Any appearance of a celebrity in the media will presumably always be planned and pre-arranged. When it comes to Royalty they are followed by a whole team of journalists, dedicated news-magazines and all-around global press coverage of any significant event.
–
Kate Middleton is the current Duchess of Cambridge and married to Prince William who is destined to become king of the United Kingdom. Middleton has been discussed and analysed before* as she clearly does not appear fit to carry any child despite the large hands and her best efforts to put on weight.
–
•Catherine Elizabeth Middleton here pose in a purposefully staged shot heavily figuring her digit ratio as clearly female as it is altered to appear so
–
Childbirth would historically be a particularly important illusion* for the EGI. In order to effectively incarnate their inverted gender-role, the act of birth is clearly one of the most emblematic moments the Elite have to present to the public. And the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the public to fathom what they are presented.
–
Of course, once you have shed away the veil of magic the fact remains that the Elite still have to put up a performance for their public make-believe incarnation of the opposite sex to hold true. The fact there is nothing natural about the act of birth as portrayed by the EGI in public – they still make considerable efforts to play the act to perfection.
“Considering that Mia Farrow’s character in the movie is impregnated with Satan’s child by a coven of witches, the similarities are eerie and completely unsettling if you think about what it could possibly say about the newborn prince.”
– Lyndsey Matthews for Harper’s Bazaar
Sometimes fakery and fraud can be detected by the absence of natural human behaviour replaced by artificially over-produced scripts. In the case of Kate Middleton’s assumed fake child-birth, it seems the scriptwriters went to great lengths to find symbology in the dressing-code and thus thread far too heavy on the artificial nature of the commonly trivial occurrence of a newborn child.
–
Effectively, the scriptwriters behind the scenario for Kate Middleton’s magic act of producing a child she never was impregnated with seems to have their fingers stuck in the cinema cookie jar as they directly copied Mia Farrow’s dress from the occult masterpiece for some* : Rosemary’s Baby from 1968 (wiki)
–
•the very same dress worn by 50 years later well demonstrate the over-emphasis that can occur when you try too hard and there are no real facts to hang on to
—
*a fairly recent transvestigation by “Trans Investigator” – video here
–
*speculation on EGI childbirth magick in the forum – post here
–
*red dress coincidence theory from Harper’s Bazaar – article here
like this
Interesting parallel on the dress, as put in our faces by Harper’s Bazaar
who I read is America’s first Fashion magazine and ” assembles photographers, artists, designers and writers to deliver perspectives into the world of fashion, beauty and popular culture on a monthly basis”.
So what perspective is being delivered here by this mainstream organ of culture creation ?
I think the Harper’s are no “culture creators” – not even for those who lent that term credence. The rules of the higher classes of symbolic power are repetitive and boring. In the case of Rosemary’s baby the Harper’s have to prepare the story for the contemporary middle class which lacks historical and cultural memory.
It should be ”not even for those who lend that term credence”.
So how would you describe Harpers, Faye ?
Fashion agents ? Perspective deliverers ? I don’t know.
So, you think Harper’s job here is to ”prepare the story for the contemporary middle class”.
Ok, but why ?
Yes, I think fashion agents is a good description. As fashion agents they can only be successful if their stories are good. Because the contemporary middle class has no idea about cinema history they have to prepare literary the story for them.
The story in short is: The elite prefers to be perceived as (threatening) satanists than as (perverse) sex inverted genealogy club.
Rosemarys dress would have been sufficient for that, if the contemporary middle class wasn’t so uninterested in cinema history.
But it is also quite possible that the whole network of designers, agents, reporters, photographers etc. – by all competition – do cooperate in the main common interest of making profitable business with the royal policy makers.
(I’m sorry for my writing skills. Thanks for the correction)
No need to apologise Faye. Your efforts to communicate in a second language are excellent as far as I’m concerned.
Excuse my pedantry.
Thanks for your reply. Where I differ from that take is only really a slight tweak .
I’d say The elite prefer to be perceived as (threatening) satanists rather than (unthreatening) boring ‘normal’ (well, a bit inbred) people.
It’s all part of the myth. It helps make so-called ‘Elite’ Godlike. No need for it to be there to mask this ‘gender inversion’. Ha. This tactic should be clearly recognised by many of us as standard practice without it needing to be a cover for anything else.
There’s an old story about a guy who lived in a big walled house on the edge of a small town.
He was never seen but there was a rumour that he was a ruthless killer and would viciously murder anyone he got his hands on.
No one ever risked climbing over the wall to rob him.
Who do you think put the rumour out ?
The piece UNreal has written here contains some remarkable suggestions regarding Kate Middleton. He shows a picture of her waving and says ”a purposefully staged shot heavily figuring her digit ratio as clearly female as it is altered to appear so”. Crikey!
The digit ratio, as has been discussed before, is actually no real indicator of whether someone is a man or a woman, so to have had surgery to alter the length of someones finger to try and prove femininity, which this seems to suggest, seems fairly ridiculous.
All these outrageous claims perhaps serve the same cause as the satanist rumours. They make people seem somehow ‘super human’.
I don’t think they are.
It is surprising to see Tom Dalpra pop-up in the Fakeologist sub-blog dedicated to Elite Gender Inversion as Dalpra ridicule the subject and research on EGI since day one.
–
–
To claim that digit ratio is no indicator of gender is plain wrong and no surprise Tom Dalpra again choose to misrepresent this issue where both science and studies prove how hormone exposure does affect the 2d-4d ratio not only in humans but also in animals.
–
•Ruggle George | Human Finger types (1930)
•PHELPS VR. | Relative index finger length as a sex-influenced trait in man (1952)
•Gholamreza Amayeh, George Bebis, Mircea Nicolescu | Gender Classification from Hand Shape (2008)
–
In the same fashion we can not ‘completely’ trust neither fingerprints nor DNA, it can also be discussed to what degree index-ratio is accurate for gender identification. However it is not possible to refute or forget that among scientists and researchers there is consensus and research confirming 2D-4D digit ratio to be gender typical. In fact the only area where there is dissent, is if index-ratio is 95% correct, a little lower or a little higher.
–
Either way Tom Dalpra is not here to learn, so to adress the caption text under Kate Middleton’s image, it referred not as much to the question of digit ratio as it emphasised that the image was altered and the index-finger modified with photoshop – not physically.
–
In a sense it does not even matter if someone trust index-ratio to be 100% correct or in the 90% correct range. The fact is that if images of celebrity ‘females’ are altered merely addressing the length of the index-finger – then they provide all the evidence we need in their particular case themselves.
–
Kate Middleton would not need to photoshop her index finger nor hide it if she was a normal cisgender individual. Regardless of the length of any of her fingers.
–
Not many actually do any research on the topic of altered digits in images of celebrities, but when they do investigate this precise aspect of celebrity photo-fakery – they will see that altering and hiding hands and fingers is commonplace – especially on high-profile individuals as Catherine the Duchess of Cambridge.
—
(an exemple for those with enough visual acuity to see how Kate Middleton’s index finger is shorter in the left picture below)
A spirited reply as ever UNreal. All I would say is that I did try and talk to you seriously regarding the 2d 4d ratio initially , rather than ridicule it. Excuse me, I did gain something from your piece. I was drawn-in, not-so-much to diss the gender inversion ideas as to discuss the Harper’s article you had linked. I appreciate the chance to discuss these rare ideas.
I maintain that while the 2d 4d ratio is clearly something that on average can be an indicator of gender it simply is no hard and fast rule, at all, made absolutely clear to me by the hand of my own personal English rose, I’m currently holding. Yes , my girlfriends’ 2d 4d ratio, is the ‘male’ type.
What more can I say ?
In this section of the site dedicated to EGI – nobody expect you to say anything, Tom Dalpra.
–
And in fairness you really could spare us from your sophistry*, even inventing a position where you at any point have contributed constructively in an intelligible debate on EGI.
–
It is quite the opposite.
–
You have never stopped complaining about how ridiculous the whole topic (and even term) of Elite Gender Inversion is – all according to your own disinterest in the subject.
—
*bringing up the unverifiable testimony of your unidentified GF digit-ratio just show how shamelessly you abuse of logical fallacies to undermine logic, factual studies and verifiable research
Compare and contrast – 2015….was there ever a baby there? Or was it the baby daughter of the LAX dummy?
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/02/duchess-of-cambridge-gives-birth-to-baby-girl-prince-william
Baby number one ever needed its own psy-op to confirm the “pregnancy”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Jacintha_Saldanha
Well noted xileffilex & Faye
–
That baby looks completely lifeless in Kate Middleton’s large hands. Another detail that is curious is how when leaving the hospital we see such an important belly-bump still on the mother.
–
The belly-bump was also present in 2018 which begs the question : why would her skinny body leave sizeable (postpartum) belly but not being affected in any other way (face, thighs, buttocks, arms etc) ?
–
The sizeable belly is all the more curious when we consider that that belly bands are both healthy and appropriate for anyone that is attentive to their appearance. In this sense, the protruding postpartum belly displayed (not systematically prominent in every woman nor after every birth) by Middleton is clearly volontary…
–
As to why the Duchess would prefer to bypass such an obvious beauty-tip as as a belly band to keep her slim line in the case of a prominent postpartum belly – it seems like a deliberate decision made to appear more authentic in a role she merely plays – as if she actually just impersonate her part.
—
(below a selection of postpartum belly bands)
Another very peculiar re-occurence from Kate Middleton’s 2015 baby unveiling are the variable digit-ratio sizes. As emphasised in a previous response in this thread (here) – there is tampering going on with Middleton’s fingers, seemingly both in photos and in video footage.
–
Now, i’ll remind of how digit ratio is a strong gender marker, while not definite proof. However, when someone deliberately fake their gender-markers, such alterations nevertheless are strong indicators of gender inversion as no normal person would pay attention such a particular detail as a short index-finger – except the EGI of course. And for obvious reasons when we consider parts of the rich and powerful to practice Elite Gender Inversion (EGI).
—
(below are two images of the very same day where we can clearly see how the digit ratios do not match and where skilled image manipulation has indeed taken place)
Wow, I had not seen those images from 2015, thanks Xile. Watch the duchess when she steps out of the door holding her “baby”: She has no contact whatsoever with what she is holding, she does not seek eye contact or any kind of contact, she even moves so uncarefully when waving to the camera that if this was a newborn in her hands, any viewer of the scene would shout loud “Hey, lady, watch out, that is not a handbag you are having in hands.”
So, what are the suggestions here, because they seem like pretty big ones ?
Kate Middleton was born a man, and he fakes his pregnancies using a dummy for photo opportunities ?
Is this creative fantasy journalism or cutting edge research ? You decide.
One thing we can possibly (I won’t hold my breath ) be clear on is exactly what Kate Middleton’s finger ratio looks like.
We have thousands upon thousands of photographs of her waving. It’s part of her job.
It seems clear that her 2d 4d lengths are very similar ie not overtly to the feminine but also not towards the masculine side.
We have to remember perspective when looking at photographs and not be fooled by simple tricks of it. When looking at Kate’s hands sometimes a slight angle to a finger in relation to the lens and a digit might look a little longer. Thankfully, with Kate, we have so many photographs of her waving we can put that one to bed, at least.
Tom Dalpra is never shy of using fallacies and in this case we have a blatant ‘Appeal to Popularity’ fallacy in that Kate Middleton’s digit ratio must be trusted as there are so many pictures that prove it..
–
Probably i need not point out how poor Tom Dalpra’s dismissive, repetitive arguments really are. They build on the same type of lies and gatekeeping we see in most contrived events with abondant imagery – reminiscent of the many 911 vicsim images that thus would makes their deaths all so real (not so of course..).
–
For those who take interest in how thorough the public relation group that handles the Duchess Kate have been with her imagery – there are signs of tampering that persist in plentyful video imagery and photographs that anyone can study.
–
Most might still prefer to quickly assess the imagery for themselves in articles here on the EGI blog – which is why the imagery above is provided for all to see how the index-finger length of Kate Middleton changes and that her imagery is in fact retouched systematically.
–
The interpretation as to why the Elite would goto such lengths to disguise finger sizes is open to interpretation – but not the fact Kate Middletons hands and index-finger in particular are retouched in nearly all still images. Exemples provided in above posts and verifiable for anyone to research*.
–
There are exceptions to the common occurence of gender typical traits such as fingers, headsize, trachea, browbone, dental arch, spine curvature etc. – which makes the interpretation of only one or two indicators problematic on their own. But these traits are nevertheless gender typical which is wrongfully and repeatedly negated by many EGI detractors.
–
My interpretation as to why the Elite alter Kate Middletons digit-ratio is that she’s part of the EGI and that the EGI manipulate gender typical traits in their public appearence.
–
It appears that Tom Dalpra is on a mission to troll* the EGI subdomain pages by bringing up the same mute points below over and over:
Both points (a,b) are verifiably false assumptions. There are many openly admitted transgendered celebrities* and there are many scientific studies* on both humans and animals that attest to the gender typical nature of hands and digits, most predominantly the 2d-4d finger ratio but also the size and shape of hands.
—
*of course – Tom Dalpra has chosen not to consider verifiable facts and continue with some type of repetitive campaign both on air and in the odd comment based on sophism and social appeal to incredulity.
–
*we all can verify Elite Gender Inversion is a factual occurence in exoteric and esoteric form – Bruce Jenner, Bradley Manning and Chaz Bono all represent the exoteric side of EGI. Zeke Smith, Jenna Talackova, and Caroline Cossey illustrate the esoteric side. The existence of Elite Gender Inversion is in itself not really a matter of opinion – it is verifiable.
–
*digit ratio and hands are gender-typical as numerous studies and research show consistently:
• Digit Ratio – (wikipedia entry)
• Ruggle Geaorge – Human Finger types (1930)
• PHELPS VR. – Relative index finger length as a sex-influenced trait in man (1952)
• Amayeh, Bebis, Nicolescu – Gender Classification from Hand Shape (2008)
• Zheng, Cohn – Developmental basis of sexually dimorphic digit ratios (2011)
• Wu, Yuan – Gender Classification Based on Geometry Features of Palm Image (2014)
–
*as often, many ‘critical minds’ do not conduct any research on their own while they continue to opiniate on the same points that have been debunked repeatedly – with sources offered but not taken into consideration apparently
—
(herunder a figure from Zheng & Cohn showing typical gender dimorphic 2D:4D ratios)