Monday, March 11, 2013

Queen Signs Pledge for Homosexuals


In a move sure to cause controversy HM Queen Elizabeth II signed, on Sunday no less, on live television a Commonwealth pledge to fight against “discrimination” against homosexuals and to promote the “empowerment” of women -whatever that means- along with a lot of more general statements about promoting human rights and raising the standard of living across the Commonwealth. Personally, the Queen herself is one woman I would like to see “empowered” but, alas, I am sure none of this applies to Her Majesty herself. Many have cheered this as the Queen taking the monarchy “forward” but I certainly cannot be overjoyed about it. This is something that seems rather baffling, unnecessary at best and potentially harmful at worst. The one confusing thing about it was that this was taken as a statement on the part of the Queen to extend “equal rights” to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge if the little one turns out to be a girl. So were all the news stories about that already being a ‘done deal’ not accurate? This is one problem with the modern mainstream media; they jump on stories they like with such enthusiasm that it sometimes turns out to be a false start. Whoever is advising the Queen on this subject, it must be said, certainly has their finger on the pulse of society. Championing the cause of homosexuals is certainly the biggest and latest fashionable trend among those always on the look out for victims to be outraged over.

This is supposed to be a part of a new coming-together for the Commonwealth, laying out shared “values” and yet, nothing could be more divisive. Will this be likely to please the devout Muslim nations within the Commonwealth? It will surely be a cause for bad press in many more traditional African countries and one place where the campaign to promote homosexuality has certainly not been popular is the Commonwealth Realm of Jamaica where the monarchy is already under considerable threat. So who exactly is sure to be pleased with this pledge? I can think of few beyond the leftist liberal communities of the U.K. and Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. Even in those countries support will not be universal and those who do not support it will see it as the monarchy siding against them and their own deeply held belief in traditional values. This is a danger I have tried to touch on before. The monarchy, the left usually says, is supposed to be totally non-political and they are quick to cry foul if the Prince of Wales utters a word about architecture or fox hunting yet when the Queen signs a pledge in support of homosexuality and feminism, this is not political we are told. It starts to look like a one-way street.

Buckingham Palace said that, “The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical, as it is on all matters of this sort.” But others point out that the Queen requested a public signing for the document which is quite rare. I hope no one opposed to this blames the Queen for it but most of my own aggravation over it stems from the fact that, justly or not, many certainly will. The optics of it will be impossible to ignore. And, as this is a Commonwealth document, I cannot help but wonder who put the matter forward? Who came up with this? The government of “Call me Dave” Cameron has been trying to put the Tories on the pro-homosexuality bandwagon lately, seeing that, as many “right wing” or “conservatives” have lately, as being the way of the future. The same can be seen to be happening in the United States with the rising profile of the libertarians; fiscal conservatives who champion things like drug legalization, prostitution, gay “marriage” and abortion (all of which is detrimental to fiscal conservatism but that’s another story for another day). Yours truly has seen it often enough as there is probably no single subject other than homosexuality that generates more angry comments and “fan mail” filled with 4-letter words. I can call for republicans to be condemned as traitors, hung drawn and quartered and no one seems to care but whenever I mention my disapproval of homosexuality I am denounced as a monster!

That must be mentioned because, were this not the number one issue it is currently most fashionable to be outraged over, this would be seen as just another nice-sounding but effectively meaningless document which governments and international organizations love to publicize. It would be about as significant as a “non-binding resolution” from the United Nations. However, because of the subject matter, it will be highly publicized and talked about endlessly with the Queen being given kudos by some and condemned by others for putting her name to it. The problem is that while it will, I have no doubt, cause some people around the world to drop their support for the monarchy, I doubt very seriously than anyone who was previously a republican will suddenly be won over to the cause of hereditary monarchy and traditional authority because of this. That is why I feel the Queen is doing herself no favors by signing this or that whoever arranged it is no real friend of the monarchy. It is simply a fact, seemingly self-evident I would think, yet which many cannot seem to grasp, that any society which sets “equality” as an absolute good and defines that equality by the standard of everyone being treated exactly the same is not a society in which the institution of monarchy can long survive. Monarchy and equality are antithetical concepts and there is a vast gulf between the two that no amount of pledges or reworking of the rules of succession can ever bridge.

Personally, I have never been able to have anyone explain to me how homosexuals are being discriminated against just as things stand. They are not being physically harmed, laws already exist to prevent that happening to anyone. No one is stop them from doing what they want with who they want, as distasteful as some find it and would prefer they refrain from advertising the fact. The usual answer is that they cannot get married but that is untrue. They cannot marry someone of the same sex, true, but neither can a heterosexual so it is not as though the current law is depriving them of something not deprived to others. After making that point I am usually told that I’m being ridiculous and that it is about the fact that they cannot marry who they choose and the law is unfair because it allows heterosexuals to do that but not homosexuals. Again, not true. No law can enable a person to marry whoever they want. I can’t marry a Brazilian supermodel and yet, so far, very few people sympathize with my plight. This whole controversy, if everyone were to be honest, is not really about discrimination or tolerance or anything of the sort. It is about trying to force people to approve of something they fundamentally disapprove of and that is it.

That shows, I think, which side is the truly “intolerant” one. As much as I disapprove of the homosexual agenda, this does not change my support of the British and Commonwealth monarchy at all, however, I have seen plenty of those who push the homosexual agenda who have very conditional loyalty and if the Queen had signed a pledge that was the opposite of this one they would drop whatever nominal support they had for the monarchy entirely. I would take this as yet another sign of the times we live in and nothing more. When it comes to fundamental moral beliefs about what is right and what is wrong I am under no illusions that practically any of the reigning royals of the world agree with me. Especially those since the Queen’s generation, these are people who grew up in a very permissive society and went to schools and universities that teach the exact opposite of most of what I hold dear. And, when it comes to religion, fading fast though it is in Britain, the Church of England has more or less accepted homosexuality and that is the church that the Royal Family and little Davy Cameron belong to. Most other major churches treat the issue with kid-gloves if they haven’t already reversed position on the subject. It is not the fault of the Queen that society in Britain is where it is. Who put this before her, I do not know but it would not surprise me were it to come from the current government which is led by little Davy Cameron (Church of England) and Deputy PM Nick Clegg, an avowed atheist. Clegg is married to a Catholic and claims to be raising his children Catholic but, honestly, any Catholic who would marry an atheist or someone who supports the policies Clegg supports is probably about as “Catholic” as an Orange Lodge meeting in east Belfast. But these are who the British public voted for and issue like this are not going to change or go away, no matter what the Queen does, until the public has a change of heart. We may ask God to save the Queen, and He will, but it is up to the traditional remnant in Britain to work on converting their countrymen.

20 comments:

  1. I've already noticed that in the article from the Daily Mail, posts that usually get down-voted into oblivion ("Old free-loader" "Unelected parasite" "Old bat" and the like) are suddenly accumulating up-votes by the hundreds.

    Myself, I know where my loyalties lie. I'm on the fence about the whole thing, but I am and always will be HM's obedient subject.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think monarchists realize somewhere that countries like Britain are effectively parliamentary republics. The Queen despite her embodiment of tradition etc. serves no function greater than a powerless president. Keeping politicians away from the top job is useless if the top job is one that has no actual power, however much theoretical power it may hold. It's only a matter of time before Parliament (parliaments being universally the most insidious breeding grounds for the scum that the political class is) abolish the monarchy, assuming Britain hasn't utterly disintegrated by then, rendering the idea moot.
    If the Queen or future Kings (Charles and William) are unwilling to take the risk of challenging the liberal and culturally destructive status quo (risk because we all know what happened to King Baudoin), then what option will the British people have but to consider them complicit in the death of their nation and culture, and turn against them in desperation?

    That's where European monarchies are heading I'm afraid, and the monarchs have done little to show that they do resist the tide (with notable exceptions in the smaller monarchies (Luxembourg/Liechtenstein/Monaco) where such noxious parliamentary structures do not exist - and it is parliaments that are and always have been the greatest enemies of both monarchs and the common people.
    It's a wholly pessimistic view, but I'm afraid we'll be seeing more things like what Kentish Monarchist describes above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'm sure I'm more pessimistic than you even on your worst day. But, being a Texan born within sight of the Alamo, I've just never connected being doomed with giving up. I've had people question me about it, why I do the things I do when I think western civilization is a lost cause at this point, they are confused by my answer and I'm confused by their question. You don't surrender for such a silly reason as being hopelessly outmatched. As if.

      Delete
    2. We could try to out-pessimist each other, but I fear such an activity would kill us both, haha.

      Delete
  3. I'm rather shocked that the Queen would do such a thing. Gosh,why? She seems to be such a moral woman of Christian values. Why? Now I'm confused. I always loved the queen so much. Why this though? Why!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Was the Charter purposely drawn up with the homosexuals in mind? I see that it is not explicitly mentioned in the text, but I do not know if this is one of the things that "everyone knows" or if it is rather a media spin reading into it what they want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think she's just doing what she has to do. Unfortunately, on issues like this, the side that supports traditional values has already lost. The dominant media/pop culture and the ruling political class have already set the agenda and it's becoming more and more useless to try to fight them. The Queen is a smart woman and over 60 years on multiple thrones has given her excellent survival instincts. I think she's doing what she feels she needs to do to maintain the integrity of her realms and the Commonwealth as a whole. We may not like it, she may not really like it herself, but it's basically a concession to political reality. Politics being the art of the possible and all that. It sucks, to be frank, but it's what comes with having a "modern" constitutional monarchy instead of a proper one in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am not surprised by this. The support for Homosexuality is in fact rooted, as others have said, in the whole nonsense of Equality, and the end goal seems to be to make everythignthe same. This is why peopel advocared central planning to begin with.

    The reality is, if you don't suppot Homosexuality, you will be clasified as a Bigot, and in todays world, a Monarch who is a Bigot is nto an individual Monarch who is a Bigot, he or she is an arument for why Monarcghy itself is evil. The same logic is not appliesd to Republics. An anti-Hiomosexual President is simply a politician that must be replaced. an Anti-Homosexual king proves the whole institution of Monarchy is Evil.


    We live in Tiems when peopel prefer depraviy, and call it good, and think Equlity is the abolition of Morality.


    We say we live in a Secular world, where Relgiion plays no part. I disagree. I fidn modern Secularism to be a new Relgiion, and one beign forced on us all, even the Queen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true, though aside from the "equality" nonsense, I put the forced acceptance of homosexuality right up there with abortion and birth control as symptoms of a society that simply does not want to survive, and perhaps even on a deep level, has come to believe it is hopelessly evil and wants to die out completely.

      Delete
  7. This is, of course, a massive own goal for the monarchy. As you rightly point out, MM, the partisans of equality will *never* embrace the monarchy. The supporters of the monarchy, meanwhile, traditional conservatives (like me) will feel (not without justification) alienated and betrayed. 'Right wing' anti-monarchists will use this as ammo. Left-wingers will no more than delay their destruction of the monarchy slightly. There is no such thing as a little revolution. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. The Queen should have played to Her supporters instead of Her sworn enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you are expecting monarchs to be even higher than God as you expect them to protect their own people from themselves. Even God does not do that, giving us the choice to choose right or wrong, life or death. If you want to go become a terrorist, killing in a one-man war you cannot win, I doubt any church would condone what you do.

      Delete
    2. Of course that i would never be a terrorist, any kind violence against innocents is a heinous crime that deserves the worst punishment possible (please don't make me remember the horrible crimes that happened in the Vendee), I'm just very upset with the modern world, I will use all the lawful means that are in my power to help with the cause of the restoration of the monarchy and i will follow any monarch that raises the voice against modernity, i'm not a crazy skinhead (by god sake!), I am an intellectual. I like peace and harmony but if I was in the Vendee, in the Revolutionary War of my country or in the Russian Civil War i would have been among the first to enlist.

        When i mentioned Roland and Charlemagne, I didn't said that i support such madness (not even in a million years, i don't think that Charlemagne would had actued like that). What i said was a metaphor meaning that any traditional king would be horrified with the current situation of the West and of monarchies. I expressed in the wrong way.

        I know that is something I could never do, nobody can do it alone. But I still believe in a restoration of the monarchy by the designs of providence, I believe that the American, the French and Russian Revolutions were punishments sent to the West to for forsaking the right path, but I believe that this punishment will end soon.

        In fact, I wan't to thank you for showing me the truth about the republics.

      Thanks from Argentina.

      Delete
    3. But that is the point-there are only two options: to convince or to coerce. All we can do is try to convince since monarchists lack the numbers to win at the polls there is certainly little chance of having the strength to win by force. St Thomas More is an example, despite his immense disagreements with the King he was always loyal until he was forced to act against the law of God at which point he went to his death as 'the King's good servant, but God's first'. I would also remember the words of Pope Innocent XI upon the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, "Christ would not have done thus. Man must walk into the Temple of God, he cannot be dragged".

      Delete
  9. I will add that no one should feel under any pressure to prove me right in this by acting in a hysterical fashion. Remember that there is nothing in this pledge that is not already law in the UK and most Commonwealth Realms, enacted into law in the Queen's name. Further, this is NOT a law, it cannot be enforced by anyone and it does not compel anyone to do anything against their conscience. I dislike it (aside from the content) specifically because I feared it would have the result of outraging those most inclined to support the monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While I wouldn't completely abandon today's western, liberal monarchies, I think we monarchists do spend too many of our resources defending them against overwhelming republican force rather than doing a strategic "flank attack", so to speak: As the Liberal Hydra strengthens its grip in the west, it weakens in the Orthodox East. Seeing polls in even corruptly ruled Russia turning out with 20-25% support for the monarchy and an actual majority support in Serbia makes me think that we should use our resources to help there. A restoration in Russia, especially, would be of gigantic importance for monarchism, both geopolitically and symbolically: It would in many ways signal the final defeat of communism in its first homeland, and a massive rebuttal to the ideology of revolution.
    However, this probably cannot be accomplished through the democratic process. The authorities would just avoid any sort of referendum until monarchist feeling dies down. Instead, I see, in the case of Russia, two potential paths: Either a Bolshevik-style (in methods, NOT ideology) coup carried out by "professional counter-revolutionaries", or, in my view the best option: Getting Putin to support a Franco-style partial restoration with Putin as regent until his death or resignation, and then a full restoration of an absolute or semi-absolute Tsar.

    Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to point out that it simply doesn't make strategic sense to sit on the defensive and let the enemy overwhelm us through attrition, when we might be able to attack where they are weak and then have them surrounded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, but if one is not in Russia there is not much one can actively do about that. And even then, it does not provide a short-cut around the long, hard work of conversion. Spain, under Franco, was a very Catholic country just as England under Cromwell was a very Puritanical country (not that the two had anything in common) but that did not mean the people were truly converted and when the threat of force was removed we saw them each abandon these positions. People have to change their thinking, their values, their morals and that is something that cannot be imposed by force with a simple change of government or leadership. Every individual must take it upon himself to convince and convert others as well as refusing to just 'go with the flow'.

      Delete
    2. On the other hand, Atheism is still strong in the Eastern European Nations once held in Communist Domination. While its true, you won't convert adults to a new position by mere force, you can educate their Children to think the way you want them to. In three or four Generations, Atheism became normativein theirthinking, as did the social policies of the USSR.


      If, say, a Devout Christian Government overthrew France or the UK, the Secularists would still exist. But if this Government managed to endure for 100 years, the Children of the Secularists would grow up learning from a Christian perspective and likely that, along with its social values, would be ingrained.


      I'm not saying the use of force is good nor am I saying that this is theonly factor, I'm, just noting how social values become individual values. That is one reason I never liked Democracy, as all too often people don't think for themselves and reason out what to believe, they simply follow the established customs and traditions of their society.

      Delete
    3. Which is why under a Democracy, people are easier to control. That, and the fact that they live under the illusion that they are the ones in charge.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...