UP-DATED: Megxit Wants To Be The Global Queen Of Woke/THE MEGHAN MARKLE MESS

UPDATE: JANUARY 19, 2020
Part 2 has been added, a controversial article from V-Dare that I believe to be of interest. The Megan Markle Mess: I Told You So! by Lance Welton. Since posting the first piece I have come across many interesting tidbits some well supported by her family so plan to add images appropriately but respectfully since this is a scholastic article, not mere fun. 

ED Noor: I remember this photo from the wedding. The expressions on the faces of Elizabeth and Philip were of loathing directed towards the bride. Those photos were subsequently scrubbed from the Internet and the media effort to make everything appear copacetic began. But things did not last long. It appears their apprehension regarding this arrogant upstart was well founded. Is Meghan "A Woke Wallis Simpson"? ONLY in her own dreams and ambitions. 

Welcome to Canada! Funny Canadian humour. Excellent. 

By Brendan O'Neill
spiked
January 9, 2020

So Harry and Meghan are stepping back. They're resigning from The Firm. They're ducking out of the Sovereign Grant and royal duties and going it alone. They're going to split their time between the UK and North America ~ think of all the CO2! ~ and become more 'independent'. 

Why? Come on, we all know why. Forget the tripe about them fleeing the racism of the UK tabloids and the nonsense about the first DOC (duchess of colour) not being made to feel welcome in the stiff, white House of Windsor. No, H and M, the most right-on royals in history, are breaking off so that they can foist even more woke bollocks on the plebs without having to worry about receiving a tutting phone-call from Her Maj's press secretary reminding them that they're royalty and not virtue-signaling Hollywood celebs. 

Read: Megxit Was Not Driven by Racism

Megxit, as this royal bombshell is wittily being called, is a striking sign of the times. What Harry and Meghan are doing is virtually unprecedented in the history of the royals. They are jacking in their jobs (I say jobs) as senior royals and pursuing a more 'financially independent' path that will allow them to earn, travel and ~ this is important ~ jabber on about their pet concerns and causes as much as they like.

That plebeian face is full of arrogance.

Even leaving aside the fact that they won't actually be financially independent ~ they'll still get wads of cash from the Duchy of Cornwall and will still stay in that Frogmore Cottage us British taxpayers just splashed 2.4million quid on ~ still their move is a startling and concerning one.

Ed Noor: Virtue-signalling NWO tool/fool, Canada's PM Justin Trudeau, apparently knew this was coming. He has most generously offered to pay for the couple's security costs in Canada, estimated to be hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Eastern journalists have even called Canadians "cheapskates" for not willingly embracing more debt. If they are serious about being on their own they would have the grace and decency to pay for their own security!

What it fundamentally reveals is the incompatibility of the modern culture of narcissism with the values of duty, loyalty and self-negation traditionally associated with royal life. To someone like Meghan, who sprang from celebville, who sees herself as the embodiment of right-on goodness, and who loves nothing more than advertising her eco-virtue and performing her PC credentials, life in the British monarchy was never going to be a good fit.

Yes, the woke agenda Meghan expresses so well shares much in common with the old-world elitism of the monarchical system.

~ Both obsess over inherited characteristics (the woke bang on about race and gender, the monarchy is all about bloodline).

~ Both have a penchant for looking down their noses at the little people.

~ And both have an instinctive loathing for modernity, from Charles' longstanding conservationism to H&M's humanity-bashing eco-hysteria.

But there's one big, irreconcilable difference: where the woke value the self over everything else, senior royals are meant, ostensibly at least, to be selfless, to submerge the self into the crown.

It looks like this is a deal-breaker for the younger, more celebrity-oriented royals, especially newcomer Meghan but also Harry, too. Their unprecedented 'stepping back', and the fury this has allegedly caused in the Palace, suggests the cult of the self that Meghan and other showily virtuous celebs embody and promote, does not work within an institution whose ideal is the Queen: opinion-free, emotions hidden, dutiful, unquestioning and in it for the long haul.
 .

Duty is anathema to a new generation

whose chief goal is often self-realization.

 Appropriate wisdom/(analysis?) from The Game of Thrones.

Any notion of collapsing the self into something bigger than oneself, something more historic or something collective, is alien to many in the selfie-taking, values-performing generation. Indeed, the most striking thing about Harry and Meghan's bombshell is the way they talk about the royal family as if it is little more than a stepping stone to their self-realization.

To them, the monarchy seems to be little more than a workspace, a place where they learned some skills which they will now take into their new role as global promoters of wokeness and of themselves. They talk about having 'internal discussions' and deciding to 'make a transition' in order to 'carve out a progressive new role within this institution'. They sound more like Silicon Valley millennials making the case for a job promotion than members of a family that was allegedly chosen by God to rule the nation. 

Ed Noor: Actually the list is fairly long. I imagine the big frown on wearing denim and being so restricted in her self-expression would bother Meghan somewhat. Rules are just so stodgy!

A fuss over such a small thing most likely irked this woman. To be honest, such nit picking would drive me mad!

Even more startling is the way they talk about the queen. They say they will 'continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen'. Collaborate with? They sound more like Kendall Jenner talking about her adverts with Pepsi than individuals who are meant to devote themselves for life to royal duty and the preservation of the crown. I'm about as republican as it gets (abolish the monarchy is my view), but even I recognize that treating the queen as a kind of big business one temporarily 'collaborates with' is out of order. Meghan comes off like a woke Wallis Simpson, taking away a senior royal into a new life of PC globetrotting.

 

Of course, the Meghan-loving liberal set is responding to Megxit by chastising the British tabloids and, by extension, the riff-raff who read them. You racist shits drove this wonderful woman away ~ that's the undertone, and sometimes the overtone, of what they're saying. It captures how snooty the woke brigade is, where they are essentially reprimanding the masses for daring to criticize their royal superiors. 

Overlooking, of course, that there was a lot to criticize about H&M, from their moaning about their privileged lives to their hypocritical jetting around the world to make platitudinous lectures about climate change.

Harry and Meghan haven't been driven out by racism or prejudice or hatred. Rather, they're ducking out of their own accord so that they can go even more global, more woke, more famously, internationally, irritatingly PC.

Ed Noor: Just announcing that they planned to have a "gender neutral" nursery for their coming child set off an entire huge trend. In other words, their son became a trendsetter before he was even born. Such nurseries are now the norm. So silly when the sex of a newborn royal is such a big thing! 

They're going to become even more insufferable. And here's the thing: they will trade on their still existing royal titles to do so. So Meghan spent a couple of years in the royal family and now is pretty much leaving it while holding on to the duchess / princess thing in order to give her naff feminism and eco-posturing and celeb shoulder-rubbing more oomph? I'll say it again: abolish the monarchy. 

By David Icke: Excellent read: Meghan and Harry haven’t been criticized because of her colour but because she’s a selfish social climber and he’s a weak whiner - and by playing this despicable race card they have grossly libeled all of Britain

Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O'Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Letter from Meghan's brother to Harry warning him of

what he was getting into.  

PART 2: 

THE MEGHAN MARKLE MESS: I TOLD YOU SO!

By Lance Welton

SOURCE

01/18/2020

The British Royal Family is in crisis. Less than two years after marrying Meghan Markle, the brother of the future king has ceased to be royal.

And it’s got everything to do with “race.” Even Alt-Lite commentators such as Sargon of Akkad agree that the problem is Meghan Markle’s flawed character. But what Sargon fails to understand is that her type of flawed character is disproportionately associated with mixed black-white race people ~ exactly as I warned at the time of her wedding to Prince Harry in May 2018: “She’s Trouble” ~ But So Is He! Evolutionary Psychology Says Meghan and Harry Will Divorce.

Harry and Meghan, now widely mocked as the Prince and “Princess of Woke” [Please America, take Meghan Markle back, By Rod Liddle, Spectator USA, October, 2 2019], have plunged the House of Windsor into what The Sydney Morning Herald has described as its worst catastrophe since the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936 [Prince Harry’s attempt to protect Meghan will make her a target for hatred, by Bevan Shields, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 9, 2020]. It has been lost on nobody that this abdication was brought about by King Edward’s insisting on marrying a famously self-centred American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

As has been reported worldwide, Harry and Meghan declared, earlier this month, without bothering to consult Queen Elizabeth, that they wish to “step back” from royal duties. Queen Elizabeth, shocked and “deeply hurt,” called an emergency summit to negotiate some kind of settlement[ “Deeply hurt”: Queen's warning to Prince Harry, New Zealand Herald, January 13, 2020]. She agreed to allow the couple to spend part of their time in Canada, where Meghan wants to live, while still remaining “tied to the House of Windsor” [Queen agrees to let Harry, Meghan move part time to Canada, Associated Press, by Danica Kirka et al., January 14, 2020]. Prince William, next in line to succeed after his father Prince Charles, and William’s wife, Kate, are also said to feel “let down” and “incredibly hurt” by what has transpired [Prince William ‘let down,’ Duchess Kate 'incredibly hurt' by Harry stepping down, report says, by Nate Day, Fox News, January 12, 2020].

As I noted of Meghan back in 2018: “She’s trouble.” She’s selfish, she’s Narcissistic (like Hillary Clinton), and she’s unstable. She will spread disorder and heartbreak wherever she steps foot.

Some of this charted in a fascinating article Meghan Markle’s Downfall (by Rebecca Sullivan, Now to Love, January 14, 2020). Her unreasonable behavior has manifested in:

• Inviting celebrities rather than family to her wedding;
• Shunning her sickly father.
• Announcing her pregnancy at Princess Eugenie’s wedding reception and thus upstaging the bride;
• Moving out of Kensington Palace ~ seemingly because of “tension” between her and William and Kate;
• Losing her temper when Queen Elizabeth told her she couldn’t wear a Russian tiara that she liked at her wedding. Apparently Queen Elizabeth told Harry: “Meghan cannot have whatever she wants. She gets what tiara she's given by me”;
• Making Kate cry, seemingly by criticizing Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress for Meghan’s wedding;
• Getting Harry to tell William that William wasn’t “rolling out the red carpet for Meghan,” causing a breakdown in the brothers’ relationship.
• Treating valued members of staff so unreasonably that they resigned, in one case after 17 years serving the Royal family: “Meghan put a lot of demands on her and it ended up with her in tears” wrote a British tabloid of one resignation.
• Treating Kate’s staff disrespectfully. According to an insider: “Her and Kate fell out when she bollocked Kate’s staff.”
• 
• Revealing that she “feels sorry” for Kate (and thus humiliating her) and publicly complaining about royal life.
• Virtue-signaling about Global Warming while frequently taking private jets.

I think it’s fair to conclude that this manipulative woman has taken Prince Harry, a fun-loving, simple army officer, by his Privates and turned him into the hen-pecked Prince of Woke, ruining his relationship with his family in the process, and shaking an institution which ~ at least in the opinion Sargon of Akkad ~ holds Britain together.

Needless to say, Leftists who loath Britain’s monarchy and Britain itself, notably Britain’s Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn, claim that Markle is a victim of racism; that the Royal Family, the British media, and even the British public don’t accept her because she’s half-black. This accusation has been roundly mocked in the UK [Jeremy Corbyn is accused of talking ‘codswallop’ after aides say he agrees with Prince Harry that Meghan media coverage has ‘racial undertones’, by James Tapsfield, Mail Online, January 15, 2020].

Corbyn’s critics, and Sargon of Akkad, are right. Peoples’ hatred of Meghan is not directly because of her “race.” But a mixed black-white woman, such as Meghan, is more likely to be “trouble” because of her race.

As I demonstrated in my earlier article, mixed black-white race people are more than just the sum of their parts.

Certainly some racial mixing can be positive, because it reduces the likelihood of double doses of harmful mutant genes, meaning that people have better physical and mental health. For example, as Kevin MacDonald has shown in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, the British are a mixture of three ethnicities: Western Hunter Gatherers, Neolithic Farmers and Indo-Europeans. That seems to have worked out OK.

However, problems can arise when the genetic distance between the races is very large, such as between blacks and whites. These mixtures are more likely to be mentally unstable than either of their parents. This manifests in anxiety, in depression, and in heightened negative feelings of anger or hatred. The studies establishing this were recently presented by Danish researcher Emil Kirkegaard [Is miscegenation bad for your kids?, Clear Language, Clear Mind, April 1, 2017].

In addition, other research, not cited by Kirkegaard, has shown that in the US, when compared to Blacks or Whites, people who are Black-White biracial are “stark outliers” when it comes to engaging in “risky and anti-social behavior” [The Plight of Mixed Race Adolescents, by Roland Fry et al., NBER Working Paper, 2008].

This was also previously found when comparing blacks and mixed black-white people [Development and risk behavior among African American, Caucasian, and mixed-race adolescents living in high poverty inner-city neighborhoods, by J. Bolland et al., American Journal of Community Psychology, 2007]. And there is some evidence that black-white biracial children suffer from low self-esteem, something which can lead to anti-social behavior as well [Biracial Identity Development and Recommendations in Therapy, Raushanah Hud-Aleem & Jacqueline Countryman, Psychiatry MMC, 2008].

There are number of reasons of this. As I noted in my earlier article, a mixed-race relationship involves taking a risk ~ having a child with a person who is culturally and genetically very different. So we would expect the offspring to inherit a propensity for risk-taking.

Extreme outbreeding is also associated with a partly-genetic so-called “fast Life History Strategy” in which you are programmed to “live fast, die young” because you live in a plentiful yet unstable ecology. Such people create weak social bonds ~ consistent with high divorce rates in mixed marriages ~ and are evolved to an unstable ecology. In such an ecology, you may as well “outbreed” because you could be wiped out instantaneously and someone genetically very different may have some useful adaptation.

Selection for cooperation is heightened in harsh and stable environments but it is low in “fast” ones, so a “fast” strategy is associated with low altruism, poor impulse control and high mental instability.  (For a book length treatment see Race, Evolution, and Behavior, by J. Philippe Rushton, 1995.)

But there’s another factor: “outbreeding depression.”

Everyone’s heard of “inbreeding depression”: couples who are genetically too similar, such as cousins, may have genetically unhealthy offspring due to the offspring inheriting double doses of harmful mutant alleles.

However, there’s also “outbreeding depression,” which takes place when people who are very genetically different have children. In doing so, they cause alleles to combine which have never previously combined, or which haven’t done so for many thousands of years. This can have unpredictable ~ and usually negative, due to the fine-tuned nature of human genetics ~ results. This is especially true when it comes to complex traits that involve numerous genes working together ~ “polygenic traits” ~ such as personality.

The larger the inter-racial gap, the more likely this is to be a problem, explaining why it tends to manifest in the products of black-white relationships. 

Interestingly, Rushton highlighted evidence that, in White-Asian relationships, couples seem to compensate for being genetically physically dissimilar by being much more genetically mentally similar ~ on traits such as intelligence and personality ~ than are White-White couples [Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory, by J. Philippe Rushton, Nations and Nationalism, 2005].

This tendency would reduce outbreeding depression on mental traits. But if it occurs with Black-White couples, the larger genetic distance ~ as has been highlighted by Frank Salter in his 2006 book On Genetic Interests ~ is apparently insufficient to prevent significant outbreeding depression on mental traits. 

My guess: The Meghan-Harry marriage is falling apart. In my 2018 article, I quoted an expert estimate: “Three years to separation, five or six years to divorce.”

Harry, because of the weaknesses in personality I identified, is obsequiously giving into Meghan in order to hold it together, at least publicly. Queen Elizabeth has given them what they want for same reasons, and because a mixed-race royal marriage ending so quickly would look so bad to the Woke anti-monarchist mob.

But remember that the Queen’s very popular mother ~ officially known as the “Queen Mother” (1900-2002), the widow of King George VI ~ intensely disliked black people. She notoriously told courtier Sir Roy Strong, at a formal dinner: “Beware the Blackamoors” [Queen Mother was racist against black people and I had to censor stories about her to protect her from ridicule says leading diarist, by Katie French, Mail Online, June 5, 2017].

Perhaps she should have said, to her great-grandson, “Beware the Half-Blackamoors.”

I have read in many places that the Queen Mother, despite her loving smile complete with bad teeth, was a nasty aristocratic type; not a likeable person at all. Her "war experiences" were completely falsified simply for public consumption. 

Lance Welton [email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.