Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:02 | #

This glaring reality was noted and celebrated by the dozen or so expat Brits I partied with last night in Southern California.

Posted by Istvan on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:27 | #

A monarch or Royal Family in a democracy functions as a symbol of cultural unity and tradition, something everyone, in theory, can celebrate with in good times and rally behind in bad.  Think Japan or even communist Cambodia.  As the UK becomes ever more a third-world cess pool the Windsors become more and more irrelevant.  The Queen is a living link to Great Britain’s glorious past.  Soon the republicans will get their wish, unfortunately it will be an Islamic Republic that sends the Windsors into exile.

If the Queen actually had some real constitutional veto power over some of the horrors the elected politicians have bestowed on the UK I wonder, would she have said no to the third world invasion?  And if she did would the public back her or the nutty PC MPs?  We’ll never know.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:20 | #

I don’t know what the American coverage was like, but I watched BBC and it was very noticeable how often, inside the Cathedral, the editor began a new camera scan of the choir or some part of the congregation on a non-white face - of whom there were few.  The trio of fashion designers wheeled in to the studio to squeak away about the dresses and hats included a negress.  We must, you see, believe that negroes are a normal part of our English lives.  Well, London probably has a million to one-and-half million of them and they evidently felt no part of national life this day.  Good to know that the subtle and enduring connection of the Brits to their monarchy was lost on them.

Otherwise, I thought the wedding itself was a triumph of the qualities of the English middle-class.  The three Middleton offspring played their parts perfectly.  The brother James had the appalling task of reading the lesson in front of a couple of billion people and pulled it off with a stage actor’s aplomb.  I haven’t seen a single mention of that feat in the newspapers.  OK, it was a wedding, and it’s how the girls looked that matters (they looked pretty good).

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:04 | #

God save the Queen!

(But this American missed the whole thing. No regrets.)

Posted by Foundation on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:24 | #

Selous Scout:

‘This glaring reality was noted and celebrated by the dozen or so expat Brits I partied with last night in Southern California.’

This phenomenon, a sort of pale faced democracy, will contort the Left for months. The brutal truth is the race replacers (1948-2011) are here for the cash. The cultural Marxists have eyes but as my Gran used to say “there’re none so blind as them that cannot see”.

Istvan:

’.. unfortunately it will be an Islamic Republic that sends the Windsors into exile.’

In Her 2009 Christmas Day broadcast the Queen said: “the future face of Britain is the face of the Commonwealth.. ” - was this a coded warning, or did she surrender our homeland right there?

Guessedworker:

’.. London probably has a million to one-and-half million of them.. ‘

The Englisc have no capital,  we’ll move to Winchester and let Sodom fall.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:09 | #

Foundation: In Her 2009 Christmas Day broadcast the Queen said: “the future face of Britain is the face of the Commonwealth.. “ - was this a coded warning, or did she surrender our homeland right there?

If that was the case it was pretty coded, then:

In many aspects of our lives, whether in sport, the environment, business or culture, the Commonwealth connection remains vivid and enriching. It is, in lots of ways, the face of the future. And with continuing support and dedication, I am confident that this diverse Commonwealth of nations can strengthen the common bond that transcends politics, religion, race and economic circumstances.

http://www.sim64.co.uk/queens-christmas-speech-2009.html

Posted by Jawake on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:51 | #

Actually, if you zoom in, there are a hell of a lot of Chinese and other Asians in the crowd. There are a lot of Indians as well.

Posted by Jawake on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:03 | #

Yep. Did another very close up analysis. It is very hard to find one solid patch of people that is completely white. Many, many Chinese and many, many Indians. Now, the Chinese could be tourists…

Posted by Josey Montana on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:21 | #

I realize protocol dictates most details, but I could not help but notice the thoughtful traditions maintained by the newlyweds, traditions that easily could have been neglected had they wished.

Appertaining the Matrimonial liturgy: Yes, it is “Rite 1” from the ASB, a pale imitation of the Prayer Book’s incomparable liturgy.  And yes, Middleton refused to “obey” which is a true Christian shame.  Yet it is still blatantly traditional and in the post-Anglican Anglican Communion almost a slap-in-the-face to Communion hierarchy.

Put another way, Middleton would have been loudly applauded had she used CW’s language, or invented their own pseudo-service.  Given Elizabeth’s acquiescence to the ABC and Charles’ indifference to Christianity (“I will be protector of Faith”), it is almost a counter-revolutionary act to use even the milquetoast Rite 1 variant.

The nuptials are, after all, members of the Slacker Generation and no one would have blinked an eye had they not bothered to marry at all.

Further, the hymnody, anthem and processionals were remarkably English . Mealor’s “Ubi caritas et amor” is not only hauntingly beautiful, it is contrary to squishy Judeo-Christianity as it quotes John and speaks of “fear of the Lord”.  And sung by a choir of male voices!

“Jerusalem” is tantamount to ThoughtCrime and yet everyone in the cathedral seemed to sing the words from memory.  I didn’t see a single abstention on the video feed; even apparent colonials sang it. 

William and his brother have been to war; as a SAR pilot Wills has no doubt seen men die.  Middleton seems a typical social-climber more suited for Manhattan than Buckingham Palace but hey, it’s his bed not mine. 

Bottom line, I see glimmers of hope for England per se in this wedding.  After all, given the realities of the Anglosphere and the tatters of the nobility (regnant or republican), a charismatic and self-consciously traditionalist royal couple is the best chance we have for a public reassertion of our Anglo-Saxoness without a very, very, long and uncertain slog.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:40 | #

Jawake,

Would you care to hazard a guess at the percentage of caucasians in that crowd and, if at all possible, the percentage of caucasians in Greater London on any average weekend day?

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 01 May 2011 01:13 | #

I’m one of only a handful of straight American men who greatly appreciated the Royal Wedding. How can such an anomaly be, especially when I am not all that crazy about the British Monarchy?

I’ll tell you how it can be. It’s because of what I saw, in the backdrop, the architecture, the pageant, the participants, the style, the spectators etc etc.

In a word, I saw a stunning and spectacular and robust display of something that many of us, sadly, know is dying: the white-race and along with it Western Civilization.

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:05 | #

Sorry people but I can’t stand all this Royal wedding nonsense. Really it’s totally irrelevant to the future of white Europeans, a bit like the whole Diana farrago, it was something of interest to gays, silly women and other assorted oddballs (unfortunately a worringly large slice of the population).

And before anyone says I’m dissing whites - well I think this site should be in the business of ruthless honesty - many of those watching the pseudo-events of Friday would be the core of the moronic whites in the UK that would have trouble breathing without an open mouth, let alone being able to grasp what a gene is or know who Carl Schmitt was.

No wonder the elites have so little trouble managing the population with their pathetic paper-thin propaganda. “Diversity is strength” repeat ad nauseum.

Posted by PM on Sun, 01 May 2011 13:07 | #

This was Diane Abbot’s comment in the Guardian—

“I am a staunch republican, but I was up at 8am in front of the telly, still in my nightie but wearing a plastic tiara. I wearied of the unctuous commentary, but the telly pictures were fascinating, with a strikingly global and multicultural crowd lining the route.

I saw one too many staged scenes of sections of the crowd waving dementedly into TV cameras to help out presenters desperate to fill time. Back in TV studios, there was endless pointless speculation about “the dress” as if it was a religious icon that had yet to be revealed to believers.

And you wondered if the ecstatic response of the crowds to glimpses of the royal family sweeping past was really about the magic of royalty or whether it was a response to their undoubted celebrity. But I was charmed by the south Asian TV presenter outside the Goring hotel (where the Middleton family had pitched camp). Babbling away blissfully, she declared the sheer numbers of Middleton family members in attendance reminded her of the numbers of family members you see at a typical Indian wedding. Globalised media make the British royal family everyone’s property.”

So, having said that she doesn’t agree with the monarchy she nevertheless stakes a claim to it along with the rest of the world on the flimsy basis that there were media from all over the world covering the event. What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine—even the stuff I think is ridiculous and would like to get rid of. Can’t have whites having anything to themselves now, can we?

Dr Graham Lister—I think you are wrong to be so dismissive of the Royal Wedding. It may be irrelevent to the future of white Europeans elsewhere, but it is certainly not irrelevant to the future of the British, particularly to the English. Whether you like it or not the health of our nation can be measured by people’s attachment to this thoroughly white, historic institution. And the fact that this attachment is for most English people organic, natural and voluntary does have significance from an ethnic/racial point of view. Diane Abbot clearly understands this, which is why she stakes her claim to the royal family on behalf of global non-whites. But it is significant and encouraging that even the neanderthal-looking Ms Abbot can only claim her stake in the royal family on the basis of global coverage, and not on the seemingly more obvious basis that there are many non-whites in Britain who are ‘just as British’ as the crowds at the royal wedding.

This suggests to me that the issue of the monarchy is a little more thorny for non-whites in Britain than, say, parliament or the sporting institutions. Diane Abbot probably hates both the whiteness of the institution and the actual family. She probably hates the fact that this institution gives continuity back to a time before 1948, which she would regard as year-zero for British culture, the point beyond which we should not be thinking due to its lack of non-whites. But it is obviously much harder to critisize the whiteness of the royal family than it is to critisize the whiteness of parliament, precisely because it is a family. More blacks can be voted into parliament, but how can she force William to marry a woman who looks like her? Do ‘British’ blacks really feel represented by the royal family, and if not, what can they do or say about it? They can demand the ‘right’ to have more representatives in parliament or the police, but how can they demand a ‘right’ to more representation in the royal family?

In short, it’s white, and it’s popular, it implicitly excludes blacks, and is an enduring reminder to a time before they came and to the fact that we can exist without them—and there is no way that blacks can openly complain about any of this or attempt to change it without making themselves widely hated. What’s not to like?

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 15:34 | #

Royal wedding television audience hit 24m peak in UK - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/30/royal-wedding-television-audience.

Frankly a great deal of mass culture is ghastly, including events such as Royal weddings, (the TV viewing figures prove this was a mass ‘cultural’ event).

So apparently according to ‘PM’ - “Whether you like it or not the health of our nation can be measured by people’s attachment to this thoroughly white, historic institution”

Really are you insane PM? If we use the TV figures as a proxy for people attachment/interest then a very large slice of the UK are attached to the monarchy. Personally I can’t stand the chinless wonders. (Is Prince Charles someone anyone would or should admire?)

But let’s explore this hypothesis of ‘PM’. Is the UK really in a robust state of health culturally, politically or in any other way? But hey according to PM everything is really good, despite all the possible evidence otherwise. Why? Well as the plebs are watching the Royal wedding, hence are attached to the monarchy, and as the Royals are all whites then everything is great. Good grief is that the depth of your analytical abilities?

If these inbreed dregs of the aristocracy are the ‘only’ thing for whites to hold on to we are doomed. Personally I way little time for the middlebrow petit-bourgeoisie flag-wavers that read the Express or Mail, but I do love the high artistic, cultural and scientific achievement of we Europeans.

I wish to preserve that legacy and those cultural good we wish to pass on to the future generations emerged from specific and highly homogenous populations. Culture is a product of biology. Even today if one wishes to look at the empirical evidence a highly homogenous population is the basis, along with correct public policy, for some of the most prosperous, safe and secure societies in history (think Norway, Japan) as opposed to the ‘joys’ of Brazil or the ‘new’ South Africa.

I’d much rather focus upon serious issues - Royal weddings do not qualify.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 May 2011 17:32 | #

I make no apology for pasting my post here from the British Nationalism on St. George’s Day thread on April 26, 2011, 03:59 PM.  It is relevant here.

The people’s Royal Wedding.

Since the announcement of this weeks royal wedding, I have been watching the media with more than usual interest.

There seems to be a genuine air of disquiet among the ruling establishment ranging from outright concern to eyebrow raising puzzlement of how the British public are responding to this weeks royal wedding.

According to Frank Furedi of Spiked Magazine, such a celebratory occasion is an opportunity to gauge the mood of the nation, a sort of instant feedback of the feelgood factor of the nation’s pulse.

The perceived air of puzzlement by the nation’s elite is triggered by the question why the people are so unsure (indifferent?) of how they should respond to such a momentous British occasion?

From where does this confusion of response by the varying strata’s of the British public to this flag waving event come from?

The turned up volume by the establishment in recent years of anti English white sentiment in the form of hatred of Britain’s past, of denigrating British tradition, patriotism, racism, slavery, non inclusiveness and the whole gamut of years of in your face multiculturalism - has taken its toll.

The public are genuinely confused, they are disorientated, they be damned if they do or damned if they don’t?  Liberal unintended consequences strike again.

I have noticed for some time (and posted here) how our elites use nationalism to suit their own purpose.  If the herd proclaim their nationalism in what is considered (by the media) as supremacy then the plebs are jumped on and branded as racist.  However, if the herd do not display the correct zeal for a tub thumping traditional flag waving royal occasion, then they are viewed with suspicion and raised elite eyebrow.  Why are they (English) responding in this way - enquire the bewildered establishment?

These double standards are brought into play without a second thought by our betters.

Looks like the people notice after all - at least intuitively.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10454/

The scaffolding has come down, the media paraphernalia packed away, only the distant bark can be heard.  The establishment think it’s all over, three days later the backslapping and congratulations still persist.  The tabloids and broadsheets are still wall to wall Royal Wedding with William’s mouth forever planted on his bride’s lips.

“We did it!  Whatever were we thinking about”?  “Piece of cake, like taking candy from a babies mouth.”

And so it was.  You have to hand it to them, they’re past masters at this game.  Game set and match to the BBC.  I didn’t watch much of it, only the major news at ten o’clock.  What I saw impressed me, you’ve got to hand it to them, they’re good, damn good.

So all is well with Merry Ol’ England, move along, move along, shows over, we can now all sleep soundly in our beds.

On the snippets of the wedding I saw, the non white face was drowned in a sea of white, mainly white females to boot.  In fact I thought the women outnumbered the men by quite a margin.  Still, it’s difficult to gauge.

The chattering media darlings, among the crowd with microphone thrust, were embarrassing in their patronising of Grannie and Grandad.  “What did you think of the Lancaster Bomber that bombed the crap out of Germany?

The BBC’s double standards, the wheeling out of the backroom architects, the sycophants, the self congratulations were all on open display.

How does the song go?  ‘We won’t Get Fooled Again.’ 

Posted by Lee John Barnes on April 26, British Nationalism on St. Georges Day.2011, 06:20 PM |

The royal wedding flag waving is not about nationalism, but patriotism and flag waving.

Does this mean the flag wavers don’t care about being English?

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 17:59 | #

As I mentioned earlier the majority of people that get caught up in this celebrity pish (and the Royals are part of the celebrity world) are daft women, gays and assorted sadsacks.

Posted by PM on Sun, 01 May 2011 18:22 | #

Dr Lister—

the fact that so many people watched the royal wedding is not a sign of health, but maybe a sign that there is at least a pulse, a faint recognition that they belong to a people, that there is a shared, national existence of which they are a part, however tenuous that recognition may be. If these ‘plebs’ watched the wedding then surely it is because they want to be a part of something that stretches further than their own existence. Why would you hate them for this? Pride in your genes is still a little abstract for most people. A royal family can be a way of making this idea flesh for people who are less cerebral than yourself. The fact that monarchy derives its sense of continuity through the passing on of genes in a family flies in the face of everything modern Britons are told they should believe about nationhood, and life. How can it be in modern Britain that people sense that the Queen offers a direct link to past ages by virtue of the fact that she inherited her genes from previous royal dynasties? Surely the plebs should have moved away from such mediaeval thinking long ago, and should be clamouring for a charasmatic, meritocratic, pretty-straight-sort-of-president who can make us feel good about ourselves by preaching tolerance and respect? Yet there is no clamouring, because people respond to the simple truth and importance of genetic lineage on a level that they are not even aware of.

I noticed that the attempts by Islamic extremists to burn effegies of William and Kate and protest along the route were thwarted by the authorities. Why would this be, when Muslims were even allowed to burn poppies on Rembrance Day? I would say it is because an attack on the royal family is probably the last remaining part of our culture or identity (sadly) where an attack by foreigners would be seen by the ‘plebs’ as an attack on them, and there would possibly be a visceral and angry response.

I agree with you that they are a pretty hopeless bunch, I am not an avid royal watcher myself. But what we (or at least I) am looking for here are signs of life in an otherwise moribund nation.

For what it’s worth, I think the death of the present Queen has the potential to be a moment of profound historic significance and soul-searching for the English.

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 19:29 | #

PM fair enough and many people did enjoy the event. I was in my garden enjoying the sunshine all day, but I don’t think the wedding represents any sort of substantive event in politico-cultural terms.

And don’t forget treating member of the Commonwealth as “British” subjects is part of how we got to where we are.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Sun, 01 May 2011 21:54 | #

I’ve said before that issues such as mass immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness can only be seen in the context of what the true rulers of this world call their New World Order. I’ve also tried to show that this is more an occult spiritual enterprise than anything else. The Royals are somewhere near the top of the New World Order pyramidical control structure because they themselves are either at the top (or near it) of the European Black nobility for who’s interests this agenda serves. This family of Danish, Greek and German ancestry serves a bloodline but it’s not that of the English and never was. We are their subjects (slaves) and always were.

In many ways what we are facing now is merely another attempt by the occult elite to create a Tower of Babel. This would have seen all serve Nimrod the Sun God/King. Prince William was born (induced) on June 21st the Summer solstice. He may yet turn out to be the Sun King we are all meant to worship in this modern day version of the Tower of Babel.

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 22:42 | #

Harry I think you must have not taken your pills before posting.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:05 | #

Dr_Graham_Lister on May 01, 2011, 02:34 PM

I’d much rather focus upon serious issues

And they are….

Posted by Revolution Harry on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:20 | #

I don’t need them thanks Dr. The last bit about Prince William was a bit of speculation but all the rest is well evidenced should you care to do the research.

Posted by Dr_Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:40 | #

Bill

I don’t know perhaps understanding the ideological roots of the attack upon Europeans; the shaping of that agenda by organised Jewry and so on for starters, but by all means swoon over the dress etc., cause that’s a crucial subject right.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 02 May 2011 00:13 | #

I don’t know perhaps understanding the ideological roots of the attack upon Europeans; the shaping of that agenda by organised Jewry…

Good idea.

Posted by Anders on Mon, 02 May 2011 03:43 | #

How long can it be before Dave complains about the lack of negroes in the Royal Family and demands quotas?

There’s an interesting video here which shows how the area of London where Kate Middleton’s mother grew has been completely colonised by Pakis. A Punjabi lives in her former house.

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonised-by-pakis-area-where-kate.html

Posted by Bill on Mon, 02 May 2011 09:44 | #

Just out of interest spot the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1600RODT-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8k_Bd6wgs4&feature=related

How come?  All in one’s lifetime?

Is it this?

http://followingjesus.org/invitation/postmodern_world.htm

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 May 2011 10:56 | #

Good stuff, Dr. Lister! Though perhaps a bit harsh. The wedding is only partly a symptom of celebrity obsession. It also represents a genuine moment for the British to wave their flags, and feel good about who they are as a people. A weak reed, perhaps, but on the whole something positive.

The real question is why the royals have been so pusillanimous about allowing their ancient fatherland to be invaded by aliens, especially Islamic ones. I’m not British, and my knowledge of the history of that land is really much less than it should be for an educated man, but isn’t the Queen the nominal head of the Church of England, and by extension, the defender of Christianity in the Isles? What would happen if she, or another royal, came out swinging against any continuing accommodations towards domestic Muslims? Would the monarchy be put at risk? Or might it be strengthened as a place for patriots to rally ‘round?

I honestly have no idea what the answer might be, but I’d be interested in hearing from the British themselves.

Posted by Istvan on Wed, 04 May 2011 00:09 | #

Posted by PM on May 01, 2011, 05:22 PM | #

For what it’s worth, I think the death of the present Queen has the potential to be a moment of profound historic significance and soul-searching for the English.

I have often had the same thought myself.  When Queen Elizabeth passes it will open up the flood gates.  Only the most hard-core republicans would suggest getting rid of the monarchy while HM is alive.  The majority of republicans have a certain amount of respect for a woman who has devoted herself to her nation and people for her entire life.  Once she is gone, however, then not only the ordinary British republicans but every racial and religious grievance group will come out of the woodwork.  From Muslims, Pakistanis and blacks to the Scottish and Welsh independence movements and the IRA, the aggrieved will be out in force.  Even now the woman’s libbers are oh so worried about Wills and Kate having a first-born who is a daughter and how awful it would be for her to be passed over by a second-born brother.

Cultural traditions and rituals tie together the generations and give a sense of continuity to a people.  They bond us together.  But at the heart of it all there has to be a commonality that goes even deeper than rituals or a monarch, there has to be sense of family.  And that sense of family requires a genetic bond.  Why do you think adoptees seek out their biological parents?  Blood is the thickest bond of all.

When the Queen dies it is the corpse of the United Kingdom that will be viscously fought over.  It will be ugly and bloody.  The fight over who will “reign” will not end happily for anyone.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 04 May 2011 08:12 | #

One man’s perspective.  Brendan O’Neill Spiked on-line 3.5.2011

Now that the I do’s have been done and the dress has been papped to death, it’s time to put the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton into perspective. Friday’s knees-up in London and other parts of Britain was not, as both right-wing fantasists and bitter republicans would have us believe, evidence that everyday Brits remain in thrall to monarchy. Rather, the Big Day confirmed just how far the monarchy has been hollowed of meaning, and the extent to which it has rather desperately thrown its lot in with one of the few institutions that still has political purchase in Britain today: celebrity culture.

Read full article.  http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10477/