In 2020, I first saw exploratory columnist Jennifer Bilek’s writing in First Things, which featured her article” The Billionaires Behind the LGBT Movement.” It was a beautiful piece—there are some journalists committed to exposing the transgender’ movement’ (or industry, as Bilek calls it), but nobody has peeled aside the façade of legal rights, red-and-blue flags, and ‘trans kids’ like Bilek. She may be cited by them everywhere if the conventional media were truly committed to investigating and reporting the truth about the causes driving our society nowadays.
Bilek is an actor, activist, and analytical journalist based out of New York City, and her work has been published in Tablet Magazine, The Federalist, The Post Millennial, and abroad. Although progressives ignore or conceal it, Bilek spent her life on the left, but presently she claims she is in the “political wilderness,” reporting on the most important historical account of our time. Bilek even runs the Substack Jennifer’s Newsletter and the website The 11th Hour, where she explains her target:
I write at the crossroads of mankind, systems, and fleeing capitalism. At this crossing stands transsexuals, what I believe is a spectacular campaign battle generated by elites, invested in technology and pharma, to restore the changing of human biology.
Bilek is doing something that journalists used to do immediately: following the funds. What she has discovered is a shocking revelation that demonstrates how deeply the transgender phenomenon was sparked by powerful LGBT donors with a gloomy and sinister agenda. Her reporting provides the essential components to complete the picture of how and why the trans action quickly established social dominance. Bolek graciously consented to a conversation where she revealed what she had discovered so much.
You’ve produced groundbreaking analysis of how slowly billionaires have supported the LGBT movement in the background. How much have the social swings we’ve seen over the past few years been astroturfed by large sponsors?
The historical shifts we see nowadays regarding female identity are largely influenced by huge capital outflows from governments, donors, companies, and investment management and accounting businesses like Blackrock and Ernst &, Young. Some people think universities are the birthplace of the ideology, but funding is given to these institutions to advance the idea of progressive, synthetic sex identities that students then adopt into the world.
To comprehend the motivations of governments, philanthropists, and big business in this ideology, we must examine its implications. Gender ideology deconstructs human reproductive sex legally, linguistically, socially, and is also attacking mostly young people’s reproductive organs by sterilizing them. It is a marketing break from sexed reality presented as progressive, which is especially perplexing for young people who use their naturally rebellious youth as a corporate ploy.
The medical-tech sector, which is itself being incorporated into culture through a philanthropic structure that has been attached to the LGBT civil rights political apparatus, generates both the money and the ideology. One of the largest LGBT NGOs, The Arcus Foundation, plays a significant role in this regard by providing extensive funding to a number of institutions as well as by introducing a tracking system called MAP and encouraging wealthy philanthropists to make investments in the LGBT constituency. The heir to the corporate fortune that is Stryker Medical is Jon Stryker, the man who founded Arcus. He has a background in banking. Stryker Medical exemplifies the link between the LGBT political apparatus and the medical-tech sector with its ventures into the facial feminization surgery market.
One of the richest families in America is the Pritzker family from Chicago. Although their fortune came from the Hyatt Hotel industry, their main focus is now the medical-tech sector. They are one of the biggest drivers and supporters of the gender industry because of their massive philanthropic efforts. The Gill Foundation, which is the second-largest LGBT NGO in the country and is connected to Jon Stryker and his family, also contributes significantly, having originally worked in the tech sector and now running a home AI platform business. The tech giants—Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Salesforce, Hewlett Packard, and Amazon—leverage their financial power both to fund this industry in body dissociation and also to browbeat entire states to accept the ideology by threatening the withdrawal of their capital. In 2016, they signed an amicus brief against North Carolina. After that, the state urged boys and girls in schools to have access to the bathroom.
Due to the high levels of financial pressure and the mainstream media’s censorship of critics, which align with the ownership of the media by the medical-tech sector. Conglomerates like Hearst, Conde Nast, and Disney have a significant influence on the techno-medical complex, which is exacerbated by their intertwining with prominent pharma platforms.
The tech and medical industries thrive in creating and compartmentalizing new products, as do all other industries. This is a pattern found in the LGBT civil rights movement, which was founded as a grassroots movement before becoming corporatized in the wake of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. American transsexualism, rooted in the medical establishment, dates to the 1950s, with the medical assault on reproductive organs. After the AIDS crisis, the LGBT community turned into a lucrative investment and marketing force. The addition of transsexualism, rebranded as’ transgender’ for marketing purposes, introduces a new perspective on sexual identities, further normalizing the detachment of humanity from its foundational roots in sexual reproduction.
How has the growth of the transgender movement impacted the trajectory and impact of it?
I prefer to think of this phenomenon more as an industry than as a movement. The focus lies on the creation of synthetic simulacrums of human reproductive characteristics, marketed for profit and human engineering. Synthetic sex characteristics are a corporate illusion, contrary to a genuine human rights movement for the underprivileged. Those who adopt them in an effort to disown reality are neither marginalized nor a subcategory of the reproductive sex of our species.
The term ‘transgender’ doesn’t mean anything in regards to people. It lacks a clear, universally accepted definition, encompassing various and often contradictory meanings. It attempts to cover a wide range of issues, from medical assaults that affect healthy reproductive organs to non-medical expressions of feelings about sex-role stereotypes, sometimes involving surgery and drugs and occasionally not. Is it a sexual fetish or a form of resistance to culturally predetermined behavioral norms based on sex? The concept of a cohesive community termed ‘transgender’ is equally as elusive, instead, ‘transgenderism’ emerges as a conglomerate driven by corporate pressures, grooming both adults and, more significantly, children into industrial body disassociation—a thriving business.
An industry dedicated to dissociation from the sexed body has experienced explosive growth, driven by additional capital from investors and philanthropists. Individuals profit from this industry, even if they don’t fully comprehend its nature. Famous people like Whoopi Goldberg work for modeling companies that target women who want to end their sex. Artists document images of people with artificial sex identities, TV shows show characters trying to break socially and medically apart from their sexy reality, and law firms profit from legal action involving those who want to protect the legal category of sex.
The propaganda produced by this revenue stream has profoundly influenced the push for “transitioning sex” into the market. A quick Google search for “transgender magazine covers for 2020” will reveal a large number of publications with consistent messages. These publications are included in conglomerates that have invested in medical-tech platforms and platforms and are supported by asset management companies like BlackRock.
What are the primary objectives and motivations behind the funding of LGBT organizations?
Technological advancements interconnected with an unrestricted market are the primary drivers of the gender industry. Medical-sex identities, along with technological reproduction, are at the forefront of attempts to advance our species beyond our current human borders. A metaphorical fox in the henhouse, dressed as a hen, was the clever use of an agenda intended to deconstruct reproductive sex with a civil rights movement centered on same-sex attraction.
We are on the brink of breakthroughs in genetic engineering, artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial reproduction, each comprising significant industries. These fields are convergent, indicating a path that goes beyond our current state as humans. Since the early 2000s, tech gurus and media outlets have been driving a narrative that favors a more active fusion of humans and AI, creating a hybrid species. The rapidly expanding tech-reproductive market, which is currently valued at $27 billion, coincides with the general trend of interpreting the human body’s interior as a lucrative marketing landscape. With the development of injections that can alter our DNA, it seems possible to be profitable to treat the human body, fetuses, and women’s reproductive organs as digital canvasses. The tech reproduction industry appears to be a sign of a future where reproduction without gestation or copulation may be commonplace. The gender identity narrative serves these marketing campaigns by rendering our exclusively sexy humanity to commodities.
Who are some of the transgender movement’s most influential figures?
Gilead Sciences emerges as a leading supporter of LGBT issues, with other notable contributors including George Soros ‘Open Society, Gill, Arcus, Ford, Astraea, Tides, Evelyn and Walter Haas, David Bohnett, Wells Fargo, and Pride Foundations. These organizations are well-known supporters of the deconstructing of human reproductive sex. The Arcus Foundation, backed by the founders ‘stock in the $130 billion medical corporation, extends its support to organizations such as the Astraea Foundation, and it plays a pivotal role in creating a political infrastructure. This infrastructure supports organizations like GLSEN, which promotes gender ideology in schools, and GLAAD, which influence media coverage of this subject by promoting it as a “human right.” The funding also goes toward funding the Victory Institute, which trains leaders for political positions that can influence decisions to support the sector. Another foundation that keeps tabs on the philanthropic funding raised by these groups is MAP.
Another significant figure in this social transformation is Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt, who was previously known as Martin, has since grown to recognize as a woman and has adopted synthetic simulacrums of a woman’s wholly sexy humanity. Rothblatt advocates for human augmentation that challenges conventional conceptions of sex by labeling himself as “transhuman.” This includes advocating for the melding of humans with AI, virtual reality, tech reproduction, and other transformative technologies. Rothblatt, along with other transsexual lawyers, drafted the first ‘gender bill,’ aiming to secure rights for individuals undergoing augmentation to change their physical reality. Rothblatt was mentored by both Ray Kurzweil of Google and by William Sims Bainbridge, the head of the National Science Foundation’s Cyber-Human Systems Program.
How can small, grassroots organizations resist the financial support from large, wealthy organizations?
First, it is crucial to make people aware of the significant financial investments being made in a fictitious area. There are no ‘transgender’ individuals, so what exactly are these funds supporting? They are assisting a group of people who are attempting to disown their humanity, a notion that warrants careful scrutiny. We can provide a fresh perspective by shifting the focus from human rights for the marginalized to rights for those who attempt to disown their humanity. In this context, the growing debate over artificial intelligence (AI) or cyborgs in their early stages serves as the political foundation for the burgeoning civil rights movement.
The need to reclaim language is equally crucial. Every time we use their fabricated terms like ‘transgender,’ ‘gender identity,’ or ‘correct pronoun usage,’ we inadvertently reinforce the notion of people existing outside the boundaries of our species’ biological sex. It is crucial to prioritize clarity over convenience in communication. Rather than responding to questions as if’ transgender’ is a genuine category, a more effective approach is to inquire about its meaning, challenging the assumed understanding. Similarly, interrupting and reframing statements like ‘trans people’ by suggesting, “Do you mean individuals attempting to disown their sexed reality?” can reshape the discourse.
Lastly, change cannot be achieved in isolation. Whether by organizing a collective effort or by working individually, taking action is imperative. Leverage your strengths, speak unwaveringly of the truth, and resist the temptation to appease. This predatory industry wants to appeal to the next generation, and it needs to see activists from all walks of life. The truth, grounded in biological reality, is our strongest ally, supported by the entirety of the living world.
