Queen Elizabeth II never ventured into politics, but in death, almost inevitably, it seems,she has been dragged into the undeclared racial hostilities of our time. Souls warped by grievance and envy are ghoulishly dancing on her grave and mocking the “white tears” of her people.
The leftist, anti-white media have been a bit more subtle, but the message has been the same. They have wasted no time trying, however implausibly, to define the queen’s legacy as one of oppression and violence toward non-whites. Some have attacked the institution of the monarchy itself as a racist relic and issued calls for reparations.
The real purpose of these attacks is not historical fidelity but revision. The anti-white crowd wants Britain to repent for its “shameful” past (where would those who deplore “colonialism” rather be living than the Anglosphere?) and embrace a “progressive,” more “diverse,” future (one that, from the glimpses we’ve been given, actually looks pretty medieval.) Their real issue is with the European civilization the queen represents, a civilization that they believe is dying a much-deserved death, particularly insofar as it is majority white.
Strangely, the British monarchy appears to agree. In his first speech as King Charles III, he praised his mother’s noble life of service while giving a nod to Britain’s newly multicultural, secular character, as if to offer reassurance that the white Christian world of Britain’s past is, indeed, past. “Our values have remained, and must remain, constant,” he said. A nice sentiment, but which values are those, exactly?
The queen was a link to another world that has been swept away. Britain had fallen from its zenith when she inherited the throne, but it was still recognizably British. At the end of her reign, Britain has been totally transformed. Its former Christian decency, which the queen represented so well, has been lost. What little remains cannot last while Britain lacks the self-respect to defend its (actually good and rather impressive) history. If a figure so benign as the queen is a malevolent “colonizer,” then who is innocent? Why not abolish the monarchy at that rate?
The charges of grave evil flung at the departed queen could not be more absurd or unjust, given that Britain lost what was left of its empire during her reign. And what a stunning fall it has been. Britain has, more than most other Western societies in the post-war era, succumbed to the peculiar sickness of self-hatred. What has all of Britain’s groveling achieved? Has it won the goodwill of resentful foreigners who are replacing Britons? Far from it—Britain’s abjection has only emboldened its attackers, as weakness always does.
In an ironic twist of fate, the famously magnanimous Brits are learning what it is like to be colonized by people much less beneficent than they ever were. Their head of state, who served Britain and the Commonwealth nations faithfully and patriotically for 70 years, is viciously attacked even before she has been laid to rest. She hardly could have done more to accommodate modernity without sacrificing the dignity of the crown, but it wasn’t enough for these people. She did not apologize for her country’s former greatness, and for that, she must go down in disgrace.
The racial hatred evoked by the queen’s passing is a window into a future that awaits the West unless something changes. Anti-white racists will never be satisfied until the erstwhile “colonizer” has become the subject. Does the West still have the will to defend itself? To say, without apology, that the world it built was a great one?