Notes on Review of RED SHOES(by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger) by Trevor Lynch

https://counter-currents.com/2021/08/the-red-shoes/

Finally forced myself to see the whole thing. Not my cup of tea but I can see the attraction and understand its high esteem among film lovers. Martin Scorsese for one always lists it in his top five or ten of the greatest films.

A happy ending seems, however, to be in the offing until the screenwriter contrives a perversely tragic finale in which Vicky Page dies. Both Lermontov and Craster live on, but they are utterly destroyed as human beings.

Not true. As RED SHOES the movie is based on a tragic tale by Hans Christian Andersen, it was designed to end madly; 'Red Shoes' story serves as a darkly romantic metaphor for art as tragedy(and transcendence). RED SHOES isn't just about the people involved in the production of the ballet but how its tragic themes leap out into life itself. At the end, Craster is certainly heartbroken, but Lermontov, though shaken and saddened, triumphs in a way in the creation, both inadvertent and destined, of the ultimate dancer. It's like the jump-to-the-death by the priest in THE EXORCIST signifies both death and victory. RED SHOE's ending isn't 'contrived' in the conventional sense of the term: implausible, arbitrary, ludicrous, overly clever, gratuitous, etc. Rather, it's a necessary coda within a story idea that is itself one big contrivance: The Tale of Red Shoes as story, as performance, and ultimately as life itself. It has to be appreciated like Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO where every character operates within a logical construct of doomed love and tragedy. In such stories, characters live out their fates without any recourse to free will.

(RED SHOES) actually puts ballet on the screen, most spectacularly in the form of a 17-minute original ballet based on Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale “The Red Shoes,”

It is impressive but also full of gimcrackery. It's fancy high-toned kitsch but kitsch just the same. Garishly arty and overdone with razzle-dazzle, rather like the later films of Federico Fellini. It's all too much. Also, Powell lacked the subliminal savvy of someone like Orson Welles whose images slipped through sensory crevices. The deft Welles was always two or three steps ahead of the viewer. With every stroke, he drew us into his hall of mirrors that reflected both classic order and cubist incongruities. In contrast, Powell was nothing if not obvious, and every trick is right in front of us, plain and simple. For all the complexity of production, the effect is rather crude, like a more elaborate version of the cinema of Jean Cocteau whose trickery was merely updated version of outdated silent cinema techniques.

The dance would have been so much more effective if Powell had relied solely on editing, lighting, sound, and pacing to convey mood shifts between art and reality. That truly would have been dreamlike and hypnotic, weaving a new way of seeing. But the bag-of-tricks-photography is so glaring at all times that it feels more like pictures in a gallery than a flow of imagery. A more effective use of cinema would have sensorially drawn us in than made us all too keenly aware of what's on the screen. It remains apart, in front of us than enveloping us. How more artful it would have been if Powell moved between reality and fantasy without laying so obviously bare the shifts. Then, we would have been lulled INTO the dance than merely looking AT it. It would have been magical than mechanical, evocation than affectation.

No doubt a great deal of care and preparation went into the much celebrated dance sequence, but it isn't quite cinematic. The overall effect is superficial than substantive because it amounts to glittery trickery than wholeness of visioin. It's like playing with fonts than with words. While pretty fonts are nice in poetry, the decisive factor is the use of words to conjure imagery and moods. Mastery of words than their stylized presentation on the page(as font) is the real heart of poetry.

The heart of cinema is composition, movement, and editing(montage). And even though Michael Powell knew the language of cinema, he had a tendency to fall back on trickery and superficial effects that cheapened his works — the kind of tricks that got tiresome already in the era of George Melies. In the case of A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, the effects were soon badly dated and now seem gauche. The effects in RED SHOES fare better but are still register as effects, over-done, imposed, and at odds to the trance-like aspects of the dance number. The tricks are so obviously tricks(no matter how well-crafted) that they keep reminding us that it's a bag of tricks than a call to magic. They amount to fonts than the grammar of cinema.

The Red Shoes is about the relationship between art and life. Early in the film, they are likened to one another, because they are both compulsions:

Lermontov: Why do you want to dance?

Vicky: Why do you want to live?

Lermontov: Well, I don’t know exactly why, but I must.

Vicky: That’s my answer too.

Not exactly because Vicky and Lermontov see life differently. Vicky doesn't see dancing nor life as compulsions. She sees them as natural. She's happy to be alive, and she's happy to dance. She dances for joy. She dances when she wants to. It gives her pleasure. Dancing is something she's willing to give up if she tires of it and finds joy in something else. For her to say that dance is like life means it's good to be natural. It's like animals run around because it comes naturally to them. They don't run to win races or to be the fastest animal. Even though Vicky isn't without ambition and hunger for fame, she dances for joy and pleasure. It is a natural extension of her view of life. For her, life and art/dance are not in conflict. This accounts for the misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov.

To Lermontov, art isn't merely like life or its extension. After all, most of life is routine and humdrum. One must do what one must to live: Eat, sleep, work, and etc. Life as necessity is about going through the motions, true regardless of whether one is genius or idiot, king or serf. At any rate, art isn't necessary to life. One could live without reading a serious book or watching a single ballet and live to a ripe old age. Indeed, many people with no interest in the arts lead pretty good and happy lives, which is the story of most of humanity. So, whereas life is about necessity, art is about obsession with the unnecessary.

For Vicky, dance is an extension of her view of life: pursuit of happiness. She came to love dance, and she sees dance as an expression of her joy. So, dance need not be a compulsion with her. But for Lermontov, art/dance is a pursuit of perfection even if it means agony and torment. It must be pursued to the very end. He is the dark and extreme side of the Red Shoes as metaphor, which represents both the joy of dance(as favored by Vicky) and complete intoxication(as envisioned by Lermontov).
Same goes for sports. Most people play sports for recreation and fun. It's an extension of our natural need to run around and play. For most people, sports is merely a part of their life. But for those who seek to excel in sports and possibly be the very best, sports becomes life itself. It becomes all-consuming, even to the point of self-destruction, as when any boxer steps into the ring. This is also true of spirituality. For most people, a bit of piety is enough. But what differentiates the saint is the willingness to devote one's life entirely to God. No wonder Martin Scorsese loves RED SHOES. It can seen as yet another false-messiah parable paralleling the life and death of Jesus who went all the way.

Anyway, there is a misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov. When Vicky says she dances for the same reason Lermontov lives, she assumes he is like herself. Vicky is naturally a light-hearted person. She feels joy in life itself. She would have been happy even if she'd never come upon dance. In her mind, life and dance are one and the same, an expression of joy.
In contrast, Lermontov seems to find little joy or zest in life itself. He lives not for life but for art, for ballet. Without that, he would find life gloomy, absurd, and meaningless. For him, life is fallen and pointless, a world inhabited by no-talents and idiots. It is through art that human ability rises above commonness and reaches for the summit of beauty and sublimity. For Vicky dance reveals life, whereas for Lermontov dance redeems life. One might say Vicky's view is more pagan, more in tune with the natural way of things, whereas Lermontov's perspective is christo-homo, i.e. nature/reality is ugly, plain, loathsome, and dull EXCEPT when elevated toward transcendence and redeemed.

Lermontov is apprehensive about affection between lovers because everything becomes soft and fuzzy between them. It weakens the sharpness and takes away the edge. He watches with an eagle's eye as his only love is perfection. In contrast, human love means unconditional acceptance of someone despite his or her flaws. So, when Craster and Vicky fall in love, they become indulgent of one another. Craster can love Vicky the imperfect dancer, and Vicky can love Craster the flawed composer. Love, in all its mushiness and forgiveness, fills in the gaps.
Lermontov, whose vision remains unclouded by lovey-dovey, can see with clarity what is necessary for perfection. Purely from an artistic vantage point, Lermontov is correct that the three had an ideal set-up before the love happened. Craster devoted himself to composing, Vicky devoted herself to dancing, and Lermontov had his eyes on the prize. It was a perfect triangle, but love got in the way. It's sort of like Merlin in EXCALIBUR sensing that love will bring it all to ruins among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. (And it's Noodle's sentimentality that fogs his vision of what Max and Debra are really after in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.)

Part of life is love, marriage, and family. Lermontov is particularly dismissive of ballerinas who allow these considerations to interfere with their art. First, it leads him to dismiss his prima ballerina Irina Boronskaja

This is only partly true as it's not a general principle with Lermontov. He knows very well that most ballerinas in his troupe will not reach greatness. They will merely be adequate, and it's doubtful that he would have fired any of them for getting married. Indeed, he doesn't expect much from most people in the business. But he has the dream of creating the ultimate dancer, and SHE must be totally devoted to the art. Thus, Lermontov has a double-take on creativity. At the basic level, art has its conventions and role in society. It is entertainment and business. But at the highest level, it is for the few who can break through the barrier of conventionality. As a businessman, he's content with the basic art that brings in the paying customers. But as a visionary, he must have total devotion from the chosen few.

It is tempting to believe that Lermontov was acting out of sexual jealously. His body language with Vicky in one scene is quite intimate... Craster accuses Lermontov of jealousy. He agrees, but says it is not sexual. He may be telling the truth.

It's obvious Lermontov is a toot, especially when he dons those 'gay'-looking sunglasses. In a way, his personage is instructive as to why homos gained such power and leverage in society. Unlike straight people whose careers and pursuits become weighed down by marriage and children, homos (especially back then when it was scandalous to be outed) were always working. Homos put in more hours because they had fewer conventional burdens of family life and sentimental attachments.
Of course, today some homos do get 'married' and have semblance of 'family life' with adopted children, and homosexuality is even associated with 'pride', but in the setting of the movie, homos would mostly have been secretive figures. Also, because homosexuality was regarded as a perversion, sickness, or sin, even most homos grew up with a degree of self-disgust, doubt, and anxiety for having particular peccadillos. Lermontov certainly isn't a 'pride-homo'. His sexuality is thus repressed.
So, it's true that Lermontov is jealous but not in a sexual way. He jealously wants to pull Vicky into his orbit so he could fulfill his dream of turning her into a total work of art. For Lermontov, whose repressed homosexuality has been channeled into total devotion to art-as-religion, it is sacrilege to allow Vicky to remain merely human in the fleshly role of wife and mother. Only through art can she reach the 'spiritual' level of transcendence. Such jealousy also crops up in Chen Kaige's film FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. The Leslie Cheung character, being homo, does feel sexual attraction to his male performer-partner, but the jealousy goes beyond that. He wants both of them to belong totally in the realm of art(the Chinese Opera). It seems like a waste for his partner to get married to some harlot and fritter his talent away as a hubber. Lermontov resembles another character, the old man in Otto Preminger's LAURA, who is so taken with Laura's beauty that he wants to construct her into an ideal and loathes the notion of any lowlife male coming near her. Another character that comes to mind is Kirk Douglas's role in THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL where Douglas plays a S.O.B. but also an indispensable one-of-a-kind personality with the magic touch.

In a way, RED SHOES offers a glimpse into the homo-god-complex. Homos have traditionally been more into art(ifice), design, and fantasy because they were denied(and rejected) the humdrum conventionality of conjugal bliss. On the one hand, they didn't want to get married and do the normal things. On the other hand, society would have punished them(or even executed them) for acting all 'gay' and indulging in sodomy. So, homos created an alternative universe in art, decor, fantasy, so much so that it caught the eye of the privileged aristocrats who came to patronize homo creativity.
In a way, Lermontov is to Vicky what God is to Jesus. Lermontov's god-complex wants Vicky to forsake human life and totally commit to art and beauty... even if it means madness. Life is about growing old and dying. Art is forever and eternal. Likewise, in Martin Scorsese's adaptation of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, there is a part of Jesus that wants to be normal and live as a real man and experience intimate joys. He wants a wife, family, and children. He wants to grow old and see his grand-children. But God has other plans for him. He must forsake what is human to reach a higher plane. He must become the messiah, which entails pursuing spiritual truth to the end, even if it means crucifixion, humiliation by the mob, and agony of death. Only thus could he reach immortality. And in RAGING BULL, there is much about how a true boxer must repress his sexual pangs before the bout to be strong and focused in the ring. Scorsese the renegade Catholic surely drew parallels between RED SHOES and the Christ tale. Though fascinated by these parallels, he believes there is only one true Messiah, and the rest are false messiahs as their pursuits, however amazing or inspiring, are expressions of vanity, sensuality, power-lust, or egotism than of the deepest wells of the soul.

In another brilliant, brooding scene, Lermontov comes to the realization that he has been a fool. Then Lermontov decides to approach Boronskaja, who is still happily married, and lure her back on stage. Boris has obviously concluded that art and life—in particular, married life—need not conflict. A year later, he manages to lure Vicky back on stage to dance The Red Shoes again.

That's a misreading. Lermontov never feels he was wrong. Luring back Irina was essentially a business matter. After all, he can be practical and diplomatic. With Vicky gone and his dream turned to dust, he needed someone for his company, and Irina just happens to be the one, and he had to make do. He knows the show must go on. He has to pull in the audience, make money, and pay the bills. But if he was truly content with Irina, he would not have gone out of his way to reconnect with Vicky. She is the key to his ultimate dream. He's had many successes, but he never created the perfect dancer, and he feels it in his bones that it must be her. Indeed, he recruits her not merely to perform RED SHOES but to persuade her to leave her life behind and commit totally to dance. He means to drive a wedge between Vicky and her husband Craster.

Then Emeric Pressburger’s script goes seriously off the rails.... Fixated on contriving an ending that is both gruesome and unhappy, Pressburger simply forgets about Lermontov’s character development toward accepting that his ballerinas can have private lives. He also turns Julian Craster into a petty, jealous villain—something not foreshadowed in the least. Then they drive Vicky to suicide.

This is totally wrong. First of all, the story is not a realistic portrait of people in ballet. Rather, it's been specifically constructed so that life imitates art. The story of Red Shoes must be lived out by the particulars in 'real life'. Its ending was fated to be tragic. It's almost as if their reality becomes possessed by the fantasy.

Also, there was no character development in Lermontov toward accepting the 'private life' of Vicky. Rather, Jekyll-and-Hyde-like, he can shift back-and-forth between art and business. When he re-hired Irina, it was the business side of him in action. It's the same with priests. At times, they must be political and pragmatic, even shake shady hands and take money from questionable sources. But before God, they must be pure. Likewise, while the business-side of Lermontov could seem agreeable and compromising, he never abandoned the 'religious' side of his devotion to ballet. His intention wasn't merely to hire the married Vicky to dance Red Shoes again but to ultimately wrest her from Craster and make her devote her life 100% to art.

Also, Craster doesn't come across as a petty jealous villain. His emotions are utterly understandable. He senses correctly as to what Lermontov is really up to. If anything, Lermontov comes across as the calculating villain(yet a sort-of-noble one because his vision is genuine). Craster rightfully fears that he may lose Vicky to Lermontov for good. Also, she is absent on the very day of the premiere of his opera. It is a big day for him, and he naturally wanted his wife to be with him as partner and support.
In a way, both men are possessive of her in different ways. With Vicky as wife, she will play a supportive role to Craster as the artist. Her dancing will merely be a hobby, something on the side. In contrast, with Lermontov she can reach the height of her profession and win acclaim in her own right. But she will have to give herself totally to Lermontov. He will possess her like the red shoes possesses the dancer in the Hans Christian tale. Dance as celebration will have to give to dance as tribulation. The shoes will become her cross to bear.

The fact that Vicky feels guilt in Craster's presence is proof that he isn't a villain, at least not in our eyes. In Lermontov's eyes, yes, but the full extent of Lermontov's deception emerges in Craster's presence. Earlier, he enticed Vicky as if he'd mellowed since their breakup, but he spells it all out when Craster pleads with her to return home with him. Lermontov admits it was his plan to come between them and pull Vicky totally into the dance world. The fact that Craster accepts this and walks away makes him a sad sympathetic figure than a villainous one overcome with petty jealousy. It's doubly sad for him because the movie began with his discovery that the man he admired had plagiarized his work. Once again, something of his is taken from him. In both cases, he is resigned to lose.

The whole setup is absurd. Vicky has come to Monte Carlo on vacation. On the spur of the moment, she agrees to dance The Red Shoes again. We are asked to believe that Craster’s new opera is to premiere in London the same day that Vicky dances The Red Shoes again in Monte Carlo. Why was Vicky in Monte Carlo on her husband’s big night?

Actually, it wasn't on the spur of the moment. In the back of her mind, there was always a wish to return to the stage. Despite severed ties, there was always a thread connecting Lermontov and Vicky. He wanted her back, and she wanted to be back. So, while ostensibly it seemed like a spontaneous decision, dance was always something she wanted to do and regretted walking away from, at least in part. She genuinely chose Craster out of love but also gave up something she loved. Lermontov queries as to whether she kept her body in shape and senses in her affirmative that she'd always wanted to return to ballet in a big way.

Now, did Vicky arrive in Monte Carlo ON THE DAY of her husband's opera debut? Isn't it more likely that she arrived some days earlier and planned to return before the opera date but chose to remain and dance the Red Shoes? And it was her failure to return before the opera that spurred Craster to make his own journey to confront Vicky, whom he rightly senses has been drawn into Lermontov's web?

Indeed, when Lermontov and Vicky met in the train, Vicky says the opera is only in rehearsal, and Lermontov tells her that he is PREPARING a ballet. There's no indication that both the ballet and opera will be performed on that very day. It's my understanding that the performances will take place about a week or two AFTER Lermontov and Vicky meet on the train. The reason why Craster appears so distraught is because he's been (1) worried sick and (2) surmised, correctly, that Lermontov somehow got his meat-hooks into her. He calls Lermontov jealous, but he too is jealous. Even if he knows Lermontov may be a tooty-toot after all and has no sexual interest in her, he knows she is drawn to his artistic gravity. With him, she is a wife, a mere partner and fan. But with Lermontov, she can be the star, and no one gets more love than the star in the performing arts. Lermontov, though a person of artistic sensibility, is essentially a manager, not a creator in his own right. In that, he is a bit parasitic of everyone, though he can be said to be as selfless as selfish. He's selfish in demanding that others bend to his will yet selfless in total devotion to ballet and in wanting the best of his star performers. Craster as composer can be considered a star in his own right, but a composer doesn't take the stage. It is the dancer, and Vicky-as-star is something that only Lermontov can offer. Vicky feels guilt as a wife who isn't there beside her husband in his moment of glory, but Craster feels guilt as a husband who took her chance at stardom away from his wife. As in STAR IS BORN, love-and-art is complicated.

Then Vicky, who is trying on the red shoes for that night’s performance, goes mad and hurls herself off a balcony, then gets hit by a train. The train seems like overkill, but there’s still enough life in her to beg a distraught Julian—who just happened to see her plunge to her death, even though it would have been impossible from his vantage point—to take off the red shoes.
I can’t think of a more arbitrary, ramshackle, and dissatisfying end to an otherwise great movie. It is a testimony to just how good the rest of the film is that viewers put up with it.

I'm assuming she didn't fall on the railroad tracks and was run over by the train. Rather, it seems she fell ON the moving train. Now, if she'd landed on the tracks and her legs were cut off by steel wheels, it would have more or less duplicated the grisly details in the original Hans Christian Andersen tale. But too gory for cinema, especially at the time.

Is the train overkill? Maybe, but everything in the movie is overkill, which was either Powell's strength or weakness(depending on one's taste). And yet, given the train's motif in the movie, it sort of makes sense. It was at the train station that Lermontov bid adieu to Irina. It was on the train that Lermontov and Vicky met again. Train represents both separation and union, the transience of life. Indeed, Lermontov is very much a man without a country. Though Russian in origin, he moves from place to place like a high-class gypsy.

Did Craster actually see her plunge from the balcony or did he turn his head because of the commotion of the crowd?

How is the ending arbitrary? Vicky's death and the removal of the red shoes evoke Andersen's tale. It makes total sense within the concept. Also, her death is not the final scene of the movie. The final scene is Lermontov announcing Vicky's death to the audience and the performance of RED SHOES going on without her... or with her in spirit. In that sense, Lermontov finally got what he really wanted. He turned Vicky into a spirit. It's like Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected as Spirit with eternal life.
Indeed, even had Vicky become the dancer of Lermontov's dreams, she would eventually have aged and slowed down with injuries. Even as the best dancer, her flesh and bones would have grown weak. She would have faded. But as a spirit, she is young forever and forever tireless.

Also, the manner of her death suggests she didn't merely perform the Red Shoes but lived and died it(and transcended it). Like the heroine in the tale, she was torn between the need to dance and the wish to return to reality. The pull from both sides was so overpowering that the only solution was a kind of heightened death. It's like the Christ story. Jesus on the Cross felt all the pain of the human flesh, and He also reached out to Heaven. At that moment, He was neither just a man or just God. He was in that limbo world, the between world, and He had to die to finally cross into the spirit realm. It's tragic but also triumphant. And the same goes for the ending of RED SHOES. In a way, Vicky's real role of the Red Shoes was not on the stage as a dancer. Rather, it was her struggle between personal attachment and artistic vanity; and to play this drama to the very end, she had to end like the heroine in the story. She had to take an inspired leap from art into reality, and what is more real than a moving train? And finally, the shoes could be taken off. And yet, her death has released her spirit that can forever dance the Red Shoes.

But above all, I love The Red Shoes as a portrayal of the world of European high culture: an aristocratic, inegalitarian world devoted to the pursuit of beauty and excellence—a world whose basic principles contradict those of democracy and mass commercial entertainment.

But don't you like STAR WARS and TV shows and lots of commercial entertainment?
Also, Lermontov is aristocratic-like only in part. His nomadism suggests a gypsy-like existence. He's a hustler and businessman as well as artiste and connoisseur. All said and done, his is a business enterprise.

By the way, aristocrats were mostly dummies, hardly different from today's elites. Few created art of their own and relied on others to tell them what was hot and what was not. Most imitated the ludicrous fashions coming out of French courts, with powdered wigs, face paint, and snuff. And oh those pansy-ass dresses. Just imagine. Noblemen started out as warriors. Tough hardy men. But they amassed fortunes and got used to privilege, and their children were raised spoiled with luxury. They became obsessed with status and conformed to whatever was put before them as the latest thing. No wonder so much of aristocratic culture became 'gay' and whoopity-poo. Homos came up with all these candy-ass dresses, wigs, and make-up and whispered into idiot aristocratic ears that it was so fancy-poo to dress like fairies and strut around like girly men and speak in high-toned accents(which made British English so 'gay' sounding). This is why it's refreshing to see semi-barbarian elites of the Russian court in IVAN THE TERRIBLE. Them fellers have yet to put on pansy airs... like the Westernized Polish court in the opening of IVAN THE TERRIBLE Part 2.

Get a load of the tooty-ass Polack on the throne in this scene:

As if the culture of the Western aristocratic elites weren't tooty enough, we now have globo-homo fruits running all the culture and making 'gay' crap compulsory. This is why I can't get into ballet. Sure, it's a great work of art and a beautiful dance form... but it's also so 'gaaaaaay'. I prefer folk culture to aristo culture. Manly Russians dancing on tables is better than a bunch of pansies tip-toeing around or prancing about. It was a huge mistake for the Soviet Union to prop up the Bolshoi Ballet and make Russian guys prance around like a bunch of fruits. Chechen Lezghinka is a better dance. Though I don't like guys dancing in general(with the exception of Gene Kelly in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT), people of Caucasus have manlier ways of dancing. Ballet should only be for girls. Any guy in ballet tights should be paddled in the butt.

Europeans emerged from 'faggy'-looking aristocratic culture with the rise of the bourgeois and the masses. It was bourgeois culture that led to the English three-piece suit that was at once stylish, economic, and modest(lacking in the aristocratic dictionary). And I'll take the cowboy look over the aristo-fruit-look any day. Those guys in dusters in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST look real good. But the Three Musketeers look like a bunch of pansies.

Notes on Review of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI(directed by David Lean) by Trevor Lynch

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.

In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.

Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.

Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."

At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.

Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.

Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.

At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.

The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.

Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.

This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.

This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.

the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.

More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.

William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like American soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.

I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.

Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.

One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in Sergio Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.

Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.

To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.

As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?

White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.

Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.

But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.

The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should you be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.

And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man mattered in World War I. This new Modern War wasn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes fighting for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier was worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.

Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.

Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.

Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.

It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTER having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTER. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.

British Royal Pain in the Ass & the Politics of Victimology: Notes on "When Integration Means Ruination" by Gregory Hood in The American Renaissance

When Integration Means Ruination by Gregory Hood

Weddings are usually cause for celebration, and royal weddings are cause for national rejoicing. Even we colonials are fascinated by the British royal family.

Because of the hype. For most Americans, the British Royal Family is just an extension of celebrity culture. No wonder the trashy Princess Diana was the most famous and popular among all the Royals in both US and UK. The Bimbo had nothing on her mind but pop culture.

The monarchy is seductive, and there’s a temptation to defend it when leftists attack it. Thus, when Prince Harry married the divorced actress Meghan Markle in 2018, the glee many felt at the monarchy’s humiliation was painful.

Monarchy doesn't lead. It follows. Its demise demonstrates all too well the worst aspects of both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism can lead to stasis and stagnation, the loss of vitality, like with Ancient Egypt, Traditional China, and Byzantium. One part of the Royal Family became like a Wax Museum, a hall of mummies. But the Family's increasing appetite for publicity and mass approval in accordance to changing fashions illustrates the bad side of liberalism. (As royalty lost power, what did it have left but publicity?) Spinelessly bending whichever the wind blows. No backbone. If conservatism can be overly rigid and lead to enervation — bones that aren't exercised become more brittle, a kind of osteoporosis — , liberalism can fall into the habit of surrendering to the latest fads as 'new liberations'. (But then, as these 'liberations' become ever freakier and more perverse, as with globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense, greater social control and repression are necessary to impose them as the new holies, resulting in minority-tyranny.)
The Royal Family exhibits both characteristics of conservatism-gone-wrong and liberalism-gone-wrong. Things just got progressively worse since the Royal Family awarded the Beatles. The Beatles were great, but it was a case of pandering and profits. Prince Charles and Princess Diana respectively exhibited conservative dissipation and liberal dissolution. Charles came across as insular and stood for nothing but privilege. And Diana came across as vain and hollow, eager to hobnob with the celebs. The result was Harry, though there have been speculations that Charles isn't his real father, which makes it even worse as it means cuckoldry.

The perennially hopeful thought is that integrating the royal family would help unite the United Kingdom. However, having ignored Enoch Powell and imported the American race problem, the British are learning that integration doesn’t strengthen an institution. It hollows it out and may even destroy it.

UK's fate follows America's because both are under Jewish Domination, something Jared Taylor's American Renaissance is loathe to discuss. But there's another reason. After the fall of empires, the two of the biggest former players, UK and France, decided to turn their own nations into Potemkin Empires. If UK and France could no longer rule the world, their own nations would be turned into micro-facsimiles of what their empires had been. The UK would maintain the Commonwealth and reach out to former colonies. Also, by welcoming the very people who'd kicked them out, the British and French might gain the moral upperhand. "YOU kicked us out, but WE let you in. You hurt us, but we hug you." By welcoming immigrants and migrants, the white nations would display their tolerance in contrast to the 'xenophobia' that inspired the anti-imperialist uprisings across the empire. It was a subtle way of signaling the non-whites are the 'real racists' because they'd kicked out the white colonialists who were trying to create a New World Order, i.e. the non-whites refused the forces of progress like the Germanic Barbarians long ago halted the grand Roman experiment.

But of course, there were reasons other than Empire-Nostalgia. The Leftist intellectual elites found a new pet cause in non-white immigration as they'd grown tired of the native proletariat(that just become the new consumer class). They loved to white-knight as the defenders of these struggling immigrant communities from 'nativism', 'racism', and 'xenophobia'. They beat their chest and virtue-signaled as the people of compassion. The nastier types on the Left knew mass immigration would lead to violence and trouble, but they were excited by the prospect of radicalism and revolution. They were addicted to anarchy; it's like Antifa rioting in Portland over US immigration laws. And given the plummeting birthrates and increasing disdain for low-level employment among the whites, the business class grew ever more reliant on immigration labor. If the left was active in pushing for diversity, the right became increasingly passive in accepting it. Morally defensive in a world where 'racism' and 'antisemitism' were the biggest evils, the Right either feared being called 'racist' or felt that the Decline of the West was inevitable due to historical forces beyond control. And there was Jewish Power pushing it along to use increasing diversity among goyim as divide-and-rule tool for the Jews.

Anyway, the latest Royal debacle isn't the start of anything new. It's just icing on the cake for the Negrobalists. UK has become so Afro-cucked, Globohomo-cucked, and Judeo-cucked over the years that the royal comedy is just a late-stage manifestation of the mass infestation that has spread all throughout British Society. Notice Harry married a light-skinned mulatto who doesn't look quite black. Just wait until some princess marries a dark-skinned Negro. There was a movie called UNITED KINGDOM that celebrates the sexual union of a British woman and a Negro man. The message is clear: Africa is the dominant penis, and Europe is the submissive vagina. That is the Ideal Union according to the New Narrative in UK that has black boxers and other athletes as 'national heroes'. And white girls routinely bump-and-grind with Negro men in the streets and clubs of UK. Conservatives are hardly better. Niall Ferguson abandoned his white wife and kids for some worthless Somali Negress who, as the tool of Neocons, would have us believe that MOOOOSLIMS are the main threat to white women when, if anything, the two biggest enemies of white women are Jews and Negroes. The gall of that black whore; she steals a man from his wife and kids but crows about the dangers of Islam. Jews control the media and encourage white girls to act like sluts and skanks, and Negroes are the most criminal race, not least in sexual assault. But just like one bunch of white cowards are too wussy to call out on Jewish Power but rag on China & Iran instead, another bunch of cowards focus on the MOOOOSLIMS.

As Joe Sobran wrote in 1997, "Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible." He added that other races still feel subjugated even after the end of Western imperialism. Furthermore: "The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call 'minorities'."

This is rubbish. In truth, non-whites bash whites because whites bash themselves, and whites bash themselves because Jews colonized their minds. Eventually, Sobran came around to addressing the Jewish Issue but soon got 'canceled' by William F. Cuckley.
White-Bashing has three main reasons: (1) Jewish control of media and academia. Jews instilled whites with 'white guilt' and promoted 'scape-whiting'(scapegoating of whites) among the non-whites. (2) Endless white virtue-signaling about 'white guilt'. Whites themselves made white-bashing into a Western Value. So, ironically enough, when non-whites bash whites, they are actually following in the footsteps of whites. (2) White Loss in sports to blacks. Sports is the main generator of idols, and when blacks beat up whites, blacks lost respect for whites and whites lost self-respect; whites became cucked, and over time, non-whites around the world came to see blacks as the alphas towering over wussy white cucks; it's like yellow boys in China worship NBA stars(even though blacks are using their muscle power to pummel immigrants in Chinatown).

If whites ruled the West, exhibited racial pride, and set the terms, most non-whites in the West would be full of respect and admiration for whites. Indeed, isn't it odd that there was more non-white respect for whites in the Age of Empire when whites were proud and ruthless? Back then, despite all the resentment and animus, there was also respect and admiration. So, what happened? Whites followed the Jews and began to hate themselves, and as the non-white world follows the white world, it began to hate on whitey because white self-hatred was the new whiteness. Indeed, non-whites in Europe, Canada, & US who show respect & sympathy for white folks are likely to be treated less well by educated whites. White elites feel virtuous in their white-bashing and insist that non-whites join in the chorus of white-bashing. Michelle Malkin isn't anti-white, but so many whites hate her for that very reason.

Last summer, the Duchess even supported ridiculous hate-crime claims from 18-year-old Althea Bernstein, who said four “classic Wisconsin frat boys” tried to set her on fire.

Althea Bernstein, a Jewgro? Jews are champion liars and so are blacks. Then, a Jewgro is naturally a super-liar. Of course, Madison Wisconsin is White Guilt Capital. Whites there love to virtue-signal about how anti-white they are.
What kills me about this idiot Meghan is her total lack of self-awareness. If she's so into blackness and equality, why did she pursue and marry a White Prince? Why not marry a coal-black truck driver? Go blacker and live among regular folks. But she wants to be at the top while pretending to care for the downtrodden(among the blacks of course, as we never heard her say anything in support of Palestinians or Syrians). But then, this hypocrisy defines the Western Elites who are mostly status-obsessed go-getters who send their kids to the toniest schools and hobnob with the fancy crowd but also make much noise about 'social justice' and 'equity'.

Still, as ridiculous as Althea Bernstein's accusations, they were somewhat in line with America's founding. In truth, the British were NOT tyrannical over the American colonies. After a grueling war with French Canada(which the colonials insisted upon), the British slightly raised taxes on the colonials, which was justified given the costs of war. Only 1/3 of colonials had problems with the Brits. 1/3 supported the king, and the other 1/3 remained neutral. And the rebellion succeeded only because of the intervention of the French monarchy that was far more 'tyrannical' than the British. Colonials who called for independence banked on French intervention to secure victory against the wishes of 2/3 of the colonials who didn't join the Revolution. So, America's very founding was built on mass hysteria and a big lie(though, to be sure, the Founding Fathers were men of immense talent and intelligence, which can't be said for the current morons of PC).

In the honor culture that the monarchy emerged from, strength and duty justify power.

The problem with monarchy is inheritance of power invariably leads to decadence and insularity. Spain under monarchy grew weaker and even freakier. Most kings were fools, and most princes were idiots. Tsar Nicholas was a moron, and Kaiser Wilhelm a petulant jerk. While it takes a strong man to gain the throne by war and conquest, princes just inherit the power and grow up pampered. So, 'honor' was mostly talk, mostly BS, just like 'democracy' is today.

In our modern culture, claims of victimhood are the path to power. Today, we’re seeing the conflict between victim culture and honor culture.

Not really. If it were so, does anyone really think American Indians gain lots of power by bitching about victimhood? How come Palestinians don't have power in Europe or the US even though they made endless cases of their victimhood at the hands of Jews?
It's not the case that talk of victimhood leads to power. Rather, those with power use their control of victimhood narratives and iconography to shore up their own power and/or to favor their allies. So, no amount of Palestinian talk of victimhood will lead to power or guarantee sympathy from the West. No amount of American Indian historical gripes will lead to real power.

Jewish victimhood matters because Jews got the power. They control media & academia; as such, they get to decide the Official Narrative or compulsory narrative. And US politicians cuck to Jews endlessly. It's plain as day that Zionists victimize Palestinians, but both political parties favor Jews and Israel. So, where is Palestinian power despite the Palestinian plea for sympathy? Is BDS movement getting anywhere? Even Democrats attack BDS, and most 'leftists' would rather focus on trannies and BLM than on Palestinians or countless Arabs killed by US Wars for Israel. Of late, Utah passed anti-BDS legislation. Why would a conservative white state do that when Jews are mostly Democratic and push anti-whiteness? Because Jews got the power to mold white minds and make-or-break white success. As far as Jews are concerned, their supremacist domination depends on white cuckery. That's why Jews use their immense power to emphasize black victimhood while minimizing the tragedy of Palestinians and Arabs in general. Jews can tie black victimhood to 'white guilt', whereas Palestinian victimhood is most inconvenient to Jewish Power.

So, victimhood is really the tool of those with power. Indeed, white American history was also full of victim-narratives. When whites had the power, they were the victims... though ultimately with the wherewithal to become the victors. They were moral tools used by powerful whites to justify their power and expansion. So, even though whites were moving into Indian territories, the narrative was often about noble white settlers being attacked by 'hostiles' and 'savages'. Yellow journalism spread wild stories about Spanish authorities sexually abusing American women to inflame popular support for war. Even though the US was secretly aiding the British in World War I, it played the innocent victim when Lusitania was sunk. The US knowingly drove Japan to desperation and wanted it to attack to justify American entry into war, but the Pearl Harbor narrative would have us believe totally innocent and peace-loving America was violated by an act of infamy. Even though US was butchering countless people in Vietnam, it portrayed itself as defending the world from communist tyranny. And look at the whole US establishment today. US surrounds China, Iran, and Russia but bitch about Chinese aggression, Iranian aggression, and Russian aggression. US foreign policy is pure Bill Laimbeer. It commits all the fouls but cries foul about the various Axis of Evil.

And consider Christian History. Christians went on and on about the victimhood of Jesus as the Son of God. They reminded themselves and the world of how the early Christians been fed to the lions. But was it such victimhood talk that led to their power? No. If anything, on their path to power, they flattered the Romans and tended to blame the JEWS for the killing of Jesus. It was once they gained power that they began to use the victimhood card as a moral justification for their power-lust. So, even as Christianity became the official religion of the empire and even as Christian mobs were smashing pagan temples and burning people at the stake, they were making endless noises about their victimhood at the hands of pagans. The Christian Way, which pioneered the politics of victimhood, was to gain the power and then to use the power to bemoan their victimhood to justify their increasing power.
The powerless gain little traction with their victim-narratives. Just like you gotta spend money to make money, you gotta have power to gain more power via victimhood narratives.

What we have today isn't so much victimhood leading to power but the power exploiting the victimhood narrative. Jews got the power. They control the banks, media, academia, and law firms. They got the politicians in their pockets. And so, Jews endlessly push 'Muh Holocaust' narrative while suppressing BDS and Palestinian narratives. Also, Jews flatter blacks as moral allies. As blacks have been (selectively) associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Movement — never mind that all of black 'history' was about savagery, slavery, and brutality in the Dark Continent — , having them as allies means that Jews have the blessing of Noble Negroes. This gives Jews a free hand to oppress Palestinians. I mean, how can Jews be bad when their allies are the Noble Negroes?
It goes to show that much of current 'morality' is less about ideology than about idolatry. So, never mind that the Jews are acting supremacist and 'racist' toward Palestinians. And never mind blacks are aiding and abetting Zionist Apartheid and also racially attacking non-blacks. If ideology ruled, Jews and blacks would be judged like everyone else and be called out on their own acts of 'racism'. But as Jews are iconized as the Holocaust Race and as blacks are idolized as the Slavery Race, they are always justified no matter what they do. As their very identities have been 'sacralized', they are judged for what they ARE than for what they DO.
So, as long as Jews have blacks as allies, how can they be 'racist'? Blackness is idolized as 'struggle against racism' in the US Narrative, and if blacks are allied with Jews, it means Jews are also associated with 'anti-racism'. Of course, Jews have also been banking on their Holocaust Iconography that says Jews are the Shoah Race, the victims of 'racist' Nazis. Thus consecrated, it doesn't matter that it's the Jews who've been acting like Nazis against the Palestinians. No matter what Jews do, they are a bunch of Anne Franks, and to the extent that Palestinians resist them, they are the Arab 'Nazis'.

But white 'conservatives' are no better. They too indulge in Moral Idolatry. Why are they so eager to have Jews on their side? It's because of what Jewishness symbolizes: Holy Holocaust Victimhood. So, never mind what the Jews are doing and how it resembles apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow in the US South. Never mind such ideological considerations because idolatry is all that counts. Jews got the power to elevate themselves as the Holy Holocaust People, and white 'conservatives' want to be associated with such symbolism regardless of how Jews really act.

So, never assume that victimhood narrative alone leads to power. Current America is not about victimology but victorimology(or victor-victim-ology). As Patton said, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Why do Jewish victimhood and black victimhood count for so much? Because they are victors and winners in their respective fields. Jews have proven themselves as the brainiest people, and mind-power leads to money and influence. In other words, Jews are awesome, and THAT is why the Holocaust was so terrible: It victimized a superior people, the real master race. And blacks have proven themselves as the brawniest people, and muscle-power leads to fame and fortune in sports. As Patton said, "Americans admire the toughest boxer, the fastest runner." Well, they are blacks. Also, Americans love pop music dominated by blacks with stronger voices, and in our sexualized age, whites got jungle fever for black buns and dongs. And that is why Americans care about black victimology. Whites feel especially guilty because they feel they enslaved the superior race of top athletes, rappers, and long-dong-silver & twerking T'keymah.
In contrast, brown Mexicans haven't gained much traction in victimology because they're mediocre in all areas. So, even as whites are ideologically or rationally committed to 'equality', they 'idologically' and emotionally feel about brown Mexicans, "They've been a bunch of slaves, servants, and low-wage workers because they suck at everything." It's just how things are. It's like men will they regard all women as equally worthy as human beings. But such ideological considerations go out the window when they see a pretty babe. She is favored over the plain janes. Idolatry > Ideology, and Jews know this.

She never did anything to reverse the demographic transformation of her realm, but if she had, it might have meant the end of the monarchy.

The problem is Britain came to identify itself as an empire than as a nation. Thus, the King or Queen was no longer just the sovereign over national folks but everyone in the empire. When Britain ruled over India, the Hindus and Muslims there were told that the British monarch was their rightful and kindly ruler as well. This mentality has stuck. Like the Romans, the British became so flush with power and domination that Britishness became less a matter of national identity than pride in imperial might and domination. Of course, back in the Age of Empire, the Brits tried to have it both ways. They insisted upon their non-white subjects to accept 'inclusion' in the empire and revere the British King or Queen as their own sovereign WHILE, at the same time, being very race-conscious and emphasizing the white-pride element of imperial glory. It was a contradiction not unlike that which came to rack the Roman Empire. Both empires allowed great deal of participation from subject folks, but there was also a barrier between the conquerors and the conquered. As a corrective of past imperial mistakes, globalism envisions a New Empire where the West would rule the world again BUT with total and full participation of the darkies. An empire of 'equity'... at least on paper, as the globo-homo empire is really about various goyim serving their Jewish Supremacist masters. Jews certainly don't want to be equal with anyone.

Prince Harry’s approach has been different, but he doesn’t lack admirable qualities. He risked his life as a soldier for his country,

Did he now? For his country? But how is the occupation of Afghanistan related to British interests? Britain is merely serving as sidekick to the US military that serves Jewish Supremacism. So, even Harry's 'service to his country' was really just an indirect cucking to Jews. If he really wanted to serve his country, he would have called out against the insane Western policies in the Middle East. But no, ever the mindless dog, he served in the military to perpetuate the Jewish globo-homo war in the Middle East. The trite notion that a man who serves in the military is some patriot serving his country must GO. No, most US soldiers are not heroes or patriots. They are mercenary goons who signed up for benefits. They are perfectly willing to bomb and murder foreigners for future career prospects. And they are mindlessly fighting illegal wars and killing innocent people. And British military is just a sidekick of the US military. The hoary nonsense about soldiers-as-heroes is a sad joke. Soldiers are heroes ONLY WHEN they defend the motherland from invasion.

The Duchess also understands that her (part) black skin privilege has more real power than any claim to nobility.

Jews need white submission. So, Jews especially use blackness to guilt-bait whites. Thus morally paralyzed, whites seek redemption, and then, Jews pull a bait-and-switch by saying whites can redeem themselves by supporting Zionism and more Wars for Israel.
Black Power cannot be understood apart from Jewish Power. As for Oprah Winfrey, the fat whore is totally a Jewish-media creation. If Oprah cares so much about victimhood, how come she's never done a show about the plight of Palestinians or what Obama's policies have done to Arabs and Africans in Middle East and North Africa? That fat baboon is just a tool.

Once a member of Jeremiah Wright’s radical congregation, she concealed her own racial grievances until her position was unassailable.

Oprah was made by the Jews, but then, most famous blacks are. Notice she bashes whites but never ever Jews. Even blacks who bash Jews are enticed with lots of prizes if they were to only bash whites and turn a blind eye to Wars for Israel. When certain blacks bash Jews and whites, whites and Jews react the same way. Whites denounce those blacks of anti-Jewishness, and Jews denounce those blacks of anti-Jewishness. Jews don't denounce both the anti-white and anti-Jewish vitriol. If the blacks apologize only to Jews while still lambasting whites, Jews are only too happy to work with them. Take Al Sharpton. He used to call Jews 'diamond merchants', but he got lots of money and has been a good Negro ever since, at least to Jews. Jews control the gods and the gold. Indeed, so much of US politics and culture could be explained in terms of..."Jews give you money." It certainly goes a long way to describe why GOP and Democratic politicians act the way they do. Jews don't care how much blacks hate on whites. If anything, Jews add fuel to the fire. Jews get antsy only when blacks turn on Jews. The understanding between Jews and blacks is "We Jews give you money" and "We blacks bash whites but never Jews."
But are white cuckservatives any different? GOP's relation to Jews is, "Throw us some money and don't bash us too badly, and we will praise Israel to high heaven and never ever call out on Jewish behavior." Even Jared Taylor, though totally deplatformed by Jews, clings to the fantasy of white-Jewish alliance, a day when the superior race of Jews will finally see the light and join forces with whites against the darkies. What an idiot.

A black billionaire used her massive platform to give a privileged mulatta a chance to claim she was a victim.

In a way, the very institution of royalty invites victimhood mentality. Take the story of the princess and the pea. She arrives at the castle and insists she's of royal blood. So, how do they find out if she's telling the truth? They put a pea in the bed to see how sensitive her skin is. When she complains about the pea, they know she must be of royal blood because of her preciously sensitive skin.
We associate fancy-pantsism with elitism, but elitism is linked with victimism. Elites have higher standards and feel offended by anything that doesn't meet their highfalutin criteria. For most ordinary folks, a regular cup of coffee is good enough, but only the best coffee will do to an elitist who will feel 'victimized' by inferior coffee, like the scene in MULHOLLAND DR.

In the film SWEPT AWAY, who feels more victimized by being shipwrecked? The poor Southern Italian male or the rich Northern Italian blonde lady? It's the latter because she's used to finer things. Why do educated elites feel so 'triggered' by everything? They believe themselves to be TOO GOOD for most jobs; they want the best and look down on working class 'deplorables'. Even as they virtue-signal about 'justice', they have fancy-pants view of themselves and feel wronged whenever something doesn't go their way.

In ROB ROY, the fancy-pantsers feel wronged or 'victimized' by the slightest infraction. What most people accept as 'Life' is downright 'triggering' to the fancy-pants neo-aristo elites. So, paradoxically, victimhood mentality spread precisely because things got better for most people who got to feeling like divas. Take the boomers. They had it much easier than their parents who lived through hard times and war. But they felt sooooo victimized by everything. And they raised their kids to feel entitled and oh-so-special.

Why are blacks bitching more than ever, indeed far more than blacks who really had it tough in the past and had to work from sunup to sundown for cornbread and ripple? They don't know hunger, they all got smart phones, and they all want to be Jay-Z or Rhianna. Celebrity culture has spread a kind of vulgar-royalty mindset around the globe. And globo-homo made it worse cuz homos and trannies are among the most narcissistic snot-nosers around. When you see some tranny getting hysterical about being addressed as 'he' than 'she', it reeks of royalty or aristocratic mentality. So, in a way, victimhood mentality ironically flows not only from the mob but from the snob. Take PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. John Candy the fatso Deplorable is pretty accepting of the pitfalls of life, but Steve Martin the affluent professional snivels and sneers at all-things-common and feels 'wronged' by having to rub shoulders with regular joes. And every minor trifle was a major victimization moment for Princess Diana, oh boo hoo hoo. This is why the French Revolution did nothing wrong when it killed so many fancy-pantsers. With Meghan Markle-Mertz-or-whatever, victimhood has turned into victim vanity with nouveau-aristo flair. That pea in the bed was just too much for her, boo hoo hoo.

Black sensitivity has gotten worse because they consider themselves to be the new royals of the West. After all, so many black athletes, rappers, and stars are idolized by whites. Black soul is regarded as holier. MLK and Mandela are bigger than god and jesus. Oprah was praised by white liberals and conservatives alike as Soul-Nanny of America. Such cultural climate was bound to affect black attitudes and expectations. When blacks were struggling for simple equality, their minds were focused on basic matters. But after several decades of MLK worship, Magic Negro adulation, Jungle Fever, and Blacks Sports idolatry, blacks have developed a vulgar royal mindset and feel entitled to be respected and served by everyone. So-called 'reparations' are really tributes and offerings, i.e. non-blacks as lesser-beings exist to work, pay taxes, and present gifts to blacks gods and kangz. Jews feel much the same way. And homos now regard themselves as highfalutin aristocrats of the West and feel oh-so-offended if we don't praise all things 'gay' everyday. They take umbrage at any criticism of homosexuality or the homo agenda, much like an aristocrat was outraged that a mere peasant dared to act uppity towards him. An aristocrat was someone who materially victimized the peons but felt emotionally victimized if the peon said, "I don't want to be your dog anymore." Today, blacks like Meghan and others feel 'victimized' by non-blacks who insist it isn't their sole purpose in life to kiss black ass and wash black feet. In a way, what goes by the name of 'victimology' is about certain groups taking on aristocratic airs about history. You see, they are oh-so-very-special and it was such a grave injustice that history didn't treat them better. In truth, of course, history has been a bitch to all peoples, and it's just the way of the world. Just ask the Palestinians.

The Duchess made several charges. She said a member of the royal family worried her son Archie might be too “dark.” Who said that? She wouldn’t say.

Well, one thing for sure, she didn't want to marry someone who's dark. She married lily-white Harry. If she's so proud to be black, why didn't she marry a coal-black dude? She is the product of black-white mixing and she chased after whiteness, but she's bitching that whites are color-conscious. If she really loves blackness, why not move to Africa and marry Bongo-Wongo? Total lack of self-awareness. In a way, her endless yammering about blackness seems a cover for her white-preference. She wants to be with a white man and have a white-looking kid, but lest she lose her credentials as a Noble Negress, she whines endlessly about 'racism' to maintain her street cred. It's like she married into the exclusive world of royalty but yammers about 'equality' and 'inclusive' as deflection of her own snobbery(or at least hobnobbery).

The true irony is that this story really is about the privilege of a sacred bloodline. That bloodline is Meghan Markle’s black ancestry. A wealthy white woman complaining that the press is mean probably would win no praise.

Not necessarily true. Think of all the love Princess Di got, and she was a royal pain the arse(though Charles, the conversationist with flowers, was no better). You can get a lot of love even if you're white and rich. All you got to do is associate with the right causes. Princess Di, the celebrity-hog, got very cozy with the fruitcakes and was so adored by Elton John and the like. So, even if whiteness has fallen out of favor, it can be half-redeemed via association with Jews, blacks, and homos.

This is what happens when traditional intuitions are “integrated.” Non-whites welcomed with great fanfare turn on their benefactors. Joe Sobran is probably right. Blacks who suddenly “lead” something whites created can’t help thinking it’s foreign. They feel no duty or loyalty towards something their own people could never have built.

Why don't you name the Jews? Gee, could it be that the problem began when the West 'emancipated' and then 'integrated' Jews into white institutions? Could it be Jews 'deconstructed' whiteness and reconstructed it into a form of demonology?
While integration or 'inclusion' have their problems, I don't believe it necessarily leads to subversion from within UNLESS whites have lost all pride & dignity and the new grand theme is 'whites are evil'. When whites lack self-respect, why would(or should) non-whites respect whites? When whites bash themselves, why wouldn't non-whites do likewise because, after all, whites still set the tone in the West? This anti-white trend didn't begin with integration of non-whites into white institutions. Rather, anti-whiteness spread among whites first even before this integration gained momentum. And whites became this way in large measure due to Jewish Power and influence.

The foundations of monarchy are hierarchy and sacral order. Monarchy can’t pursue “equality” without destroying itself.

Monarchy can destroy itself in many ways. Tsar Nicholas certainly didn't pursue equality but totally destroyed his domain. Also, as you've said, the problem isn't so much that the British Royalty is pursuing real equality but bending to the rise of Afro-Nobility, or Black Lives Matter More. But then, the British elites and monarchy bent to Jewish Supremacy already. When Jews gained both money and moral supremacy, they were like the gods of UK.

I would argue the French and British Monarchies would have done better if they'd practiced a bit of genuine equality long ago with their own folks. Instead of enclosing themselves in fancy pants palaces and dining on fancy cakes, how about if they'd opened their bloodlines to the regular folks? Suppose princes were encouraged to marry common women(of virtue) and if princesses were encouraged to marry common soldiers(of valor). Such would have kept the monarchies real and in touch with the people. It also would have infused some fresh blood into the family. Look how anemic most royal families got. Who is the finest wife in movie history? It's Jesse James' wife Zee in THE LONG RIDERS. She has common dignity and personal pride, a quality you don't find among the fancy-pantsers. Indeed, look at what all the inbreeding did to the Spanish Royal Family. It turned them into freaks. The great thing about National Socialism was it opened the elite ranks to common Germans who proved their worth.

There is only one way to win the diversity game. Don’t play. You are racist no matter what you do.

There's a better way. Name the Jew. Mention how Jews use diversity as divide-and-rule tool. Also, given Jewish hostility to whites, tell whites to seek White Liberation from Jewish Power and Privilege. Tit-for-Tat. Stop cucking to Jews who push jungle fever on whites. Jared Taylor calls for 'white advocacy', but that is so wussy. 'Advocacy'? At this point in history? No, whites must call for white liberation, and ask 'what from?', the answer should be obvious: Jewish Supremacism that controls everything and props up black supremacism and homo-supremacism.

The Sovereign — and everyone in her family — must be something more than celebrities.

That ship has sailed long ago. There is nothing left about the Family but celebrity gossip. It's total trash and must go. You can revive a comatose person but not a dead person. The Royal Family is deader than a doorknob. It is only good for jokes.

A post-Brexit United Kingdom could retain relevance by strengthening ties with the white nations it created, with the monarch as the unifying symbol.

ROTFL. Post-Brexit, the UK has imported more non-whites than ever. Brexit was not about cutting UK from the non-white world. It was about cutting UK from Europe and inviting more non-whites to be New Brits. It was retarded.

THE TRUTH ABOUT MEGHAN AND HARRY! FREEDOMAIN LIVESTREAM by Stefan Molyneux