On this day a year ago
Historical views on history and monarchy
Was reading the above article on the Royal Family and UK monarchy by scribbler A.N. Wilson.
Long ago now, I reviewed a book by A.N. Wilson on Amazon UK, where I was about 40th most popular reviewer (out of millions). Later, around 2012, the Jew-Zionist lobby had me barred from reviewing on Amazon UK (and on the separate American site…so much for “free speech” in the occupied USA…). All my reviews were then hidden from the public, and remain so.
One of the reviews effectively lost was the one about a book on British history in the 20th century, by A.N. Wilson. My view had been that his book was a really good read, but at the same time riddled with historical inaccuracies, absurd conclusions, and simple spelling mistakes. This article is similar in some respects.
Look at this:
“…we should not take the durability of the institution for granted.
At the end of World War I, when Russia, Germany, Austria and many other European nations were replacing their monarchs with forms of government in every way more tyrannical and bloody, George V, our king, once quietly remarked: ‘I’m going to have to work hard to keep my job.’
He and his wife, Queen Mary, did indeed work to develop the concept of constitutional monarchy.
Far from endangering parliamentary democracy, it strengthened it. With a monarch as head of state, there is continuity and stability — it is no accident we remained a democracy when countries without kings or emperors ended up with leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco.”
Well, let’s see. “At the end of WW1...” etc: In 1917, the rule of Nikolai II in Russia was replaced by that of the Provisional Government under Prince Lvov and Alexander Kerensky. It was not “tyrannical” or “bloody“, but was chaotic and unable to rule. Indeed, one could argue that the previous years of Nikolai’s rule, at least since the 1905 uprising, had been at times both tyrannical and bloody, especially if the Russian participation in WW1 is placed on the scales.
True, the Bolshevik government, which replaced the Provisional government later in 1917, was certainly bloody and, in the lay sense, tyrannical, and that was so even under Lenin, certainly later yet under Stalin.
Germany after WW1 was not a tyranny. The Weimar Republic was decadent, badly-run, verged on disorder at times, and was quite illiberal towards those who, like Hitler, were German nationalists, but it cannot really be called either tyrannical or bloody. Neither was the government of Hitler, in its 6 years of relative peace (1933-1939). It was dictatorial; it was not tyrannical. There is a difference. As for “bloody”, not so, overall.
Austria did become a kind of dictatorship, but only after 1933, under Dollfuss and, subsequently, Schuschnigg, but for the preceding 14 years had been a constitutional democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Austrian_Republic.
What about Wilson’s contention that ” He [George V of England] and his wife, Queen Mary, did indeed work to develop the concept of constitutional monarchy.” True up to a point. Wilson’s phrasing is awkward. The “concept of constitutional monarchy” had been developing in England and the UK for centuries, certainly since the English Civil War and the century following (17th/18th centuries).
Moreover, the same process was happening across Europe; certainly that was so in the 19th Century. It was not confined to the UK by any means.
As for Italy, Mussolini was dictatorial, though not officially a dictator (though he presented himself as such). Some who were (thankfully) repressed under his rule (notably the Mafia and other criminals, and Stalinist Communists) would say (wrongly) that he was a tyrant, but Italy remained a constitutional monarchy right the way through Mussolini’s rule, a fact that Wilson either does not know or fails to mention.
“An Allied invasion of Sicily began in July 1943, leading to the collapse of the Fascist regime and the fall of Mussolini on 25 July. Mussolini was deposed and arrested by order of King Victor Emmanuel III in co-operation with the majority of the members of the Grand Council of Fascism, which passed a motion of no confidence. On 8 September, Italy signed the Armistice of Cassibile, ending its war with the Allies.” [Wikipedia].
In fact, Italy only ceased to be a monarchy in 1946, following a mass referendum.
So Wilson seems once again to need either a history lesson or a lesson in how to express himself. Having said that, I certainly agree with most of his criticism, in the article, of Harry (“the Royal Cuck”), Meghan Markle (“the Royal Mulatta”), Andrew Windsor, and others, such as the horrible and entitled (mostly in both senses) moneygrubbing “younger members of the Royal Family”.
I believe that A.N. Wilson was once a regular guest of the Queen at table, at Windsor Castle, but was (sometime in the 1980s, or maybe a little later) cold-shouldered after he wrote a piece in the Evening Standard about what he had heard at dinner.
I see that I am not the only one to have noticed Wilson’s factual inaccuracies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Wilson#Critiques_of_Wilson’s_work.
I stick with my view, held for nearly two years now, that much of the Covid madness has been a very-large-scale psychological experiment in mass conditioning, designed to result, down the line, in an almost robotic and very Pavlovian response to the orders of the System.
Remember the early/mid 2020 “social distancing”, with lines of shoppers obediently x-metres or feet away from each other, only moving forward on the orders of deadhead supermarket “marshals”? Then there has been the facemask nonsense, as noted in the tweet. Also, the almost-useless and often dangerous “vaccines” and “boosters”, and the equally-useless mass “testing” for “the virus”.
Somewhere not far down the line, there will be the microchipping of the population . Those refusing to be microchipped will be, pretty much, social outcasts, unable to travel internationally or even within the UK (or wherever), all but unable to access services, all but unable to buy food or car fuel (as cash is phased out). Already, I read, many under-24 people are accustomed to using cards for almost all purchases, and use cash as little as once or twice per month. They will be easily persuaded to be microchipped. The microchipping will come in “not with a bang but a whimper”, and few will see the dangers and implications; even fewer will resist.
“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”— 14 words…
It may be, that not very far in the future, the societies of Western and Central Europe will fall into complete decadence, their economies ruined, their legal and political systems ineffective and scarcely operational. A kind of Dark Age may be coming. If so, what really matters is to be prepared to seed a new pan-European civilization and culture, which can eliminate evil and disorder, so that a better future, and far future, will be able to exist.
More tweets seen
I posted the above film clip out of amusement, really. I (quite genuinely) wonder why idiots like that speaker, and her tiny and lumpenproletarian audience, waste time on demonstrations like that. Still, there it is.
A long time ago, in the 1980s, I was —very unusually— coming out of the Circle Line station at King’s Cross. It was a a summer afternoon. There was, just before the stairs leading to the street, a bank of public telephones. I happened to notice that there was a small black diary or notebook on the floor. I picked it up and looked at it, thinking that I might post it back to the owner, or hand it in to the police.
Said diary turned out to belong to someone at an address nearby, so I walked there. Why not? I was in no hurry, and I like to help people if I can.
I noticed that the appointments for the coming weeks were all this march, that demo, and feminist workshops etc. It was a slice of life straight out of a Private Eye parody, or the then “AgitProp” sections of magazines such as Time Out, or City Limits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Out_(magazine); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Limits_(magazine)].
I soon arrived at the flat where the diary’s owner lived, 1930s social housing. I (dressed in a pinstripe suit, and sporting a silk tie) knocked at the door. A strange, rather red-faced and intense young woman opened the door, but only about 6 inches. I explained that I had found the diary and where. She looked very suspicious; taking the diary, she shut the door without a word of thanks! I suppose that when the (1980s version) of the “woke” revolution (was going to come), courtesy, or indeed simple politeness, and gratitude, would be unnecessary…
Perhaps the odd young woman thought that I was a member of MI5 or Special Branch who had stolen her diary to get intelligence, and/or was wanting to get to know her or even recruit her. Or did she imagine that I wanted to rape her (or whatever)? God knows. Stupid creature. As often said, “no good deed goes unpunished”…
Did the young woman use the public telephones to avoid any telephone tap on her own telephone? Or did she simply not have a telephone in the flat? Mobile telephones were effectively unknown then, of course.
I wonder where said young woman is now? Probably a member of the Labour Party (Corbyn faction), and/or a local Labour councillor, now aged 60+ and with decades of silly militancy behind her. Or did she fall by the wayside en route to the post-Marxist promised land, marry some accountant or solicitor, and acquire a suburban house, and a holiday home in some place unaffected by the collapse of white England? Who knows?
More tweets seen
National Socialism has passed into history, but the essence of it, in a new form, will rise up to rule Europe.
Late tweets seen
I believe in public service broadcasting, but the BBC has not been that, in any serious way, for years, for many years.
I believe in the original dictum of Lord Reith: “inform, educate, and entertain” in that order of priority.
The major strategic mistake the BBC made, at least 50 years ago, was to compete with ITV (and commercial radio) for “ratings”, i.e. cheap popularity. The whole point of having the licence fee (meaning a tax on owning a TV) was, or should have been, to create a TV and radio service which concentrated on relatively “high-minded” stuff. Instead of that, the BBC established Radio 1 and, on TV, dumbed down, first of all, BBC1 TV and then BBC2 TV.
The dumbing-down continued, particularly from the 1980s. In the 1990s and thereafter, the BBC television output gradually declined in quality, and the new efforts were generally poor. BBC Three television was markedly rubbish (it was eventually put online-only), though one bright spot was the new BBC Four, which is now (now that BBC 2 TV is so poor) the only decent BBC TV station, the only one with any intellectual pretension.
As for radio, the World Service was reduced from something really worthwhile in the 1970s and 1980s to very poor in terms of quality through the 1990s, and by 2010 to rock-bottom.
The process continues. On radio, it is noticeable that the dumbing-down continues; Radio 3 output is sometimes close to some of that on Radio 2 these days.
I therefore welcome the announcement that the BBC licence fee (tax) is going to be abolished. I welcome it on principle, and also because, these days, something like the BBC, a huge and bloated corporation run by and staffed by, largely, an in-group, almost all thinking the same way (and mostly the wrong way), is totally anachronistic.
Turn on your TV. How many channels are there? 100? More. Yes, mostly rubbish, but many not, or not completely. Do the few BBC ones really offer anything different from the rest? I say no. Ads? The BBC may not have paid advertising, but it advertises its own shows all the time, which is equally irritating.
Now we have the Internet as well. There is just no justification for subsidizing what the BBC, most of the time, now does.
At one time, almost every country in the world, even the tiniest, had its own “national airline” or “flagcarrier”. That was basically an outcome of international conditions that, by the 1980s, had already been superseded by new norms that better reflected reality. The BBC, as it now is, has no place of significance in the world, and no right to be subsidized by a punitive tax.
I also look forward, of course, to the overpaid BBC drones and “celebrities” having their rice-bowls taken away, but that is a secondary, though pleasant, thought.
More late tweets
Interesting, if true.
I have little doubt that a proper study would confirm a similar rate in the UK, maybe 50,000+.