All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2023 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:17:04
Thoughts on the British Monarchy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Gregory Hood, and I'm here with John Morgan, and today we're going to be discussing King Charles III and the question of whether the monarchy can be sustained in what's Great Britain and what's been happening to that country, and the larger question of whether Great Britain itself can survive.
Before we get into that, John, why don't you introduce yourself to the audience and talk a little bit about many of the varied things that you've done.
You and I, of course, have known each other for—it's got to be more than a decade at this point, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I've known you since going back to the early days of Arctos when I first started being the conference circuit in the US.
Yeah, I imagine some people listening will know who I am, but for those who don't, yeah, my name is John Morgan.
I'm American, but I'm currently in Hungary, actually.
I've spent a lot of time in Europe over the last decade.
And, uh, I've been active as a publisher and a editor and occasional writer, uh, on the right now for, uh, well, I guess it's going on 15 years now.
So, uh, uh, yeah, I hope I can bring something, uh, bring something of interest to the show.
And both of us for the longest time have been interested, of course, in traditionalism with a capital T. And I think that's fair to say that that's the viewpoint that we view world events, right?
I mean, I don't think I'm doing too much of a stretch characterizing you that way, am I?
No, no, not at all.
I mean, that's definitely one of probably the most fundamental thing that shapes my worldview.
I mean, there are other things as well.
That's not the only thing, but yeah, that's definitely the most fundamental part of it.
We can perhaps get into what that is later in the show.
Well, certainly when we're talking about worldviews and symbols and what's important to a people, if we're talking about the United Kingdom, we're certainly talking about the monarchy.
Now, today's news, King Charles III apparently kicked Prince Harry and Meghan Markle off one of his properties,
evicting them.
I think he's going to give the property to Prince Andrew, which is maybe not the best optics,
but whatever. And there's a larger debate going on here.
Says something interesting about the hierarchy there.
Yeah, I mean, it's, there's really, I mean, couldn't he just given it to no one? That
probably would have been better. But there's a larger debate going on here in the United
Kingdom, because let's face it, the conservative government has been governing for more than a
I can't even remember the last time they were out of power.
I mean, David Cameron is the first conservative prime minister I can really recall governing.
Immigration has gotten worse.
Multiculturalism has gotten worse.
Brexit happened.
But most of the things that drove Brexit, particularly in regard to trade and immigration, all of those situations have gotten worse.
Certainly, the United Kingdom does not have much independence in its foreign policy, which was one of the undercurrents of that whole thing.
So people have pretty loyally supported the conservative party for a very long time.
They haven't gotten much out of it.
Certainly from a white advocacy perspective, things have gotten much worse under conservative rule.
And now it seems like we finally hit the end.
Polls show a pretty much overwhelming labor victory the next time there's a general election.
I mean, who knows when that'll be?
And now with the death of Queen Elizabeth II, you have Charles III taking over, and already you hear some rhetoric in some of the Commonwealth countries about leaving the Commonwealth.
In Australia, I believe, they are not putting in on the currency, at least not the paper currency.
Instead, they're going to focus on the Maori and the indigenous people because the whole orientation is away from being Part of the British diaspora and instead sort of this negative identity where we're defined by colonialism and all these it would have been better off if we had never come here and this whole thing and Charles the third Has got the reputation of having some interest in Rene Guénon being a traditionalist of having some favorable ideas in terms of this stuff, but I think a lot more people also know that he's very much an Islamophile and
Not insofar as he speaks about public issues with the exception of maybe architecture.
He generally falls on kind of the left side of the divide and certainly he's not going to be as popular as his mom or his son, his older son anyway for that matter.
So the question is where does the United Kingdom go under Charles III and can he be a credible king for a country that in many ways seems to be losing its way?
Well, I think that the monarchy at this point is more like a relic.
I mean, they really don't have any effective control over the country.
Whatever influence they have is mostly metapolitical, I would say.
I mean, what is the Church of England at this point is the thing.
I mean, he's still technically governor of Church of England and Supreme Head of the Church of England, but if you look at what the Church of England actually does these days, I mean, you hardly ever see any of the bishops except they're out there rallying for more mass immigration and these types of causes.
Well, did you ever watch the show Yes Minister?
Yeah.
Yeah, that's classic.
There's a line in it that's fantastic where once he's prime minister, the main character on the show, he's asked to appoint a new head of the Anglican Church.
And as they're going through the candidates, they exclude the ones who actually believe in God because they say that, well, that's actually not a good quality for somebody to lead the Anglican Church.
Right.
I myself, I was raised in the Episcopalian Church, which is the Anglican Church in England, and I mean, I'm glad I had some sort of a religious structure growing up, but it was, well, here's an example.
I mean, I heard recently that the, it was a few years ago, the Anglican Church actually broke with the Episcopalian Church on the grounds that the Episcopal Church was too liberal.
Right.
I mean, if you look at the state of the Anglican Church today, I don't know what it was that went over the line for them, but that's something quite fantastic.
Actually, I know quite a few people, there's quite a few people who have joined the Anglican Church here in America, which is a separate thing from the Episcopalians, and in many ways the leaders of that are these Africans who actually have much more socially conservative
views than the Episcopalians who take their lead from the Archbishop of Canterbury and
certainly who take those who take their lead from the Church of England.
And there is sort of this strange dual existence between the Church of England in terms of
its relevance to tradition because, you know, bishops are still have these very elaborate
ceremonies that ground people in the history of the Isles, the Anglo-Saxon Church, you
You still have the monarchy, of course.
When people think of the United Kingdom, you have these things that are inseparable from the country's very identity.
But the hierarchy of all these institutions, it's not just that they don't believe in God, it's that they don't believe in their own church, and they don't seem to believe or particularly like The people who show up to these things or derive any meaning from them and it's sort of the classical problem of Conservatism, which is if your whole standpoint is I'm going to defend the existence of this institution What do you do when the institution itself has become subverted?
Because quite a few people I think particularly British patriots who are listening to this show are going to say well look I We're trying to save the British people, or perhaps the different national components of the British people, the English, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Northern Irish.
What has the monarchy ever done for us?
Because it's not like Charles III is out there speaking up against mass immigration, or it's not like Elizabeth II did that for that matter.
Quite the opposite.
No, but you can count on him to do everything else.
I mean, in his upcoming coronation, they're saying that it's going to be a three-day celebration of the new face of the UK.
and this sort of thing. So no, I mean, he's, he's fully on board with, uh, with the anti-British
Yeah.
agenda, I would call it. Um, which is ironic, some of his other perspectives and interests, but, uh,
I guess this is, this is just par for the course now. I mean, I think I read a lot when
Queen Elizabeth passed away, uh, about what people thought her views really were.
And the thing that I kept seeing over and over again was people saying that, well, her main goal was always just the survival of the monarchy as an institution.
And whatever she had to do to ensure that is what she would go along with.
And Charles seems to be governing, well, Governing isn't the right word.
Reigning in the same tradition that, well, this is what England is today, so I guess I should go along with that.
You may recall years ago there was some controversy because he announced that he did not want to be one of the many titles of the British monarch.
He is the head of the faith, meaning the church.
But, Defender of the Faith.
He did not want to be known as the Defender of the Faith, but the Defender of the Faiths.
I thought it was even Defender of Faith.
Faith as such.
That was one of the other alternative titles.
I think it went through several iterations.
Yeah, it was probably both.
The first was Faiths, and I remember this because the traditionalists who wanted to see one of them in Charles, claimed that, well, this is a callback to the traditionalist
perspective, which holds that all the religions ultimately stem from the one primordial
truth.
Even somebody who loves Zevlo as much as I do, I think that's trying a bit too hard
to see if there's anything other than the Clyde.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, he was asked about this and he said, well, of course, he gave the politically correct answer, which was that, no, I'm doing it because now we have many faiths in England and we have to be in England and we have to be respectful to all of them.
But he finally dropped it because it was too unpopular.
But yeah, everything I've seen from him the last few months is his only confirmed the worst suspicions about Uh, the monarchy today.
And I mean, I as a traditionalist who values monarchy hierarchy, and I'm part English and British more generally, because I have Scottish and Welsh blood myself, I can't help but feel some sympathy for it.
But at the same time, If it's just now an institution that is sort of overseeing the project of destroying the United Kingdom as it's always been, then I don't think we should have any sympathy for it at this point.
I mean, I'm not going to say we should abolish the monarchy, because first of all, I'm not British.
And second of all, I don't think that that would make anything better anyway.
I also don't see it as something to get too excited about or worked up about, as I'm sure we're going to be hearing about it nonstop as the coronation gets closer.
Right.
I mean, one of the things that was most interesting is when Elizabeth II died.
I recall at the time there was actually some sort of a Black Lives Matter protest in London, one of America's many exports.
And there was some situation where somebody fought the police and died or something like that.
And some newspaper basically made the mistake of saying, oh, this was a crowd of people turning out in grief for the Queen.
And of course, the organizers of this got out in front and they're like, no, you know, this was Black Lives Matter.
We don't care about any of this other stuff.
And you saw these people who were turning out for the funeral and everything else.
And it was about what you would expect, mostly older, overwhelmingly white, Uh, you could probably guess the way they voted or what they thought about a lot of these issues.
And yet, when it comes to the people who the monarchy has, you know, what little power it does have to direct attention or to give honors, it seems overwhelmingly directed toward the left.
It seems to take the support of these other people completely for granted.
They get nothing out of it, essentially.
And I think the larger question people could say, well, who cares about the monarchy?
They're not the ones running the show.
I think you could say that the pattern is very similar to what we see with the conservative party, where poll after poll after poll shows that the number one issue to conservative voters is stopping immigration.
It's clearly relevant now, where you constantly have these people coming across the channel.
We have boats, where you have the situation in France, where you have What drove Brexit?
All of these things are the most important issue, part of the most important issue to conservative voters.
And it's not that the conservatives are doing nothing.
It's actually worse than the people who came in before.
And they campaign on this, and they say it over and over again.
And they say, we are going to do something on this.
As you recall, there was just a leadership fight in the conservative party.
And they campaign on the grounds of, vote for me, I'm going to be harder on this issue.
And then the minute they get in there, They're actually worse than the people they were campaigning against.
And it raises kind of a fundamental question about democracy, where you actually have a system where you have to play this mind reading game when deciding who you're going to support for office.
And whatever they say they're going to do, you pretty much have to assume that they're going to do the opposite.
And we call this the consent of the governed for some reason.
I mean, under that system, that's why I think a monarchy that actually ran the show might actually be more representative than what we have now, because at least they won't just like lie to you and then do the opposite of what they said they would do.
I think the question is then, are we now at the point where people are no longer going to support the Conservative Party?
Because according to the polls at this point, they're looking at a bloodbath next election.
Well, I can hardly blame them given what's happened the last few years.
I mean, now I hear people when I read online talking about bringing back Boris Johnson, you know, nostalgically as like the savior of the party.
I mean, that's pretty pathetic if that's if he's really the best they have.
But I mean, now they have Rishi Sunak and he's also a World Economic Forum darling, just like Prince Charles.
Right.
Of course, nobody actually voted for him.
He was appointed because of the British system.
So even though he's being trumpeted as the first non-white British prime minister, of course, nobody actually voted for him.
And certainly non-whites don't seem to be particularly happy about this.
I mean, the conservatives have this system where you have these people in government who sort of get moved up by the party.
And the party has been making a special emphasis to push up non-whites to the leadership of the party.
Now, obviously, it's culminated, but it doesn't seem to be doing them any good in terms of actually getting voting support from these people they care so much about.
Which is interesting because, of course, what?
Yeah.
Boris Johnson's great achievement was in the last election was that he's it went over so
much of the British working class.
Well, that seems like that's been completely squandered now.
Right.
I mean, right.
They botched Brexit and the handling of covid and the parties and so forth that came out
later.
I mean, they really pissed all that away.
Yeah, it's incredible.
I mean, what was it?
I believe that there, because, you know, of course the colors get all screwed up when you're looking at the American system, but I believe there it's called the Red Wall, Labor's base in the North, and Boris Johnson cracked that.
And I remember at the time thinking to myself, you know, this is the basis for like a new National Conservative Party.
I mean, where you, you're essentially, I think Matt Goodwin talked about this when he talked about right-wing populism, That the sweet spot of British politics, and really all Western politics at this point, is you're a little bit left of center on economics and you're right of center on culture.
That's where the ducks are, you know, if you were hunting.
And that campaign was brilliant in terms of how it was waged and in terms of the voters they went after.
And Labour was just in utter shell shock the next day.
People were talking about this as a generational defeat, where he really could put together a government that could last for Another decade and it fell apart with such swiftness and what was most clear was just the utter contempt The conservatives had for the people who voted for them It was like we got one over on them and now we're we're not just gonna go in there and do nothing But Boris Johnson's whole big it was the first thing he talked about other than kovat and stuff like that Was giving citizenship to every single person in Hong Kong who wanted to come?
which I mean at that point you're just I There's no other word for it than replacing your own constituency.
And they seem to have this love for, and you see this with a lot of red center conservatives, this love for immigration that will replace what they see as sort of the middle class and the upper class of the workers.
And somehow that's better than bringing in unskilled immigration.
I would say in some ways it's arguably worse.
And it's culminated with the current Prime Minister who Let's face it, he's not really British.
Yeah, I mean, I do.
I hope you'll have some editing or something before this.
Probably.
I mean, is that too strong, saying that he's not British?
I guess that would be... No, no, no.
I agree with you on that.
There was another comment I was going to make and then it slipped my mind before I...
I mean, I think the Hong Kong thing was really the thing that brought home how utterly empty Johnson's government really was.
And there certainly wasn't much done to stop the illegal immigration that was happening.
Obviously, whatever people think about the Ukraine conflict, it kind of defeated the point of having an independent British stance when it comes to foreign policy.
But interestingly enough, Ukraine seems to be the one issue that's actually working for the conservatives at the polls.
I think the public very narrowly prefers the Conservative Party when it comes to the Ukraine issue, which isn't much, but that's the only issue they have, which is why they keep going on it.
But when it comes to doing stuff for the British people at home, there's just nothing there.
Well, the other thing, though, is that even if they address illegal immigration, The thing that I think a lot of people who were Brexit voters thought they were going to get was going to be a stop to the Great Replacement in Britain.
But of course, that was never going to happen because the only people that it's locked out are the EU citizens like the Poles.
Right.
And others, mostly from Eastern Europe, who are coming to do the more blue collar and menial jobs in the country.
But they still have the Commonwealth under Commonwealth law.
Of course, anyone from a Commonwealth country can move to the UK and live there without needing any sort of special permission or whatever.
In fact, many years ago, I lived in India for a time.
And some of the Indians I knew used to like to joke that, you know, if they wanted to take over England, all they would have to do would be to move, you know, like 50 million Indians to England just before the next election.
And they're actually all allowed to vote.
If they're in England on election day, they can vote and just vote in their own candidate.
I mean, of course, now the conservatives gave it to them anyway in Rishi Sunak.
That seems to be the trend in a lot of these anglophile countries being run by people from the subcontinent and everything else, which kind of raises the question, what was the point of independence?
And why did they bother breaking up the empire to begin with?
We could get into also whether colonialism naturally leads to multiculturalism.
Yeah, that's a good question.
Of course, it depends on the type of empire.
But I also think that the Conservative Party that they have in the UK today is basically like what we had in the US with the Republican Party pre-Trump.
But they're still kind of stuck in that mode.
I mean, of course, there are differences, but I mean, I I'm sure that any British listeners
are not this type of conservative, but I have encountered British.
conservatives in the past, both in real life and online, who will actually tell
me things that, well, you know, they don't really mind the fact that the Eastern
Europeans are being kept out now from England and that Commonwealth people are
coming in because they'll say, well, you know, a Pakistani is more my brother
than a Poland. Right, right. I think it only goes one way, too. Yeah, I've heard of that kind of stuff, too.
But, of course, it doesn't, you never hear Indians or Pakistanis saying that, certainly.
It's always coming from, I don't know, whites with a sort of imperial nostalgia.
And, I mean, that kind of gets to the broader question of white advocacy.
I mean, this is something I'm going to be in a debate on in a few months.
And, you know, I've talked about it in the past, which is, do you want a movement that is centered on It's essentially an ethno-nationalist thing for each individual country.
So you have one for England, you have one for Scotland, you have one for Wales.
You could potentially have an argument for getting rid of the monarchy on those grounds, like it's not, it's a foreign institution, or we just need to be championing our own thing, we don't need any of this stuff.
But the problem, as I see it, is then you kind of get into this situation, which has really defined Western history over the last century, where we have these fights within Uh, the white community and everybody kind of brings in these non-white allies to sort of gang up on the other guys.
And of course what ends up happening is nobody ends up, nobody on our side, broadly speaking, ends up winning and non-whites end up essentially taking over.
Now, if you look at Britain and you look at the Commonwealth at this point, the way the media discusses it, And the way I think a lot of non whites feel is they may feel it as vaguely insulting as colonialist as somehow racist, the idea of basically a white head of state in these, you know, 90% black islands in the Caribbean or wherever else, but
If you look at how it actually plays out in the real world, as you point out, it's very much to their advantage, not to the indigenous people of the British Isles.
I mean, they don't get anything out of this other than pride.
And they're the only ones who are actually supporting this thing with all said and done.
But in terms of who it actually helps, I mean, it's not helping ordinary English people very much, certainly any more than the Conservative Party is helping ordinary English people.
No.
No, but I also think that that's partially, you know, to get back to the monarchy.
That's why Prince Charles is having a tough time finding acceptance.
Whereas Queen Elizabeth, of course, was more so since he has the misfortune in our age of being a white male.
Yeah.
I haven't heard too much discussion of this, but I've got to think that that's actually what's driving the reluctance of some people to Yes.
really embrace him in the same way that Elizabeth was.
I mean, I heard some grousing on the left as well about Elizabeth as sort of this relic
and most likely racist and patriarchal and all these other people.
Yeah, never anything she actually did or said, but we know it's in there somewhere if we look hard enough.
Yes, yes, but of course with Charles, he's gonna have 10 times that kind of suspicion.
So I think that's also weakening weakening his his reign so far.
But it's unclear.
I mean, maybe the general British public will take to him over time.
I mean, of course, there's certain certainly elements of the left and so forth who will never accept.
Oh, yeah.
No matter what he does.
Well, I mean, the guy named Charles is on the British throne.
Things tend to happen.
you know, Charles I had his thing, Charles II had his, we'll see how Charles III goes.
I mean, I think one of the big things that's not really talked about now is if there's one thing
that sort of justifies the modern United Kingdom, which they all play, feel T2, which they define
themselves by, it's of course World War II. And And Queen Elizabeth II, you have a direct link to World War II.
I mean, she was alive during it, served in a way, working as a mechanic, famously.
Obviously, her father was king during that time.
I mean, you cannot have somebody who has a more direct link than Elizabeth II did.
Charles does not have that, and insofar as people remember anything about him before he took the throne, it's unfortunately for him probably going to be Princess Diana.
And what made Princess Diana Princess Diana was the fact that she was very good at playing the media, she was very good at breaking with tradition, she was very good at creating this sort of, I don't want to say populist, but Being the kind of royal who really leaned into the idea that they are just a media phenomenon.
And I know she gets a lot of, she was very hostile toward the press, as were her children, are her children.
But on the other hand, it was also, I mean, what else was she other than a media creation?
I mean, there was no real legitimacy there.
There was nothing, there was nothing that really distinguished her in any way other than the fact that she would, she was very good at Steering media coverage her way, and it may have been horrific for her personally, but in terms of her image, it was also what she depended on, and Charles is just not as good as she was.
Have you seen the series The Crown?
Yeah.
I'm not a regular watcher because I find it generally quite boring, but I've seen a couple of episodes, and it's ironic to me that they're making a dramatic series out of A monarch who, as you just said, basically her only role was to play the role of being a monarch.
So it's a dramatization of somebody who is playing a dramatic role.
Yeah, that's essentially right.
I mean, the royals at this point essentially function as a kind of celebrity in chief.
And I'm trying to remember who said it.
Peter Hitchens had, obviously, as you might expect, a more conservative defense of the monarchy, where he said, You know, this is the font of honors.
This is the guarantor of our liberties and everything else.
But I think it was Andrew Sullivan who had a more modernist defense of the monarchy, where he essentially said they are basically celebrities, but somehow it's a bit more respectable.
And if we have this, this is superior to a world in which we just kind of have people who are famous for the sake of being famous running around doing things.
And I've heard and I have some sympathy to this, the idea that if you have a head of state Whose only job, essentially, is to play the head of state.
I mean, you have, they have legitimacy because of the stuff from the distant past, which makes no rational sense now, but, you know, that's actually probably a good thing.
As Joseph DeMonster said, people do not recognize what they themselves created, don't respect what they themselves created.
So the fact that they have legitimacy from the misty past actually makes them more legitimate.
And if their job is to be the head of state, if something bad happens, like there's an earthquake and you have to go comfort the victims, if something good happens, somebody wins an award, somebody wins a medal, something like that, you need to send out a representative.
Better you have a head of state to do these things where you represent the entire nation than a head of government who, by definition, only represents part of the country.
And of course, we sort of see this in our own country where something bad will happen and the president will go out there to represent the nation, but he doesn't really represent the nation.
Yeah, he's the head of state.
But at the end of the day, a lot of the people in the country are not going to particularly like or care about the head of state, depending on who they voted for.
We're actually seeing that a little bit with East Palestine, where, of course, you have a mostly white Working class town in Ohio where you have this unbelievable train catastrophe.
I have no doubt if President Trump was still in charge, his Secretary of Transportation would have been impeached by now and it would be the biggest scandal in the country.
Of course, President Biden can't be bothered to go visit.
Now, President Trump, essentially serving the role as like competing president, went out there and got kind of a hero's welcome and bought McDonald's for everyone, which was a very Tribune of the People type thing to have done.
But you do have to ask yourself, I mean, does it actually serve the public interest for, like, Joe Biden to take time out of his day to go there?
I mean, it's not going to really improve the disaster response much.
I suppose it may show that he cares or something like that.
But is that, I mean, it's just optics, essentially.
For me, yeah.
I mean, for me, if he went, no, it wouldn't make any difference, but it would just be An interesting comment that he actually sees the white working class as human.
I mean, because you know, as well as I do, that if that had been a majority black town, I mean, he would have been there 10 minutes after the disaster.
We'd all be paying a special fee.
Yeah.
I mean, I think Pete Buttigieg, when he, the first big event he did after it was an event where he was talking about how there were too many white men in the construction industry.
So that was where the Secretary of Transportation's priorities were, right after this happened.
And I guess the question is, do you, if you had, because I go back and forth on this, as a traditionalist, I don't think that you can, if you're trying to create a movement that is nationalist, either in a more narrow ethno-nationalist sense or in a broader Western sense, I don't think you can do it purely on the grounds of democracy or, oh, we're going to win the popular vote or something like that.
It has to be grounded in something eternal, romantic, something that, you know, is beyond life for people to really sacrifice and get worked up for to fight for.
And in that sense, I'm a monarchist.
But then you look at how it actually plays out in the United Kingdom and it's like, well, this this thing hasn't really done anything.
To prevent the decline, the United Kingdom is clearly worse off than the United States in terms of the way it's governed.
Maybe not demographically, but in terms of what things they have to put up with, it's much, much worse.
They have no free speech.
They vote for a party which gets in there and then does the opposite of what it promised.
And the king kind of just sits there and says, yeah, this is fine.
And insofar as he does do something, It's basically to keep more honors upon the people that are causing a lot of these problems in the first place.
So you do kind of have to ask yourself, like, what is the point?
And are white advocates or conservatives more broadly just kind of being tricked where we see, oh, liberals and leftists are upset about this, therefore we have to support it.
Like these leftists don't like the king, and they don't like kings as such.
Therefore, we need to be like rabid monarchists and spend all our political time and attention talking about it, even though at the end of the day, we don't get anything about it.
I mean, I guess that's my question to you, especially because we're both kind of coming at this from philosophically the same place.
I mean, should we care about this stuff one way or the other, or should we just say no, burn it all down because it's time to build up something new?
Well, like I said at the beginning, I don't know that it's worth opposing the monarchy, because first of all, we're not British subjects.
But beyond that, I don't know that the monarchy is making things better, but I also don't think getting rid of it would make things better.
So perhaps it's better just to leave the institution intact.
But if I were a British right-wing activist, and I was a very fervent monarchist, Personally, I wouldn't invest a lot of time in it just because, yeah, I don't really see what you get back from that.
I mean, for me, as a traditionalist, monarchy is a principle, but it's something I've discussed with some Hungarian traditionalists, because there are some Hungarian traditionalists who have actually been very active in politics here.
And we've discussed how you reconcile what is, I mean, tradition is quite clear.
The only valid form of government is monarchy.
Monarchy backed by a church, whatever the church of that particular nation is.
Right.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that we now live in a world where, well, I don't even know if I would call that a democratic world.
I mean, we're in the post-industrial Post-modern, post-everything world.
Yeah, if it was democratic, it would actually be better than what we have now.
Because, you know, if you, if they went in there and basically did the will of the people who voted for them, in many ways, they wouldn't be in this mess.
And people like us might be on the side and be like, well, you know, it's not, it's still not the way it should be, but it'd be a heck of a lot better than what they have now.
I mean, as you point out, the Prime Minister, I mean, nobody voted for this guy.
But he's in charge for some reason.
And I don't think it's unreasonable for British people to be like, why?
I mean, you could say, OK, you don't you don't vote for kings, but you are.
It's kind of implied you do vote for prime ministers.
Actually, I hate to mention it again because it's an old show, but, you know, I'm talking about Yes Minister.
I've been watching a lot again recently.
And there's for those who don't know, you know, the show is about the prime minister's office and it's how he deals with his two main advisors, civil servants, one of whom is Sir Humphrey.
And there's an episode I saw recently where he's chastising one of the other civil servants who says something about how there should be more democracy in England.
And he says, Bernard, we've got the country down to the place where they only get to vote for whoever leads them once every five years.
And we decide who that is.
That's that's the best system.
We don't want any more democracy.
And what we have now.
So, yeah, I bet.
But it reminds me a bit of the argument over the Electoral College, because whenever a president loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, they always say, well, why don't we change the system?
And although, of course, I don't like the fact that Rishi Sunak is the prime minister of England, that is their system.
I don't deny that he was legitimate.
Legitimately selected.
Now, it's for the British people to decide if they think that that system should be changed in some way, but it's been that way for centuries now.
But, I mean, monarchy as a principle, that's something different from its embodiment today.
Because, of course, it's even debatable if a constitutional monarchy is monarchy in the true sense.
Yeah, you're right.
It's also not hereditary monarchy necessarily, because if you look at the history of monarchy in Europe, monarchs were originally elected not by the people, but by the nobles.
So it's not that hereditary monarchy is the only form of it that exists, but still the idea that you would have a monarch who is essentially subordinate Yeah, I think that's probably the best way to look at it.
It's essentially dormant.
And, you know, if you wanted to preserve the principle, I mean, you could always put a different, and you said the Windsors aren't fit for purpose, you could always put a different line on the throne or say, oh, well, actually this person's in charge.
I mean, That essentially has been the way they've done things and in the past and presumably if they decided to keep it, but they needed to adjust away from one particular person or another.
That's the way they would do it in the future.
I guess the question is.
Is there is it providing any safety?
For the existing British people from the abuses of the current government because one of the defenses and you hear this all the time from conservatives.
And of course, they're always attacking to the right.
So they'll say like Peter Hitchens or somebody like that will say, well, it's good.
We have a king or queen because this prevents like a dictator from taking over and keeps from making sure that all the political power isn't monopolized by, you know, some evil populist or something like that.
And it's like, well, if you look at the abuses that are happening now, uh, let's take just one example.
I mean, the very show you're talking about, which is a pretty lighthearted show, it's essentially a comedy.
I believe it was on a list of programs along with a lot of the collected plays of William Shakespeare and a lot of the other things that we would regard as pretty integral to British culture as possible signs of right-wing extremism.
according to some extremism watchdog group that's being funded by the government and everything else.
Yes.
Now the conservatives have made some campaigns against this and they're certainly the ones who
are talking about it, but at the end of the day they've been running the show for about a decade
now. So they're the ones cutting the checks to make sure that this thing is happening.
So I mean what grounds do they have to complain about this stuff?
And certainly with anything like mass immigration, you could say, well, labor is going to be worse than the conservatives.
But I mean, on what basis do you have to say that?
Because at this point, you've given the conservatives every single opportunity to right the ship.
They just keep, it's not that they go toward the iceberg, it's like they hit an iceberg and like the ship is already sinking and then they like go out of their way to steer it into another iceberg.
And then they just keep bouncing back and forth, like smashing everything in its path.
And if somebody comes along and is like, maybe you shouldn't do that, they're like, oh, you want like this other guy to be in charge?
It's like, well, I mean, how much worse can he be?
Now, of course, famous last words, but still.
Well, I mean, I'm somebody who I'm always open minded to the possibility that we might get a genuine leftist candidates, both in the US or the UK.
What I mean by that is somebody who.
perhaps does not share our worldview in its entirety, but who still cares about the white
working class, still cares about the real issues that affect ordinary people, which, you know,
Bernie Sanders was arguably something like that in the US.
But they had that in Jeremy Corbyn in labor in the UK. But whenever they get these guys, they
destroy them with anti-Semitism.
Yeah, Corbyn's done. Right.
Which when I when I read about the charges against Corbyn, I mean, they were so ludicrous.
this.
I mean, I have no love for the guy, but I would prefer him to the other labor candidates who are waiting in the wings.
Yeah, it certainly seems like new labor is back in charge.
And I mean, yeah, Tony Blair was obviously I mean, as much as I despise the current conservative leadership, I mean, it was Tony Blair who kind of Got this show rolling, at least on a large scale in terms of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
And you know, as I think it was one of his advisors who said it, I mean, and this is a quote, we did this to rub the right's nose in diversity.
I mean, it's not that there's anything beyond.
They didn't call it, in this case, they didn't call it the Great Replacement, they didn't use the word replace, but certainly the idea of bringing in diversity to deliberately rub it in the face of the right and say, we're doing this because it will annoy you, we're doing this because it will make the country worse from your perspective, and we really don't need another reason other than that.
I mean, that's what defined the Blair regime.
And a lot of the things that the Conservatives unfortunately have consolidated as part of British life, especially using the power of the state to restrict discussion of once-legitimate political issues like immigration, the Conservatives preside over that today.
I mean, certainly Britain is far more politically correct now than it was when the Conservatives first took over.
And the Conservatives, or the monarchy for that matter, haven't really done anything to change that.
No, and I mean, I've seen people discuss in recent months.
I don't think that they're there that Charles is a secret reactionary person.
No, I don't either.
But people have discussed, well, what if there were somebody in in the monarchy who was and he could become king and reassert Because I think that actually they do technically have the power to basically take back.
In theory, I mean, there was that play.
Ironically enough, there's a play called Charles III written before Queen Elizabeth died.
And in that play, essentially this fictional Charles III decides, well, I'm not just going to be a rubber stamp for whatever Parliament does.
And this parliament comes along and essentially they're going to pass a bill that restricts the right of privacy for various anti-terrorist reasons or something like that.
And Charles says, no, no, no, I don't agree with this.
Now, he can't stop it.
But what he can do technically.
Is he can abolish parliament and call or dissolve it, I should say, and call for new elections.
So in this play, he very dramatically walks in with his uniform and everything else and dissolves it.
And of course, what ends up happening in the play is everybody goes nuts, starts screaming about democracy.
I think he ends up being deposed and William is put on the throne.
And the moral of the story essentially is that the people will cheer for more restrictions against their own rights.
And more things that will make their lives worse, but as long as it's being done in the name of democracy, they'll interpret it as a good thing.
I mean, that I think is the argument for not opposing the monarchy per se, in that it's not going to make anything better.
It's just going to remove one of the last remnants of tradition or hierarchy or the idea that we're anything other than a mob of people, basically constantly catering to the lowest and basest.
Well, I think that, yeah, if you did have somebody like in that play who tried to assert authority, that's exactly how it would go down.
Either they would put somebody else on the throne or just abolish the institution entirely.
They did that in, I believe it was Luxembourg or one of these places where they're, yeah.
You had a Catholic monarch who technically has still a bit of power, and I believe it was an abortion law, and he just said, well, I'm just not going to sign this.
And so what they did was they made it a republic for five minutes, passed this law, and then made it a monarchy again, at which point, well, what's the point?
I mean, now you've gotten rid of the very pretense of the thing.
I mean, at least when they got rid of Cromwell, they like passed all these laws saying, actually, like all that stuff we just did was bad.
But in this case, they didn't even do that.
I think that.
The question becomes if you're a white because there are plenty of white advocacy groups in Britain, but of course, they're tremendously repressed by the state to a level that we can't even begin to imagine here in the United States.
And I dare I say in Hungary, although Yeah, I've had some different experiences on that front.
Yes.
The question becomes should you even bother, and this is sort of a class debate that you get into when you're talking about like nationalist movements, where I don't think anybody has any illusions at this point that, with very few exceptions, that the upper class is going to lead the way in Preserving the historic Western nations.
The Chamber of Commerce, obviously, here in the United States, is probably the biggest problem that we have.
The World Economic Forum, if not so much a direct secret government or something like that, because it's not particularly secret at this point, and it's more of a, you know, a networking thing, whatever.
I mean, even if you abolished it, the network is still there.
I mean, that's like the heart of the problem, not so much... They would just do another one.
Yeah, they would just do another one, right.
But it's sort of the same thing with like the Bilderbergers or whatever other group you want to go nuts about.
But the question is like that class is still the one running the show.
And so should a nationalist movement essentially always be directed as kind of like a bottom up workers movement where you're saying we're going to overturn this stuff and we are going to campaign essentially.
Not just left-of-center, but left-wing on economic issues, and then you could argue right-wing on cultural issues.
Now, I think there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that there's a base for that.
Certainly, I think that the thesis that being left-of-center economically, right-of-center culturally, is where you want to be if you want to win elections, and that goes for the Democrats as well as the Republicans, Labor as well as Conservatives.
But the question is, can you really pull that off Within an existing system, because if you look at Trump in the Republican Party, I mean, one, he didn't really do that so much.
He did somewhat, but he wasn't able to totally transform the party.
And in the American system, the personality is way more important than the party.
In the UK, and certainly on the continent, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think one charismatic guy can just kind of cruise in and take over.
I mean, if you don't have the whole party rank and file with you, it's very tough to change everything.
Now, maybe Boris Johnson is an example of somebody who kind of did that with Brexit.
But I mean, as we saw, Boris Johnson didn't really transform all that much either.
It depends on the country.
I mean, in Hungary, it definitely very much is that way.
I mean, most people don't even know that Viktor Orban Has this party, Fidesz, that actually governs the country?
They've never heard of Fidesz.
They just know Orban.
And for Hungarians, too, Fidesz is Orban.
I mean, he overshadows everything to such an extent that I think even thinks he's probably not the author he ends up getting credit for.
But but anyway, to get beyond that, I mean, I think that this tradition of uniting left and right is something you see a lot more in the Mediterranean countries.
And, uh, like France has this tradition.
I mean, just a few years ago, you had the yellow vests and the identitarians out in the streets making truces and fighting together.
Italy, uh, uh, you've maybe not so much today, but historically, uh, they, they, you often see the far right, the far left getting together.
Uh, so I don't know if that's transferable to the American or British context.
Because the definitions of left and right are so different.
But still, you do see sort of a yearning for this.
I mean, I think that's what populism is in the US and the UK today.
It's basically right wing values with, I don't want to say a radical left wing, because I don't think most people, most working class people are radicals, but a more leftist leaning a socioeconomic approach.
Right.
But whether that can ever, I mean, the Republicans talked a lot about it with Trump
and they still are, but there really hasn't been a great deal
of actual achievement that you can point to.
So I guess there've been a lot of self-inflicted fouls.
I mean, if you look at Blake Masters running in Arizona, I mean, he was out there talking about privatizing
social security at one point And they just hung that around his neck until the campaign
was over.
I mean, one of the things that sent Trump apart in 2016, and he's already doing it again, is talking about no cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
And if you look at polls of Republican voters, they say over and over again, we don't want cuts to these things.
And of course, then you have like Mike Pence on Fox News or wherever it was saying like, no, no, no, it's really important we cut all these things.
Anyone who's talking about that stuff is not going to win.
One, it's just not going to happen, but it's also You kind of wonder, like, why you even bother talking about it.
We have this assumption that people will say anything to get elected, but that's not really true.
A lot of times people will shy away from stuff even if they would get elected by talking about this stuff, particularly in the Republicans, and they'll say stuff that sounds good in the beltway and will get you on, you know, from think tank to think tank and get, you know, audiences of policy wonks to tell you how great you are.
But it's not going to have any cachet in the heartland.
And certainly the idea of privatizing everything, cutting all these entitlements, talking about the federal deficit all day, this is all very well to national review, but nobody's going to vote for this stuff.
And I think, ironically, the guy who was probably the most honest about the way things are was Mitt Romney in that famously leaked speech, what he said, 47% of the people are not going to vote for us no matter what.
And of course, instead of saying, well, maybe is there a way we can break out of this so we can win some of those 47 percent, at least on economic issues, he's just kind of doubled down and saying, we need to make sure nobody like Trump ever happens again.
And we're just going to keep saying this stuff over and over again.
And I don't know.
I mean, just keep running for office in Utah until eventually Utah becomes like California and you can't win there either.
I mean, I think the blindness of these sort of Chamber of Commerce Republicans and whatever the British equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce is, and certainly right of center on the continent, what they would call liberals in the European context, drives a lot of the nationalist frustration where you see people who, these capitalists who seem determined to prove Marx correct.
That we're going to have a free market and we're just going to keep running it until the far left takes over because we just can't stop ourselves from making obviously stupid decisions.
Yes, yeah, that's true.
But I also think, you know, you were discussing how monarchy plays into this for people like us.
I mean, I would say that while we still have to deal with the world as it is, And while we can keep these principles in mind, we have to be willing to work through the institutions that that are viable and the ideas that are viable in this time.
So.
What do you think Hungary has done differently in terms of being able to build a stable governing coalition and not falling into the traps that have really ensnared the conservatives in the UK and so many other parties?
I mean, because originally Fidesz was part of the same international grouping as the conservatives, right?
And that became a big issue a couple of years ago, as I recall.
Yeah, and they're not anymore.
You mean in the EU Parliament?
Yeah, in the EU Parliament.
Right.
Yeah, they were forced out finally.
But, well, as far as Hungary itself goes, though, I mean, they're not in a coalition.
They, I mean, Fidesz is governed on its own, you know, with a super majority now for the
last 13 years, and they'll have they have three more years of their current mandate.
So yeah, I mean, it's it's it's not a matter of working with the other side.
They've just dominated the scene so completely.
But that's really something that's specific to the Hungarian context, because you have
to know about how Orban.
Well, he was in power between 1998 and 2002 and was defeated after one term.
What I have read about that, I was not in Hungary at that time, of course, but what I've heard is that he sort of fashioned himself as the Hungarian Angela Merkel.
You know, he just wanted to do what she did.
It failed.
Uh, so after that, he realized, well, you know, I need to develop a form of politics that's specific to Hungary.
And he was successful.
He's a very bright man.
Uh, so what he has done is, uh, well, you have to understand in the two thousands, uh, there were two terms of a socialist administration, uh, run by a guy named, uh, Ferenc Gyurcsany, who was, uh, the second prime minister during those eight years.
And they very quickly ran the country into the ground.
In fact, Hungary ended up having to get out the first ever loan from the EU because they were on the brink of collapse.
They had to get a loan from the IMF.
And there was a famous speech before all this came out in 2006.
Hungary had just had an election.
And Ghirashani, the prime minister, gave a speech in which he said, a secret speech just
to his party, saying that, well, you know, it was fortunate that, you know, we lied so
well in the election about what's really going on, that we're able to win, but, you know,
people are so stupid, they'll vote for us anyway.
This was all recorded.
He didn't know it.
It was played on.
That's like much worse than what Romney said.
Yes, yes.
And it was it was played on the state radio a few months later.
And there were riots in the streets of Budapest and other cities for months.
They managed to hold on to power till the end of their term.
But they basically the left here discredited itself entirely.
So Orban was just able to coast in as the savior.
And I have to say, he really did turn things around.
I mean, he actually paid back the IMF debt early.
Uh, uh, by raising taxes on multinational corporations in Hungary.
Uh, I mean, can you imagine any American or British?
Yeah.
I mean, I guess that's what I'm getting at.
I mean, he's not, I mean, it would certainly be insane to call him like a socialist or something like that, but I mean, you do have this, this kind of right wing populism where you're not, where you're not just a slave of capital.
But of course, if you do the slightest thing like that, In America, I mean, National Review would be barging up and down about, you know, socialism or how this is a violation of Reaganite conservatism or whatever else.
Exactly.
But here, I mean, the continental conservative tradition contains some elements in it, at least in modern times, that would be regarded as left wing.
Yeah, right.
Fidesz, Orban's party, has massive social programs in Hungary.
Uh, which I'm sure if they, if the Republicans tried to do something like that in the US, yeah, they, they would, they would be torn apart by the pundits and, uh, and so on.
So, uh, it's, it's just not the same situation, which is why some people have said, well, we should really learn from Victor Orban.
And yeah, that's a good idea.
But at the same time, it's such a different situation that you're not starting on the same ground.
In America or Britain, as you are in Hungary.
Yeah, you have to somehow get through a Republican primary.
I mean, arguably Trump did.
Arguably he shows that an individual can get through a primary.
And certainly you can think of people in the House of Representatives, for example, you can think of people who, or even in the Senate, who can get through a Republican primary without just kind of doing the business as usual type stuff.
I know Senator Josh Hawley in Missouri, At least says the right things regarding a lot of this stuff.
He's talked about the Republicans being the working class party and everything else.
Of course, a lot of other Republicans will say stuff about being the working class party, but then when it comes down to it, what they offer is not particularly different.
And of course, from a white advocacy perspective, I mean, if you're not stopping immigration and if you're not turning back anti-white discrimination, I mean, it's all just kind of a waste of time.
I mean, the last thing that I wanted to talk about is there's this case in the United Kingdom where I believe it was a A slightly autistic kid, at least according to his mother, essentially, like, slightly damaged a Qur'an somehow.
And this became a big deal where they had to, you know, host these meetings and the Muslim community's going nuts and, you know, the Labour Party, local Canada, has to speak out and everything else.
And they're forcing the kid's mom to, you know, sit through this and apologize and everything else.
And, I mean, this is essentially a conquered people at work.
And it raises certain questions because, you know, on paper, Britain is a Christian country, officially.
I mean, it has a state church.
If you were, from our perspective, if you were establishing institutions from the top down to, quote, make things better, I mean, you would do a lot of what the UK has done.
You would have some sort of an official creed, and you would have an institution whose job it is to protect this thing.
And in theory, the UK has this, and in practice, it hasn't really done any good.
Which kind of raises the question, I mean, maybe It's not so much go looking for answers and institutions or abstract creeds, but I mean you really do have to get into identity politics and just recognize that everything sort of flows out of that.
I guess my question is, what place does traditionalism, people like us, have in what's essentially an identitarian movement?
Well, for me, identity, whether we're talking about racial or ethnic identity, is something that stems from tradition.
I mean, not only Abel, but also Fritjof Schuon, who was one of the other major traditionalists, but didn't dabble in politics like Abel did, also was a sort of a racialist.
He wrote several essays talking about racial archetypes.
as an expression of the transcendental principle that lies at the heart of all the religions.
So race and ethnicity are something that are part of tradition, so I don't see us as something separate from that.
The only place where maybe we differ is that we see ourselves as being rooted in these eternal things, whereas What I try to discuss these issues with some people on the right, you know, that they have other priorities or, you know, they don't want to mix in metaphysics or religion with their beliefs, which is fine.
I'm not trying to impose my ideas on the entire movement, as it were.
But I also think that we have valid critiques and commentaries to make.
What people decide to do with them is up to them.
I do think tradition offers something of the older right that goes back for the squabbles of the last 50 or 100 years, or 200 years, you could say.
And in that sense, I think if you're really looking for what is the essence of the right, I mean, it's in tradition.
I really think that's certainly what Abelis saw himself doing, in my opinion.
He was successful.
Now, I think just because we mentioned at the beginning, maybe we should just briefly talk about the fact that King Charles himself is interested in tradition.
And this isn't just speculation.
I mean, he's gone on the record with this.
And in fact, he it well, I'm not sure if he still is.
I was checking that out before we started recording.
But there's an institution in the UK called the Temenos Academy.
It's been around for over 30 years now.
Is that the one he spoke for way back when?
Oh, he spoke to them many times because he's their patron.
He founded it with Kathleen Ryan, who was an English poet who was a traditionalist herself.
And they're actually quite active in terms of holding events, lectures, videos, classes.
In England, I actually attended a few a number of years ago.
They were quite interesting, although they focus solely on the metaphysical.
They don't touch on the political aspects of traditionalism at all.
And I don't think I need to explain why.
I mean, Charles can't, even though I'm sure on some level he must be sympathetic.
You know, he can't get himself involved with Well, I mean, Abel was not a fascist, but he's always accused of that.
Right, right.
He was involved with the fascists in Italy, though he never joined them.
I mean, he was.
Yes, that's true.
He never joined them.
His papers were banned.
I mean, we can get to the whole thing.
But I mean, fundamentally, it was a different.
It kind of gets back to the division we were talking about.
He was very much a proponent of aristocratic rule and elite rule, not the masses governing.
And one could argue that fascism was all about the mobilization of the masses.
And that distinction, I think, that he argued about quite a bit is probably why he did get acquitted.
I mean, after the war in the liberal democracies where you're free to talk about whatever ideas you want, I think they put him on trial and he was acquitted.
And that was, of course, you know, the famous quote, my principles are that which only every sane and normal man held before 1789.
So.
Yeah, and during the fascist period, even before that, he also wrote somewhere or other, I can't remember exactly, but he said that, you know, well, I only support fascism to the point that it embodies traditional principles to that point and no further.
Right.
While he recognized there was something traditional in fascism, he did not see fascism as a traditional movement.
Right, right.
And he got, I think there was something where Mussolini, because they did ban one of his papers at some point, and he got physical threats and had to walk around with a bodyguard or something like that, and Mussolini said something along the lines of... Yeah, because he was very anti-Catholic.
Yeah, and Mussolini said something and Evola famously responded, too bad for Mussolini, which I always thought is kind of...
Kind of the best way to handle things where somebody with power comes after you and it's like, well, too bad for them.
I mean, I think it worked again later because Avila developed the racial theory for the fascists.
Ironically, yeah.
I mean, I think if we talked about that, I mean, maybe they, a few months down the line, get into that.
I mean, ironically, that would actually probably be pretty controversially non-American Renaissance now because it's not about biology to him, or at least not solely about biology.
Well, it's a part of it, but it's not the first.
I see online people will say things like, well, Abel has said that an African could be an Aryan.
It's not that simplistic.
There's more to it than just that.
But it is true that he thought that people of certain races could embody characteristics of other racial archetypes, but it wasn't divorced from biology.
No.
But I do think that, yeah, I understand, like, once you're even getting into some of this territory, this isn't something that Charles III could necessarily get into.
So you understand, like, why his any institution that he'd be backing or any institution that he'd be trying to do would have to step back from any of this stuff.
Well, I mean, I think that even if Charles were sympathetic.
On some level, he obviously couldn't articulate it because that would be far too radical for him to get involved with somebody who was involved with the fascists.
But nevertheless, the connection is real.
There's a video that you can watch on YouTube.
You just go and punch in.
Well, I would put in Prince Charles because he was still Prince when he recorded it.
There's a video from about 20 years ago.
Where he's discussing the concept of tradition and modernity, and he specifically references René Guénon, who, of course, was the first philosopher of the school that's known as traditionalism, talks about him very specifically in this lecture.
And also, he was friends with Martin Lins, who was an Englishman who was actually René Guénon's secretary.
Uh, so Charles definitely had these connections and another more bizarre connection that nobody else I know of has commented on.
So you're hearing, uh, like, uh, sort of new information here is that, uh, uh, one of Abel's students, his name is, uh, Frank Jelly.
Uh, he was somebody who studied with Abel in the 1960s as a young man.
And in the 70s, he ended up moving to England and becoming an Anglican priest.
And he was actually Princess Diana's spiritual advisor.
And in fact, if you look him up online, he was the last person who spoke to her before she got in the car.
Uh, you know, when she was killed in the car accident in August 1997.
So he was actually called into the inquest to testify.
I've actually met him.
Uh, he attended a talk that I, uh, uh, gave in, uh, England on traditionalism, uh, uh, many years ago.
Uh, but, uh, very nice man, but yeah, I, I don't know.
Uh, I never asked him what contact he may have had with Charles, but.
Maybe he discussed Abel at some point.
That's just speculation.
But in short, there is definitely a very real connection to tradition in what Charles does.
Oh, he also wrote this book, Harmony, that you could classify as traditionalism light.
He mixes in some authentic traditional doctrines with All this sort of wishy-washy environmentalism and sustainability stuff that he's into.
It's worth looking at just to see where he's coming from, but I just wish that he was actually embodying genuine traditional principles and not this stuff that I see, you know, celebrating the new face of England at his coronation and so forth.
It's not going to do him any good anyway.
I mean, I guess that's the thing I kind of want to close on, is you see them going along with this stuff, but You know, as we documented pretty exhaustively during Elizabeth II's funeral and the responses to the crowds and everything else, I mean, you had a lot of people in England, especially non-whites, I mean, just openly celebrating her death and saying how great it was and how hilarious it was that she's dead and how these old white people are all sad.
And it's like, OK, but I mean, if you want to talk about like colonization, I mean, arguably the greatest anti-colonial force in history or person in history was Elizabeth II in terms of dismantling the British Empire and certainly not doing anything to stop it.
And actually, insofar as she ever had any power and used that power for any reason whatsoever, was basically to destroy Rhodesia because it was the fig leaf of the Commonwealth.
And oh, they're not really independent and all this stuff.
That was like the fig leaf of legality that they used to spearhead sanctions and all the stuff.
Ian Smith, of course, was actually a veteran of the Second World War who
flew fighter planes against the Axis powers in Europe and I think crashed or got shot down,
was hanging out with partisans in Italy and did all this stuff. Of course, none of it did him any
good in terms of the British government showing any kind of residual loyalty or anything like that.
And then at their insistence, because again, it wasn't even so much opposition to black majority
rule, it was opposition to Mugabe as such. And the British government was like, no, no,
no, you have to hand the government over to Mugabe. And then pretty much...
Yeah, there's a book called, yeah, again, this is one of the few things where there's some documentation that she actually used power.
There's a book called Sovereign, which talks about a rule.
I studied it when I wrote about Elizabeth II.
Thatcher, of course, was not particularly friendly toward Mandela in the N.C., and she was not particularly friendly toward Mugabe.
And she essentially came in and said, why are we doing this again?
And Queen Elizabeth II basically sat her down and told her how important this was and how she needed to really go through with this and everything else.
And I think she dressed it up with some conservative doctrine, but not a lot.
It was more, I'm pulling rank and this is what you're going to do.
And so she did. And again, the people who were on, when it comes to how they actually felt,
it was one thing. Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence famously ended when Ian Smith said
God saved the queen. So it wasn't much of a UDI in that sense. But
that was still technically what they were doing.
They were breaking away from the UK, they were breaking away from the Commonwealth and all this stuff, and it was to enforce the Queen's rule and to enforce the Commonwealth that they were able to use all these measures to crush the white government of Rhodesia.
So, I mean, you can see how tradition and nostalgia and institutions that people on the right of center might tend to treasure a bit more than leftists, they could actually be weaponized against us in some way.
Because I'm sure there were some, like, goofball conservatives who went along with it because they're like, well, if the Queen says so, we need to do this.
And, you know, we see how that ends up.
And we do have to be careful sometimes not to substitute the symbol of something for the substance of something.
Yes, I mean, I'm hard pressed to think of any monarch in Europe at present who I would want to reassert power because in many cases, there's no difference or if anything, they're worse than the democratically elected people leading European countries.
So, yeah, I mean, you think about Elizabeth and I'm sure Charles as well.
Well, I met someone from the Temenos Academy who Uh, we were discussing the fact of how interesting it was that Charles is their patron.
And I said, well, have you ever met him?
Uh, cause he works with the Academy quite, quite closely and he laughed and he said, he doesn't live in the same world that you and I do.
And I think that's you can probably that sums up their entire view of things.
I mean, in Elizabeth's mind, she was probably correcting an injustice, you know, by having the country turned over to Mugabe or whatever.
But she's never spent never spent a day of her life, certainly not in postwar England, where she could see what the ravages of multiculturalism and immigration have wrought on England.
Uh, and I'm sure it's the same for Charles.
So in there, I'm not saying that excuses it, but that's why we shouldn't assume that they're secret reactionaries because I think that they, they eat up the, probably the SJW propaganda because that's probably all they know about the society that they.
Right.
I mean, yeah, that is the upper class at this point.
I mean, a lot of it defines itself.
I mean, this is really the problem in the West is that.
A lot of people that under old school definitions you would call the elite or the ruling class or the people you kind of trust to keep the torch of civilization passed from one way to another are in fact the biggest enemies of everything that's going on.
The biggest enemies of Western civilization and it's not me saying that I mean it's them very explicitly saying that whereas The people who have some residual loyalty to what's going on and enough common sense to understand that this is not working out the way it was promised are basically the working class people who have been left behind by all of these revolutions and all of these policies that they never actually asked for, and in many ways were promised that were never going to happen, but they happened anyway.
Certainly the history of conservative rule in England is history of that.
And it's unfortunate because once Labour takes over, I think that may be the end of the UK because at that point it's going to be very hard for them to hold everything together in Northern Ireland.
It's going to be hard for them to convince Scotland not to go.
And maybe we'll see the conservatives replaced by a new party.
I know Nigel Farage is still posting on social media, and he's the only one I could think of who could potentially create a new force.
But without Brexit, I mean, it would pretty much be a single-issue immigration party.
And you'd probably just kind of get this never-ending thing of the media saying, oh, they're racist, and him saying, no, we're not.
And it just goes back and forth in a very tedious way.
Until you can just get over this hump and say, like, look, we just don't care what you call us anymore.
This is how it's going to be.
But certainly you can't expect the monarchy to do that.
I mean, I don't I haven't studied Farage closely, but I don't know how committed any of these people really are.
But I really feel like in both the UK and in the US in recent years, immigration has succeeded in becoming part of the center of the political conversation.
When I really tried to look to see, well, was there any significant movement on this under Trump's administration?
I was very hard pressed to find anything.
I mean, by some metrics, some types of immigration increased under Trump.
I think the only place where there was a significant decrease was in refugees.
Yeah, he did do a lot on that front.
But there wasn't really a significant reduction in immigration, certainly not under the Conservative Party in the UK.
No.
As bad as Trump was, he was a glorious leader compared to the Tories.
Yeah, but I think they just want to keep us talking about this until the point that it's too late to do anything.
Well, maybe it's already too late.
I hope not.
But I think that's the idea, is just to keep us distracted.
Yeah, run out of the clock.
Yeah, I really think that's what's going on here.
So, and unfortunately, no, Charles is not going to offer any resistance to that.
Still, I mean, we did break some original news here.
I think that's pretty interesting that these connections are there.
But of course, you know, it has to lead to something in the real world.
Otherwise, what's the point?
Yes, yes.
Well, I think that's a good place to end it, John.
Thank you so much for joining me today, and thank you to all of our listeners and viewers, and we will be doing this again.
▲
Export Selection