I have been asked by a few people to share my thoughts on perhaps the craziest, most incredulous, unlikely, and frankly insane "conspiracy theory" of all time... That Matt Hancock MP would become a reality TV star on "I'm A Celebrity".

For those mercifully unfamiliar with this show, the premise is that a collection of public figures, ranging from soap stars to members of the Royal Family (more on that later), are flown out to the Australian outback, where they live in a jungle camp, and undertake a number of "challenges", as voted for by the viewing public. Challenges are designed to be unpleasant and humiliating, such as having bugs tipped all over you or eating an unmentionable part of an animal's anatomy.

The celebrities are given a meagre ration of rice and beans on which to survive, and the idea is, if a campmate successfully completes a "challenge", they win some extra bonus for the team, such as better food.

Over the course of the show, the viewers see the celebrities interact and - allegedly - "show us who they really are" - and so, at the end, vote for their favourite, who is then crowned King or Queen of the jungle, an accolade in great demand by serious politicians and members of top aristocracy, apparently.

My description of the production may not be entirely comprehensive, as I have never actually watched it, but given it saturates the press every year, I have reluctantly formed a general overview - so what we can say for definitively certain from what I have said is - it's Idiocracy. It's arrived. We're here.

And, of course, we are entirely meant to be.

As I said in the opening to this piece, the idea that if you had asked the general public six months ago, what will former health secretary, Matt Hancock (who holds a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford), go on to do after the pandemic, the notion that anyone would reply, "go on I'm A Celebrity" would have been given roughly the same credence as David Icke's lizard theory.

So, that just goes to show, that this is what he is now doing, shows there is no possibility so outlandish, no theory so incredulous, that it can't actually turn out to be true...

So why is he doing it? Needless to say, we can dismiss out of hand anything the prodigiously pathological liar himself has to say about it ("I want to show the public the real me" - um, don't think you do, actually, sociopath. "I want to raise awareness of dyslexia" - right, by never actually mentioning it?). I contend that Matt Hancock, like every high-profile player on the world stage, is owned and managed and told what to do. He is not a free agent and he did not make this absolutely ludicrous choice for himself.

How do I know he is owned and managed? Because that is how politics works and always has. High-profile political "stars" are selected on their blackmailability - those who have tastes for things that are at the very least morally questionable (affairs, drugs, prostitutes), but more frequently, morally repugnant and highly illegal. At the highest levels, politics is controlled by the epidemic of so-called "VIP abuse", where organised child abuse - which is filmed and stored - is used to control politicians and get them to do precisely what their masters want.

If you've a strong stomach, one of the most horrifically clear insights into the very darkest depths of politics came from the memoir, 'The Abuse of Power', by (non-"conspiracy theorist"), Anthony Daly.

Daly tells the absolutely harrowing story of how he went to London as a young naïf, simply wanting to work with books, and landed his dream job in a top London bookstore. Through his work, he began to rub shoulders with powerful members of London's political elite... and soon found himself tumbling into a terrifyingly degenerate world of high-level debauchery and abuse.

Daly's memoir confirms that all the worst "conspiracy theories" about what high-level members of the ruling elite do with children, are true (Daly was not a child himself, but witnessed hideous incidents at so-called "parties", at which he said no adult women were ever present). Daly has never been sued for slander or libel for what he says in his memoir (although I note with interest his book seems no longer available on Amazon).

Bearing this in mind, please cast your mind back to the height of "the pandemic", when it was revealed that Matt Hancock had spent £50,000 of tax-payer's money on takeaway food.

On the surface, the story was, "spendthrift Hancock fritters away money on gourmet food rather than just telling his staff to get a sandwich from Tesco's like everyone else" (they are certainly paid enough).

But look deeper. Have you seen the size of the restaurant it is claimed he bought all these takeaways from? It's tiny. The spend was over just nine orders, and it is inconceivable that such a small restaurant has the facilities to run up at £50k bill over just nine orders - especially as the average price of a dish is £6.

So: it seems likely that he did not actually spend that money on takeaway food, he spent it on something else.

Very possibly, drugs. It's hardly a secret that Westminster is like a snow storm most days, and if staff were, as Hancock claims, doing 18 hour days, they'd need something to "perk them up". So, it's probably drugs. Let's hope it's drugs.

Because this restaurant also operates a password-protected secret menu which serves "pizza". Yes, I know how contentious "pizzagate" is, and I suspect much of what was alleged with that particular theory may have been false - the establishment absolutely does create and 'leak' fake conspiracies to discredit real ones.

However, the essence of "pizzagate" - that wealthy members of the elite abuse children and use code words when communicating about their abuse - is certainly no theory, this is very well documented fact.

So, Hancock spending £50k on nine "takeaways" from a tiny restaurant with a password protected secret menu serving "pizza" is highly unlikely to be totally innocent and benign, and it certainly wasn't published in the press for nothing.

There is a phenomenon in literature (and film) known as Chekhov's Rifle. This alludes to the fact that if, in a Chekhov novel, he mentions a rifle in the first chapter, this is not incidental. The rifle has a fundamental role to play and we will find what it is later on.

Equally, the world's media did not report on Matt Hancock's "50k takeaway" (again, from a tiny and inexpensive restaurant that could not possibly have run up such a huge bill over just nine orders) for no wider reason. In the midst of a "deadly pandemic", such a story - even if the order was actually for food - would have deeply angered people, as it did, so had the government wanted to keep this out of the press, they could have just slapped them with a D-notice and done so.

Remember, nothing makes the national mainstream news unless the establishment wants you to know about it. Unless it is in their interests for you to know about it.

What I am suggesting here is that Hancock's owners and controllers have serious dirt on him (at best: drugs), and therefore, they get to tell him exactly what to do. They are the ones who have ordered him to go to the jungle and make a prize prat of himself, which he is most certainly doing.

So, why have they done this?

It is because our society is in the midst of a carefully strategised and controlled demolition. All our trusted institutions and treasured stars are systematically being dismantled and razed to the ground, in preparation for their replacement for something else.

For a large and advanced society to function well, it needs reputable leaders and reliable institutions that people look up to and trust. Historically, in the UK, these have been the government and the monarchy.

In recent years, both have been steeped in the kind of scandal and controversy that has deeply eroded people's trust in them. Prince Andrew and his alleged abuse, and close collaboration with documented paedophiles and sex traffickers; Prince Harry and Meghan breaking ranks and alleging mistreatment and racism; and, of course, our beloved Queen dying, and leaving us with a very motley crew of replacements - "King" Charles will never engender one-tenth of the admiration and affection people had for the Queen, and he knows it.

So, the institution of the monarchy is already looking very shaky, and now, in a further crushing blow to their credibility and dignity, a high-profile member goes on a gaudy and crude reality TV show.

Mike Tindall, who is married to the Queen's granddaughter, Zara, is a current campmate on "I'm A Celebrity", and this, frankly, is nearly more ridiculous than Matt Hancock being there.

The Royal Family is supposed to be a sober and stately institution that embodies the virtues of dignity, duty, and service - yes, I know that in reality they don't, and I wouldn't like to begin to imagine what happens behind the doors of Buckingham Palace - but the point is, that has been their public image for centuries.

As past masters and veterans of the importance of PR and how they are perceived by the public, the idea that they thought it would be a good idea to send one of their highest-profile members onto a junk reality TV show, beggars belief. So, again, this wasn't their idea, it was the idea of the even higher-ups who really pull the strings. You can be sure that anyone who gets a lot of televisual coverage - household names and instantly recognisable faces - is not a real powerhouse. They are the puppets - the actors - doing the dirty work of those who are really in control.

The real ruling elites are far too clever to put themselves on repeat public display, and could walk past 99% of the general public and never be recognised (could your average TV-watcher pick David Rockefeller or Evelyn Rothschild out of a crowd?).

So the Royal Family are relatively small potatoes compared to those who really pull the strings, and who stage-managed Prince Andrew's fall from grace. You have to ask yourself, why were all the big papers and news shows allowed to cover this? Why didn't they just cover it up, as they usually do? Prince Andrew was thrown under the bus because it's what the real ruling elites wanted to happen, and so too with Mike Tindall's current iteration as reality TV star.

This, for a high-profile working royal, is a kind of ritual humiliation, so completely inappropriate is it for someone of his position - IF we are meant to continue taking the Royal Family seriously. This is the whole point. We are not.

Traditionally, Royalty has been surrounded in mystery, the public just getting a few carefully crafted glimpses of them in their finery or giving professionally composed short speeches - which adds to the stature of the institution as something special and aspirational and that we can look up to and trust.

The more they put themselves on display, the more "warts and all" they become, the more they lose that power and that credibility and trust, and of course the high level social engineers behind all this know that very well.

That's why Mike Tindall, husband of top Royalty and member of the most aristocratic circles in Britain, is in the jungle along with barely-literate bit-part actors from Hollyoaks (I read an interview with one who was asked what his best attribute was, and he replied, "I'm not sure, but it's definitely not my brains").

And that's why Matt Hancock is there, too. It's to further degrade the public's trust and faith in our governing institutions, because, you tell me, how on earth can you ever take seriously again someone who you have seen pick bits of cockroach out of his pants whilst consuming the effluents of an aardvark?

Matt Hancock is there to ensure he is never taken seriously again, in the same way that we are seeing things revealed about former education (and just about every other kind of) secretary, "Sir" Gavin Williamson, who is being increasingly presented as some sort of bargain basement Bond villain. Williamson (who does actually strongly resemble The Demon Headmaster) apparently kept a tarantula on his desk at work, in order to scare fellow MPs who displeased him, and enthusiastically described the creature as "a perfect example of a clean, ruthless killer".

Williamson named his, er, 'pet' Cronus. Cronus is a Greek God who castrated his father and ate his children.

This is all being reported by the top mainstream sources, and this is for a reason. It's to discredit them - to discredit everything that has ever unified the country and attracted public trust - the government, the monarchy - so these can ultimately be swept aside altogether and replaced with something new.

Matt Hancock is an establishment asset being used and managed by whatever dirt they have on him (as I say, I hope it's just drugs or something else relatively benign, and of course, I'm not making any direct accusations - but the possibility remains that it's something much worse, because, in politics, it often is). That's why he was selected to be the "baddie" throughout the pandemic, and to be a figure of hate now. He is widely considered by many to be a mass murderer. Not a lot of people would sign up for that, but he had to - he had to do whatever he was told - because of what they have on him.

We the general public are trained to have very short memories and not link events happening now, to things that happened many months or years ago, so despite all the "scandal" and "outrage" at the time over Matt Hancock's 50k takeaway, everyone now seems to have forgotten about it. This is why it's vital that we don't think like ordinary people, but like novelists and film producers, who know there are no coincidences or incidentals. Chekhov knew, if a rifle is mentioned in chapter one of a book, it's because it has a seminal role to play later on.

Equally, multiple top news sources did not report on Matt Hancock's 50k takeaway for it not to have some resonance and significance later.

To understand what's really going on in the world, it's imperative to think like a "conspiracy theorist" - to see patterns, to read between the lines, and to understand what is happening now is the result of a grand, highly strategised plan - not just random chaos.

The ruling classes belittle so-called conspiracy theorists because if everyone started to think that way, they would never be able to get away with what they are doing.

As I said, if Matt Hancock can go to the jungle, that just goes to show, there really is no conspiracy theory so outlandish, so improbable, so insane - that it can't actually be true.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.