The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Losers: Markle and A Meritless McCain. Winner: The Queen
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

Fancy that! A member of a meritless political dynasty, The McCains, has panned the duty-bound British monarchy.

There is a revolving door between Big Media, be it the neoliberal CNN or neocon Fox News, and members of the political duopoly. Whether practiced by the Left or the Right; this is indisputably immoral, and a conflict of interest.

To spout received opinion, Fox News has hired Ben Domenech, the unremarkable husband of the irredeemably awful Meghan McCain.

At the conclusion of a wishy-washy Fox segment about the wanton Meghan Markle, the man who had married into the McCain dynasty declared:

“There is nothing more American than hating the British Crown.”

That’s a shallow stance at best. For, if forced to choose between the mob (democracy) and the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent. This thesis is anatomized in Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order, by libertarian political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

In his seminal work, Hoppe provides ample support—historical and analytical—for democracy’s inferiority as compared to monarchy:

‘… democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.’

“[I]n light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly,” explains Hoppe.

“From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.”

The raw, ripe, rule of the demos has diminished the queen, but has yet to destroy her. Queen Elizabeth might be a member of a landed aristocracy, much-maligned in radical America—but she has acquitted herself as would a natural aristocrat.

Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. Her Majesty has been working quietly (and often thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century.

Elizabeth Windsor was 13 when World War II broke out, which was when she gave her first official radio broadcast to console the children who had been evacuated “from Britain to America, Canada and elsewhere.” Still in her teens, Elizabeth joined the military, “where,” according to Wikipedia, “she … trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served.”

Question: What was Markle—a divorced, mercenary left-liberal out of Hollywood, who had hunted Prince Harry down and married him—doing when she was a teen?

Answer: Markle was preaching pious, hackneyed, feminist homilies on the Nickelodeon channel! There, aged 11, Markle turned in a performance as a miserable, humorless, unoriginal scold, sharing banal views held by 99 percent of the American establishment.

In 2017, this writer had predicated, too hastily, that Markle, an American C-list actress, would finish what Diana Spencer, a British A-list actress, had begun: destroy the monarchy.

This year, Prince Philip, of blessed memory, had been teetering when his grandson’s American bride gave the performance of a lifetime, alongside the Queen of Kitsch, Oprah Winfrey.

A disgrace to decent Americans, the woman’s sordid, petty psycho-drama had exposed Markle in all her tacky tawdriness. An empty “suit,” if you will.

A brother on the set of “Suits,” Markle’s televised claim to fame, said it best:

Meghan Markle has unleashed insignificance on an anguished world, fumed “Suits” co-star Wendell Pierce. Now, that’s narcissism, isn’t it? Foisting your solipsistic, inconsequential self on the cosmos.

The queen won’t outlive Meghan Markle, but she dwarfs the ditz.

As to Ben Domenech, another intellectual pygmy with special privileges: Were the conservative, periwigged Englishmen who founded America to pounce back on to the set—they, too, would favor the monarchy over the current American mobocracy.

ORDER IT NOW

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column 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 currently on Parler, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook and throttled by Twitter.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Meghan Markle, Meghan McCain 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Her Majesty has been working quietly (and often thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century.

    I beg to differ; whereas her grandfather took an active interest in how his empire was governed, and her great-great-grandmother had even more role in running her empire, QE II mutely stood by while the constitutional principles were destroyed beyond belief in her reign. One of her PMs asserted that the PMs are accountable only to God, neither to the queen nor to the people, thus reviving the Divine Rights theory but in favour of the PMs, she just kept quiet. Recently another PM hanged on to power even after her proposals on Brexit were repeatedly rejected by the Parliament, yet she did nothing. She said nothing when the powers of the Parliament were mortgaged to the unelected bureaucracy at Brussels. Her sovereignty was compromised, her subjects were sold down the river, her armed forces were taken out of the control of the Parliament, yet she said or did nothing. She did nothing when her PM lied about the WMD in Iraq, she did not even privately rebuke him. PMs of Victoria were nervous to discuss the affairs of the state with her; PMs of QE II did not care to discuss anything with her. She stood by idly when the PM and the Parliament fooled around with people’s verdict on Brexit.

    She said something only when her fortunes were affected in 2008, and that too half-heartedly.

    QE II may have an impressive personality, but her contribution to her reign is negative.

    • Agree: Kali
    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Diversity Heretic
  2. Kerry says:

    Good column.

    It has me thinking though – who do I loathe more, Megan McCain or Megan Markle? One is the daughter of a neoClown dumbass who crashed five planes and had his lips permanently planted on that whiskey soaked murderer Ted Kennedy’s backside, and the other is a White hating little activist …

    Ah, the Hell with it, I hate them both equally.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @Alternate History
  3. Yep, looking back I can see the sickness started and the world started going wrong 250 years ago when we killed off our aristocracy and kings. Liberal French ideas are not the basis for a long term civilization. The future portrayed in Dune with royal houses is probably more accurate if civilization manages to survive, turn around, and bring us an advanced science fiction type future should it even be possible to go to the stars and other planets which is far more difficult an engineering task than Hollywood makes it look. “Shakespeare” after all was really the Earl of Oxford, there was no person going around at the time claiming to be the author, the plays just appeared under that name and 50 years later after the English Civil War when aristocracy was out of fashion they found a similarly named grain trader in the country and the folktale of his authorship began although his life history shows absolutely no literacy or interest in the arts. Yes with royalty sometimes you get a good one and sometimes you get a bad one. But with so called “democracy” the rubes ALWAYS get fooled by con artists and psychopathic personalities rise to the top. America has been a failure in the long run, time to face the facts. There is a lot of good that can be salvaged, but no more “democracy” and letting the idiots rule.

    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  4. GeeBee says:
    @Old Brown Fool

    She did nothing when her PM lied about the WMD in Iraq, she did not even privately rebuke him.

    Just how, pray tell us, are you privy to conversations that took place during the weekly audiences of British Prime Ministers and the Sovereign, between Her Majesty and the odious Anthony Linton Blair?

    Queen Elizabeth has ‘failed’ to do anything about Britain’s descent into chaos, tyranny and terminal multiculturalism because Parliament long ago triumphed in its battle with the crown. A real monarchy is what is needed, but thanks largely to Cromwell, and then the successful attempt to get rid of James II forty years later, what we have instead is rule by a parliament in thrall to the ‘merchant class’.

    Ms Mercer’s warm encomium upon the current British crown is kind but entirely misunderstands the role of the British sovereign in modern times. It has been a gradual decline, for sure. You are right that Victoria held far greater power than does her great-great-granddaughter. That does not alter the fact that in today’s world the installation of the merchant on the ruins of throne and altar is now complete.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  5. Art Deco says:

    but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.’

    Which tells you Hoppe is a crank.

    And there is no such person as ‘Elizabeth Windsor’. She has a royal style, not a conventional Christian name / family name identifier. That is so for a monarch, a consort, children of a monarch, the wife of a monarch’s son, grandchildren of a monarch through the male line, and any wife of a male grandchild through the male line. The name ‘Windsor’ is taken by the children of a monarch’s grandsons through the male line – i.e. by a selection of a monarch’s great-grandchildren. Members of the royal family who carry a royal style make use of convenience surnames in select circumstances, but these are conventions and not their actual names. Prince William and Prince Harry made use of ‘Wales’ during their time in the military. The Duke of Gloucester and the Duchess of Kent make use of ‘Gloucester’ and ‘Kent’ in certain settings. Prince Edward asked for special permission for his daughter to eschew using her style in favor of ‘Lady Louise Windsor’.

    • Replies: @Ace
  6. For, if forced to choose between the mob (democracy) and the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent.

    As to Ben Domenech, another intellectual pygmy with special privileges: Were the conservative, periwigged Englishmen who founded America to pounce back on to the set—they, too, would favor the monarchy over the current American mobocracy

    I think that you will find conclusively that if you go back to the Socratic and Platonic endorsements of Agoraphobic hysteria against the supposed ‘mob’ rule they fear, this originates with a slave owning, aristocratic elite, who are only motivated to express some passing troubled regret by their mass enslavement of other ‘greeks’, but not at all by the fully endorsed mass enslavement of other peoples.

    This is really the Nobility ‘fractured fairy tale’ origin story of the non-stop sales pitch seeking to whip up a propaganda frenzy among the unwary general population against allegedly monstrous democratic electorates – and I say this effusively in the ‘small d’ sense of the term. The reality is, societies run by a controlling elite of corrupted aristocrats are the story tellers who market this nonsense, and this has been the case since the time of Socrates.

    The Socratic ‘Republic’ controlled every aspect of the majority of the populations lives, decided on war which others will be sent to fight, religion, enslaved either through landlessness or financial ownership the majority of the population – the masses who were voiceless in that society..
    this artifact of ancient history sound quite familiar to ‘modern’ Americans because it is in fact a outcome founded upon the same precepts peddled even today.

    Word definition is ‘eye of the beholder’. Someone like Domenech would likely define Federalism as delegating to the states all but that which is specifically assigned to the states, however, this definition fails the test of actual practice.

    Similarly, Montesquieu – who draws directly from the writings of Socrates, notes –

    “It is not my business to examine whether the English actually enjoy this liberty or not. Sufficient it is for my purpose to observe that it is established by their laws; and I inquire no further

    The factual outcome of American Federalism is actually not at all the definition that I suspect Domenech would likely attempt to distribute. The literal consequence of centralization is always the same, which is a corrupt managerial elite making its own rules for its own financial gain, advancement and preservation of rule.

    In truth, the implementation of Federalism was to increase the powers of the central govt rapidly – and somewhat amusingly- by the direct actions of those lecturing arch-Federalists who had promised otherwise..

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    , @Ace
  7. Art Deco says:

    As to Ben Domenech, another intellectual pygmy with special privileges:

    He was an established figure in topical commentary a decade before he married Meghan McCain and was one of the founders of Red State and The Federalist. His father is well-connected in Republican circles, but that’s not getting people to read his work (though it may have helped with seed money).

  8. @Old Brown Fool

    Good comment! Queen Elizabeth II may go down in history as the worse English monarch since Aethelred the Unready. She has reigned while England has been transformed from an overwhelmingly Anglo-Norman-Celtic population into an increasingly African-Indian-Pakistani one. The fact that she outshines Meghan Markle is classic damning by faint praise. In fairness, given her background it’s unlikely that she even thought that the demographic transformation of England represented any kind of problem at all.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @Ace
  9. Dan Hayes says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    QE II was reportedly very enthusiastic about the coupling of Boy Harry with the octoroon as it would go over well with the moribund Commonwealth. Witness their marriage which was a Black ceremony!

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  10. @Trial by Wombat

    Ultra-Rich To Prosperous Americans: We’ll Speak For You

    https://heisenbergreport.com/2021/04/23/ultra-rich-to-prosperous-americans-well-speak-for-you/

    Noam Chomsky loves to quote John Jay saying the people who own the country ought to run it. What he leaves out is this was reported by his son and John Jay was also reported to be pretty drunk when he said it. He didn’t write this exactly in The Federalist or anything like that. : )

  11. @Sebastian Hawks

    I don’t really disagree, but I don’t see much difference between the USSA and the UK in the present day. The British are as thoroughly cursed with the baleful effects of duh-mocracy as are we. True, they have a royal family to furnish them with (increasingly) scandalous gossip-fodder. But I don’t think that substantially affects the misrule under which they labor. We have our spurious dynasties, too (in recent decades, the Bushes and the Clintons; before that, the Kennedys). Crapocracy, it seems to me, is much the same, whether you nominally have a monarch, or not.

    • Agree: Ace
  12. @Dan Hayes

    Thanks for your comment. I happened to watch a documentary on QE II the other night and it emphasized how important she thought the Commonwealth was back in the 1950s. She seems to have paid a lot of attention to the Commonwealth and didn’t notice, or care about what would happen in England. Approving the Harry-Meghan Markle marriage would be consistent with that point of view.

    If Scotland secedes from the U.K., I hope she’s still alive to see the results of her reign.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  13. Dan Hayes says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Unfortunately the misnamed SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) may be deeply embedded in the ongoing project of replacing the indigenous Scottish population with Third Worlders; just as Sinn Fein is doing in present-day Ireland.

  14. Monarchy cannot exist with a queen, only a king. What England has is a matriarchy and the consequences of it are clear.

    A monarchy is a strictly male institution, with direct patrilineal descent from God himself (the Sky). Women are organic material from the Soil. When have you ever seen soil above the sky? The sky is always on top of the soil.

    England is what happens when you try to pretend the soil is on top of the sky.

    “A man who sees and paints a blue sky green and a green field blue should be sterilized.” – Adolf Hitler

  15. Ace says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Hers was a monumental betrayal. The agreed upon primacy of Parliament is one thing but remaining silent when the nation itself is diluted by fools with a mish mash of contemptuous foreigners is the ultimate crime. She was indifferent to the extinguishment, marginalization, or subjugation of her people.

  16. Ace says:
    @Trial by Wombat

    ** Federalism as delegating to the states all but that which is specifically assigned to the states, however, this definition fails the test of actual practice. **

    That’s an odd take on the constitutional scheme in the U.S. Nothing in the Constitution was delegated to the states; it was the other way around, states having derived their powers from the consent of the people, of course.

    Your definition fails the test of historical and theoretical accuracy.

    “Actual practice” was our ancestor’s stupidity in ratifying the 16th, 17th, and 19th Amendments and the treason of the Supreme Court in ceasing to enforce the Commerce Clause and finding every other conceivable opportunity to increase federal power and embrace idiocy (e.g., not a tax but actually a tax, penumbral emanations, infanticide).

    • Replies: @Trial by Wombat
  17. @Kerry

    I’d like to see them face off on a subject of mutual interest as to which of these two fools is less deserving of the privilege that she happened to luck into.

  18. Wasn’t the Queen directly involved in the removal of a pretty good Australian Prime Minister about 40 years ago? And what was here role in the forced resignation of MacMillan in the UK about 1970?

    She’s not a benign influence. But either is the fake Duchess of Sussex.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  19. dfordoom says: • Website
    @restless94110

    Wasn’t the Queen directly involved in the removal of a pretty good Australian Prime Minister about 40 years ago?

    Not really. I suppose she could have chosen to directly involve herself but that might have made a bad situation worse.

    The idea that the CIA was involved in undermining the Whitlam Government is much more plausible. Whitlam was trying to pursue an independent Australian foreign policy putting Australian interests first. Which of course is unacceptable behaviour for the prime minister of a US vassal state.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  20. @dfordoom

    How could the Queen of England NOT acquiescing to the CIA have made it worse? She went along, buddy. I talked to Aussies at the time and they squarely blamed the Monarch. She should have stood up.

  21. @Ace

    ** Federalism as delegating to the states all but that which is specifically assigned to the states, however, this definition fails the test of actual practice. **
    Your definition fails the test of historical and theoretical accuracy.

    I was intending –

    “Someone like Domenech would likely define Federalism as delegating to the states all but that which is specifically assigned to the Central Govt, however, this definition fails the test of actual practice.”

    As demonstrated in the next sentence –

    “The factual outcome of American Federalism is actually not at all the definition that I suspect Domenech would likely attempt to distribute. The literal consequence of centralization is always the same, which is a corrupt managerial elite making its own rules for its own financial gain, advancement and preservation of rule.”

    I have basically zero knowledge of this Domenech guy that Mrs Mercer mentions, nor do I know what he is in particularly known for. I simply despise the falsity behind what Federalism actually enacted, and would not want to in any way align myself with such a doctrine.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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 Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement