The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesGregory Hood Podcasts
The Value of Monarchy with Gregory Hood and Joseph Ford Cotto
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Gregory Hood and Joseph Ford Cotto discuss Traditionalism, monarchy, and hierarchy. Should whites care about the monarchy? We know what many blacks think . . .

(Republished from Left, Right, and White by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Monarchy 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Does anybody like my ‘eccentric’ idea?

    Keep the Aristocracy i.e. (Baron, Viscount, Earl etc. titles); Get rid of the Royals.

    Under this idea, Peerage titles are honorarily bestowed upon IRREPLACEABLE individuals. (Not posthumous or hereditary.)

  2. UK is monarcho-anarcho-tyranny.

  3. The Queen wasn’t even cold before the anti-monarchists started.
    Why is it, as Douglas Murray has pointed out, that it is acceptable for Americans to obsess over families as Head of State – the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons, ( is Trump Jr going to run?) but not for countries to have a familial Head of State? Constitutional Monarchies rarely have the political families that the US and other countries do. It’s bad enough they have to put up with narcissistic megalomaniacs wanting to be Prime Minister that are restrained by the system. What they don’t have is a quadrennial freak show of a collection of narcissistic megalomaniacs pretending to be different, vying for a party nomination to be the narcissistic megalomaniac elected by a public voting for the cult of choice every four years. That is followed by a declaration of being the leader of the “free world” – or at least what Israel allows.

    • Agree: Hitmarck

    When the Queen said, during the course of her 1983 Christmas broadcast: “The greatest problem in the world today remains the gap between rich and poor countries and we shall not begin to close this gap until we hear less about nationalism and more about interdependence. What we want to see is still more modern technology being used by poor countries to provide employment and to produce primary products and components, which will in turn be bought by the richer countries at competitive prices,” she was criticised by Tory triumphalists for apparently suggesting the sharing of wealth and resources with the uppity countries of the developing world.

    Enoch Powell, no longer strictly a Tory but close to the Thatcherites, criticised the speech for suggesting the Queen had “the interests and affairs of other countries in other continents as much or more at heart than those of her own people”. The Thatcherites had little sympathy for the Commonwealth, a cause which to them remained inexplicably close to the Queen’s heart. They discounted the fact that she had travelled more and seen more countries over many years than they ever had.

  5. SteveK9 says:

    If you would like a real discussion about the role of the monarchy (or autocrats) from a much deeper perspective, not the trivial role of monarchs like the British King, try this guy, Rolo Slavskiy


  6. @Houston 1992

    Thatcher was accused of taking Powell’s economic theories lock, stock, and barrel. I have always found it ironic that had the “poor countries” been able “to provide employment and to produce primary products and components,” the reason for the economic migrants flooding into the UK would have been massively reduced, yet Powell was seemingly unable to grasp that.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  7. @Houston 1992

    “They discounted the fact that she had travelled more and seen more countries over many years than they ever had”

    The fact that you consider flying into a capital city, sitting and watching some natives doing a display of tribal dancing and then sitting at a meal for the leading local dignitaries before flying back to your palace in London to be ”travelling more’ and ‘seeing more countries’ is hilarious.

    Enoch Powell was a Professsor at the University of Sydney by the age of 25, and fought in WW2.

    • Agree: Verymuchalive
  8. Republicanism worked in Greece . . . good grief,it%20their%20goal%20to%20conquer%20all%20of%20Greece.

    Hmmmm . . . the first harsh comment I ever heard about monarchy came from a white Brit. But your attempt to suggest that Britain’s monarchy is disliked by blacks uniquely — nonsense

    ” By comparison, only 48% of labour voters are in favour of the monarchy, with the lowest level of support being amongst those aged between 18 and 24 (33%).”

    I can tell its election season. Now I am on record as being favorable to monarchy in general, but the level of obtuse nonsense about why even whites of Britain have issues with the Monarchy — even the normally conservative Scotts have issues.

    Laugh — Look the crown is and Great Britain are wrestling with a history of making promises she did not keep. Blacks have been British citizens for several hundred years

    Rhodesia and South Africa collapsed because they failed to include the majority of the population into their systems. The result — a resentful and angry populace. And fortunately Pres Mandela did not hold the same sentiments as he white captors.

  9. Whites in South Africa are a microcosm of white westerners in general. We are highly skilled, highly individualistic and deeply divided. An old Afrikaans saying goes “we don’t sit around the same fire”.
    The most common kind of white is the Afrikaner, but there are English-speaking South Africans, Portuguese, Greek, Lebanese, a small number of descendants of WW II Italian prisoners of war, a small number of Jews, each with their preferences and prejudices.

    Our history with Rhodesia was checkered, as a British colony there was tension between them and the two Boer republics of the Orange Free State and The Transvaal Republic. Shortly before the second Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902, Rhodesia served as a base for the Jameson raid, a surprise attack on the Transvaal or ZAR, meant to coincide with a British-planned popular uprising among foreign immigrants during the gold rush. Both ended in failure.

    South African support for Rhodesia after they declared independence included counter-insurgency units of South African Police fighting in the Bush War.

    Amongst conservative Afrikaners it’s still considered a virtue to this day to speak bad or even no English.

  10. @Curmudgeon

    Thatcher was accused of taking Powell’s economic theories lock, stock, and barrel.

    No she did not. Lady Thatcher was a proponent of Britain joining the EEC and remaining there, like nearly all the political class. Enoch Powell, and a few others, wanted Britain to leave the EEC and return to some form of free trade, or even tariff barriers. So Powell was never at all close to “Thatcherites”, despite what you think.

    Powell criticized Queen Elizabeth for placing the interests of Commonwealth and recent newcomers above indigenous Britons.
    Powell felt this would “suggest she has the affairs and interests in other continents as much, or more, at heart than those of her own people,” especially when “even here, in the UK, she is more concerned for the susceptibilities & prejudices of a vociferous minority of newcomers than for the great mass of her subjects.”

    He was entirely correct in that criticism. Despite all the Queen’s posturing on these matters, it will not save the Royal Family. Even Charles may not survive much longer.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  11. @Verymuchalive

    By Powell’s economic theories, I was referring to deregulation and sell off of government assets. In Thatcher’s defense, her successors went places even she wouldn’t go.
    I understand the basis of the criticism of the Queen’s comment, but the reality is that if Commonwealth Member Shitholeland had a reasonably high standard of living there would be a drastically reduced number emigrating. In the early 70s the standard of living in the UK was well below that of Canada and Scandinavia. Had Shitholeland been able to come close to Britain’s already low standard, it wouldn’t have been so attractive,

  12. John1955 says:

    During the first 200 years of America (first as Colonies then as the United States) Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was the ONLY legal book American lawyers quoted in Courts of Law. Then came Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law”… Now we have a whole torrent of legal literature and warring legal schools – hence the Mighty Confusion and Paralysis of the Law 😁

    Let’s go back to basics and judge how good Liz The Deuce (pardon my democratic irreverence) accomplished Her Royal Mission by Blackstone’s standards:

    Commentaries on the Laws of England/Of the King’s Duties

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gregory Hood Comments via RSS