Why QE II Will Be the Last British Monarch

In recent times, the British monarchy has served more than one useful purposes. 

Most importantly it has kept clowns like Boris Johnson and egomaniacs like Phony Blair from occupying the palace, which they might very well have turned into a brothel or a venue for pop concerts. Furthermore, the Monarchy prevents such oafs and fantasists as these from heading either the armed forces or the Church of England, in which capacities they would be capable of untold harm. As it is, the harm that they can do in the military or religious sphere is limited to what they can persuade the Monarch to give consent.

In addition to these restraints on the political powers that be, the Monarchy has another and more important role, which is to serve as a bastion of the British Constitution. The Monarch has this role by virtue of the fact that whatever Britain`s Parliament seeks to enact, becomes law only with the Monarch's approval. 

True, the British Monarch has given the nod to every act of Parliament since Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in the year 1708. Still the power of the Monarch to refuse passage of an act of Parliament exists and must exert a modicum of restraint on Parliament.

As is well known, Britain's constitution is unwritten and thus not generally well understood. It's essence, however, was defined by Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquess of Salisbury and three-times British Prime Minister during the late Nineteenth Century. It was Lord Salisbury's considered opinion that any action by Parliament that is strongly opposed by a majority of the people constitutes a breach of the Constitution. In the event that a government pursued such action, it would thus be the responsibility of the Monarch to reject the enabling legislation. 

But the Monarch would be successful in applying such restraint on the action of Parliament only if known for political neutrality and fairness of judgement, which is to say a monarch trusted by a large majority of the people. Without the authority granted by the public will, the power of the Monarch over Parliament is void. Moreover, such general public approval will never be earned by a politically active monarch. Yet, disastrously, since the death of the Duke of Edinburgh, Britain`s Royal Family has turned highly and controversially political. 

Only the other day, the Queen lectured heads of state gathered in Glasgow on their responsibilities, while jet-setting Prince Charles yammers endlessly (and here, and here and etc.) about "setting ourselves on a new and more sustainable course" (i.e., a less carbon intensive and generally lower standard of living, himself and his Davos friends excepted, naturally). Meantime, Meg and Prince Harry push the same message as they jet private in pursuit of pleasure, profit, privilege, public adulation, and political influence.

Prince William, it is true, has thus far demonstrated some self-control over the expression of his political opinions* and has even taken cheap commercial flights along with the hoi polloi. But for all the sense that he and Princess Catherine can muster, his chance at the monarchy is surely doomed by his father's inane political interventionism. 

Thus the only sensible course for the Brits is to jettison the monarchy, something that the sovereign nation state of Barbados is doing this month. Out of respect for the lifelong service of Her Majesty the Queen, the transition should be deferred until the reign of QEII reaches its natural end. But the time to plan the transition is now.

With an end to monarchy, the assets of the Monarch, vast land holdings, the Crown Jewels and much else, must be nationalized. At the same time, the role of Head of State must be transferred to an appointed President who will be selected by the Government as is the practice in Canada, Australia and several other countries, including the nation of Tuvalu (Pop. 11,646).

The transition from Monarchy to Constitutional Republic will give formal recognition to the end of England's age of greatness neatly book-ended by the Queens Elizabeth. Marking this transition by an end to the Monarchy will help concentrate minds on the question of where Britain's future is to lie. 

_________________________________

* Sadly, William has now flunked the test of political neutrality with his recent statement that "The increasing pressure on Africa’s wildlife and wild spaces as a result of human population presents a huge challenge for conservationists, as it does the world over,” a clear expression of preference for animals over black people. True, Africa's ongoing population explosion is a matter for widespread concern. But it is not for the heir to the British throne to raise the issue. 

Related:

Maxime Bernier: Should Canada leave the Monarchy behind?

PETER HITCHENS: Our Green Queen has just made a terrible mistake by taking a side in politics

Saving the British Nation from Elite-driven Genocide

Over at the Unz Review, the current headline story is about the firing of a UK Government special adviser named Sabitsky who advocated the forced sterilization (by means of a long-lasting contraceptive treatment) of those of low IQ, particularly African immigrants.

The Unzites are, true to form, in uproar against this appalling stifling of the hideous reality of low black IQ and the urgent need for measures of racial hygiene. In fact, however, Sabitsky is a young and obnoxious fool to have advocated compulsory contraception, i.e., sterilization. That's not what can happen in a free country.

His proposal however, does address a real problem: namely, Britain's catastrophically dysgenic reproductive policies, which yield, contrary to the pattern of all past ages, higher fertility among the poor and stupid than among the rich and intelligent.

And as one commenter over at Unz.com, notes: Correcting the disastrous demographic trend in Britain requires four things:

First, barring immigration except to those of British extraction prior to 1950, when the waves of mass immigration began. Second, bringing back teenage pregnancy. The idiots and self-hating morons who devised sex "education" have destroyed an essential part of the mechanism for population self-replacement. In 1950's Britain there was essentially no sex "education", no pill, and abortion was rare, dangerous and criminal. Hence smart lads and cute, unwed, teenage girls subject to irresistible impulse accounted for one third of all conceptions. The result? Sharp good-looking kids. In about one third of all cases the parents of these children married in haste. The majority of the remaining kids were adopted and well brought up. Third, make welfare for indigent mothers dependent on identification by DNA test of the father(s) of their children, while compelling father's thus identified to make child support payments or go to debtors' gaol. (That way, no need for compulsory contraception. Only the most imbecile of the fathers of welfare children will fail to use a condom, and those who do fail will end up in gaol.) Fourth, give intelligent women who bear and raise children vastly greater economic security in this age of no-fault divorce by instituting a child allowance paid to the mother for the rest of her life in the form of a large (at least 25%) tax refund, based on the earnings of both parents whether married, unmarried or divorced.

Related: 
Zero Hedge: Marine Le Pen Calls For Referendum To Stop "Submersion" Of France Via Mass Immigration

Repurposing Britain's New, Superb, and Totally Useless Warships

Speaking of Britain's newest additions to the Royal Naval fleet, the Aircraft Carriers HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, Lord Alan West, former British Admiral and Labour peer, has stated that the US feels a touch of jealousy toward the Royal Navy. The reason for this supposed jelousy is the alleged superiority of the British vessels relative to those of the American navy.

But as someone over at the Russian website Sputnik points out, whether an aircraft carrier is British or America:

... all it takes is one well placed super fast missile ...

And it's not just Russia that has a few of those.

But given that these ships have been built and the fact that, at least to look at, they are mighty impressive ships, the best thing to do with them is convert them to emergency relief vessels. As such, they would be equipped with helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for the deliver food, water, a prefab hospital and other medical aid, temporary housing, and equipment for infrastructure repair wherever on the face of the earth life has been disrupted by hurricane, earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami or disease.

Such a transformation would provide concrete evidence of post-Brexit Britain's aim to be friend of all the world. Meantime, Britain should emulate Switzerland by creating a civilian militia, every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 65 to possess and know how to use a rifle — just to remind any future continental Hitlerian that invading Britain would be a bad idea.

Also, the Brits need to get back to training native citizens as engineers in place of the imported brains they've come, like the Americans, increasingly to rely on,. Then, purely for the purpose of deterrence, they should get back to the drawing board and develop a credible independent delivery system for Britain's nukes.

As for the Trident subs, they can sell 'em to the Canadians, to replace the earlier consignment of British-built dud subs now reaching the end of their expensively unproductive life.

Trump Organizing 2020 Landslide

Washington Post:  U.S. signs peace deal with Taliban agreeing to full withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan

New York Times:  U.S. Strikes Deal With Taliban to Withdraw Troops From Afghanistan

And this:

Tass: Trump ready to meet with leaders of Russia, China, Britain, France to discuss arms control

And if he were to add reform of the banking system, Trump would truly set the US on course to renewed greatness.

Free Speech in the Age of Political Correctness

Kevin MacDonald is a retired California State University Professor of Psychology and the the editor of the Occidental Observer, a publication concerned with "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".

According to that well-known source of objective information, Trikipedia, MacDonald is "best known for writings that propagate a conspiracy theory which characterize Jewish behavior as a group evolutionary strategy."

Other sources readily accessed by Google take a similar line, describing MacDonald as an anti-Semite, white supremacist, conspiracy theorist, or to summarize, a mentally deranged and nasty piece of slime.

However, based on his scholarly treatise, The Culture of Critique, it would seem reasonable to suppose that MacDonald is not some racist nut, but a rational scholar examining the way in which diaspora Jews often interact with the people of their host nation.

Whether MacDonald's analysis is generally sound it is not my purpose here to consider, although having dipped into his major treatise, I can say that it proceeds in accordance with the normal methods of rational academic discourse and confirms much of what is apparent to the casual observer concerning Jewish beliefs, traditions, and modes of behavior.

It is naturally painful, therefore, for a person such as MacDonald to find themselves generally ostracized for their sincerely held and carefully weighed opinions on a subject to which they have devoted lengthy study.

Reflecting the painful social consequences of his academic pursuits, MacDonald recently published an article entitled: Ideas on maintaining relationships with the less committed in a dark age, wherein he states:

... Many of us are forced to deal with personal issues because of our political-cultural beliefs. A typical situation might be a wife or girlfriend—the great majority of activists on the dissident right are male—who is terrified of it becoming known that she is associated with someone who is shunned and socially ostracized. But of course, it may also be other family members or friends—a particularly painful experience. ...

Discussion of the article at the Unz Review raised the issue of American's constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech prompting the remark:

... This is comedy gold. First, that people believe that we still have freedom of speech. ...

In fact, Americans do still have the constitutional right of free speech. However, freedom of speech is a legal freedom, whereas freedom of action, whether in the form of speech or otherwise, is subject to both legal and social limitations.

Political correctness diminishes or eradicates the value of the legal right of free speech by imposing social control over speech, i.e., informal sanctions imposed by friends and family, or economic sanctions imposed by employers, state bureaucracies, political parties, etc.

The pervasive and uniformly PC impact of media, the propaganda dispensed by state-managed educational institutions, and the Google-style economic punishment of the expression of non-PC beliefs, ensures that the exercise of Freedom of Speech is a rare and often painful experience.

The result is a massive build up of resentment among the socially oppressed until something gives. In the UK, the working class, comprehensively betrayed by Phony Bliar's PC "New Labour" party --which deliberately flooded the working class areas of declining industrial towns with immigrants of an alien race, religion and culture, has defected in large numbers to a supposedly populist Johnson Tory Party.

The consequence of this reaction remains to be seen. But if the Johnson Government fails to deliver for Britain's working class the consequences may be be ugly in the extreme.

Meantime, the liberal left are turning up the invective against the working man. Hence the headline in that most disgusting of all self-hating white liberal newspapers, The Independent:

The antisemitic monster rising from the slime is not Corbynism – it is white nationalism

There you have the resort to hate speech direct in the cause of British national genocide through suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

The outcome? Civil War, anyone? Most Americans think it likely. Why should it not be likely in Britain too, where another civil war seems overdue.

Related: Joe Digenova: American coup d'etat:

Careerist Women and Environmentalists Drive the Suicide of the British Nation

There are lies, damned lies, and official British Government Statistical Reports

Births in Britain last year were down 3.2% on the previous year, off 10% since 2012. Just another step in the path to extinction of the British nation.



Meantime, some 28.2% of the children born in England and Wales were born to immigrant women.

The Brits will soon be a minority in their own homeland. But not to worry. Lots from India, Poland, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Africa, and China, plus a bunch even from such places as Mongolia and Tuvalu coming in to take their places.

Britain's Office for National Statistics said "falling fertility rates were mainly responsible for the fall" in Britain's birth rate — silly buggers, what do they think a fall in birth rate is if not a decline in fertility rate. To which imbecile statement they added:

difficulties conceiving among older couples who chose to delay family formation to focus on their careers or other objectives was one reason for the drop.

Yeah, well, if you delay having kids until you are too old to have kids, a decline in birth rate is a certainty, ain't it. 

And having the nit-wit prince Harry and his fatuous foreign bride announce as though its a great virtue that they will have no more than two children does nothing for the survival of the British race.

So folks, we just need one more push for girls' education and female equality and we'll be rid of the Brits and the rest of the stinking Europeans for good.

Related:
Zero Hedge: Have Environmentalists Killed More Europeans Than Islamic Terrorists Did?
The Maverick Philosopher on Erzatz Motherhood: 
Having renounced natural maternity, many women today seek an outlet in the political: they seek to become the nannies of the nanny state.

Expansion of Higher Education Drives Declining IQs of the Western Nations

As I have previously argued, the near universal access to higher education in Western countries has resulted in an epidemic of nation-destroying stupidity. Proof of that contention is now available in research showing that the mean IQ of the Brits and other Western nations is declining at the rate of three to four points per decade, which will reduce their acuity of mind to that of the sub-Saharan African nations within a generation.

A pair of researchers with the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Norway has found that IQ test scores have been slowly dropping over the past several decades (full text available here).  Prior studies have shown that people grew smarter over the first part of last century, as measured by the intelligence quotient—a trend that was dubbed the Flynn effect. Various theories have been proposed to explain this apparent brightening of the human mind, such as better nutrition, health care, education, etc, all factors that might help people grow into smarter adults than they would have otherwise. But, now, according to the researchers in Norway, that trend has ended. Instead of getting smarter, humans have started getting dumber. The study by the team consisted of analyzing IQ test results from young men entering Norway's national service (compulsory military duty) during the years 1970 to 2009. In all, 730,000 test results were accounted for. In studying the data, the researchers found that scores declined by an average of seven points per generation, a clear reversal of test results going back approximately 70 years. But it was not all bad news. The researchers also found some differences between family groups, suggesting that some of the decline might be due to environmental factors. But they also suggest that lifestyle changes could account for some of the decline, as well, such as changes in the education system and children reading less and playing video games more. Source

And it's not just a Norwegian problem. As the Telegraph reports:

Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was 28 years ago.

Some people will no doubt say that the decline in Europe's population mean IQ is due to the mass immigration to Europe of people from sub-Saharan Africa, Syria, and other low IQ lands. But obviously the causality runs the other way. It is liberal-elite-directed higher education with its mandatory component of PC indoctrination that is destroying the intelligence of the people thus making them vulnerable to mass replacement immigration. Specifically, the elite-directed destruction of the Western nations in the name of the liberal religion of anti-racism and diversity, the outcome being the genocide of the European peoples through compelled homogenization with immigrants of alien race and culture.