International Forecaster Weekly

A Royal Star is Born

So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the "Windsors,"... it's easier to understand why every royal event is so celebrated in the media if we first understand a few things about the British royal family and its true place in the world.

James Corbett | May 9, 2015

Earlier this week, His Royal Heinie Prince Whatshisname and his wife, Couldntcare, descended the steps outside the Royal Hospital of So-and-so and held a diamond-encrusted baby basket to the heavens proclaiming, "Behold your new reptile overlord, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana Honestitwasjustacarcrash Windsor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Beelzebub! All shall bow down before her!" And the assembled crowd politely applauded, waving little union jacks the while. It was even reported that a retiree at the scene had been waiting there to see this announcement for the last 73 years and could now die in peace, a single tear rolling down her cheek.

    ...or maybe not. But for all I know it could have happened that way. I mean, who honestly watches these things, aside from aforesaid retirees and polite flag-wavers? All I know for sure is that, try as I might, I was completely unable to avoid the barrage of news coverage of this new royal birth and the momentous revelation of her name. It was reported via every television and radio and newspaper as if a truly important event had just taken place. And that's here in Japan! I can only imagine what it was like in the UK.

    But why? What on earth can get people so excited about this Illuminati May Day blood sacrifice occult ritual holiday season event (like the royal wedding / Osama deception that took place at this time four years ago)? I couldn't tell you for the life of me, despite being a "loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen" by dint of having been born on that patch of earth claimed by people calling themselves the government of something called "Canada," whose constitution (which by some oversight I was never asked to sign) proclaims the Queen as head of state. And despite being surrounded from birth until young adulthood almost exclusively by similar "loyal subjects," I can count on one hand the number of people younger than my parents who ever expressed any interest whatsoever in the royal family to me.

    So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the "Windsors," a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American "special relationship" in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the "commonwealth" they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as "republican rabble-rousing."
    So what gives? Well, it's easier to understand why every royal event is so celebrated in the media if we first understand a few things about the British royal family and its true place in the world.

    Although we are expected to believe that the royals are just a harmless old institution, a relic of a simpler time with no real power, influence or wealth in modern society, the truth is nearly precisely the opposite. The "Windsors" (actually the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas) in fact believe they have the right to rule over vast swathes of the globe by virtue of their bloodline, and although that sounds far-fetched in our current political and economic environment, there are plenty of troubling signs that they may actually have that type of power (in tandem with their central bankster buddies, of course).

    Take The New Statesman's 2011 ranking of the world's largest landowners. Two things immediately stick out from their list. The first is that the list is dominated primarily by royalty of various nations; the kings, queens and emirs of the world are generally said to own most or all of the land in their respective kingdoms.
    The second interesting point is that Elizabeth--"by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith," and probably a bunch of other silly gibberish titles that sound like something a bunch of children would make up when play acting a Narnia fantasy--is by far the largest landowner on the planet. As nominal owner of Australia, Canada, and a whole bunch of other pretty big chunks of real estate, Lizzy enjoys free reign of about 6.6 billion acres of land. Just to put that in perspective, that is several times more land than is held by the next 20 biggest landowners in the world combined.

    It is impossible to imagine what such land ownership means in economic terms, as you can't calculate the worth of 6.6 billion acres of land without taking into account what such a sale would do to land values generally. But it's safe to say that the Forbes-style "richest people" estimates of the Windsor's net worth (Queen: $510 million, House of Windsor: $1 billion) are about as accurate as they usually are (i.e. not very).
    Of course, the argument will be made that this "Crown land" argument is specious, and that the Queen does not own the land in a real, tangible, economic sense. To that, the counter-argument is that money itself doesn't matter to the royal family in a real, tangible, economic sense. Yes, their books are (finally) being opened to increased public scrutiny and royal travel expenses and other costs are now open to parliamentary inspection, but what does money mean to a family that has its own rules of etiquette on how it expects to be greeted by the public and used to have special servants solely to wipe their precious bottoms (now, sadly, they have to settle for having special royal bathrooms built to take care of the royal doodie on their various visits)? There is a point at which money has no real meaning, and, like the banksters who print the money out of nothing and with whom they have been partners-in-crime for centuries, the royals are well past that point.

    This editorial may be coming across as absurd, but sometimes pointing to absurdity is the only adequate way of expressing the stomach-churning outrage that any free human being should feel at the idea that a family, by mere virtue of having been born into a certain bloodline, has the "divine authority" to rule over other human beings. It is such an appalling affront to human dignity itself that even the most articulate amongst us should feel utter exasperation in being forced to explain why we do not just go along with the crowd and applaud politely at these various royal pronouncements.

    Firstly, the idea is inherently offensive, and has been since the dawn of recorded history, when the Emperors of old were literally worshiped as gods on earth. It was offensive when the emperors were downgraded to kings and queens and were said to have the "divine right" to rule over their subjects. It was offensive when "Sir" Francis Galton (Fellow of the Royal Society, naturally) coined the pseudoscience of eugenics and converted the divine right of rule from "royal blood" to "royal genes." It is offensive today, when we are still expected to believe that there is any use or value to the concept of a special, protected family who must be venerated, protected and celebrated for the fact of merely existing.

    Secondly, it is particularly galling that this particular family receives such admiration. From the Machiavellian Edward VII (who oversaw the formation of the Triple Entente that led to the unspeakable carnage of the First World War) to the Nazi-collaborating Edward VIII to the thoroughly racist, eugenics-promoting, depopulation advocate Prince Philip to his carbon eugenicist, pedophile-befriending son, Charles (not to mention Prince Harry), there are any number of reasons to hold this family and its members in especially low regard.

    If there is any ray of hope in all of this, it is that, no matter how wealthy they are or what political influence they continue to have, this royal family has been unable to convince all that many of their loyal subjects that they deserve all this adoration. This is why these royal baby name announcements and jubilees and other such events are so endlessly hyped by the media; the establishment knows that most people don't care about the royals and need a full-scale PR campaign to even get the TV-watching masses to notice their existence. This, in a roundabout way, is a good sign.

    So, all that being said, you will forgive me if I refuse to bow in the proscribed manner to this latest addition to the royal family or to anyone else wearing a funny donut-shaped hat on their head and calling themself "by the grace of God yadda yadda yadda." In fact, I hope you'll join me.