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
Mourning the Queen— But Did Elizabeth II Drop the Ball?
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

It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth II of blessed memory partook in the decision to support the unchecked majority rule of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, my homeland.

Like her Majesty at the time, most politicians and public intellectuals thought nothing of delivering South Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists. Yet any one suggesting such folly to the wise Margaret Thatcher risked taking a hand-bagging.

The Iron Lady had ventured that grooming the ANC as South Africa’s government-in-waiting was tantamount to “living in cloud-cuckoo land.” (Into The Cannibal’s Post: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 147.)

But what do you know? Queen Elizabeth did just that! Over Mrs. Thatcher’s objections, in 1987 the queen had bullied Prime Minister Thatcher to sanction South Africa.

And in 1979, noted British paleolibertarian Sean Gabb, the queen also muscled Mrs. Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to another bunch of white-hating black Marxists.

Most disquieting to decency: Although search engines are energetically scrubbing this fact from the Internet—the Queen had knighted Robert Mugabe. Mugabe was chief warlord of Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia (may that country rest in peace).

To quote Into the Cannibal’s Pot, the book aforementioned:

“By the time the megalomaniac Robert Mugabe was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II (1994)—and given honorary doctorates from the Universities of Edinburgh (1984), Massachusetts (1986), and Michigan (1990)—he had already done his “best” work: slaughtering some 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland (1983). Western conventional wisdom was no wiser. (And the United Nations responded invariably by … condemning Israel.)” P. 134.


Mugabe was nothing if not consistent in his contempt for all life.

Question: What do you call a “person” who butchers and barbeques baby elephant?

Answer: A motherf–ker. Lowbrow Robert Mugabe, as Foreign Policy magazine had reported in 2015, “celebrated his 91st birthday followed by a lavish party with an exotic menu, reportedly including barbequed baby elephant.”

Is it any wonder Dr. Gabb took a different measure of her Majesty in 2012, dubbing her “Elizabeth the Useless“? Gabb’s “Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp” unfurls a list of her Majesty’s acts of constitutional omission, if not unconstitutional commission.

“Although the Queen is without executive function,” argues Gabb, “she never protested the theft of our ancestral rights. It was her duty to resist that theft, and to resist without regard for the outcome – and it was in her power to resist without bringing on her head any of the penalties. At no time in the past [seventy] years, has she raised a finger in public, or, it is probably the case, in private, to slow the destruction of an order of things she swore in the name of God to protect. … she has done nothing to sustain that identity in any meaningful sense.”


By Dr. Gabb’s telling, the queen could have also vetoed any parliamentary bill she disliked – and her veto could not have been overridden by any weighted majority vote of Parliament. As could she have protested that her subjects were lied into the European Union. She didn’t:

“The Queen has not sustained our national identity. … she has allowed many people to overlook the structures of absolute and unaccountable power that have grown up during her reign. She has fronted a revolution to dispossess us of our country and of our rights within it.”


“The Queen should have resisted the Offensive Weapons Bill and the Firearms Bill, that effectively abolished our right to keep and bear arms for defence. She should have resisted the Bills that abolished most civil juries and that allowed majority verdicts in criminal trials.”

“She should have resisted the numerous private agreements that made our country into an American satrapy. She should have insisted, every time she met her prime minister, on keeping the spirit of our old Constitution….”

That the queen had enormous moral and political sway is incontrovertible. Observe the impact of her passing on members of the British commonwealth and beyond.

The role of the monarch in England’s constitutional monarchy demands that, “Once the politicians make themselves, as a class, irremovable, and once they begin to abolish the rights of the people, it is the duty of the Monarch to step in and rebalance the Constitution. It is then that she must resume her legal powers and exercise them of her own motion.”

Had they been functioning as they were intended to; the monarchy and the House of Lords could have served as checks on the demotic and demonic forces of the United Kingdom’s “mass-democracy.”

Unz Review columnist ilana mercer and David Vance discuss the matter further on the Hard Truth Rumble podcast. WATCH “Monarchy in Mourning — But Did Queen Elizabeth Drop The Ball?

Video Link

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece 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 on Twitter, Gab, Gettr YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new video-podcast.

• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Britain 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. lloyd says: • Website

    Very Israeli Zionist again like psycho professor Yuval Harari who laments the cruelty to cows while apparently not saying a word about the cruelty to the Palestinians. She laments Mugabe’s feast, eating baby elephants. Perhaps she just means the conservation issue. But her venom for Mugabe in this article is over this. And her whine about U N condemnation of Israel.

    • Agree: BuelahMan
    • Replies: @ILANA Mercer
    , @BuelahMan
    , @Ace
  2. meamjojo says:

    I wish they would finally bury her and let the worms get eating, so BBC could get back to actual news.

    Turning her death into a 2 week long gala event is about 12 days too long. Whew.

    • Agree: animalogic
    • Replies: @Jokem
  3. Jokem says:

    That is standard operating procedure in the UK. Centuries of tradition.
    I am not a big supporter of this either, but there are bigger things to complain about.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  4. Jokem says:

    When I was in the UK years ago, a Brit called the coronations and such ‘rubbish’.

    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  5. When did the old hag visit Julian Assange? Non-political, they say, nothing stopping her, and just her looking in for a moment to say hello would have made a huge difference to his prospects. But never bothered. So don’t bother doing anything till your carcass is decomposed, silly Lizzard.

  6. There are many who use the occasion of the Queen’s death to critisize her. And there is much to critisize. But those who mourn know this: The White Queen is dead. There will never be annother.

    Let the Anglos grieve in peace. It won’t cost you anything.

  7. @lloyd

    1. My UN comment is called H U M O R, your dour dolt.

    For decades, the UN opened each of its sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel, not Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, genocide in Rwanda, etc.

    2. This is not a column related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in case you failed to notice. Well of course you failed to notice, for you are a lazy, weak-minded fool.

    In the 2012 column titled “Standing Armies Commandeered By Cowards,” which was about the Israeli-Palestinian battle of the day, I not only condemned the killing of civilians, I did so in an irrefutable argument, so that those who support Israel unconditionally could not wriggle out of responsibility (not that you would discern good from bad argument). To quote:

    THAT Hamas hides among unwitting civilians, who have no way of controlling its activities, does not give Israel the right to kill innocent non-combatants, not even unintentionally.

    Besides, murder is not ‘unintentional’ when you know it is inevitable.

    To make matters worse, Gazans are helpless—they are without siren systems to warn them of an impending attack, or bomb shelters in which to hide.

    Yet you are too slothful, stupid and lazy to do your research. Easier to libel me.

    Like most of the coward keyboard anti-Semites here (you all hide behind your devices) you have failed to notice that this America First writer writes about—OMG! Moron alert—America and the Anglo-sphere, not Israel.

    • Thanks: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Jokem
  8. This June 2008 NYT piece says that QE2 stripped Mugabe of his knighthood over human rights abuses in Zim.

    “Queen Elizabeth II has stripped Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s strongman president for nearly 30 years, of his honorary knighthood as a “mark of revulsion” at the human rights abuses and “abject disregard” for democracy over which he has presided, the British Foreign Office announced Wednesday.”

    But the above article by Mercer is a good summary by on how QE2 failed the legacy population of the UK despite possessing constitutional powers to help her own people. And for that reason, paleocon should express gratitude.

    • Agree: Ace
  9. Good column. I’d forgotten about the Queen knighting Mugabe. The fact that she did it 15 years (or more) after he took power makes it mind-boggling. The fact that this little item is being disappeared from the Internet seems incredible, but the “gatekeepers,” Hillary dreamed about, seem to have the power to whitewash anything that embarrasses the elites. I can distinctly remember President Jimmy Carter calling Mugabe the “George Washington” of Southern Africa, at the time of his takeover, but I haven’t been able to find any documentation of the fact

    • Thanks: ILANA Mercer
  10. BuelahMan says:

    Careful, she might call you a name.

  11. The only reason the lizard woman rescinded Mugabe’s knighthood was that Zimbabwe pulled out of the Commonwealth. That’s quite a big deal in London, as South Africa found out after 1961. The superstructure of the British state–politicians, media, even pop singers–will immediately turn against you and work tirelessly to destroy your breakaway state. Sure, they’ll tart it up with lots of pious talk about human rights abuses, but history shows us that Britain will ignore such abuses as long as you’re a Commonwealth member in good standing.

    Despite all the rhetoric about Britain “losing its empire,” the reality is that they don’t see it that way. They still view the entire Commonwealth as theirs. When Reagan correctly invaded Grenada to rescue American hostages behind held by a Marxist thug, the lizard woman was plenty pissed. Of course, she wasn’t troubled at all by the Marxist thug or his actions.

    • Thanks: Houston 1992
  12. @Jokem

    I can’t help but notice that this garish display, and waste of taxpayers’ money, is occurring at the same time that British “subjects” are living with out-of-control inflation, inability to pay their bills, growing unemployment, and crime enabled by mass third world immigration, while the Queen sat silent, living a life of luxury. Let them eat cake! I’d love to see the Brits storm Buckingham Palace and rid the Kingdom of their reptilian monarchy.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @Jokem
  13. So perhaps Meghan Markle’s presence at Elizabeth II’s funeral is ironically appropriate?

  14. Che Guava says:

    I entjoy some of Ilana’s writing, but she can never explain how she and her father’s activism and sympathies didn’t lead to the cannibal’s pot, so their real actions and inactions at the time invalidate it all.

    It isn’t even a circular argument.

    1. Ilana and her rabbi father were de facto ANC supporters.

    2. Ilana and her rabbi father leave Seth Efrica because they want to avoid the takeover by the forces they supported there.

    3. Ilana writes a book, pretending to warn against what she and her father supported.

    4. Ilana justifiably criticises EIIR for supporting some maniacs in southern Africa, but, except possibly for Mugabe, they are the same ones she and her father supported before running away to some other place.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @Irish Savant
    , @lloyd
    , @Trinity
  15. Psalm62 9 says:

    A needed history lesson, and different perspective on the Monarch; before her Sainthood is bestowed.
    Thank you.

    • Agree: Ace
  16. While I agree that the Queen treated Mandela like a pet Knee-grow, there is no way of knowing what the discussions between Thatcher and the Queen were. Thatcher herself refuted the claims of bullying. If you recall, Michael Shea, her Press Secretary was fired over “leaking” that story which no one else, seemed to know about.

  17. Queen Elizabeth II of blessed memory


    She and her kind consider you and I useless eaters. I am not one of those kooks who believes in plans to destroy me BUT all the evidence is perpetual, unambiguous and unanimous they don’t care about me one femtogram.

    Why should anybody care about them? Can you give one convincing reason?

    Because the BBC tells you to?

    double LOL.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  18. Good article. Never knew she held so much constitutional power. If such analysis is true the only conclusion is that she was guilty of treason.

  19. @Che Guava

    I agree but I suppose everyone can be allowed to change their mind. I used to support ‘freedom’ in SA in my youth. Took me some time to see the folly of that position.

    • Agree: Houston 1992
    • Replies: @Houston 1992
    , @Kurtz
  20. lloyd says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    The Apartheid National Government had its roots in European in particular German ethno nationalism. Africaner South Africans have more German than Dutch ancestry. They are closely affiliated anyway. After the National surprise victory in 1949 that replaced a “liberal” Government, that put the South African Jews’ garters into a twist. A parallel thing is happening now with the “far right “electoral successes in Europe and America. I have heard a report that Jewish households were getting a knock on the door after the election from realtors, asking , “When are you leaving South Africa”. I had an old Jewish lady come to me once, identifying me as a fellow ethnic. She declared. “Anti Semitism is a bad in Germany in 1987, as it was in 1940. ” That might give some idea of their paranoia.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
  21. Jokem says:
    @ILANA Mercer

    ILANA – Since this is your archive, I would hope you could hold yourself to a higher standard than many of the short-tempered polemicists here.

    Just a gentle suggestion.

  22. Jokem says:

    These are the kind of issues I was referring to, instead of the mostly meaningless pomp and ceremony.

  23. Renoman says:

    No, she did a great job of a crappy job, the ball will be dropped by Chuck in short order, he’s unlikeable and a goof. It won’t work.

  24. @lloyd

    SA had close ties with Israel, and SA Jews were eligible for the SA draft , and at least some served honorably.
    I wonder if there exists a single verified instance of discourtesy against a SA Jew by a Afrikaner between 1948-1994. Or since. Discourtesy, snakiness, by Jews against Afrikaaners would be easier to document

  25. @Irish Savant

    Ilana has written an excellent article here, but she does owe us an explanation, or how her thinking evolved, what prompted her changes on the rights of White Gentiles.

    • Agree: Che Guava, spacewonderer
  26. @Jokem

    Hey ==I met that same Brit –Mohammed Abdulla Farouck Kabar—-69 Baker Street correct?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  27. @Emil Nikola Richard

    You’re right, of course. Yes, the queen taken as an individual is probably worthy of somekind of grudging respect.
    However, she wasn’t merely an individual — she was the symbol of English imperialism & hierarchical class domination.
    “She” is the enemy. Just as Charles now is.
    Incidentally, I wish writers would resist the temptation to label everything they disagree with as “marxist”. Yes, there were marxists in the ANC, however the organization itself was quite committed to capitalism.
    I agree with Ilana’s points as to the destruction of British “justice”. The effective removal of “the right to silence ” is another clear sign of Elite contempt for tradition & democracy. The establishment, like some filthy butcher in Sicken’s time, puts another thumb on the scales of justice….

    • Replies: @Jokem
  28. What Her Majesty didn’t do is done. The bigger failure is that of hundreds of MPs to put a stop to the nonsense perpetrated in their names, e.g. COVID measures, “war” in 404, Botched-BREXIT, etc. The fact that the majority of Commons rubber-stamps or acquiesces to that which “the Government” puts on the table demonstrates that UK elections are pointless.

  29. Jokem says:

    No, this was way back in 1983, long before Middle Eastern people were common in the UK.

  30. Jokem says:

    You can look at how SA was managed after apartheid was disposed of. Blundering, centralized economy with people in charge who did not know what to do. If not Marxist, then at least a watered-down version of it.

  31. Kurtz says:
    @Irish Savant

    Agreed. I was a foolish liberal for many years until I woke up to what was happening to average white people in the name of globalism and anti racism. I don’t know Ilana’s history but she is clearly fighting on the right side now, and she has the intellect, drive and talent to make a difference.

  32. Ace says:

    I thought she took a dim view of “slaughtering some 20,000 innocent Ndebele” as well. But maybe it’s just me. It was the baby elephant barbeque that made her go ballistic.

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 Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.