The Crown under Elizabeth II is itself essentially a simulacrum of royalty. She waved, smiled, and made dignified public appearances with her monochromatic and always ever so slightly anachronistic dresses, hats, and handbags, all the while assiduously avoiding any overt involvement in politics. Under the pretense of holding herself aloof from the political, she declined to wield her power of veto, cultivating the myth that the Crown has no real power ... when it very obviously does wield power, not only politically but perhaps more importantly, culturally. This refusal to act was itself a form of action. One with disastrous consequences.
This is why I've taken to referring to her as Elizabeth the Negligent.
On the occasion of her passing, I wrote this eulogy for the Queen, a Lament for the Hollow Crown. It's a bit gauche to shill one's own work in the comments, but I feel this is sufficiently relevant to share; it echoes many of the sentiments expressed above.
Two good articles for the price of one, thank you both.
I would have preferred to have watched the Monarchy be abolished, following a heroic effort to save its people, than to see it as it is now. Reduced to shilling for the Regime. “Climate Change” and “racism” are just State-approved talking-points and yet that is all we hear about from the Royal Family today. Never anything that is actually affecting the people of this island.
Good point. Think where they would be in the public mind had the Queen made even guarded comments about the changing demographics. Even some oblique references in the late 90s when New Labour effectively opened the doors would have done much to gird the loins of many.
I keep waiting for someone of substance to say something. And I don't even mean the kind of incendiary rhetoric our enemies imagine about racial purity etc. I just mean mild pushback against insulting comments from minorities we have fed and housed. That is an easy target. They can start with Lenny Henry and Diane Abbot. Between them they've said enough to insult most of the population.
This is very close to the core of my critique in Lament. Even accepting that the Crown's veto power is entirely ceremonial (it isn't, it just looks that way because for 70 years Elizabeth refused to use it), the throne is an unparalleled bully pulpit. Had she said *anything* ... but she didn't. Hence, Elizabeth the Negligent.
And that cognomen may be doing her more credit than she deserves. It assumes she didn't support the Great Replacement, and was merely out of touch.
I find it hard to believe any of them support it. By that I mean I can accept delusion, the belief they will come in limited numbers, be more pliable than the natives and you are part of a class that will benefit from swapping out the peasants for new ones.
But a casual jaunt through London today (only a third white) tells you what it will all look like in a few decades, perhaps a lot sooner than that. And literally none of those people have any affection for a white royal family that conquered their people. What the fuck is going on in their minds? Can any of them actually believe they will survive intact?
A very enjoyable read for someone who has never watched the series.
Just as an observation, though, I now see the significance of Diana's death in 1997, and that of Powell a year later, as the great turning point. It was about this time that our real rulers had decided to "rub our noses in diversity". In a sense, Diana and Powell were the nails in our national coffin.
We are still a people, Morgoth. There are other peoples here with us, but the originals are still here too. Same in America, Canada and all the rest. There are more white Americans in the US than there were at the end of WW2, for example.
The sensitivity around this subject, which you bring to our attention here with the obvious omission of Enoch Powell but not Wilson is testament to the fact we are still a people, and the media class fear that so they stay well away.
I agree the attempt by the media and political classes is to present the immigrants groups as a natural modernizing thing. But it is failing. It is seen by most for what it is, foreigners in our midst. This is the dangerous game they play. We are hammered for being white and they are championed for not being us. That constantly reinforces their alienness in the people they are worried will wake up. Not a great strategy.
This is very powerful, and in closing, heartbreaking. Beautifully done.
Something that occurred to me when you wrote about the Queen shouldering the huge mantle of responsibility that was hers, to represent all that was best about a people and a culture, and devote her life to tending that vision is really what we were all called to do once, by the responsibilities that fell to us, tiny though they be in comparison. Every mother of young children was called to deny her desire for sleep, for attention, for fun, to care for their needs, every father to dedicate his earning power, ambition and free time to the welfare of his wife and children. A life well lived for most people involved dedication to something outside of oneself. There is ample evidence that such lives were psychologically much healthier than anything we have today.
Diana was caught in the very worst of times for her vulnerabilities. The mania for self actualizafion of a fragile self who may well have been able in a simpler time to find satisfaction as a mother and beloved figurehead ( Charles does bear responsibility for making her role as a wife unrewarding ) destroyed her. She was naive enough to believe that she was missing out on something imperative, when her mother in law was the finest example of a life well lived.
I think she was very mature for her age, smarter than Diana, able to learn from her mistakes, maybe even willing to take a look at the things that can go wrong in that role and be prepared to face them if need be. They seem like a very united couple, much like Elizabeth’s parents, determined to do their best at all times. She was willing to do homage to the sweetness of Diana without her neediness. I find her pitch perfect and it is a huge relief.
I really believe Megan Markle had no idea what she had. I think she thought there was a “Vice Prince of Wales” that she and Kate would share power in some way. Realizing her husband was fifth in line rather than second must’ve been a disappointment that only a very stupid woman would’ve suffered. That every project she and Harry have been involved with has been a money sink and probably massively fraudulent speaks to the nothingburger she is. Surely everyone with any sense of history sees them as the current day Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Heredity is a strange thing.
Sometimes a really bad example close by makes it even easier to stick to the straight and narrow!
I referred to her role as his wife which was a disaster from the beginning. For a lovely 19 year old girl to realize that her husband’s affections were already reserved to a nanny figure who would always come first would have been a lot for anyone to face. A more mature woman with a sense of the history of the wayward loves of kings and princes would have taken the bad with the good. The queen herself was an impeccable example but the emotional turmoil of her time made Diana unable to relax and accept her role.
Very perceptive column...for us, Season 1 episode 9 is a shocking reveal about Winston Churchill, and incredibly penetrating...IMO, Churchill almost single handedly destroyed the Empire, pushing Britain into two unnecessary and bankrupting wars...But Ep. 9 stands on its own...Season 1 and the most recent season are the best, because they penetrate the pretenses of the Royal family and its servants....Your point about Enoch Powell is very true, as his exclusion contrasts with endless episodes about Margaret and her romances, which were frankly tedious...But it shows the level of censorship that exists even about some historical matters...
Worse. It alludes to self-censorship. I doubt anyone had to remind the writer that scandal about Princess Margaret was fine, while even a tiny glimpse of Enoch Powell was not. Those who get on don't need to be told, especially in the media.
If I could be granted any wish by some genie it would be to ask the media class what they think will become of their own children. I often ponder that. A group who seem to have a mania for mass immigration, and are very willing gatekeepers to narratives they surely cannot believe. Can they possibly believe the blank slate hypothesis?
All I can surmise is they think they will escape the consequences of an unstable violent country that will look like South Africa. I can't imagine how though.
Back in the day, the "Alpha Chad" of the tribe would rise to become, first of all, the leader of and then king of the tribe. This was because he was the greatest warrior/got the most resources for the group. As this tradition continued and the tribe became more powerful, the guy at the top and his progeny would become weaker and more liberal/left-leaning as his lifestyle become more luxurious and away form the frontline of battle. Great deeds in real life were substituted for fancy words (which are a "simulcra" of real life) and reading about the great deeds of others. It's paradoxical that the more successful the greater tribe (nation) become in terms of conquest, the rulers at the top became softer as wealth flowed upwards, thus they became victims of their own success.
On "Mental Images":
The study of the mass mind, and the use of mental images to influence this, has been perfected by our small-hat wearing friends at The Tavistock Institute and Hollywood (hollywood is the wood used in sorcerer's wands, which are used to cast spells on their victims).
Walter Lippmann describes propaganda as:
“the insertion between man and his environment of a pseudo-environment.”
Fred Emery of the Tavistock Institute said:
"We are proposing that television as a simple constant and repetitive and ambiguous visual stimulus, gradually closes down the central nervous system of Man.
"Television as a media consists of a constant visual signal of 50 half-frames per second. Our hypotheses regarding this essential nature of the medium itself are:
"1) The constant visual stimulus fixates the viewer and causes the habituation of response. The prefrontal and association areas of the cortex are effectively dominated by the signal, the screen.
"2) The left cortical hemisphere -- the center of visual and analytical calculating processes -- is effectively reduced in its functioning to tracking changing images on the screen.
"3) Therefore, provided the viewer keeps looking, he is unlikely to reflect on what he is doing and what he is viewing. That is, he will be aware, but unaware of his awareness...
"In other words, television can be seen partly as the technological analogue of the hypnotist."
The key to making the brainwashing work is the 'repetition of suggestion' over time. With people watching the tube for 6 to 8 hours a day, there is plenty of time for such repeated suggestion."
Hal Becker of the Future Group thinktank said:
"I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television. Americans are wired into their television sets. Over the last 30 years, they have come to look at their television sets and the images on the screen as reality. You put something on television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the television set contradicts the images, people start changing the world to make it more like the images and sounds of their television. Because its influence is so great, so pervasive, it has become part of our lives. You lose your sense of what is being done to you, but your mind is being shaped and molded."
This is why books are so important. The person is using his own imagination to create his own mental pictures. He's not being forced fed those made by someone else of evil intentions toward him.
I'm pretty sure anyone working in creating television know these facts.
A chilling sentence, to be sure. You do a phenomenal job at putting to words the feelings of so many. In describing the simulacrum for what it is and how it works and how our public perception is largely build off flanderizations of characters.
I'm glad you brought up Enoch Powell as his very presence and mention is a powerful force and as you say the establishment fears its own history and "undesirable" aspects of its own origin myth more so than it does communist sympathizers. As you say 20-30 years ago he would have just been used as a scapegoat of insanity. But now it's too dissident and powerful to even utter the name. More and more the establishment's and let's own esotericsim is going to bite themselves in the ass as people start asking more and more questions.
A while back I saw an advert on the side of a bus with the girl who plays Diana. This stunning representation of a beautiful, aristocratic English woman in formal wear. I remember thinking what a massive L it was for the regime - having this image driven around London, a literal shit hole.
The Crown under Elizabeth II is itself essentially a simulacrum of royalty. She waved, smiled, and made dignified public appearances with her monochromatic and always ever so slightly anachronistic dresses, hats, and handbags, all the while assiduously avoiding any overt involvement in politics. Under the pretense of holding herself aloof from the political, she declined to wield her power of veto, cultivating the myth that the Crown has no real power ... when it very obviously does wield power, not only politically but perhaps more importantly, culturally. This refusal to act was itself a form of action. One with disastrous consequences.
This is why I've taken to referring to her as Elizabeth the Negligent.
On the occasion of her passing, I wrote this eulogy for the Queen, a Lament for the Hollow Crown. It's a bit gauche to shill one's own work in the comments, but I feel this is sufficiently relevant to share; it echoes many of the sentiments expressed above.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/lament-for-the-hollow-crown
Absolutely I’ll read this properly later.
Two good articles for the price of one, thank you both.
I would have preferred to have watched the Monarchy be abolished, following a heroic effort to save its people, than to see it as it is now. Reduced to shilling for the Regime. “Climate Change” and “racism” are just State-approved talking-points and yet that is all we hear about from the Royal Family today. Never anything that is actually affecting the people of this island.
Good point. Think where they would be in the public mind had the Queen made even guarded comments about the changing demographics. Even some oblique references in the late 90s when New Labour effectively opened the doors would have done much to gird the loins of many.
I keep waiting for someone of substance to say something. And I don't even mean the kind of incendiary rhetoric our enemies imagine about racial purity etc. I just mean mild pushback against insulting comments from minorities we have fed and housed. That is an easy target. They can start with Lenny Henry and Diane Abbot. Between them they've said enough to insult most of the population.
This is very close to the core of my critique in Lament. Even accepting that the Crown's veto power is entirely ceremonial (it isn't, it just looks that way because for 70 years Elizabeth refused to use it), the throne is an unparalleled bully pulpit. Had she said *anything* ... but she didn't. Hence, Elizabeth the Negligent.
And that cognomen may be doing her more credit than she deserves. It assumes she didn't support the Great Replacement, and was merely out of touch.
I find it hard to believe any of them support it. By that I mean I can accept delusion, the belief they will come in limited numbers, be more pliable than the natives and you are part of a class that will benefit from swapping out the peasants for new ones.
But a casual jaunt through London today (only a third white) tells you what it will all look like in a few decades, perhaps a lot sooner than that. And literally none of those people have any affection for a white royal family that conquered their people. What the fuck is going on in their minds? Can any of them actually believe they will survive intact?
I love your work, John.
A very enjoyable read for someone who has never watched the series.
Just as an observation, though, I now see the significance of Diana's death in 1997, and that of Powell a year later, as the great turning point. It was about this time that our real rulers had decided to "rub our noses in diversity". In a sense, Diana and Powell were the nails in our national coffin.
I think a reckoning is coming for that face rubbing.
I hope so.
We are still a people, Morgoth. There are other peoples here with us, but the originals are still here too. Same in America, Canada and all the rest. There are more white Americans in the US than there were at the end of WW2, for example.
The sensitivity around this subject, which you bring to our attention here with the obvious omission of Enoch Powell but not Wilson is testament to the fact we are still a people, and the media class fear that so they stay well away.
I agree the attempt by the media and political classes is to present the immigrants groups as a natural modernizing thing. But it is failing. It is seen by most for what it is, foreigners in our midst. This is the dangerous game they play. We are hammered for being white and they are championed for not being us. That constantly reinforces their alienness in the people they are worried will wake up. Not a great strategy.
Well Said Brother 💪🏻!
This is very powerful, and in closing, heartbreaking. Beautifully done.
Something that occurred to me when you wrote about the Queen shouldering the huge mantle of responsibility that was hers, to represent all that was best about a people and a culture, and devote her life to tending that vision is really what we were all called to do once, by the responsibilities that fell to us, tiny though they be in comparison. Every mother of young children was called to deny her desire for sleep, for attention, for fun, to care for their needs, every father to dedicate his earning power, ambition and free time to the welfare of his wife and children. A life well lived for most people involved dedication to something outside of oneself. There is ample evidence that such lives were psychologically much healthier than anything we have today.
Diana was caught in the very worst of times for her vulnerabilities. The mania for self actualizafion of a fragile self who may well have been able in a simpler time to find satisfaction as a mother and beloved figurehead ( Charles does bear responsibility for making her role as a wife unrewarding ) destroyed her. She was naive enough to believe that she was missing out on something imperative, when her mother in law was the finest example of a life well lived.
I do wonder why everything went so right with Kate Middleton, to be honest.
I think she was very mature for her age, smarter than Diana, able to learn from her mistakes, maybe even willing to take a look at the things that can go wrong in that role and be prepared to face them if need be. They seem like a very united couple, much like Elizabeth’s parents, determined to do their best at all times. She was willing to do homage to the sweetness of Diana without her neediness. I find her pitch perfect and it is a huge relief.
I really believe Megan Markle had no idea what she had. I think she thought there was a “Vice Prince of Wales” that she and Kate would share power in some way. Realizing her husband was fifth in line rather than second must’ve been a disappointment that only a very stupid woman would’ve suffered. That every project she and Harry have been involved with has been a money sink and probably massively fraudulent speaks to the nothingburger she is. Surely everyone with any sense of history sees them as the current day Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Heredity is a strange thing.
Sometimes a really bad example close by makes it even easier to stick to the straight and narrow!
What could Charles have done to make Diana's life as a mother more rewarding?
I referred to her role as his wife which was a disaster from the beginning. For a lovely 19 year old girl to realize that her husband’s affections were already reserved to a nanny figure who would always come first would have been a lot for anyone to face. A more mature woman with a sense of the history of the wayward loves of kings and princes would have taken the bad with the good. The queen herself was an impeccable example but the emotional turmoil of her time made Diana unable to relax and accept her role.
Very perceptive column...for us, Season 1 episode 9 is a shocking reveal about Winston Churchill, and incredibly penetrating...IMO, Churchill almost single handedly destroyed the Empire, pushing Britain into two unnecessary and bankrupting wars...But Ep. 9 stands on its own...Season 1 and the most recent season are the best, because they penetrate the pretenses of the Royal family and its servants....Your point about Enoch Powell is very true, as his exclusion contrasts with endless episodes about Margaret and her romances, which were frankly tedious...But it shows the level of censorship that exists even about some historical matters...
Worse. It alludes to self-censorship. I doubt anyone had to remind the writer that scandal about Princess Margaret was fine, while even a tiny glimpse of Enoch Powell was not. Those who get on don't need to be told, especially in the media.
If I could be granted any wish by some genie it would be to ask the media class what they think will become of their own children. I often ponder that. A group who seem to have a mania for mass immigration, and are very willing gatekeepers to narratives they surely cannot believe. Can they possibly believe the blank slate hypothesis?
All I can surmise is they think they will escape the consequences of an unstable violent country that will look like South Africa. I can't imagine how though.
Thanks Morgoth.
Just want to say a few things.
On Royalty:
Back in the day, the "Alpha Chad" of the tribe would rise to become, first of all, the leader of and then king of the tribe. This was because he was the greatest warrior/got the most resources for the group. As this tradition continued and the tribe became more powerful, the guy at the top and his progeny would become weaker and more liberal/left-leaning as his lifestyle become more luxurious and away form the frontline of battle. Great deeds in real life were substituted for fancy words (which are a "simulcra" of real life) and reading about the great deeds of others. It's paradoxical that the more successful the greater tribe (nation) become in terms of conquest, the rulers at the top became softer as wealth flowed upwards, thus they became victims of their own success.
On "Mental Images":
The study of the mass mind, and the use of mental images to influence this, has been perfected by our small-hat wearing friends at The Tavistock Institute and Hollywood (hollywood is the wood used in sorcerer's wands, which are used to cast spells on their victims).
Walter Lippmann describes propaganda as:
“the insertion between man and his environment of a pseudo-environment.”
Fred Emery of the Tavistock Institute said:
"We are proposing that television as a simple constant and repetitive and ambiguous visual stimulus, gradually closes down the central nervous system of Man.
"Television as a media consists of a constant visual signal of 50 half-frames per second. Our hypotheses regarding this essential nature of the medium itself are:
"1) The constant visual stimulus fixates the viewer and causes the habituation of response. The prefrontal and association areas of the cortex are effectively dominated by the signal, the screen.
"2) The left cortical hemisphere -- the center of visual and analytical calculating processes -- is effectively reduced in its functioning to tracking changing images on the screen.
"3) Therefore, provided the viewer keeps looking, he is unlikely to reflect on what he is doing and what he is viewing. That is, he will be aware, but unaware of his awareness...
"In other words, television can be seen partly as the technological analogue of the hypnotist."
The key to making the brainwashing work is the 'repetition of suggestion' over time. With people watching the tube for 6 to 8 hours a day, there is plenty of time for such repeated suggestion."
Hal Becker of the Future Group thinktank said:
"I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television. Americans are wired into their television sets. Over the last 30 years, they have come to look at their television sets and the images on the screen as reality. You put something on television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the television set contradicts the images, people start changing the world to make it more like the images and sounds of their television. Because its influence is so great, so pervasive, it has become part of our lives. You lose your sense of what is being done to you, but your mind is being shaped and molded."
This is why books are so important. The person is using his own imagination to create his own mental pictures. He's not being forced fed those made by someone else of evil intentions toward him.
I'm pretty sure anyone working in creating television know these facts.
Me and the old lady are watching The Crown too.
Usually the TV is just annoying background noise to doomscrolling or shitposting but this time it’s been a pleasant surprise.
Weird coincidence that the King reveals a cancer diagnosis on the day you publish this piece.
A cancerous king is surely the kind of omen that a wise man reads...
howay lad, you were sounding tetchy at Milleniyule, good to see you back in the swing of it.
period dramas esp BBC ones are catnip to the American market and I must admit to disinterest in the frocks & bonnets shows
the monarchy is a potent topic for you Brits though and I wont comment on that
I was in Newcastle when Diana died as well, working Casualty in the RVI - quietest shift ever!
I guess I owe her for that
"we were a people, once."
A chilling sentence, to be sure. You do a phenomenal job at putting to words the feelings of so many. In describing the simulacrum for what it is and how it works and how our public perception is largely build off flanderizations of characters.
I'm glad you brought up Enoch Powell as his very presence and mention is a powerful force and as you say the establishment fears its own history and "undesirable" aspects of its own origin myth more so than it does communist sympathizers. As you say 20-30 years ago he would have just been used as a scapegoat of insanity. But now it's too dissident and powerful to even utter the name. More and more the establishment's and let's own esotericsim is going to bite themselves in the ass as people start asking more and more questions.
You are a braver man than me.
I couldn't sit through 1 minute of anything to do with the royal family.
A while back I saw an advert on the side of a bus with the girl who plays Diana. This stunning representation of a beautiful, aristocratic English woman in formal wear. I remember thinking what a massive L it was for the regime - having this image driven around London, a literal shit hole.
The past is as full of pain for what is lost as it is full of the comfort of old glories.
You can't really do this sort of show about the recent past, since all the characters are still alive. It just makes it awkward
Great piece. You should do something on Ted Lasso. I’d pay money for that livestream.
Beautiful prose