So, Matt Hancock narrowly missed out on being crowned "King of the Jungle", an accolade previously reserved for Simba from the Lion King (a fictional children's cartoon character).

I must say, when I learned that up to 12 million members of the British public had voted for a serious adult human to be awarded this title, I did have a brief moment of all-encompassing, hopeless existential despair - however, I soon restored myself (depression never lasts long when you subsist on the treacle-like coffee blends I do) when I realised: this is all part of the reveal, part of the show.

12 million votes is only slightly less than are typically cast in a General Election. Yes, the electoral process is beset with limitations and corruption, but at least it purports to be vaguely serious. Supposedly, an election is your opportunity to select diligent and dedicated representatives, who will work hard for you and your community to give you a better future.

Obviously, I know that's a far cry from what usually happens, but at least that's what the official purpose is, what the PR says, and there are some decent MPs out there - such as those who attended the recent APPG on vaccine safety - who got into politics for the right reasons and really do want to make a difference.

Yet voter turnout has never been lower, with the usual reasons people give for abstention being that politics is meaningless / a waste of time, and voting won't make a difference. Meanwhile, these same people will take the time, and spend the money (each phone vote costs 50p and many people vote multiple times) to vote for inane celebrities to be awarded excruciatingly juvenile and utterly meaningless "titles" on reality TV shows.

This, in my view, is the ruling classes ruthlessly mocking us, holding up a mirror to our degraded, captured culture, and saying, "look, very few people bothered to engage with Hancock when he was a 'serious person', a politician mired in all sorts of scandal and corruption, causing terrible suffering to millions, but now we present him as a cuddly glorified cartoon character on the telly, well, everyone's interested in him now!"

It has been a source of abject bafflement and increasing horror to me to learn that vast swathes of the UK public actually treat "I'm A Celebrity" as if it matters (far more than did, for instance, the vaccine safety APPG mentioned earlier, which was very patchily attended). People - millions of them - get deeply emotionally invested with "I'm A Celeb", the print media covers it as if it is real news (I discovered, to my horror, when researching this article, that the Daily Mail actually has a whole section devoted to it), and all such articles are deluged with emotional, sometimes rather hysterical, comments regarding people's favourite - and least favourite - "campmate".

Getting irate over the behaviour of celebrities in the jungle, is kind of like getting enraged with evil Dirty Den for cheating on that lovely Angie in Eastenders.

Whenever very wealthy, establishment celebrities, who have made their names in the performative arts - whether TV (Hollyoaks guy), music (Boy George) or politics (Hancock) - appear on big-budget (let's not forget Hancock's £400,000 fee), mainstream televisual productions, we need to be abundantly and unequivocally clear on this: they are acting.

So-called "reality TV" does not exist, if by 'reality' we mean natural, organic, spontaneous - rather, what is euphemstically known as "structured reality" does. So, the producers will tell the cast what to talk about, how to talk about it, what they are and are not allowed to say, and what conclusions to draw. This is so for each and every "reality TV" show that has ever existed (and, of course, they're heavily edited too), so while every single line may not be scripted as per more "traditional" acting, acting it nevertheless is.

As I have said before, the reason well-known actors are compensated quite so handsomely (the cast of Friends got $1 million each per episode, and that was twenty years ago) is because the ruling classes possess no more powerful weapons in these cultural wars, no more effective assets to manicure and manipulate the mass mind than - good actors.

Hancock was able to so seamlessly transfer from evil villain politician to cuddly reality TV star - and it was seamless, look at just how many love him now - because he's a good actor. Like all actors do, he simply finished one role - playing an "evil politician" on the news - and went on to another - playing an "ordinary nice guy" on a location shoot.

We no more "saw the real Matt Hancock" in the jungle, than we "saw the real Josh Brolin" when he played George Bush in the Oliver Stone film 'W'. Brolin portrayed Bush very well and entirely persuasively - despite the fact Brolin himself is a staunch Democrat and has never voted Republican. But that didn't come across in his portrayal, because when he's acting, he's not being the real him.

So, is Matt Hancock an ordinary, decent guy because he came across persuasively as one in his recent TV acting role? Of course not. This is a man responsible for some of the most tyrannical and anti-human, undemocratic and illiberal restrictions ever imposed by a government on its own people, as well as being mired in some of the worst kinds of corruption and scandal imaginable. Cheating on his wife is the least of it (if he really did: all looked very staged and conveniently "leaked" to me. I'm sure if these two very high-profile, very media savvy, and very wealthy people really wanted to conceal an affair, they would do so - expensive, discrete hotels etc. - not have a snog in the broom cupboard like excitable teenagers).

Please do not forget Hancock's £50,000 "takeaway" from a restaurant far too small to run up that kind of bill, nor this memory-holed report, where Hancock used the media to publicly announce - just months before the debut of "the pandemic" - that he would definitely give his children's organs up for donation if they died.

Hancock's (very young) children were and are completely healthy and have never required organ donation themselves. So isn't this quite an odd thing for a parent to so publicly declare, especially since Hancock went on to qualify that, if tragedy strikes and your children die, "the least you can do" is give up their organs?

Um, what? "The least you can do" suggests the family has had some kind of windfall or boon, that they've been lucky in some way, so the "least they can do" is give back - not that they've just been hit with the worst kind of tragedy life has to offer. Organ donation in the event of tragedy, especially tragedy involving children, is an incredibly difficult, sensitive subject, and to be able to so casually say to the world's media, "oh yes, I'd definitely give up my kids' organs if they died - the least one can do!" - is not normal.

"Coincidentally", Hancock made this public declaration just months before an alleged "pandemic" began, where thousands were inappropriately put on ventilators that proved, in many cases, fatal. Ventilators were always entirely the wrong treatment for a respiratory virus, and most top medics (and many whistle-blowers) knew it. However, in order for a patient to qualify for organ donation, they have to be on a ventilator for the organ extraction to be possible - e.g., their body has to be living at the time of extraction, as organs from a dead body are useless. Doctors will label a patient "brain dead" to justify organ harvesting, and in many cases, doctors will be right that the patient has no hope of recovery, but that does not change the fact that only living bodies on ventilators qualify for organ donation. Since most people don't die on ventilators, there's always been an organ shortage worldwide - but then, lo and behold, came "the pandemic", when suddenly ventilator use skyrocketed.

Also in 2020, as the pandemic policies rapidly gathered pace, the UK quietly changed its laws on organ donation, so this scheme became opt out rather than opt in. That is to say, if you haven't explicitly instructed the NHS that you are not an organ donor, it will be assumed you are. Healthy human organs being worth a fortune, I don't think you have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to see how dark and open to incredible corruption this scheme is, nor to understand why Hancock made this very sinister declaration about his children and their organs just months before the pandemic, and its concomitant heavy ventilator use, began.

Someone who can use their own children as political pawns in this most grotesque of ways - to programme the public consciousness to get used to the idea of their children dying and then "donating" their organs - is not a person like you and I. He's not a "decent, ordinary guy who made a few mistakes". He's a monster - a monster who wears a number of very convincing masks.

We didn't see "the real Matt Hancock" in the jungle as - and this is really a key concept to understand when attempting to unravel these people - there is no real Matt Hancock. Anybody who's ever studied the etiology of psychopaths knows that they have no fundamental, core personality in the way that normal people do. Where what we might call the soul is in most of us, there is a black void in people with this disorder (who are far more common than one might think, and they absolutely infest politics and showbusiness). They're highly adept social chameleons who can easily morph and adapt to whatever the situation at hand requires - why Hancock was able to so effortlessly adjust to life "in the jungle" - motivated only by their insatiable need for power, wealth, status, sex - whatever happens to be most important to them at the time (often all of the aforementioned).

We see precisely the same phenomenon with Jonathan Van Tam, Chief Medical Officer in "the pandemic". Now that Jonny's starring role as a super-serious scientist on 'the news' is complete, he's moved on to a more traditional acting role, playing a character in BBC Series, 'Call The Midwife'.

Again, he will blend in seamlessly, just like Hancock did going from evil politician to jolly nice guy, and just like Sean Maguire did when he graduated from 'Grange Hill' to 'Eastenders'. It's all the same thing. If someone stars on a mainstream television broadcast and is a well-known public figure, then - regardless of whether they star on 'the news', a soap opera, or a reality TV show - they are an actor, and all prominent actors have the same objective - to push various social engineering campaigns and psy-ops, and to get you to believe in things that aren't real.

Soap operas are used for this just as much as 'the news' is, e.g., Coronation Street having a storyline demonising anti-vaxxers. As George Carlin didn't quite say, it's all one big show, and you're not in it - not unless you're in the club. You can be sure that everyone - yes, everyone - with a prominent mainstream profile is in it, and is completely owned, controlled, and often scripted, by the real power-players who perennially lurk in the shadows.

This has always been so, but now, they are really rubbing our faces in it - revealing the method, as they always eventually do - by having Hancock in the jungle and Van Tam on Call The Midwife. This is all in preparation for the looming collapse - the controlled demolition - of our culture. Any invading army knows (and we are currently under occupation) that to successfully overthrow a culture, first you have to destroy it from within, and a very effective tool for cultural destruction is ritual humiliation.

With what the social engineers are doing now, with Hancock particularly, they are humiliating us, and the fact that 12 million people are too stupid to see that, adds to the humiliation exponentially. It is the ruling classes saying to us, look at what you've become. A once proud, great nation with a history of producing brilliant art, great architecture, one of the most admired and envied cultures in the world.... is now reduced to this. Gormlessly cheering for an evil man who hates you, as he performs juvenile, repulsive, and meaningless tasks, abandoning his actual job and therefore, once again, egregiously betraying the public who he allegedly "represents".

The 12 million don't see it like this yet, but they will, when Hancock is publicly revealed for what he is and thrown under the bus (even if it's all a show and he's given a new identity and shipped off to some tropical island somewhere, once he's fulfilled his purpose). The public will be shown what he really is, because all the major newspapers didn't report on his £50,000 takeaway for no reason. They didn't report it had a secret, password-protected menu selling "pizza" for no reason.

This, much like 'Chekhov's rifle', was put out there because it is meant to come back. When it does, the UK public will be consumed with horror and self-disgust that they cheered, defended, and voted for this man, when this is what he really is.

It's meant to make people both disgusted in the culture, and disgusted in themselves, so they feel that they can't trust themselves and their judgements, so desperately need a totally new regime, new rules and new heroes, to save them.

This is part one of a three part series, because I can see other major social / cultural themes gaining pace in the same way, and I will cover those and bring it all together in parts two and three.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements, paywalls, or wealthy corporate backers - making it truly independent. If you would like to contribute to help this resource remain both independent and free to all, 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.