I Stand with the Queen

Andrew Anglin

Guest


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prince William could be a based King.



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

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

Continue reading...
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻
Things are not always going to be this bad. Eventually, things are going to get better. When things get better, it would be good to have the monarchy in tact, as a link between the present and the past. It would give the British, and white people generally, the moral authority to build a new political and social order. We can get that moral authority from something else, but there is no reason not to have the monarchy.
People often underestimate just how much having the British Monarchy in tact actually does give us moral authority in the future- as well as in the present. Keep in mind here that this is a succession that goes all the way back to Roman and pre-Christian times to even the legends of King Arthur, which in my opinion is useful and full of potential political utility whether those legends are less than factual or historical or not in reality. What matters most is the common, collective claim to great antiquity and longevity that the Crown symbolizes and inspires in those who partake in its power- whether of the British Empire of more recent times or of the great Norman and Plantagenet dynasties before along with so many other examples. These stories and this history is what really binds a people together through shared experience along with racial reality. And there's just no need to throw all that great history, symbology, and tradition down the gutter over gaslighting by the Jews and Liberals and Faggots if in fact we don't absolutely have to. There's also something to be said about how the British Crown was the only one capable of surviving the French Revolution that ushered in the Modernity that we're all so laboring under currently- that's very powerful symbolism too here which validates our own cause. What is the Crown going to survive all that yet still somehow fall victim to normie Twitter in the end? I suspect God has much better things in store for our future.
 
Last edited:

CMcGillicutty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻
Personally, I have no anger towards the Queen. I did have anger towards the Queen in earlier years, and people will find that in my posts from then, especially if there's a record of what I said about her on the old BBS. You'll also find posts over the last two years where I have increasingly and totally disavowed chronic anger as feminine and alienating people from God, and said as I've grown closer to God, I've lost that chronic anger that animated a lot of what drove me into the arms of the Alt Right.

What I am is just disappointed that everything had to turn out this way. I'm not trying to flaunt my creds here, but I have a very split ethnic identity. Being British-America is not some weird self-assigned LARP to me. One of my parents is a dual-citizen by virtue of both their parents being born there, and leaving after my grandfather got out of the military, after Churchill destroyed the country and murdered many of his friends, which Tucker alluded to in his monologue about her passing. I still have uncles, aunts, and cousins who live there, who facetime with me, who I've met in person on multiple occasions. I lived with them for an entire month years ago, I've got actual remaining stakes in what goes on over there, it's not merely some foreign abstraction out there in the periphery, for me. I fear for the safety of my relatives there. And I've had that molymeme revelation myself "I can never go home." And yes, I have two homes. America is my main base, it's where I want my progeny to live, but Britain is my ancestral home, and as I say, I've still got lots of blood relatives there holding down the fort who I care about.

I will say that my grandparents, despite both being ethnic Scots, loved the Queen. If they had been alive, and known that she had died in Scotland, it would have moved them to tears. That's one of the reasons why I'm not joining in the nigger and kike fest celebrating her demise. Because it would be essentially spitting in their faces, and I can't do that, even if I'm disappointed by how things turned out. My grandmother once gave me a silver dollar minted in Britain, from 1953, depicting the young queen at her coronation. I still have that dollar, put it in nice plastic holder. It's kinda like how in Better Call Saul, all Saul had at the end to remind him of his dead brother was that copy of H G Wells' the time traveler. That coin serves a similar connection to my grandmother.

But more than that these nigger whores saying this shit are repulsive, and I wish the redcoats had been the unhinged exterminationists they make them out to be. There's no question Africa and India are full of useless eaters destroying unique and irreplaceable wildlands, and we'd have all be better off if subsaharan Africa was a unified country of 20,000,000 White people and maybe 1,000,000 remaining obsequious nogs. Same goes for India. You won't get any argument from me there.
 

Wigless

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
She oversaw the bumping off of Diana and allowed a nigger in the woodpile.
To be consistent - either she didn't oversee Diana's death and allowed the nigger in the Windsor pile, or she did oversee Diana's death and we have no idea what was planned for the mulatto and offspring.
 

Vilis_Hāzners

For Race. For Nation. For Christ.
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻
Make of this what you will, but her Majesty the Queen hated Harrys' monkey. As in she despised her. From what people are saying, the Queen basically disowned him for marrying her monkey ass. She was forbade from attending the Queen upon her dying.

monkey in the family.jpg



Now that is both based and lulzy af fam.
 

Cathy

Fiddle with it to realize
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Make of this what you will, but her Majesty the Queen hated Harrys' monkey. As in she despised her. From what people are saying, the Queen basically disowned him for marrying her monkey ass. She was forbade from attending the Queen upon her dying.

View attachment 117197



Now that is both based and lulzy af fam.
I hope that's true, and yet she couldn't prevent dirty Harry from marrying the monkey.
 

Wigless

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
that is both based and lulzy af fam
It is but it was made possible by the likelihood that the queen's motherly interest in her son's well being meant that grandson Harry's state of mind probably played a distant second fiddle.

That's not going to be the case for King Charles. Being Harry's father will mean that his son's well being is paramount. So I expect to see some form of royal rapprochement with Harry's family, more's the pity.
 

Phinehas

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽
But you don’t go out and condemn her after she died, standing with these undesirables. That is plainly gross.
Well said.

As a Brit, I've had my own frustrations with the Queen over the years, but it's poor taste to jump in and trash the old girl when she's only just died.

...Especially when there are so many hundreds of millions of other women richly deserving of a good trashing.

And SMH at all the white knights and dumb front holes bleating about Diana's alleged assassination.

Diana was a shameless, narcissistic, adulterous slut, and the nauseating national outpouring of feigned grief on her death was sickening to witness. Diana's defenders should be ashamed of themselves. Diana got exactly what she deserved.

No doubt the Queen had just had enough: she'd lost her husband last year, and couldn't even give him a sensible funeral because of the tedious and ridiculous Coronavirus hoax. Her country and the world in general is in one hell of a mess, and there's no fixing any of it. I imagine she was relieved to get out of here.

RIP ma'am.
 
Last edited:

CMcGillicutty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻
Keep in mind here that this is a succession that goes all the way back to Roman and pre-Christian times to even the legends of King Arthur
Well, in the case of this UK monarchy, it all goes back to the house of Wessex, which was created by Germanic warrior kings who carved out the petty Kingdom of Wessex, which would eventually prevail in the power vacuum in Britannia left by the fall of the Western Roman empire.

King Arthur is thought to have actually existed by many historians, but the legend is he was a 100% Celtic King who was trying to restore Celtic autonomy over England, and he ended up fighting the Germanic invaders who would establish all these petty Kingdoms like Wessex which would amalgamate into England centuries later. If King Arthur had had his way, there'd have been no England, but basically a Celtic counterpart to Ireland and Scotland. The Cornish are the closest Anglos to Arthur.

Succession among the emperors in Ancient Rome was also radically different; there was no Christian concept of the Divine right of Kings. Eventually all you had to do to be emperor of Rome, was to be the most popular general in the military, while serving under an unpopular emperor who alienated the legions. There were instances where Kings were deposed and usurped in England long before that nigger Cromwell, but that was always done over dynastical disputes among the royalty. They would have never tolerated commoners doing what pagan Roman generals did.

Anyway, long story short, I don't want to see the monarchy abolished. I don't even want to see Charles downsize it (though IMO, non-whites should be disqualified from holding titles, and he needs to roll back the thing where first born daughters can become queens over the first born son, which is a violation of God's natural order). I agree with everything else you said. I've actually been watching a lot of coverage of this on various cable news networks and I can't tell you how much I've had to race to the remote when they invite these dumb fronthole analysts on who start talking about how the monarchy "needs to modernize" and how "William needs to scale back all this pomp and circumstance." Women in journalism are nearly as bad if not worse than jews in journalism.
 

glaucon

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
I agree with this article, and I take back my previous post of telling this Queen to Rest in Piss. After seeing Hasan dance to celebrate her death, I was left with no choice. For those of you who haven't seen it. That is the quickest way to repudiate your hatred for this Queen.

She was a symbol of the old world, of our former glory and of the old White European Monarchies. That's why all these Jews and shitskins hated her and her entire family. I stand with the Queen.
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻
Well, in the case of this UK monarchy, it all goes back to the house of Wessex, which was created by Germanic warrior kings who carved out the petty Kingdom of Wessex, which would eventually prevail in the power vacuum in Britannia left by the fall of the Western Roman empire.

King Arthur is thought to have actually existed by many historians, but the legend is he was a 100% Celtic King who was trying to restore Celtic autonomy over England, and he ended up fighting the Germanic invaders who would establish all these petty Kingdoms like Wessex which would amalgamate into England centuries later. If King Arthur had had his way, there'd have been no England, but basically a Celtic counterpart to Ireland and Scotland. The Cornish are the closest Anglos to Arthur.

Succession among the emperors in Ancient Rome was also radically different; there was no Christian concept of the Divine right of Kings. Eventually all you had to do to be emperor of Rome, was to be the most popular general in the military, while serving under an unpopular emperor who alienated the legions. There were instances where Kings were deposed and usurped in England long before that nigger Cromwell, but that was always done over dynastical disputes among the royalty. They would have never tolerated commoners doing what pagan Roman generals did.

Anyway, long story short, I don't want to see the monarchy abolished. I don't even want to see Charles downsize it (though IMO, non-whites should be disqualified from holding titles, and he needs to roll back the thing where first born daughters can become queens over the first born son, which is a violation of God's natural order). I agree with everything else you said. I've actually been watching a lot of coverage of this on various cable news networks and I can't tell you how much I've had to race to the remote when they invite these dumb fronthole analysts on who start talking about how the monarchy "needs to modernize" and how "William needs to scale back all this pomp and circumstance." Women in journalism are nearly as bad if not worse than jews in journalism.
You're right, instead of saying succession there I should've just said common history or heritage or something.

The larger point I am trying to make is that this common history from antiquity whether merely legendary or not enables the people currently invoking that history itself to monopolize moral authority in the present. This is not much different than when someone like Joe Biden goes out in a SotU in front of all of America and while calling all Trump supporters "evil" and "fascist" (i.e. something foreign to America) still makes damn sure to affirm as many times as possible that "this is not who we are" for whatever specific reason- implying that we are Democracy in reality. Biden's reference to "we" there is him - well, actually it's his Jewish speechwriters- reaching back into something distant and central from the past like the Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence or whatever and owning that center-of-attention in the immediate present. Once Biden's people own that center, they can thus manipulate that center however Biden or those who actually control Joe Biden currently chooses- for better or for worse. He can actually do fascistic things to Americans while branding those things Democracy, and Americans are mostly none the wiser, because Democracy is within most American's self-identity and shared history which Biden now owns because he invoked it first rhetorically.

This is why politicians so often reach back like this into some historic moment or collective center-of-attention in the deep past - whether that be a great individual or a momentous event or whatever - and affirm or imply that "we" share this history or believe in this shared idea or whatever, that it is actually unique to "our" own story. By crafting rhetoric such as this in specifically this manner, the current leader or propagandist is able to own and wield so much authority in the present simply via his manipulation of these shared centers-of-attention within the past. And generally, here, the further back into the past that one is able to dig in order to derive authority in the present, the better and more powerful ultimately. For instance if Joe Biden invokes "we" in terms of America's Founding Fathers in order to own that shared heritage in the present, then someone against Joe Biden like a Donald Trump can easily come along and make reference to something older yet still powerful like Christopher Columbus and/or the Mayflower and/or our great Christian tradition in order to undercut or usurp Biden's previous rhetorical advantage- which translates easily usually into actual political advantage too.

This is the type of thing I am trying to reference above whenever I talk about how the English can reach back into all this great history and heritage themselves. Usually this is something leaders do reflexively for better or for worse, but it binds the lowest peasantry to the collective every bit as easily as it does the highest noble or sovereign in terms of the sheer power of the rhetoric- and appeal to authority. In England's case, she has a lot to appeal to- including the Arthurian legends- regardless of there being any firm continuity there between them and the current Crown. And utilization of those legends was very important to an emerging sense of nationhood during the reigns of previous monarchs such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and others. There were even attempts at times to undercut the rhetorical value of those same Arthurian references in royal propaganda via digging back deeper into the historical stack in order to leverage more authority presently. King James I harkened all the way back to Kings David and Solomon of Old Testamentary times in order to better authorize his own royal authority, because if the Tudors were going to claim King Arthur for themselves and the incoming Stuart regime had to wield even greater authority, then the Bible was the best place to go for that. Thus the Stuarts invoked "our customs and history going all the way back to Solomon's Temple", for example, when they wished to transform London into the New Jerusalem in the wake of the destruction left by the Great Fire of London, the Civil War, the Regicide, the plague and other national tragedies of the 17th Century.

Rhetoric and appealing to common traditional/historical centers-of-attention in this way is a powerful political mechanism which definitely should never just be voluntarily forfeited under really any circumstances in my opinion. Because if /we/ do not use this kind of rhetoric now in the present, if /we/ fail to own this story, this history, this heritage, then we better believe that somebody else will attempt to own it and manipulate it for themselves (likely against /us/) currently. In essence, that's exactly what Jews have been so successful at doing to our people over the last few decades especially. First they make us ashamed to identify with our own heroes or great ideas of the past, and then secondly before you know it Jews are invoking those same heroes and ideas for themselves as us now in the present in order to control our own people and to own our own future destiny! This was the way Leo Strauss and others, for example, managed to gain control over America's burgeoning Conservative movement originally- through this specific kind of rhetoric where through it Jews were able to redefine what it meant to be conservative and, really, what it meant to be American too ultimately. And in the future, we just must prevent and guard against these sorts of easy rhetorical own-goals if possible in my opinion. That's kind of the point to me bringing up all this shared history originally.
 
Last edited:

CharlesWorthing

Unsolicited advice giver
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
The Royals, that strata of society, would denounce us for wanting white super majorities, traditional family roles, fag and tranny control in our countries. I wouldn't endorse them as they would denounce us. It would lead to a kind of "gotcha." But plebs love them. So I just stay silent on the MQ in public. Charles is a horrible globalist. If, in some distant time, we get the country back it would be possible to find an inoffensive member of one of the Royal lines to act as a figurehead, if that really works for people.

I don't think the jiggers will build up enough steam to remove the monarchy.

Perhaps some of you don't know, but there are alternative, and more palatable, monarchies in the UK.



 
Last edited:

Cousin Groypley

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Other than Donald Trump, King Charles is the closest thing we have to a leader of the Anglo Saxon race. Despite their flaws, I can't help but feel a natural affinity to both of them. Even though we rebelled against the monarchy, it's obvious many White Americans still view the Royal Family as a leader of our people. This is a good and healthy thing and I support it.
 

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Prince William could be a based King.
🤣🤣

Ok... Listen to yourself, dude.

I'm not against monarchy in general. I've read Hans Herman Hoppe too...it beats jew controlled "democracy" every time.

Something approaching the medieval, scandanavian chieftain (what Arthur, if he existed, was) system seems like a good set up to me:

1) it's based on real world merit, strength, and ability to lead and unite people.

2) people who don't like the chieftain can move to a jurisdiction more to their liking. If a chieftain becomes too ineffective, he's not chieftain anymore.

3) there's no vast, artificial empire parasitizing off peasants to support an idle and dysgenic elite class of effete butt fuckers.

Where did the British royals even come from over 1,000 years ago? What makes them "royal?" Who even backed the Norman invasion of Britain? It's all sketchy AF and inconsistent with white sensibilities, in my opinion. I can admire, support and follow leaders but not because of who their great, great, great, great, great, grandmother was. That's absurd.

To say these present day dysgenic parasites represent white people is an insult to free white people everywhere.

Stop it.

You can't stand with the queen. She's dead. Now you have to stand with her successor, the king, "his royal majesty and Defender of the Faith" -- a misshapen sodomite, and grandfather of niggers, who thinks climate change is the most important crisis facing humanity.

See where this goes?
 
Last edited:

Byeongshin

🎑 비셔스 리타드 🎴
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
🤣🤣

Ok... Listen to yourself, dude.

I'm not against monarchy in general. I've read Hans Herman Hoppe too...it beats jew controlled "democracy" every time.

Something approaching the medieval, scandanavian chieftain system seems like a good set up to me:

1) it's based on real world merit, strength, and ability to lead and unite people.

2) people who don't like the chieftain can move to a jurisdiction more to their liking. If a chieftain becomes too ineffective, he's not chieftain anymore.

3) there's no vast, artificial empire parasitizing off peasants to support an idle and dysgenic elite class of effete butt fuckers.

Where did the British royals even come from over 1,000 years ago? What makes them "royal?" Who even backed the Norman invasion of Britain? It's all sketchy AF and inconsistent with white sensibilities, in my opinion. I can admire, support and follow leaders but not because of who their great, great, great, great, great, grandmother was. That's absurd.

To say these present day dysgenic parasites represent white people is an insult to free white people everywhere.

Stop it.
You're right, you should be King instead. Or we could just like, recreate the Scandinavian chieftain system out of thin air.
 

TheBoom

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
I guess I am just sick of active traitors like Charles and passive traitors like the Queen who could have done something but didn't. I am amazed at all the people on the right who hate old truck drivers and construction workers because the country went further to hell during their lifetimes but give monarchy a pass.

Contrast the UK queen with Rama 9 who died a few years ago in Thailand. Flawed but clearly loved the people and the culture and worked to improve their lives even though he was mainly a figurehead.

The Queen was also outraged reportedly at Thatcher for being too uncaring about South Africa and immigrants.
 
Last edited:

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
You're right, you should be King instead. Or we could just like, recreate the Scandinavian chieftain system out of thin air.
Or we could bow down to goofy ass looking sodomites and their nigger grandkeeds because .... "we white". lol

Do you aspire to be a tampon too, white man? Do you yearn to fuck other men as "defender of the faith"? Well...heck ... You should be king.

As far as the chieftain system goes...when the US eventually breaks up into more naturally governable regions, I predict that is exactly what you will see evolve naturally (if there are no Jews around to manipulate and co opt it). It doesn't have to be created out of thin air because it actually existed, and it existed because it follows naturally from what we are.

If it comes naturally to you to bow down to weak faggots who want you and your children dead, then ... We'll just have to agree to disagree, friend.
 
Last edited:

NiggerLyncher

Flaps McKinley is a hole pretending to be a bro
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Or we could bow down to goofy ass looking sodomites and their nigger grandkeeds because .... "we white". lol

Do you aspire to be a tampon too, white man? Do you yearn to fuck other men as "defender of the faith"? Well...heck ... You should be king.

As far as the chieftain system goes...when the US eventually breaks up into more naturally governable regions, I predict that is exactly what you will see evolve naturally (if there are no Jews around to manipulate and co opt it). It doesn't have to be created out of thin air because it actually existed, and it existed because it follows naturally from what we are.
What the fuck does that have to do with the queen? Queen Elizabeth was neither a sodomite nor did she marry any niggers to my knowledge.
Being that the British monarchy in general is just a figurehead I view the people attacking her after death in the same way I view fentanyl snorting anti-fascists trannies trying to take down statues of our ancestors. Apparently though the anti-fascist queers and uppity niggers have a better understanding than you do about the importance of figureheads, legacy, and tradition which is why they attack it.
In a sane world everyone both of you would be tortured in the tower of London.
 
Top