By ilana mercer
It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth II of blessed memory partook in the decision to support the unchecked majority rule of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, my homeland.
Like her Majesty at the time, most politicians and public intellectuals thought nothing of delivering South Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists. Yet any one suggesting such folly to the wise Margaret Thatcher risked taking a hand-bagging.
The Iron Lady had ventured that grooming the ANC as South Africa’s government-in-waiting was tantamount to “living in cloud-cuckoo land.” (Into The Cannibal’s Post: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 147.)
But what do you know? Queen Elizabeth did just that! Over Mrs. Thatcher’s objections, in 1987 the queen had bullied Prime Minister Thatcher to sanction South Africa.
And in 1979, noted British paleolibertarian Sean Gabb, the queen also muscled Mrs. Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to another bunch of white-hating black Marxists.
Most disquieting to decency: Although search engines are energetically scrubbing this fact from the Internet—the Queen had knighted Robert Mugabe. Mugabe was chief warlord of Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia (may that country rest in peace).
To quote Into the Cannibal’s Pot, the book aforementioned:
“By the time the megalomaniac Robert Mugabe was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II (1994)—and given honorary doctorates from the Universities of Edinburgh (1984), Massachusetts (1986), and Michigan (1990)—he had already done his “best” work: slaughtering some 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland (1983). Western conventional wisdom was no wiser. (And the United Nations responded invariably by … condemning Israel.)” P. 134.
Mugabe was nothing if not consistent in his contempt for all life.
Question: What do you call a “person” who butchers and barbeques baby elephant?
Answer: A motherf–ker. Lowbrow Robert Mugabe, as Foreign Policy magazine had reported in 2015, “celebrated his 91st birthday followed by a lavish party with an exotic menu, reportedly including barbequed baby elephant.”
Is it any wonder Dr. Gabb took a different measure of her Majesty in 2012, dubbing her “Elizabeth the Useless“? Gabb’s “Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp” unfurls a list of her Majesty’s acts of constitutional omission, if not unconstitutional commission.
“Although the Queen is without executive function,” argues Gabb, “she never protested the theft of our ancestral rights. It was her duty to resist that theft, and to resist without regard for the outcome – and it was in her power to resist without bringing on her head any of the penalties. At no time in the past [seventy] years, has she raised a finger in public, or, it is probably the case, in private, to slow the destruction of an order of things she swore in the name of God to protect. … she has done nothing to sustain that identity in any meaningful sense.”
By Dr. Gabb’s telling, the queen could have also vetoed any parliamentary bill she disliked – and her veto could not have been overridden by any weighted majority vote of Parliament. As could she have protested that her subjects were lied into the European Union. She didn’t:
“The Queen has not sustained our national identity. … she has allowed many people to overlook the structures of absolute and unaccountable power that have grown up during her reign. She has fronted a revolution to dispossess us of our country and of our rights within it.”
“The Queen should have resisted the Offensive Weapons Bill and the Firearms Bill, that effectively abolished our right to keep and bear arms for defence. She should have resisted the Bills that abolished most civil juries and that allowed majority verdicts in criminal trials.”
“She should have resisted the numerous private agreements that made our country into an American satrapy. She should have insisted, every time she met her prime minister, on keeping the spirit of our old Constitution….”
That the queen had enormous moral and political sway is incontrovertible. Observe the impact of her passing on members of the British commonwealth and beyond.
The role of the monarch in England’s constitutional monarchy demands that, “Once the politicians make themselves, as a class, irremovable, and once they begin to abolish the rights of the people, it is the duty of the Monarch to step in and rebalance the Constitution. It is then that she must resume her legal powers and exercise them of her own motion.”
Had they been functioning as they were intended to; the monarchy and the House of Lords could have served as checks on the demotic and demonic forces of the United Kingdom’s “mass-democracy.”
ILANA and David Vance discuss the matter further on the Hard Truth Rumble podcast. WATCH “Monarchy in Mourning — But Did Queen Elizabeth Drop The Ball?”
Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Gab, Gettr YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new video-podcast.
Yes, she dropped the ball. She stated in one of her Christmas addresses that the thing she liked best about England was the racial dispossession of the English – she loved how many black people there were on the Tube on the way home from the airport (note: she never took the Tube home from the airport, so the whole statement was nonsense).
She didn’t drop the ball. She did it on purpose because she believed in it. She committed treason. Even if the public perception of her as a rather dull-witted country bumpkin who used Tupperware was somewhat accurate and she only believed in it at a rather naive level – Christian values, that sort of thing – she still believed in it and committed treason. As such, she was either the best monarch this country has ever had or the worst – it depends on your viewpoint. I oppose what she did, so think she was the worst, though Charles may yet outdo her.
One solution to all this may be to split the monarchy and let the Windsors reign in non-white Commonwealth countries, perhaps insisting that they move to New Dehli or Acra and experience Third World culture to the fullest, while a rotation of harmless hereditary lords or senior civil servants are appointed as ‘Crown Protector’ to occupy the real Crown as placemen until a counter-revolution can be completed. This assumes of course that a counter-revolution is possible. It may be too late.
[quote]”Like her Majesty at the time, most politicians and public intellectuals thought nothing of delivering South Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists.”[unquote]
I prefer to say, “…into the hands of blacks.” I don’t like mealy-mouthed formulations. Apart from that, I don’t know what a ‘radical Marxist’ is. Are there moderate ones?
The point is that apartheid itself was a relatively benign concept, it just means developing separately. This was soon twisted and morphed into a racial caste system – which is an entirely different thing. Blacks were mistreated, of that there is little doubt, and I could put forward a good moral defence for the terrorism and violence of Mandela and his fellow militants (though I would draw the line at blowing up a busload of Afrikaner school children, something Mandela’s admirers never seem to mention). If you doubt there is a moral defence for the black terrorism of that era, then put yourself in the shoes of a black person in that situation, even if well-treated in material terms, and think about it from there.
White defenders of that system would argue that blacks were either unwilling or unable to live separately and, moreover, these blacks insisted on subverting white South Africa for a mixture of ideological and racially spiteful motives. I assume this is where the ‘radical Marxist’ thesis comes in.
South Africa’s problem was the same as the American South’s: they decided that they couldn’t live without black labour. They did set up black enclave statelets to try to evolve back to true apartheid, but they couldn’t manage it. In hindsight, they should have awarded the blacks a sizeable territory in the north, bordering other black states, then transported all the blacks there, fenced it off, then deported the ‘coloureds’ and a certain other ethnic group that we can’t mention here.
The point I am making in all this is that while I share the criticism of the Queen’s vile actions, white South Africans must bear some of the blame for the situation. By moving their society away from true apartheid and creating a caste society that mistreated blacks, then failing to take decisive action to reverse this, they sowed the seeds for their own downfall. It’s a tragedy because South Africa had the makings of a Nordic superpower in southern Africa – there was a manifest destiny about it – and one cannot help but compare that very realistic promise to what we see now. The Queen, I believe, was just a rather dull-witted woman who went along with whatever was the prevailing moral opinion, though she was also no doubt influenced by her Christian convictions.
I have to say that although the allegations of the Queen bullying Thatcher over Rhodesia and South Africa are interesting, I don’t see how there can be any objective proof of any such things, as meetings between sovereign and prime minister are one-to-one, without witnesses and without minutes.