A Very Modern Wedding
by Frederick Dixon
WAS THERE EVER a more modern, a more fashionable, marriage than that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? The bride really does seem to have been designed by a committee of progressive cosmopolitans to show that our stuffy old monarchy has been brought bang up to date. She has everything — American, divorced, an actress, a convert to Judaism — now safely converted back to Anglicanism (just how sincere can such convenient conversions really be?) — and, best of all, mixed race. The committee set up to modernise the monarchy after the death of Diana has done its work well.
Royal marriages are now, as they have always been, political above all else. In the past, when the King married, say, a French princess it was said that England “married” France; in this wedding we see a marriage between the traditional State of throne and altar and the modern State of diversity and equality, and we racial nationalists (who by temperament are usually throne and altar types) find that our place in modern Britain is even more squeezed than we thought it was. What joy for our establishment to rub the noses of traditionalist fuddy duddies and “racists” in diversity!
To add even more colour to the event, the sermon is to be preached by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the American branch of the CofE). He is Black, left-wing and very political. It is said that the bishop’s preaching style is “boisterous and energetic” — meaning Black — so those of you who condescend to watch this pantomime are in for a treat.
So where does that leave we racial nationalists, with our belief that we must maintain our racial identity free from non-European contamination? Needless to say it doesn’t affect us at all; or at least not directly. Indirectly may be a different matter: we lie at one end of a spectrum of patriotic attitudes to which most of our fellow countrymen and women subscribe and in which an element of “racialism” — however closeted — is often present. By this I mean the recognition that a nation is not just a territory, nor a government, nor a state, nor a collection of institutions, but a people bound together and distinguished from all others by a common ancestry and a common history.
The nation, I have said, is not only a collection of institutions. That is our view, but there are others who disagree, who hold that loyalty to the institutions of the British state is all that is required to be British. This “Tory” view, as I think of it, is civic patriotism. The British monarchy is probably the most glamourous, and therefore the most powerful, institution of civic patriotism in the world. Many people can, and do, identify the nation itself with the monarchy — there was a silly little quiz in the Daily Express the other week: “How Patriotic Are You?” and almost all of the questions were about the monarchy (pleased to say I failed and am therefore unpatriotic). The admission into the monarchy of a mixed race person directly counters that sense of the nation as a community of people bound together by common ancestry and common history and thus has the potential to further weaken our already depleted moral defences against race mixing.
To what extent, though, will that potential be realised? I noticed in the news a week or two ago that a suggestion that communities should organise street parties to celebrate the wedding has met with a cool public response, and there will be few, if any, such parties. No doubt, if one or two are held, broadcasters will zoom in on them and present them as typifying a national spirit! Interestingly, a very recent Yougov opinion poll reaffirmed this apparent public coolness — 66% are “not interested” while 60% are planning to have an “ordinary weekend” (perhaps including the really important business on Saturday — watching the Cup Final). I try to avoid reading the usual newspaper guff about the wedding but, as you can tell, I sometimes fail; and I have noticed in the readers comments which accompany these articles that Ms. Markle is not universally popular. Only rarely does a comment on her race make it past the censors, but there are many comments about her general unsuitability to be a royal bride. Are such comments sublimated racialism? — I have no idea, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Anyway, as always at times when yet another chip is knocked off the battered structure of our racial identity, we should remind ourselves why it is so vitally important to protect it. Our racial identity is who we are as individuals, as a people, as a nation — certainly one of the most creative and successful nations ever to grace the Earth. To mix our blood to some extent with that of racially similar people — Europeans — does little harm, and has of course been going on throughout our history; but to mix our blood with racial aliens, with those whose physical, temperamental and intellectual qualities are different, destroys what we have always been. This is no criticism of those racial aliens, they too have racial and national identities which they may wish to protect, but it is most certainly a criticism of those of our own kind who, in their perverse loathing of our traditional identity, have facilitated mass immigration and dismantled our moral defences against race mixing. No tolerance for those who hate our race and nation!
* * *
Source: read the full article at Western Spring