The Comforting Lie of Shared Humanity

The King’s Speech and the naive simple mindedness it expresses

As a conservative proud of the traditions and uniqueness of my nation, I have always been a monarchist. Nations which removed their monarchies rarely substituted greater political stability by doing so, and I always felt that they had lost something of themselves in the process. There is a profound advantage in the possession of a living symbol of the continuity and history of your nation, providing an instant understanding that this a specific place with its own identity and past and some sense that the past still matters.

But as well as being a conservative, I am also a nationalist who sees liberty and the possession of liberty as an innate characteristic of my people. I see a true sense of inalienable rights as essentially an English invention, and the history of England as one in which the idea that subjects or citizens possess certain rights no monarch and no government can ignore as being the idea that distinguished English kingship from Continental European autocracy (let alone Eastern despotism).

By this understanding, the American colonists were never more fully English than when they decided to rebel against a system of rule they saw as contrary to their inalienable rights. They possessed this sense of rights that cannot be trespassed precisely because they were primarily inheritors of an Anglo cultural identity and an English set of cultural assumptions. Washington began his journey of resistance to George III by declaring his rights as a “freeborn Englishman”. While the end result came as the formation of a new nation and the apparent severing of old ties, the entire rebellion could not have formed in the manner it did without the inheritance of an English understanding of what freedom is.

For those who were not resident in the colonies, the tension between monarchy and traditional liberty was resolved by the gradual evolution of a constitutional monarchy and by the final defeat of any autocratic instinct from monarchy itself during the English Civil War. The Constitutional Monarchy promises the best of all possible compromises, asserting that the positives of a symbolic figurehead giving a focus of national unity and an expression of national history can exist simultaneously with a fully democratic system. The nation does not need to sever its connection with its own history or reject what it has been. It can instead celebrate that identity, without risking arbitrary rule or dictatorial rule based purely on an accident of birth.

It’s a settlement that worked remarkably well for a very long time, and which has multiple benefits. The arguments posed against it are either delusional (based on the kind of outright bullshit that sees the British Royal Family as having real power and secretly being one of the Five Families that rule the world) or childish (why should there be a gold carriage when people are using food banks?). The truth is that the monarchy generates far more income than it controls, that reports of its huge wealth ignore that this consists in national assets the Royals themselves do not administer and which they could never dispose of as they pleased, and that the entire institution exists solely by the consent of both public support and the continued whim of the government of the day. Everything they have could easily be removed. It’s not ‘theirs’ any more than 10 Downing Street personally belongs to a specific Prime Minister.

What we get out of it is the preservation of a remarkable set of buildings, a focal point for public ceremony, pomp and circumstance, a group of non partisan national ambassadors and a sort of diplomatic corps influencing soft power through the glamour of history. This can be enormously beneficial to the nation and provides a ready alternative type of influence when more directly political ones are ineffective. The institution also serves as a barrier to some extent to tyranny from other sources, for example preventing the need for some Presidential post and its associated bureaucracy.

Under Elizabeth II the issue was not one of the Royal Family being too powerful, but rather in many ways the opposite. If a Monarchy is to have true meaning, it is in service of the people. That service can of course consist in the kind of dull but worthy official duties that came to form the majority of Royal activity, the dedication ceremonies, the opening of buildings and bridges, the support for charities, museums and cultural institutions. But part of being a Monarch must surely also be found in showing a care for and a love of the people and nature of your country. Of being a person or a family that can speak on their behalf, sympathise with their concerns, and voice support for them in ways a partisan government cannot.

What we saw through most of Elizabeth II’s period was the relentless decline of the nation for which she was head of state. Successive governments from both main parties presided over failure after failure. Managed decline was their chosen policy. The Empire was ended. The nation was drawn into US led wars that served no British interest. Mass immigration was commenced. A ruinously expensive welfare state was initiated. The UK saw few periods of economic boom, and several more significant recessions. We were entangled in the EU, paying former competitors for the ‘privilege’ of disadvantageous trade with them while Commonwealth preferred trading nation status with much of the rest of the world was sacrificed. And at home immigration came at increasing levels initiating permanent change.

The Royal position though all this was a strict political neutrality that preserved the existence of the Monarchy by never daring to speak on behalf of the British people. The Monarch simply intoned whatever fatuous platitudes and dishonest tripe the government of the day wanted her to, with both the annual address to Parliament being a voicing solely of the governments lies and the Monarch’s own Christmas address being essentially the same. A cloying saccharine set of well wishes and vague hopes for general goodwill and prosperity replaced any firm message of conviction, or any hint of original thought.

Monarchists tended to think that Elizabeth had done a great job in avoiding political controversy. And in some senses they were right. There was genuine affection for her and she did steer the Monarchy successfully through some threatening controversies, particularly the media led mass hysteria reaction to Diana’s death. But in many ways this institutional success came at the cost of betraying what the institution is actually for. The Royals became a flaccid kind of good, a limp wave and a mumbled polite word at a tedious event. There was no fire and passion there. There was nothing to rally around, really, and nothing that dared speak against relentless national decline. Nobody would look to these people to save them or speak for them while the country was changed beyond all recognition.

With Charles, the problem is even more urgent. Because Charles is more politically active, more possessed of an idea that the Monarchy should take a stand, than his mother was. He isn’t looking for a perfect neutrality in all things, as she was. He has his own opinions, his own firm beliefs in green issues and religious issues and cultural ones….but the trouble is all of these were delivered to him by instructors from the World Economic Forum, by mentors and guides who were all Globalists.

Charles is a Globalist puppet who thinks he is an independent man. It’s a devastating combination both for Britain and for the monarchy. All of his views are those of the Globalist middle and upper class. All of them are harmful to the interests of Britain and the British people. And we have reached the point where the damage Globalist positions do is very, very obvious to more and more ordinary people. We have had a succession of Globalist governments obsessed with serving US neocon wars that are deeply unpopular. Likewise, these governments have been obsessed with Net Zero, the climate change apocalypse hoax, and energy policies that are ruinous and stupid. All of them of course were in favour of the COVID insanities. The chief difference between the last Conservative government and the present Labour government is not in nature but degree-Labour are just a bit more obvious about hating their own people and being owned by outside foreign forces. All of them love mass immigration and support the replacement of the British people.

In his Christmas address Charles did not offer a purely bland collection of mild pleasantries and well wishes. He offered mindless cliches but ones which are firmly Globalist in nature. Everything in his speech was framed for Globalist purposes. The choice of venue for instance. Charles spoke from the chapel of the former Middlesex Hospital in London. Why did he pick this venue? There are 13,000 specifically Christian venues he could have picked. The chapel, though, is a FORMER Christian space, used today for multi faith ceremonies “now itself a vibrant Community space”. Charles is of course a notorious lover and excuser of Islam, one of those pathetic western dhimmies who gushes about Islam as one of the world’s great religions or as a religion of peace. The ‘multi faith’ approach always means Christianity declining and being replaced by the stronger rivals its mewling submissive modern custodians welcome.

Like the current Pope, Charles is a figure who cloaks himself in Christian piety while working towards the final replacement of Christianity with alien and malign alternatives. These sanctimonious fools speak much about Jesus, but always shaped in ways that aid a secular submission to Islam. For example Charles spoke about Jesus ministering to the suffering and to the poor:

“As the famous Christmas Carol, ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ reminds us, ‘Our Saviour holy’ ‘came down to Earth from Heaven’, lived among ‘the poor and mean and lowly’ and transformed the lives of those he met, through God’s ‘redeeming love’. That is the heart of the Nativity Story and we can hear its beat in the belief of all the great Faiths in the love and mercy of God in times of joy and of suffering, calling us to bring light where there is darkness.”

So much of this could be viewed innocently were it not for the now long established way Globalists and progressives subvert the things they wish to destroy. The purpose of this is not to share a traditional Christian message of love and kindness. It is to turn Christian kindness specifically towards the Other and away from Our Own. In other words Christians are being morally chastised and told to accept their replacement, using the tenets of their own faith, by people who don’t really love or share that faith themselves. The poor are not our poor, but the world’s. The suffering are not British people who are suffering, but those abroad. These are the people Charles is telling you to care about:

“…on this Christmas Day, we cannot help but think of those for whom the devastating effects of conflict - in the Middle East, in Central Europe, in Africa and elsewhere - pose a daily threat to so many people’s lives and livelihoods. We also think of the humanitarian organisations working tirelessly to bring vital relief.”

Never ourselves. Never our own. You must worship the Other, and delight in your replacement at home. You must be happy if your money is spent saving others abroad, while you starve at home. You must welcome the millions pouring in, and the other faiths replacing your faith, and every Globalist change that harms you….because that’s what being a good person and a good Christian means. You must embrace a suicidal altruism ordered upon you by elites like Charles.

Note the groups that the Christmas speech praises. International charity organisations. Doctors and nurses who work for the State (just after they have played their part in killing millions of people worldwide with mRNA experiments). All of this is about prioritising and praising the Other AND the professions and institutions that have now dedicated themselves to the Other.

Everyone except you, the British person who happens to be white and from long connection to this land. What is the Globalist elite view of you?

“I felt a deep sense of pride here in the United Kingdom when, in response to anger and lawlessness in several towns this Summer, communities came together, not to repeat these behaviours but to repair. To repair not just buildings, but relationships. And, most importantly, to repair trust; by listening and, through understanding, deciding how to act for the good of all.”

What happened with the Southport Riots is of course what Charles is referencing here. And what a sickly dishonest reference it is. Because the truth is that the riots were prompted by yet another example of why welcoming the whole world isn’t the best and wisest thing to do. They started when a 2nd generation immigrant decided to slaughter three innocent little girls. In other words the ‘hate’ Charles references did not come, as he pretends, from within-it wasn’t the white people arrested who started the hate, but the immigrant murderer who started the hate. Is anger not appropriate in the face of the murder of children? Apparently not when the elite only want you to welcome your extinction.

Charles tells us the mainstream line. Nasty white racists tried to stir up hate. Brave wonderful brown people came together with brave wonderful white liberals to stop that.

What actually happened was yet another immigrant atrocity. Followed by perfectly understandable anger. Which was then used as a Reichstag Fire/J6 crackdown excuse for the most disgusting thought control and speech control draconian persecution of ordinary people ever seen in the UK in modern times as the Labour Government shoved hundreds of people in prison for not being Charles style suicidal altruists. Hundreds of people who just told the truth. The aim was to chill speech and enforce lies on immigration. While Muslim gangs were allowed to rampage at will ‘protecting their community’. White people got prison sentences for telling the truth, brown people got the police helping them hide weapons. And the ‘crackdown’ enforced all of it with the most loathsome betrayal of basic equality before the law and basic justice imaginable.

That crackdown also killed an innocent grandfather.

And Charles is proud of it.

Meanwhile, more details emerge on the actual racism that goes on in Britain today, thanks to the suicidal altruism Charles encourages and is so proud of. Contrast these court details with Charles telling us how all religions share the same kind moral lessons and how diversity is our strength:

“You, Mohammed Karrar, prepared her for gang anal rape by using a pump to expand her anal passage. You subjected her to a gang rape by five or six men (count 30). At one point she had four men inside her. A red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet.

Not only were you both involved in the commercial sexual exploitation of GH, you also used her for your own self-gratification. You both raped her when she was under 13.

When she was very young, although it is not clear whether she was under 13, you both raped her at the same time (oral and vaginal/anal). It happened on more than one occasion (Count 28).”

What Charles expressed in his Christmas message is a tempting lie. It’s a lie that would be nice, if it were true. It would indeed be a comforting world and a better world if we are all aware of our shared humanity. If every religion and every culture valued human life in the same way. If being human was enough to make us all humane. But it isn’t. These are comfortable fictions you only believe if you spend your whole life in a pampered bubble. As the affluent do, or as a Royal does.

The assumption that everyone from everywhere is wonderful and mass immigration is a strength is a moral evil. That sanctimonious naivety becomes an active evil itself when your young girls are brutally raped or when your protective grandfathers are driven to suicide.

The Monarchy did nothing to protect the people from governments who successively betrayed them, especially on mass immigration. Elizabeth’s dedicated political neutrality was bad enough, passively condoning a relentless decline. But Charles is considerably worse. Charles shares the same contempt for his own people and THEIR suffering that Keir Starmer possesses. According to all of these elites we must accept the rape or murder of our children and consider that a strength that improves us.

And we are to be imprisoned and told we represent hate if we object to this.

In other words, those constantly telling us about shared humanity and caring about suffering, have no sense that we are human or that our suffering matters. There can be few hypocrisies quite as vile as that.