Royal Red Herring

Any appearance of a celebrity in the media will presumably always be planned and pre-arranged. When it comes to Royalty they are followed by a whole team of journalists, dedicated news-magazines and all-around global press coverage of any significant event.

Kate Middleton is the current Duchess of Cambridge and married to Prince William who is destined to become king of the United Kingdom. Middleton has been discussed and analysed before* as she clearly does not appear fit to carry any child despite the large hands and her best efforts to put on weight.

Catherine Elizabeth Middleton
•Catherine Elizabeth Middleton here pose in a purposefully staged shot heavily figuring her digit ratio as clearly female as it is altered to appear so

Childbirth would historically be a particularly important illusion* for the EGI. In order to effectively incarnate their inverted gender-role, the act of birth is clearly one of the most emblematic moments the Elite have to present to the public. And the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the public to fathom what they are presented.

Of course, once you have shed away the veil of magic the fact remains that the Elite still have to put up a performance for their public make-believe incarnation of the opposite sex to hold true. The fact there is nothing natural about the act of birth as portrayed by the EGI in public – they still make considerable efforts to play the act to perfection.

“Considering that Mia Farrow’s character in the movie is impregnated with Satan’s child by a coven of witches, the similarities are eerie and completely unsettling if you think about what it could possibly say about the newborn prince.”
Lyndsey Matthews for Harper’s Bazaar

Sometimes fakery and fraud can be detected by the absence of natural human behaviour replaced by artificially over-produced scripts. In the case of Kate Middleton’s assumed fake child-birth, it seems the scriptwriters went to great lengths to find symbology in the dressing-code and thus thread far too heavy on the artificial nature of the commonly trivial occurrence of a newborn child.

Effectively, the scriptwriters behind the scenario for Kate Middleton’s magic act of producing a child she never was impregnated with seems to have their fingers stuck in the cinema cookie jar as they directly copied Mia Farrow’s dress from the occult masterpiece for some* : Rosemary’s Baby from 1968 (wiki)

Rosemary s baby 50 years later
•the very same dress worn by 50 years later well demonstrate the over-emphasis that can occur when you try too hard and there are no real facts to hang on to

*a fairly recent transvestigation by “Trans Investigator” – video here

*speculation on EGI childbirth magick in the forum – post here

*red dress coincidence theory from Harper’s Bazaar – article here

Avatar photolike this

Published by

Unreal

North, East, West, South - our media encode, script and popularize stories that aim to control the general population. Information is not free or harmless - rather a controlled and refined weapon covertly used on our minds ever since its inception - and model - the Babel.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Dalpra
Tom Dalpra
4 years ago

Interesting parallel on the dress, as put in our faces by Harper’s Bazaar
who I read is America’s first Fashion magazine and ” assembles photographers, artists, designers and writers to deliver perspectives into the world of fashion, beauty and popular culture on a monthly basis”.

So what perspective is being delivered here by this mainstream organ of culture creation ?

Faye
Faye
4 years ago

I think the Harper’s are no “culture creators” – not even for those who lent that term credence. The rules of the higher classes of symbolic power are repetitive and boring. In the case of Rosemary’s baby the Harper’s have to prepare the story for the contemporary middle class which lacks historical and cultural memory.

Tom Dalpra
Tom Dalpra
Reply to  Faye
4 years ago

It should be ”not even for those who lend that term credence”.
So how would you describe Harpers, Faye ?
Fashion agents ? Perspective deliverers ? I don’t know.

So, you think Harper’s job here is to ”prepare the story for the contemporary middle class”.
Ok, but why ?

Faye
Faye
4 years ago

Yes, I think fashion agents is a good description. As fashion agents they can only be successful if their stories are good. Because the contemporary middle class has no idea about cinema history they have to prepare literary the story for them.
The story in short is: The elite prefers to be perceived as (threatening) satanists than as (perverse) sex inverted genealogy club.
Rosemarys dress would have been sufficient for that, if the contemporary middle class wasn’t so uninterested in cinema history.
But it is also quite possible that the whole network of designers, agents, reporters, photographers etc. – by all competition – do cooperate in the main common interest of making profitable business with the royal policy makers.

(I’m sorry for my writing skills. Thanks for the correction)

Tom Dalpra
Tom Dalpra
Reply to  Faye
4 years ago

No need to apologise Faye. Your efforts to communicate in a second language are excellent as far as I’m concerned.
Excuse my pedantry.

Thanks for your reply. Where I differ from that take is only really a slight tweak .
I’d say The elite prefer to be perceived as (threatening) satanists rather than (unthreatening) boring ‘normal’ (well, a bit inbred) people.
It’s all part of the myth. It helps make so-called ‘Elite’ Godlike. No need for it to be there to mask this ‘gender inversion’. Ha. This tactic should be clearly recognised by many of us as standard practice without it needing to be a cover for anything else.

There’s an old story about a guy who lived in a big walled house on the edge of a small town.
He was never seen but there was a rumour that he was a ruthless killer and would viciously murder anyone he got his hands on.
No one ever risked climbing over the wall to rob him.
Who do you think put the rumour out ?

The piece UNreal has written here contains some remarkable suggestions regarding Kate Middleton. He shows a picture of her waving and says ”a purposefully staged shot heavily figuring her digit ratio as clearly female as it is altered to appear so”. Crikey!

The digit ratio, as has been discussed before, is actually no real indicator of whether someone is a man or a woman, so to have had surgery to alter the length of someones finger to try and prove femininity, which this seems to suggest, seems fairly ridiculous.

All these outrageous claims perhaps serve the same cause as the satanist rumours. They make people seem somehow ‘super human’.
I don’t think they are.

xileffilex
xileffilex
4 years ago

Compare and contrast – 2015….was there ever a baby there? Or was it the baby daughter of the LAX dummy?
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/02/duchess-of-cambridge-gives-birth-to-baby-girl-prince-william

Baby number one ever needed its own psy-op to confirm the “pregnancy”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Jacintha_Saldanha

Faye
Faye
4 years ago

Wow, I had not seen those images from 2015, thanks Xile. Watch the duchess when she steps out of the door holding her “baby”: She has no contact whatsoever with what she is holding, she does not seek eye contact or any kind of contact, she even moves so uncarefully when waving to the camera that if this was a newborn in her hands, any viewer of the scene would shout loud “Hey, lady, watch out, that is not a handbag you are having in hands.”

Tom Dalpra
Tom Dalpra
Reply to  Faye
4 years ago

So, what are the suggestions here, because they seem like pretty big ones ?
Kate Middleton was born a man, and he fakes his pregnancies using a dummy for photo opportunities ?
Is this creative fantasy journalism or cutting edge research ? You decide.

One thing we can possibly (I won’t hold my breath ) be clear on is exactly what Kate Middleton’s finger ratio looks like.
We have thousands upon thousands of photographs of her waving. It’s part of her job.
It seems clear that her 2d 4d lengths are very similar ie not overtly to the feminine but also not towards the masculine side.

We have to remember perspective when looking at photographs and not be fooled by simple tricks of it. When looking at Kate’s hands sometimes a slight angle to a finger in relation to the lens and a digit might look a little longer. Thankfully, with Kate, we have so many photographs of her waving we can put that one to bed, at least.

14
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x