A few articles ago, I alluded to the fact that I had pilfered my article's title from another, far more contentious area of debate than the one I was covering on that particular occasion. And as the one I was covering on that particular occasion was one of the most tempestuously debated in all of conspiraland (and hands down the one that loses me the most followers whenever I cover it...), please strap in for what is going to be, for many, a potentially rather infuriating ride...
I was prompted to cover this divisive and daunting topic today, courtesy of having watched the Netflix Robbie Williams documentary at the weekend. I like to watch whatever the 'big thing' is on military-grade mind control weapon, Netflix, as it gives us a great deal of insight into where 'they' intend to attempt to herd us next (and wouldn't you just know who the co-founder of Netflix is...).
The Robbie Williams doc was no exception. The basic message seemed to be (strategically repeated by Williams himself throughout the four-part series) that fame is 'unnatural' - overwhelming, exploitative, destructive on multiple levels, and something that doesn't have a happy ending until you find a way to wriggle out of it and become (the title of one of Williams' songs) "a nobody someday".
Williams is now clean and sober, married with four children, and living in relative obscurity in America, where nobody knows who he is (his having tried and definitively failed to 'break America', as the documentary details). The documentary is unambiguous in its message that fame has nothing to recommend it and simply is not something for which ordinary people are built.
So, I surmise, they are pushing this message now - after decades of promoting fame as the most desirable, glamorous, aspirational lifestyle of all - to manufacture our consent for accepting pop stars and other entertainers of the future to be robots and AI.
The message is, when we can see what catastrophic effects fame has on real humans like Robbie, then how can we continue to be so callous and cruel, as to keep demanding these superhuman performative abilities from mere human mortals, when we can be entertained just as well by a bot?
Other Netflix offerings, such as Black Mirror's Joan is Awful, have given us further predictive programming on this score, paving the way for a full technological takeover of the entertainment industry, where real humans become obsolete in TV and film, and everything is done by deepfake and CGI.
So that's what I think the purpose of the Williams documentary is, but when I made a wee little joke about this on Facebook (suggesting Williams couldn't possibly be illuminati, as he's from Stoke, and I didn't believe any self-respecting member of the illuminati would allow their offspring to be born there*), someone commented with something to the general effect of, "that as may be, but there's no way his wife is a natural born woman".
(*I originate from this location myself, so I'm allowed to be as deprecating and withering about it as I like. You, however, are not. Those are the rules.)
An observation with which I happen to agree (and I do also think Mr. Williams is "in the club" at this point, although I would say not very happily. I just don't think he was born into it, because, well, Stoke... but seriously, there are many things to suggest he's not "bloodline", such as not being able to break the States).
So that is the subject I want to tackle today (cue mass groans and slamming of laptops...), so-called "EGI" - elite gender inversion. The idea that many / most / all people who predominate on the world stage are not the gender they appear to be.
I am very well aware that the common refrain to this is, "you just sound mad when you say every woman on the world stage is really a man. Makes truthers sound mental".
And yes, I agree, when you put it like that, it does. Just as saying to a normie, "all vaccines are an elite plot to sterilise and depopulate the world" does.
When you make grand statements like that, that so acutely challenge people's most deeply held beliefs and preconceptions, they're just going to shut down and dismiss you as insane.
That's why you don't introduce these topics with such sensationalist soundbites, but with - as we always do at this blog (er, hopefully) - logic, rationale, and reason.
So, I want to look at the EGI theory from an entirely rational and logic-based perspective, although I can't promise to entirely avoid the odd bit of sensationalism (this all all about theatrical showbiz types, after all...).
First, please read my piece on the high proliferation of openly transgender children in Hollywood. As I explained in the piece, "elites" transgendering their children from an early age is nothing new, it's simply that, in recent years, they've engineered the climate to be more accepting of it, so now they're more upfront about what in the past used to be kept in the shadows.
There's a lot of historical evidence to suggest that transgendering children has been a path to improving status, power and wealth for socially ambitious families. There are some practical reasons for this - such as being able to present "wives" to powerful men who (as biological males themselves) are unable to cuckold the man by having an affair and getting pregnant with 'outsider' blood.
But it goes much deeper than that, as well.
Fundamentally, the ultimate goal of the ruling classes is deception. Their primary mission is to keep us in a permanent state of illusion and confusion, where we are prevented from recognising and investing in objective reality, and are forced to accept their smoke and mirrors stage show, instead.
Why do they do this? Because they are in a state of resentful rebellion against what we might call 'the Prime Creator' (some would call it God, some others 'source', and so on). The Prime Creator has created an objective reality with absolute moral rules and codes, and recognising these and living in harmony with them, is vital to our growth, development, and fulfilment as human beings.
Obviously, the psychopathic ruling elites do not want us growing, developing, and achieving fulfilment, but rather, in a perennial state of arrested development and discombobulation, leading to nihilism and despair, because people like that are the easiest to control and the least likely to mount a successful rebellion against the current system.
So, the ruling classes constantly try to deceive and confuse, in an attempt to thwart our inner ability to recognise objective reality and align ourselves with it, with their illusions and crude stage shows.
Therefore, the first thing they target is our perception of other people.
When you meet someone for the first time, what is the first thing you notice about them? It's not their age, height, clothes, or (gentlemen, please...) eyes.
It's their gender. The first thing we register about someone else, on a very instinctive primal level, is whether they are male or female.
It's a very important first thing to register, because it tells us a lot about how we should respond to them, and what level of threat they might represent (e.g., if you're walking down a dark alley late at night, you're going to be a lot less nervous bumping into a woman, than a man). It informs how we interact with them (people the world over interact with the opposite sex differently than they do their own, no matter how egalitarian and right-on they might be). It determines whether they might be a prospective romantic partner, and have procreational possibility.
So, given that immediately and instinctively recognising someone's gender and responding to them on that basis is so fundamentally important to us, it makes sense that it's the first thing the professional deceivers that constitute our ruling classes attempt to deceive us about.
And before we go any further, it's important to know just how convincing these deceptions can be, courtesy of some "out" transgendered people.
This muscle-bound, bald, bearded individual is a biological female (Buck Angel, known as the 'Tranpa' of the trans movement).
This doe-eyed, willowy beauty is a biological male (Valentina Sampaio, presented as the first transgender model to appear in the legendary Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue).
So, in determining the truth and the extent of 'EGI' (elite gender inversion), the first preconceived idea we have to do away with is, "famous people on the world stage couldn't possibly be the other gender to the one they present as because I'd be able to tell".
You wouldn't - not that easily. Hormones and surgery are so advanced now - as well as whatever photoshopping may have occurred when viewing these people through screens - that we cannot simply rely on the first impression of our eyes and ears to tell us the truth.
The ruling classes are master deceivers, which means they don't make their deceptions obvious. They would have no power if they did.
So the first thing to accept is that transgenderism - especially when it begins in childhood and before a person has gone through a natural puberty of their true biological sex - is not obvious to the untrained eye. Somebody can look very macho (such as Buck Angel) and be biologically female. Someone can appear very feminine (such as numerous models) and be biologically male.
I underline this because a lot of people will reject EGI on the basis that someone "looks so feminine" or "looks so manly" that they couldn't possibly be the other sex - whereas we can see from the examples given above that biological women can look very manly and XY men can look very girly.
So we must look deeper.
As I said earlier, the ruling elites are in rebellion against the Prime Creator and the idea of an objective reality as defined by this Creator. They reject the idea of objectivity and absolute truth, and say instead, truth is determined by what people believe and how they behave.
So, if I were to be given an unobstructed audience with the ruling elite, and said, "there was no pandemic, was there? It was all made up", they would respond, "aha, but there was a pandemic, because people believed there was, so they acted as if there was. They wore masks, took tests, and got vaccinated. We, the ruling classes, manifested that reality simply by implanting the idea into people's heads and making the illusion look so convincing, people invested their whole lives in it. The so-called objective reality might have been that there wasn't any actual pandemic, but this reality has no value if people don't believe in it. Therefore our 'reality' trumps that of the Creator's".
Equally, they will apply this to men and women. Objectively, we are all created biologically male or female (other than a very small percentage of people born intersex - hermaphrodites - but this is a birth defect, like having an extra limb, rather than being "a third sex"). So, the ruling classes believe they can override this fundamental and immutable truth by often presenting their children as being the opposite gender to the one their chromosomes say they are.
If they can get everyone around this child believing they're the opposite gender to the one biology dictates they are, if they can get the child to look and behave in a seemingly indistinguishable manner to biological members of the sex they are mimicking, again, they believe they've "won". That they've successfully challenged the idea of objective, immutable biological sex, because if a person looks and behaves like the opposite sex, and is accepted by others as the opposite sex, then that's the "reality" that has now triumphed - that's how they see it.
They take it an extra step, too, by ensuring many of their highest profile inverts are perceived as being extremely attractive and desirable.
I've heard it said that anybody who ever wins the coveted "Sexiest Man / Woman of the Year" award is always gender-inverted, because the message the elites are sending is that they are better at creating super-attractive people than the Creator is. That the "sexiest man" is always a bio woman than they have "upgraded", and that the "sexiest woman" is always a (literally) made-up man.
This, to the ruling classes, means they have become Gods - that they can create humans in their own image who are perceived by most people as being far more attractive and desirable than the humans created by the Creator.
It also creates a two-tier society where, no matter how dutifully they diet or how many hours they spend in the gym, real women can never look like the 'Godesses' who swan down the catwalk for Victoria's Secret (and you may be getting a fairly good idea at this point of what Victoria's Secret really is...).
Equally, real men can never maintain those sweet-natured good looks of a Brad Pitt or a Leo DiCaprio, still so boyish and adorable even into middle-age, because men don't retain smooth-cheeked "prettiness" much past their teens... but women do.
Think about it: if anybody could look like a Hollywood star with the right diet and exercise, then these celluloid superstars wouldn't be seen as so special, they wouldn't retain the mesmerised hero worship they inspire all over the world. To maintain their "star quality" - the idea that they're in a class of their own that we ordinary people could never hope to achieve - there has to be something more to them.
Also, to fulfil their own narcissistic delusions - that as descendants of certain bloodlines, they are special and superior and fit to rule over us - the so-called elites desire to be notably "different" to us, as well. To them, we are limited and lowly by only possessing the abilities of one gender. They, meanwhile, are able to embody both and have the benefits and powers of both (or so they believe) - e.g., someone could appear as macho and strong as Buck Angel... but still be able to experience pregnancy and childbirth.
Equally, someone could look as feminine and attractive as a runway model... but still have the upper body strength of a man, able to floor anyone who gave her any hassle.
Now, I don't profess to have any definitive insight as to whether "it's all of them", as some EGI researchers believe - e.g., every single famous person is gender inverted - and I think probably not, because where do you draw the line of what constitutes "fame" (is every extra in every low-budget straight-to-DVD dud really "one of them"? It's possible but I remain sceptical).
But I do think it's a great deal of them, and that the more famous they are, the more likely it is that they are gender inverted - but that we struggle to recognise them, because we've seen so many of them - we're bombarded by their images from cradle to grave - that we've forgotten how to definitively identify male and female anatomy at the basic (unalterable by surgery) level.
Interestingly, when we are taught anatomy at school, if we are shown a human skeleton at all, we are only ever shown a male skeleton. So, most people grow up with no clue of just how different female skeletons look.
For example, all female skeletons curve in at the base of the back, in order to support a pregnancy. No male skeletons do. If you look closely, you will see many "women" on the world stage have straight up-and-down backs, and man "men" have the tell-tale curve.
There are many other skeletal tells, such a skull size, shoulder and hip width, and the tilt of the pelvis and leg bones. None of this can be altered with surgery, so once you learn what male and female skeletons look like and how they (quite dramatically) differ, it does become rather clear that a lot of famous people are not in fact the gender they present themselves as being.
I'm not now going to relate a long list of famous people I believe are "obviously" not the gender they present as, since I don't think that's a particularly helpful way of demonstrating anything, as what's "obvious" to one person clearly isn't always to another (cf. Paul McCartney and 'Faul'!). Rather, I hope the explanation above helps others to consider why it's not "mad" or "conspiracy gone too far" to entertain the EGI theory, and that there is physical evidence to support it, once you learn about immutable anatomical differences between the sexes and how to spot them.
There are plenty of "tutorial" videos on the usual streaming platforms that you can look for that help spot the differences (I haven't watched all the videos at the link, so please do use your discernment to determine which are useful), so that then you too can become one of those annoying people, who, whenever you watch a film with anyone, point at the stars every five minutes saying, "that's a man, you know...".
While I can understand why, even ten years ago, this theory just seemed too fantastical and outside of most people's normal frame of reference, I think today, with the monumental social contagion that is "trans" fever, it's a lot easier to at least seriously entertain, if not uncritically accept.
Obviously, "trans" as the extremely high-profile and powerful social movement it is didn't come from nowhere. It's not an organic social development led by ordinary people with gender identity issues. Rather, it has been deftly and deviously woven into the heart of the culture by high-level social engineers. There's a reason that "trans" has developed such mammoth cultural currency, even to the extent that one of the first questions job applications now ask is, "are you trans? Do you have a history of gender reassignment surgery?".
It's because being trans is now at the top of the social totem pole, and that is because those who consider themselves at the apex of society, often are trans too, and - and as they have always done - are trickling their "values" down to the rest of us.
As discussed, "they" want to supplant the Prime Creator (God), by proving they can "upgrade" his creation into something better. The original design, the immutable truth, is that humans are male or female. So, the ruling classes are going all out to erase this distinction, to ensure the human of the future is not clearly either.
And transgenderism, of course, opens the door to transhumanism, and the eventual merging of man with machine. Note that many "female" celebrities are now being far more open about their use of surrogates to produce children, so it's not a massive leap from that to artificial wombs. And once we've accepted (as society largely has, through the ever-widening use of surrogacy) that somebody doesn't have to naturally conceive or give birth to be a "mother", why do they even have to be female?
We saw at the beginning of this article that experiences such as fame are too much for the ordinary, "unimproved" human. Their emotions can't take it, they have nervous breakdowns, they develop addictions. This is also true for very many non-famous humans, who are dependent on various cocktails of anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications - chemical koshes for the mind - just to get through the day.
Well, what if they didn't have to endure all this? What if they were upgraded and redesigned, given a handy chip in the brain, where unhelpful emotions (fear, anxiety, sadness, depression) could just be disabled at will, switched on and off at the flick of a button - just like Data the Android in Star Trek? Data never lost his cool under pressure or got too frightened to do his job or turned to drugs to cope. Isn't that "better"?
This is where we are heading: a future with an "upgraded" human 2.0 who will be presented to us as far superior in every way to the dull and dysfunctional original version.
I have long suspected that there will be a grand reveal of some of the most high-profile and globally desirable secretly transgendered individuals on the world sage to "prove" once and for all that trans is best: that millions of people's "perfect woman" or "dream man", are, in fact, transgendered.
(If I was a betting individual, I'd say Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox - note both have openly transgendered children - and Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. You can see it more as they age, and I've seen several people openly wondering why Depp is looking more and more like a lesbian.)
Now, having read my argument, you may still not agree, and still believe, "no, EGI is nonsense, no famous people are secretly transgender" - which is fine. The thing is though, try as I might, I can't find as sturdy an argument for that position, that is as persuasive as the one I've just laid out. We know the elites are aggressively pushing transgenderism; we know they deceive us about everything - so why wouldn't they deceive us on this most fundamental level of all?
Until I come across a theory that persuasively presents the case that "the elites may deceive us about pandemics, terror attacks, wars, and just about everything else, but they wouldn't deceive us about the genders of famous people", I'm going to stick to my belief that EGI is largely true.
And, who knows, maybe Stoke really is a hotbed of secret elite transgendered activity (I mean, statistically, something interesting had to happen there eventually...).
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...