The Royal Wedding: Postmodernist Cultural Propaganda

The recent royal wedding raised eyebrows, a non-white person marrying into a long-running Anglo royal bloodline has always been unthinkable, in this day and age of mass-manipulation, this is no longer so.

Monarchy. What people think: “Royal weddings, crowns, treating royalty as celebrities.”

What it really is: A system of statecraft based on philosophical principles in which men are ordained by God and exercise fatherly rule over their people. Reflecting the eternal order.

Royal weddings historically had political significance, a monarch would marry off their offspring to other royalty in exchange for a mutual diplomatic boost. The marriage between Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle is political too, just not in the way you’d expect — it’s a marriage with postmodernism, associating a historic icon of Britishness with the characteristics of multiculturalism. Or, it could all be a “coincidence” that a long line of European royal blood now has chosen to go non-Anglo (I don’t think so).

No doubt the royals, who hold no real power now — and are in the pockets of the major banking families, have been coerced to bring a minority ethnicity person into the family as a powerful postmodernist “progressive” symbol to further undermine Western identity and promote “multiculturalism” — in reality this is not at all about “multiculturalism”, it’s about monoculturalism, except the new presiding culture (within a few decades) will not be Western, it will be a third world culture of willing, dysgenic serfs who will vote away everything this country ever was — to achieve this; nationalistic, savvy indigenous ethnic groups must get the boot.

It was a massive advertisement for cultural Marxism & miscegenation.

The royal wedding acted as a worldwide advertisement (a few billion may have tuned in to watch it) for the Rothschild/banker-backed Kalergi plan and the “Pan-European” movement; the message being that Europe is no longer ‘European’ in the classical, traditional, multinational sense; it is to be redefined by conquest or consent, to take on the identity of a “federation of nations” under the control of the unelected, globalist lapdog politicians based in Brussels. To become truly transnational, Europe’s collective ethnicity must become mixed breed, the product of thorough and widespread miscegenation. This will create a multiracial, dysgenic population, with no clear sense of tradition or identity, and therefore can be easily controlled by the ruling elite.

Outlined in the Kalergi plan.

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the current diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]”

What’s more, the Islamic, third world culture that will be brought in with mass-migration will be one poorly accustomed to the liberties, secularism & empiricism of the West — this will, undoubtedly, negatively influence the political decisions of such groups, much to the ruling elite’s advantage.

Overall, mass immigration is a phenomenon the causes of which are cleverly concealed by the political elites, powerful multicultural propaganda pushed though corporate PR machines such as this latest big royal wedding making all the headlines is employed to falsely portray mass immigration & miscegenation as an inevitable and positive thing.

A major symbol of national cohesion has been subverted.

Perhaps one of the great cultural symbols of Britishness, the Commonwealth and Western values — the royal family — has capitulated. It’s so painfully obviously an attempt to get lukewarm patriots to turn against cultural and ethnic homogeneity and embrace minority groups, groups that have no interest in Western values, most of these groups being low IQ economic migrants seeking to benefit from state welfare, no loyalty to the wider community or national identity — these people will be easily divided as the state feeds them the victim narrative; crushing what little integration that could have taken place into the dust.

The message delivered through the mixed-race ‘cosmopolitan’, and ‘modern’ royal wedding is that Britain is no longer British in the sense that isn’t sympathetic to globalism; the traditional, sensible Britain of old.

Now the doors are wide open, the new Britain will be one devoid of identity, the borders will dissolve as the population, irreverent and lacking identity votes for their enslavement.

See the anti-white angle the media has taken on the wedding.

Meghan is a useful symbol of multiculturalism, feminism, and the overarching postmodernist agenda. That’s all this is about. Harry was introduced to Meghan and was likely instructed to marry her as part of a globalist social engineering plan; the rest, as they say, is “history”.

U.S. On Iran Nukes Allegations: Another Fabrication

Recently in a presentation, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly revealed the “secret atomic archive” of the Globalist opponent and the Chinese and Russian affiliated state of Iran, a nuclear weapons programme which was allegedly ended in 2003, Netanyahu claims to cite 55,000 pages of documents and another 55,000 files on 183 CDs, outlining four ways the Iranian government was lying. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the documents proved “beyond any doubt” that Iran had not told the truth.

In response to the allegations, Tehran accuses Netanyahu of lying — with an Iranian spokesman describing Mr Netanyahu as an “infamous liar who has had nothing to offer except lies and deceits”.

To bolster Iran’s counter-claim, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says it has “no credible” evidence Iran was working on developing a nuclear “explosive device” after 2009.

Furthermore, Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, has described state possession of nuclear weapons as contradictory to Iran’s “fundamental religious and ethical convictions”.

Craig Murray, a British Journalist, was censored by Facebook for criticizing Israel’s hypocrisy.

Hostility between Israel and Iran, already diametric enemies, has grown as Iran builds up its military in Syria, on Israel’s doorstep in defense of Syria’s territorial sovereignty in the wake of Israeli occupation of the Golan heights and wider U.S. occupation of Syria, occupying nearly one third of Syria’s sovereign territory.

Now, the 2015 JCPOA between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain, a deal that agreed on limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of crippling international economic sanctions looks as if it may be coming to an end as Trump warns the US will abandon the deal on 12 May if his concerns are not addressed.

It’s too soon to say whether this will constitute an excuse to invade Iran and spark a hot conflict — but it will likely mean resumed economic sanctions on Iran for not playing ball with U.S. & Israeli foreign policy.

The U.S. loves to posit fake disarmament deals that it always breaks, gaining an independent nation’s trust then betraying said trust, sponsoring instability in said nation, advocating regime change in said nation, and, if all else fails — a false-flag backed ground invasion. The U.S. has already tried to sponsor a false uprising in Iran.

If we just look to how Iraq under Saddam Hussein received arms and support from Washington to attack and invade Iran. This de facto agreement, encouraged the Iraqi leader to assume that collaboration between nationalist Iraq and imperial Washington reflected a shared common agenda. Subsequently Baghdad believed that they had tacit US support in a territorial dispute with Kuwait. When Saddam invaded, the US bombed, devastated, invaded, occupied and partitioned Iraq.

The attempt by Iraq to collaborate with Washington in the 1980’s against its nationalist neighbor Iran, led to the invasion, the destruction of the country, the killing of thousands of secular leaders including Saddam Hussein as well as the entire secular and scientific intelligentsia, and the transformation of Iraq into a toothless vassal state of the empire.

Other examples of Washington’s duplicity in its “deal making”.

With the elections of Donald Trump, the US rejected the agreement (‘it’s the worst deal ever’) and in compliance with the Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu’s military agenda, demanded the total restoration of sanctions, the dismantling of Iran’s entire military defenses and its submission to the US, Israeli and Saudi Arabian dictates in the Middle East.

In other words, President Trump discarded the agreement in opposition to all the major countries in Europe and Asia, in favor of Israel’s demands to isolate, disarm and attack Iran and impose a puppet regime in Tehran.

“The strategic goal is disarmament in order to facilitate military and political intervention leading up to and beyond defeat, occupation, regime change; the impositions of a‘client regime’ to facilitate the pillage of economic resources and the securing of military bases, international alignment with the US empire and a military springboard for further conquests against neighbors and independent adversaries.” — Prof. James Petras

These recent allegations from Israel backed by the U.S., in light of recent Iranian military posturing following the April 7th Syria strikes seems more suited to a “back off” gesture from the Western alliance, in essence, saying “we can and will hold your feet to the fire” (by reimposing crippling sanctions) over these allegations. If they have any further, graver, implications in targeting Iran — these will unfold with time.

Addressing The Simpsons “Apu Controversy”: Cultural Insanity

Recent backlash over Simpson’s creator Matt Groening‘s comically stereotypical Indian character and Kwik-E-mart owner, Apu, is the latest episode in the rampant Cultural Marxism that, as it is superimposed, sweeps across and infects Western culture.

Many mainstream media outlets chimed in, parroting such tripe as “The Simpsons Creators Just Don’t Care Anymore”.

Mashable said that “The Simpsons needs to die. Matt Groening, the show’s creator, made that abundantly clear this week.”

The Washington Post said “What can ‘The Simpsons’ do about Apu? A lot, actually.”

CBC said that “The real problem with Apu? There’s not enough diversity in the writers’ room.”

Apu’s voice actor, Hank Azaria, said he would be willing to stop performing the character altogether, obviously to save his skin from being deemed a “racist”.

Groening responded to the criticism, saying that “It’s hard to say. Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect. What can you do?”

Proving that he has an ounce of backbone, he was asked if he had any thoughts on the fresh criticism of Apu. “Not really. I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended,” he replied.

Apu (left) in the TV show “The Simpsons”.

Addressing the insanity: Understanding The Simpsons and the point of Comedy.

I ask why can’t a team of white guys who aren’t Asian make a funny stereotypical joke in a show that is already full of funny racial and cultural comical caricatures? — This kind of willingness to prod different groups and identities in jest was the very thing that made The Simpsons so beloved in the first place.

Also, why can’t an animation team be predominantly white without there being “lack of diversity” or an ulterior “evil white racist conspiracy” motive the mainstream press so obsessively highlights and insists upon?

Things fell into place and the team of animators happen to be mostly white which may have influenced the vision of the show somewhat, so what?

To the unthinking people that seriously believe this uproar is coming from actual real people (and not a carefully concerted multi-outlet corporate sponsored social engineering campaign) it all may just about seem legitimate, after all — all the mainstream media outlets are multiple heads attached to one ugly corporate body, unbeknownst to many.

The mainstream (Jew-owned and run) media constantly highlighting its warped idea of “race relations” and “white guilt” is inflammatory to racial dissension in and of itself (and is intended to be so) to keep framing the capable white man as the enemy in every circumstance.

To repeat the narrative often enough, people have eventually come to believe it and give up the “outdated ways” (organic culture before it was ruined) — especially when, over the long course of the internationally popular show since the late eighties there has been no uproar from anyone, let alone Asians in demanding that Apu be removed or rethought as a character.

Only now in the height of political correctness this “uproar” coincidentally happens.

The Washington Post claims that “engaging with the issue of representation will make for a more satirical and topical show”. Yes, really, they spouted that double negative; that self-censorship and outright avoidance of satire is the new satire, an interesting take.

I guarantee if The Simpsons’ creators cave to this censorship call from a small group with a loud voice (the corporate media) its ratings and viewership will plummet — and then The Simpsons really will die, deservedly so if it crumbles under the pressure.

The Simpsons became popular precisely because it (and its viewers) were comfortable enough to take a joke.

The Simpsons is all about ridiculing and making fun of everyday things, people, places, just about anything and everything — that’s the basis of good comedy, the poking of fun at all concerned parties in a mutually enjoyable way without it being partial or discriminatory. That’s the foundation of pretty much any decent joke, to show weakness or quirks in yourself and others and be reciprocal to the same treatment – and be comfortable with it.

That’s how people bond, build trust, and become closer together, it’s a basic social dynamic.

Some people won’t like the humor displayed in The Simpsons, to those people I suggest they turn off the show, do something else, and don’t tune in again, especially that they then don’t grovel about their elitist sense of acceptable humor (but have the right to do so nonetheless). It’s quite simple really. Look up freedom of association and freedom of speech, central pillars of liberty.

Other comical stereotypes are everywhere on the show, but ignored by the mainstream press. Only Apu gets coverage, funny that:

We see Fat Tony as the stereotypical Italian gangster; no uproar there. We see Cletus Spuckler as the stereotypical example of white trash, no uproar there. Rabbi Hyman Krustofsky as the stereotypical Jew, again, no uproar there. Ned Flanders, the stereotypical evangelical Christian, yep, no mass media campaign slating Matt Groening. Homer Simpson, a stereotypical middle class happy-go-lucky guy. Groundskeeper Willie as the stereotypical Scotsman. The list goes on and on.

You get the picture.