RE: Why Radicalised Feminism is just another Weapon to Destroy White Christian Family Units and Accelerate the Demise of Western Nations !
The funniest thing about the "Gender-Blind Casting" video... It's already a reality, and always has been. If you're an actor, you're pretending to be something you're not. That's the point. If you can play both male and female roles, which I imagine every professional actor can convincingly, you can go for twice as many parts. Male and female actors do not limit themselves to playing their own sex. That's what the big controversy about dropping 'actress' was about. It wasn't feminists, it was men hating to be called actresses when they are in fact 'female' actors.
In fact, the term gender is a misnomer and why there can be a hundred. From my 1890 Webster's dictionary... Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is the natural distinction and applies to living objects. This definition hasn't changed. It's all fiction, Feminism is not about the female sex, it's about the female gender – and basically bollocks!
Germain Greer is a (gender) female character, but the actor who plays her is a (sex) male actor. Can you see she's a man wearing eyeshadow? The breast are a good place to look, fake of course, but because men have longer torsos, they have to start either too low, or finish too high, or be too big. These ones start too low and are too wide apart. Arms also too long.
Do you see the joke they play on us. She doesn't believe transgender women are women and has been apparently 'no platformed' for it. She is the epitome of 'transgender'.
Thats a great and interesting commnet @rachelwalker, thanks for taking the time to make it ) Yes absolutely its the case, but then I must say, call me old fashioned but i fail to see any real interest at all in a man playing a woman or vice versa ! Unless ofcourse the scenario demands it ! But why would you cast a man to play Princess Lea in Star Wars or a woman to play Luke Skywalker, its just well.....weird and pointless to me !! But it seems somehow this becomes more a more a thing we will be seeing i the future if we allow this mindbending leftitst agenda run it course and take us into the dark depths of ambiguity and more sexual confusion ! I must say that I am against it and yes it is a load of "bollox" as you so rightly put it ) ))
The whole men playing women and women playing men, I have thought about this. It's definitely nothing to do with what the left is trying to sell us – that suddenly no one has a clue what sex they are, and we're all gay... I think maybe it's easier to act the opposite sex. What I mean, if you're a man, you'll probably enjoy spending a lot more time studying women opposed to other men, and vice verser.
Also, if you're a director and you cast a man as say Princess Lea, that man doesn't have breasts, so you can an get your prosthetics department to create a perfect latex set without real ones getting in the way. Film is about hyper-real.
Returning on topic, I've done some study on the Suffragettes, it's depressing. They are sold to us as a good guys, getting women the vote. Looking at the photos with a critical eye... 1. I'm of the opinion the Pankhursts were men in drag (actors). 2. Reading up on the photographic technology they had, all pictures had to have been staged, I very much doubt anyone spent a night in prison. 3. If you read about the White Feather campaign, you'll see how sick those bastards were – persuading women to present men not in uniform (who didn't happen to be hiding behind petticoats) with white feathers to make them enlist. The thing is, I'm pretty sure wide scale suffrage was exactly about ending any semblance of democracy, making it possible to fix the vote.
I think the feminists we see in the news today are paid actors, paid by the descendants of the people who paid the Suffragettes I bet.
its easier to play the opposite sex ??? How can that be true seriously ?? I am sorry I cannot agree with that at all @rachellwalker !!
Ha, I guess in a sense that is an insane statement. I'm not an actor so I don't know, it's just hearing the bull they come out with, you know, about needing to find a blank canvas, could you get any more blank?
I don't know, it's supposition to try to understand what I see. Without totally depressing anyone, there are definitely a lot of Hollywood female actors who are not female. I doubt they always play female parts, more likely they have at least two stage names, one a woman, one a man (like authors have different pen names), and they sign non-disclosure contracts so they'll never let that cat out of the bag.
I wouldn't care about any of this if we weren't being manipulate by it. Lots of MSM fake news uses crossdressing actor in masks, so in my book they're fair game.
Male or female? I'd say female, but she's definitely wearing prosthetics, that nose isn't real, neither I suspect is the rest of the face. The crease at the corner of the mouth isn't natural.
This is how real they admit masks to being...
It's time to break this puppy and get back to reality. Hope I haven't infringed on your article too much.
Best regards.
Hey @rachelwalker, you have not at all infringed too much on my post ! I am just actually beginning to see and get what you are telling me ! It takes a while with words eh ?? to communicate that is !! lol But yeah totally who bloody knows what is real and what is not now ! what is female and what isnt ?? Its a world of confusion and illusion ! And yes we are all being horribly manipulated to a point where we no longer recognise the reality ! All i know is that i am a bloke and even if i were an out of work actor I would refuse to play a female role ! But then CGI and these masks make it difficult to discern what is real and not, so yeah totally agree with you ! I mean they even managed to convince us that two planes brought down those two towers on 911, when clearly they did not at all !!
Yes exactly, 911...
I've been researching this stuff since the Jo Cox event. Even before she was declared dead I knew it was manipulation. On my twitter feed someone said ‘…and her birthday is 22nd June' – the day before the vote. If you know UK law, the last day of legal campaigning is the day before we go to the polls, therefore Remain supporting Cox was targeted because of her birthday to enable Remain to have full media support on the last day… In apparently six days, events across Europe, the US, Australia were organised to celebrate Jo's birthday!? That's an MP no one had heard of the day before her death.
Everything I now know about media manipulation was triggered by trying to work out how our overlords managed to get that birthday in place. If you follow the logic, it's grim.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/16/labour-mp-jo-cox-shot-in-west-yorkshire
So do you think possibly the guy supposedly shouting " britian first " was a hitman for the deep state in Britain that wanted through her death to bolster the remain vote ?? Nothing would surprise me now as they will go to any lenght, yes even murder to get their agenda forward and into public veiw !!
I think it's more to do with trickery, the Joker. Have you heard of straw men? We are flesh and blood and as such are in the domain of the living. Corporations (corpse) occupy the world of the dead, fictions.
In law, the dead cannot communicate with the living, we exist in different jurisdictions; so somehow we have to be tricked into accepting the status of the dead to commerce with the dead. The UK is based in common law, law of the land, living (ever being encroached by Roman statute). The EU is based in Roman statute, law of the sea, dead. Under common law whatever isn't expressly against the law is lawful. Under Roman law, if you have not been expressly given a [revocable] right to do something, it is against the law. Roman law is for slaves, taking us back to before the Crucifixion.
Our straw man is the birth certificate, all legislation is between that bond and the government, we are unknowing agents for that entity and are held responsible for everything imposed on it, in bondage to it – flesh and blood + legal fiction or actor + character.
If you look at any reports showing pictures of the Jo Cox crime scene, there is something missing. Cox was apparently stabbed 15 times and shot three. I don't doubt Jo Cox was legally terminated that day, but what was Jo Cox, actor or character?
No evidence of flesh and blood, no photographic evidence of a body entered at trial. Thomas Mair entered no plea, and chose not to give evidence at trial, I suspect because library cards can't speak. I bet there was an id of Jo Cox in her bag (seen in photo).
Do you see why they always find id cards at the scene of terrorist attacks, it's because ids are the person they arrest or kill.
It's all sleight of hand. Remain wasn't about keeping the status quo, it was about removing common law, reimposing Roman slavery, and it's not over yet. The Crown owns all the players...
The Crown intends to remove God's law – man/blood, usurping it with Serpent law – person/water. The remedy is, as it always was, Jesus Christ. That's why government is so intent in destroying Christianity. If you find this interesting I'd suggest you look up the GLOSSA channel and Justinian Deception – both by Romley Stewart.
Weird stuff... (as you watch keep in mind Jo Cox–Joke Cock–the Joker–Actor–Mask)