The Fundamental Misogyny of Transhumanism

Introduction

Transhumanist ideology has been growing in prominence over the past several years, as global elites (such as Klaus Schwab), businessmen (such as Elon Musk) and those who promote synthetic sex identities (such as Martine Rothblatt), publicly defend such a view. This ideology is the exultation of the anti-human and the unhuman over the human and nature. Transhumanism is at its root a misogynistic ideology that seeks to purge the female, associated with nature in male typologies of the world, from existence.

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism can be defined as an ideology that seeks to overcome humanity through augmentation: genetic engineering and a melding with technology. This is pushed by a wide spectrum of players within the elite. Klaus Schwab, the leader of the World Economic Forum, has openly said that he desires “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” Elon Musk, a businessman who is admired even by some in the alternative media, founded ‘Neuralink’ to create human-brain interfaces. Martine Rothblatt, a man who pretends to be a woman, on the other hand, promotes synthetic sex identities and the creation of ‘billions of sexes’ as a method of overcoming human biology.

The concept is pushed by more than crank billionaires but also by governments. It is well known that the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is interested in genetic engineering. The mRNA ‘vaccines’ were another way for governments to advance this agenda, as it has meant that the category of vaccination has been redefined to include genetic engineering products that force the human body to produce the unnatural spike protein. Furthermore, the US government just announced a Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation Executive Order:

For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities. We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.

White House

A Misogynist Driver of Transhumanism: Synthetic Sex Identities

In the transhumanist ideology/pathology, man conquers nature so extensively that he is able to subvert/overcome even his own nature. So how does transhumanism link to misogyny? At first, the link doesn’t seem obvious, as couldn’t woman adopt transhumanism just as much as men could? In fact, there are some female thinkers who have advocated aspects of transhumanism.

However, when we look under the hood of transhumanism, we see that it is in fact a deeply misogynist ideology. I will start by briefly outlining the fact that the concept of synthetic sex identities is being used to drive transhumanism, by psychopathic ideologists such as Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt is a pharmaceutical CEO and cultist, who started his own religion, the Terasem movement, to push transhumanism. As detailed by Jennifer Bilek, Rothblatt is one of the key ideologists driving forward these two concepts. In his book From Transgender to Transhuman, Rothblatt claims that “choosing one’s gender is merely an important subset of choosing one’s form.The man even made a ‘robot’ of his wife, Bina48, the ultimate representation of Andrea Dworkin’s ‘Men Possessing Women‘.

This ideology – that biological sex is something to be muddied and ultimately transcended – is misogynistic because it seeks to destroy the category of woman. While it seeks to destroy sex categories altogether, there is much more emphasis on the driver of destroying the word woman and making it into a meaningless term that anyone can opt into or out of. For example, the mantra ‘trans women are women’ is repeated much more often than ‘trans men are men’. The inclusion of males in, for example, female sport, is driven much more intently than its opposite. This destruction of the concept of womanhood is then used to drive transhumanism.

Womb Envy and the War on Mother Nature

Death as part of what makes the regenerative process of life possible seems to have escaped these predominantly male transhumanists. They seem inordinately focused on colonizing the reproductive capacities of females for their own purposes, helping to institutionalize the reduction of our half of humanity to period havers, menstruators, chestfeedersbodies with vaginas, and non-men in an effort to dehumanize women toward this colonization process.

Jennifer Bilek

It is a basic fact of biological reality that only females can gestate life and give birth. This, of course, despite the attempts to muddy the waters, applies as much to human beings as all other species that reproduce sexually. This fact makes males inherently reliant on females to reproduce and create life. This fact has driven patriarchal regimes to control women, in order to exert power over their reproductive capacity and to ensure the preservation of their male lineage. Misogynist men seek to assert this control to this day, although the mechanisms of this control are more diffuse than when human beings were living under the Divine Right of Kings.

Now we have a new form of misogynist ideology: the idea of overcoming womanhood entirely via transhumanism. Patriarchal constructions of reality see man as associated with reason and woman as associated with nature. Transhumanist man seeks to use reason to create life, something previously only given by nature, and by this method finally defeat their reliance upon nature and thus upon woman.

This is the sort of insanity that Rothblatt envisages for his future world.

(1) A conscious analog of a person may be created by combining sufficiently detailed data about the person (a “mindfile”) using future consciousness software (“mindware”),

and

(2) that such a conscious analog can be downloaded into a biological or nanotechnological body to provide life experiences comparable to those of a typically birthed human.

Conclusion

Transhumanism considers the ideal person is one that has overcome biology. This means overcoming the biological reality that only women can create life, to allow men to be able to do so via artificial intelligence.

The Sacraments of the Covid Cult and Their Connection to Transhumanism

Introduction

One of the main aims of the Covid Narrative is to normalise a transhumanist agenda. This is evident from several aspects of the official Covid narrative, including the mRNA nature of the Covid jabs and the promotion of ‘biosensors’ (as discussed in my previous 2 part series on The Covid Narrative destroying our links to the natural world). This article will focus more specifically on the cult sacraments as practised by ordinary adherents and how they feed into the transhumanist logic being relentlessly pushed by individuals such as Klaus Schwab.

The Target of Worship: ‘The Science’

Every cult needs an object of worship in order to function, and the Covid Cult is no exception. In this case, the object of worship is known as ‘The Science’.

While cults can have a belief in a deity, the object of worship is generally a leader who is said to represent that deity, or a noble sounding construct that is channeled through a leader. In the Covid Cult, the object of veneration is the concept of ‘The Science’ itself, rather than specific leaders that represent the concept of ‘The Science’ through their utterings. As Covid is a political cult, the elites want to keep individual actors within the system disposable and so cannot encourage them as objects of veneration in themselves (for example, Matt Hancock was removed from the British Health Secretary position as soon as he became too unpopular, and some American observers think Anthony Fauci is being prepared for ‘sacrifice’ in a similar way).

‘The Science’ is a very convenient object of worship for those who desire to push transhumanist ideologies. As an object of cult worship, it cannot be questioned. Any scientific evidence – even peer reviewed studies – that go against ‘The Science’ are dismissed, as it is not the point of ‘The Science’ to be questioned, but to be obeyed.

Transhumanists can use this unquestioning view of ‘science’. Transhumanism itself is an anti-biology cult that embraces science as the solution to human problems and the path to ‘utopia’: the complete destruction of the human in favour of the transhuman. This means that, while worshipping ‘The Science’ in the context of Covid, adherents are being psychologically prepared to accept scientific advances that the would not have done before – ones that bolster a transhumanist agenda.

The Cult Symbology: The Mask

The mask plays a vital role in the entire Covid Narrative. From the point of view of the government imposing the mask on its citizens, it serves the purpose of reinforcing the narrative: invoking the image of a disease ward where everyone is at risk.

The mask also serves an important psychological function for those who wear it. It serves as a clear visual symbol distinguishing cult believers from non-believers and makes cult believers clearly identifiable to each other. It allows believers to signal their belief publically and easily.

It also serves important functions in the normalisation of transhumanism. Firstly, the presence of masks across human faces has the effect of reducing their humanity. I have talked about how covering the mouth of an individual indicates silence or submission, and inculcating these is certainly one aim of masking. However, they also serve to make us look less human by covering our faces and removing from view the natural range of human expression. This by extension helps to normalise sleek AI robots and other aspects of the transhumanist agenda, who are beyond aspects of human expression.

The mask also helps to inclucate and normalise the fear of nature and biology – a key precursor for the success of transhumanist ideology. Masks send the message that all other human beings are diseased and need to be avoided, in case they cause the other person to get sick. It normalises the idea that our biology cannot be trusted and that our immune system is not sufficient to protect us from disease, lumped in with a large amount of death denial: ‘if I wear my mask I’ll be safe from death’. All this lays the groundwork for the new ‘improved’ human being of the transhumanist project.

The Baptism: The Injection

The sign of full commitment to the Covid Cult is the reciept of the Covid 19 vaccine: the holy baptism of the injection.

Recievers of the Covid injections are able to signal their virtue and belief in the cult through receiving the injection. They also serve an out group function, allowing the believer to demonise non recipients as the evil Unvaccinated who are the reason that we have not ascended to Covid Zero Utopia.

The injections serve some of the same purposes as the mask in terms of normalising the transhumanist agenda. Again, the human body is not considered to be sufficient, but defective, and it needs to be ‘improved’ by mRNA injections, which involve genetic engineering. This genetic engineering is promoted by certain scientists as an inherently positive thing, and once normalised, will allow for more genetic engineering and AI integration.

Conclusion

The Covid Cult sacraments, while also being designed to promote authoritarian control, help to normalise transhumanism in themselves.

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 Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2)

Introduction

In the first part of this article, I discussed the Covid-19 narrative in the context of nature. The article concluded that there were significant signs of an agenda to detach human beings from nature: firstly, in the denial of the reality of death, and secondly, through the normalisation of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccinations.

However, the discussion of the connection between devaluing nature and the Official Covid Narrative does not end there. There are further significant links which are helping to make Klaus Schwab’s “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” a reality. This part of the article will discuss the normalisation of nanotechnology through use of the Covid Narrative, as well as the coming ‘Smart Cities’ being pushed by the World Economic Forum.

The NanoTech New Normal

A 2004 report from the British Royal Society can serve as an introduction to the concept of nanotechnology. This report states that:

A nanometre (nm) is one thousand millionth of a metre. For comparison, a single human hair is about 80,000 nm wide, a red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nm wide and a water molecule is almost 0.3nm across. People are interested in the nanoscale (which we define to be from 100nm down to the size of atoms (approximately 0.2nm)) because it is at this scale that the properties of materials can be very different from those at a larger scale. We define nanoscience as the study of phenomena and manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular and macromolecular scales, where properties differ significantly from those at a larger scale; and nanotechnologies as the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanometre scale. In some senses, nanoscience and nanotechnologies are not new. Chemists have been making polymers, which are large molecules made up of nanoscale subunits, for many decades and nanotechnologies have been used to create the tiny features on computer chips for the past 20 years. However, advances in the tools that now allow atoms and molecules to be examined and probed with great precision have enabled the expansion and development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.

Institutions such as the US Government have been interested in nanotechnology for several years. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched by Bill Clinton and the organisation has received funding from Congress.

The cumulative NNI investment since fiscal year 2001, including the 2018 request, now totals more than $25 billion. In addition, more than $1.1 billion has been invested cumulatively since 2004 in funding for nanotechnology-based small businesses through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the participating Federal agencies. 

At first, the kinds of technologies that are being advocated for seem benign or positive developments, such as to improve the functioning of computers. The benign uses of such technologies can mean that they become more accepted in society.

However, certain uses of nanotechnology that are desired by the elite are considered to be taboo by ordinary people. In particular, the integration of nanotechnology within the human body. Much like concepts such as Genetically Modified foods, many people consider interfering with nature in this way to be immoral and playing god. A lot of people still maintain some connection with nature and do not desire nanotechnology to be used within the human body. The inculcation of mass fear around the Sars-Cov-2 virus, and the idea introduced through this fear that nature is the enemy, is a way to get around this problem.

The Covid-19 narrative is being used to slowly normalise the idea of ‘implantable biosensors’ that will monitor your health. Back in 2018, a company known as Profusa claimed to have developed these small injectable sensors that can be used to monitor all aspects of body chemistry, marketing them as a step up from fitness trackers and other wearable watch like products. Their sensors overcome issues with the body rejecting such interventions as foreign and causing inflammation in response. These sensors – injected at the surface of the skin – can be scanned via smartphone devices in order to retrieve the data they have collected. The research carried out by Profusa is supported by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), one of the main institutions pushing techno-tyranny as a ‘solution’ to Covid-19. DARPA have been interested in the notion of ‘predictive health’ for a long time and have been examining the issue since at least 2006.

The link between these technologies and Covid-19 is made explicit in this article. Profusa has developed another sensor that allegedly detects sickness with a particular virus before the person shows symptoms, a concept that Ryan Cristian has usefully called ‘Medical Precrime’. The article acknowledges that some people might be wary of the idea because of privacy concerns but brushes that aside, claiming that the sensors can only transmit information when they are scanned.

The idea of Medical Precrime ties into the War on Death, discussed in the first part of this article. Accepting the need for these sensors to tell you that you are sick involves rejecting the truth of your own body. This is a step up from the focus on RT-PCR testing to see whether or not somebody has Sars-Cov-2, even if they have no symptoms, and the whole narrative around ‘asymptomatic transmission’.

Dissociation from your own body is required to get you to accept transhumanism. If you accept your body as part of nature that you are in touch with and related to, you will not want a transhumanist future. The elite, however, want this transhumanist future whether you like it or not, so they have to develop bridging ideologies and constructs to get ordinary people to accept that future, and The Official Covid Narrative is one of these.

Endgame: The Totalitarian Smart Cities

According to the Smart Cities Readiness Guide, a smart city can be defined as such:

A smart city uses information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance its livability, workability and sustainability. First, a smart city collects information about itself through sensors, other devices and existing systems. Next, it communicates that data using wired or wireless networks. Third, it analyzes that data to understand what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen next.

Another key aspect of the Smart City is the Internet of Things, which connects all devices – from kettles and fridges to computers and mobile phones – to the internet. This kind of system would require 5G to function because otherwise there would be far too much latency within the system.

Searching online for ‘Smart Cities Covid 19’ brings up a multitude of links relating to the issue. For example, this article states that:

Density – it’s part of what makes cities bustling cosmopolitan hubs for transnational commerce and mobility. It is also what makes them particularly vulnerable to the risks of outbreaks such as COVID-19, with some experts arguing it will force a significant rethink of urban planning if we are to achieve long-term survival in a pandemic world.

This article portrays the Smart City approach as a positive way to ‘control the pandemic’ by using the ‘collective intelligence’ of people in relation to the high level of data collected by the sensors embedded within the smart city.

Another article links Covid to Smart Cities through a false ‘green’ agenda, stating that the lockdowns have reduced road traffic and that smart city technology can be used to continue this reduction in pollution and carbon emissions. For example, they claim that AI can be used to reduce congestion through steering traffic. The article then uses this idea as a lead into normalising alarms going off if people are not ‘social distancing’.

The World Economic Forum, and other elites, are deeply invested in promoting this smart city vision, and using whatever concerns of the public – from pollution to pandemics – that they feel will get people to accept this agenda. While we are allegedly living in the ‘deadliest pandemic in a century’ the elite are concerned about pushing this technology more than anything else. In November 2020, The World Economic Forum selected 36 cities to pioneer these kinds of technologies:

Cities are facing urgent challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and other major disruptions, which are expected to culminate in a budget crisis that could reach $1 trillion in the United States alone. They need data and innovation to become more resilient, responsive and efficient. Yet there is no global framework for how cities should use these technologies, or the data they collect, in a way that protects the public interest.

In reality, despite the PR lavished on Smart Cities, such a system would be a heavily controlled one, where there would be no ability to dissent from what the elite want. Every move and every possible piece of data would be tracked. AI would begin to control more and more of people’s lives through the processing and analysis of the endless data collected from the multitude of sensors. There would be no privacy, and the elite could make rebellion essentially impossible, by cutting off every single device that an attempted rebel owns – even their heating or fridge. And there would be no room for things that the elite are not able to control in this new dystopia – including the natural world.

Conclusion

We must defend the value of nature and the natural, as well as our own connections with nature and the cycles of life, in order to fight the Covid-19 Narrative. This narrative begins with the denial of death as a natural process but ends with everything in our lives being controlled through the mechanism of technology. In a smart city where everything is controlled through sensors, monitoring, and artificial intelligence, there is no room for nature and the natural. Even humanity itself will become modified by mRNA gene therapy and concepts like Elon Musk’s Neuralink which will connect people to computers and thus into the Smart Cities themselves. Here we end up at Klaus Schwab’s dreaded “fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”