About a month ago, Washington Post gleefully reported that: “The royal family welcomes a divorced, biracial American. That’s a huge change.” (Read the original article here)

What our masters in the media want you to associate here is the race angle with the fact that Mizz Markle is a skank ho divorcée. We must stand and cheer for this “biracial” American. (Her dad was a white dude, who knocked up her blackchick mom, but more on that later). This is a sinister bit of subterfuge, which keeps people from complaining, or even investigating further, for fear of being called “racist.”

Here at Chez Boxer, we know that all white people are racist by default, so we’re neither worried about the judgments of the shitlibs, nor about the virtue signaling of the establishment CONservatives. Moving on, we read that Mizz Markle is already being fêted as a feminist hero.

In an US Weekly exclusive, Karla Rodriguez reports that Mizz Markle is planning to have her mother walk her down the aisle in her latest wedding. (Read the original article here.)

Pro-tip: When you see a black chick sporting both the bulldyking cornrows, and the resting-bitch face, there’s a 100% chance she’s a feminist cunt.

Correction: This day is ultimately about her and what she wants to do.

Vanity Fair corroborated the US Weekly story, shortly after it broke, with a glowing article entitled “How Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Wedding Promises to Break Tradition.” (Read the article here.)

Boosting her feminist street cred is important to Mizz Markle, who, a year ago, boasted about her greatest childhood accomplishment: bullyciding a big corporation (Proctor and Gamble) into removing a marketing campaign with relentless cries of “sexism.”

As we all know, it’s perfectly normal for 11-year old girls to mount political and press campaigns. I’m sure she thought of that one, all on her own. (One can read more about this nonsense here.)

We read in the Washington Post article (linked above) that Mizz Markle has had recurrent difficulties getting along with her paternal family, including her elder sisters (by daddy’s first wife) and her grandparents. This is utterly unsurprising. Her dad had jungle fever. Those of us who like to date black chicks know the score. Your parents might tolerate a bit of dabbling in the darker hues, but they don’t want you marrying them, and they certainly don’t want you siring children with them. I’m guessing they uninvited their son from their home and lives when they heard the news.

We read further that daddy was already a divorcé and a father, with two older children of his own, when he met Mizz Markle’s mother. Mizz Markle’s mom and dad themselves divorced, when she was six or seven years old — the details on this are unsurprisingly murky. I’m guessing that dates are fuzzy because ma and pa may have met before dad’s first divorce was final, and perhaps they lived together, off and on, after the filing. (Read more about these two characters at Good Housekeeping here.)

In short, what do we have? A skank-ho feminist divorcée, who was raised by a skank-ho feminist divorcée, and a male-feminist pseudo-playa, in degenerate Hollywood. The notion of family, in the traditional sense, is completely alien to this woman. She’s been raised by a couple of hippies who “did what they wanted” without regard to norms or values. She is now all grown up in this toxic milieu, and set to ascend the throne and assume the title of “princess.”

Over on Dalrock, our brother Anon shares his theory about why this is all happening:

I think the royals did a DNA test and found that he is not the son of Charles, but can’t admit that publicly. That is why a) Princess Katherine has been instructed to rapidly pop out at least 3 kids asap, so as to eliminate any chance of Harry being King, and b) they don’t really care that he is marrying someone entirely unsuitable to be the wife of anyone first, second, third, or even fourth in line. He isn’t of royal blood anyway.

I’ve often harbored similar suspicions, as have many others. Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana, was herself a feminist icon, appearing in public semi-nude, and adopting a number of “activist” poses for the camera.

Diana herself married when she was a virginal teenager, but she proved to be the very epitome of the nu-marriage aesthetic, as she took lovers (both domestic and foreign) before and after her messy, public divorce from Prince Charles.

So, why is this happening? It’s a fair question, and I believe the answer partly has to do with the changing demographic face of the world, and of the UK in particular. It is no longer shameful to be a divorcée, and this marriage, like many others, is more-or-less a stage-op, for public consumption. The royal family is celebrated as “changing with the times,” though there is very little change to be seen. Like his mother, Prince Harry is already a fuckup of monstrous proportions.

As the UK has been scuzzified, the common British subject has grown ever closer to the behavioral norms of their royalty, and simultaneously, the royal family has dropped its mask of moral preening ever further to appeal to the populace. It’s an infinite feedback loop of degeneracy.

There will be a high-profile wedding, probably televised internationally, and the scumbags will all continue having their private passionate follies, as they’ve always done. This marriage will last even less long than mummy and daddy’s, and Mizz Markle will get a big divorce payout as Diana did. Like his (possible) father, this marriage will be Harry’s first, but not his last. Diana’s life should come as a cautionary tale for Mizz Markle.

As for our starstruck feminist heroine, she’s oblivious, and really has no idea who she’s fucking (with) here.

I had a few weeks off for the holidays, so I had to see the much (over)hyped Star Wars film, which was released a couple of weeks ago. I’ll cop to the fact that I’m sorta culturally illiterate at this point, so these are some minor and meaningless thoughts, typed in haste.

1. As the franchise has become more feminized, it has become more feminine.

While the original films offered a clear view of the sociopolitical situation, through which well-defined narrative developed the original characters we all know and love, the latest offering is hopelessly ambiguous. Star Wars now has all the depth and world-building of a trashy Spanish novela.

In this feature, we find Luke Skywalker’s character hiding out (from what? Child support? A false rape accusation?) on a miserable sort of ghetto planet. The “hero” in this film is a purple-haired Tumblr tranny.

There is a literary and cinematic place for complex plot-weaves, in which we are forced to feel empathy for the devil; but, this was never what made Star Wars a great story.

2. The aerodynamics of space travel is annoying.

While it’s common for Star Wars movies to feature space-pilots who can pull a 5 million G acceleration without passing out, all the prior movies were entertaining enough to allow the suspension of disbelief. This one isn’t. We’re treated to views of bombs dropping with the help of gravity-in-space, cannons screaming thanks to noise-in-a-vacuum, and a moxie-filled elderly feminist surviving a few minutes in the cold and empty blackness of the void, unprotected except for what looks to be a cheeseball evening gown.

Again, there are films in which similar things happen. Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind immediately. That was a great film, and the technical unbelievability gave way to an interest in the story. This is not a great movie, and thus such things stand out.

3. A New Hope: The Porg.

I saw this movie just after the opening weekend. The cinema I saw this film in wasn’t empty, but it wasn’t full either. At two points during the feature, the entire audience stopped talking and giggling among themselves to pay attention. The first example was when a penguin-like creature was roasted and eaten by Chewbacca. The second being when the surviving pal of said space penguin was riding shotgun in the Millennium Falcon.

If the screenwriters had any self-awareness, they’d jettison plans to pack the future films with trannies, faggots and wimminz, and just concentrate on the Porg. These tiny creatures managed to inject some legitimate emotion into a couple of brief scenes, and by the time the credits rolled, they stood out as an example of the only characters my audience was compelled to care about.

So, why?

Disney had forty years of history to draw upon, with a half dozen films, thousands of fan-fiction stories, and hundreds of already-developed characters along for the ride. There’s really no reason for them to make a bad Star Wars film, other than a desire to shit on American men and their collective childhood heroes. The Last Jedi has no coherent narrative arc to follow, no real heroism, and no cathartic ending. It was full of jarring, unfunny slapstick, stupid scenes and ham-fisted acting. It has nothing to offer anyone, and it was specifically designed that way.

The fact that critics are uniformly praising this movie to the stars (lol) is just more evidence of the grand, global disconnect between urban liberals from the core audience of the original Star Wars films, which was the average American.

In short: if you don’t mind suspending disbelief about standard physics in the cinema, check out an old Tarkovski movie. If you want to feel sympathy for the bad guy, read Cormac McCarthy. Even if you really love Star Wars, don’t bother shelling out cash to see this dumper. Get it on the torrents.

See other realtalking reviews of this film at Anarchist Notebook or Matt Forney.

I found this comment over at Spawny’s Space.

Emily McCombs is a bigwig over at HuffPost, so it should come as no surprise (not to anyone in postal code V5K 2C2, anyway) that she’s a flaming nutter.

With the exception of Fathers For Justice, there isn’t really any meaningful organized resistance to feminists. If you’re in the UK, and you aren’t supporting these men (at least in an anonymous financial / moral sense) then you aren’t doing your job. They’re out nearly every day, mocking your oppressors. Show them some love.

Their analysis is sound here, as expected. Kooky Emily’s outburst violates the Twitter rules de facto. The second set of books will keep her spewing hate. One will note the shadow-suspension of @herbiemarcuse on twitter – when ya boy Boxer never said anything as remotely actionable as this headcase.

Speaking of headcases, there are few things that make me as thankful to have been born a Mormon, rather than a Christian, than photos like these…

The epidemic of bull-dykes, larping as Mormon bishops and stake presidents, is something that I can see appearing on the horizon, but only after the Catholics are fully assimilated. Who is this bespectacled bitch, anyway, with her gay Star-Wars toy, preaching the gospel of Luke and Leia from the pulpit?