The New Royal Baby Proves That Even A Degenerate Society Lusts For Tradition

The mass joy surrounding the May 2 birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s second child reminds us that deep-seated institutions such as monarchies continue to attract the hearts and minds of millions. Regardless of whether you endorse constitutional monarchies, it is nigh on impossible to question their appeal for a public that demands social “progress” whilst simultaneously fearing change and the unknown.

Consequently, members of the British royal family, especially Diana in the past and Kate Middleton currently, have been and are the surrogates for the average person’s emotional attachment to the past and traditional values. This includes many SJWs.

Despite never having a proper career, aside from bedding Prince William, and being paid, via taxpayers, to fund the lavish wardrobes she is regularly lauded for, Kate Middleton is presented as a paragon of feminine achievement and an embodiment of every girl’s dream: marrying a prince.

People will line up to see her particularly, but also the Queen, William, and others. Relatively few of those same people, however, will volunteer for a charity, turn up to community events not involving their own children, or generally do something similarly constructive.

Questioned for the wrong reasons

The British monarchy’s biggest selling point is now Kate Middleton’s make-up collection, wardrobe and posture coach.

Ironically, the only serious time the British monarchy found itself questioned was during the tumultuous divorce of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, and then after the latter’s death. As the part-time patron saint of stopping land mines (only because she had the spare hours and wealth via her own old-nobility family and marriage), Diana remained untouchable during her lifetime and now after it.

Don’t mess with a woman who has “earned” her place as a princess, folks. On the matter of why the monarchy still has a justifiable place in British politics, though, prominent critics have been few and far between.

In Australia, because of the amorphous position of having a Queen who permanently resides in Great Britain but claims to represent 25 million people from Sydney to Perth, opposition to the monarchy is much stronger, albeit only structured as a long-term goal. Pathetically, the appearances of Prince William, Kate and George, along with Prince Harry, on our shores have boosted the monarchy’s appeal.

People are not wooed by proper equality. They are wooed by exteriors based on emotions, dress sense paid for by British taxpayers, and ample cute or scandalous photo-ops.

Even Sweden has a monarchy – and loves it

Rather than questioning why Sweden had a non-egalitarian monarchy in the first place, Swedish SJWs were more concerned about making sure the first-born daughter, Victoria, could accede to the throne ahead of her younger brother.

It is remarkable that Sweden, which has earned a name for itself as a radical melting pot of ridiculous feminist, multicultural, and other social experiments, retains a monarchy. Feminists and other crackpots in that nation will propose all manner of common sense positions, such as legislating that all prostitutes are victims of male violence, even the many girls who choose the equivalent of US$200 per hour as a hooker over $10 as a waitress or $15 as a social worker.

But the monarchy, which uses wealth and status to perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy of a charismatic royal family deserving of respect and reverence? Well, that’s just an expression of Swedish identity and history. Mainstream criticism of the foundations of the monarchy, as opposed to perceptions of particular actions by a member of the royal family, are almost non-existent in Sweden.

Because of the male primogeniture in force before 1980, the Swedish king’s second child, a son named Carl Philip, was the Crown Prince when he was born. After an outcry from feminists and others within the left, he was bumped down to second in the line of succession, behind his older sister Victoria.

Instead of questioning why Sweden would have a monarchy in the first place, the SJWs of the late 1970s and 1980s thought the only issue was primogeniture. The overt social discrimination of “royal blood” was ignored and only the gender element emphasized.


Two principal possibilities can help explain this political pass for monarchies. Firstly, mostly unconsciously, political leaders personally support the idea of a constitutional monarchy, however much it contradicts almost every other policy of egalitarianism (or pretend egalitarianism in the case of anti-male initiatives). They are basically, under this view, “victims” of the same longing for stability and tradition as their constituents.

Or, secondly, many political leaders have learned never to question the monarchy, fearing the result and ignoring their own secret preferences. The political capital gained in such an attack on a privileged institution is outweighed by the potential backlash from a public largely supporting it.

Kate Middleton – “one of the world’s most influential people”

Royalty breeds a cult-like following. Support for the monarchy is powerful when people don’t feel they’re actually longing for the past and its values.

Sadly, Time correctly placed Kate in this list in 2012 and 2013. Her reputation, personal following, and media exposure are beyond question. But why is someone with such little merit on the list in the first place? What does it say about society’s obsession with promoting those who have, essentially, done nothing to be promoted?

The reason is that Kate, rather than just being a vehicle for traditionalism, gives the specific, romcom-style story of a woman who is pulled from the common classes (although her parents became millionaires after she was born) and raised to the status of royalty.

Amidst the clamoring of SJWs for momentous social changes that advance the interests of women, denigrate men and condemn or criminalize common sense, the monarchies and all the Kate Middletons of the world stand out. Many women, rallying unconsciously against the narrative of “independence,” crave for her fantasy of being rescued from the drudgery of normal life.

Beyond the fantasy itself, they salivate over salvaging some of the traditionalism otherwise rapidly ripped apart in the modern age. Many men, monarchical support being somewhat gender-neutral, join the fanfare as a way of emotionalizing their own internal barking for a return to something solid when everything else seems in rapid flux.

The Kennedys were (and still are) America’s de facto monarchy

Britons and Europeans are not the only people infatuated with monarchies. The Kennedys have assumed that role since the 1960s. The mere mentioning of John. F. Kennedy and Jackie resurfaces the “Camelot” fantasy transplanted in the United States.

Forget the hypocrisy of a President who preached social justice and wealth redistribution but was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in today’s money via his capitalist father. The Kennedys’ fortune, prestige, and sense of elegance meant they provided for America what it had lacked since 1776: a family to worship and revere.

Like the Windsors of Buckingham Palace, the Kennedys presented America with the opportunity to distract themselves from their lives and feel dazzled. The world was changing, wars were raging, but John and Jackie were there to show them what could be, even if in a million years and another universe. The worshipper of a Kate Middleton or JFK gets both emotional support in chaotic times and the attendant fairytale.

Watch the monarchy’s star rise further after the royal birth

JFK astutely sold the public a fantasy they could believe in, lean on, and dream about for themselves: a political monarchy.

William and Kate could name their new baby girl “Long-Distance Phone Call” and she would still be guaranteed a life of sycophantic praise akin to what William the Conqueror received as absolute monarch of England in the 11th century. I am not advocating for the retention of a monarchy or the establishment of any more. But understanding the allure of monarchies helps to explain how SJWs and many others can internally justify their destruction of the rest of the society.

Monarchies offer both reassurance and distraction. Supporters can ignore the elitism and bigotry of a class guaranteed rule, however symbolic, because it makes them feel good. Like the menagerie of puppy videos on YouTube, monarchies, and those who suck-up to them, are here to stay.

Read More: Twitter Is The Modern Day Royal Court—We Know What Comes Next

133 thoughts on “The New Royal Baby Proves That Even A Degenerate Society Lusts For Tradition”

    1. Off topic, but I learned the other day that the term ‘Checkmate’ comes (via German I think) for “Shah mat” – Persian for “The king is dead”.
      (I presumed “JAVID SHAH” means “long live the King” in Persian.)
      EDIT: The etymology isn’t quite so simple, actually, but similar to what I said above…

      1. That site is many shades of wrong to say Shah is from Arabic and from Persian prior. Arabs have never used that for king in any capacity (unless perhaps the brief amount of time they were Persian subjects pre-Mohammed), their word is “Malek”, which many blacks in America have bastardized into “Malik” for their sons.

  1. there’s one great thing about monarchy: for all the bad things that happen, you can hate the king – instead of everybody else you meet.

    1. That’s true; however, I have been interested in monarchy for precisely the opposite reason; typically the vast majority of the public adores and admires their monarch. They may despise their head of government, but they respect and admire their head of state. So while David Cameron may be universally hated and the US Congress has single digit approval ratings, Queen Elizabeth is almost universally looked up to. I’m no fan of nationalism, but I do see the appeal of someone who can unite and speak for “All Britons”

      1. if you are no fan of nationalism, how do you see the appeal?
        if you aren’t a fan of nationalism, though, we share something. i’m a czech who grew up in germany and that may be a reason for never having developed strong nationalistic feelings. i think i can emotionally grasp the wish to feel as a part of a group, but then this duality i grew up with works like a lock that doesn’t allow it.
        as if my subconscious was telling me: “wait, why this group? what’s so special about them? why not the different one?”
        i don’t have an answer.
        the queen is all sweet and stuff and i guess i could feel a bit as if she was some kind of honorable super-grandma, but do i really want my grandma to speak on my behalf?

        1. I don’t have a good answer for this. I think that in the USA nationalism takes the form of jingoism and people have the “my country right or wrong” attitude. There is also this cognitive dissonance–I was speaking with a friend who knows several guys in the military. He will not speak redpill truths to them or criticize our society or laws because these guys become visibly angry whenever someone criticizes or complains.
          Yet, if you talk to these guys one on one, they are some of the most anti-government types, think Washington DC is insane, hate the president, etc. (Well, guys, WHO do you think you are fighting for–hint: its not us clamoring for wars in Iraq!)
          However, I do think having some type of unifying cohesiveness with your neighbor is a good thing. I agree with the sentiment of “Why this group? What’s so special about them?” but I think there can be comeraderie and celebration of shared events and culture without an “I am better than you are” aspect of it–I think of the large celebrations in rural cities I have been to in Latin America–it’s just a way for neighbors to celebrate with each other. Or kind of like how I enjoy the Independence Day in the USA– I don’t really care that we fought a war of independence–indeed I think we are generally no more or less free today than our British masters, but it is a shared cultural experience that builds some type of social bonds, bonds that I think in an ideal society lead to such good ends as social shaming, morals, and rules for behavior that we are utterly lacking today.
          And so I view the monarch the way most people today view the flag–something to be cheered and make you feel good on the inside. I do realize this sounds a bit hypocritical because I do not salute my flag, think it is silly to have a symbol that one pledges allegiance to, etc. but a monarch is more practical, ie it can go meet with other heads of state, try to be a good leader of its people, inspire them, etc. in a way no politician could ever. So in the end, I guess I do not have an answer either, but the olde conservative side of me that respects his elders and his grandmother longs for some type of traditionalism where we honor the past and DO let our grandmother represent and speak for us.

  2. I’m not even a Royalist myself but I love how their mere existence pisses off the leftist world in general

  3. The Princess Di thing always amazed me. She was maybe a 6, but they obsessed over her. She only had to do 2 things – stay loyal to her husband and give him son.
    She completely failed at job 1.

        1. A lot of women royals that got/get no where near the attention she gets. She’s been made into a Saint basically.

        2. Its because the other women royals are more discreet and hidden away as well as the gynocentric nature of the country she is in.

    1. Di may have been a 6, but that’s a solid 9 in the House of Windsor women.

      1. Watch some videos of queen Elizabeth when she was young, I guess around WW2 era, even in her 20’s she had the mannerisms of an old lady.

        1. Seen ’em. Know what you’re talkin’ about. Ewwwwww. And that voice. The old newsreels of her squeaky imperial whine is more than I can bear at times.

  4. So we shall expect George to get bumped down to second in the line of succession, behind his newly born sister.
    Women love the royals as it’s represents their wettest dream – leading a parasitic life and getting all the attention from other people, all the time.

    1. George was an even luckier “lucky sperm” than Charlotte in that, as he was born first, he gets the Golden Ticket (after the Tampon, and then Prince William, of course.)

    2. From what I understand the monarchy is broke anyways… so he won’t have much to spend.

    3. Without monarchy, you can’t have Disney princesses, and princess delusion syndrome

      1. Can’t go a library of chick flicks without seeing a princess diaries or an equivalent of it.

  5. Good grief, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is one manjawed fug.
    A fitting future monarch for such an SJW-infested country.

    1. She will be the last monarch to rule, a caliph will be installed soon.

      1. Considerably better… even if she does still look too much like Emma Stone.

      2. Madeleine ballooned out after the first baby and is now working on no.2.

      3. She is by no means unattractive, although that is a particularly flattering picture compared to a lot of the ones I’ve seen. Is it just me or do Asian and Latina women just have rounder, softer more feminine features. My friends all say I’m an idiot but I think 90% of white chicks are boring looking and over rated.

  6. I myself am a bit of a Monarchist, I see the value of absolute rule. No room for error, no room for whining, just the letter of the law, and enforcement to follow.
    Ferguson, boom. Army.
    Baltimore, boom. Army.
    Feminist rally gets to vocal? boom. Army.
    all at the discretion of an absolute ruler, who acts on behalf of the greater good of his country.

    1. Only Problem with that, is if the Country gets an Absolute Ruler who is an SJW.

      1. “Only Problem with that, is if the Country gets an Absolute Ruler who is an SJW.”
        No ruler is absolute in practice, they all have a power base that they must keep happy. The kind of absolute monarchy that would be ideal would be that of Byzantium. An emperor who is a heretic (SJW), incompetent in foreign or domestic affairs, insane, etc, then they’ve lost the “Mandate of Heaven” and an ambitious man should kill him and take (or sometimes sell) the throne.

      1. Obviously, running a nation is not as plain-cut as a few dozen words, but I like to think things would be…simpler.
        As the “Ruler by Right”, his word would be absolute. No grey areas, no accounting for the weak to bring down the nation. Transvestites want money to get their manhood lobbed off? too damn bad, we need roads. Feminists want to lobby for more liberal education phD’s? Dang, we need to build an elementary school instead.

    2. Agreed.
      I’m tired of Obama blaming Congress,
      Congress blaming Obama,
      everyone passing the buck,
      and the average citizen shit out of luck.

    3. Population tired of a long train of abuses and usurpations? Boom. Army.

  7. Does anyone Know the Cartridge that Killed the Muslim Gun-Men in Texas? The .45 ACP, GOD BLESS THE .45 ACP!!!!

    1. The .45 ACP will have a special place in my heart when you put one in your rotten brain.

        1. Right wing authoritarian type, lick my taint and then go post somewhere that likes your brainwashed drivel.

        2. I’m an Authoritarian Type Because I told a Troll to Troll somewhere else? or because your upset I Honored the .45ACP for killing two Muslim Gun-Men? Or do you not have any Idea what you are Talking about?

  8. Degenerate is spelled wrong!! Get some spell checkers at least for headlines. Looks so unprofessional

  9. i’m british and all of the intelligent bright people i know think this royal baby and royal family stuff is ridiculous. i noticed that the only people that care about this trash are weak minded and have no life goals or ambitions.

    1. I don’t care about them and for people spend their life or a significant portion of it obsessing over another family is a form of mental illness far as I’m concerned. By the time that baby has grown up Muslims will have probably taken over England an be headed the royals anyway.

    2. …i noticed that the only people that care about this trash are weak minded.

      ….and Americans. I would gladly ship these people to the US so they can be worshiped (and financed) over there.

    3. Just like all those girls in Jezebel care about celebrities you call it toe mahto I call it tumayto

  10. I’m happy to see this article because I’ve been thinking the same about Royal families, they represent so much of what progressives an SJWs claim they hate yet they’re loved by most of their country an even by many progressives. Traditional values still matter to most people even if they won’t admit it.

  11. I’m A Free Man. The For Fathers Fought the Revolutionary War to Rid the Country of England’s Monarchy, they Knew Freedom doesn’t Involve Bowing to a King, I too will not Bow my head to a King or any Man, a Person does not Deserve Rank or Lordship over Another simply because they were pushed out of a Royal Pair of Legs.

    1. You already bow to thousands of bureaucrats. Freedom can only be sustained by an informed public, otherwise you wish there is a king…

      1. I don’t Bow to any of them, and the Bureaucrats at least can come from common Man origins and Be Freely elected , Kings and Queens come to power by bloodlines, there is no election, the citizen gets stuck with whoever is Born to be the Next King.

        1. Yet democracy seems to make you stuck with Obama and Bush.
          Its nothing more than an illusion.

        2. as opposed to stuck with an ambitious photogenic cocksucker who’s only job is to campaign.
          At least with a King you know who to hang.

        3. It Depends, if America keeps voting in Presidential Bloodlines like the Bush’s, than Yes it’s sort of a Monarchy, But at Least there is a Choice…Monarchies Elect Themselves.

        4. I don’t Bow to any of them, and the Bureaucrats at least can come from common Man origins and Be Freely elected

          Well, let me inform that yes, you bow to them, every time you obey their laws, pay their taxes and most importantly, allow your children to be poisoned by their ideology. Moreover, does it matter that your tyrants were once common people if they dare to go into the province of God Himself? Kings didn’t try to change human nature and indoctrinate everyone’s children, such kind of control came in the 20th century, with the Soviets…
          BTW I have news for your: Democracy + universal vote + low intelligence population=Cryptocracy, or government by those who don’t wish to be named. Politicians in most cases are just marionettes, the puppeteers are to be found in Wall Street and other places, not in Washington. In the end people that have never postulated themselves ended up ruling your country with more power than any king of yesteryear go figures.

        5. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

          Enough said.

        6. Are you sure its a choice you made? Isn’t democracy not the majority imposing its will on the minority?

        7. When I Vote it’s my choice, Democracy is everyone gets a chance to vote who they think best represents their Beliefs, and Majority usually does win, but at least when a Man can Vote Freely he has a Say, Kings and Queens don’t give their Subjects a Say.

        8. Is it your choice when pretty much everyone else is voting against you?

        9. I don’t think everyone votes against Me, the Country is Split in two with it’s Politics.

        10. The whole world is fucked up by giving dumb ass common men like you a say.

        11. The Country is split in two, you Have the People who Voted in Obama twice and then you have the People who don’t like the new America they see, if you don’t see a Schism in how the Country is Divided between Obama’s New America and those That Oppose it, your either not an American, or you’ve been living under a Rock, Idiot.

        12. So your Not a Common Man? The Worlds Not Fucked Up by Giving Common Men a Say, it’s Fucked Up because Some Men have Forsaken the Word Of God.

        13. Fuck America. The experiment in egalitarianism is dead. America was founded upon half baked ideas of degenerate Frenchmen which were bullshit when they first penned them. Go worship the founding fathers as if they were gods. Fuck em, fuck Obama, fuck Bush, fuck the dems, fuck the GOP, fuck dipshit libertarians and fuck you.

    2. “I’m A Free Man. The For Fathers Fought the Revolutionary War to Rid the
      Country of England’s Monarchy, they Knew Freedom doesn’t Involve Bowing
      to a King, I too will not Bow my head to a King or any Man, a Person
      does not Deserve Rank or Lordship over Another simply because they were
      pushed out of a Royal Pair of Legs.”
      Wrong. George Washington would have been king if he’d only have accepted the job. In retrospect, he probably should have taken it.

      1. Wrong. George Washington knew that no Free Man should Bow to a King, that’s why he didn’t accept the Job as King, because he didn’t want to restart what the Revolutionary War Had Ended.

        1. “Wrong. George Washington knew that no Free Man should Bow to a King, that’s why he didn’t accept the Job as King, because he didn’t want to restart what the Revolutionary War Had Ended.”
          And now it is perhaps time to discuss King Lincoln…

        2. How free is a Free Man who doesn’t bow to a King or Queen but bow to the IRS?

        3. Heresy! Lincoln was the great emancipator and he preserved the union! /sarc
          Outstanding video. I hope everyone watches it.

        4. Abraham Lincoln on race:
          “will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing
          about in any way the social and political equality of the white and
          black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of
          making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
          office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition
          to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black
          races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together
          on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot
          so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of
          superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of
          having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this
          occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the
          superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not
          understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must
          necessarily want her for a wife.”
          From the Lincoln-Douglas debate:

  12. I just don’t see what all the hub bub is about. It’s a baby…. people have them all the time. I wish them as parents well, but as it goes to show that baby is already under the spotlight and it hasn’t been even a week old.

  13. I consider myself red pill and I have nothing personally against royal families, but honestly, what relevance do they have to my life in 2015?

  14. The people who slag a constitutional monarchy are the same people who think that Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton is some sort of exercise in democracy.
    Prince Charles has not been doing well in the media wars. Republicans will have the upper hand after the passing of Liz II. However, William and Kate appear to be grounded as well as photogenic.
    My plan for Canada was to have Henry become our GG and then naturalize him. Find him a nice Canadian girl and have a made-in-Canada royal line.

  15. Monarchy is good for business. Oil sheikhs and dictators the European monarchies do business with gladly fall for the glamour, no matter what mendacious bloodlines these “royals” have. The problem with monarchy is of course nepotism. That is the reason I’m against it. Also because while the government pretends you live in a country with free speech, you can’t hold up a sign with an anti-monarchist slogan for 5 minutes without being arrested.
    A harmless guy with a sign: Long live the republic. That’s what the Netherlands was 200 years ago, a republic. Police officers contend over the title “who is the best brown nose for the monarchy”. Every opposition against the monarchy is beat down and public support for the monarchy exaggerated in the media by tens of percent.

    1. I don’t care about nepotism, I am not interested in a public service. The Problem is how efficient/effective they are in running a country. Most European nations (all really) reached their zenith under the monarchical regime. Now most are Republics and are fucked or on the way to be fucked. BTW Monarchy has no real power (maybe in UK) in Netherlands so I don´t know why that guy is protesting.

      1. To maintain the palaces, pay the royals their allowances, security etc costs more than 115 million euro’s. That’s a lot of money for a puppetshow and an unelected ruler. Why can’t you understand that people are against that. Monarchy is oldfashioned and irrational. A republic isn’t free either. But at least there is no golden carriage or something despicable like a palace (or even 3, in our case)

        1. You’re neglecting to mention the fact that the Dutch royal family has excellent relationships throughout the world and especially in the middle east. Who are you going to send to talk over some trade deals with the the Sheiks of Oman, that faggot Rutte or a fellow Monarch?

        2. We could send a representative from the Ministry of foreign affairs. Nothing wrong with that.

        3. Well that’s cheap compared to what’s wasted in welfare to local bums and muslim settlers aka immigrants and in feminist causes. By the way if by Republic you mean a total Democracy with voting rights for everyone, Czarist Russia sounds a reasonable proposition….

        4. How wealthy is Beatrix? I read her mother was one of the wealthiest in the world as she owned the lion’s share of Dutch Petroleum back in the day

        5. Middle Eastern royalty don’t give a shit about representatives, they want to talk to a fellow OG. 114 million is a pittance as long as their connections help broker a single major deal every few years.

        6. How does this compare to what the USA spends for example on running the entire White House? How is this not a palace? Does it make it any different because we get to “choose” whether Prince William or Price Edward will occupy the palace next?

        7. The US is a big country. The Netherlands has the biggest spending on monarchy of whole Europe. You can’t compare those two. I don’t know about the whitehouse staff. But I guess it’s pretty decadent as far as I’ve seen.

  16. Note that Prince William and Prince Harry at the left and right of the group photo are both sitting with their hands in the ‘fig leaf’ position.

  17. This is basically a Disney-like fairy tale that every little girl dreams about. They they get old and reality sets in and they’re bitter about life.
    Girls (and some guys) think that you get married and live happily ever after. They’re disappointed to learn that’s not really how it is. It’s a big lie.

  18. Trust me when I say this. This new princess will be fully indoctrinated and will be raised to be the feminist messiah.

  19. This royalty cult is a chick/gay thing ….
    Funny how women want to be CEO’s and in the special forces but are celeb /royalty obsessed. Gals are irrational….

  20. Is this a fucking joke? An article extolling the virtues of a bunch of parasitic leechers? About as blue pill as it gets.

    1. Thoreau noted that the puzzle of the pyramids is not how they were built, but rather, why they were built at all, rather than taking the sensible course of chucking Pharaoh into the Nile.

    2. I liken the monarchy to religion–analyze it too much, and on its face it seems a silly idea–why believe in a magical mysterious man in the sky or think that one man should be given absolute powers over all others?
      But implement it and see its results, and then you realize the true role it plays.

  21. This is something that many have spoken about in the past, while the elite families promote single motherhood and liberalism, they themselves have very old school conservative families. When you look at the most powerful families like Kennedys, Bushes, Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Clinton they have what you would call 1950s style values, every powerful family have been able to become powerful by practicing traditional values .

  22. No wonder these monarchs live to 100 years old. They never have a stressful day in their lives.

  23. Royalty is a popular theme for girls of all times. Because it’s everything they are. Get adored and money sit in a throne sipping martinis in a palace with butlers (manginas) at their beck and call. Have rooms to hoard their shoes, maids to do all their cooking, cleaning. All for zero effort.

  24. Monarchy for SJW women.
    Military for self-styled “Alpha’ males who worship authority and do whatever charismatic men tell them to do.
    Same syndrome.

  25. here in Canada we have that miserable old battle axe the queen stamped all over our money, and people still get giddy when her and the family come over for a royal vacation on our dime. I think their last visit cost the country something like a billion after all the security and other BS was all said and done. They contribute nothing to Canadian society, their appearances are just a reminder that this land used to be theirs and in some ways, however symbolic, still is. Fuck the royal family and all the bullshit inbred tradition that goes with them.

  26. It proves that people like watching other people’s life and nothing more. It’s insane if you think about all this obsession with royal families. Kate is just walking around in pretty dresses and giving birth..very disappointing. I hoped for charity and volunteering or at least opening her own gallery (her major is art history).

  27. I forgot if it was Lebron or not but an NBA player came under fire from American media for “touching the queen” (on the shoulder – to which she didn’t care). A few even criticized Mutumbo and Bill Clinton for their “informal” approach to chopping it up with the “royal family.”
    Here’s the thing – they aren’t royalty in America.
    The author was spot on in his analysis – It’s really to the point where the Disney-feminine ideal of “marrying a prince” outweighs our AMERICAN IDEAL OF GOVERNMENT.
    The media has forgotten why we sought independence in the first place

  28. They say a picture says a thousand words. This is brilliant on so many leftist/femcentric levels.
    (The monument was built in 2005 – because the Cenotaph apparently wasn’t good enough, as it isn’t purely devoted to wimmin)

  29. Women don’t want traditional marriage, unless it’s with a prince.
    they want to banish all beta’s from the dating pool, while taking turns fucking the few allpha’s

  30. ” Sweden, which has earned a name for itself as a radical melting pot of ridiculous feminist, multicultural, and other social experiments”
    This is also why the country is having a real problem with Muslims now; but hey, at least they can say they’re not “Islamophobic” while Muslims are beating their women for not covering their face

Comments are closed.