By their fruits
England's Queen Elizabeth is dead. 96 years old.
She was obviously a very likeable lady. Discreet, polite. I dislike vacuous words which are hard to define, which people usually use because they sound old and educated. "Dignity" is one of those words; you can search this blog and you'll probably never see me use that word. But if someone could be described as "dignified" Queen Elizabeth II was one of those. May she rest in peace.
It was just very hard to dislike that lady, as a person. The people who did or today claim to have done are without exception very bad people. The usual suspects, really.
Good or bad she was just not a very interesting person, was she? Again everyone is today writing pieces qualifying her and her reign, which I find rather unfair. She was a woman! What did you expect? Yeah sure, she reigned over the complete destruction of the British Empire and unprecedented decay of the British nation. The death of it, really. The physical death of the nation; the stock of the British race is gone, probably forever. On that note, sure, she was the worst monarch ever. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
But was it her fruits? Look at that nice lady, how could she have any fruits at all? She's a woman, women have generally no agency, how can you blame her for all that? Her office had no power, by law, but even if it had, she was still an unremarkable woman. The only responsibility we could ask her is about her children. Her own children, which… lol. Well OK, those aren't too good either. But hey at least she had a bunch of them.
Tucker Carlson had a rather moving video on the Queen's death; which turned into nostalgia about the British Empire. The most benign empire that human history has seen and will ever see, as he put it.
Well yes, hopefully it won't happen again. I mean, why would that be the case? Why would it be that no future empire will ever be as benign as the British Empire was? Surely the British Empire was very successful. We learn from past successes, there surely is much to learn from British imperialism. But I agree, future empires won't learn from it's benignness. Because that was it's undoing, the cause of it's ultimate failure, and the ultimate destruction of the British nation itself.
Future historians, if humanity is to get much further, will qualify past events by their contribution to human advancement. That means ultimately, their contribution to eugenics, their contribution to the improvement of the human genetic stock, most importantly its cognitive ability. What the Benign British Empire ultimately left to the world was the multiplication of the human population of black Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Hundreds of millions of people there. People who are incapable of doing anything of remark. Barely able to feed themselves. All for what? So that Tucker Carlson could brag about it to his Boomer American audience. "See how benign our cousins were".
No, buddy. All the problems that your country has right now, which are exactly due to the proliferation of the wrong sort of people, can be quite directly tracked to the British Empire, or at least the mindset that they created and popularized, which became popular thanks to the very success of the empire. That's what you get when your rulers are "benign". Multiplication of bad people.
It's sad because of course some British did understand that; in point of fact they very much discovered the notion of eugenics. And some of them even understood what their Empire had to do in order to prosper. See things like this map 
. Some people quite obviously got it. And yet, they couldn't do what had to be done. And now their home government looks like this. 
That said, the Bombay train station really is nice. One does hope that the empires of the future build more stuff like it. But not out of the goodness of their heart. But because they enjoy making their possessions more beautiful.
13 comments
replyGreat to see you writing a bit again - it's been a while. I need to do more of that myself. I hope you have also been well and in good health. It's easy to be magnanimous towards the late Queen - in spite of the tremendous failures that took place during her reign, she maintained her dignity and position. I like your take that since she was a woman, the outcome of her reign was not really a surprise. If I recall correctly, most of the Victorian period was also characterized by a similar feminine detachment from the fate of the nation. I'm even rather well disposed towards the new King. I do not think that there has ever been a British monarch to have ever gained the throne in less auspicious circumstances. He's going to have to work very hard to keep the throne. I do think that reigns do characterize their eras and fresh royal era is a necessary prerequisite of any sort of Anglo-Saxon rebirth on the British Isles. That being said, the place is pretty buggered beyond belief and it was buggered generationally by the very people that were supposed to preserve and enhance the power, prestige, and security of the British races. The entire 20th century has seen the most preventable and pointless decline of a great empire and race possibly in the history of the world - a British disease I suppose. Even so, to send the King forward, ever-victorious, happy, and glorious is certainly a noble task, however improbable. Again, wonderful to see you writing again. Take care, Octavian
-
reply
Sure she could refuse to sign at least SOME laws? Or say something about not turning Birmingham - where I used to live - into Islamistan? She was a completely useless figurehead. And a "sham king", quoting Carlyle, is worse than an open Cathedralocracy. Because a "sham king" provides illusions and legitimacy. I say, let modern Jacobins behead all the sham kings, like Carl Gustaf of Sweden. We have to push all the way through and emerge at the other end: when after a civil war, a general or admiral crowns himself King or at least his regent. You know which admiral-regent I am hinting at.
-
reply
Spandrell, your search button does not seem to work. Tried to find your linguist post on 'alt right' but I can't get anything to show up.
-
reply
Oh, sorry about that. Try the mirror at bioleninism.wordpress.com
-
reply
Oh, sorry about that. Try the mirror at bioleninism.wordpress.com
-
reply
Thanks that works.
-
reply
2 crore Sikhs put 5 Lakh on Delhi's borders for a year. 100 crore Euros have done nothing to halt Liberalism's spread. Christianity has left them a husk with no tribal or sectarian conscious. France does more to spread Niggers - every African leader has a french wife|| ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ
-
reply
Hi Spandrell, please write about this China rediscovering tianxia stuff, it sounds super interesting: https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/tianxia-versus-plato Regards Div
-
reply
Great article, a eulogy for the British. "No, buddy. All the problems that your country has right now, which are exactly due to the proliferation of the wrong sort of people" I've been spending some time in a certain Southern Asian nation and have come to wonder if this is really true. The genetic stock in that nation is not great. Many people appear to be unable to add or perhaps even hold numbers in their heads. Their work ability is surely low. Yet they are healthy, polite, do indeed work at whatever it is they do, do not seem to be involved or interested in politics, are patriotic, and so forth. The country has several excellent institutions, architecture, literature, and so forth, created of course by a tiny fraction of the population, but that is OK because the rest stay out of the way. And even the British, whatever dysgenia they have no doubt suffered since the 1920s, cannot use this excuse alone to explain their execrable "working class" (by far the most unpleasant in Europe with the possible exception of Russia). They simply controlled these people better in the past and set and obtained higher expectations by enforcement. What makes a society unpleasant seems to be egalitarianism, rather than dysgenia.
-
reply
You're noticing that intelligence is not moral fiber. American proles are both low in intelligence AND moral fiber. Part of it may environment -- they are poorly trained by their master, so they treat real human beings that aren't their master horribly. It's just like in dogs -- a good dog is sweet and respectful to all humans. Such a dog probably has good genes and good training. He's loyal to his master first but will not bite another human because he is respectful of them. A bad dog barks and nips and bites humans that aren't its master -- it obeys its master not out of loyalty but because of carrot and stick. It is untrained and probably has pit bull genes. American proles are untrained, obese, and obey whoever has the biggest stick, the most money, and the most entertaining persona. They are totally indulged and untrained by their master and so they bark and spit and nip at humans that aren't their master. Singaporean proles are on the other hand very well trained, and Asians in general have good prole genes. They are fed to not be fat, they are not indulged with "elections" and "reality TV", and are trained to be respectful and obedient, thus the difference you see.
-
reply
QE2 looks to be much more symptom than cause. That the royal line was unable to produce a male heir was a problem itself. She ascended in 1952; some tell me the Suez crisis in 1956 revealed the British Empire to be over, so it was baked in before she did much of anything. In 1983 Ray Davies announced in song that "there's no England anymore"; so roughly halfway through her term it was popular knowledge. She came across as uber hostess, being nice and keeping traditions going just because.
come back to urbit man