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.
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”.
While I am principally an individualist, unlike most sworn individualists (who often see all people as intrinsically, unequivocally equal; “the sanctity of the individual” and so on) and proportion their politics to this maxim, I believe that at a certain level of heritable intelligence (namely biological IQ: intelligence quotient) a person’s predisposition towards individualism declines sharply — and therefore the need for benevolent collectivism is an (inevitable) necessity in swaying these groups of people of lower intelligence that are going to take on the beliefs of someone or something sooner or later — the crux of my argument is that lower intelligence people are an ideological power vacuum — Why? It’s simple enough — they lack the reasonable individualistic capacity to be resistant to, and critical of malevolent, monolithic, collective thought and its resulting politics — they, quite simply, are lacking the intelligence to discern and exercise sensible, pragmatic individualism: an important factor in holding together a civilization and ensuring its sustainability. The history of these populations’ civilization concurs with this assertion.
The need for parity between ruler and ruled.
If an electorate lacks the intelligence to “connect the dots”, sees only its own interests (due to lack of creative and/or empathetic vision to see benevolent collective goals) — it both lacks comprehension of itself and others and falls prey to predatory politicians and rulers in all their forms.
These are rulers who will outclass such an electorate in intelligence, knowledge, practicality, conscientiousness, time preference, and just about every other trait that is a reliable predictor of success and influence in its numerable forms.
We are seeing this more and more, the Ashkenazi Jews currently rule over whites and all racial groups beneath measured by genetic IQ.
I believe, unlike the absolute assertions of Jordan Peterson that suggest it is only intelligence that accounts for Jewish influence, that, at least some element of Jewish in-group consolidation is the reason the highest echelons of power are dominated by them. There are simply too many smart non-Jewish ethnic whites for this to go unaccounted for me to believe Jewish dominance has no environmental causes whatsoever.
This, mixed in with the fact Jews came to occupy influential financial positions first before anyone else (due to Christian Europeans being unable to partake in usury historically) this helps to explain why Ashkenazi Jews dominate today — they got into positions first due to the lucky societal circumstances, and then consolidated their positions, with an element of persecution and the fact Jews were relatively ostracized, these positions likely were passed on in a nepotistic way; more so than not with the in-group in mind.
Also, most of the immoral, extraordinarily powerful so-called “Jews” are actually Judeo-Masonic, Solomonic adherents — by extension, Satanists, this has served to totally mischaracterise Jews altogether. The people who are responsible for the Globalist agenda are not real Jews, they may identify as Jews publicly, but they have Masonic inspiration. For example, their very non-Jewish symbol, the “Star of David”, is a Satanic, Masonic symbol, many half-Jews have fallen for this false non-biblical imagery and have followed the so-called state of “Israel”; thinking it is a Biblical revelation.
See how the Judeo-Masonic elites are obsessed with Israel for non-Jewish reasons.
Stop opposing the broad ethno-religious group that is Judaism, it’s simply not the case that a broad group of some multi-million Jews are colluding against the world, to suggest so makes little sense. More accurately, a small sect of Solomon-praising, Satanic-Masonic “Jews” are to blame for the sheer misrepresentation of the Jewish community, and all conspiratorial behavior that has seemingly come from a broadly “Jewish” establishment.
“Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah. In that ancient and little understood medley of absurdity and philosophy, the Initiate will find the source of many doctrines; and may in time come to understand the Hermetic philosophers, the Alchemists, all the anti-Papal thinkers of the Middle Age, and Emanuel Swedenborg. Everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols.”
— Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 33° freemason and founder of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
This so-called “light” is, in essence, reverence of Lucifer not as the devil, but as a liberator, a guardian or guiding spirit, or even the true god as opposed to God (YHWH).
Judeo-Masons are obsessed with Israel in the context of Solomon; but look at how Solomon was addressed in the Bible:
“The Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel.” — 1 Kings 11:9
The charge against Solomon was that ‘his heart was not perfect,’ or wholly devoted to the YHWH, that he ‘went not fully’ after the YHWH. His was a case of halting between two opinions, or rather, of trying to hold both at once. He wanted to be a worshiper of YHWH and of these idols also — It is clear to see how Satanic Freemasonry is a combined religion of pagan Gods and the Judaic God, this is why the elites identify as “Jews” today, but aren’t truly so.
Jewish Mysticism is not true Judaism, it’s a non-biblical offshoot of what is sanctioned in scripture. The entry of the Kabbalah— developed roughly around the 12th century, derived from the heretical, non-inspired text, the Talmud.
Solomon the Wise was an Israelite, he was a Jew, but he turned away from God (YHWH) and pursued Satanism. Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, a Goddess connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. She has been known as the deified morning and/or evening star (Luciferian symbology). Solomon also began to praise Moloch/Milcom/Molech (as the Judeo-Masonic Elites do annually at the Bohemian Grove). Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
Judeo-Masonic Ashkenazi “Jews” closest competitors, those most genetically similar to them, are Caucasian European whites. If whites are removed from the equation as a major demographic, then the genetic (and thus influence) gap will become wider than ever — this is what those in power are attempting to do; diminish “whiteness” in all its forms — they know the significant predictive role of race in political influence and socioeconomic systems, and are (understandably) putting all of their money into brainwashing people to be blind to this reality while carrying out their dysgenic agenda behind the scenes.
As a result of this agenda, such a dysgenic electorate will be more susceptible to emotional arguments, logical fallacies, compartmentalization, designed dialectics, irrationality, superstitions, hysteric trends, and so on — the funny thing is, we can already see how these “minority groups” are already predisposed to all of these things, yet are protected groups nonetheless — and, right before our eyes, are rapidly replacing whites in Western nations as the new dominant population with an army of liberal “progressives” employed to assure us that this will “enrich” us, all the evidence points to the contrary.
Varying intelligence: why collective thought will always have a place in human society, whether we like it or not.
It’s about mitigation — rather than hoping for a sociopolitical Utopia, I believe reasonable mitigation and sensible policy-making is enough to deliver a society that can flourish.
TL:DR — Just as individual thought will always exist relative to collective thought and vice versa; it’s a seesaw based on aforementioned factors. The further towards base consciousness a population gets the more negatively collectivist it becomes, taking on often bad ideas in lieu of their own.
The role of benevolent collectivism (such as the group-think religiosity of cultural and ethical Christianity) for susceptible groups is deliberately overlooked in postmodernist society — because certain globalist forces want to unilaterally over-represent in society genetically and/or culturally limited “individuals” that, on average, simply lack said mental faculties, know-how, background etc (due to numerous factors including historic inbreeding among many others) to represent themselves as capable individuals, and thus are more receptive to collectivism and the centralization of the state. They’re bending over backwards to represent these people: granting copious welfare, slanting society to the their defense against all sensibility, bringing in compelled speech and taboos, white guilt and so forth — it’s quite simply a bubble for a protected group, that, without such an outrageously preferential bubble – would not get very far at all.
The globalist elite want us to believe that “everyone is equal” to all other concerned citizens regardless of significant civilization-defining traits such as intelligence. Hence the ideological over-representation of Cultural Marxist ideology across all institutions owned by the trendsetters.
In lower IQ people — traits such as gullibility, a lack of receptiveness to rationality, and a predisposition towards unthinking group-think collectivism abounds, all this has a biological basis in race. Populations that operate at a more basic consciousness, i.e. concerned with R-brain matters such as sex, domination, resources on the group or individual basis, lacking the empathetic foresight to perceive and act upon wider concerns.
It is not entirely environmental as the Jew-funded Cultural Marxist institutions will insist.
Guess what? Europe will become a continent dominated by low IQ “individuals” that have just as much of a right to vote as rational, moral, and savvy individuals — the UK alone will become a Muslim country by 2050 if current demographic trends persist due to the proliferate compound nature of R-selective populations: by which point, proxy-totalitarianism will have a firmer foothold than ever.
This is bad news for the individual but great news for the centralized state.
If we look back to the societies that are today deemed “antiquated” and the “wrong side of history”, we can see various successful, influential classical societies and groups that practiced eugenics, Rome, Ashkenazi Jewry, ancient Greeks incl. Sparta, and so on. Even one of the Godfathers of philosophy, Plato, suggested the benefits selective mating to produce a guardian class.
Furthermore, we can see how Western Christian societies averted dysgenics by making legal provisions against birth of inferior human beings, this was notably promulgated in Western European culture by the Christian Council of Agde in 506, which forbade marriage between cousins. Something dysgenic populations never really did to an effective extent, the genetic rift thus widened.
Up until the mid-late 20th century, genetic discrimination such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation and genocide of races perceived as inferior was a wide societal norm, the accepted norm was that there are differences between certain groups of humans, whether we wanted to accept that or not for humanitarian reasons was, quite rightly, a secondary matter.
This article, while cautious to frame such practices and conventions as supremacist, malevolent, or otherwise, hopes to illustrate that a dysgenic society will lead to more suffering and conflict than a society with eugenicist practices ever will; and the evidence supports it.
Drawing the line as to what defines an “individual” in relation to sociopolitical systems.
Because a comprehensive system of natural selection no longer exists, (even culturally now) — the distinction between genetics that are passed on by merit and genetics passed on with the help of welfare and so on — is nonexistent, we have R-selective groups being able to pass on their genes where in a truly open, decentralized society this wouldn’t be able to happen.
In simple terms in application to political systems — smart people are often more individualist (thus, conservative and nationalistic), lower intelligence groups are less individualist (more predisposed to group-think, socialism), the role of mass-indoctrination may be able to net some fringes of higher intelligence groups but generally the core principle remains.
I propose we can relatively reliably categorize people into “capable individuals” and “incapable individuals”, largely reliably on the five racial groups and dysgenic/eugenic traits, gender, background, but also (albeit somewhat less reliably) within these groups based on class. (Cultural Marxism is all about denouncing the terms “categorical” or “general” but these are perfectly fine terms, used in the correct context).
While these assertions of justifiable partition certainly sounds collectivist and an affront to individual rights — race realism and the taxonomic significance between biological groups is founded in science; and a factor worthy of serious consideration when regarding any system of social and political arrangement.
I’ve written a whole article (called “the truth about racism”) detailing the significance of race and intelligence, so I won’t go into too much detail here, but here are a few points that help illustrate my argument:
Sub-Saharan Africans are the only group of people without detailed mythology or creation stories.
If we cannot see the influence of race and IQ on upholding individual representation, we will fall to absolutist collectivist politics, especially as the “migrant crisis” rapidly undermines Western population of capable (higher IQ) individuals with incapable (lower IQ) individuals.
Representing the voting rights of incapable (low IQ) people is dangerous, I propose an IQ and general/applied knowledge test for eligibility to political vote. While this kind of test cannot determine moral character, at least it can determine intelligence.
Lower intelligence groups are almost always going to organize towards the characteristics of the mob, fragmentation, and group-think, whereas higher intelligence groups tend to represent their own thoughts and interpretations and have awareness of benevolent collectivism, thus shaking-off most inclinations to representing monolithic thought.
They will almost always make irresponsible, hysterical, passionate, and irrational decisions with their rights to liberty, democracy, and self-determination, by extension empowering the state; not themselves or the wider capable individual.
At a higher level of intelligence, the ability for someone to think for themselves increases, hence the commonality of individualism and democracy in Western nations occupied by races of higher overall IQ (even if Western democracies and systems that champion the individual are often subverted — the general attitude towards individualism is more common in people of higher intelligence than without).
In my opinion, this is where the role of independent collective thought such as the Bible comes in, while you can absolutely take on the teachings on your own terms, regardless of your intelligence — the importance of casting a collectivist thought process that engages with several fundamental principles such as “do not not steal”, “do not kill”, “do not lie lie”, etc based on the threat of eternal damnation is the only way to communicate to a group of people not (easily) able to operate on a rational level of thought, the Bible does this exquisitely, it uses the threat of death mixed in with something that cannot be possibly tangibly understood (a deity), the perfect enforcing combination for keeping susceptible populations in line.
The decline of Christianity as a (mostly) positive force of collectivist thought has spelled disaster for the West.
As Christianity has been mocked and destroyed in Western culture at the hands of Jewish influence, we see susceptible (lower intelligence) populations previously protected by the positive collective standards of the Bible now become receptive to new “progressive” hive-mind ideas, it really is one religion exchanged for another more materialistic one, this new nihilistic religion as Christianity’s replacement lacks any direction.
Instead, it opens vulnerable populations up to sophistic ideas that, ultimately, reduce essential liberties, that, without the safeguarding ideals of collectivist Biblical faith, have now been able to infiltrate and infect Western culture.
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.
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.
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.