I’ve seen a lot of people attacking the Queen because she oversaw the end of the British empire. I think there is probably something to say about that, actually – but it doesn’t even matter at all. Maybe the Queen could have been political, and maybe her being political would have been a good thing, but she wasn’t political.

Furthermore, the monarchy had been chained up since Oliver Cromwell, and the actual amount of power they had was questionable. Cromwell proved that the parliament can just kill the monarch, and that was something they had to keep in mind. The crown probably wanted to side with Adolf Hitler, and they couldn’t make that happen.

But it doesn’t even matter either way. It’s literally irrelevant. The Queen, whoever she was as a person, remains a symbol of the British and of white people in general – a symbol of our previous glory. The blacks and Jews attacking her view her as a symbol, so we pretty much have to take that at face value.

I’m sure as hell not standing with these blacks and Jews attacking the Queen – that is disgusting to me. I’m never standing with the Jews on anything, as I’ve repeatedly explained – yes, I will stake positions based on not agreeing with Jews, and I don’t apologize for that.

Yes, there are conversations to be had about what the Queen could or couldn’t have done, what she did or did do, and what she did secretly or semi-secretly. I think it’s fine to have that conversation. But you don’t go out and condemn her after she died, standing with these undesirables. That is plainly gross.

I condemn every right-wing figure who is taking the opportunity of her death to attack her, and I condemn anyone hoping King Charles will fail. I think likely King Charles will fail. I don’t think he has the strength to stand up against these screeching mulatto females calling for an end to the monarchy. But we should all be hoping and praying that he preserves the throne.

Things are not always going to be this bad. Eventually, things are going to get better. When things get better, it would be good to have the monarchy in tact, as a link between the present and the past. It would give the British, and white people generally, the moral authority to build a new political and social order. We can get that moral authority from something else, but there is no reason not to have the monarchy.

Prince William could be a based King.

He would play the same role in a right-wing society that Elizabeth played in a leftist society – he would just stand back and not ever say anything political, while providing moral authority to the nation.

Charles doesn’t look especially healthy, so we’re probably looking at a situation where William will take over around the time things start to shift back to the right, and we begin to physically remove some of these people from our country. This would be much better than a situation where Charles goes along with allowing these Jews and their pets to abolish the monarchy.

The Queen sat back and watched her country go from being the biggest empire in history to an open air Moslem rape camp run by Jews – and didn’t bother to public utter a single sentence about these changes.

Everyone wants to defend the concept of the monarchy – but she is a difficult bitch to defend.

You would think the left would want to defend her. But I guess they hate her because she’s white.

Breitbart:

Woke students at Oxford University have voted to remove a portrait of British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II because they felt the print represented the UK’s “colonial history”.

A substantial majority of graduate members of the Middle Common Room (MCR) at Magdalen College Oxford voted to take down the 1952 print of the monarch, arguing that it should be replaced with “art by or of other influential and inspirational people” and agreed to subject any other depictions of the British Royal Family to a vote.

The MCR claimed that the portrait of The Queen could make some students feel “unwelcome” because they pronounced that she “represents recent colonial history,” the Daily Mail reported.

They argued that the vote was not a statement on the Queen herself, but was rather intended to foster “a welcoming, neutral place for all members regardless of background, demographic, or views.”

However, ahead of the vote, one student remarked that “patriotism and colonialism are not really separable.”

The report of the latest incarnation of cancel culture on British campuses drew the ire of Education Secretary Gavin Williamson who said: “Oxford University students removing a picture of the Queen is simply absurd.

Oxford University students removing a picture of the Queen is simply absurd. She is the Head of State and a symbol of what is best about the UK. During her long reign she has worked tirelessly to promote British values of tolerance, inclusivity & respect around the world

— Gavin Williamson (@GavinWilliamson) June 8, 2021

“She is the Head of State and a symbol of what is best about the UK. During her long reign, she has worked tirelessly to promote British values of tolerance, inclusivity & respect around the world.”

Reclaim Party leader Laurence Fox lamented: “These little twerps will be running the country soon. Enjoy!”

These little twerps will be running the country soon.

Enjoy!

Oxford University college votes to remove portrait of the Queen from common room https://t.co/ol3hwjIy2q

— Laurence Fox ✌🏼🇬🇧✌🏼 (@LozzaFox) June 9, 2021

Appearing on Good Morning Britain on Wednesday, political commentator Calvin Robinson said that he believes if the vote was extended to the entire university, Queen Elizabeth would be returned to her “rightful place”.

“Her Majesty the Queen is our sovereign, she is more than a person, she represents the crown but she is also a British institution, representing all that unites us and that is something to celebrate… especially in the divisive age we live in,” Robinson said.

“What this is, is a load of students being woke, being social justice warriors, wanting to prove that they are good people,” he added.

Robinson also noted the irony of the Oxford students branding Queen Elizabeth II with the “colonial” brush, as she presided over the dismantling of much of the British Empire and the formation of the voluntary Commonwealth of nations.

This is definitely the irony.

The ultra-irony.

Frankly, I blame Oliver Cromwell.

It did seem strange that the Queen, who is usually accompanied by at least one family member during public events, met Trump solo last Friday. Now we’ve learned why: Prince Charles and Prince William deliberately snubbed the president to attend some superfluous non-events elsewhere.

That’s the kind of pettiness and discourtesy I’ve come to expect from public figures who, unlike Trump, obtained their positions of power through inheritance alone.

It’s also the kind of thing I’d expect from a family that breeds with niggers.

The Independent:

Prince Charles and Prince William refused to meet Donald Trump during his four-day visit to Britain, according to reports.

The royals, who are first and second in line to the throne, declined to take part in the trip and left the Queen to meet the US President alone, it is claimed.

Instead, the Prince of Wales, 69, attended a board meeting at Highgrove and an event with Gloucestershire Police while the Duke of Cambridge, 36, played in a charity polo match.

Shave. Your. Head.

“This business of Prince Charles and Prince William not being there for the Trump visit was a snub,” an insider told the Sunday Times.

“They simply refused to attend. It’s a very, very unusual thing for the Queen to be there on her own.”

It was claimed the princes made their reluctance clear during informal discussions about the arrangements for the trip.

Prince Charles has often accompanied the Queen following the retirement of Prince Philip, 97, from royal duties in August last year.

To be fair, Prince Phillip probably would have met with Trump if he were still active.

Those two would get on like a house on fire.

But seriously, the way that the Jewnited Kikedom treated Trump during his trip was an absolute disgrace.

To recap, here is just a small list of things that happened before, during and after it:

• The British government banned Nigel Farage from meeting with Trump, because apparently that’s something the inner party of Airstrip One can do
• Sadiq Khan gave leftists permission to hold an anti-Trump rally in the heart of the city, but denied nationalists permission to hold a pro-Trump rally outside of the US embassy
• Childless hag Theresa May sided with Khan over Trump regarding London’s terrorism problem
• The national media attacked Trump relentlessly from day one, and giggled like schoolgirls at every minor faux pas he committed
• Anti-Trump protesters were given license to run amok, and even followed the president to his own golf courses in Scotland to remind him that he’s a member of the KKK

Given all that happened, I can’t think of a single reason – other than to troll them, I guess – why Trump would want to visit the UK in its present state again. No statesman, least of all one of Trump’s standing, should feel obliged to maintain allegiance to a nation that denounced him from the outset for not being a cog in the Jewish machine.

Nor should Trump be expected to bow before his inferiors, which includes all members of the British “royal” family.

Something that he let us know, of course.

The ADL kikes banned us from using Pepe memes, so you’ll have to imagine that Trump is a smug Pepe here (and the Queen a crying Wojak).

Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday to a bill, passed the previous day by British lawmakers, legalising same-sex marriage in England and Wales and paving the way for the first gay weddings in 2014.

MPs decided not to oppose a number of minor amendments to the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill proposed by the upper House of Lords.

Britain has seen none of the mass protests over gay marriage held across the channel in France, which last weekend became the 14th country in the world to legalise it.

Some 54% of Britons are in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.

Read More