Poliltical violence has always been used by the Left

Will Wright

Fight or flight…or something else?

It is well-known that human beings and other animals have a biological ‘fight or flight’ mechanism. Aggressive animals fight while timid animals flee. But what is less well-known, is that sometimes neither standing and fighting nor fleeing are possible. Then, animals do something else instead. An animal that is caught and overwhelmed by a bigger, more powerful predator goes limp. This is an involuntary biological reaction.

A hare caught by a fox, or a wildebeest caught by a lion goes limp. This might be so that it does not suffer too much when death is close. When explorer, David Livingstone, was caught by a lion, he was surprised that he went limp. He was lucky to survive to tell the tale.

A fictional gangster related that usually when he received a good kicking from gangland rivals, he went limp.

While that is a biological reaction, there appears to be a psychological equivalent. When human beings are forced into the presence of bigger, more aggressive human beings they tend to submit, and then become permanently submissive. This might explain why some women stay in abusive relationships, and why some men are raped in male prisons.

Once men become submissive, they experience a drop in their testosterone levels, which in turn makes them even more submissive – a vicious circle. Violent, dominant males experience a rise in the level of their bodies’ testosterone, which makes them even more violent and dominant.

Political violence and the psychology of dominance

Abnormally violent people, such as the Kray twins, either overwhelm others by excessive, sadistic violence, or they intimidate them with the threat of it. Anyone overwhelmed by unexpected, very fast, excessive violence tends to surrender and become submissive.

But it is not just gangsters who know this. Left-wing extremist revolutionaries and terrorists have always known this dark psychology, and use it in political violence against people who actively disagree with them.

Many Jews traditionally hated the established order in Christian White Europe. They plotted to overthrow it. If they could convince large numbers of the lower classes to rise up against their rulers, then the Jewish revolutionaries could achieve their aim.

This depended on convincing the masses of Marxist economic theories, and then inciting them to violence. Large numbers of violent workers could destroy the old order. Communist revolution always depended on violence and intimidation. Jews like Marx and Trotsky saw this as overwhelming and successful.

After a revolution there was always a period of terror. A totalitarian state frightened the population into submission.

Political violence is often used by the Left
Image courtesy of Creative Commons and https://thefederalist.com

When the political violence of communism met its match

After the First World War, German National Socialism and Italian Fascism defeated Communist political violence. They had to be prepared to meet violence with violence. The Nazis exposed to the public what Communism was really about. They were able to attract large numbers of German workers away from Communism, and then turn the violence on to the Communist leadership. Violent revolutionaries got some of their own medicine.

When highly-organised Jewish Communists attacked some of Sir Oswald Mosley’s meetings in the 1930s, they got more than they bargained for, and were on the receiving end of violence from Blackshirt meeting stewards.

But those Communists, back then, did not have a victim mentality. They still intended to use political violence themselves in future. What changed things was when the liberal press condemned Fascist violence (but oddly, not Communist violence). Some Communists then saw that they could use the liberal conscience as an unwitting ally.

By the 1970s, the Socialist Workers Party openly advocated the use of violence against National Front demonstrations. Yet it saw no contradiction in later screaming about “fascist” violence when its own street fighters got the worst of the violence that they had initiated.

Communism in decline

Western populations gradually became more affluent. Marxist economic ideas held much less appeal. Those theories also became discredited. Communist agitators could no longer incite the workers to violent revolution. Or win elections.

In the past there were two kinds of working class people. The best types were aspirational. But they not only wanted to better themselves economically, but educationally. The rougher elements of the working class wanted instant gratification – beer and football. More material goods, but not better education.

Many people in modern Britain are an odd mixture. They are classless, but not in a good way. They are materially much better off than their parent’s generation and more middle class. Yet they are very unacademic and non-intellectual – like the roughest elements of the old working class.

Old-style Communism is dead. If left-wing revolutionaries are going to find any shock troops for a violent revolution, it will be among the immigrant descended non-Whites. The politics of grievance and resentment. Jewish intellectuals, ‘former’ Communists, have invented Political Correctness, which has replaced the old Communism, and that is why some know it as Cultural Marxism.

Political Correctness

Old-style Communists wanted to decapitate White European countries, then replace the old elites with new Jewish elites. Cultural Marxists want to ‘castrate’ Western manhood. White men are told that masculinity is toxic. Feminism is promoted. Every city has an outrageous annual ‘Pride’ march. Transgenderism is promoted.

It was always the case that some immigrants were violent and criminals. Since the early 1900s, East End London Jews were gangsters and violent Communists. More recently, Pakistanis and Blacks have tended to be violent and criminals.  But it is thought by some scientists that Black Africans (of both sexes) have more testosterone than their White or Asian counterparts. Some people speculate that this is because Black Africans are an older race. But testosterone makes people potentially violent. The very “toxic masculinity” that the Politically Correct brigade are supposed not to like! At least in White men.

Blacks, Indians and Pakistanis, and all other racial minorities are encouraged to be very assertive in White countries. But White people are made to feel ashamed of their country, their history, their culture. White men are being cowed. They are failing educationally. They seem to be actually becoming gradually less intelligent, for the reasons that Edward Dutton gives in some of his books. Constant intimidation, including political violence, is lowering testosterone levels and making White men even more submissive and docile.

Has political violence disappeared?

Old Communist revolutions were achieved by violence, and then the new Communist regimes ruled by terror and state violence against dissenting individuals. At the moment, Political Correctness seems to be winning through the educational system, the media, the law, and traditional politics.

White people, but particularly White men, are being subdued while we drift into extinction and replacement by non-European peoples. There is not presently the same level of terror as in Stalinist Russia. But people are intimidated. So what are we afraid of?

Losing our homes? Losing our jobs? Becoming social pariahs? Being imprisoned? Isn’t the real truth that we have been intimidated by psychological techniques, including political violence, that rely on our biological responses to either fight or flee when we can no longer do either? So we become subdued, submissive, and psychologically castrated by a low testosterone count. Psychologically speaking, we go limp and ready for death.

And perhaps the threat of revolutionary violence has not really disappeared after all. There are large and growing numbers of racial foreigners. They are growing ever more confident and assertive. Will Black and Pakistani violent mobs one day be released on the British population – if we ever try to reassert ourselves?

Copyright © 2023 Will Wright

Nationalism and the power to influence others

Will Wright

Social animals and Nationalism

Human beings are social animals. We are sociable animals. Many other animals are herd animals. Some predators are pack animals. Our closest primate relatives live in small groups of a dozen to twenty. Primitive and remote human beings often live in groups of about one-hundred-and-fifty – every individual knows every other individual. Hence Nationalism is a natural stage in our development.

Modern human beings live in cities and are connected to others across the world, by modern communication tools – if they want to be. We all influence each other. All the time. Whether we intend to or not. We might be genetically programmed to be in touch with a hundred-and-fifty people, our ‘tribe’, but we can be in touch with many more than that – if we want to be.

Christakis and Fowler

social networking and british nationalism

In a 2009 book, Connected – The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape Our Lives, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler argued that we influence each others’ attitudes and behaviour up to three people away from us, whether we know it or not. When they write of social networks, they are writing about ordinary human contact in the real world.

Isn’t that surprising? We influence people who we either do not know very well, or have never even met. Friends of friends of friends. But if that can, and does, happen unintentionally, then what if we consciously decide to influence others quite deliberately, and for a specific purpose? For a political cause, say.

Modern authoritarian states and Nationalism

Modern states are very powerful. Invariably they tend towards the suppression of genuine Nationalism. They have power over the lives of ordinary citizens. Authoritarian states control what information people have access to. Press and television are in the hands of a few. That elite can, and does, influence people’s opinions.

But it is naïve for anyone to imagine that ‘democratic’ states do not also do that. The internet, email, and social media, changed the possibilities. Things happened so quickly that the authorities did not realise the implications – until it was too late! No one has overall control of the internet. Anyone can influence others. And that includes British Nationalists.

But the emerging global elite is striving to gain the same level of control of the electronic media as it traditionally had over the press, radio, and television.

What is to be done by aspiring political radicals and would-be revolutionaries?

Why talking to each other is essential for Nationalism

If we accept that we all influence each other, then we can very actively and deliberately talk to lots of people. In person, on the telephone, by email and text message, by social media. The authorities, in a supposedly democratic country, cannot completely suppress that.

I suspect that something like this might have been partly responsible for the Brexit referendum result. That result was the opposite of what the Establishment wanted – but it happened. There is hope yet!

Intelligent British Nationalists should give some thought to how things might work out.

When two or more people talk, they might, or might not, be attempting to influence each other. But it seems obvious to me that the person who is better informed, on any subject, will influence the others more than they will influence him. That does not necessarily have to be phrased as “winning the argument”, although it could be.

Whoever is more certain will influence those who are less certain. Not necessarily the person who is actually right. But the one who is most convinced that he is right.

Perhaps that is why someone who is actively very left-wing might drag those who are more moderate left-wingers towards his point of view. Similarly, a committed British Nationalist might influence those who are non-political patriots, and maybe even recruit them to the cause.

But a thought occurs to me. If certainty is a big factor in influencing others, then could a loud-mouthed, but very certain, ignoramus influence those he speaks to? Yes! None of us want to be that ignoramus! We must know what we are talking about. We must know what we believe, and we must know in which direction we want to influence other people.

Two main tasks for British Nationalists

But here is a hopeful thought. If each of us knows a lot of people, and communicates with a lot of people, then we cannot really fail to influence them – to some extent. But we need to maximise that influence, and to steer it to where we want it to go. Learning to do that is an acquired skill.

We are all learning until the day that we die. Those of us who support British Nationalism need to learn two main things. We need to learn ideological information, and we need to learn how to get that information across to many others.

A propagandist has communication skills. But if he does not also know his message, then he is lost. Conversely, someone very knowledgeable about our ideology who cannot, or will not, communicate that information in an easily understood way, to many other people, is isolated and is wasting his time.

The good thing is that once you know what you want to say, and how to say it, then you have cracked the code! Ordinary people talking to other ordinary people has a ripple effect in society. People who you have not yet met will be influenced by you, and often, before you meet them.

My advice: get learning, get talking!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright

Optimism and Nationalism

Will Wright

If you are a White European living today anywhere in the Western World, then the future looks bleak. All the evidence suggests that White Europeans are being replaced by non-White peoples. Any racial nationalist who looks around in modern Britain will see almost everything political moving in the wrong direction. On top of that, racial nationalist opposition to all of that is being crushed by the authorities.

Image courtesy of Creative Commons

Nationalists can be optimistic

What can true patriots and racial nationalists do to cheer ourselves up? It is not an easy question to answer. It will no doubt take much greater minds than mine to provide a full and satisfactory answer. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts.

Firstly, we need to stay optimistic and believe that we can win. Throughout history, many people have been treated harshly by those in power. But the ones who prevailed were the ones who stayed optimistic. Because optimism floats while pessimism sinks.

Some people object: how can we be optimistic in the midst of all that is going wrong with the world? What is happening that can give us any hope? Well, there is always something that we can notice and focus on that might be against the general downward trend. For example, the British people voting for us to leave the European Union.

This was a victory that should logically have been unthinkable. The Establishment allowing an In-Out referendum. Yet it happened and our people revolted. At one time, large numbers of British citizens believed that Communism was right. There are not many today who would argue that. At one time, Sigmund Freud was hailed as the greatest thinker in psychology. Today he is largely discredited. Couldn’t that happen with the ideas of Franz Boas, the Jewish charlatan who told the West that “there is no such thing as race”?

Optimism comes from within

If we recognise that optimistic people are more likely to win than pessimistic people, and we need to stay optimistic, then where does optimism actually come from? It comes from within. No matter what is happening, the best of us can look within and summon up courage and belief that one day, the tide will turn in our favour. This is not about logic – it is a powerful belief summoned from within. It transcends logic – it is far more powerful.

Secondly, we need to be aware of what we give our attention to. What we focus on. If we only ever focus on what is wrong with the country and the world, and the nationalist movement, then we will become depressed. Perhaps that is what happens with some right-wing Tories. They are focussed on what is wrong with the country, without being able to see a solution. They are simply reacting – they are reactionaries.

Optimism and Nationalism need an ideology

But British Nationalists should believe in an ideology that exists independently of day-to-day events, and independently of what other political groups believe.

If our focus is on what we do want, rather than what we do not want, then our morale might be higher. There is a school of thought that suggests that people always get more of what they are focussed on – whether or not the object their focus is desirable or the very opposite. If you are focussed on all that is wrong, rather than the nationalist vision of Britain, then you are unwittingly attracting more of the bad stuff!

For many years, I was infuriated by those who seemed to be blindly and irrationally optimistic. I wanted reasons to be optimistic. But it seems that this is not how optimism works. It is a non-rational, but powerfully attractive force.

Thirdly, we should recognise that it is hard to hit a target if you do not know what the target is. We need to know what it is that we want – what we are trying to achieve.

Optimism and the Nationalist ideology

British Nationalists should know our ideology. We should be able to picture an all-White Britain. We should be able to visualise a Britain that is independent and powerful. One with strong military defences. A country where British families can prosper and thrive.

We should be able to recognise the situation as it is now. We should know why we reject that. But we ought to mostly be focussed on the vision that we do want. Then we are more likely to draw that vision into reality. Positive, upbeat people, who know what they want and where they are going are much more attractive to other people. A confident political movement with vision will attract more followers and eventually become a mass movement.

We need a leader with an unshakeable belief that he is right. One who can see the future. Then we can all get behind him and fervently believe in the vision too!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright


Matthew Goodwin: friend or foe of British Nationalism?

Will Wright
Matthew Goodwin
Matthew Goodwin (image from Creative Commons)

Matthew Goodwin is not a British Nationalist. He is Professor of Politics at Kent University. He is well in with the likes of Penguin/Pelican Books and the BBC.

He is a respectable figure and he wants to stay that way. Occasionally, he is one of four guests on the BBC2 lunchtime programme, Politics Live, where I learned of his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics.

The hostess there is Jo Coburn, an active member of the Ealing Liberal Synagogue. She is married to Mark Flanagan, former head of strategic communications for both the Labour government and the following Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Coburn’s guests frequently include another Jew of some variety.

I do not know whether Coburn personally chooses her guests, or whether that is done for her from either above or below. But we can tell the kind of company that Matthew Goodwin keeps.

Matthew Goodwin – treading carefully?

As an academic, Goodwin has to demonstrate a certain amount of objectivity, although a host of Marxist sociology lecturers etc seem to get by quite nicely without doing that. Just as the BBC is obliged by its charter to be politically impartial. Martin Webster and Philip Gegan have shot down that myth, on the Anglo-Celtic website. Anglo-Celtic is campaigning to abolish the BBC.

Matthew Goodwin has co-authored a number of books where British Nationalism is either implied to be, or openly stated to be, “fascist” or “far right”. But Nationalism seems to be a major interest of Goodwin’s. I do not know what first attracted him to his subject.

But as he developed his interest, he also developed an understanding, and an empathy with some modern nationalist ideological positions. He might have developed a sympathy with moderate nationalist positions. But, as he is based at a politically correct university, he dares not say so openly, if in fact that is the case. Many have been driven out of universities for not taking the right line.

In 2018, Goodwin co-wrote with Roger Eatwell, National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. They concentrated on ‘national’ populism, rather than populism in general. In that book they wrote:

“One point that has recurred throughout is that people who support national populism are not merely protesting: they are choosing to endorse views that appeal to them. So we need to look more closely at the promises being made by these politicians and examine whether, contrary to the popular claim that it is a new form of fascism, national populism strives towards a new form of democracy in which the interests and voices of ordinary people feature far more prominently.”

I enjoyed that book and even wrote a letter to the Hull Daily Mail about it – see the published text below.

Matthew Goodwin’s new book

The back cover of Values, Voice and Virtue states:

“What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes?

“British politics is coming apart. A country once known for its stability has recently experienced a series of shocking upheavals. Matthew Goodwin, acclaimed political scientist and co-author of National Populism, shows that the reason is not economic hardship, personalities or dark money. It is a far wider political realignment that will be with us for years to come. An increasingly liberalised, globalized ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. Now, this new alliance of voters is set to determine Britain’s fate.”

In chapters one and two, Goodwin discusses the new political elite and how it accomplished a revolution. He writes in chapter two:

“It opened the economy to a new and very disruptive model of hyper-globalization. It opened the country’s borders to a new and unprecedented era of mass immigration. And it opened up and hollowed out its national democracy, handing much greater power, influence and control to supranational institutions.”

Nowhere in the book is there any mention of the Jewish role in all of this. Some time ago, I wrote to Matthew Goodwin and asked him if he was aware of the books by Kevin MacDonald. I did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of my letter.

But I am reminded of Ruling the Void – The Hollowing of Western Democracy, by the Irish academic, Peter Mair, and Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s commentary on United States society. Edward Dutton has things to say about some of this in his co-authored book, The Past is a Future Country.

The truly brilliant Kevin MacDonald has much to say in his fourth book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, in the last two chapters, eight and nine. This includes comments on another book, by Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, a book describing how Westerners (read White people) do not look after their own, like other peoples in the Third World do, and the way this situation developed.

I think that there is hope for some Establishment academics. Remember, even Kevin MacDonald started out as a leftist, and later became a Reagan-supporting conservative. Only later did he become a racial nationalist.

All of these books, including the two mentioned of Goodwin’s books, are worth reading. Because British Nationalists should be well-read and well-informed.

There is some evidence that Establishment academics, in Britain and America, and elsewhere, are aware of the political situation, and are currently cautiously commenting on it. Of course, most of them will not mention the Jews. MacDonald is the honourable exception.

A revolutionary situation developing

Some intelligent people know that there is a potentially revolutionary situation developing. The Establishment is trying hard to crush all Nationalist thinking. I have little doubt that people like Charles Murray in the United States, and Matthew Goodwin in the UK, would furiously deny having any sympathy with racial nationalism (at this stage, probably honestly). But they are noticing things that we know about.

All political revolutions start off as an Idea, and then develop slowly at first. Later, when they have gained momentum and more public support, there are always some among the old Establishment who come over to the new regime. Some of those people are braver than others. Some want to see which way the political winds are blowing before they will jump ship. Some are cynical and self-serving, but want to be well in with the new rulers – and they can be used by the new regime.

But I almost think that it is a pre-condition of the success of all revolutions that they win some  sympathisers among the old order that they want to replace. Are we seeing the first tentative signs of that with people like Goodwin and Murray?

If we do not make significant progress, such types will turn their professional interest elsewhere and play down their previous comments.

But a revolutionary situation demands a revolution. Goodwin’s book has five chapters. The first two are, The Rise of the New Elite, and Revolution, by which he means Cultural Marxism’s revolution. He does not call it that, but chooses “Hyper Liberalism” instead. In this he echoes the Tory writer, Nick Timothy, in his book, Remaking One Nation – The Future of Conservatism. Timothy refers to “Ultra Liberalism”.

Chapters three, four and five are about how the political elite are out of touch with the public. He devotes these chapters to the “Values, Voice and Virtue” of his title to the book. But interestingly, the conclusion to the book is called “Counter Revolution”.

Is he advocating that, or warning against it? Read the book and form your own opinion! I hope to comment again on this book, in a future post.


Published in the Hull Daily Mail, on Friday November 30, 2018, as:

Local politicians could learn a lot from this book

Recently, I read ‘National Populism, the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy’ by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Although this book is by a couple of academics, it is an easy read and a good buy at £9.99 from Pelican books. Published on 25th October, 2018 it is right up to date and in my opinion, a must read for anyone who is interested in contemporary politics.

But more than that, I think some of our local politicians could benefit from reading it. Colin Inglis and David Nolan might find it useful in understanding why they were on the losing side in the EU referendum. But they are not the only ones.

Stephen Brady, who thought that immigration had been good for Hull, might see things from a different perspective once he has read this book. Regular Mail contributor, Michael Somerton, might realise that not everyone thinks in purely economic terms. Middle class feminists might gain insight into why America rejected Hilary Clinton and embraced Donald Trump.

Most of all I hope lots of Mail readers rush out to buy this book. The writers devote a chapter to each of the four ‘D’s:

  • The distrust of the political class.
  • The threatened destruction of nation states and indigenous populations by super-states and mass immigration.
  • The relative deprivation of ordinary people compared to the global, jet-setting super-class.
  • The de-alignment of the old political parties with their traditional voters.

Trump, Brexit and the rise of continental nationalist movements – the new force is populist nationalism.

The writers explain that this is different to fascism. This nationalism threatens the future of ‘centre-right’ parties and ‘centre-left’ parties.

According to the authors, the right’s only answer is to steal nationalist policies. The left hasn’t found an answer and faces terminal decline. The left cannot please both politically correct, middle class liberals and immigrants on the one hand – and their traditional working-class supporters on the other.

Much of Labour’s new recruits are in London, rather than that party’s traditional northern heartlands.

This is a very timely message, let’s see it in a few Christmas stockings!

This entire post (apart from the image of Professor Goodwin) is copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. Extracts or the entire post may be re-posted provided acknowledgement is given to the author and a link supplied back to this post.


Harry and Meghan – An organised assault on the British Monarchy

Philip Gegan
Picture courtesy ofCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence.

Harry and Meghan. It was bound to end in tears. Not so much for them, perhaps (though that remains to be seen), but for the rest of us.

Just their names seem to ring out a note of warning to all British people. With the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, both he and Meghan have placed themselves in the vanguard of a concerted attack on, not just the Monarchy, but the very foundations of the nation state of Great Britain.

Harry and Meghan (1)

From the outset Meghan Markle had no intention of sharing in Harry’s Royal duties or contributing positively to the monarchy. In the early days her toothy smiles and dark eyes hid her malevolent intentions. In more recent times both her and Harry have dropped any pretence of wanting to be a positive part of the Royal Family.

I’m not going to cover the history of how Harry met Meghan, married her, came to be her puppet, rowed with his family over her and her mechinations, and became isolated in his luxury home in Hollywood. We’ve all read about that to saturation.

By playing the “victim” in the whole story, Harry hoped to gather public sympathy and place his antagonists in the Royal Family on the wrong foot. He has achieved precisely the opposite. The public support he has enjoyed since his mother’s untimely death, and especially since his engagement to Meghan, has all but evaporated.

His much-hyped book, with its accusatory title and photo of Harry looking suitably wronged and angry, will no doubt be on the pulp pile before long, being sold off at 99 pence to free up some storage space.

The fact is that Meghan’s influence on Harry and on the events that subsequently engulfed the Royal Family was malign in the extreme.

Harry and Meghan (2)

The current crisis in the Royal Family can be said to have started in January 2020, when Harry and Meghan announced that they were “standing down” from most of their Royal duties in order to divide their time between the UK and North America. They did this by posting on Instagram, as you would. After all, why bother telling the Queen first?

The Guerilla War against the Royal Family

It wasn’t long before they were bidding the UK goodbye and moving their home to across the Atlantic. Not just to the other side, either, but way out west. First Vancouver, and later Los Angeles, where Meghan wasted no time in re-establishing links with all the good folks she knew in Hollywood before she met Harry.

This latter move came as a surprise to many people, who recall Meghan’s vow not to return to the US to live as long as Donald Trump remained President (as he was, still, at that time). But she was not alone, as dozens of other Hollywood celebs had made a similar vow after the 2016 presidential election, and yet continued to live in the US afterwards.

Meghan’s hostility towards President Trump and friendship with the likes of Barack Obama were just the outward manifestation of what she really is, which is a Cultural Marxist. As such, she is irrevocably opposed to the institution of Monarchy, wherever it may be.

This explains nearly all of what has happened since she met Harry and realised he was a weak character whom she could easily control. She has since done so ruthlessly and in a way that is calculated to cause the maximum damage.

Since their move to the US, Harry and Meghan have been engaged in a kind of guerilla war with the Royal Family. They complain at every opportunity that their privacy is being breached. Yet they choose to live a lifestyle that has them constantly at the centre of public attention.

They appear frequently before the cameras, doing interviews and appearing on celebrity TV shows like Oprah Winfrey. They produced and starred in their own documentary series on Netflix.

Now we have the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, containing accusations against people who are not only part of our Monarchy, but in many cases Harry’s own flesh and blood. The way in which he has betrayed his brother, William, is particularly unpleasant. Harry has now accused both his brother and his father of actual assault – an extremely serious accusation.

I won’t go into further detail of all the allegations as that’s not the point of this post, but it is clear that the breach between Harry and Meghan on the one hand and the Royal Family on the other is probably final.

Comparisons with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson

The behaviour of Harry and Meghan has invited comparisons with that of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. Both Harry and Edward VIII are/were weak individuals who married an older, more dominant and probably more intelligent, manipulative woman. Both Meghan and Mrs Simpson are/were Americans (Meghan is Canadian by birth but has chosen to live most of her life in the U.S.) and both were married before.

Mrs Simpson was married and divorced twice before she met Edward VIII. Meghan was previously married to an American Jew, Trevor Engelson, for two years. The extent of her lack of commitment is illustrated by the fact that, in order to marry Engelson she had to “convert” to Judaism, with all the rigmarole that entailed. Then, on leaving him, just two years later, she dropped Judaism just as easily as she had adopted it.

Mrs Simpson had no real career, other than marrying and dominating rich and influential men, it seems. Meghan had a modestly successful career in acting, though it is uncertain if she will act again. Both women are/were good at finding ways of making money, mostly involving their marriage to members or ex-members of the British Royal Family.

Yes, there’s money to be made by marrying a Royal. That is, if you’re prepared to stoop low enough. To their great credit, all commoners who have married into the Royal Family since the end of the Second World War have resisted the temptation to try and cash in on it. All commoners, that is, except Meghan.

Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson ended up isolated and living abroad. Harry and Meghan, also, are now rapidly becoming isolated, as well as living abroad. Even Barack Obama, who had been one of their most well-known supporters, snubbed them by not inviting them to his 60th birthday party a year or two ago.

But at least Edward VIII (when he was effectively banished and known as the Duke of Windsor) never attempted to cash in on his former Royal status or write a book “exposing” members of the Royal Family.

Now we have Harry revealing things that most people don’t want to know, and, worse, that can cause tremendous problems for the people he has left behind. The foolish revelation that he “killed 25 Taliban” whilst serving in Afghanistan has breached several protocols, and opened himself, his immediate family, and the Royal Family themselves to possible revenge attacks.

And the admission that he has taken illegal drugs on a regular basis has done nothing to help the fight against drugs and the degradation and death of White British youth who resort to them.

Harry and Meghan – Not all about money

Many commentators are saying in light of the latest developments in the Harry and Meghan saga that it’s all about money. The dramatic split between Harry and Prince William, the frequent “showdowns” between the two, and between Harry and his father. More showdowns between Harry and the Queen Consort, and Harry and Princess Catherine, and even Harry and the late Queen, have all helped to generate publicity enough to start the gravy train rolling.

But, ominously, when Harry met Meghan it wasn’t all about money.

Let’s take a look at where our nation is today. Our power and influence in the world is at rock bottom. Our economy is a shadow of what it once was, being propped up by a fiat currency that’s living on borrowed time. The lock downs of 2020 to 2022 have left a lasting, toxic legacy of bankruptcies, suicides of young people, fear and confusion. And that’s not just us. It applies to most of the rest of the western world.

But at least we in Great Britain have one thing that hardly any other country, outside the British Commonwealth, has. We have a monarchy. A Monarch who dedicates his or her life to representing the nation at home and throughout the world. A king or queen who has tremendous power, but who actually has very little power, thanks to the ability of our ancestors in coming up with a brilliant and unique solution to the problem that plagued them.

All powers in this country derive from the sovereign. All public office holders take an oath of allegiance to the king. When King Charles III is crowned at the forthcoming coronation, all the peers of the realm will take an oath of allegiance to him as King. The King personifies the nation. It is not the powers that he has that are important, but the powers that he withholds from other people.

He unifies the nation. He is the head of the Church of England, the chief lawmaker as the King in Parliament, and the chief law enforcer, above every Chief Constable in the country. He is the head of all branches of the armed services, and all courts in the land act under his authority.

Of course he delegates nearly all of these duties to the appropriate officers, who (in theory, at least) have specialist knowledge and experience in their field. But it is the King who represents and embodies this country, through his Prime Minister and other members of the government, at home, and through his ambassadors and diplomats abroad.

The important point is that he has the power to dismiss any of these officers if circumstances require. He takes ultimate responsibility and can himself, where necessary, be brought to account, as happened with King John (Magna Carta, 1215) and King Charles I in the mid seventeenth century.

Harry and Meghan vs our Constitutional Monarchy

This system of constitutional monarchy has evolved over several centuries. It took wars and battles, including the Civil War, to ensure its triumph. It is unique to us. It is precious. Those who decry the monarchy do so from a standpoint of ignorance. Because it is not the personages who comprise the monarchy at any given time that are important. It is the concept, the whole system of government, that is uniquely attuned to the British psyche.

We have a monarch with almost absolute power, in theory, but who seldom, if ever, has to use it. Thereby persons of evil intent who would impose an unpopular, authoritarian government upon us, are frustrated. Law abiding citizens can invariably breathe more easily on account of this institution. But in return for this absolute power, the Monarch has to forego most of his personal life.

Would those who agitate against the Monarchy be prepared to assume such awesome and fearful responsibilities for their whole lives? To forfeit much of their privacy, that most ordinary citizens take for granted?

To have their every move, potentially, photographed and videoed? And their every decision and, indeed, everything that they may feel obliged to be involved in, discussed and analysed by commentators in the media and on social media? And, of course, by the public at large in every inn and tavern in the land?

And to behave with dignity and restraint, whatever the provocation may be, and however unfair and unjustified any criticism may be?

Whatever wealth the Monarch may have or receive from the Civil List, it is doubtful that any amount of it would be sufficient to compensate him for the way of life he is obliged to follow, or his sacrifice of the things the rest of us enjoy without question.

Yes, we are a lucky nation, in this respect at least. But, as racial nationalists know, there are malevolent, evil powers in the world, becoming more powerful every day. They look upon us and our nation as an irritant, as something that is in the way of their grand scheme of destroying civilization in all civilised countries. They want to make us like every other country, before abolishing all nations completely.

With a monarchy ostensibly ruling our nation, that task is all the more difficult. They want our Monarchy out of the way. It is one of the very few things that could, even now, frustrate their plans to reduce human existence to that of digitised slaves serving a very small number of tyrants – a worldwide gulag from which there can be no escape. Big Brother will always be watching.

The abolition of monarchies in nearly all other countries of the world, sometimes in a most bloodthirsty manner, has made their work easier. Have these countries enjoyed more freedom and greater power and influence in the world through losing their Kings and Queens, their Princes and Princesses, their Dukes and Earls, their Emperors and Empresses, their Lords and Ladies?

No, they have not. They have, instead, become all the same. Cosmopolitan. They’ve lost their individuality. And they are less capable of standing up to the malign machinations of the international money power. This power, largely through its current manifestation of the World Economic Forum, has a particularly grisly vision of what the future will be like for everyone else. More on that in another post.

Harry and Meghan – Pawns in the Game

This is what the Harry and Meghan affair is really all about. They are the pawns in the game. Their string pullers smile grimly as they watch the pair trying to get their own back on the British Monarchy for perceived wrongs and making as much money as they possibly can in the process. They have made themselves part of the plan to enslave the British people.

By rocking the Monarchy with allegations of assault and other victimisation, and portraying leading members of it in a cruel, distorted light, Harry and Meghan are doing their best to destroy it. And the Monarchy is one of the few things left that stands between us and the dystopian future the likes of the World Economic Forum, the international money power, and all their grey-suited apparatchiks have in mind for us.

So let us all forget Harry and Meghan. They can do what they like now that they live abroad and have effectively resigned from the Royal Family. It will be refreshing not to hear any more of their bleating, virtue-signalling and self-pity. We have other, more important, things to think about. Such as raising public awareness of the dangers that our nation (and nearly all other nations of the world) face in these dangerous times. Goodbye, Harry and Meghan, and good riddance.