Okay, so I know it can be a bit annoying when conspiraquackery descends to the level of "that man is really a woman is a man is a woman", e.g., everyone on the world stage is some sort of 'reverso'. And I'm not saying all of them are. However, transgenderism is clearly a major agenda item of the elites, and there are mainstream, historical reasons to believe the upper classes have been practicing the covert transgendering of their children for a very long time.

One example is 'castratos', where prepubescent boys would be castrated, ostensibly so their voices didn't break and they could continue to sing at high octaves in choirs - which is barbaric enough - but the even more nefarious real reason appears to be, so they could be offered up by their socially ambitious families as "wives" to the elite. They would be dressed as girls, and without having gone through male puberty, could reasonably resemble adult women.

Well, why would a member of the elite want a male "wife", you might ask? Simple. To keep the bloodline pure. With a real female wife, one always runs the risk that she will have an affair, get pregnant, and bring "impure" blood into the family line. No such risk with a wife who is a man (offspring in these arrangements would be gestated by early forms of surrogacy, often using domestic staff).

That phenomenon still appears to be going on today, and I'm sure we can all think of some prominent examples where the "wives" of powerful men, are very clearly men themselves.

We also shouldn't be surprised that this covert transgenderism dominates Hollywood (full of actors - professional deceivers - after all), as well as, of course, the modelling industry, where the typical dimensions of young males (tall, skinny) make better "clothes horses" to show the lines of high fashion, than do average - much shorter and curvier - women. There is no doubt that a lot of top models are genetically male.

Anyway: I watched a film last night, a Simon Pegg vehicle that I had not previously seen. I am a fan of Mr. Pegg (a Valentine's baby, just like me), and loved 'the Cornetto trilogy', so I was expecting this film to be decently entertaining. It's not: it's rubbish (tired and unoriginal, boringly crude, Richard Curtis rip-off).

However, what really shocked me was this. In the film's opening scenes, showing the "female" protagonist getting ready for a date, I was thinking, "oh my God, that is so obviously a man, just look at the jawline, the brow ridge, the hard stare of a MAN"... and then, exactly as I was thinking this, look what word popped up on the screen - !!!!!

Ok, so the film is called "Man Up", but that really is not an appropriate name for it at all, since it is not about "manning up", it's about two people (one allegedly being a woman) who accidentally end up on a blind date, and all the predictable gaffes and misunderstandings that follow. So this title really makes no sense, and it certainly doesn't make sense flashing it up when ONLY the "female" protagonist is on screen, and doing one word at a time (why?).

I think you will find this is one of the devious little "in jokes" the ruling classes love to mock us with. They do a close up of a very masculine face and put the word MAN in big letters beside it... and yet know they can still dupe the clueless masses into believing it is a woman. Not incidentally, this actress is a former model.

There is a long, long tradition in the theatrical arts regarding using men to play women, going right back to Shakespeare's day, when it would have been considered shameless libertine decadence for a woman to perform on the stage (this is one of the central themes of the film 'Shakespeare In Love'). From that perspective, "transgenderism" is actually ultra-regressive and super-conservative (to say nothing of misogynist, but we already knew that), completely barring women from public life, and, where a female role is required, using a man. There's nothing new under the sun, and the current aggressive fad of transgenderism is just the latest iteration of a medieval ultra-sexist authoritarianism as old as time - that women are so rubbish, they're not better at anything than men: not even being women.

This film, 'Man Up', is telling us this loud and clear, as Hollywood and the "elites" get more and more shameless at revealing what they really are and their true intentions.

There are several reasons for this mass deception, one being, that deceiving others gives the deceiver huge power and therefore a highly addictive dopamine rush (hence the well-known phenomenon, 'Duper's Delight', where deceivers can't help but grin from ear to ear when they're getting away with a massive fraud - see Matt Hancock 'crying' (with laugher) at the vaccinating of - topically enough - 'William Shakespeare').

The psychopathic ruling classes are addicted to power, and so they take every opportunity to increase it via deception. That's one reason they do this, and the other is that they are pushing transgenderism as hard as they can on the population, and one weapon in their arsenal they have to try to win this war, is revealing that some of our most beloved stars and icons, are actually transgender themselves.

"You claim not to accept trans women as real women," the cunning elite could say to men. "But all those actresses, those models, you think are so attractive... well guess what? They're "trans women" too. They always were."

Of course, women have idolised and attempted to emulate these "women" too, so it would have a profound impact on both sexes.

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. But surely making it as obvious as this has got to make people start asking questions....