The Unmooring of Identity and Klaus Schwab’s Promotion of Transhumanism

Introduction

Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual-transhumanist planted the seeds to foster a legal construct of disembodiment as identity, forged out of his paraphilia of owning female biology for himself, in the 1980’s. The advancement of his ideology that seeks to deconstruct sexual dimorphism in effort to cultivate the social and legal groundwork for melding humanity to AI, is too big a leap for many people to make. “Gender Identity” is a bridge to get you there.
Jennifer Bilek

The word ‘identity’ and the phrase ‘I identify as…’ have become buzzwords in the West due to gender identity ideology, the idea that we all have an innate gender identity. This ideology has glamourised the idea of individual identity in society. Critics of transgender ideology, particularly Jennifer Bilek, have demonstrated that gender identity is being promoted in order to normalise transhumanism. This article connects the notion of gender identity as a transhumanist trojan horse with the ideas of Klaus Schwab, one of the main players using the Covid-19 narrative as a means to push transhumanism.

What is an ‘identity’?

We can start this analysis by looking at what the word identity actually means. There are several dictionary definitions which reflect the different aspects of this word.

The Free Dictionary gives the following (relevant) definitions of the word ‘identity’:

1. a. The condition of being a certain person or thing: What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?
b. The set of characteristics by which a person or thing is definitively recognizable or known: “The identity of the nation had … been keenly contested in the period of nationalist opposition to Imperial rule” (Judith M. Brown).
c. The awareness that an individual or group has of being a distinct, persisting entity: “He felt more at home thousands of miles from Britain than he did in an English village four miles from his home … Was he losing his identity?” (Robert Fallon).

The first definition is an objective definition. In the question ‘What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?’ the answer must be a specific person(s). This question would generally be answered with something like ‘Plato is the author of the manuscript.’

The second definition can be objective or subjective. For example, when talking about an object being ‘definitively recognisable or known’ through a set of characteristics, the set of characteristics are observable objectively. If we are talking about a concept such as ‘the identity of the nation’ however, that is somewhat subjective. No doubt several different individuals could give differing answers to a question about the ‘identity of the nation’.

The third definition is even more subjective, as it involves an individual awareness or a ‘group awareness’. The individual awareness of being a ‘distinct, persisting entity’ can start with the Descartes phrase ‘I Think, Therefore I Am.’ (at least if we believe in ego!). Once we get beyond that, however, the term ‘identity’ gets more subjective. Further conceptions of ‘identity’ based on our enduring characteristics can be real, delusional, or a mixture of the two.

The Subjectification of Identity

The key plank of transgender ideology is the idea of gender identity. The idea of gender identity (in theory) is based upon our third definition of identity: having a distinct and persisting feeling of being a particular gender.

NSPCC defines Gender Identity as:

Gender identity is a way to describe how someone feels about their gender. For example, some people may identify as a boy or a girl, while others may find neither of these terms feel right for them, and identify as neither or somewhere in the middle.

In their conception, a ‘trans’ person is someone who does not ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’ and a ‘cis’ person is someone who does ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’.

This concept means nothing. Every even hypothetically coherent defining factor of gender identity is rejected by transgender activists.

The most obvious possible definition of gender identity is the performance of masculine and feminine stereotypes. This is admitted by some transgender-identified people, for example, Blaire White in this interview with Benjamin Boyce, states explicitly that his ‘transition’ was about not fitting into a stereotypical masculine role.

This definition is also implicitly used by transgender activists. For example, the ACLU, an organisation that has morphed from defending free speech to being obsessed with transgenderism due to a particularly loopy trans-identified female, Chase Strangio, promotes ‘trans kids’. These ‘trans kids’ are defined by gender stereotypes. For example, the ACLU posted a video from the father of a ‘trans girl’ who states that his son is a girl because of his like for stereotypically feminine toys, etc. There are lots more examples of this, see this article by Lily Maynard.

However, if you were to ask a trans activist, they would deny it is about gender stereotypes. This is seen in memes such as ‘Non-Binary people don’t owe you androgyny’ – the idea that being non-binary is not about presentation but an inner essence. This article from Everyday Feminism also explicitly denies the connection between expression and identity. (Of course, gender stereotypes/expression cannot lead to an objective and unchangeable ‘gender identity’ definition since stereotypes and modes of dress are changeable).

Once this is rejected as a definition, we could fall back on the idea of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the feeling that one is in the ‘wrong body’, the desire to ‘live as the opposite sex’. Whether or not someone has gender dysphoria, however, is rejected by transgender activists and ideology as a basis for gender identity. They claim that gender dysphoria is not necessary to have a trans identity. Even if they did attempt to argue that gender dysphoria means a different gender identity, this logic would not follow, as the existence of discomfort with a sexed body does not prove that gender identity is a valid construct.

The only criteria that trans activists have for being transgender, non-binary or any other gender identity is simply to claim that gender identity. Essentially, we have a ‘distinct, persistent’ feeling that is based on absolutely nothing objective – by their own arguments. This is different from my ‘feeling’ that I am a woman because of biological fact, as this is grounded is reality. We have identity unmoored, identity as entirely, completely abstract.

The Promotion of Transhumanism

Klaus Schwab is the leader of an organisation called the World Economic Forum. The WEF is a powerful global organisation, that has been put under a large amount of scrutiny during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic for its promotion of vaccine passports. The WEF also promotes Smart Cities – cities where every device is hooked up to a massive Internet of Things and where everything is managed and surveilled by AI. At first glance, Klaus Schwab appears to have nothing to do with the discussion regarding transgender identity.

However, Schwab is also attempting to reconstruct the word ‘identity’ to unmoor it from biological reality. There is one line from Schwab which is very interesting, that has been reposted and replayed multiple times on sites critical of the WEF:

What the the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.

Of course, this quote is advocating transhumanism, a position Schwab is passionate about.

The interesting point here is how this sentence is constructed. He does not say ‘The fourth industrial revolution will be a fusion between ourselves and technology’ which would be the most obvious expression of this idea. No, he specifically chooses the word ‘identity’, as if human beings are not actually biological beings based in the natural world but a collection of identities.

Like in the transgender construction, our bodies are merely a ‘physical identity’. In the same way as a transgender identified person takes hormones and has surgeries to change their physical identity, we will all fuse our biology with our online personas, our abstract unmoored selves that can be reinvented at will. (Online I can be a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, anything I say I am. I am an anonymous identity, amorphous, changeable at will.)

The higher self, found through surgery and hormones in the transgender conception, is found by our ‘fusion’ in Schwab’s conception. Schwab attempts to make butchery and blasphemy benign, a mere expression of identification rather than an attack on human nature. It abstracts the concept of identity from any mooring in human nature, cut it loose, make it a name that can be placed at will. Man and woman have no meaning, neither does natural and unnatural. All is merely a matter of identification.

Conclusion

Transhumanism is a wet dream of the elite. They normalise this concept through simple tricks such as using the word ‘identity’ as an empowering term. This applies to the transgender ideologists – such as Martine Rothblatt – as well as the Official Covid Narrative promoters such as Klaus Schwab.

It’s About The Vaccine Passport

Introduction

The Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a uniquely deadly virus that requires lockdowns, mandatory masks and everyone in the population to take a vaccine – has no scientific credibility. Multiple sources of evidence demonstrate that Sars-Cov-2 is not deadly to most people, that masks are not effective in preventing transmission of viruses, that lockdowns do not prevent deaths, and that the Covid-19 vaccine has a significant risk of severe side effects. Therefore, it follows that there must be another reason for the continued promotion of the Covid Narrative. This article will demonstrate that the main short-term aim of psychopathic governments is to implement a vaccine passport, even if only in a limited capacity.

The ‘Solution’ for Whom?

The vaccine passport – that is, only allowing people into venues and events if they have had the Covid-19 vaccine – has been put forward as a ‘solution’ to the ‘pandemic’. The idea of a vaccine passport has been floated in multiple countries – including the UK and US as well as Israel.

Boris Johnson announced on the alleged ‘freedom day’ of 19th July that a vaccine passport will be required to enter nightclubs. This is just one example of vaccine passport coercion being pushed by the government. Passports have also been floated for Premier League football matches and other mass gatherings.

Despite claims to the contrary, a vaccine passport cannot be about health or protection of people from Sars-Cov-2 infection. The studies done on these products only purported to show that the vaccines reduce symptoms of Covid 19, not that they actually prevent infection. The studies themselves were not designed to show a reduction in transmission. Tal Zaks, the Chief Medical Officer at Moderna – who produced one of the vaccines – stated that:

Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.

It follows that one can still catch and transmit the virus if one is ‘fully vaccinated’. For example, the mainstream media has claimed that one Australian man infected 60 people with the virus despite having two doses of the Moderna vaccine. The idea of ‘breakthrough cases’ – where vaccinated people get the virus – shows that the narrative that vaccine passports would protect people from catching Sars-Cov-2 is thus false.

(There are of course questions about the isolation of Sars-Cov-2 and the reliability of the PCR test to detect the virus accurately if it does exist. However, the idea of breakthrough cases shows their own narrative is false within the logic of their own narrative, which is all that is necessary to demonstrate for the sake of this article.)

It is much more convincing to argue that the vaccine passport is the touchstone of the new authoritarian system that is being built around us under the pretext of a virus.

There have been many different agendas that the elite have been advancing through the mechanism of the purported Covid 19 ‘response’. For example, one of these is economic. The lockdowns have had the effect of impoverishing the poor. This applies both in Western and non Western countries. Meanwhile, wealth has been transferred to billionaires like Bezos. These lockdowns are tied into a failing capitalist system, that needs to maintain the rate of profit to survive. Further impoverishment of the poor and the destruction of small businesses will help to prop up the capitalist system through a partially manufactured economic crisis on a grand scale.

The destruction of the economy has already been fairly comprehensive however, so why doesn’t the government declare ‘victory’ over the virus and get us ‘back to normal’? The truth is that the elite are gunning for more than a redistribution of wealth upwards. They want to create a technocratic, transhumanist control system, and the vaccine passport is the first real step in creating that goal.

The vaccine passport being in play has massive benefits in terms of control over a population. It allows them to create a system of inclusion and exclusion that is comprehensive and can be rolled out to every sphere of life.

The first benefit of a vaccine passport scheme is that Western populations are strong believers in vaccination. The fact that most people in the West consider vaccines to be proven science guarantees a significant uptake of vaccination off the bat. This gives them something that they can work with, as society can only function with a vaccine passport with a large uptake.

The second benefit is the fact that populations are known to become more authoritarian in response to pandemics (whether or not the pandemic is genuine). This is called Parasite Stress Theory. This makes the populace more willing to accept vaccine passports for their safety despite the lack of scientific rationale.

Thirdly, they have the benefit that they can be introduced in a step by step manner, beginning with international travel or large gatherings and ending with supermarkets and public services. People will then rationalise each step as not being that bad, whereas an immediate full spectrum passport would be more likely to create resistance.

The fourth benefit that they have for the elite is that they can be switched off at any time. Anyone who dissents from the narrative can simply have their digital passport made invalid. This prevents resistance to the government.

The more people get the vaccine, the easier it is for the government to create vaccine passports. As such, we are seeing a massive campaign on a scale never before seen to get people – particularly young people, who according to their own data are at extremely low risk from Covid 19 – to get the vaccine.

This spreads from celebrities encouraging take up, such as England manager Gareth Southgate, to bribes to take the jab – such as the offer of free food. A vaccine centre was set up in fast fashion outlet Primark, presumably because the elite assume that this is where young people shop.

If it was purely about health, this would not be happening. For a start, even if we granted that the vaccine is effective, people at minuscule risk do not need a vaccine. We also have absurdities such as offers of cheaper unhealthy junk food to get a vaccine supposedly for your health.

Then, of course, there are the side effects which the government and media refuse to discuss honestly, instead repeating the mantra safe and effective. The long term side effects of these mRNA/adenovirus vector vaccines are also unknown. This applies even more strongly given that this is not just a new vaccine but whole new technologies that differ from traditional vaccines.

If you assume that the push for everyone to get a jab and the billions spent on marketing the jab is about making a vaccine passport viable, then it all makes sense.

Conclusion

The immediate short term priority of the freedom movement needs to be to demand vaccine passports are never introduced. We need to boycott any business still demanding any form of corona restrictions and making clear a vaccine passport will not be tolerated.

Why The Left is ‘Obsessed’ With Palestine

Introduction

Some people in the mainstream media, as well as certain alternative right wing or right leaning outlets, accuse the left of being ‘obsessed’ with Palestine. This portrayal of ‘obsession’ implies that the focus on Israel is completely irrational. The only way that it can then be explained is to assume that those focusing on criticing Israel are in fact just anti-Semitic. This article will argue that, contrary to this stated view, anti-imperialists have entirely rational reasons to focus on Palestine.

Western Support for Israel

Many states may do things that I personally disagree with. Many countries, including those in the crosshairs of Western imperialism, have homophobic laws (such as Iran). Those who would like to criticise the anti-imperialist focus on Israel often point to such examples. Bringing up such examples is meant to ‘prove’ that anti-imperialists are hypocritical because they mainly criticise crimes in Western client states.

This argument is misguided. This is because the UK and US directly participate in Israeli crimes through funding and arming the country.

The British group Campaign Against Arms Trade contains information about the arms that the UK sells to Israel.

Since the Conservative government was elected in May 2015, the UK has licensed over £400 million worth of arms to Israeli forces, including:
£183 million worth of ML22 licences (military technology)
£104 million worth of ML10 licences (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
£20 million worth of ML4 licences (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)
£4.6 million worth of ML6 licences (Armoured vehicles, tanks)
£1.9 million worth of ML3 licences (ammunition)
£1 million worth of ML1 licences (small arms)

UK Palestine activists have recently targeted UAV Tactical systems factories, which are part owned by Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. For example, a factory in Leicester was occupied by the group Palestine Action for this reason:

Palestine Action members also “barricaded gates, destroyed property and vandalised the premises to prevent any more British-made drones being sent to commit atrocities in Gaza”, according to a statement from Palestine Action.

The same also applies to the US, which is Israel’s main backer. Reuters reported in 2016 that:

The United States will give Israel $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade, the largest such aid package in U.S. history, under a landmark agreement signed on Wednesday.

The US also sells weapons to Israel:

In addition, the United States is the largest seller of weapons to Israel, whose military arsenal now includes 362 U.S.-built F-16 warplanes and 100 other U.S. military aircraft, including a growing fleet of the new F-35s; at least 45 Apache attack helicopters; 600 M-109 howitzers and 64 M270 rocket-launchers. At this very moment [the 2021 assault on Gaza], Israel is using many of these U.S.-supplied weapons in its devastating bombardment of Gaza.

Mint Press News has also reported that US charities fund Israeli settlements. This is relevant due to the fact that tax deductions for charities in the US mean that the state subsidises this funding.

The scale of their support cannot be determined. A 2014 study of over 3,600 Jewish organizations by the Jewish Daily Forward found they sent $1.7 billion, or 11.9 percent of their budgets, to Israel each year. But like U.S. Zionism in general, organizations voluntarily funding Israel are not exclusively Jewish, nor did the Forward claim to have fully reviewed even the Jewish sector.

The US also protects Israel in the UN Security Council, vetoing resolutions that are critical of their war crimes in Palestine.

It follows that there are two reasons why it is reasonable and logical for ‘the left’ to put special emphasis on Palestine.

The first reason is the issue of moral responsibility. As the UK and US sell Israel weapons, they are responsible for how those weapons are used. The UK and US governments are not ignorant of the war crimes being committed by the Israeli apartheid regime. They know that the weapons will be used against Palestinian civilians, but they sell them the weapons anyway. This means that citizens of the US and UK have a moral obligation to put pressure on their governments to stop arming Israel.

On the other hand, focusing on criticising countries who are targets of Western imperialism – such as Iran or Cuba – is at best pointless. At least in theory, I have some influence over what the UK government does, as I am a UK citizen. I am also in a position where I can actively oppose what the UK government does by protesting against it. This is not the case for things that happen in countries like Iran, where I cannot affect the scenario in any way whatsoever, even if it is a case where I passionately disagree with what the Iranian government is doing.

Of course, there are also significant problems with believing and verifying claims made by imperialist governments against their enemies, and these claims – even if true – being used as a justification for bombing or sanctions.

Neither of these reasons have anything to do with Judaism or anti-Semitism. In fact, people making the argument ignore the heavy criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia by the same people criticising Israel. Saudi Arabia gets criticised for much the same reasons as Israel does: they are armed by western governments and use those weapons to bomb civilians, in the Saudi case, against Yemeni civilians.

[There are further reasons that Israel is focused upon as a subject for critique, notably the fact that Israel helps to further imperialist agendas in other countries such as Syria, but this will not be discussed in detail here.]

Conclusion

The narrative that anti-imperialists are ‘obsessed’ with Palestine – implied or stated to be because of some sort of animosity towards Jews – is false. In fact there are entirely rational and moral reasons why Israeli apartheid is a focus of anti-imperialist activism.

The Censorship of Women for Stating Biological Truth and the Contradiction of Left Wing Independent Media

Introduction

A large number of women (and in some cases, men) have been censored, and in some cases legally harassed, for stating the fact that biological sex is immutable and men cannot become women. Left wing independent media, though they often decry online censorship, ignore this aspect of the phenomena despite its prominence. Left wing independent media fails to address the fundamental contradiction of maintaining that trans rights are anti-establishment, while its critics are banned by that very same establishment.

The Evidence

We can start with people who have been banned from Twitter for expressing opinions that disagree with gender identity ideology.

Meghan Murphy. Meghan Murphy is the editor of the publication Feminist Current. She was banned from twitter for calling ‘Jessica Yaniv’ – an infamous pervert who unsuccessfully sued female beauticians for refusing to wax his genitals – a ‘he’ pronoun.

Helen Staniland. Helen Staniland is a campaigner for women’s single sex spaces who was banned from Twitter for asking ‘The Staniland Question’. This is: “Do you believe that male-sexed people should have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with women and girls.” [Note: While I was in the process of writing this post, Staniland’s account was reinstated.]

Kellie Jay Keen (Posie Parker). Kellie Jay Keen was banned by Twitter for criticising Susie Green, the current leader of the ‘trans-child’ charity Mermaids. Green took her child to Thailand when he was 16 to have genital surgery. Keen accurately referred to Green having her son castrated (the surgery involves castration).

Karen Davis. She runs the Youtube channel You’re Kidding Right. She has also been banned from twitter.

Graham Linehan. Linehan is a well-known comedy writer who was banned from twitter for tweeting that ‘men aren’t women’.

Fred Sargeant. A gay activist who was present at Stonewall in 1969. His wesbite states that:

In December 2019 he became active again over his concern that the historical record of the late 60s and early 70s had undergone a significant change that erased the prominent figures and their contributions as well as the primary role of same-sex activism during that period.

On in other words, the reframing of Stonewall to be primarily about ‘black trans women’. He has been banned from Twitter.

Furthermore, whole subreddits have been banned from Reddit. In particular, the Gender Critical subreddit was banned on grounds of it being ‘hateful‘. This subreddit had 65,000 subscribers and 7 years of content.

Books have also been targeted. For example, Abigail Shrier, author of a book exploring Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria in teenage girls called Irreversible Damage, had her book pulled from Target and Amazon refused to allow her publisher to advertise the work. Ryan Anderson, another conservative writer, had his book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, completely removed from Amazon.

Consequences can go beyond censorship. There have been women that have lost jobs and work because of expressing gender critical views. In reality, this amounts to a form of censorship because it prevents viewpoints being expressed. The situation regarding this has improved in the UK with the ruling in the Maya Forstater case that people cannot be fired for gender critical opinions, but it is only through hard work that an absurd original ruling was overturned. Furthermore:

What’s chilling about the cases of Forstater, Keogh and gender-critical feminists who have lost their jobs or been No Platformed from universities is the warning they send to others tempted to stick their heads above the parapet. Say what you know to be true and you might ultimately be vindicated. But you will have to endure the gut-wrenching anguish of thinking your career is over and your livelihood wiped out. […] Despite notable successes the message remains: if you want a quiet life, shut up.

This article, from the highly recommended website Women are Human, provides an excellent list of cases of women losing work and facing violent threats for disagreeing with gender identity ideology. Here are a few examples from the article, I would suggest that you click to read the rest:

Author Gillian Philip, who was part of a team of writers of hugely successful animal fantasy novels for children under the name Erin Hunter, was sacked following a Twitter pile-on when she Tweeted her support for JK Rowling. In the 24 hours after adding #IStandWithJKRowling to her Twitter handle, the Scots author received hundreds of abusive messages.
Stella Perrett: the cartoonist was fired by the Morning Star newspaper and Public and Commercial Services Union after one of her pieces was branded ‘transphobic’. It depicted a crocodile entering a pool of newts with the caption ‘Don’t worry your pretty little heads. I’m transitioning as a newt!’

Another woman, Lisa Keogh, was recently investigated by her university for stating that ‘women have vaginas’ and that men are physically stronger than women. Although the investigation did not lead to any punishment it did lead to two months of unnecessary uncertainty and stress for Keogh.

There are even cases of legal consequences for women who disagree with gender ideology. Marion Millar, a woman from Scotland, was recently arrested and charged with a ‘hate crime’ for tweeting out pictures of Suffragette ribbons. Kate Scottow was also harassed legally for calling Stephanie Hayden male. She did manage to get this overturned, but as pointed out above, process can also be a form of punishment.

The Contradiction of Left Wing Independent Media

Independent media can be defined as media that gets funding from non-corporate sources or no funding at all. In this article, I am referring to the online video content produced by a particular section of the left – from very soft alternatives such as Kyle Kulinski, to somewhat more critical alternatives such as Jimmy Dore, MCSC Network, Graham Elwood and The Grayzone. There are also some channels that are not independent as they are funded by other state broadcasters but fit in in terms of style and presentation here, such as Lee Camp and Abby Martin (when she worked for Telesur). There are also writers who would fit into this bracket, such as Caitlin Johnstone.

It is a milieu with which I am very familiar, having watched hours of content from Dore in particular. Of course, to what degree some of the people in this milieu are ‘left wing’ can be debated, but all of these market themselves as such, and also market themselves as pro free speech.

Such independent media outlets have a vested interest in defending free speech on the grounds that they are often on the receiving end of censorship, or soft censorship. For example, MCSC Network and Graham Elwood have been demonetised by Youtube. The reason for this is obvious: these channels often oppose certain narratives which the government wish to promote. For example, Elwood has done many videos on relationships between members of the elite and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Many people in this milieu also claim to be anti-censorship on principle.

However, I have never seen anyone in left wing independent media address the issue of women being censored for speaking out about transgender ideology, or not believing that obviously predatory males that declare themselves women are actually women. To be honest, I have seen more people on the left defend Alex Jones’s right to freedom of speech than I have them defending any woman on this issue. The only independent media that sometimes defend women on this issue are on the right.

Why are left wing independent media ignoring this issue despite the fact it fits in with their free speech stance?

The first point to note here is that this environment is heavily male dominated, and there is virtually no overlap with feminist circles. Women in this environment – such as Fiorella Isobel – are the exception. This means that there is virtually no female perspective to push back on the problems with letting men into women’s spaces and the misogyny of men claiming a ‘female identity’ based on gender stereotypes.

Because these spaces have no overlap with actual feminist media, I doubt that the (primarily) men in this milieu could even outline a gender critical or radical feminist position on the question, let alone come up with an argument to rebut it.

Secondly, it is important to note that this environment is largely made up a group that we could refer to as ‘disgruntled liberals’, mainly American ones. The path for people in this group is something like this: they initially supported the Barack Obama electoral campaign, hoping that electing a liberal black man could bring change after the warmongering, homophobic George W. Bush presidency. However, they quickly became disillusioned by Obama continuing the wars and neoliberal economic policies. They turned to Bernie Sanders, but saw even his soft social democratic campaign be sabotaged by the estabishment so Hillary Clinton could be installed as Democratic nominee. Such people began to look at alternatives to the status quo for completely understandable reasons. But they lack the grounding in socialism and feminism to fully understand how women are oppressed as a group due to biological reality as this reality is obscured by liberalism.

There is also a traditional urge among modern American liberals to differentiate themselves from the American Christian right, due to their opposition to policies such as same sex marriage. While the religious aspect of the American culture wars has faded, it was one of the most important aspects of the George W. Bush presidency when these people were forming their political views. Implicitly they think that taking a pro-transgender stance does this, as they believe that trans rights are the new gay rights. (It’s worth noting that there are examples of right-wing Christians that support transgender ideology, primarily to avoid having an effeminate gay son. Such as this parent promoted by the ACLU, and the case of Kai Shappley.)

They, of course, may also have concerns about cancellation, if they are aware of the problems with gender identity ideology. Individuals who receive money from platforms such as Patreon do have to ensure an income stream by playing to what their audience wants. The audience of such programs shares a similar background to the channels themselves and gender critical feminism is not on the audience’s agenda either.

There is a further question we need to ask. Independent media know full well that the stuff that is censored is the stuff that the MSM don’t want you listening to. Why, then, do independent media refuse to question what this censorship states about transgenderism?

Actual human rights movements are smeared by the establishment. Look at how – for example – the Free Palestine movement are endlessly smeared as being anti-Semitic, Free Assange supporters as being Russian assets and rape apologists, and people who question state narratives on Covid are crazy conspiracy theorists. This also applies to historical movements such as the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights movements – the state and media smeared them and in some cases used outright violence (the force feeding of women, the murder of Fred Hampton).

On the other hand, transgender identified people are celebrated in the media. Look at the case of Ellen Page, previously an open lesbian and now calling herself a ‘transgender man’. This is celebrated as brave and progressive and her existence as a woman is erased from all media reports – now only male name and male pronouns are used for her. The extremely lesbophobic message sent by the celebration of Page’s ‘transition’, that lesbians are really men and should have their breasts cut off, is nowhere criticised except by feminist media and a few right wing outlets.

Independent left wing media looks at this issue through the human rights lens. They fail to see the problem because they ignore the lens they apply to other issues – often very well, in the case of people like Robbie Jaeger – that is, Follow the Money.

Transgender ideology is a huge cash cow for Big Pharma. The more people that take puberty blockers, hormones, and have surgery the more money they make. They have a vested interest in making as many people identify as trans as possible and transgender surgery is considered to be a growing market. Not to mention that if children take puberty blockers followed by hormones, or if adults have their ovaries/testes removed, they can no longer produce their own hormones. This makes them lifelong patients of Big Pharma, and as far as the industry is concerned, a lifelong patient is the best kind of patient. The genital surgeries themselves are expensive, and often require multiple revisions because they are riddled with complications – which means even more money is made by unscrupulous surgeons. Women who speak out are threatening to throw a wrench in this gravy train, so they must be shut up.

Conclusion

The censorship of women is a notable facet of narrative control carried out by the establishment that is ignored by the left due to its own internal biases, even when they claim to be pro free speech.

See also: The Modern Left Has Lost Touch with Reality: Part 2: Transgender Ideology. This article focuses on the British left wing alternative outfits such as The Canary. The milieu focused on in this article is a bit different, as these American independent media outlets are a bit different, although they both ultimately fail in following the money.

Boycott Puma Day of Action

A quick post about the Boycott Puma Day of Action that took place on the 10th of July for Palestine.

The Boycott Puma idea comes from the fact that Puma sponsors the Israeli Football Association.

As one of the world’s top athletic apparel makers and the only international sponsor of the Israel Football Association, Puma’s sponsorship brings international legitimacy to the IFA’s actions. The IFA, as documented by Human Rights Watch, includes football clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Puma’s current and past exclusive licensees in Israel have operations in illegal Israeli settlements.

The Boycott Puma action was taking place as part of a set of actions across 8th-10th July. Yesterday there was a student protest in London, going to different universities that support Israeli apartheid.

The Boycott Puma Day of Action was taking place in many different cities around the country.

There was an action in London at the Puma store located there, but most of the other actions were outside retailers that stock Puma products such as JD Sports and Sports Direct.

The Birmingham event was outside the JD sports shop in the town centre.

JD Sports with Palestine protesters outside

The event was very small. There was a table for Birmingham Stop the War coalition and one for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. It mainly consisted of handing out leaflets to passers by. One of the organisers did try to speak through a loudspeaker on a few occasions. Unfortunately there seemed to be problems with the microphone, as it kept cutting out. Here is some footage:

(Bitchute equivalent)

Tinfoil Lizards: An Essay on Conspiracy

The concept of conspiracy is much maligned by the mainstream media, the government, and random liberals on social media. The phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used to dismiss people who are cynical about the motivations of government and corporations.

The Concept of Conspiracy

As stated by leftist analyst Michael Parenti:

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance.

There would be no reason for this to be a concept in law if it was a non-existent phenomenon.

We know that people from all groups and all walks of life can conspire. Everyone is aware of this, as even things like petty office politics can inspire people to get together and plot against each other. To dismiss the idea of conspiracy prima facie is an unwarranted bias. If ordinary people can conspire on a small scale than politicians, bureaucrats, and military intelligence are clearly capable of conspiring on a large scale.

I will address three points that are often invoked by anti-conspiracy analysts, who dismiss the notion of conspiracy as a relevant mode of analysis. I will argue that these arguments are flawed as a reason to reject conspiracy as a relevant factor when examining the operation of government power.

The Invocation of the Ridiculous

The first argument against conspiracy is the ‘Invocation of the Ridiculous’. This involves the anti-conspiracy theorist picking a theory that is absurd, but that has at some point been suggested seriously by a ‘conspiracy theorist’. For example, Alex Jones once suggested that 87-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supreme court justice, died as a ‘blood sacrifice’ to help the Democratic party get the vote out and to enhance their ‘Satanic energy’.

Anti-conspiracy theorists like to invoke these sorts of examples to dismiss well-reasoned and well evidenced examples of conspiracies, or even critical questions about official narratives. This is a fallacious argument, as it involves attempting to marry the ridiculous to the reasonable in order to dismiss the reasonable.

The Psychological Analysis

Psychological analysis is used as a tool to subtly undermine the concept of conspiracy. I am not trying to argue that analysing why someone believes something, and possible psychological motivations for that belief that stem from other motivations than the factual nature of the belief, is always invalid.

However, these ‘why people believe in conspiracy theories’ articles are generally framed in a particular way. The articles start by dismissing the idea of the ‘conspiracy theory’ prima facie, leaving only possible psychological motives for belief. This is not the same as demonstrating why a belief is incorrect or flawed, and then putting forward suggestions as to why people believe it anyway.

In some cases, they will employ the invocation of the ridiculous in their introduction, by providing a list of conspiracy theories that includes the reasonable with the bizarre.

For example, this article:

When people encounter disparate information, it is only natural to look for explanations that connect the dots. Conspiracy theories offer explanations that provide this connection. They also suggest that the underlying causes are hidden from public view. When confusing things happen, believers can then assume that it is because they are being intentionally deceived by outside forces.

The framing of this paragraph implies that explanations are just confusing because life is confusing. The idea of government manipulators is implicitly dismissed, as is the idea of ‘intentional deception’. The role of deception in government, however, is extremely relevant, the best examples being the lies that drove Western intervention in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

There is also often a tinge of middle-class smugness about such articles. The above article is also quoted as saying:

Lower educational status tends to be associated with higher levels of conspiracy belief.

The most plausible explanation for this is that middle-class people who are doing well out of a particular system have less material reason to question that system.

Such articles also argue that the need to feel special drives a belief in conspiracy theories. For example, this article:

Big events attract conspiracies because the knowledge the theorist possesses wouldn’t be special otherwise. If the knowledge isn’t special, then they aren’t special for possessing it. The suggestion is therefore that a conspiracy theorist wants to feel special, and this desire emerges from self-worth based insecurities.

This argument would suggest that conspiracy theorists would keep their special knowledge to themselves, rather than trying to convince other people. After all, the conspiracist would no longer be special if he or she convinces others to believe in the conspiracy.

(If I were engaging in my own pop psychology argument here, I would suggest the need to feel special is not observable so much in conspiracy theorists as it is in obnoxious middle-class liberals. In their case, a sense of superiority stems from their faith in government. After all, how could any of us be so stupid as to question the authorities?)

The ‘irrelevancy’ argument

This is an argument that has been made by Noam Chomsky. On this issue he is generally compared with Michael Parenti, another left-wing scholar who believes in the relevance and importance of analysing conspiracy.

Chomsky states that:

Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make? It’s not an issue of any general political interest. And there’s a huge amount of energy and effort going into that.

He believes that a discussion of issues such as the Kennedy Assassination and 9/11 are a distraction:

[Conspiracy theories] draw enormous amounts of time and energy away from serious activism on urgent matters (and may well be welcome to those in power for that reason, as the JFK assassination investigations have been, so internal government documents indicate).

I believe that on this issue, Parenti has by far the superior case. Chomsky is fairly hostile to the idea of high-level conspiracies, believing that they do not play an important role in government and that structural factors matter more when analysing the actions of capitalist states. Parenti rightly argues that this is a false distinction, as institutions such as the CIA are “an institutionalized conspiracy.”

As for such issues being a distraction, this argument is a weak one, because the evidence behind such conspiracies can demonstrate the true nature of power. As Parenti states:

To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects.

The Ulterior Motive for Anti-Conspiracy Thinking

Even an anti-conspiracist would have to acknowledge that certain conspiracies happened because they were exposed. Nixon conspired with his aides to cover up the burglary of the Watergate building. In that case we have extensive evidence of conspiracy due to the existence of recordings made by Nixon. We know that there was a conspiracy to undermine the candidate Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary election due to the emails that were leaked to Wikileaks.

Why, given these proven cases, is it considered illegitimate to speculate about other events such as 9/11, JFK assassination, or the Skripal affair, where the full facts are not available but where evidence and reasoning can lead to reasonable inferences?

The reason is that the anti-conspiracist wants to keep certain topics off limits. According to the anti-conspiracist, criticism of government narratives can only go so far. When it comes to the current capitalist and imperialist system and the players within it, the reality is that no question should be taken off the table and evidence for all forms of evil should be critically considered.

Conclusion

The consideration of the conspiracy when it comes to analysing the function of governments is a valid approach that is unfairly criticised through the label ‘conspiracy theory’. Rather than reject the concept of conspiracy, we need to critically assess the evidence and motives for a conspiracy on a case-by-case basis. While there are some conspiracies that are not grounded in reality, there are many more that have strong evidence to support them. I will end with a quote from this article comparing Chomsky and Parenti, which is recommended to the reader:

Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone through the lens of Techno-Tyranny

Introduction

On the 1^st June 2021, Birmingham (UK) introduced a ‘Clean Air Zone’. The plan is to charge vehicles that emit too many greenhouse gases a fee for every day that they enter the city centre. The supposed motivation for this is to lower emissions and improve air quality, thus improving the quality of life of people who live in Birmingham. As with any capitalist state initiative, however, we have to look beneath the surface, and in this case there is a link to the Smart City agenda.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone

The Birmingham Clean Air Zone – which came into force on the 1^st June – will charge any non-compliant household vehicle that enters into the zone or drives within the zone £8 per day. Non-compliant vehicles are those that are (considered to be) non-fuel efficient and so emit too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There are various exemptions to these rules, but for our purposes they are not important.

The main aspect which I will focus upon in this article is the mechanism by which the Clean Air Zone will be enforced. According to the BrumBreathes website, the official website for the changes:

Vehicles that do not meet the emission standards for the zone will be detected by an ANPR camera (automatic number plate recognition).

Number plates that are non-compliant with the low emissions zone will be flagged for a fine.

What precisely is ANPR? The RAC has an article discussing the basics of the technology.

ANPR technology converts an image of a number plate into machine-encoded text, this is called optical character recognition.

The technology can be used across CCTV, traffic enforcement cameras and ANPR-specific cameras. Infrared illumination can help cameras to capture a clearer image.

ANPR cameras are used to monitor speeding vehicles and handing out fines based on that basis. The police also use them to monitor stolen vehicles.

A Step Towards Smart Cities

Smart Cities – cities with endless sensors and monitoring managed by AI – are a dream of the global elite. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum are promoting the smart city concept through the creation of a ‘Pioneer Cities’ program. While smart cities are promoted as the solution to humanity’s problems, in reality, they will lead to the end of privacy – as every single device, even a kettle, will be hooked up to the ‘Internet of Things’ for monitoring. One of the main narratives being used to drive the smart city is the Official Covid Narrative – with smart cities being sold as ‘pandemic management’.

However, another idea being used to sell smart cities is the ‘green’ agenda. A significant proportion of Western populations are concerned about genuine environmental issues such as pollution and plastic waste, and this can be leveraged by Smart City promoters to push their agenda. For example, this article from 2018 talks about how the ‘Internet of Things’ is the best way to improve the environment by making everything more efficient. In reality, smart cities would devastate the environment due to the large amount of rare earth metals required for chipping everything and the creation of 5G networks, but that aspect is ignored by smart city promoters.

It is clear that the Birmingham Clean Air Zone is being used in such a manner, due to the fact that its surveillance policies will automatically slap online payable fines on non-compliant cars through ANPR processes. These cameras will be able to collect a large amount of data on drivers which allows for a higher level of privacy violation, a key concept of the Smart City.

On an even more sinister level, the idea of the Clean Air Zone may begin to normalise the exclusion of individuals from certain areas for not meeting certain criteria. This is being pushed extremely hard in Britain at the moment through the attempted normalisation of vaccine passports – preventing people from going to social events unless they have had the Covid-19 vaccine. The Official Covid Narrative and the ‘green’ agenda may merge with the concept of the ‘climate lockdown’ – an idea already being promoted and normalised in the mainstream media.

Conclusion

An initially innocuous idea – that of reducing pollution in the Birmingham City Centre – is actually tied into deeper agendas for the introduction of ‘smart cities’ and ramping up mass surveillance under the guise of ‘protecting the planet’.

Free Palestine London 12 June 2021

I went to London to attend the Free Palestine event organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. The event started at 1 o’clock and took place outside Downing Street.

Free Palestine crowd outside Downing Street.

According to an announcement made by one of the organisers, there were 8,000 people at the event. This was a lot smaller than I expected given that the last London protest had around 180,000 people according to media reports. I happened to see Gordon Dimmack at the protest and he told me that the previous protest was far larger.

I arrived about 1 o’clock. I walked down Whitehall approaching Downing Street from Trafalgar Square. On the way there were a few signs of the protest including a banner from the Jewish Socialist Group and also some flags.

When I arrived there it was obvious that every left wing groupuscule was at the event. They generally had tents. The ubiquitous Socialist Workers Party, the International Bolshevik Tendency, Counterfire etc. The group The People’s Assembly were there handing out flyers – left wing Covid narrative believers overlapping with the Kill the Bill movement.

The Palestine events I have been to this year have an interesting demographic mixture. The events attracted Muslim protesters but also some people who would be considered ‘woke’: there were some people with signs like ‘Queers for Palestine’. (Of course, not all Muslims are socially conservative, but as a generalisation, in the UK they are more than average.)

Cardboard signs representing graves of Palestinians killed by Israel, in background sign reading "No Justice No Peace Israel is a Terrorist State' — Memorial to children killed by Israel

There were several different speakers, from union activists, Palestinian activists, and politicians. Both John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn were there. Here is John McDonnell speaking with some crowd footage.

(Bitchute Equivalent)

The rapper Lowkey was also at the event, which was awesome. He was at the first event that I went to in London, the Free Assange march on February 2020. He did some of the lines from his song ‘Long Live Palestine’.

(Bitchute Equivalent)

It was very hot on and off (the clouds going over reduced some of the heat). I wandered around the protest several times to the extent it was possible (bollards were put up, so later on it was difficult to get round the back). I have some footage filmed from the back of the event earlier on, of some marchers joining the main protest.

(Bitchute Equivalent)

To be honest I was hoping for more people to turn out at this event, given the size of the previous protest. The movement needs to make sure that it can maintain the momentum to pressure the government to stop selling weapons to Israel (the bare minimum demand). The truth is, it is easy to forget about Palestine because we are not facing the consequences of what is happening there. There are more organised events coming up in early July, so we need to keep up the pressure on this government:

https://twitter.com/PSCupdates/status/1404121648089944073?s=20

IOn

On the plus side it does seem like more ordinary people are supporting Palestine than there have been previously. I am hoping that the smears of all Palestine activists as anti-Semitic are starting to fail, although many right-wing outlets are trying to maintain that connection. The occupying of factories producing weapons to sell to Israel is also a very positive sign that shows there are people who are willing to take risks to defend Palestine.

Signs reading Stop Arming Israel, Hands of Al Aqsa, Stop Bombing Gaza, FOA Friends of Al Aqsa

More footage is available on Bitchute and Youtube.

Birmingham Protests 5th June 2021

It could be just me, but it seems as if there are a huge number of protests going on, more than ‘normal’. I don’t mean this from the point of view of one ideology or another. I just mean people protesting about things in general. It could be me simply being more aware of protests, but at the moment we have multiple Free Palestine events, Kill the Bill, Anti-Lockdown events, that have all drawn significant numbers of people.

There were two events on the 5th June, both taking place in Victoria Square at the same time (12 noon). (There was also a third protest going in in Kings Heath against the Low Traffic Neighbourhood organised by the Workers’ Party of Britain, and there were some Extinction Rebellion people hanging out and chalking near the intersection between New Street and Corporation Street.)

The two protests that took place in Victoria Square were by BrumLAG (Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group) and a group seeking to stop the deportation of Osime Brown to Jamaica.

The BrumLAG protest took place near the statue of Queen Victoria, off to the side of the square. It was pretty well attended, at least a few hundred were there.

Protesters in Victoria Square, Birmingham. It is a sunny day. — BrumLAG protest about 12.20pm

The protest for Osime Brown was around 30-odd people and took place in the section of Victoria Square under the building.

Protesters with signs reading "Stop the Deportation of Osime Brown.", "No Justice, No Peace", "Black Autistic Lives Matter". — Stop the Deportation of Osime Brown protest

The BrumLAG event was about the issue of cladding in homes. In 2017, Grenfell Tower, a tower block in London, set on fire. The fire was able to spread rapidly because of the type of cladding used in the building. 72 people were killed as a result of the fire.

Safety concerns regarding the risk of fire had been raised before the fire took place.

Many other buildings contain the same or similar unsafe cladding. This has caused serious worries to those living in such buildings due to the risk of a fire.

The BrumLAG protest was focused upon the issue of who pays for the replacement of the cladding. Leaseholders have been expected to pay and their properties have no value. BrumLAG have been making the case that the developers that should be paying for the changes to make the buildings safe.

Copy of a leaflet given out by Brum LAG. — BrumLAG leaflet. The other side says ‘Is your home worth £Zero?’

I did listen to some of the things that the speakers were saying. Unfortunately, they had a fairly low quality sound system. The recordings I made of the couple of speeches I managed to film on my tablet came out pretty garbled.

The Osime Brown event, on the other hand, had a much better sound system. The event was organised by some of the people involved in Kill the Bill and there were several of the same faces there as the event on May 1st.

I am going to be honest and say that I do not know a lot about this case. I will post the leaflet handed out by the organisers below so that you can read what they have to say:

Leaflet summarising the story of Osime Brown stating he was jailed in 2018 over a trivial offense under the Joint Enterprise Law and is under threat of deportation to Jamaica.

Leaflet reading #FreeOsimeBrown summarising the case.

Some of the speakers at this event were also at the Kill the Bill event. The woman with the bright coloured hair was speaking at Kill the Bill. I’m pretty sure the man with the yellow jacket introducing the speakers spoke there as well, or was involved in some way. Joan, Osime’s mother, also spoke at Kill the Bill and this is the first that I heard about this case.

I have embedded the videos below.

Here’s some Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group footage:

I am also trying to offer a Bitchute alternative for my footage, but am having some technical problems uploading. [EDIT: This is now resolved and all the above footage is available on Bitchute}.

The Problem with the Anti-Woke Right: The Demonisation of Anti-Imperialism as ‘Woke’

I have spent a lot of time on this website criticising the modern left. However, I have not as yet written much specifically addressing the modern right. This article will focus on a very notable trend within the modern right, which can be referred to as the ‘anti-woke right’. The argument of this is article is that the framing of ‘woke vs. anti-woke’ cannot convincingly address the anti-imperialist left argument.

What is the Anti-Woke Right?

The anti-woke right is a modern trend within right wing thought, that is generally more popular among younger people. It has emerged out of the internet age, with Youtube commentators among some of the ‘pioneers’ of the anti-woke right.

The anti-woke right are generally libertarian leaning on economics, but their defining feature is that they put very heavy emphasis upon issues such as cancel culture and free speech and opposing woke attempts to redefine language and reality. The anti-woke right can be religious or non-religious. In the UK, significant examples of this tendency are the media outlet Spiked and the actor Laurence Fox.

The anti-woke right generally focus their critiques on issues that make people on the left look ridiculous. In some cases, those on the anti-woke right focus on genuine cases of left wing nonsense, such as criticising gender identity ideology – the idea that men are women if they say they are women. In fact, certain right wing outlets will publish articles on this issue that the left will not touch. For example, Spiked regularly runs articles by the excellent Jo Bartosch on this issue. Anti-woke right wingers will also criticise the ‘performative gesture’. For example, kneeling for Black Lives Matter.

Imperialism & The Anti-Woke Right

The recent focus on Israel and Palestine in the media has exposed one of the main problems with the anti-woke right. While the anti-woke right seems like a popular option when presented as an alternative to ‘woke liberalism’, in fact the anti-woke right normalises imperialism by portraying those who are anti-imperialist as merely ‘woke’ rather than taking a principled stand against imperialist aggression. While there are other examples of this trend, such as the attempt to shield Winston Churchill from the (factually true) criticism that he was a racist, this article will focus on the Israel-Palestine ‘framing’.

Laurence Fox tweeted out this comment about two Leicester City footballers who held up a Palestinian flag after Leicester’s FA Cup success:

Or give the ball chasing woke babies an atlas and ask them to pinpoint Palestine on a map.

The framing is obvious: opposing Israeli apartheid is not about anti-racism or anti-imperialism, it is ‘woke’.

This article in Spiked by Brendan O’Neill is a bit more complex in its argument. It starts by saying:

It [the modern left] sees prejudice everywhere except where it actually exists. State a biological fact and they’ll brand you transphobic. Criticise the burqa and you’re an Islamophobe. Fail to take the knee to Black Lives Matter and its every potty political belief and you’ll be called racist. Wear a sombrero and you’re cancelled. But chanting death to Jews? No biggie.

The article then discusses examples of hatred of Jews from Palestine protesters. Whether or not these are genuine examples, or whether they are agents provocateurs I am not qualified to say.

It then equates these examples to opposition to the state of Israel itself:

Meanwhile, the Hamas slogan ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ – widely recognised as a hateful call to wipe Israel off the map – is being used more and more by the woke left.

There are several aspects of pro-imperialist framing in this sentence alone. Firstly, equating the call to free Palestine and pro-Palestinian chants with ‘Hamas’ – the boogeyman of pro-Israel right winger. It is not about the Palestinian people and their cry to be free from oppression, but ‘Hamas’. The idea of ‘wiping Israel off the map’ is framed as anti-Semitic. Of course, stating that states should not be ethno-nationalist and that this includes a Jewish state is simply being consistent in opposing apartheid. This argument also erases Jews that oppose Israel, a group which includes many Orthodox Jews as well as secular left wing Jews.

Crucially for this article, the word ‘woke’ is used to describe this slogan. How precisely it is ‘woke’ to oppose apartheid and imperialism is not explained. For example, the other examples of ‘wokeness’ quoted above are ones that many on the (actual anti imperialist) left criticise. For example, Marxism is an inherently gender critical ideology – as it bases itself on material reality (biological sex) over idealism (gender identity).

Black Lives Matter has also been heavily criticised by leftists, in particular for its funding sources. It received money from the Ford Foundation – hardly an organisation out to advocate the end of imperialism. This article discusses BLM’s relationship with the Democrats and the fact that the key founders are part of the non-profit industrial complex. This is without mentioning their support for transgender ideology.

These ‘woke’ ideas are lumped in with the completely different issue of imperialism. In truth, the promotion of transgenderism, support for Islam, and declaring that Black Lives Matter are really about ideological constructs, whereas imperialism is about material reality. This is also fundamental to the distinction between liberals (the identity politics people) and the left (focused on class & imperialism rather than abstract ‘identity’). This is a distinction the anti-woke right (deliberately or otherwise) refuse to make. These members of the anti-woke right do not distinguish between performative nonsense as promoted by woke liberals and actual anti-imperialist activism as promoted by the left.

‘Woke Imperialism’

A fundamental flaw in this position – framing resistance to imperialism as a ‘woke’ belief – is the promotion of ‘woke imperialism’ by groups such as the CIA, FBI and military. ‘Woke Imperialism’ can be defined as putting a layer of ‘diversity’ upon dropping bombs on the Middle East and promoting coups in Latin America – it’s all good so long as a black trans woman is the one pressing the button.

The CIA have recently released adverts called ‘Humans of CIA’ in which a diverse range of people extol its virtues. These adverts use woke words and ideology. For example, this advert features a Latina woman who talks about her race and sex and refers to herself using the trans ideology buzzword ‘cisgender’. Another advert features a gay man talking about rainbow lanyards.

As we can see from this example, woke ideology is entirely compatible with the values of the CIA, whereas freedom for Palestine is most certainly not. In fact, woke ideology – by putting all of the emphasis on ‘identity’ rather than oppression grounded in material reality – benefits the CIA, as it allows them to pretend to be ‘progressive’ while promoting coups.

Conclusion

Woke ideology and anti-imperialist action are two separate categories – one of which is pseudo-progressive and the other which is actually progressive. The anti-woke right conflates the two in the same category as ‘woke’, which reveals the limitations of this ideological position.