Ladies, imagine, if you will, that you are relaxing after a long day, flicking through the pages of your favourite publication (other than Miri AF, obvs ;)), and you encounter the following description of a man:

"The natty pink tie set off his deep blue eyes. Under his well-cut suit, this man was clearly buff.

As a showbusiness reporter, I'm used to going up to famous strangers in search of a story. But as I approached [him], drink in hand, my heart was thumping. He was a dish!"

Who do you think this might be describing? Brad Pitt? Johnny Depp? Some super fit athlete or model?

How about, er... Matt Hancock?

I wish I was joking. I'm not. There is an entire article in the Daily Mail, which at times actually purports to be a serious newspaper, dedicated to gushing, fawning, and veritably salivating over Hancock and his alleged "dishiness".

Reading like some sort of bargain basement Barbara Cartland, the odious article continues:

"We talked, just the two of us, for 90 beautiful minutes. When he left, it was as if a light had suddenly gone out in the room. For days afterwards, I bored my friends, family and colleagues about how handsome and charming Matt Hancock was. Some of them might have thought it was a little strange."

Gee, you think..?

This spectacularly sycophantic gush-fest concludes with:

"Matt, if you're reading this, you know where to find me."

I mean, the man has an (albeit estranged) wife and a girlfriend, but hey - obviously his dishiness is too much for any red-blooded woman to decline...

There are many descriptive adjectives I can think to use in relation to Matt Hancock, not all of them printable, but never in my wildest nightmares would I have imagined the preposterous press would try and make him... a heartthrob (who even uses that word anymore anyway? Is it 1973?).

This PR puff piece seems to be multi-purpose. One, to inform millions that Hancock is actually deeply attractive, so that they start repeating and believing it - and it will work, too: I can just hear the office watercooler gossip, "oh, that Matt Hancock, do you know, I never saw it before, but he really is quite a hunk!" - people absolutely can be programmed to believe other people are attractive through this kind of "Emperor's New Heartthrob" instruction. (It's all part of the deception and the control, getting you to see people as they don't really appear, which is why heavy make-up, wigs, and prosthetics are so closely associated with film and theatre, and why the symbol for the theatrical arts is two masks).

But the other, more insidious intention, is to mock us. The article is so ridiculously over the top in its fawning over Hancock, it really reads like a parody - and it is meant to. It is mocking the masses by taking this man, this monster, who is responsible for so much hideous suffering, grief, trauma, and loss, and talking about him like a Just 17 journalist might about a floppy-haired member of a boyband.

The author of the puff piece, Katie Hind, is a showbiz reporter of some 20 yeas experience, so the notion she would react at any level like a blushing, giggling schoolgirl to meeting... a politician (and a rather gawky and geeky one at that) is just ridiculous and beyond implausible. If you're going to go to pieces and get tongue-tied over famous people, you're not going to last five minutes as a celebrity journalist - yet the ludicrous, lunatic point the article is trying to push is that, while Hind has no problem holding her own whilst interviewing top actors and athletes - some of the most desirable men in the world - the glories of Matt Hancock are simply too much to expect her to be able to retain her professional composure.

This is totally unbelievable at every level, and it is supposed to be.

Not least because, if a journalist had a serious crush on someone they'd interviewed (or on anyone at all, really), they wouldn't announce it with a foghorn in a national newspaper - especially when the person in question is spoken for! It would be the height of inappropriate unprofessionalism, and make the journalist look like a mentally unstable stalker - and no editor would ever approve it.

So it's not a serious piece. It's a parody. The point of it is to both mock the particularly suggestible, who will literally believe anything because the media says so (and if you believe Matt Hancock is a suave and charismatic 'dish', then yes, you really will believe anything), and will actually start fancying him because they have been told to, and then to mock the rest of us, who know he is a sociopathic mass murderer who should be in prison, by doing a piece on him that wouldn't be out of place in Smash Hits' "Hunk of the Month".

It's also to further degrade the idea of politicians being serious people deserving of our respect, as I have written about before. Any genuine, career-minded, and ambitious politician would cringe to the bottom of their boots having a piece like this written about them. It makes Hancock sound like a frivolous socialite, more concerned with matching his tie to his eyes than constructing official policy or serving his constituents - therefore further undermining his professional credibility, just as appearing on "I'm A Celebrity" has done.

I understand there is a good possibility Hancock will be crowned "King of the Jungle". Well, prior to the advent of this terrible television show, what did that idiom evoke? Remember the catchy tune, "I just can't wait to be King..."? That's right - up until recently, the King of the Jungle was Simba from the Lion King. A children's cartoon character.

And that is what Hancock is being reduced to: a silly, frivolous, non-serious parody of a person, more interesting for his pumped-up abdominals than his political achievements, and more interested in attaining juvenile honours on remedial TV shows, than doing a real job and being a serious person.

After what Matt Hancock inflicted on the country, this attempt to reinvent him this way is a profound insult and collective slap in the face to every family he abused so badly, with many still enduring the ripple effects of the terrible traumas of the last two years.

The point is that it is supposed to be. Ritual mockery and humiliation are a key part of the ruling classes' strategy for controlling the masses, and that is why the footage of Matt Hancock laughing his head off when "William Shakespeare" was vaccinated has not been edited or scrubbed from the internet - we're supposed to see them laughing at us and mocking us. It's all part of the show (and sociopaths can't help but laugh when they are pulling a mammoth fast one and deceiving others - it's a phenomenon called Duper's Delight).

So it's all one big exercise in mockery and control. The psychopathic ruling classes are showing off just what gargantuan power they have over the mass mind - "hey, you know that guy who killed your grandmother and severed you from loved ones in their darkest days? Well, he's a super-hot hunk now, and you're to giggle and blush over him!" - whilst further mocking us by showing us what trivial, facile people our "elected representatives" really are - that they would literally rather live in a tent and eat animal genitalia, than do their job and serve their constituents (and it's no coincidence that Hancock spent Remembrance Day chowing down on his repulsive buffet - it's all part of the mockery, showing yet again complete callous disregard for millions of people who lost their lives because of government deception and lies - World War I, like all wars, being a racket).

What we have to be abundantly aware of is that the social architects who direct and produce world stage "reality" are doing all this for a reason - they are intentionally winding us up to the point of apoplexy, because they want to drive us to a point where we explode and say "no more"! Obviously, we are not wrong to say that, but what they are doing is a type of sales technique known as managing expectations. They're making our current reality so utterly awful and ludicrous, that whatever they eventually present us with an an alternative, will look better.

I mean, wouldn't ANY reality, where Matt "mass murderer" Hancock is not Hunk of the Month, and our politicians aren't cartoon characters, be better than this? That's what they're trying to nudge us towards: making our current situation so eye-gougingly awful that our expectations for what's normal and acceptable are lowered, because anything will look better in comparison.

"You might not like your new sanitised SMART pod UBI existence," the overlords will say. "But isn't it better than when it was nationally mandated to fancy Matt Hancock and watch him digest animal appendages?"

It is an age-old tactic of war that, to overthrow a culture, you first have to totally degrade it, and make all its defining traditions and institutions look dangerous and disgusting, so that the native people become aghast at their own environment and begin calling themselves for its dismantlement. That is the stage we are now at.

So, the journalist quoted at the beginning of this piece is no giggling schoolgirl with a crush. She's an infiltrating agent of war - and we should regard all mainstream journalists who continue to participate in this demonic pantomime as such.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls, and entirely depends on your generous support to keep going. 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.