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.

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.

Black Lives Matter is a Transgender Organisation

The organisation Black Lives Matter is about protecting black people from police brutality, or that is their stated goal on the surface. Due to the media coverage of the death of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, BLM raised a large amount of money in 2020.

An account on Twitter drew my attention to the BLM 2020 Impact Report, about how they used the money that they raised.

It turns out that the majority of organisations that they support are LGBTQ* organisations, which means, in reality, that they are about trans identified males.

The Organisations That BLM Support

In this article, I have examined the organisations listed in the Black Lives Matter Impact Report for 2020. The report states that 6 figure grants were given to all of the organisations listed, so we are not talking about a trivial amount of money. In total, $21.7m was distributed, though some of that went to local BLM chapters.

I have cross referenced the list given on the BLM website with the list of organisations funded by the Arcus Foundation. This list was compiled by @StillTish at the Gender Critical Woman website. She has done excellent work in compiling this list and uploading an Excel spreadsheet for everyone to view.

What is the relevance of the Arcus Foundation? Why examine these two aspects together? The Arcus Foundation was created in 2000 by gay Big Pharma billionaire Jon Stryker. This organisation is one of the billionaire promoters of gender identity ideology. Billionaires (particularly Big Pharma billionaires) have a large interest in promoting this ideology, as the more people take hormones, puberty blockers and have transgender surgery, the more money goes into Big Pharma’s pockets (see also Big Pharma is no different from any other Capitalist Corporation).

As far as I can tell, four of the organisations on the BLM list are directly funded by the Arcus Foundation.

These four organisations are:

The Audre Lorde Project – Trans Justice: two $75,000 donations in 2016 and 2018, respectively. This website will not load for me but being as it’s called ‘Trans Justice’ I am going to assume it is a trans organisation or that the money is going specifically towards a trans cause.

BreakOUT: $150,000 from Arcus in 2017. The website states that it is a LGBTQ* org, but their vision clearly prioritises transgender without mentioning gay and lesbian people: “BreakOUT! envisions a city where transgender, gender non-conforming, and queer youth of color can live without fear of harassment and discrimination.” Only later on does it mention gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

BYP100: $200,000 from Arcus in 2017. Their about page initially focuses on anger about the death of Trayvon Martin. However then moves on to talking about a ‘Queer lens’. It doesn’t appear to be a 100% trans organisation but does have queer theory elements.

Arcus also funds the Transgender Law Center. Black Lives Matter funds the explicitly Black LGBTQIA* Migrant Project (listed as BLMP) which is part of this centre.

Four organisations may not seem like much in common, but the story does not end there. The Arcus Foundation also sends a large amount of money to Borealis Philanthropy. Borealis happens to donate money to many more of the organisations on the Black Lives Matter list:

Trans United (trans org)

Solutions Not Punishment Coalition (trans org)

Marsha P Johnson Institute (trans org)

Highlander Centre (from what I can see this one is not explicitly trans)

Black Trans Media (trans org)

House of Pentacles (trans org)

BraveSpace Alliance (explicitly states it is trans led)

Black Visions Collective (states trans led)                                                               

TAKE Birmingham (trans org)

Borealis also funds the BLMP & BYP100.

Borealis does not provide any information on how much money they send to each organisation on their website that I could find, but it does state in various blog posts that they have sent money to these various organisations.

Some of the money from Arcus is explicitly noted to go to the Borealis ‘Trans Generations Fund’ which then sends the money to trans organisations. While it is not explicitly stated on the Borealis website that the money went from Arcus through them to these other organisations, it is likely that this is the case.

Arcus/Borealis fund 13 of the organisations listed by BLM. BLM states that 23 of the organisations they funded are LGBTQ* led. If we exclude Highlander, as this one does not seem transgender focused, we have 12/23 organisations overlapping. If we exclude BYP100 as it is more ambiguous in its focus we have 11/23. Either way, half of the transgender organisations funded by BLM are also funded by Arcus/Borealis.

What’s the Problem?

Firstly, it is dishonesty. Black Lives Matter is an organisation that markets itself as working to end police brutality against black people in the US. Therefore, logically, their funds should go to activities that focus upon police brutality. No doubt most of the well-intentioned people who donated to BLM after the murder of George Floyd donated the money because they believed that it would go towards that cause. It is dishonest to raise money on the back of police brutality and then use the money to fund black trans people in the arts.

Secondly, the extent. The truth is that black trans identified males are a tiny minority of black people in the US. Yet most of the money that BLM granted to outside organisations went to trans identified male organisations. If BLM wants to focus on funding black organisations in general and not just organisations based around police brutality, then surely black woman led organisations that focus on women’s issues should receive some of the money given that women are half the population. However, women get nothing and trans identified males get most of the outside organisation funding. This we must ask critical questions about misogyny within this organisation.

Thirdly, the use of ‘LGBTQ*’ as a shield. Though the BLM organisation promotes these organisations in this way, in reality there is nothing specifically for black lesbians, gay men, or bisexuals of either sex. The term LGBTQ* is used as an attempt to make the funding look more diverse than it is. We also have to be asking questions about homophobia.

Finally, we have to ask the question “Why are a (supposed) grassroots organisation that grew up organically funding exactly the same organisations as the billionaire founded Arcus Foundation?”