
But if one is to look at averages, certainly on average, the people who feel the greatest
connection to the crown are those who have a British heritage, and those who don't are the
ones who are not of this heritage.
I'll put it in that way.
And that's obviously because the crown represents not only, you know, a safeguard for constitutional monarchism, but it represents the history, heritage, and culture of the native peoples of Britain.
And that's something which is very obvious to see, but it's also obvious to understand that in this day and age, a lot of folks would not want to point out Yeah, this is one of the big issues that's going to happen going forward.
I believe Barbados already ditched the Commonwealth.
I think Jamaica is debating it.
A number of other places are probably going to do it.
And even some places like Australia are supposedly debating it.
Republicanism there is getting a boost.
And it's interesting, obviously you can understand with Jamaica, Barbados, they say, oh, it's It's about decolonization.
What they really mean is, of course, they don't like the idea of a white head of state.
But with Australia, they're essentially turning their back on British settlement.
And this is incredible, considering that Australia had literally a whites-only immigration policy until quite recently.
And now the new identity is basically going to be built around, I don't know, Aborigines and guilt and you see sort of the same thing with New Zealand where it's it's going to be they're gonna have a new flag There's some talk of even changing the name Canada, of course, you have the same kind of negative identity being formed with the so-called First Nations ie the Indians although interestingly Quebec
has gone from left-wing nationalist movement to a more right-wing nationalist movement.
So while Canada as a whole is moving left very fast, Quebec is moving right very fast.
It's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out.
But here's the question, and I know a lot of commenters are probably screaming at me to bring this up, so I'm going to, because obviously it's something that occurred to me as well.
Queen Elizabeth II, whatever she represents to most blacks, And whatever she thought of herself, because throughout her life, she clearly took her responsibility as head of the Commonwealth, not as merely the British monarch, but head of the Commonwealth of a lot of majority non-white nations.
She took that very seriously.
She did not share in the imperial nostalgia of her mother.
She did not defend the history of the empire as energetically as some of her older relatives may have.
And the one time she really did exercise her power actually came after the unilateral declaration of independence of Rhodesia, when Ian Smith, in an attempt to keep a white minority government, actually seceded from the Commonwealth.
They tried to work out a deal where basically they would still be part of Britain in some way.
This was rejected.
And the Queen was actually using her influence on Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher, who was not An obvious supporter of decolonization was not an obvious supporter of handing the country over to Robert Mugabe The Queen reportedly leaned on Margaret Thatcher pretty hard to go along with this and the key here is that by the end It wasn't that Ian Smith and the Rhodesian government the white minority government.
I should say It's not that they were opposing black majority rule as such they were simply opposing handing the country over to Mugabe Where they essentially said, look, if you do this, you're going to have elections once, and then it's going to be run straight into the ground.
And they actually had more moderate black politicians that they were prepared to share power with.
It was the Queen and the British government, and I should add the American government, that really pushed hard for handing over the country to Mugabe.
I don't think we need to draw any conclusions about how that worked out.
I mean, we all know what happened.
And of course, you know, all the journalists who were really worked up about Rhodesia don't care about Zimbabwe now.
Some would also say, I think, I don't know how much power the Queen would have, but one could argue, look, if you are essentially the manifestation, you embody the identity of a people.
And that people is being replaced within its own historic homeland.
Do you, as sovereign, have at least some responsibility to speak against this, even in private, when the Prime Minister's come to talk to you and everything else?
There's no evidence Queen Elizabeth ever said anything about the process of mass immigration.
So, even though Queen Elizabeth II represents white British identity to a lot of non-whites,
white advocates might say, yeah, but what has she ever done for us? And then what
would you say to that?
Just one thing first, Barbados is still part of the Commonwealth, but no longer as the monarch
as head of state, which is a big distinction because now it has a president who's obviously
elected. And that was basically a power grab for the Chinese government. The last vestige of
British power, they're gone. So the Chinese could basically have a new form of colonialism, which
which the people in Barbados, at least the government, aren't complaining about because
this time it's not a white man ruling over them.
Same thing in Zimbabwe too. I mean that's practically a colony of China.
Absolutely. It's amazing how colonialism never goes away.
No, it doesn't.
It changes forms.
And I will say this, for those who would say, you know, British Empire evil, blah blah blah, the Chinese are going to rule these places so much more severely than the British ever did that I think a lot of the people there will be very, very nostalgic for British rule, just as the folks of Hong Kong now are nostalgic for British rule relative to the quote-unquote freedom they have under the Chinese government.
But anyway, getting to Rhodesia, which is really an important subject in talking about what role the Queen played in the lives of people on the basis of ancestry, I think that Rhodesia really is a tragic thing.
Because it is something that was sabotaged from the outside.
That's not to say that Rhodesia had the grandest form of government, but Rhodesia was not an apartheid state.
A lot of people say it was, but it wasn't.
As a matter of fact, from day one in Rhodesia, blacks had representation in government.
They sat in parliament.
What the Rhodesian government did was establish a qualified franchise, which made it so people needed to know English and basically be literate and a few other things in order to be able to vote.
Obviously, most blacks didn't meet that standard at the time.
This was in the 1960s.
but there were still blacks who voted and who elected people to parliament.
And so it's not like they had a South African situation where the blacks were intentionally dispossessed of power.
The situation in Rhodesia was portrayed very differently in the West.
And there's no question that the foremost source of agitation for Rhodesia was in parliament.
It was the labor government of Harold Wilson, which very much wanted to speed up
the post-colonial movement.
And the left of the labor party obviously was in solidarity with the left in Rhodesia, which was black militant.
And this created a situation where the British government wanted to bring the hammer down
upon the Rhodesian government for not going along with the plan for decolonization,
which would have made it so there was an election among people who, some of them didn't even know,
they had no conception of what it meant to cast a ballot.
It would have just been a farcical.
And obviously Ian Smith and his government knew that, which is why they did the UDI,
the Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
Now they maintained loyalty to Queen Elizabeth.
But they even put her on the currency and they said, God save the Queen in their declaration.
Those are the last words of it.
But Elizabeth was not able to reciprocate that loyalty because obviously as a constitutional monarch, she is unable to act outside of the bounds of her government.
and that is literally called Her Majesty's Government, the government of any country which has her as head of
state.
And it was the policy of the British government to oppose this Rhodesian independence
by any feasible means necessary.
So what the British government did was pass a law, basically the sanction of Rhodesia,
and the Queen was given the ability to take some actions as a result of the law.
Now, obviously it's termed that she has the ability to do this,
but the clear intention of the government was for it to, actually to make it basically so that the Rhodesian
government was illegitimate in the eyes of the British legal system.
And Queen Elizabeth did take these measures, and Rhodesia was held to be an illegal usurpation
of lawful British authority.
Of course, the Rhodesian government could care less because, you know, London could not enforce its constitutional theory, but there was certainly a dispute among the leadership class in Rhodesia as to who had the rightful authority, but Ian Smith's side had public sentiment and weapons So that basically settled it.
But what took place over the next several years was that the crown refused to budge.
And Queen Elizabeth never made any public statement about which side she preferred or anything of that nature.
But she did say through her representative that any advice that Ian Smith gave her,
she could not take as coming from the head of a government because she could not recognize his government
as being legitimate.
And what ultimately happened in the very late 1960s was that there were these people in Rhodesia
who were black that were committed murder and they were going to be punished for it very severely
and Elizabeth pardoned them.
But the Rhodesian government did not recognize the pardon because she didn't recognize the government.
So from the Rhodesian government's point of view, she was doing something that was outside
of its legal system.
And after her pardons were ignored, that drove the relations
between the crown and the Rhodesian government to a breaking point.
And what the Rhodesian government ultimately did shortly thereafter was declare a Republic.
Ian Smith thought that this would help the country along because they could play into the whole, you know,
anti-monarchist pro-Republican sentiment that was sweeping the world at the time.
But it actually made things much worse for the Rhodesians because they lost any of the stage of legitimacy
they had in the eyes of the international community except for South Africa and Portugal.
And so Portugal still had some of its empire left at the time.
So what happened was that they wound up seeing their relations severed with all these different countries that they needed to be in contact with, obviously for reasons of trade among other things.
And so ending the monarchy was not actually a good idea in Rhodesia, but it is what the
government chose to do.
And it's understandable why they did it, because it was getting to the point where they were
being told from London that these people cannot be held to this standard under your law.
Meanwhile, London didn't recognize the law enforcement of Rhodesia as being valid in
any case.
So it is a totally bizarre situation, almost too difficult to describe, but there it is.
And throughout the 70s, Rhodesia lost its support from Portugal when the government
there changed, when they had their nonviolent revolution.
Portugal's last vestiges of its empire went away.
And then South Africa stopped supporting Rhodesia, because it basically thought that if it threw
Rhodesia to the wolves, it would be able to keep its apartheid system.
Right, right.
They tried to cut out a separate piece, which of course did not work out.
Not at all.
was that the South Africans were...
We're much more hardline on race than the Rhodesians were, but South Africa somehow thought it would be able to survive by throwing the Rhodesians to the wolves.
Obviously, that did not work out, but what happened happened.
And so then the Rhodesians were in this no-win situation by the late 70s, and then Ian Smith decided to have a power-sharing agreement with moderate black leaders, and this was not accepted.
Uh, by the government in the UK.
Margaret Thatcher, who was just coming to power around this time, wanted to accept it, but the Queen very much wanted to have one man, one vote in Africa.
She didn't publicly state as much, but that has become known as her point of view.
And she did pressure Thatcher into advocating for as much of a one man, one vote situation as possible.
The queen was a woman of very deep Christian conviction, and she believed that all men
being created in the eyes of God should be able to have an equal chance at furthering
the course of their own destiny.
I don't think she really paid much attention to the fact that, you know, in Zimbabwe, the
internal politics were such that people from one group or another were killing each other
in order to get scraps from the table of politics.
So, her perspective, while noble in its, one might say, in its orientation, was in fact highly destructive in its consequences.
And to make a long story short, the Rhodesian government did eventually transfer power to total majority rule, and Robert Mugabe was the result.
Rhodesia came to an end, and Zimbabwe took place, and now it's becoming a Chinese colony, having failed in spectacular fashion as an independent republic, which has... And is not in the Commonwealth.
Mugabe, I think, I think Mugabe actually was knighted at some point, which is one of the great farces of history, then eventually that was taken away when, and to give a little bit of, you know, how they say the the woke are actually closer to the truth than the centrists and the woke might say, oh, well, people only started paying attention to Zimbabwe once Mugabe started killing white farmers.
Well, that's actually true.
But it's because before that, he was murdering all his black political opponents and everybody just pretended this isn't happening.
I mean, the only people who actually were saying, hey, look at this, and it's going to come for us, too, were Smith and the Rhodesians.
Books that I would recommend our listeners read on this, I believe it's The Great Betrayal and then Bitter Harvest.
And Bitter Harvest is interesting because Ian Smith fought for Great Britain in World War II.
He was a fighter pilot.
He was a war hero.
He was actually shot down and rather than letting himself get captured, he actually fought with Italian partisans and continued the war after being shut down.
And so for him, this was really a deeply personal betrayal because he laid everything on the line for the empire.
And as Peter Brimlow noted out, this is Brimlow writing back in 1979, the people who were pushing Rhodesia to give up its power and for it to hand over the country to Mugabe the leaders of these governments none of the men actually fought in World War two they had all found ways around it or they were conscientious rejecters or some sort of thing and so you actually had the worst in terms of Patriotism telling the best what to do and the tremendous hatred and persecution and energy that the British
Put against Rhodesia, an American, I should say, is pretty remarkable.
And I just want to quote what I'm quoting from memory here, so I apologize if I get a word or two wrong, but Peter said something like, in the Rhodesians, we saw ourselves as we once were and might have been, and we hated us.
And I think there is something to that in If you look at, I often joke that the Anglos are the best and the worst of us, because if you look at what the British Empire and what the English-speaking peoples have been able to accomplish, creating the United States for example, I mean what this tiny little island, in terms of its impact on history and what it's been able to do, it's
If you wrote that in a fantasy novel or something, nobody would believe it.
It's too ridiculous.
That's such a small thing.
But at the same time, over the last few decades, it's almost as if Britain itself has had a kind of negative, and the English-speaking world generally, and you're seeing this happen in the United States too, have a negative identity where the way we define ourselves is by tearing down everything our ancestors accomplished.
And somehow, I mean, as Enoch Powell said, it's like watching a nation busily engaged and heaping up its own funeral pyre.
And I would argue that that didn't happen just with mass immigration, although that was obviously the biggest thing in terms of people actually living in the United Kingdom.
But you could also see it with the policies toward Rhodesia and South Africa.
South Africa, of course, is another situation where you have these Intra-white fights that lead to disaster because the first concentration camps in history as we all know were actually built by the British To contain the Boers during the Boer War and so to this day The Boers are not very fond of English speakers and they have very good reasons not to be very fond of English speakers but Ian Smith writing, you know after the disaster of Mugabe and this is well
You know into the famines and everything else where nobody was pretending anymore that this was actually going to work out where everybody just Sort of pretended that oh, well, we didn't mean for this to happen and no one could have predicted He said that the root of the problem was the divisions between the Afrikaners and the English speakers because he wanted Rhodesia and South Africa to sort of merge into a larger entity because the demographic balance would be better, and he thought that would have a better chance of holding out.
That may have been true, but it still seems like you're just sort of kicking the can down the road, where you have basically the problem with any kind of European imperialism.
If you set up good government, if you set up basic standards of healthcare and transportation and the economy, what ends up happening is that the native population Booms, because suddenly you're doing things that they couldn't do for themselves before, then they outnumber you, and now what?
You either have to come up with some complicated rationalization about why they're not allowed to vote, or you have to have the will to just say, no, we are going to continue to rule you, which is something that, frankly, wasn't there by the 60s.
Yeah, absolutely.
The West sort of did lose its will to be itself during the latter half of the 20th century, and that's something which has snowballed into today's hellscape of wokeness, among other things.
It's a very sad phenomenon, but there it is.
I would say that, obviously, there are quite a few Britons who still feel very patriotic and proud of their history, heritage, and culture.
And we're saying it!
We're saying them now, right?
I mean, that's sort of the thing that's important about all this is that, look, for commenters and everything else, like, I get it about Queen Elizabeth II.
I can tell you all the many things that she did wrong in terms of, from a white advocacy perspective, And in terms of handling both immigration and colonial policy, I mean, if you want to talk about who's a colonialist and who's a decolonizer, arguably the most colonial thing she did was actually using her power to crush Rhodesia.
Like, that was actually the Metropole crushing a colony.
If you're talking about decolonization, not in the sense of the way journalists use the word colonization now, where it just means anything white, But in terms of, like, the actual meaning of the word colonization, Queen Elizabeth II was probably the greatest decolonial activist in history.
I mean, the British Empire was basically dismantled on her watch.
And this is something that a lot of people, including Winston Churchill famously, were not happy about.
Winston Churchill said that he mourned the destruction of the British Empire, and he used to make fun of people saying that we shouldn't use the word empire because it's naughty and because, you know, they should call it a commonwealth or hide what it is.
But of course, Churchill himself, through his foreign policy, could also be blamed for stretching the British Empire to a point where it could no longer be sustained.
And so we kind of get back to this problem, and I think it It really is at the heart of our civilizational crisis right now, where the symbols and the institutions that define us—the monarchy, national identity, the empires of the past, the great accomplishments of people in the past—that makes us who we are, and that's what we rally to, because that's just inherent.
That's where we go when there's trouble, essentially.
They're also objectively on the other side now in terms of what they actually do.
And if that's a little bit too much, because let's face it, I mean, there's not all that much Queen Elizabeth II really could have done, frankly.
But, you know, if she had done something, she probably wouldn't have stayed queen for very long.
But it still seems like every traditional institution, and this even gets into religion and everything else, Every traditional institution is aligned against the traditionalists.
It's aligned against the only people who actually keep it going.
Because those white people who are gathering to mourn the Queen, those aren't the people that the monarchy cares about when it does its PR stunts.
You know, King Charles III is not going to take publicity photos in a group of You know, a crowd of conservative white people, you know, they go to a primary school where it's a bunch of immigrants or he goes to some third world country or something like that.
And they keep trying to appeal to people who are never really going to have their back.
And I sort of feel like that's true of almost everything right now.
There's no question the West is going through a very rough transition and institutions which people used to rely upon for stability, order, and identity are acting in a very non-traditional manner.
As far as the British royal family goes, there are quite a few members of it that are working royals and typically When people go around to the countryside, you know, the parts of Britain where support for the monarchy is strongest, it's more minor members of the royal family, and these members of the royal family are the ones who are closest on a day-to-day basis to the monarchy's core of support.
Then the more high-profile royals do things that gain a lot more attention.
Obviously, in this day and age, it's going to have something to do with At best, political correctness, and at worst, wokeism.
But the royal family does have something very positive going for it, which is that it is supposed to not make political statements of any kind and to refrain from taking sides on any political issue in any context, but especially with regard to partisan politics.
So, as modern, quote-unquote, as some might want the monarchy to be, it does have its limits.
Thankfully so.
But I think that, really, looking at the West and its institutions, it's all over the place.
It's nothing that one could say, well, you know, it's just the British royals being themselves.
Let's get real.
In the U.S., the situation here with our head of state, who is definitely not a royal, we'll just leave it at that.
It's a thousand times worse than the British Royal Family on its most cringe-worthy day with regard to political activities.
Yeah, I mean, did you see Joe Biden?
He's speaking to a crowd of Hispanics and he's doing, he does one of those things where he says the quiet part out loud again where he said, you guys are gonna be the majority, you're gonna be running the country, man.
And it's like, oh yeah, also the Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory, but never mind.
Of course, people on the left who go around, you know, shouting nasty labels at people who talk about demographic displacement in the West, these people on the left absolutely believe every word that their quote-unquote racist opponents are saying, but they just try to use the quote-unquote racist card against their opponents to shut them up and to paralyze them so the left can gain more power as quickly as possible.
Let's think about—before we talk about race more specifically, let's think about monarchy in general and the principle of it.
Now, interestingly, King Charles III—we can call him that now—is actually something of a traditionalist.
He actually spoke to a traditionalist conference in the 90s, I believe, and cited the work of René Guénon, which immediately had me perk up, because if you know who René Guénon is and you're citing him in a positive manner, That means you've definitely got some, at least some, ideas in your head that are pretty interesting in terms of a classical right-wing perspective.
Certainly, he's been very outspoken.
I mean, the thing that he's probably the most outspoken for is architecture, where, of course, his hatred of modern architecture is well known, which, frankly, again, I agree with him.
And it reminded me of one of President Trump's last executive orders where he said, he essentially limited public buildings to classical, neoclassical, art deco, no modern nonsense.
And of course, that was one of the first things Joe Biden repealed when he got into office because all our buildings need to be ugly.
So the fact, interestingly enough, President Trump reportedly wanted to make the United States an associate member of the Commonwealth, which would have been interesting.
So, I mean, which frankly, I think if these third world countries all left and somehow Canada, Australia, New Zealand stayed in, it would actually be a pretty good idea if the United States joined the Commonwealth.
Then you'd actually get some representation and some recognition of the fact that the Anglo-Saxons created the country.
But, and I say this as somebody who has not one, one drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in my Dago body, but, but everybody's still like, right.
Like Evola, I'm a Roman.
So there's something, there's something inherent to monarchy.
I know people will dismiss it as reactionary or whatever else, but there's, A number of arguments you could make about it.
One is that there's something to be said for the principle of hierarchy as such, as represented in a monarch.
And that is a good thing, because right now we just take it for granted that the basis of morality is egalitarianism, and it's just not true.
And in fact, more people have been killed in the name of egalitarianism than have ever been killed in the name of whatever divinity or whatever Other creed you can put out in front of you, and even half of those so-called divinely ordained wars, usually the God in question is also promising some form of equality here on Earth.
So equality as such, I think, deserves a check.
Second, ironically, in this modern time, in this media age, having a head of state who is not the head of a government is actually very efficient when you need somebody to represent the nation on an apolitical issue.
So, for example, when there's a hurricane or something, the president goes, because he has to, and he gets yelled at if he doesn't go.
And he tries to, Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter, he'll try to pass out aid, do whatever, get some photo ops.
Half the people will accuse him of politicizing the tragedy.
The other side will say, oh, he's not doing enough to help the victims and everything else.
And the whole thing is just stupid and fake.
I mean, whether the head of the government is literally there passing out stuff doesn't matter much to anyone.
He's not helping.
If anything, he's getting in the way.
And because he's the representative of a party, it's never going to be taken in good faith.
But if you have the head of state who is seen as above those things doing something for more of these ceremonial, not just ceremonial things, but Where it's actually important to symbolically show that the nation as a whole is doing something.
Then in that case, I think it's actually very important to have a head of state that's not the head of a government.
And that actually works well in the media age, in the television age, in the internet age.
Because, you know, if the king shows up, that has a much bigger impact than if the leader of the Republican Party shows up or the leader of the Democratic Party shows up.
I mean, let's think of when President Trump Visited Puerto Rico after the disaster there and he's throwing What was it paper towels or toilet paper to people and somehow this became a controversial issue?
It's like because there was just nothing he could do without people jumping down his throat, but he's also the head of the state I mean, there's no one else who can do these things.
So I think that especially if you look at At the other European monarchies, obviously, we Americans are more attached to the British monarchy for obvious reasons.
But I've seen it.
I've been there.
In the Netherlands, when they have the King's Day celebrations, some of the other European countries have their own monarchs.
It does seem to be the one thing that actually creates a sense of organic unity for people.
And the idea of it being exemplified in a person, I think, is the only way that it can be done.
I mean, I think that's the modern argument for monarchy.
100%, I agree.
The head of state should always be above politics, partisanship, passing fads.
All that stuff, and that's where a monarchy is so useful, because you have this person who serves for life, and he has no political ambition, and he can't be influenced by special interests, so he serves the public, and that's the beautiful, beautiful thing about it.
Of course, she could be a queen as well, and you mentioned that, obviously, the British heritage of the U.S.
should be emphasized, even though you're not British or Anglo-Saxon, as you put a background yourself, And it doesn't matter really whether or not any of us have this Anglo-Saxon heritage.
The fact of the matter is that the country did come from somewhere, and the farther it strays from acknowledging that, the worse it gets.
So, needless to mention, it going back to basics is a good thing.
Now, I think that there's no question that the model that the U.S.
has for an elected head of state Who does everything that a head of government and a head of state does, and the combination of the two very often is not for the best.
Obviously the American model is a terrible one, and it should not be replicated anywhere, but it has come to inform no shortage of countries which have sprung up across the world since the United States' founding.
And that certainly has contributed to making the world a much more unstable place with needless problems of all sorts.
So, yeah, it's really something how all of this functions.
But I view monarchy as a friend of liberty, because everything is not political.
If everything is not political, then people tend to be able to make decisions not based upon short-term gain, partisan loyalty, all that.
They can analyze issue by issue and do what is thought to be in the public interest.
So, and that, you know, is very good for individual rights and liberties.
I say this is essential.
But, you know, today's America is not a place that I think there could be any monarch presiding over.
There's no country.
I mean, that's a problem.
I mean, going to what you just said about something not being political, I think the leftists and even the critical theorists are right when they say everything is political, the personal is political.
There are certain things that are just should not be permitted as part of the political debate.
So, for example, if you and I disagreed on health care, say, I mean, in theory, we could talk about it and eventually, I mean, there's a right answer to that question, right?
Like, what is the best way to provide health care most efficiently to everyone?
But there are some questions which are frankly just us and them.
There is no common ground.
So if you have a country and the question on the ballot is, Should we allow ourselves to become a minority in our homeland?
If that's even a question on the whoever's proposing that question should immediately be deported because like they're not they're not part of the political community.
They're not like they're inherently a traitor.
And the idea of a universal monarch, I think, faded with the breakup of Christendom.
But the idea of a national monarch who exemplifies a particular people can still work and you see it work absolutely in europe
even in places like sweden it's yes and i was going to say sweden historically left wing but
actually that's not true anymore after the most recent election where sweden the sweden democrats
have done it and much to the shock and chagrin of journalists uh we will now have a right-wing
government in sweden Interestingly enough, you never hear, I remember when I was in college, you would always hear leftists say, why can't we be more like Europe?
They don't say that.
They don't say that very often these days, because a lot of things in Europe are not breaking their way.
But one of the other things about the British identity specifically, and about Anglo-Saxons, is a lot of times When you're talking about white advocacy, the argument is, oh, well, there's no such thing as the white race.
It's perfectly fine if you say you're celebrating being Irish or Italian or German or something like that, but there's no such thing as white.
Anyone who says that is a white supremacist and evil.
And I remember they were going to have an America First caucus.
It wasn't even an Anglo-Saxon caucus.
It was an America First caucus, and they made a passing reference In the documents for it to America's Anglo-Saxon historic American Anglo-Saxon traditions and we also remember when Jeff Sessions Made a passing reference to the Anglo-American tradition of sheriffs, which of course is just a historical I mean, this is just normal basic historical stuff and Everybody went completely nuts and they had to withdraw it and there's all sorts of screaming about racism and everything else it's again these moving goalposts where
You can say, oh, it's you're not allowed to say white, but you can celebrate your specific ethnic heritage.
OK, celebrate your specific ethnic heritage and let me know how that goes.
Now, the only time you see an exception, you saw that somewhat with the Queen's death, is when people were posting stuff about like Irish nationalists celebrating or Scottish nationalists, whatever else.
But Ireland, of course, has basically.
I mean, I'll just say it and I don't care what commenters get bad at me at this point.
Considering the modern state of Ireland, the sixth century struggle for Irish independence was completely pointless.
I agree entirely.
I'll get into that in a minute.
Yeah, well, after Eamon de Valera died, I mean, they essentially just gave it all away.
And this is the problem with left-wing nationalism.
And you see this with the Scottish Nationalist Party, where they say, OK, we want to break away from London so we can be ruled by Brussels instead.
You see this with Catalan, where they say we want to break away from Madrid, but we also want to be part of the EU and have more immigration.
And of course, you're seeing with Ireland where it's, you know, we fought this heroic struggle against the hated Saxon invaders, and now we want mass immigration, and also the Catholic Church is evil, and everything Ireland was for 600 years is completely evil, and now we define ourselves by global capitalism and rainbow flags.
And it's very hard for me to see left-wing nationalism by these types of groups as anything It's basically just white people trying to think of a way where they get to play the victim and they think that that'll get the dogs off their back.
I think that also explains why you see a lot of white people making up certain gender or mental illness type identities where it becomes, you know, they put it in their Twitter bios and everything else.
I'm not denigrating people who actually have something, but a lot of times you see this and it's, It's almost like a Passover sign.
They think if they do this, then the politically correct mob and the woke won't go after them because they're part of the coalition of the oppressed, too.
And I think we saw a lot of that in response to the Queen's death, where you saw these people who have no national independence anymore and who despise their people and who despise their traditional national cultures and who despise everything that made their nations what they are.
But now, all of a sudden, they're claiming to be Standing up against, what, British oppression?
I mean, what did Queen Elizabeth II ever do against Ireland?
Come on.
Exactly.
Well, you know, India reacted to Queen Elizabeth's death in a very gracious fashion, actually declared a day of national mourning.
And the Prime Minister was extremely, extremely kind in his remarks about her.
They've assimilated.
I mean, that's the dominant culture, right?
that you really saw saying terrible things about Elizabeth on Twitter.
It wasn't even a big segment of the Indian community at all.
But the only part of it was basically Indians who are living in the West.
That was right. Yeah. Left wing self-loathing politics.
Now, I mean, that's that's the dominant culture, right?
They've assimilated.
They have. And it's ridiculous, but it's very sad as well.
But in Ireland, there was much more of a widespread, visceral, anti-monarchical reaction to Elizabeth's death, and some things were said about her that I obviously won't repeat here.
But it's interesting, because as you were mentioning, in Ireland, they really don't have independence.
What happened was that after they Broke free of Britain during the, uh, well, the earlier, not the very early, but the earlier part of the 20th century.
Uh, the Irish Republic basically was a third world country and they tried to have Roman Catholicism being their focal point.
They wanted a country that was both Catholic, which is to say absolutely monarchical and democratic, which is in their, you know, the context of Ireland Republican.
This, this, you know, bizarre, uh, this contradictory state of affairs was not going to last and it didn't.
What happened was that by the 1970s, Ireland decided that it needed to become part of the proto-European Union.
The EU did not exist until the 1990s, but in the 70s, its precursor was there.
And what Ireland said was that we will put an article in our constitution which says That any law that comes out of the proto-EU is superior to any law passed by Dublin.
And, you know, obviously the proto-EU was very glad to see Ireland being willing to go this far, and so it did.
And today in the Irish constitution, if one looks at it, there are the words that whatever comes out of
what's now the EU reigns supreme over whatever is passed in any, in the legislature of this country,
in the Irish parliament.
So that, you know, the whole Irish independence thing is gone, it's ridiculous, but people still keep it up
in Ireland with regard to the Queen of Britain because it gives them an identity of victimhood
and it gives them a link to present day anti-Western identity politics.
And it's a very profitable link, because these people get sort of joined in with being the oppressed who are in vogue right now.
But it's very destructive because these Irish folks are not building up their country for the future.
As a matter of fact, the Irish government, I'm sure you know about this, has this Project 2040, which is making it very openly so that Ireland takes in so many immigrants by 2040 that ethnic Irish are no longer the majority of their country.
So that Ireland can talk about beating the Brits as much as they want and having their quote-unquote freedom.
But in their own constitution, any law passed by what's now the EU is superior to anything that the Irish people vote on.
And beyond that, the Irish people are not going to be the majority in their own homeland by not even the middle of this century, by the early middle of it.
We'll just put it that way.
Right.
And Sinn Féin and the so-called nationalists are supporting it all the way.
100%.
Yeah, it goes to show how this left-wing nationalism is a contradiction in terms.
Right.
I mean, Sinn Féin, of course, means ourselves alone.
And if you look at the, hey, if you look at the Irish independence struggle and you look, I mean, anyone obviously being part Irish, anyone who looks at this, you know, you, you look at how they operated, you might draw lessons from it.
You might say, this is how culturally they started developing their own separate identity.
There's that famous quote from Bobby Sands.
Where he says there will never be peace in Ireland until the Irish are economically, culturally, and politically their own separate and sovereign unit and everything else.
And it's just completely incompatible with what Ireland is today.
Where, according to the Irish nationalists themselves, after a 500 year struggle between the Irish and the oppressors in London, the winner turns out to be the Nigerians.
Who, I guess, get to occupy Ireland now, and that's what it was all for.
Which... So, I mean, I don't know what they're... I mean, okay, yeah, you're dunking on the Queen, that's great, but they're already having... If you think Ireland is a retreat from wokeness, you're wrong.
I mean, they're having the same kind of issues.
They may think it allows them to play the victim internationally, but you still have the discussions within Ireland about white privilege.
You still have the discussions within Ireland about They're not nice enough to non-white immigrants who still have the same problems that we face in America.
And what's really needed in Ireland, there are some beginnings of it, but obviously we need to see a lot more of it, are some authentically Irish nationalist movements who actually stand up for the Irish people, not this caricature of eternal victims that is claiming third world solidarity, which of course only goes one way.
Because they can talk, because I mean Sinn Féin and groups like that can talk all they want about being oppressed, but Absolutely, and of course, you know, the Fenian contingency in Ireland has gone way out of its way to identify itself with the Global South, shall we say.
There are the famous murals of the PLO and the IRA and One Struggle and all that, and it goes way beyond that.
But so the Irish so-called nationalists have really made it their business to be as ostentatiously pro-Third World as possible.
But as you said, to people who live in the Third World, they're not going to view these Irish as being their, you know, blood brothers.
We'll just put it that way.
And that a lot of Irish are recognizing this as quite Astounding.
And, you know, it's something to see how quickly change is coming to Ireland.
Because, what was it, the most recent study of popular baby names there?
I believe two of the top five or two of the top ten were Islamic names.
And the Catholic churches there are shutting down, obviously, in record numbers.
But they're building lots of mosques.
And I think one of the largest mosques in Europe, actually, just went, just was constructed Uh, in Dublin.
So it's really amazing to see how quickly Ireland has changed and continues to change.
By the way, in Northern Ireland, everything is basically untouched by immigration.
There's no surge of immigration there.
And what is happening, though, is that the Fenian population is outbreeding the Unionist population.
And so they are gaining more political power as a result of that.
So right now, they have this situation where they're living in this throwback under the crown.
They actually have a more traditional Ireland under the crown, given the demographics that people have in the Republic.
But these Fenians in Northern Ireland want to throw that away and become part of the Republic, in which case, you know, their grandson might be named Bahamut.
Right.
Well, they probably won't have a grandson.
Yeah, but if they join the Irish Republic, their Irish culture is going to get absolutely tossed away very quickly.
Right, right.
And then, of course, that's the great tragedy of all of this, is that—and you see this with Rhodesia and South Africa, you see this with Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants—is just this insistence on whites prioritizing fighting other whites to the exclusion of all else, and then other people come in and just scoop up whatever's left.
And at some point, there has to be a recognition that even nation-states are something relatively new.
The West was conscious of itself as a civilization before we were conscious of ourselves as belonging to this or that nation.
And of course, nations and national boundaries can be redrawn very quickly.
Absolutely.
And in the coming century, I expect some of them will be redrawn very quickly, including in Europe.
And the ones that are going to last are the ones that aren't just conscious of themselves as a national people, but are also conscious of themselves as part of a race and part of a larger civilizational identity.
Because without that, as I think the Irish example shows, you really have nothing.
But not to dunk on the Irish, because frankly, you know, Scotland is, well the Scottish nationalists are of a type with the Irish nationalists in that they want independence so they can turn Scotland into a province of Pakistan or something.
The Welsh nationalists, of course, would destroy Wales.
But the English too.
The English.
It's a different situation there because the reason Britain keeps having conservative governments, not the conservative governments have done anything but continue to increase immigration, including after Brexit, is because England as a whole tends to vote conservative.
But of course, London itself.
As I believe John Cleese said, is no longer an English city.
To even speak of it as being part of England in any meaningful sense is almost a joke.
It's just, you know, it's a third world city that has a little spot inside there, the famous city of London, the one square mile where all the financial institutions are.
But that's basically what it is.
It just has nothing to do with England as such.
And that was what was so striking when you saw these demonstrations of grief.
It's probably the only time that you've ever seen a crowd of that many white people in London.
And it's probably the last time you're ever going to see a crowd of that many white people in London.
Certainly, around the same time this happened, a black male aspiring rapper... I'm not making this up.
I'm not trying to make a joke.
That's what he was.
He was an aspiring rapper.
That's what he was known for.
Apparently the police wanted to pull him over.
He decided to reportedly he decided to try to drive away run away They shot him.
He was not armed and So there were protest marches and the protest marches were obviously much more indicative of London's demographic situation than the crowds mourning the Queen and Sky News actually got in trouble because they took Obviously.
or took a video of one of these marches and said it was a march of mourning for the Queen.
And of course they're not.
It was actually a march, you know, basically a BLM type march.
And I thought to myself, well, just looking at the faces in the crowd, I could have told
you that.
Obviously.
But, you know, yeah, go ahead.
It's also interchangeable because a BLM march in London looks basically the same as it looks
in Philadelphia.
So it goes to show how this American pop cultural phenomenon, the BLM thing, has spread across the world like the cancer, including rap.
Because one wouldn't even think that there would be rappers in England.
This is something that comes out of the American slum, but America produces this stuff and it
winds up poisoning the rest of the world.
It's quite sad.
America does not have a common culture today.
It certainly doesn't have a common identity.
It does not even have a shared language, but it does have a profound pop culture that is
by and large toxic, and it influences the rest of the world in some very unfortunate
manners.
And I will say about the Queen, some people will say, why did she do more for the traditional
British people?
And her point of view is that she wasn't just the monarch of the UK.
She was the monarch of Jamaica, the Bahamas, Belize, and Belize is a very diverse country.
People think of it as a black country, but it's not.
It has blacks, whites, Orientals, American Indians.
It's really a fascinating place.
And then, of course, she was also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places.
And so she looked at herself as not being the advocate of any ethnicity or race, but
rather all of her subjects and trying to do right by them, which obviously means in some
cases she's going to have to aggravate them.
One group or another might be aggravated on her statements at any given point in time,
aggravated about her statements at any given point in time.
So she really did have to walk a tightrope.
But I think a lot of people missed that she wasn't just the queen of the United Kingdom,
she's also the queen of all these other places.
And people also say, you know, the queen of England, but she wasn't that.
There's no queen of England, just the queen of the UK.
And then she also is the head of state over, you know, St.
Kitts and Nevis, Antigua, Barbuda, so on and so forth.
Yeah.
One of the issues that of course became something all the paparazzi and people were speculating
about were the unbelievably toxic Meghan Markle and her husband meekly following in her footsteps,
Prince Harry and the spectacle of woke royals.
And it sort of reminded me of the Orleonists during the French Revolution.
I can almost see them trying to do like a cadet branch, a woke branch of the British monarchy, and that becomes the sovereign of Canada or something like that, as they try to, you know, weasel out of having any ties to these more traditional institutions.
But it still leaves, I think, a greater problem for us, which is, in the end, If this thing, as everything continues to show, you see it with the BLM marches in Europe, you see it with the reaction to the Queen's death around the world, if you see it in terms of how institutions like the UN operate and basically who are our foes and who are our friends, regardless of what country we're in.
At this point, America does not have a common culture or common language, as you point out, but I would say that whites as such People are starting to have, if not quite a common culture, at least common enemies and a common negative identity in the sense that people around the world, even in Europe, will go after whites.
There was a famous BBC story that got passed around a lot where they talked about the Sami people in Finland who are basically known for herding reindeer and living in the forest and doing all this cool stuff.
They referred to them as the only indigenous people in Europe.
Which, when you actually take a step back and think about the implications of that, it's alright, like, there's actually not a single place on Earth we're allowed to call our own.
And so, even if we went back, and of course the obvious, when people chant stuff like, go back to Europe, we all know what would happen if we went back to Europe.
They would follow us.
And if we went to the moon, they would follow us.
And so, The question that I want to end with is if American identity is fading and even British identity is fading because as you see it with this, the dual reaction with the BLM march and then the reaction to the Queen's death, but is there a common positive white identity that is forming out of all the negative emphasis that's being put on whiteness?
Because some people might say that Being white doesn't mean anything, but in terms of governments around the world and corporations around the world, it really does.
And in fact, it means a heck of a lot more than whatever passport you're carrying.
I think that if whites are persecuted on a racial basis, there will be, at the end of the day, a positive or negative identity, which whites have for themselves.
Those who have a negative identity will probably work to persecute those of their race, whereas those who have a positive identity will come to believe there's nothing wrong with them, and they may then look at Western history and adopt a positive view of it, which they wouldn't have otherwise, because they would think, well, why are these people persecuting me?
Why do they hate the West so much?
What is this all about?
And why am I in the middle of this even though I never asked for it?
And perhaps they would then come to have a, you know, a positive view of themselves and their history and their heritage and their culture because they were basically forced into it by a persecution.
It's not something they would be giving much thought to otherwise.
I think that in the long run what's the best bet for Western peoples is to have a deep sense of one's history, heritage, and culture on the basis of where your ancestors came from.
Just a sort of, you know, pan-white identity is not, I don't think, going to, like, sustain any country or culture.
It has to be something about an actual people and their history, and that would be, yes, it wouldn't be a racial thing.
It would have to do more with one's cultural consciousness, with looking at one's heritage and the land from which one's ancestors came.
This is obviously something more of a nationalism than imperialism, even though I think imperialism is inevitable, but that would not be, I think, on a racial basis so much as it would be a group of countries and true nations in any given area who decide, we have more in common with each other than we don't, so let's have a sort of, you know, Confederation or Empire, whatever you want to call it, but I think that there can be a positive sentiment about European history, heritage, and culture, and European peoples.
I do stress the word peoples because there are many different peoples who are indigenous to Europe.
I think that can come about among folks who refuse to basically despise themselves as a result of this anti-white propaganda, which is being Thrown out without hesitation by those who are supposed to know best.
So this may come about, there's no guarantee, but it really may come about.
And if I may, as we do unfortunately wind things down here, looking at the United States, a lot of people talk about American identity today, American nationalism, America first.
Well, you know, in the America of Norman Rockwell, none of this is a bad thing.
I'm not here to, you know, urinate on American history, heritage, and culture.
But today's America, these people say, we're all Americans, we're in this together, I don't care, you know, about anything about this person because he's an American.
Being an American, you know, as far as I could tell, just means that you have certain words on your passports, like being a quote-unquote European under the EU.
So this whole American identity, America first, American nationalist thing, You cannot make a nationalism out of a country that has no identity, such as the U.S.
The U.S.
is not a traditional nation-state, as we've been saying.
It is the New World's European Union, an economic zone which has these geopolitical boundaries encompassing these parallel societies that basically have nothing to do with each other on an organic level.
And I'm sorry, people on the right are getting, or at least a certain part of the right
are getting angry at me upon hearing this, but you're not gonna have some sort of take back America,
America first, American nationalist, national conservatism, whatever the hell it is thing in a country like this.
Now I will, I don't wanna drag this out, but this does need to be brought up
after talking about it.
There is a big problem going on with people who are on the semi mainstream right,
and they fancy themselves as being based and red pills.
And they say, we need to get back to tradition.
We need to get back to who we are on a deep level, even a spiritual level.
We need to return to our true selves, and we need to build a country based on that.
And then they say, we need Christian nationalism.
We need to make it all about religion.
And this basically is ignoring America's real history, heritage, and culture, the people who built it, in favor of something that sounds edgy, but it's PC enough not to get you fired by Fox News or, you know, something like that.
And it's a total LARP, in my opinion.
It's trying to make it so the totality of American history boils down to ideas and creeds I've certainly taken a strong position on that, so no one can accuse you of being unclear with it.
that it's a total out, the easy way out, and I find it to be contemptible
as well as historically illiterate.
I'll certainly take a strong position on that so no one can accuse you of being unclear with it.
With getting to just two quick things, if American itself doesn't really mean anything,
and I think we're in agreement on that, But if we talk about specific peoples, obviously in Europe, there are many different peoples.
If you talk about a specific European identity, you're talking about essentially something aspirational, or if you're talking about it in the modern EU sense, I mean, you're basically just talking about a corporate identity.
It's not even a real identity.
But in America, the ethnic conflicts Between different whites, at least, seem to be unimportant.
And I know some people will say, oh, well, the Midwest is German, and that's really important.
And then in the South, it's Anglo-Saxon, and the Scots-Irish, and this, that, and the other thing.
But at the end of the day, if you're white in America, you're white.
I mean, there's not really the same kind of, you know, there's a vague sense of being Italian in the Northeast.
There's a vague sense of being whatever in the Midwest.
It's not as compelling as having a white identity within the United States.
Now, that's obviously not true in Europe, but is that enough to be a meaningful identity?
And if America as a whole cannot perhaps be retaken, can at least a part be consolidated around, I guess, what we would consider to be the historic American nation, which is to say, European America?
I think that America today would never work.
The Americans of today generally have lost their stomach for any sense of traditional people.
And unlike, say, Europeans in Hungary or in Poland, you know, that's a different story.
I'm not talking about Europeans on the whole.
I'm talking just specifically about the U.S.
Right.
But in the U.S., I really just think They've lost their stomach to exist as unique people, as their forefathers did, but also a lot of Americans today, and quite a few of European background, have no historical consciousness of who they are.
Some of them don't even know who their own fathers are.
Others, they know that much, but they don't know about even the history of their own hometown,
let alone where their ancestors came from or what it meant for people to settle their home state
or the country.
I think Americans today are very much living in the moment.
That includes European Americans on the whole.
And I don't think, I just don't see it working that there's going to be any state within the US for them.
I think what some will have is that quite a few will move elsewhere and they'll set up a colony
like pioneers basically, or participate in a colony set up by someone else.
And there you will see a resurgence of the past in a very good way, in a healthy way,
not a monstrous way.
But I think that will take place because there's a lot of undeveloped land in third world countries, and these third world countries, particularly in Latin America, are not angry at Americans coming in and spending their money and building stuff.
Not at all.
A lot of these Latin American countries have overwhelmingly American Indian populations, and the American Indians of these places don't have the same sense of racial animus which one would find in certain places, I'll just leave it at that.
So I think it probably would be something like that.
I think there will be a lot of migration out of America, but then there are people who will just stay here to the end because they think this is my country and, you know, it's the land of liberty, of V.I.
Singh, and I don't think history will have many good fortunes in store for that element.
Yeah, it's interesting that you bring up the idea of People going to Latin America, obviously, it's not quite the same thing, but it's not the same thing at all, actually, but there's a large number of retirees who are going to Mexico.
And it was actually kind of funny because the Los Angeles Times wrote this article about how evil it is that all these white Americans are moving to Mexico City and it's changing its demographic balance.
Isn't this terrible?
But they never talk about what happens in the other direction, of course.
No, of course not.
And the thing is, you saw people pointing this out in their replies, and I always wonder, I mean, I can't put myself in the mind of a journalist.
I mean, I guess it would be like trying to think of, you know, I'm not even going to say anything because I'm just going to get myself in trouble if I say anything.
I mean, you have to wonder, does the reporter just not know?
Are they literally incapable of making that connection?
Do they not understand why people are laughing?
Or do they know and are just sort of cynically pretending that they don't and somehow believe that American retirees pumping money into Mexico City is somehow evil?
A bunch of people building shanty towns on the outskirts of LA is good and vibrant and wonderful.
I mean, I note today this is when DeSantis sent 50 people, 50, just 50, thousands come to border towns every day, but he sent 50 to Martha's Vineyard and within a day they called in the National Guard and these people are on military base now.
So it's amazing how quickly they can remove immigrants when they really want to and when somebody When the people who matter under the system of ours actually have their property values in question, the government can move quite swiftly.
Last question, and this is just to bring it back to where we began.
Charles III, obviously a bit more outspoken than his mother.
We know his views on some subjects, even if it is something like architecture, taking a stand, even on something like that.
Is going to make some people angry.
He has these model villages that he tries to set up.
There's sometimes controversy about that because disputes over property ownership or eminent domain or something.
What do you think is the future of the monarchy under King Charles III?
And do you think that he will be able to keep it going the same way his mother did?
I think that the monarchy will survive, Charles.
I don't think he'll be anything like the cultural icon, which his mother was.
I don't think he will do anything, though, to bring the monarchy into particular disrepute.
I think he actually has a mix of views on the environment.
I think he approaches it from a perspective of goodwill, but he takes some stances that I think are totally destructive.
I say that as a big supporter of the environment myself.
Uh, and I also believe that he has some views on economics that are quite unrealistic, and that does tie into his environmentalism, although not entirely.
Now, his good views are on architecture.
He likes planned communities that are a return to traditionalism, English traditionalism.
And he wants to see many more of these popping up throughout the countryside.
And he also believes that development should be sustainable so that people who live in rural areas can continue living in these areas without basically being priced out of their houses or having big box stores built nearby that make it so all the surrounding land gets gobbled up.
And we see that in the U.S.
all the time, particularly here in Florida.
So, it's really interesting.
Charles' views are a real mixed bag.
People on the right tend to say he's on the left.
A lot of people on the left think he's some evil right-wing colonialist monster.
I would say, in reality, Charles' political perspective is such that it's rather hard to describe.
In a way, it's understandable because his family's apolitical, so he would not think in terms of conservative, progressive, libertarian, centrist, so on, so forth.
And so I don't think he'll do anything to endanger the monarchy at all.
Although I think he'd probably have to be more careful than his mother was not to say too much that might allow for the media to say he has some political stance of one kind or another.
I don't know.
I mean, he could always continue in the tradition of other kings of his name.
Dissolve Parliament the way Charles I and Charles II did.
Would have been well for him.
It would be mildly amusing if nothing else.
It would be, it would be something else.
It'd be certainly the express lane to republicanism.
Well, there was a, there was a play.
There was an interesting play that someone wrote a few years ago, which is actually called King Charles III.
And it's, it's built on that premise where he dissolves parliament because tech, you know, technically he can't do that even now.
He can't.
Govern you would but he can basically dissolve parliament whenever he feels like it and basically force new elections and in the play he does this because the government Wants to put through a rule that basically allow them to spy on the people more So he's actually doing this to defend the people's right to civil liberties, but the people are so outraged at him that they affect basically forced him to step down and then Prince William becomes king and But it's an interesting, what I found interesting about it is that people seem much more enraged at the symbols of hierarchy than actual abuses of power.
So you see a lot of people getting mad because like, oh, there's this palace or why are people paying for the monarchy when actually, obviously, I mean, even speak in such terms as to miss the point.
But if we want to talk like this, if we want to be these soulless bug men and talk in these terms, it brings in more money.
than costs.
But at the same time, in Britain now, you can get arrested for what you say about on Facebook.
You can get arrested for what you say in a pub.
You get spied on more.
I mean, basically the equivalent of China in terms of the amount of surveillance that's taking place.
And people refer to traditional British liberties.
Well, these these don't exist anymore.
Even something like self-defense.
I mean, we can't Story after story after story at American Renaissance about people who would confront a burglar in their own home, and then they're the ones who get arrested for using too much force or not, you know, obeying a certain duty to retreat even within your own house apparently.
An Englishman's home is no longer his castle, but people seem to be more willing to take that than they are to take You know, somebody with a crown who lives in a fancy house, but actually doesn't have any power over their own lives.
And I think one of the big problems with politics is it's often difficult to get to the root of things and see what's actually happening and get past just the symbolism, because unfortunately in a media culture, appearance is everything.
It is.
You know, this brings up a conversation I had with someone recently, and I was explaining how constitutional monarchism provides for separation of powers, and that's very good for individual rights and liberties, and this person was very ardently Republican.
Not necessarily, you know, well, the person was conservative, at least in terms of American politics, but more small-R Republican.
Uh, and, uh, the individual said, I would have more respect for a dictator, uh, who got his power through basically, you know, the stereotypical, uh, uh, violent grab than a monarch who inherited his or her throne peacefully because at least the dictator worked for it.
And I brought up that the dictator is going to do infinitely worse things to you than the monarch ever.
But this person didn't care because it was all about not having someone to reign over him.
That was his idea.
who was born better than me. So even if somebody mistreats me, but there's nothing under the law
to say this person has royal blood, that's better than someone who has royal blood treating me
very fairly. And people actually believe this, that this person is not alone. And it's because
for a certain element of society, as you were mentioning, it's important to have the illusion
of equality, basically.
Uh, where even if the, the reality is quite different, people just want to believe in their heads.
Well, even if I'm being, you know, stomped to death on the sidewalk, uh, it's okay because the people doing this are no better than me.
But if this guy who wants to help me into his limo and save my life, has a title that I don't, then this person is, you know,
not worth having around.
And this is obviously a terribly counterproductive, highly destructive mindset.
But one sees it, and it does speak to an unfortunate facet of the human species,
which is that quite a lot of it is satisfied to believe something it knows is a lie,
this idea that someone is equal to you and they obviously far outrank you in power,
rather than admit to a truth that someone has more power than you.
In the event, even if this person who has more power openly wants to use that power to help you.
And it's just because I think some people have an inferiority complex, which manifests itself in some really nasty ways.
Yeah, I think one of the short pieces that everybody should take some time to read, I believe it was originally from the Louis von Mises Institute, though I'm not sure, but it was Equality or Egalitarianism as a Political Weapon by the late Sam Francis.
I believe it's in the compilation Shots Fired, which you can still get on Amazon for now.
Obviously, even as this is spoken, President Biden is apparently doing more stuff.
I know our great Democratic leader, right?
President Biden, our democracy, is trying to pressure the tech companies, who we've been repeatedly assured are just private companies, bro.
It's just the free market, into censoring more content.
Such is life in our democracy.
But for now, you can still get this.
So, if you haven't read that compilation or haven't read that essay, I strongly recommend it.
I'm sorry, I just wanted to bring up a few things quickly before we go.
You were mentioning that in the UK people can go to jail for certain things they write on social media.
I mean, obviously in the US people can do the same, but the standard is different because in the UK they have their hate speech law, even though it's not as bad, even though it's absolutely horrendous, but it's not
as bad as what one finds in continental Europe generally.
But in the US, you do the same thing that you go to jail for in the UK, and you wind
up losing your job, your girlfriend, contacts with your family members, maybe your apartment,
maybe your bank account, certainly any sort of professional association that you have,
you know, some sort of professional group that you're a member of.
So, I mean, basically, in either way, your life is destroyed.
It's just pick your poison.
Uh, so I, some people would say the U.S.
is better than the U.K., and it is in terms of free speech, no question.
I will say that without hesitation.
But in America, We're at the point where free speech is ever more illusory because even though we have it on paper, in terms of what actually takes place, we don't really have it that much at all.
We're ever more living in the confines of Twitter and YouTube in terms of speech regulations rather than the traditional constitutional liberty that people, such as myself, are very fond of.
And the next thing, since we're talking about books, I don't know if people know, they might.
I am an author, and my most recent book is Eye for an Eye.
It deals with people wanting to establish two different monarchies in colonial America.
first European civilian settlement in what would become the continental US.
So it's really interesting.
You could say just the US because I mean, I'm not talking about territory, etc.
I'm talking about the actual states.
So yeah, people want to see basically how Europeans even tore each other apart going
back to the 1500s and why this was such a bad thing.
I recommend they check out the book.
They'll also understand about the concept of liberty and how that relates to European
colonials.
One might say a certain segment of the European population's mindset.
And one would also learn about why it's important to understand the European history, heritage,
and culture of America because these things from the past have great relevance to the
present day.
So there's that.
I also wrote a book before that about exiles, royals, and nobles in the United States.
It's called Under the Crown and Stripes.
But I think if one wants something that's relevant to current events, I recommend that
check out Eye for an Eye.
Gregory was gracious enough to have me on here to discuss it before and I want to reiterate
my thanks to him for that chat about Eye for an Eye.
It was a great discussion and obviously it was made what it was by the host.
Well, no problem, man.
And I think it's important to note that a lot of these questions of right and left, when we're talking about race and we're talking about identity politics, a lot of these things hit in unexpected directions.
For example, during the Black Rising in Saint-Domingue, what would become Haiti, the coalitions were always shifting.
And at one point, because the French Republic was trying to suppress them, The black slaves started styling themselves as the king's army.
And the Spanish on the other side of the island thought this was hilarious and started giving them money and weapons and stuff like that.
So if you're trying to be capital T traditionalist, and I mean, I am one, but even I would be like looking at this.
You know, the royalist side is the insurgent slaves who are massacring everyone, and the evil Republican Democrats are the white French.
And so the institution of monarchy, it is, I support it generally, but at the end of the day, everything comes out of a people.
And it's not, as one of the great monarchists of all time, Joseph de Monster, said, There's no such thing as a universal constitution.
A constitution, there's no such thing as man.
I know what a Frenchman is, I know what an Italian is, I know what a Russian is, but as for man, I've never seen one.
Something along those lines.
And I think the truth of that is borne out in the reaction we're seeing to the Queen's death, and who actually cares about it at all, in one case, who is actually sad about it, and who actually seems to take a kind of spiteful pleasure in it And sees it as almost a kind of victory over whites, as if everybody doesn't die eventually.
So, I don't know.
It was a very, very bizarre reaction on social media if you aren't racially aware, but if you are, you look at it and it's just the same patterns repeating over and over again.
But that's the way it is.
Yeah, and I'll just say a quick word about Haiti.
Haiti actually did get a monarchy.
Yeah, they did, that's right.
It was funny, I'll say that much.
It was definitely entertaining, but it didn't end well for Haiti or for the royal family.
No, it certainly didn't end well for Jean-Jacques Dessalines, right?
I remember during the BLM rallies, there were actually some people who were touting Jean-Jacques Dessalines.
We'll leave it at that.
Yeah, that's right.
and talking about how great he was because he killed all the whites and they seemed to forget
the part where he got like literally ripped apart by his own people a couple years later.
Yes, absolutely. Yeah, he was the emperor. The emperor.
The most obvious Napoleonic complex that ever existed.
Well let us salute Emperor, well he was Emperor Jacques I. That's right.
The only.
But we will raise a glass to Emperor Jacques de Salines for showing that monarchy can at least have some unintentionally funny elements and that can always be good on a day that's been a little too difficult.
That was good.
All right, well on that note, thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you to all our listeners, and I will catch you next time.
▲
Export Selection