Requiem for a Figurehead

By E. Michael Jones

Apparently, the Critical Race theoreticians never learned that we are not to speak ill of the dead. This became apparent when the announcement of the death of Queen Elizabeth II of England spread through the ether on September 8, 2022. Uju Anya, an “anti-racist” associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, sparked outrage after calling the ailing queen the head of a “thieving, raping, genocidal empire” and concluded her diatribe by hoping that whatever pain she experienced while dying was “excruciating.”

In doing this Professor Anya played right into the hands of Tucker Carlson, who reacted to this execrable vituperation by resurrecting Whig History and giving a stirring defense of the British Empire, which he claimed was “the most benign empire the world had ever seen” to counter the race crowd’s claim that it was genocidal. “The British Empire was not perfect,” Carlson admitted, “but it was far more humane than any other ever. It was an impressive place run by impressive people. We will see many empires going forward, but we will never see one so benign.[1]

Ever the Whig historian, Carlson went on to claim that “the British Empire spread Protestant Christianity to the entire world,” unaware that the Raj deliberately suppressed the promotion of Christianity in India because it threatened the servile attitude imposed by the caste system. For another example of how the British spread the Gospel, I recommend the chapters on the ethnic cleansing of the French/Catholic Micmacs in Nova Scotia in Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury. 

When the Catholic Micmacs objected, the Presbyterian ministers who were sent to “spread Protestant Christianity” paid bounties for their scalps as their way of spreading the gospel. But I don’t want to dwell on atrocities in the wake of the queen’s death. De mortuus nil nisi bonum. If you’re interested in horror stories, I recommend #Irishtwitter or #Blacktwitter, or #Inidantwitter. But more on that later.

Henry Makow responded by calling Carlson a “blue blood” who had “more in common with Anderson Cooper” because both men are involved in policing the oligarchic narrative. Makow identifies Carlson with the “false opposition” whose job is to “steer the narrative away from the central banking cartel and its Communist Jewish agenda: satanism and racism. Virtually the whole US ‘right’ falls into this category, including Trump and de Santis.” Makow claims that Carlson is a CIA agent, but as Laplace said to Napoleon when asked how God fit into his cosmic system, “We have no need for that hypothesis.”

By the end of the day, the discussion had settled into the familiar left vs right dialectic, which at this moment in history boils down to a choice between Uju Anya’s version of Critical Race Theory and Tucker Carlson’s resurrection of Whig History. If you choose either side as presented, you are comfortably inside the racial narrative which is the American regime’s favorite form of political control. And why is that? Because it ensures conflict—divide et impera—and it distracts us from the real armature of human history, which is always religious and ethnic.

The best way to see behind the pomp and circumstance surrounding the mainstream media narrative, or what Mark Twain would call the “funeral orgies,” and the official anti-narrative consisting of disgusting vilification of the dead is to start with Elizabeth’s namesake, Elizabeth I. The England Elizabeth II represented began with the looting operation known as the Reformation.

Elizabeth I threw her lot in with the thugs who had stolen the property of the Catholic Church and were determined to hold on to it no matter what. When Queen Mary, Henry’s daughter and the rightful heir to the throne, married Philip II of Spain in the immediate wake of the first wave of looting, the Pope told Philip that he had to restore the stolen property to the Church.

Maximillian, Philip’s hapless father, however, told him to avoid any direct confrontation because the arrival of an heir would solve the problem automatically. That hoped-for heir never arrived, and the looters who were emboldened to enjoy their ill-gotten gains became determined to pass them on to their heirs in perpetuity, which has happened for the most part, but there was one problem.

Property was not money. Labor can turn property into money, but the looters who had gotten rich from the theft were cash poor and were too lazy to engage in hard work. The solution was to go to the usurers and mortgage their property for cash, which they spent until they went broke. Unable to keep up with compound interest, they lost their estates to the “Lombards,” who replaced the Jewish usurers after their expulsion in 1290. Usury followed the Reformation as night follows day.

As Shakespeare makes clear in his play Timon of Athens, the main problem facing England a generation down the road from the Reformation was debt, and debt continued to be a problem for the next 500 years. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury, and so it should come as no surprise that Capitalism began in England in the aftermath of the Reformation and invariably ended up with unrepayable debt.

The Jews who had been superseded by the Lombards returned to England in 1660 at the time of the restoration under Charles II, not as most people believed, under Cromwell during the interregnum. When James II became king, he had the solid support of the landed aristocracy in spite of his Catholicism because his impeccable hereditary credentials removed the stigma of illegitimacy that had plagued the monarchy since the time of Elizabeth I.

That goodwill disappeared when James produced a male heir, an event that threatened to create a Catholic dynasty. Catholics were a double threat to the Whig oligarchs because Catholics refused to accept the legitimacy of usurious contracts, thereby threatening the power of the City whose motto was pacta sunt servanda no matter what. The result was the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which installed a Dutch usurper on the throne simply because he was a Protestant.

William’s usurpation resurrected the legitimacy crisis which had vanished when the Stuarts ascended the throne, and it led to a century of unrest as one Jacobite Rising followed the other.

In 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Stuart scion, came within 60 miles of London at the head of a Claymore-wielding army of Scots, who were routed by the cannons George brought over from the continent. But England’s fate had been sealed by 1692 when the Whig oligarchs founded the Bank of England and turned that country into what William Cobbett referred to as a divided nation of taxpayers and tax-eaters.

From that moment on, England became the slave of usury, unaware that all floating loans become unrepayable after 70 years. That happened in 1762.

When Lord Townsend broke the bad news to Adam Smith, the great Scottish economist, decided to make the American colonies pay off the debt through the Stamp Act, which led to the American Revolution, which led to the French Revolution, which led to Napoleon, who was defeated at Waterloo, but not before Nathan Rothschild made a killing by speculating on the consul, the ever reliable British bond which would have been worthless if Napoleon had won.

Intoxicated by their victory over Napoleon, the English aristocracy, taking a lesson from their looting ancestors, embarked on a building spree that was financed by money borrowed from Jews like the Rothschilds, with predictable results. By the end of the 19^th century, most of them had defaulted on their loans.

They retained their titles in the Almanach de Gotha, which Oscar Wilde referred to as the greatest work of fiction in the English language, but their property reverted to the Jews who had lent them money.

One exception to this rule was Randolph Churchill, who saved his property for a time by marrying a rich American by the name of Jennie. Randolph eventually died of syphilis, 70,000 pounds in debt to Natty Rothschild, who forgave the debt, thereby ensnaring Randolph’s son Winston as a servant of Jewish interests.

When the Jews wanted war with Germany, Winston collaborated with Lord Grey to bring that about. When the Germans signed an armistice, Winston responded by imposing a naval blockade and starving hundreds of thousands of Germans to death in an act that impressed a demobbed corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler, who vowed that this would never happen again. Churchill responded by creating a sequel known as World War II, during which he engaged in the systematic bombing of civilians, killing 300,000 in one night alone during the firebombing of Dresden.

This brings us back to Queen Elizabeth II, who was a teenager during the war and stayed behind in London to encourage Britons during the Blitz. The fire-bombing of Dresden was five years in the future, but it is unlikely that she would have mentioned it had she given the same speech in 1945.

She would go on to become queen in 1953 and then preside over the dismantling of the British Empire that Churchill fought to preserve. In what sense was she responsible for any of the atrocities I have mentioned? The brutal campaign to suppress the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya took place during her reign, but in what sense was she responsible for that?

Elizabeth was a “figurehead,” to use the word Boris Johnson used in her eulogy, and as such she served as a distraction from the brutal acts necessary to preserve a failing empire. That was her job, and she did it very well. She performed brilliantly when she had tea with Paddington Bear.

She even parachuted into Wembley Stadium holding her pink pocketbook. But the decline continued, and she never mentioned it. In fact, we might say that the decline of Britain continued because she never mentioned that it was happening. She was never prime minister, and even if she were the things that she couldn’t have changed were best left unmentioned. She was a figurehead who couldn’t stop the decline in sexual morality which afflicted both her nation and her own family.

In his eulogy, Boris Johnson described Queen Elizabeth as “the woman so globally trusted that her images should be on every unit of our currency.” In addition to that Elizabeth was “the figurehead of our entire system, the keystone in the vast arch of the British state.” Only the queen “could be trusted to fulfill” that role “because only she could be above any party or commercial interest. . . to incarnate impartially the very concept and essence of the nation.” Elizabeth “created the modern constitutional monarchy.” Like Charles III, who is now King of England, Elizabeth was a “Defender of the Faith.”

At this point, things become a bit more complicated because Elizabeth was the head of the Anglican Church during a time in which that Church abandoned the sexual morality which characterized the English people from the rise of Methodism in the 18^th century through the Victorian era until the Lambeth Conference of 1929 when the Anglican church admitted the liceity of contraception among married couples. Elizabeth was three years old at the time, but she was queen and head of the same Church which ordained first women and then homosexuals. Presumably, she could have stopped that, but she didn’t, ensuring England’s spiritual decline.

As Tucker Carlson indicated in his monologue, the battle over Queen Elizabeth’s legacy took place on Twitter, which has become a hotbed of critical race theory and a platform for those who consider vilification of the dead a form of virtue signaling. #Irishtwitter joined forces with #Blacktwitter and #Indiantwitter in bringing up atrocities like the Irish potato famine, the Jallianwalla Massacre, during which unarmed Indian civilians were mowed down by British machine guns in Amritsar in 1919, and the already mentioned brutal suppression of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign as queen. It was a daunting list of atrocities, and it could have been longer, but it was enough to cast doubt on Tucker Carlson’s reading of the British Empire as “the most benign empire the world had ever seen.”

As some indication of Twitter’s policy of even-handed fairness on matters like this, you could type in #Queen and listen to the moving eulogy that Boris Johnson delivered before the House of Parliament but only after being assaulted by at least four hardcore pornographic videos.

The deliberate insertion of hardcore pornography into seemingly benign topics like #beauty or #Mary, which inserts pornography in between pictures of the Blessed Mother and the Rosary is proof that what purports to be an internet platform promoting the free exchange of ideas is nothing more than a form of psychological warfare which makes the Israeli broadcast of pornography over Ramallah seem relatively “benign,” to use Tucker Carlson’s word, by comparison.

Nothing epitomizes the wretched state of the world we live in better than the deliberate juxtaposition of devotional images and their blasphemous parodies, which are standard operating procedures at Twitter. Twitter’s policy is now the norm rather than the exception when it comes to cultural politics.

The conservatives had already lost control of the National Endowment of the Arts under Bush I, as John Frohmeyer’s support of the homosexual Mapplethorpe photos showed. The American Library Association is run by a cabal of homosexuals who have turned local libraries into outlets for homosexual propaganda and the grooming of children via Drag Queen Story Hour, which has become a fixture of virtually every local library in the country.

A ruler is someone who wields political power of the sort that could put a stop to this abuse of common decency and bring about the reform of the communication technology which facilitates it. But when rulers are “figureheads” this does not happen. And so Queen Elizabeth was not only the paradigm of the constitutional monarch, as Boris Johnson pointed out, she was the model for every democracy as well because they are all governed by figureheads who work against the interests of the people they represent and for the oligarchs who are the real powers behind virtually every throne on earth right now.

Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, for instance, just announced that she was going to support the war in the Ukraine which is depriving Germany of its energy life’s blood, “no matter what the German voters think.” After denouncing Baerbock as a typical German victim of social engineering on Gemma O’Doherty’s podcast in Ireland, I was corrected by a listener from Germany who informed me that Baerbock wasn’t German because she is Jewish.

That statement could have landed him in jail, but it clarified the situation enormously. It also resolved the perplexity at The Duran, as Alex and Alexander struggled to explain the hidden grammar which informs German finance minister Robert Habeck’s plan to destroy German industry.

Missing from The Duran’s otherwise perspicacious analysis was the Jewish connection that linked Baerbock to the post-World War II Morgenthau Plan. Full of Jewish vengeance, Morgenthau attempted to turn Germany into a land of subsistence farmers with no industry at all, while literally starving the German population to death during das Hungerjahr of 1946-47.

The common denominator which links das Hungerjahr of 1946-7and the coming Hungerwinter of 2022-3 is Jewish vengeance. This is what Zelensky is now inflicting on Ukraine, which he aspires to turn into “Big Israel,” once they defeat the Russians. One of the few non-Jewish villains in the Ukraine tragedy is former British prime minister Boris Johnson. The same man whose heartfelt eulogy described Queen Elizabeth II as a “figurehead” vetoed Zelensky’s attempt to negotiate a peace settlement in March, bringing about a war that still hasn’t ended and the deaths of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens.

Nothing in Elizabeth’s life became her like leaving it. The last photo of the Queen shows her smiling benignly—that word again—as she hands the reins of power over to Liz Truss, a loyal servant of the World Economic Forum. Similarly, nothing epitomized the state of England at the time of Elizabeth’s death better than Twitter’s juxtaposition of the royal pomp and circumstance surrounding her funeral with the raunchy pornography which became ubiquitous during her reign.

That is the England Elizabeth left behind as Defender of the Faith when she allowed homosexuals to become priests and bishops in the Church of England. Because we are talking about the internet, we are talking about the world in which we live and move and have our being. More importantly, we have to work in this world whether we like it or not. In a world like this, we long for a ruler who will free us from this wretched form of bondage. Where is Fortinbras when we need him?

Queen Elizabeth II was not that ruler. Nor in all probability will that ruler be her son Charles III, who succumbed to sexual temptation in a way that his mother did not. I know Dutchmen, however, who see Putin as their only hope in liberating themselves from the tyrannical failed state known as the gay disco.

Notes

[1] Tucker Carlson hits back at woke critics calling Queen Elizabeth a ‘colonizer’ following her death – and says they hate her because she lived in a BETTER time

Requiem for a Figurehead on Unz Review

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>