Breaking and Entering

Updated: Jan 27

I will be using my blog this morning to address some unpleasant business. I apologize to followers and supporters who rely on the blog for information about the money behind, and analysis of, the gender industry. This is somewhat more personal but has broader implications which is why I am addressing it here and now.

A few days ago, a follower apprised me of a zoom webinar hosted by Jo Bartosch a UK feminist and journalist, in which Helen Joyce, a UK feminist who has recently published her book, “Trans,” called me a "conspiracy theorist," out of the blue, and then flounced. Apparently, the participants were shocked. I was a bit surprised, if not shocked myself to learn of it.

Joyce has been a supporter of my research on the money behind the “gender lobby.”

A bit of back story:

Several months ago, a TRA made a video attempting to defame me and frame me as an anti-semite, among other things (this is hardly surprising considering the amount of information I put out about the money invested in and the political mechanisms behind this agenda). Those seeing the video picked up on a post I made on Facebook about another video, made by Keith Woods, who is a virulent anti-semite. I had no idea who Woods was at the time I posted the video. Other virulent anti-semites have used my work toward their own ends. I have seen how my work has been used toward promoting anti-semitism and it is ghastly, but I do not attempt to rid the internet of all these references because it is not something I can control. The output is prolific.

The post I made of Woods’ video was not an endorsement of Woods, who called me a TERF in the first few minutes of the video. I found his breakdown of various religions as they pertain to mind/body split fascinating. It started an interesting conversation on my Facebook page about religions. It was one post, made in haste, probably unwise and framed badly but I also assumed later, when it emerged as problematic, that my work would speak for itself. I have been putting out a ton of information over several years and no one has ever accused me of anti-Semitism prior to the TRA promotion of said.

I moved on. It is not really my lane. I have not addressed this until the last couple of days when a rather courteous and level-headed follower stood up to a braying twitter mob regarding this incident as it came around again. I responded to his comments because I appreciated his support, which was also fair-minded. He'd been following my work and had not seen anything in it to indicate I was an anti-semite (because it isn’t there and I am not anti-semitic). He finally withdrew from the Twitter conversation because he realized social mobs rule and he would have no impact, which is precisely why I have refused to speak into this. I took my cues from JK Rowling’s incident after she published an explanation to the public about her purported “transphobia.” Nothing I could have said would have stopped the onslaught and toward that end, I will not address the topic of this video again. I feel I should be judged on the full content of my work over the years, not one post I made in haste and framed badly.

I don’t expect this will silence the braying, virtue-signaling mob either and I am not attempting to quell that cacophony but to set the stage for the incident on hand.

On top of my being framed as anti-semitic, I have dared break ranks with other feminists fighting the gender industry (My coined phrase. Others call it a movement). I have not stayed within a strict narrative of many academic feminists which frames the gender industry as an issue predominantly about women’s rights. I believe, from all I have researched, that the gender industry is more about capitalism and transhumanism and that women are the collateral damage. This does not sit well with many academic feminists because, one, I can’t unequivocally prove it and must draw correlations, and two, many people are not even close to understanding these correlations. Some feminists feel it reflects badly on them trying to get information to the public, for whom this may be too big a leap. I believe the leap has to be made.

With the work of many other people writing about transhumanism, not limited to Libby Emmons, The Corbett Report, Corey Morningstar, Alison McDowell, Catherine Austin Fitts, Whitney Webb, and many others doing outstanding work and making these correlations, this is becoming a slightly more understandable conversation in GC circles, than when I initially started to write about it.

Most academic feminists make their living from writing and focusing on the women’s rights narrative of this agenda, and some feel this transhumanist narrative, along with the TRA vitriol about anti-semitism has made me “tainted goods.” It’s understandable in some ways and I have not taken huge issue with it until now. I can count on one hand the number of feminists who felt concerned and asked me about this issue privately. For those who didn't even have to ask, you truly understand the meaning of the word comrade. You have my respect.

Now we are arriving to the topic at hand. I suspect, and certainly, her behavior of disparaging me publicly would support this, that Helen Joyce is one of these feminists who are distancing themselves from the anti-semitism vitriol about me, to protect their image.

Here is why this blog post is vital. Solidarity matters. I have stood up to the braying TRA social media mob with relative ease. But when other feminists who have read and appreciated my work, over many years, start jumping on the "anti-semitism" or "conspiracy theorist" bandwagon, over one weird post, my work on an issue they are not comfortable with, or using my vast research without attribution because it might taint their image to be associated with me, solidarity does not do what it is supposed to do, It becomes, like the word woman, ephemeral. It means whatever anyone thinks it means.

If this does not change, nothing else we do will matter. We will lose.

Further, it is Joyce's right to distance herself, as ferociously naive and short-sighted as that might be, but disparaging my work in a workshop steps clean over the line of her rights into disrespecting me and straight-up cowardice. Using my work, without any attribution, does the same.

I have worked extremely hard without a team of paid researchers at my beck and call, and but for the donations of some wonderful supporters, I have no financial gain to claim. I put myself in front of a camera with great reluctance, I do not seek to be a “famous feminist.” I have no interest in glory over this horrible issue. I have been working for several years, to expose a lot of information for others to use. I am happy they are using it. This was my intention. Some have forgotten or are not even aware of my research because it has been circulated so much without attachment to me. I have not gone around screaming to be credited. The fact that it is helping has kept me sane. But, this is a whole new level of sharing my information.

Joyce interviewed me, in my country, in my city, in February 2020, at her request, because I had been researching, tweeting about, and had started writing about the gender agenda in 2013. I published my first expose on gender as an industry in the anthology, Female Erasure, with a colleague, Mary Ceallaigh, which was published in 2016. In 2018, I wrote my first expose’ on the Pritzker family in The Federalist, outlining major players in this arena and their connections to Big Pharma. The article focused on the Pritzker family but named several other key participants. I speculated (not wildly) about the connections to transhumanism because there is an AGP, Martine Rothblatt, who identifies as a transhumanist at the seat of the gender agenda, whose handprint is all over it. I went on to write several exposes’ on Rothblatt, Soros, and Stryker, all of whom Joyce has mentioned in her book. Taken separately, the mention of one of these billionaires, without citation or attribution, would not be particularly egregious. But when they are strung together with the other billionaires, which I have done exposes’ on and they all sound close enough to what I have written that my followers noticed, along with the fact Joyce interviewed me, ARE egregious. They may not be plagiarism in the legal sense. I have not sought legal counsel.

I understand that Joyce is frightened. Her actions are fear-based. A simple, short, acknowledgment in her book would have been all it took to maintain integrity in this instance. She has done an abrupt about-face from asking me for and securing an interview, subsequently supporting my work on social media, using my work in her book, to disparaging me in a workshop with parents present who are dealing with this issue with their children. She has not answered an email I addressed to her about this attack, after allowing my research, abundant enough in GC and feminist circles so that it would be hard to miss, to stand as her own.

Some are suggesting this is “infighting” within the GC movement and that I should not be calling it out as this does more harm than good. I would ask, for whom? I would suggest this happened in the first place, precisely because the GC, and /or feminist "movement," is in pretty bad shape, to begin with since this is the result. This lack of true solidarity is absolutely toxic to any movement, which is precisely why "divide and conquer" tactics rule the day. Ultimately, I believe it is more important to fully address this lack of solidarity in the open, especially when a lack of attempted private communication is gone unaddressed.

Helen Joyce is an academic and fully cognizant of the critical importance of attributions. She chose to leave them out. Citations and attributions are easy, they support the work of others, they are reciprocal, a sign of the mutuality that happens when researching and writing, and they make one feel good because it is respectful.

I was going to post the paragraphs sent to me from my followers, from Joyce's book, that echoed too closely, that of my own work and had me so greatly upset in the past couple of days. I have decided that the story that really matters here, is not whether she plagiarized me legally. I don't think it is legal plagiarism. But it is a theft.

The bigger story is the one where she used my work without attribution because she didn't want "the anti-semitism," the "conspiracy theorist," taint. This is why she attacked my work in a group, suddenly and without provocation. Ironically and perhaps karmically, she has been getting attacked online for anti-semitism, precisely because she used my work.

I have been generous. I have fought hard and worked hard. Many are taking the work forward and it is amazing. What Joyce has done is not taking the work forward. It is breaking and entering, disparaging me, ignoring my vast research to make herself safe. It is appalling behavior. Some have suggested that Joyce did her own research and came up with similar data (it's all public) and she has a right to credit who she wishes. I'm gobsmacked she happened to miss Tim Gill of the Tim Gill Foundation who I have not yet done an expose' on, when he is front and center of this agenda, having spent half a billion dollars of his own money to capture institutions and politicians. I also have to ask, why did she need me? And why has she refused to address this in a private communication? Heather Brunskell Evans and Susan Hawthorne, both UK academic feminists have used my work extensively and have cited and attributed it to me many times. Solidarity to them both.

When women break solidarity to save themselves, it is theft to all of us. Divided, we are powerless against the gender juggernaut. I say that with absolute conviction.

Take notes: Solidarity, like the word woman, means something. Choose your comrades carefully.

If you like what you are reading at the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription to support this research. Thank you.