Colin Liddell, American Renaissance, February 27, 2019
In 1917, when a couple of Revolutions shook Russia that were followed by a civil war, what was most surprising was the lack of substantial resistance on the Tsar’s behalf. Yes, there were still people who favored the Tsar and fought in his name, but they were weak and half-hearted, while his opponents were strong in their convictions.
It is easy to blame this on how World War I had gone. In that conflict, the Russians had suffered greatly, and the Tsar was ultimately responsible for many of the mistakes on the Russian side. But an even more important figure in undermining the Russian people’s centuries of adoration for their Tsar was Grigori Rasputin, a crackpot “holy man” who according to rumor was the Tsarina’s lover.
In Britain today, something similar is happening, with the rise of another exotic outsider to a prominent position at the heart of the royal family—namely, Meghan Markle, whom the British media still refer to by her maiden name rather than her married name or her title of the Duchess of Sussex.
While Rasputin undermined the Tsar’s mystique by evoking elements of chaos, cuckery, and betrayal at the heart of the Russian imperial family, the duchess does the same, perhaps with the substitution of race for class.
As with Rasputin, the fact that she differs so much from those around her makes her all the more potent and potentially discrediting for the institution into which she has inserted herself. But more than this, it is her tonelessness that is the key—a tonelessness of such discordance that it could crack royalty’s pristine glass.
It’s “bad form,” as the upper classes once used to say before saying that itself became bad form in a sadly coarsening Britain.
The duchess’ tonelessness is sounded again and again, and each time more jarringly, the latest example being her recent support for de-whiting and de-masculating the universities, where white men have always had a natural ascendancy for well-known HBD reasons.
But in an era in which even the royal family is now polluted with fake egalitarianism, this preponderance is proof of “racism,” “sexism,” and “privilege,” and must be openly opposed by the royal family’s new politically correct totem:
Meghan Markle has voiced her support for a campaign aiming to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ by ensuring there are more black professors working in universities in her pioneering political intervention since joining the royal family.
The movement wants to confront the ‘male, pale and stale’ professors and ensure there is more diversity among teachers in higher education.
In the same way that the Jews pushing internationalist leftist narratives of decolonization and white guilt are ultimately going to undermine and destroy the survival prospects of a Jewish state that is a de facto colony of white people in the Middle East, so the future of a royal family that embraces ideas inherently critical of its own existence cannot be considered particularly bright.
As the Russian imperial family’s association with Rasputin both emboldened its enemies and demoralized its friends, so does the British royal family’s association with its own toneless SJW.
The average supporter of the British royal family is a fairly conservative white British person with some affection for tradition and an acceptance of a reasonable degree of hierarchy, as long as the people at the top “keep up appearances.” These people support the royal family because it is a subtle but powerful reinforcer of a stable social order that also benefits them. Indeed, because they are not allowed to support their status directly in these times of hegemonic leftist values, this less obvious way of supporting it has all the more appeal, and it accounts for the British royal family’s surprisingly sustained appeal.
Or it did until Meghan Markle showed up.
Consider how these supporters must react when they hear something like this:
When the Duchess of Sussex became Patron of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, she made it clear she was surprised at the low diversity of professors in the UK.
When she was handed a sheet of data on a royal visit showing how most UK professors are white and male, she said: ‘Oh my God!’
A supporter of ethnic minority and female staff Manchester University, Dr Rachel Cowan said: ‘She was really surprised, she was like “oh my god, really, we need to get a photograph of this”.’
According to the research from Advance Higher Education, 68 per cent of UK professors are white males, 23 per cent are white females, 6.5 per cent are black and minority ethnic males and two per cent black and minority ethnic female . . . .
Meera Sabaratnam, who leads the campaign to decolonise the curriculum at universities in London said: ‘Many of the issues around racial equality are similar and it is great to see her embrace this. Change is long overdue.’
Over 10 percent non-white already! Given what we know about natural differences in ability, these figures suggest fast-tracking, token hiring, and racial preferences.
And that term “decolonize”—as if the universities once existed as some sort of pristine Blacktopia in the mists of time that was then cruelly colonized by whip-cracking white academics!
In short, this is the kind of SJW nonsense that will make the royal family a laughingstock before placing it firmly on the chopping block.
In a letter to Tsar Nicholas II dated March 15, 1916, Chairman of the Duma Mikhail Rodzianko wrote:
I must tell Your Majesty that this cannot continue much longer. No one opens your eyes to the true role which this man (Rasputin) is playing. His presence in Your Majesty’s Court undermines confidence in the Supreme Power and may have an evil effect on the fate of the dynasty and turn the hearts of the people from their Emperor.
The British royal family is on the same trajectory. Those who hate it no longer fear its power, while those who once loved it increasingly find it despicable.