Search Results

Photo Credit: https://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/ Miriam Grossman, M.D., a distinguished child psychiatrist with over 40 years of experience, has emerged as a prominent figure in the battle against the gender industry. Witnessing her commanding presence during a House Committee meeting in 2023, left me captivated. She was there testifying on behalf of a bill that would make funds unavailable for hospital training programs for pediatricians to learn and practice “gender affirming care.” Dr. Grossman skillfully dismantled her opponents' arguments with the accuracy of a seasoned military strategist. Her words struck with such precision that one could almost hear the impact like explosions. During her testimony, Dr. Grossman made several critical points: "There is no evidence of long-term benefit, but there is evidence of harm." "Medicine is currently entangled with politics." "Our precious resources should not support such a pernicious experiment." "Sex is established at conception, not assigned at birth." "Sex is not an arbitrary designation that can change." In contrast to other voices within the resistance against gender ideology, Dr. Grossman's statements are strategically focused on challenging her opponents, rather than ensuring universal comfort. Dr. Grossman stands as a lone general amidst a landscape of organizations and individuals engaged in combat against an industry seeking to dismantle human reproductive sex for profit. Her unwavering stance, notably outside the moderate center where many discussions unfold, is resolute and unambiguous. While others tread cautiously, attempting to appease various stakeholders, Dr. Grossman directs her firepower squarely at the medical industry's assault on young lives, leaving behind a trail of clarity amid a cacophony of cultural confusion. Despite her extensive expertise and contributions, and her book, “Lost in Trans Nation/A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness”, having been published in July 2023, the same year the prominent gender NGO, Genspect, held its large, international “gender conference,“ in Colorado, Dr. Grossman was strangely absent from the event. Genspect, positions itself as a leading force against the harms of gender ideology, though it seems to perpetuate the very narratives it claims to oppose. While Miriam Grossman, a physician, aims to dismantle the gender industry, organizations like Genspect adopt language reminiscent of their adversaries, blurring the lines between advocacy and acquiescence: “Our international organization includes professionals, trans people, detransitioners, and parent groups who work together to advocate for a non-medicalized approach to gender diversity.” They draw on the same language and the same obfuscations as the gender industry, separating the concept of gender from sex and highlighting it as a solidfied concept. Their language mirrors that of the gender industry: * “Our adept team recognizes the vibrant tapestry of today’s work and school environments. We tailor our training sessions to the diverse landscape of modern life, ensuring that every individual’s perspective is respected and understood while also ensuring that one individual’s inclusion does not come at the expense of another’s.” * “Our training sessions delve deep into the subjects of inclusivity, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental well-being, scientific advancements, and actionable strategies that empower organizations to tackle gender-related issues effectively.” Genspect’s The Bigger Picture conference in November 2023, in Colorado, was preceded by another Bigger Picture conference in Ireland in April 2023, from which Dr. Grossman was also absent. SEGM (Society For Evidence Based Gender Medicine), an organization aligned with Genspect also held a conference, in 2023, in NYC. The conference featured more than 30 experts from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I reached out to Dr. Grossman to inquire as to whether it was an oversight that she was not present, though she resides in NYC. Her absence from three significant conferences about the harms made manifest by gender ideology, seemed illogical, given her powerful voice and experience. She had not been invited to any of the events. While various and popular individuals, and establishments, are towing a moderate line in public, trying to please politicians, consumers of artificial sex characteristics, detransitioners, men with fetishes, and parents of children caught in the maw of a marketing blitzkrieg by the medical-tech industry, Dr. Grossman attacks the heart of the issue - the medical industry assaulting young people. My sense is, Dr. Grossman, is the real threat to the gender industry, not the organizations that become part of the system in effort to create change. Genspect and their “gender” events are proliferating.  Genspect is now in twenty-five countries. Where will they be if we are able to stop the gender industry? Does supporting Dr. Grossman, necessarily mean that the work of Genspect and their ilk, should not be supported? Can’t we all just get along? Genspect, unlike Dr. Grossman, sees the use of wrong sex pronouns as an individual choice. The pronoun issue, and their stance on it, exemplifies the problems currently plaguing a real resistance to this industry. If you have the luxury of choosing to use accurate language that reflects the biological reality of sex and you choose not to for your own comfort, the only real choice you’ve made is to align with the system that is commodifying human reproductive sex and weakening the resistance against it. People who are at the highest end of the pecking order, which is below the ruling class, often make this choice to secure some perks (speaking engagements, book deals, large philanthropic donations to their NGOs) that keep their own head above water, while they stand on the heads of those below, who have no choice and are forced to speak lies. The gender industry is an industry of the ruling class.  While Genspect, and organizations like them, are intent on creating a better NGO that keep the illusion of “gender people” alive, they do so at the expense of everyone suffering under this regime. This is  privileged activism and the only ones helped by it are those participating in it. Furthermore, any gain from this pursuit is temporary since it ultimately feeds the system that will come for those who Genspect is purportedly trying to help. This is class warfare, and Genspect, as it grows, is already positioning itself to be beyond critique, and is overpowering more urgent voices, such as that of physicians like Dr. Grossman. Whereas a real resistance would have warriors lining up behind Dr. Grossman, emulating her fierce truth telling, providing clarity and an example of speaking courageously, the resistance is being captured by NGOs that replicate what it is they are purportedly fighting. The NGOs get the big donations, create personalities that are platformed to raise their personae, and grow their brand as they blend themselves in with what they had originally set themselves up to end. At a certain point, people will have to choose whether they want to continue supporting the gender industry, or if they, like Dr. Miriam Grossman, want to take it down. This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

By Jonathon Van Maren I was honored to have been interviewed by Jonathon Van Maren about my research on the gender industry - Jennifer Bilek First published at The European Conservative. I first came across investigative journalist Jennifer Bilek’s work in 2020, when her essay “The Billionaires Behind the LGBT Movement” was published in First Things. It was a stunning piece—there are several journalists committed to exposing the transgender ‘movement’ (or industry, as Bilek calls it), but nobody has peeled away the façade of civil rights, pink-and-blue flags, and ‘trans kids’ like Bilek. If we had a mainstream press truly committed to uncovering and reporting the truth about the forces driving our culture today, her work would be cited by them across the board. Bilek is an artist, activist, and investigative journalist based out of New York City, and her work has been published in Tablet Magazine, The Federalist, The Post Millennial, and elsewhere. Bilek spent her life on the Left, but now she says that she is in the “political wilderness,” reporting on the biggest cultural story of our day while progressives ignore it or cover it up. Bilek also runs the Substack Jennifer’s Newsletter and the blog The 11th Hour, where she explains her focus: I write at the intersection of humanity, technology, and runaway capitalism. At this intersection stands transgenderism, what I believe is a glamorous ad campaign generated by elites, invested in tech and pharma, to normalize the changing of human biology. Bilek is doing something that journalists used to do instinctively: following the money. What she has uncovered is a bombshell that reveals the extent to which the transgender phenomenon has been created by super-wealthy LGBT donors who have a dark and sinister agenda. Her journalism supplies the missing pieces needed to complete the picture of how and why the transgender movement so swiftly achieved cultural dominance. Bilek kindly agreed to an interview in which she shared what she has uncovered thus far. You’ve done groundbreaking reporting on the extent to which billionaires have been quietly backing the LGBT movement behind the scenes. To what extent are the cultural shifts we’ve seen in the past few years astroturfed by big donors? The cultural shifts we see today regarding gender identity are largely influenced by huge capital inflows from governments, philanthropists, corporations, and investment management and accounting firms like Blackrock and Ernst & Young. While some believe that the ideology originated in universities, funding is directed to these institutions to promote the idea of synthetic sex identities as progressive, which students then carry 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 marketing disassociation from sexed reality presented as progressive, which is especially confusing to young people in using their naturally rebellious youthfulness as a corporate trap. Both the money and the ideology come out of the medical-tech sector, which is itself being integrated into culture through a philanthropic structure that has been attached to the LGBT civil rights political apparatus. The Arcus Foundation, one of the largest LGBT NGOs, plays a central role in this regard, not only by providing extensive funding to a plethora of institutions but also by introducing a tracking apparatus called MAP and encouraging wealthy philanthropists to invest in the LGBT constituency. Jon Stryker, the founder of Arcus, has a background in banking and is the heir to the corporate fortune that is Stryker Medical. Stryker Medical, with its ventures into the facial feminization surgery market, exemplifies the interconnection between the LGBT political apparatus and the medical-tech industry. The Pritzker family in Chicago is one of the richest families in America. Though their fortune evolved out of the Hyatt Hotel industry, their predominant investments now are in the medical-tech sector. Their massive philanthropic efforts have made them some of the biggest drivers/funders of the gender industry. Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation—the second largest LGBT NGO in America and connected to Jon Stryker and his family—contributes significantly as well, originally coming from the tech sector and now involved in 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. They did this in 2016, when they signed an amicus brief against North Carolina. After that the state insisted on bathroom privacy for boys and girls in schools. The rapid proliferation of this ideology is attributed to tremendous financial pressure and mainstream media censorship of critics, which aligns with the media’s ownership by the medical-tech industry. The intertwining of conglomerates like Hearst, Conde’ Nast, and Disney with prominent pharma platforms contributes to the pervasive influence of the techno-medical complex in America. The tech and medical industries thrive, like all industries, in creating and compartmentalizing new products, a trend seen in the LGBT civil rights movement, which was originally a grassroots movement that became corporatized during the AIDS crisis in the ’80s. American transsexualism, rooted in the medical establishment, dates to the 1950s, with the medical assault on reproductive organs. The LGBT community transformed into a profitable investment and marketing constituency after the AIDS crisis. 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 big money impacted the trajectory and influence of the transgender movement? I prefer to characterize this phenomenon as an industry rather than a movement. The focus lies on the creation of synthetic simulacrums of human reproductive characteristics, marketed for profit and human engineering. Contrary to a genuine human rights movement for the marginalized, synthetic sex characteristics are a corporate illusion. Those adopting them in an attempt to disown reality are not marginalized, nor are they a subcategory of our species’ reproductive sex. 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 broad spectrum, from medical assaults impacting healthy reproductive organs to non-medical expressions of feelings about sex-role stereotypes, sometimes involving surgery and drugs and sometimes not. Is it a sexual fetish or a form of resistance against culturally assigned behavioral norms based on one’s 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. Fueled by additional capital from investors and philanthropists, an industry dedicated to dissociation from the sexed body has experienced explosive growth. Individuals who may not fully comprehend the nature of this industry are profiting from it. Notable figures like Whoopi Goldberg are associated with modeling agencies catering to those attempting to disown their sex. Artists capture images of individuals with synthetic sex identities; TV programs feature characters attempting to disassociate socially and medically from their sexed reality; and law firms profit from lawsuits involving those wanting to disown their sex or protect the legal category of sex. The propaganda generated by this revenue stream has deeply entrenched the ideology of ‘transitioning sex’ into the market. A simple Google search for “transgender magazine covers for 2020” reveals an abundance of magazines conveying a consistent message. It’s noteworthy that these publications are part of conglomerates with medical-tech platforms and investments, enjoying support from asset management firms like BlackRock. What are the primary goals and motives of those pouring their money into LGBT organizations? The primary catalysts driving the gender industry are rooted in technological developments entwined with an unfettered market. Medical-sex identities, along with technological reproduction, are at the forefront of attempts to advance our species beyond our current human borders. The strategic linking of an agenda aimed at deconstructing reproductive sex with a civil rights movement centered on same-sex attraction was pure genius—a metaphorical fox in the henhouse, but dressed as a hen. We are on the brink of breakthroughs in genetic engineering, artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial reproduction, each comprising significant industries. The convergence of these fields indicates a trajectory towards a future that transcends our current human state. Media outlets and tech gurus emerging from Silicon Valley have, since the early 2000s, driven a narrative predicting a more integral fusion of humans with AI, envisioning the creation of a hybrid species. The burgeoning tech-reproductive market, already valued at $27 billion, aligns with the broader trend of viewing the interior of the human body as a lucrative marketing landscape. With the development of injections capable of altering our DNA, there is apparent potential for profitability in treating the human body, fetuses, and women’s reproductive organs as canvases for technological interventions. The tech reproduction industry seems like a harbinger of a future in which reproduction without copulation or gestation may be the norm. The gender identity narrative serves these marketing ventures as it reduces our wholly sexed humanity to commodities. Who are some of the most significant contributors to the transgender movement? 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 entities are prominent funders of the agenda to deconstruct 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 introduces gender ideology in schools, and GLAAD, which is responsible for shaping media discourse on this industry by promoting it as a ‘human right.’ The funding also supports the Victory Institute, which trains leaders for political roles that can influence policies to support the industry. MAP is another foundation that tracks the philanthropic funding cultivated by these organizations. Martine Rothblatt stands as another influential figure in this societal transformation. Formerly known as Martin, Rothblatt adopted synthetic simulacrums of women’s wholly sexed humanity and now identifies as a woman. Describing himself as ‘transhuman,’ Rothblatt advocates for human augmentation that challenges traditional concepts of sex. 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. With LGBT organizations receiving enormous infusions of cash from financial backers, how can small, grassroots groups push back? Initially, it is crucial to inform people about the substantial financial investments directed towards an illusory constituency. There are no ‘transgender’ individuals, so what exactly are these funds supporting? They are fueling an effort to confer human rights upon a segment of the population who are seeking to disown their humanity—a concept that warrants closer examination. By reframing the narrative away from human rights for the marginalized towards rights for those attempting to disown their humanity, we can offer a fresh perspective. Gender rights, in this context, serve as the political groundwork for the burgeoning rights discourse surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) or cyborgs in their early stages. Equally important is the need to reclaim language. 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. Emphasizing clarity over the expedience of communication is vital. 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 has set its sights on the next generation, demanding that even those unfamiliar with activism step forward. The truth, grounded in biological reality, is our strongest ally, supported by the entirety of the living world. I highly recommend Jonathon Van Maren's Substack. He is tackling the issues others avoid like kryptonite. Go over and spread some love for this interview, subscribe to his substack here, and then subscribe to the 11th Hour at the bottom of the homepage.

The artificial sex characteristics of the gender industry are not real. They are products in a developing medical-tech market. They do not inherently alter the individuals who acquire them or endow them with any special human attributes. Instead, they primarily influence our perception of reality, serving the profit-driven agenda of the industry. Although still in its infancy, the industry focused on self-actualized sex through commodification is experiencing rapid growth. It is imperative that we grasp the nature of this situation to avoid being drawn into the constructed virtual reality it seeks to impose upon us. We must question whether we want to inhabit a manufactured environment where individuals are reduced to commodities and reproduction is facilitated through medical technology, or as part of the natural world. How far is too far, in experimenting with the line between reality and technologically constructed humans? Many individuals hesitate to speak honestly about the gender industry, fearing misunderstanding or accusations of bigotry. But it’s important to recognize bigotry applies to people, not commercial products. Presently, there exists confusion where the products of the synthetic sex market—the artificially constructed sex characteristics of the gender industry —are mistaken for the individuals who purchase them. This confusion is escalating as people try to navigate a marketing campaign of human rights designated for commodities. We are in dangerous territory when humanity is being reduced to commodities and commodities are being given human rights. Humanity is being blurred intentionally for a virtual construct - beings beyond our currently sexed borders. The gender industry is not the only arena where this blurring of reality is happening, but sex is foundational to our existence as a species, which makes it crucial for people to understand what is transpiring. We must get beyond our fear of talking about this industry in real terms, instead of the language the market has set with its advertising slogans. “Trans rights are human rights,” is a slogan that infers the commodities of artificial sex characteristics, are people. They are not. This confusion is not an accident. It is a deliberate strategy of the ad for synthetic sex. Artificial sex characteristics, crafted through medical technology, are being promoted under the guise of human rights advocacy precisely because it blurs the lines between the products of the gender industry and the people who purchase the products. This branding aims to convey a sense of uniqueness and transformation to consumers. All marketing works in this way. The ad campaign signals to the world, the place of the consumer of the product, in society, and cultivates the perceptions of others through advertising. A woman driving a Mercedes Benz is bound to get a very different welcome at valet parking, than the woman driving a Ford. The brand of car doesn’t change anything fundamental about her. It creates an illusion that she is a more worthy individual because she can afford a Mercedes Benz in a society that values wealth over human integrity. The artificial sex characteristics of the medical-tech industry are no different. The gender industry operates by deconstructing reproductive sex and commodifying its components, including eggs, sperm, wombs, synthetic hormones, breasts, penises, and vaginas. Children are increasingly exposed to gender ideology in their schools and other learning environments, and on their social media where they spend many more hours than previous generations.  They are encouraged to view themselves as commodities rather than wholly, sexed beings. This indoctrination, coupled with exposure to explicit sexual material, contributes to the dissociation from their innate biological reality. Efforts to challenge the destructiveness of the gender industry often become mired in debates about fairness, surrounding identities pertaining to sex and societal roles, detracting from the underlying economic motivations. Institutions, governments, and corporations invest in this industry for its profitability, viewing individuals not as complete human beings but as marketable parts. Notions of privacy become eroded within this paradigm. Commodities don’t need privacy. People do. It's essential to dispel the notion of "gender people" and recognize individuals as consumers caught up in a market driven by financial interests. The industry's proliferation signifies a broader societal deconstruction, reducing individuals to mere commodities devoid of inherent worth or boundaries. The ethical ramifications of this dehumanization cannot be understated. The dissolution of social cohesion is already creating chaos and the harm being meted out to children is unconscionable. Many groups and organizations now forming in attempts to resist the harms of the gender industry, are using consumers of artificial sex characteristics as symbols of solidarity or understanding. They fail to acknowledge the diverse motivations behind these consumer choices. Individuals who opt for synthetic sex characteristics remain male or female, and any perceived transformation is a product of marketing rather than inherent change. By using consumers of artificial sex characteristics, as props, they bolster the industry and the illusion that these consumers are a type of person.  I am not a new type of person if I purchase a Mercedes Benz.  The same is true of people who consume synthetic sex characteristics. They are consumers of a product. The synthetic sex industry is medical dehumanization. It is unethical in all its forms. The fact this must be argued, or that people have come to be afraid to offend anyone by saying so, tells us exactly how far the dehumanization of all of us, has already progressed. In confronting the gender industry, it's imperative to dispel the illusion of a battle for human rights against a fabricated construct. Instead, we must recognize it as a manifestation of medical-technological commodification and work towards restoring the dignity, boundaries, and integrity of individuals within society. This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

Image attribution (Image:"Blood & Glitter" is a song by German gothic metal band Lord of the Lost. It was released on 24 December 2022 through Napalm. The song represented Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 in Liverpool after winning Unser Lied für Liverpool, Germany's national final, and finished in last position. Lyrics can be found here). _________________________________________________________________________________________ Many activists today are attempting to push back against a medical-tech industry that is assaulting children's reproductive organs, and the human sex binary itself. This industry not only poses serious risks to children and adults, and societal norms, but also promotes an ideology suggesting that individuals can simply choose their biological sex. These activists are engaged in a battle against what I term the "gender industry," a construct largely driven by adult male fantasies of appropriating womanhood as they intersect with the medical-tech industry. This industry not only undermines the rights of children and women based on biological sex but also attempts to establish a narrative that recognizes a third category of sexed human beings outside the binary of male and female, requiring special rights and considerations. By employing opposite-sex pronouns and amplifying the voices of individuals with artificially constructed sex characteristics, some of these activists are inadvertently contributing to the legitimization of this corporately fabricated category of humanity. Others have built organizations in effort to offer emotional help to families with a loved one taking on an alternative sex identity but have wound up supporting the initial problem: a corporate and technological construct of an alternative type of human being. The legal advancements made in the name of protecting this manufactured third sex category of humanity rely on linguistic manipulations that distort the very foundation of human existence. For activists adopting such language, attempting to curry inroads of communication with people who have been captured by the ideology, any success they acquire will only provide temporary relief, as it fails to address the underlying issue: the proliferation of technologically manipulated humans who make up the alternative sex category and where it is leading. The notion of a third type of human, divorced from biological reality, serves as a pretext for the sale of artificial sex characteristics, and ultimately paves the way for a technological revolution in human reproduction. This process moves us away from our intimate connections to biology, each other, and will, if successful, make women obsolete. The gender industry thrives on dismantling the  understanding of biological sexes and promotes an untold number of fluid sexual identities and orientations. As the demand for products supporting technologically engineered humans grows, fueled by the allure of "technology as a life-giving god," societal norms are rapidly evolving, accompanied by legislative changes to accommodate these new identities. However, it's crucial to recognize that these identities are artificially constructed through a combination of drugs, surgeries, language manipulation, and technology. They are devoid of any inherent reality. Most activists attempting to resist the gender industry have only scratched the surface of the technological underpinnings of the market in deconstructing sex, narrowly focusing on the recent medical scandals, oversexualization of children and intrusions into women’s rights, without fully grasping the broader implications at play. Tying this construct of another kind of human to an already established human rights apparatus for people with same sex attraction, via the LGB NGO and political infrastructure, was strategic genius. This has cultivated public sympathy for a third type of human that simply does not exist. It is purely a corporate, technological fabrication, at least so far. The SoftBank Group's pursuit of a $100 billion AI chip venture, code-named Izanagi, inspired by the Japanese god of creation, epitomizes the use of technology toward creating a post biological existence for humanity, and imagining a tech god that will do the creating. SoftBank is renowned for its LGBTQ initiatives and “inclusive” work environment, and has received the highest Gold rating in the PRIDE Index. Silicon Valley has been reporting on the melding of man and machine since early 2000s, and predicted humans will be partnering with robots in technology marriages in the future. This is a trajectory toward a technological usurpation of creation itself. The oversexualization of children on their tech platforms and in schools, and especially on their social media, are sexually traumatizing them into a state of dissociation from their bodies, while they become further entrenched in technology, and are groomed in schools, to believe that their parents do not always have their best interests at heart. This is occurring while women, the natural life-givers, are being erased in language and law, and reduced to inhuman caricatures in public displays of male fetishes. Figures like Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual transhumanist invested in the furtherance of transsexual identities into a transhumanist realm, the future of technological reproduction, gene editing, AI, and human surveillance, and his mentor of Google fame, Ray Kurzweil, envision a future where technology transcends human limitations, blurring the lines between biology and machinery. Kurzweil, a Google advisor, envisions a future where humanity, augmented by technology, transcends age-old limitations, potentially altering the nature of mortality. He consistently insists on the emergence of god-like tech and a future humanity that is post biological, not gestated by women, but by technology. Rothblatt, along with building a tech-centered religion, has outlined principles resembling a blueprint for the modern gender movement, seeking to overcome what he terms "fleshism." Kurzweil’s employer, Google, the pioneering corporation in the transhumanist domain, is assisting the Trevor Project, an LGBT NGO, in developing an AI platform for children, and furthering the narrative for children that they can choose their sex. When we shift the lens on the third sex category of humanity presented to us, from human rights to business and technological developments, it becomes evident that the gender industry is primarily profit driven, with an eye toward controlling human evolution. Activists leveraging individuals with artificially constructed sex characteristics, to sway those misled by, and invested in, the human rights frame, reinforce the legitimacy of the harmful construct. Historically, this approach has proven to be counterproductive since the industry’s infancy in the 1960s. It is now a much stronger business model. Efforts to combat the cultural ramifications of the gender industry must not turn away from confronting its technological dimension and its promotion of a technologically fabricated third type of human. Legal victories against this corporate illusion are likely to be short-lived, as the industry continues to thrive with substantial legal and financial backing, unless we can claw back the right to speak intelligibly, so everyone can understand what is at stake. The top one hundred highest-earning international law firms worldwide all have LGBT platforms supporting the gender industry. This support champions the destruction of healthy human reproductive organs, the use of drugs and surgeries that radically compromise health, and linguistic fabrications that confuse people that have already been captivated by a nefarious narrative. Many have been led to the belief of a transcendent third category of human beings, and the ideas that people can change sex and that reproductive sex exists on a spectrum. These law firms offer pro bono legal assistance, allyship programs, health insurance, guidebooks for legal strategies that support a third category of human, and even organize Pride parades for individuals seeking to override their biological sex through technology and drugs. The widespread support of major corporations and financial firms for profitable medical-tech interventions promoted by the gender industry, further underscores the profit-driven nature of this enterprise and its roots in human engineering. Despite efforts to portray technologically and medically constructed sex characteristics as unique identities, they remain myths perpetuated for profit. There are only males and females of our species. Activists must focus on addressing the root causes perpetuating the profit-driven interests of the gender industry while safeguarding the rights of individuals and protecting children. Challenging its false narratives and advocating for truth in language that supports our biological reality against a synthetic one, will be essential in effecting lasting change. _________________________________________________________________________________________ This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

The proliferation of gender ideology and its dangerous impacts on society are closely tied to the ongoing technological advancements that shape our lives. In the midst of rapid developments in the internet, AI, genetic engineering, and artificial reproduction, the intricate connection between technology and biological reality is undeniable. This backdrop undergirds current, rapid societal changes, including attempts to reshape children's perceptions of their sexed bodies, and the erasure of women in language and law. Children are being taught they can choose their sex, because technology is advancing toward the potentiality of technological reproduction that bypasses human copulation and female gestation and creates genetic choices in our offspring hitherto unknown to us. This trend directly affects women's reproductive capacities, with their bodies being viewed as tools in this technological war. Dr. Suzanne Vierling's insightful presentation (below) at the International Women’s Sport Summit, sheds light on how this battle is playing out on women's bodies, mirroring historical patterns where women's bodies have been instrumentalized in wars. The systems that technologically manipulate human reproduction, particularly female reproduction, and which are currently sterilizing children, are often presented as advancing human rights, and helping families, leaving most people unaware of what is transpiring. These technologies are, in essence, engaged in a war against humanity, rooted in biological reality and reproductive sex. Victors in this war claim the spoils, and in this context, women's reproductive capacities and children's bodies, become the stolen rewards, the land conquered by the tech sector. To resist the deconstruction of the material and biological world, essential for the progress of gender ideology, is to risk being overrun by the power of technology and virtual systems. Holding on to biological reality, while crucial for our understanding of ourselves, does not align with the interests of the tech and medical industries, as our bodies are commodified for profit. Our sex is disassembled into marketable parts: wombs, breasts, penises, sperm, eggs, breast milk, chromosomes, and more. While acknowledging our biological reality, it's important to recognize that, as a species, we increasingly inhabit a virtual reality shaped by technology. This virtual realm, facilitated by our devices and AI, often supersedes our interactions with the biological world. We must grapple with the fact that our memories, navigation, and even dating choices are guided by technology. Gender ideology, alongside surrogacy, and technological reproduction, targets our roots in the biological world. It challenges the very essence of sex, posing a threat to humanity. The myth of a distinct category of humans, elevated above biologically male and female distinctions, conditions society to accept these changes. It is a form of grooming. Women have historically symbolized the biological world, with their reproductive capacities mirroring the gestation of nature itself. However, this connection becomes a hindrance in the face of the technological takeover of human reproductive sex. Women, therefore, find themselves in the way of progress and must be erased, if technological reproduction is to overtake natural reproduction. It is vital to acknowledge the explicit nature of these developments, even if it challenges our beliefs about those in positions of power. Much like individuals in relationships with abusers, there is a reluctance to accept the disturbing reality before us. We don’t want to believe that people in governments, our institutions, our corporations, and in our neighborhoods, would facilitate the erasure of womanhood and the harming of children.  However, a critical examination of the intersection between technology, gender ideology, reproductive realities, and those who will profit from them, is imperative for a nuanced understanding of the challenges western societies face today. "Any man that allows a sacred woman of the temple to be desecrated, is a conquered man." "Western men are being openly mocked, as cracks appear that welcome female colonization. He is being told: We are doing this to your women and children, right in front of your face. What are you going to do?" - Suzanne Vierling Dr. Suzanne Vierling is a clinical psychologist and higher ed professional with a vision to preserve the institution of womanhood in the fourth industrial economy. suzannevierling@gmail.com website drsuzannevierling.com You can support Suzanne’s work here: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/SFV657?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

By Joey Brite As another year of following the money and power behind the gender industry ends for me, my friend and fellow activist Joey Brite suggested an accounting of the money and power behind the pro-reality movement - our side. She asks in this piece, what has our activism cost us? What have we gained, and where do we go from here? Considering what we have been up against, her essay felt like a love letter, a deep acknowledgment of our combined efforts against the juggernaut we face, something to hold onto as we move into the new year. As I share her piece with the followers of The 11th Hour Blog, I thank you for your efforts and support. Our progress has only come through concerted efforts, even as we struggle with each other. Everyone is a hero/heroine who has taken up the task of facing this beast in whatever way they could. I hope you celebrate yourselves this holiday season, rejoice in your accomplishments, and let go of the stress, if just for a while. A whole new year is coming at us, and we'll need the renewed energy to take care of ourselves while meeting the challenges ahead. Thank you, Joey, for your continued dedication and giving us something to hold onto. ***** “Grassroots activism is the first line of defense that the people have directly. We talk directly to these people. We look into their eyes. We hug them. We listen to their stories. Every grassroots activist has had a moment where the last story they heard was more than they could take. It was too hard for them to ignore”. -- Gabrielle Clark, CEO of Affirming Reality As I was traveling across the U.S. in late September 2023 to represent the film Affirmation Generation at the Richmond International Film Festival, I boarded the plane with a plan to make some progress on another grassroots project I'd started. Like so many, I have a fear of flying, and so I always bring my notebook, hoping that I can distract myself from the terror of being sucked out a window and into the abyss to suffocate quickly. However, instead of getting to that project, I began fretting about how much this two-week trip would dent my budget. I set about making a list of all my known and projected expenses. Barely upon takeoff, I not only calculated the consequences to my wallet of this current trip, but my mind also began to explode with the reality of an earlier trip I had taken in the spring to Iowa to perform the same role. I tapped into my memory of that final amount in dollars and lost wages. It gave me quite a wake-up call: What about all the close activists I have known throughout the past three years and their finances used for fighting against "gender ideology"? What about the sacrifice of my producer for the film I was representing? I had to consider many individuals and groups that describe and define "grassroots." I created a list of names of the real grassroots activists across America that I had either worked with remotely or in person or recognized their efforts as witnessed online. The activists that are either working part-time and semi-retired as I am, the retail and service worker jobs of some I know, the office workers and waitresses, the small independent business owners and mothers or fathers, the homemakers, housecleaners, and homeschoolers, the ones who have—or had—professional high paying positions, and the ones holding full-time jobs and straining at balancing and making sense of their lives turned upside-down as a result of "gender ideology" coming into their homes. Only a rare few were financially comfortable, spending money never to be seen again because the immediacy they felt to get to the fight was that urgent. I was not surprised to find that many of those who got into the early days of activism against female erasure and child medical sex experimentation were feminists and disenchanted Democrats. Unlikely alliances began with Republicans and social conservatives, but economic demographics remained unchanged. Except for a handful, those I met were working or middle-class. As the movement grew by early 2022, more groups arrived with financial resources. Some are suspected of being controlled opposition, while others had noticed the campaigns from us earlier grassroots activists. Activists reached mainstream America through deeper pocket funding only after strenuous efforts by grassroots organizers working on shoe-string budgets. These types of efforts surged a Mid-Western small business owner's grassroots activism. Beth Stelzer, an amateur powerlifter, mother, and wife, created the first coalition (now disbanded) to fight for saving sports designated for women. At the time she began this, there was no financial backing. It took fundraising, personal donations, and simple merchandise sales to keep it barely afloat. Tremendous effort was accomplished across state lines, delivering testimonies and gathering others to take up the cause. While most of the public in 2023 know Riley Gaines, Save Women's Sports needed to happen first. Activists like K. Yang, Amy Sousa, Jeanna Hoch, and others were instrumental in opening the door for the success of ICONS. Activists who helped move the needle in exposing the ills taking place in child safeguarding, indoctrination in public education, and child medicalization have been Gabrielle Clark in Nevada and Erin Friday in California. In Washington state, Dawn Land has been instrumental in various issues, such as gathering signatures for petitions against horrible child safeguarding bills, protecting women's sports, and getting Drag Queen Story Hour out of libraries. In Wisconsin, Thistle Petersen and her team have been busy for over eight years, serving up news from all over the U.S. and beyond through the podcast forum. It would take a bit longer—and is still an issue of national concern—to gain the same attention for the plight of getting men out of women's prisons. Grassroots campaigner Amie Ichikawa has worked to address this horrific reality by creating Woman ii Woman. Fighting the industry of "gender" means different levels of commitment and financial costs. For boots-on-the-ground work, expenses depend on the location and the style of protest, rally, or type of demonstration. Banners, leaflets, permits, posters, bullhorns, whistles, first aid kits, rope, duct tape, clipboards, publicity, and parking costs can all be considerations. If the action is in another city, airfare, gas, hotel stays, meals and car rentals add up. For activists producing more significant events, costs can include a conference, sound equipment, and basic technical expenses. Having speakers can mean paying varying speakers' fees, transportation, and accommodations. Often, activists must consider professional security costs for their safety. Considering these costs, I wanted to see if I could get at least 20 such grassroots activists to answer this question: "Can you give me an estimated dollar amount that you have personally invested in fighting "gender ideology" that you will never see back?" The response I received so quickly should not have surprised me, but I made the possible categories of costs to represent a broad range of forced and voluntary financial investments. After 30 women and three men had totaled their expenses, the amount came to $6,610,950.00. If this were the amount from 30 activists polled, what could the actual amount be in the USA? The states represented are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, with the most significant amount coming from California. This estimated total covers the following: loss of wages due to either choosing to quit or being forced to leave lucrative employment in the attempt to rescue a child from medicalization, being pressured out of employment, and becoming "unemployable" in one's field due to being targeted for fighting "gender ideology." moving costs for being targeted in one's neighborhood and relocating to a safer geographic area legal costs: either fighting lawsuits, filing lawsuits, custody issues, or covering court fines psychotherapy fees producing boots-on-the-ground actions donations to content providers in the form of video, blogs, and independent journalism (e.g., Substack) upgrades in technical equipment and fees for online access to webinars and online conferences actual conferences (in-person) donations to detransitioners donations to organizations and political campaigns donations to artistic projects such as film, art installations, original arts and crafts, stickers, t-shirts, bumper stickers, clothing For those of us in the early beginning, creating and printing posters, buying spray paint and other art supplies for renegade awareness campaigns, and creating postcards, stickers, and t-shirts were the start. Taking photos and videos and uploading them to social media was the only way to get exposure, as no mainstream media would cover us. Twitter/X began showing signs of rebellion against the onslaught of 'gender' in the form of protest imagery uploaded by unknown disparate activists from around the country in 2021. Alternative media, along with some platforms on the political right, was the first to begin touching this subject as 'cancel culture' was opening these journalistic warriors to a torrent of abuse for acknowledging the harm coming to women and children, due to gender ideology. By the summer of 2022, The Epoch Times began reporting on the gender wars, interviewing activists, and following our stories in California. The medical crimes committed against children, which grassroots activists were protesting, were finally reported in the press, and the term detransitioners got exposure. Men infiltrating women's prisons and school curricula containing indoctrination into the 'new religion' of 'gender ideology' were being reported about. That platform began producing documentaries on the subject with a keen eye, revealing that California was experiencing a complete totalitarian regime that was encroaching on every aspect of our society. FOX News had dipped its feet into the waters of the subject with Tucker Carlson, but when The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh released What Is a Woman? It cracked open a larger conversation in the general public. These examples showed how, though activists of the original left were involved in this fight, the left's MSM remained silent about these stories. Since Jennifer Bilek reports on the tremendous machine of propaganda and financing driving this into the culture, I asked her what the most accurate dollar amount was behind the biggest psyops we face against our shared humanity. Bilek replied: "The figure you're thinking of is the entire LGBT marketing constituency, which is 3.7 trillion dollars. There is no way to assess how much money is being pumped into the 'gender industry' since it happens at so many levels: DEI financing, philanthropic funding, government funding, corporate sponsorship, commerce, etc., and of course, there's no way to separate the financing of LGB versus gender ideology. There is just no way to know." I want to honor each of you who took the risk and paid the price in many inconvenient ways. Investing personal funds and countless unpaid hours has reached a wider audience joining the fight. Many of us who were early on the frontlines remain in the battle, and new voices have joined it as we have seen more citizens showing up at the school board meetings with parents fiercely taking to the microphone. Increasingly, we hear testimonies being delivered at the capitols in our states, facing the medical facilities and governing bodies forcing this anti-human agenda throughout our language and law and in every facet of our society. We must join across the lines of polarization that have held us back from the progress we desperately seek. “Gender ideology” as Goliath cannot be allowed to crush our best efforts as David. Hold fast, fellow warriors, and #stayhuman for as long as possible. “Grassroots has no benefit to the individual activists besides the knowledge that they didn’t ignore human suffering” - Gabrielle Clark, CEO of Affirming Reality. *** Joey Brite is an American, a baby boomer, and a 2nd Wave feminist who fell in love with film and pop culture at an early age. She became obsessed with finding the truth behind big news stories after questioning the assassination of Medgar Evers and began writing op-eds at age 10. Things have mostly stayed the same in her desire to understand perceived power dynamics that impact women's lives in society and within the culture of political movements. She is the Executive Producer for the documentary Affirmation Generation. Joey Brite has also written for Women Are Human and Uncommon Ground Media.

By Alline Cormier This article contains spoilers. Presenting synthetic humans in the likeness of people, as the latest sci-fi about AI, The Creator does, and treating them like real people, grooms viewers for seeing people as objects (i.e. as less than human) and objects as people. This dehumanization paves the way for using women as parts—think surrogacy—for profit without incurring public outcries. It also paves the way for the biotech industry’s posthumanism, which bypasses women as the source of life. The Creator is simply the latest Hollywood feature film to normalize artificial females (previously I wrote about Lars and the Real Girl and Blade Runner 2049). The Creator’s filmmakers aren’t the first men to promote synthetic humans. Consider American millionaire and transsexual transhumanist, Martine (né Martin) Rothblatt, a supporter of robot rights. Jennifer Bilek reports that he “has written extensively on the need to overhaul our system of labeling people as either male or female based only on their genitalia, … the future of creating humans, new reproductive technology...” Rothblatt also has a wife (Bina) and a robot replica of his wife (Bina48). In a 2016 interview, he said without a hint of irony, “AIs are people, too. The only difference is they’re people without skin.” A similar message is conveyed in The Creator. Are AI robots (synthetic humans) entitled to the same rights as humans? The filmmakers behind The Creator think so. Their film conveys the message that humans and synthetic humans are the same. The Creator also reimagines the human species’ boundaries (i.e. technological reproduction). It isn’t likely to become the next sci-fi classic—it’s riddled with inconsistencies—it looks more like propaganda designed to normalize synthetic humans. Still, given that it has made over US$98 million at the box office, it merits analysis because movies play a role in shifting our attitudes. The screenplay was directed by 48-year-old Gareth Edwards and co-written by Edwards and 53-year-old Chris Weitz. The duo had previously worked together on Disney’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016). Produced by New Regency, Bad Dreams, and eOne, The Creator had a production budget of US$80 million. The score was entrusted to 12-time Oscar-nominated film score composer Hans Zimmer (two Oscar wins). The filmmakers wanted to ensure the score elicited the desired emotional responses in the audience. The cinematography was entrusted to Oscar winner Greig Fraser (Dune, The Batman) and Oren Soffer. The latter’s website states he has shot hundreds of commercials for Nike, BMW, Doritos, etc. But unlike Zimmer and Fraser, Soffer hasn’t even received an Oscar nomination. This is his first big movie. One wonders: was he brought on board for his background in advertising? Set in 2070 in ‘New Asia’, The Creator is the story of a U.S. Army sergeant named Joshua Taylor (John David Washington) who finds himself unable to destroy the new AI superweapon as ordered when he discovers it is a synthetic human child—an AI robot made by his deceased, pregnant wife Maya (Gemma Chan) from a copy of their unborn child’s embryo before she died, during the war opposing humans and AI robots. Although humanity had initially embraced AI robots, in 2055 the AIs detonated a nuclear warhead over Los Angeles, leveling it (killing Joshua’s family). Consequently, the United States stopped developing AIs. Because New Asia continued, the two countries are at war, with the U.S. desirous of eradicating AIs. In 2065 AIs make their last stand in New Asia, where Joshua is sent undercover to get close to the daughter (Maya) of AI architect Nirmata. Joshua marries Maya. Later, a military attack on their home blows Joshua’s cover and results in Maya’s death before their baby’s birth. Five years later, Colonel Howell (Allison Janney) and General Andrews (Ralph Ineson) enlist Joshua to find the lab where Nirmata is building a superweapon to destroy ‘NOMAD’, the U.S. Army’s space station. Joshua accepts the mission when told Maya survived NOMAD’s attack. Up to this early point in the film, AIs are depicted as humankind’s enemy, but now things begin to change, leading the audience to consider AIs differently. A U.S. soldier threatens to shoot a girl’s puppy if she refuses to disclose the entrance to Nirmata’s underground lab. Once inside, the soldiers shoot the lab workers—the first of numerous examples of AIs and their allies depicted as the victims of the ruthless army personnel (humans). Joshua finds the superweapon: a synthetic child (Madeleine Yuna Voyles), watching TV with a stuffed toy. He disobeys Howell’s order to shoot it and names the artificial female Alphie. Joshua becomes increasingly attached to it, foils the military’s attempts to destroy it, and eventually loves it as his daughter. Although Alphie is The Creator’s lead female, there are two other significant feminized synthetic humans: the likeness of Maya who appears at the end, and Kami, Joshua’s friend Drew’s girlfriend (Veronica Ngo). The filmmakers use various devices to normalize synthetic humans and encourage viewers to consider them as people, including anthropomorphizing language, casting, portraying acceptance of AIs approvingly, lifelike portrayals of AIs and emotional manipulation, portrayals of AIs as morally superior to humans, etc. By humanizing their AIs, the filmmakers convey the message that humans and synthetic humans are the same and lead the audience to believe synthetic humans are entitled to the same rights as humans. Anthropomorphizing language is used throughout to encourage us to view the AIs as people. For example, Joshua and others refer to Alphie using female pronouns. The casting is similarly effective. For example, Alphie is played by an adorable little girl who says things like, “You my friend?” to Joshua. It’s the Shirley Temple of Androids—nothing like C-3PO and The Terminator. Seeing Alphie as just a robot is an uphill battle. Ken Watanabe plays Harun, the other lead AI. Both are likable synthetic humans. Portraying acceptance of AIs approvingly teaches viewers to accept AIs. Alphie, as just one example, is treated like a child, including by the hero. Joshua increasingly behaves like a parent around it, carrying it in his arms, hugging it, etc. Every time it is treated like a girl, the lie that AIs and humans are the same is reinforced. This belief is even plainly stated a few times (e.g. “My father told me that underneath it all, we’re all the same”). Referring to humans and AIs, a character says, “We’re all connected,” and viewers are led to agree. A news report shows human protesters condemning NOMAD attacks on AIs. The movie is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Lifelike portrayals of AIs and emotional manipulation gaslight us into going along and avoiding thinking critically about the messages conveyed. The filmmakers humanized the AIs nearly 100%. They appear to possess a consciousness. Alphie laughs with children, cries often and says it wants “For the robots to be free.” Alphie and Joshua scream when they are separated by the military. When Andrews entrusts Joshua with terminating Alphie (one of the aforementioned inconsistencies), Alphie asks through tears, “Am I going to heaven?” In the end, Joshua sacrifices himself to save Alphie. These lifelike portrayals and emotional manipulation lead us to be affected when AI robots appear sad or are destroyed. And yet, there’s no reason for us to not remain impassive by what befalls robots. When we are, it’s because we’ve been groomed. Portraying the AIs as morally superior to their enemies, namely U.S. Army personnel, further encourages us to consider synthetic humans entitled to human rights. The AIs are more empathetic than some of the lead human characters and appear just as capable of love as humans. Maya says to Joshua of the AIs, “They protected me, loved me, took better care of me than humans would’ve.” Harun says the bombing of L.A. was due to human error—not the AIs’ fault. Humans are depicted as callous, particularly Howell and her soldiers. At the end, Alphie is safe and NOMAD is destroyed, falling from the sky to the cheering of AIs (read: the nice AIs triumph, and the nasty humans are punished as they deserve for failing to embrace AIs). The moral of the story: be progressive and play nice with AIs or you’ll find yourself on the losing end of a war. No film analysis is complete without consideration of the female audience. The Creator doesn’t serve it well. There are just three or four brief exchanges between female characters. A woman in a position of power and authority (Howell) is portrayed negatively and killed off, as is the only other significant adult female human character, Maya (secondary character Kami is offed too). The only significant female character who isn’t is the AI (Alphie). Also, according to the all-male filmmaking team, the future includes females ‘exotic’ dancing. My grandparents would have scoffed at the idea that robots are entitled to the same rights as humans—as, until recently, most people would. Unfortunately, their common-sense generation has all but disappeared. Younger generations are growing up in a mad age where the nonsensical is routinely accepted as possible (e.g. men are women if they say so). The Creator’s filmmakers went to some lengths to advance the idea that synthetic humans are the way of the future—as Hollywood filmmakers are increasingly doing. It’s time moviegoers started asking themselves: why? The Creator is rated PG-13. It has a running time of 133 minutes and was released on September 29. Alline Cormier is a Canadian film analyst. This year her articles on women in film/TV have been published in The 11th Hour, Women Making Films (India), Feminist Current, 4W, and Gender Dissent. She is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. Her website is found at sexualizationofwomen.com, and she tweets @ACPicks2. PayPal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier

"'Every good cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket" - Eric Hoffer Genspect, an organization originating to help children process their feelings about what is marketed to them as gender identity, and parents who’ve lost their children because of it, has morphed into a new type of LGBT NGO. It’s messaging, like the word “transgender” itself, is without borders and people are noticing. On November 4-5 th , Genspect had a major conference in Denver, Colorado with speakers discussing everything having to do with the gender ideology leviathan. The Bigger Picture conference certainly was big. I write about the money that drives gender ideology propaganda, which makes it look like a medical issue (and simultaneously akin to the human rights issues for lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals), so I don’t invest in the idea that children are having a medical problem. Therefore, I no longer support Genspect. Of course, once you start treating a propaganda problem medically, you create a medical problem on top of a propaganda problem, which then feeds the narrative that it’s a medical problem. Just look at poor Jazz Jennings, a young boy who once liked sparkles and rainbows, who is now a grown man posing as a woman, and who’s now been through medical castration on his once healthy body, and two subsequent surgeries on his synthetic genitalia. Since I have researched this issue for a decade, followers of my work have asked me to weigh in on the confusion and anger some felt at seeing a man parading his autogynephilic fetish and marketing his book about his paraphilia, at the recent Genspect conference. His book promotes the destigmatization of his fetish, by rebranding his autogynephilic compulsion “autoheterosexuality.” Autogynephila, otherwise known as transsexualism, is the male sexual compulsion to own womanhood. It is at the root of what is becoming an industry in synthetic sex characteristic commodities, being marketed to children. Genspect exists to help the families harmed by the normalization and industrialization of this fetish-turned-predatory-industry, and the fetishists themselves. Attempting to help them both, as a public organization, was a bad idea to begin with, and now that Genspect is growing, so are their problems. I had a look at Genspect’s conference schedule. I’ve come to respect the work of several of the speakers who were showcasing their analysis. But, putting them all together in one conference, belied the lack of focus this organization has that generates so much conflict. The itinerary mirrored the hydra of gender ideology itself, and this hydra is staggeringly incoherent when you look at the entire beast at once. Genspect wants to be too many things to too many people. They want to serve two masters, just like LGBT NGOs who want to support LGB and TQ+. Everything after the LGB in the acronym attempts to undermine the sexual dimorphism upon which LGBs exist (along with the rest of us). Genspect wants to hold onto a medical (psychiatric) idea of gender, while trying to undo the harms the medical profession is doing to kids in creating imaginary sex categories. But unless medical professionals are moving children and families away from a medical paradigm and helping them to understand how they have been indoctrinated, they simply concretize the problem. There are no “transgender children” (or adults for that matter), and there are certainly no children with the adult male sexual fetish of autogynephilia, which the medical industry is marketing. Dr. Miriam Grossman is the one therapist I know who uses her skills as a psychiatrist to help people caught in this cult, to process their feelings, while speaking out publicly and clearly, that children are suffering highly advanced and penetrating, technological and political, cult indoctrination. Dr. Grossman is also in private practice. She has not attempted to turn herself into an NGO. Genspect creates a medical feedback loop because they have created an NGO. They don’t try to move people out of the problem by offering support and then education about what has happened to them (indoctrination). They support its continuation, like all LGBT NGOs are doing (I wrote about this in 2022). Just like transsexualism has been rebranded to “transgenderism” by other LGBT NGOs, to make transsexualism more appealing for marketing to the masses, Genspect has rebranded the LGBT NGO model to a Gender Framework, making it more welcoming and novel for people who don't know what is going on. It’s a way to capture them to a more moderate way of dealing with the problem (Not too quick with the drugs and scalpels, please!). But they are selling the exact same narrative. They promote “gender” and “transgenderism” as real, as if they have coherent definitions. They tell families that medical attention (psychiatric) can help people. They promote individuals who attempt to disown their sexed reality, as spokespeople, and they suggest that children have a multiplicity of “genders.” This has been going on since Genspect was initiated. Their new “Gender Frame” is of course the same gender spectrum that other LGBT NGOs suggest exists, with less of a thrust on medicalization. This is expressed clearly on their website: “Our international organisation includes professionals, trans people, detransitioners, and parent groups who work together to advocate for a non- medicalised approach to gender diversity.” Do they need an entire organization of medical and other professionals to explain to children that they can wear clothes typically associated with the opposite sex? What do they mean by “gender diversity?” (From The Bigger Picture conference) Genspect also claims to support LGB people, and that they are intolerant of homophobia, while supporting the concept of “transgender people,” and a spectrum of genders (diversity of genders), which has helped undermine the entire progress made by the LGB civil rights movement since its inception. A diversity of gender promotes the violation of the boundary between the sexes. This supports the duplicitousness of the LGBT model, like other LGBT NGOs. Genspect has no interest in tearing down the gender industry. They are now an international organization that relies on the continuance and growth of there being a gender problem if they are to subsist, just like any LGBT NGO. This isn't advanced physics. It is standard operating procedure. If I have shown nothing else in my work, I have shown how this works. Just look at Genspect's position: "There are many routes that may lead to the development of distress over an individual’s gender. Equally, there are just as many routes out of such distress. That’s why we would like to see a wider range of treatment options and more evidence-based approaches to gender-questioning children and young people." More “treatments!” More research! More funding, for the many different reasons children might be distressed about "their gender," sans propaganda that there is such a thing. Marketing is key, and Genspect’s marketing is getting tighter and slicker, if not more coherent. Their euphemisms for what amount to a eugenics project are no less disturbing than any other LGBT NGO. “Gender questioning children," and "distress about their gender" do nothing to convey the brutality underway in this industry. This could go on indefinitely. And rest assured it will, until we decide to stop it. I'm not holding my breath; I just think it’s a good use of my time to try and beat back this dangerous, repetitive, nonsense. For those thinking I am too extreme, someone needs to be the adult in the room. I don't think Genspect is fully conscious of what they are supporting or how they are turning into the new LGBT NGO model. They are not malevolent, but, neither are most people functioning inside most LGBT NGOs today, saying that they want to protect gender children. They become excited about helping. They get other people involved. They grow their NGO to get information out to more people. They lack self-awareness because a lot of people are now involved. They’ve secured some wins. Expressed concerns, outside of their narrative, are seen as a threat and shut down. The women expressing safeguarding concerns about an adult male fetishist at the Genspect conference were framed by supporters of Genspect, as ego-driven purists, narcissists, pearl clutching feminists, and extreme, not unlike the TRA mantras: Nazi, far right, bigots, meant to shut them up. The more transsexualism is standardized, and discussed, by Genspect and other LGBT NGOs, the more men present themselves with it. They want to be talked about, noticed, and examined, and the more damage is incurred by doing so. With this reinforcing feedback loop, more men with this compulsion are being put in positions of political power, like the recent state senate win by Danica Roem in Virginia, who has clearly stated he will go about changing policy for “trans children.” Does he mean children with an adult male fetish like his own (should we be allowing men to project their fetishes onto children?), children who have a type of body dysphoria, children who have autism or who are presenting with confusion about their sexed reality for other reasons, children who are indoctrinated on social media by influencers and medical professionals, or kids who are expressing a rebellion about strict sex-role stereotypes? What exactly does he mean by “transgender children?” Genspect seems to be setting up this same projection of the adult male fetish of autogynephilia onto children, creating a whole new prototype of kids (teens with AGP) and the experts to “treat” them. Again, I don't take obliviousness as malicious intent, but in the end, does it matter? Genspect doesn’t threaten the status quo. If they did, they would not have been allowed to grow as they have. People who address the problem with straightforward political campaigns that don’t medicalize the issue of male fetishists, create far less confusion for people, and are viciously attacked. Kelly Jay Keen, a women’s rights campaigner in the UK, was almost trampled to death in New Zealand this year, for promoting the fact that women are adult human females. Genspect, just like every other LGBT NGO, thinks they are solving a problem when they are the problem. They are solidifying gender ideology. After a decade of resistance, we are desperate for saviors and grasping at straws. But, you cannot win a political battle engineered to undermine humanity’s sexed reality, which is marketed to us as a medical issue, with a counter medical paradigm.

“Freedom for children and young people lies in dismantling the culturally ascribed power of the biological.” - Gendered Intelligence (a gender lobby group) The “transgender child” is a corporate, legal, and technological construct. Its manifestation was necessary for substantiating the evolution of an adult male fetish into an industry of owning women’s reproductive capacities via medical technology. An adult male fetish of owning womanhood, and cutting it up for the market, is a very hard sell for the public. Children distressed about feeling wrong in their sexed realities being promoted as having special human identities, needing protection and rights, and medical manipulation, hits the marketing sweet spot, because it cultivates our empathy. Shortly after the two most significant and powerful LGBT NGOs in the world, emerged on the American landscape, and added the “T” to the LGB acronym, a small, 6-year-old boy, whose name was changed to Jazz Jennings, became Hollywood’s first “transgender child.” He hit the talk show circuit, first with Barbara Walters, in 2007, and then elsewhere. That same year, his family started a non-profit to normalize a medical identity, whereby children uncomfortable with their sexed reality have their reproductive organs medically manipulated. In America, Jazz has become a household name. He has had myriad medical assaults on his genitalia for identity purposes. A story book for children about his life was published in 2014 by Penguin Books. That same year a male actor, Laverne Cox, posed on the cover of Mark Benioff’s Time Magazine, announcing a “transgender tipping point.” In 2015, a reality TV show, documenting the assaults on Jazz’s reproductive sex, was aired on national television, in concurrence with former Olympian Bruce Jenner’s debut on the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine, claiming womanhood for himself. In 2016, Jazz was medically castrated for mass entertainment, and in 2017, he had his own doll. Attempting to disown one’s sexed reality is not a human right or a lifestyle choice. It has evolved from an orchestrated technological and corporate cultivation of dissociation from reality. It is indoctrination, being spread over technology, and through our institutions, that we can lift ourselves from the sexed roots of our humanity into another type of human. Dentons law firm and Thomas Reuters’ Nextlaw Referral, the largest legal network in the world, have created the guide entitled “Only Adults? Good Practices in Legal Gender Recognition for Youth.” The guide, created for the International Lesbian And Gay Youth Organization (ILGYO) provides an overview of practices for legal gender recognition for people under 18 based on self-determination. In other words, massively influential corporate structures are being used to create systemic social change to normalize, for children, that their wholly sexed reality is a set of interchangeable parts. Let’s follow the money trail back from ILGYO, the small LGBT Youth non-governmental organization, for which Dentons and Reuters collaborated on the guide. ILGYO is partnered with both, Transgender Europe (TGEU), and ILGA Europe, constituting an extensive funding, legal, and political apparatus driving the normalization of dissociation from sexed reality, in Europe. TGEU consists of 200 member organizations across Europe and Central Asia in 50 different countries. ILGA Europe’s credo is, “bodily integrity is the principle that all people, including children, have the right to autonomy and self-determination when it comes to their own bodies.” Working with the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics they help develop international human rights for the body integrity of those claiming synthetic - or alternate - sex identities, either for themselves or as they are imposed on children. TGEU and ILGA are both, funded hundreds of thousands of dollars by Arcus Foundation (AF), one of the two most potent LGBT NGOs in America. Jon Stryker, the founder of AF supports his foundation through the profits of his medical supply corporation (recently investing in the facial feminization surgery market). Stryker Medical Corporation, to which Jon Stryker is heir, is worth $101.94B, with annual revenues for 2023 projected at $19.4B (up from $13.6B in 2018). The Dentons and Thomas Reuters Nextlaw report was designed to assist activists in several countries in bringing about changes in the law to allow children to change their gender (read: sex) legally, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. Thomas Reuters Foundation is funded by The Gill Foundation, the second most significant LGBT NGO in the world. The founder of the Gill Foundation is Tim Gill, another philanthropic billionaire, who is also a friend of Jon Stryker. Gill sold his company, Quark Press, to create his foundation and has since been helping support the legal structure for manifesting the “transgender child.” Arcus and Gill foundations support myriad global programs to drive the idea that children can be of the opposite sex, such as Gender Spectrum, The Transgender Law Center, LAMBDA, and GLSEN (whose founder, Kevin Jennings, was brought to Arcus in 2012 as Executive Director). Another benefactor of Stryker’s money is the American Civil Liberties Union, who have created their own legal guide for “transgender children,” and their families. This pattern of funding from the two most significant LGBT NGOs, whose founders have funneled half a billion dollars each from their personal wealth into their foundations to drive gender ideology globally, is repeated by other corporatists with heavy investments in Big Pharma. Among the many funders, is George Soros. Soros who dumped his stocks in CVS, owned $2.1M shares in 2007, the year Jazz Jennings arrived on the talk show circuit. He has owned significant stock shares in Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant, which promotes the removal of children’s reproductive organs as progressive. He is currently invested in health platforms and Salesforce Cloud Computing, whose co-founder is deeply invested in creating synthetic sex identities for children. In 2015, the year “I Am Jazz,” was broadcast, Open Society Foundation created a legal guide for the “transgender child,” entitled “Trans Children and Youth.” A guide from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), titled “Supporting & Caring for Transgender Children,” was published the year Jazz Jennings was castrated on national television. Soros’ Open Society Foundation is working to construct, along with the Gill Foundation, Arcus Foundation, HRC, the ACLU, and gender identity organizations in Europe, the idea that children being medicalized for life is just another way to be human. This new way to be human, for children, being funneled into hundreds of pediatric “gender clinics,” involves dangerous drugs and medical procedures that assist them in hiding the fact they are either biologically male or female. In 2013, Arcus Foundation brought over Adrian Coman from Soros' Open Society as the Director of their Human Rights department. The transgender child was created to sell the deconstruction of human reproductive sex to the public. In 2012, Transgender Legal and Defense Education Fund (TLDEF), founded in 2003, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division on behalf of 6-year-old boy, Coy, alleging that the school had violated his rights. Coy sought to use the bathrooms corresponding to his imagined identity, rather than his biological sex. His rights to violate the privacy and safety of females was upheld and seen as win for the entire state of Colorado. Colorado has been subject to the financial threat of Tim Gill and Jon Stryker’s sister, Pat Styker, for those that don’t toe the line on new LGBT policy dictates that support the “T.”. TLDEF is funded by Arcus Foundation, and Gill Foundation and is national partner with the pharma giant, GILEAD. Gilead Sciences recently committed $4.5 M in grants to transgender support and advocacy groups—$2.5 million more than the company had originally planned. Gilead opened the doors to grant seekers in September with the promise of $2 million total in funding to groups that help “transgender people.” Gilead is also funding doctors who promote the highly contentious, off-label use of puberty blockers for children. Corporations and legal entities worldwide are using the strategy of tying children’s body dysphoria, a once very rare medical condition, to an adult male fetish. This male fetish of being a woman is becoming viable for the men that seek this validation, through advancements in medical reproductive technology and the creation of synthetic sex. Of the most prominent law firms in the world (ranked by revenue), most have accepted and invested in “T” as it is attached to the LGB. New corporate protections have been established, and diversity, inclusion, and equity departments have been added. Pride platforms, ally seminars, and educational initiatives for gender identity have all been woven into the international legal frameworks of these law firms. Societies are not being rapidly overhauled for people’s identities, children’s body dysphoria, or some amorphous “gender identity.” They are being overhauled to change the way we think of ourselves as a species - a sexually dimorphic species. Children are being groomed to think of themselves as parts, not wholly sexed beings. If we wish to stop this assault on children, we must be clear on where it comes from, where it is going, and why it is happening, or children will continue to be used as eugenics fodder for a future in which they will be reduced to commodities.

With Nancy Robertson Stella Morabito is a journalist whose work I respect immensely. Her new book “The Weaponization of Loneliness,” is a tour de force examination of how tyrants move populations toward their totalitarian interests. Stella’s perspective as a historian of Russian and Soviet propaganda, is filtered through the lens of Soviet tyranny and herewith is her detailed and brilliant discussion with Nancy Robertson, which I find extremely valuable. I have studied the tyranny underlying the gender industry from a capitalist perspective. In other words: Tyranny, American style. A capitalist market that is unfettered, uncontrolled, and left to run away, by its design, forces all the wealth of society upward, into the hands of oligarchs who then instill their tyranny on the populace via the market, which we see repeatedly with the gender industry and elsewhere. An ideology of transhumanism, positioned as a human right for a male sexual fetish of owning womanhood, is being forced into our universities, institutions, public policies, laws, and language, by capital, and those governing the capital. Oligarchs, such as the Pritzker family, Marc Benioff, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, and capital assets management firms such as Black Rock and Vanguard, who have technological and medical investments in transhumanism and the profits to be garnered from transhumanist augmentations, are tyrannically forcing on the public an ideology that is anti-reality/anti-human. They are doing so with the threat of financial isolation and abandonment from the market, The unfettered capitalist market has functioned as well as any dictator with an ideological bent and a drive for absolute control. It has led to a commoditization of all life, manifesting extreme isolation for all of us, from our families, from our communities, from meaningful rituals, from our land base, and now, with the burgeoning gender industry, from our bodies. All avenues of tyranny lead us to the same dark place from which we will eventually be unable to resist. I hope this discussion inspires you to political action soon. It is my assessment that we are rapidly running out of time to resist this global, totalitarian, juggernaut. Many thanks to Nancy Robertson for outlining and facilitating this important discussion. - Jennifer Bilek The following transcript has been edited for clarity. Nancy Robertson: Every year, the Human Rights Campaign sends one of their representatives to each company and issues a long and detailed list of demands. One of these demands is creating ads that promote LGBTQ+ people. That’s how Budweiser got embroiled in the Dylan Mulvaney controversy. The mathematician and cultural critic James Lindsay has called the “Corporate Equality Index” (CEI) ranking system “an extortion racket like the Mafia.” CEI scores range from one to 100, and companies are threatened that if they don’t comply with the HRC’s annual demands they’ll lose their CEI scores. Corporations jump through a lot of hoops to comply. Of Fortune Magazine’s top 20 companies, 15 received a perfect score of 100. And over 800 corporations received high scores. Stella Morabito: They really have a stranglehold. It’s insidious, and you're exactly right, Nancy. James Lindsey's correct that it’s an extortion racket, of the worst kind, I’d add. And it's gotten really bad over the years, largely because of these ranking systems like CEI and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance.) Most people have a sense of goodwill. They trust our institutions, and they trust that things couldn't ever get this bad. But in the meantime, we have these actors who want to control everyone and everything, using the CEI and the ESG. ”Transgender” activism” is a big part of this, because it's a destabilizing force that interferes with our sense of identity. If you have a healthy sense of identity, you can establish strong, healthy human relationships. And that stands in the way of the totalitarians who view any relationships that they cannot control as a threat to their power.. What better way to threaten people than with the livelihoods people depend on? Today, small businesses are being swallowed by large businesses. And we haven’t even mentioned how Covid has accelerated our sense of isolation. All this crap from corporate wokeness trickles down to the employees who are required to attend training sessions on “diversity.” Lockheed held the first such training session about 30 years ago and it’s reaching an inflection point now. NR: Yes. The situation has gotten completely out of hand. SM: I would be curious to hear what Jennifer Bilek has to say about how this relates to capitalism. What we have in totalitarianism is an extreme monopoly. Healthy capitalism would not allow this. One hundred years ago we had trust-busting in this country. But now all these huge high-tech companies like Vanguard and Black Rock are allowed to lord it over everyone. We don’t have a healthy market economy. NR: We definitely don’t have a healthy market economy. We have a metastasizing monopoly. Black Rock actually owns a big chunk of Vanguard. And Vanguard owns part of Black Rock. And it’s destroying our whole society. SM: I used to play a board game called “Acquire.” I think it’s still be around. The game was all about eating up and merging companies. The winner was the last man standing. It was a really cutthroat game. I suppose that’s how corporate heads see themselves today. I don’t know where this is going to go, but it's anti-human. It's dehumanizing. Part of me thinks all the CEOs admire Larry Fink of Black Rock. But he also seems to be a sad example of human being who can’t comprehend the richness of a strong, healthy human relationship. The evil he and others like him create, however, must be opposed. Larry Fink and his colleagues are a minuscule minority. They can’t stand the idea that they could have only one ballot in an honest election—just like everybody else. They want to control everything, which is why they devised all these extortion schemes. NR: Do you think the Larry Finks of the world had it in mind from the beginning, or did it just evolve over time? SM: Well, I think they’re incontinent when it comes to controlling their totalitarian impulse. Still, I believe the totalitarian impulse lies within each one of us. But if we are thoughtful people we learn to reject that temptation. Some people simply won’t regulate it though. And I think we must try to speculate on their psychology to figure out the puzzle and our way out of it. We have to try to understand what’s going on in their minds. But that’s a conversation for another day. NR: Lately, we’ve seen increasing mob violence against those who oppose “transgender” ideology. The victims are always women like Kellie Jay Keen, the swimmer Riley Gaines, and K Yang the woman at the NYC “Pride” Parade. The victims are never men. Do you think those mob attacks on “gender” critical women will escalate? SM: Yes. It's a sign of how desperate the other side has become. They know there’s been pushback, and that pushback has been effective. More and more people can see how insane that agenda is. These are desperate measures. Mobs are enlisted to enforce identity politics and political correctness, to make us fearful of speaking up. One chapter in my book, The Weaponization of Loneliness deals with the mob mindset. But the violence will burn itself out eventually. The question is how much damage is done before then. NR: A few months ago, a young woman, who claimed she was a man, shot and killed three young children and three adults at a Christian school in Nashville, TN. Of course, the media said she wasn’t really “transgender.” SM: Individuals like her are not grounded. I suspect their minds have been captured and raped by those who push the agenda. It’s so tragic. Given another set of circumstances, that young woman might have been a happy person. Our environment has so much of an effect on behavior. Look at Antifa and other mobs that push this stuff. The members are not grounded people. They just act on their emotions, and they mimic the behavior of those around them in the mob. One individual standing in the mob can ignite the mob. That individual might not even be part of that mob. But everyone reacts. It’s like a conditioned emotional reflex. They’re not having a thoughtful conversation. Mobs can become very violent because they don’t think, and they can be emotionally triggered easily. Even a sign that says a woman is an adult human female can cause them to react in a violent way. So yes, unfortunately, the violence will escalate because those who push that agenda will become increasingly desperate to prevent any non-compliance with their agenda. And how do you do that? You do it through terror. Terror has an enormous impact on people. Members of mobs tend to be atomized people, easily terrorized. Hanna Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism makes the point that terror can only have a grip when people are isolated against one another. That’s why all tyrannical governments seek to bring about that isolation. When you look at people in cults or gangs, they are all untethered from reality and from strong human relationships where they can have real conversations with people.If we could bring more people into the fold of real conversations, that could really help. NR: what would be the fastest, most effective way to reverse the “transgender” takeover? Would electing Republicans to politics work? What are your thoughts about that? SM: Well, I think the vast majority of the population finds this whole thing insane. The question is, how many are willing to speak out. So many institutions and the media (with the possible exception of Twitter) have been captured by “transgender” ideology. There are not as many platforms for reaching large numbers of people. But the thing to remember is that very pithy line in Jacques Ellul’s book Propaganda. And that is: “propaganda ends where simple dialogue begins.” That means one-on-one conversation.That may seem like a small thing to a lot of people. They might ask: “What difference will it make if I talk to my aunt about how I feel about this? Or if I just talk?” Well, it makes a huge difference because it has a trickle-down effect, an influencing effect. And that’s where the power of the powerless resides. If everyone spoke openly, it could amount to victory by a thousand cuts. Vaclav Havel’s 1978 essay, The Power of the Powerless, that I cite several times in my book states that our power, our strength lies in the “hidden sphere,” the private sphere of life. The more we talk to one another as individuals, the more our ideas ripple outward. It has a huge effect. It’s not going to happen overnight, but it will have the deepest effect on fighting this thing. And the totalitarians among us, know this. Their goal has always been to destroy the private sphere of life so that they can control all our relationships. They know we get our inner strength from personal relationships and from our relationship with God. History has shown that they’ve always tried to destroy those relationships of trust. So, there’s no fast way, there’s no shortcut. But I think the most effective way to reverse this is through everyday conversation, everyday friendship, and everyday relationships. So we should connect with people of good will. Also follow blogs like Jennifer Bilek’s amazing 11th Hour Blog, and some good folks on Twitter. If people trust you, even if they don’t know you well and they’re just neighbors or coworkers, sharing your opinion, what you believe, can have a powerful impact. And that’s because people fear expressing their beliefs if they seem politically incorrect. We’re all hardwired to avoid ostracism. But if you express what you believe to someone who trusts you but doesn’t know where you stand, three things can happen. Number 1, you can embolden a like-minded thinker to realize they’re not alone in rejecting the propaganda. And you gain a friend. The second possibility is that the person you’re speaking to may never have thought about it before. And you’ve influenced a fence sitter. We tend to fear the third type:the person who has been captured by the propaganda and who gets angry by your beliefs. But you’ve still done something extremely powerful by speaking up. That’s because they know you face to face, and even though they reject what you said, they’ll have to think about it. You’ve watered down the stereotype that the person associated with your viewpoint These one-on-one conversations are critical And if we have millions or billions of these conversations, totalitarians can’t survive. We can fight in little ways as well as big ways. NR: Yes we can fight, and we must fight. All of us who care about the future of humanity need to see that.. SM: Yes. In order to assure that we're not the last! You had mentioned the upcoming elections and whether electing Republicans could turn the tide. I don’t believe it would make much of a difference these days. That’s because there are really only two political camps – pro-thought and anti-thought. I wrote an article on that at The Federalist a couple of years ago. Being pro-thought means being willing to have conversations and engage other ideas. Anti-thought means you're locked into the propaganda. And that’s where I see the Great Divide. Being pro-thought means being pro-human. Being anti-thought is anti-human because it gets in the way of our ability to have conversations. It's being captured by the weaponization of loneliness. We see so many people of high influence, not just Republicans, but CEOs, folding. People in positions of power in Congress or the Supreme Court and governors who should know better are susceptible to the propaganda. So, the more people become emboldened to speak out, even on a small scale, the better our chances. NR: A couple of months ago, I spoke by phone with a very woke cousin whom I don’t know well. I told her “transgenderism” was a lie and that children should never be indoctrinated with the “gender” talk. During our discussion, she completely disagreed with me. But the next time she called me, she admitted she had changed her mind and now believes children should not be indoctrinated, which is a start. I was astonished to hear that because she was very woke. So, these one-on-one conversations can be very powerful in getting people to change their opinions even when those opinions are firmly held, as I’m sure my cousin’s opinions were. SM: Wow. Nancy, that’s a wonderful example of the power of real conversation. Your experience should remind us that much of this insanity is brought on by social contagion. I suspect your cousin was feeling the sort of peer pressure that stifled any other thoughts. If she didn’t accept that line, she would be ostracized and rejected. But having someone she knew speak with her and ultimately make her think it all through made a huge difference. And congratulations to you for that. Those kinds of conversations will save us. NR: When I spoke with her the first time I was sure she’d never change her mind. But I told myself I’m just going to say exactly what I feel because I just had to speak. I couldn’t stay silent. SM: You certainly made an impact by doing so. Sometimes people just need exposure to a different point of view. The echo chamber of propaganda is stifling. And if you hadn’t spoken up, she would have probably assumed that you and she were both part of that same program. It’s so important that we let people know we’re not with this. Of course, everyone has their own threshold for speaking up. So many people don’t feel they can do it and they’re fearful. But the more people who do speak up and lead the way, the more that fear can wear off. And that creates a larger and larger pool. A force that these tyrants have to reckon with and can’t. Also, If they start getting violent, then you know you’re right over the target. NR: Have you ever seen the original movie Spartacus starring Kirk Douglas from 1960? The film was based on a novel written by Howard Fast when he was imprisoned for refusing to name names during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. The movie was set in ancient Rome in Biblical times, a few decades before the start of the Christian era. Spartacus, played by Kirk Douglas, leads a revolt by a hundred enslaved gladiators against the brutal and tyrannical Roman Republic. The key scene takes place shortly after the slave revolt fails. In this scene, the Roman officer in charge tells the enslaved gladiators that their lives will be spared, but only if they identify the living person or the dead body of Spartacus. Spartacus stands immediately. And less than half a second later, one by one, all the slaves stand and say, “I am Spartacus.” So, by standing up together, united in their defiance, the slaves made it impossible for the Roman tyrants to execute Spartacus. This movie shows the power of the individual. If one person stands up, that encourages other people to stand up, too. Think of how effective it would have been if, during those first corporate indoctrination sessions where they were pushing this ideology, one person had stood up to say, “You know, what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.” And then, one by one, more people might have stood up against this ideology. SM: Oh, absolutely! Spartacus is a great illustration here. It shows why todays trans tyrants have to hang over you the threat of losing your livelihood if you don't comply. But we need to be able to see how weak they really are, how much they depend upon our fear, our vulnerability to that fear of isolation. Once understand how much they depend on exploiting our fear of isolation, we an see that they’re actually very weak. In terms of numbers, the elites are miniscule. That’s why they depend on mobs, and of course, the investment of a bureaucratic apparatus to prop them up. elites When others can see the weakness, they will follow suit. Back in the 1950s, the social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments that showed how easy it is to get someone to conform to group opinions -- even when those opinions are obviously wrong. In this experiment, Asch presented an individual with a picture of a line and asked that person to match that line up from a choice of three lines. It was a trivial task. But the subject was surrounded by collaborators of the experiment who after a couple of rounds all gave the wrong answer. Quite often, the subject of the experiment went with the incorrect answer only because of the social pressure. But a variation of that experiment was very encouraging. If the person being tested had even one partner in the group who agreed with their judgment, conformity dropped like a rock. You just need to puncture the illusion of unanimity to bring people back to Earth. In a group, you can see what happens when people speak up and then are confirmed by others. People follow suit, especially if it’s what they really believe. It’s a ripple effect. The truth becomes obvious, and people are much more inclined to speak up. And that’s the bright note on how the conformity impulse can be defeated. NR: We need that bright note that helps us become more courageous in standing up to tyranny. SM: But you're so right about what would have happened in that corporate meeting on diversity if only one person had stood up and said it was nonsense. It seems so scary with your job at stake. But the alternative is much more frightening. If we let this go unchecked, we end up in a world where we really are atomized and completely silenced. Where we really are isolated, like in a form of solitary confinement. This is the real horror, and something we should be much more aware of. I wrote The Weaponization of Loneliness to help build a conscious awareness of how our very human fear of being ostracized is so easily exploited by bad actors. NR: Yes. Very bad actors. Stella, it's been an honor and privilege to speak with you today. I know I speak for everyone in thanking you for shedding light on the tyranny we face today and how we can work together to defeat it. I urge everyone who’s reading this interview to read Stella's excellent and eye-opening book, The Weaponization of Loneliness. I urge you all to follow the recommendations outlined in the book and during this interview. To find your courage. To find your voice. To speak out to family, friends, and acquaintances. To oppose tyranny and totalitarianism in all its forms, including “transgender” activism. SR: Thank you very much, Nancy. It's been great talking to you. END READ PARTS I HERE: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/defeating-transgenderism-and-tyranny-a-conversation-with-author-stella-morabito-part-i READ PART II HERE: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/defeating-transgenderism-and-tyranny-a-conversation-with-author-stella-morabito-part-ii Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of "The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer." Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. She has a Master's degree in Russian and Soviet history. Nancy Robertson graduated from Barnard College with a BA in psychology and then received a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Stanford University. Nancy is retired and has written articles for WoLF, and Women are Human. She grew up in New York City in the middle of the last century. In 2022, she learned that three daughters of a deceased, old college friend were trying to become men through they/them pronouns, wrong sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries. She realized a strange cult of "transgender" madness had sprung up, infecting the US and much of the world. Nancy began to research and write about the gender industry to stop it.

With Nancy Robertson (PART II of 3 Parts) Stella Morabito is a journalist whose work I respect immensely. Her new book “The Weaponization of Loneliness,” is a tour de force examination of how tyrants move populations toward their totalitarian interests. Stella’s perspective as a historian of Russian and Soviet propaganda, is filtered through the lens of Soviet tyranny and herewith is her detailed and brilliant discussion with Nancy Robertson, which I find extremely valuable. I have studied the tyranny underlying the gender industry from a capitalist perspective. In other words: Tyranny, American style. A capitalist market that is unfettered, uncontrolled, and left to run away, by its design, forces all the wealth of society upward, into the hands of oligarchs who then instill their tyranny on the populace via the market, which we see repeatedly with the gender industry and elsewhere. An ideology of transhumanism, positioned as a human right for a male sexual fetish of owning womanhood, is being forced into our universities, institutions, public policies, laws, and language, by capital, and those governing the capital. Oligarchs, such as the Pritzker family, Marc Benioff, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, and capital assets management firms such as Black Rock and Vanguard, who have technological and medical investments in transhumanism and the profits to be garnered from transhumanist augmentations, are tyrannically forcing on the public an ideology that is anti-reality/anti-human. They are doing so with the threat of financial isolation and abandonment from the market, The unfettered capitalist market has functioned as well as any dictator with an ideological bent and a drive for absolute control. It has led to a commoditization of all life, manifesting extreme isolation for all of us, from our families, from our communities, from meaningful rituals, from our land base, and now, with the burgeoning gender industry, from our bodies. All avenues of tyranny lead us to the same dark place from which we will eventually be unable to resist. I hope this discussion inspires you to political action soon. It is my assessment that we are rapidly running out of time to resist this global, totalitarian, juggernaut. Many thanks to Nancy Robertson for outlining and facilitating this important discussion. - Jennifer Bilek The following transcript has been edited for clarity. NR: We all need to understand the enemy’s playbook. How the “transgender” movement weaponizes loneliness. But you've made the surprising point that the particular ideology such as “transgenderism,” Communism, or Nazism is secondary to the tyrant's quest for power and control. That ideology doesn't really drive the totalitarian agenda. That the real goal is the quest for power. Can you tell us more about that? SM: Yes. In the chapter of my book, where I talk about the totalitarian impulse, I concluded that ideology is secondary to propaganda. Propaganda used to be the vehicle for ideology, but that seems to have flipped. Because ideology is now the avenue for propaganda. In other words, propaganda doesn’t serve the ideology. It serves the tyrant’s path to power. Jacques Ellul wrote about this in his book, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, (1965.) When so many corporate leaders push “transgenderism,” it all boils down to what I call “self-supremacy,” the quest for power. That's what this propaganda serves, and we have to see it that way when we look at the totalitarian impulse, and how it operates to break down a person's sense of self in order to isolate them and control them. That's what I mean when I say the ideology being secondary. “Transgenderism” isn't really the goal. Power is the goal. So they are destabilizing people’s sense of self. That’s a form of isolation that allows for social control. The people pushing it don’t care about people who disown their sex for whatever reasons they may have. Those people comprise only the smallest fraction of one percent of the population -- if you limit it to people who have a type of body dysphoria. So much of this is being manufactured through social contagion. Jennifer Bilek has done superb work on the connection between “transgenderism” and transhumanism. It’s really a path to nihilism, nothingness. By following that path, we basically abolish ourselves in the process. But advocates of transhumanism view it as a quest for immortality. It’s like Ponce de Leon’s old search for the Fountain of Youth. They're all searching for eternal life -- on earth or off the earth. Transhumanists think that they can upload their consciousness and travel through the universe. It's science fiction. But they’re willing to destroy anyone they think is standing in the way of their immortality. They want to become like gods. Ray Kurzweil actually put it that way. He yearns for what he calls the “Singularity,” the point at which he says humans will merge with machines. That’s a roundabout way of saying that “transgenderism” isn't really the goal of this. The real goal is power and immortality. NR: Totalitarian movements have popped up every so often for hundreds of years. And you cover that in The Weaponization of Loneliness: Cromwell’s Puritan Revolution in England, the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, the Communist Revolution in Russia, the Nazis, and the Cultural Revolution in China. Can you tell us about the parallels with what we’re seeing now? SM: I think anybody who studies history should be able to see the patterns, and how they reassert themselves today. If you look at Cromwell's Puritan Revolution in England in the seventeenth century, you’ll see the first hard push for a cult-like purity of thought. People knew they could not deviate from the narrative, or they’d be punished. Cromwell’s Utopian idea was to establish a kingdom of God on earth. And all totalitarian movements have that in common. Next, in the French Revolution we see the three main components of the machinery of loneliness at work, what we now call identity politics, political correctness, and mob agitation, all used to control and socially engineer the population. Again, we see that happen in all Utopian revolutions. In identity politics, people are divided into groups of good guys and bad guys based on their demographics. All Utopian revolutions borrow from religion. The Jacobians’ reign of terror in the French Revolution intended to replace Christianity with a new secular religion that demanded adherence to the narrative and submission to the State’s power. If you didn’t identify with that, then you had no identity, and you were considered an enemy of the state. Identity politics does not treat you as an individual. It says “No. You are a certain demographic, and that's all you are. You are not a unique individual who has a personality, a sense of humor, or anything else. You are just your demographic.” The second component of the machinery of loneliness is political correctness. If you say anything that questions the narrative, you become the enemy. This fear induces us to self-censor. Political correctness was very much alive during the French Revolution, as well as in communist Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao’s China. And, of course, today. The third component of the machinery of loneliness is mob agitation to enforce compliance and conformity. Mobs serve the tiny minority of elites that uses the mob to gain and keep power, and for socially engineering the population. So you have those three components: identity politics, political correctness, and mob enforcement and agitation. And there are other bells and whistles on that machinery of loneliness as well, such as the criminalization of comedy, propaganda, censorship, and snitch culture. NR: Yes. Today, not even comedy is safe. And the country’s top comedians (Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock) refuse to perform at colleges and universities. SM: That’s right. Real comedy is generally illegal in totalitarian systems. And the Bolshevik Revolution took many cues from the French Revolution. Vladimir Lenin pretty much declared war on the private sphere of life. This really took off with his Josef Stalin's Reign of Terror in the 1930s. And that resulted in a horrific war on private life and private relationships that denied the role of parents and families as the true guardians of their children. That was part of the education process. My fourth historical example is Nazi Germany, where we see strong parallels with today’s identity politics. The Nazis demonized certain demographic and ethnic groups, and eventually worked to destroy them. First, the Jews, then the Roma, and a little later, the Slavs, including the Russians and Poles, were added to the list. It just went on and on. You can see that today in the demonization of anyone who's considered “white” or male or deemed “cisgender,” for example. It’s the same process, the same pattern at work. The fallout of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution in communist China was tens of millions of lives lost. A key tactic to root out perceived state enemies was the “struggle session” in which people had to publicly (and often falsely) confess their crimes of deviating from the established narrative. They didn't even have to be guilty to be considered “guilty.” And all it took was a finger pointed at you by a Red Guard, and you became a pariah. You’d be paraded around and humiliated and beaten by the mob. We see the same kind of patterns to a lesser extent today. I think we can all feel it, especially in social media. So, the weaponization of loneliness has been used in radical Utopian revolutions for a very long time. The methods that I just mentioned – identity politics, political correctness, and mobs—are the same as in the past. And the goal of the machinery of loneliness today are the same as those that were used in the past. The goals are the consolidation of a centralized power and the development of a socially engineered society. But there are three main differences today. First, the reach is now global. It’s not just confined to a region like Germany, France, Russia, or China. Second, far-reaching communications technologies, are now pushing this whole thing forward very quickly. Third, we don’t see a single dictator as we have in the past, like a Hitler, a Stalin, or Mao. Instead, we today have what I call a hydra-headed beast. We've got these corporate CEOs, big tech, the heads of all these institutions, Hollywood, and more. It permeates so much. All at once. That's what we have to deal with, and it’s a major challenge. NR: We also have revolutionary new technology that's coming on board, like ChatGPT and surveillance that seems to make today's tyrants more powerful than ever. SM: Yes, absolutely. Still, there are ways around that, and they know it. For example, they still feel threatened by even one individual who speaks the truth. But these new technologies are frightening to us because they’re meant not only to be around us. They're meant to be within us. And that’s the scary part. Like the horror movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers! NR: Yes. It’s just like Invasion of the Body Snatchers where the alien mind virus starts by infecting people one by one but soon takes control and spreads rapidly through the local community and then the entire region. So what can we do to defeat them? SM: We first must build a lot more awareness of what we’re up against, of the weaponization of loneliness. I think people are waking up to it, even as those on the other side are pushing it hard. I fear the new technologies enhance the power of surveillance and allow people to inform on anyone who doesn’t follow the narrative. And that builds the social distrust that destroys the human relationships from which we get our strength to speak. People also get a lot of inner strength through faith. If you have faith in something beyond all these worldly machinations of the little tyrants all around us, if you have faith in a much greater power, if you have faith in God, if you have faith there is something else to live for, that faith give you a lot of inner strength. It results in strengthening your resolve to speak up, despite the threats. In fact, that’s why religion has always been targeted by tyrants. Tyrants need to rob people of all their sources of inner strength. They don't want you to feel that you have a relationship with God, especially if they’ve isolated you from family and friends, and everybody else. They need you to feel totally isolated to break your morale. NR: Religion can give people a great deal of inner strength. Just the other day, I was stunned to hear Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, state that humanity needs religion “in order to flourish and prosper.” Most tellingly, it was Dawkins’ rejection of harmful gender ideology and the fear people have about speaking out against “transgenderism” that caused him to realize religion’s value even though he remains an atheist. Unfortunately, some of our most important mainstream religions have been captured by woke ideology. SM: Yes. We need to understand how dangerous this is. When transgenderism takes over churches and other traditional institutions of faith, that moves this battlefield much closer to all other relationships, closer to taking over the private sphere of life altogether. Once it becomes part of your religion – and, let’s face it, gender ideology is a religion that cannot live in peace with other religions – then it has taken over a big part of your mind. If we allow the ideology to take over our Faith, it disrupts our relationship with God. It also serves to break down the one-on-one relationship of trust that we might have with our spouse or close friend. The whole idea of friendship is that it gives us someone we can speak to in confidence. And confidence means loyalty, fidelity, and trust. You absolutely need privacy—a private sphere of life – to establish those healthy, trusting relationships. But with the totalitarian mindset, the only loyalty is to whoever is in charge. We need to be much more aware of that and how that mindset destroys our personal lives, our sense of reality, and our sense of contentment and happiness. NR: Today, people are discouraged from maintaining relationships with anyone who disagrees with the woke narrative. That message is trumpeted through all the relationship columns in The New York Times and the Washington Post. If your friend doesn’t share your woke political views, you are told to end the friendship. SM: That is part of the demonization campaigns that go hand in hand with the weaponization of loneliness. The machinery of loneliness demonizes anyone who doesn’t promote the tyrants. By the way, we ought to define the word “tyrant.” It means anyone who tries to control the lives and minds of others. A tyrant is anyone who pushes to control others. This is especially true when you have a global elite, the Billionaires Club, that feels they have the right to dictate not only what people are allowed to say and what people are allowed to think, but whom you're allowed to talk to. This is so dehumanizing, and needs a lot of pushback. NR: Some people wonder whether there might be foreign actors involved in promoting this. Do you see any evidence of that? Or do you think that idea has no merit? SM: Well, I think that whenever there is a hostile actor on the world stage, they’re happy to see any destabilizing influences in their perceived opponent. This has always been the case. I'm sure China is pleased that Americans are falling into this chaos. The question is to what extent are they behind it? There’s a point beyond which these things take on a life of their own. And today we have the hydra-headed beast with CEOs of major corporations, the entire banking industry, and Hollywood all involved. People who aren’t with the narrative have seen their bank accounts frozen. There are so many different actors, who may each have their own special interests. The big tech pusher might be invested in the idea of transhumanism. They’d feel that traditional ideas are in the way of their quest for immortality. Corporate CEOs might feel like it's all about their own bottom line. Who knows what set of interests is in the minds of the actors who push all this stuff? But they do have a common outlook. And their outlook is that they know better than we do. They’re in charge. Some of them may even believe this is about the greater good. It's just a whole hash, a whole hydra-headed hash. Certainly there are actors who push for globalism and see it as a means to impose social control on a mass scale. But there isn’t one specific actor. The totalitarian impulse has been active in human society since ancient times. If we look at it through a theological lens, Orthodox Christians like me would say that human beings are often tempted to play God. And that’s what we see. The actors who push for social control want to play God. We don’t have to delve into any “conspiracy theories” because they come right out and say it. Again, Ray Kurzweil openly stated that his quest for immortality is all about becoming God. NR: Now we have a perfect storm of all these actors and high technology that are working to destabilize society. And it’s not just today’s technology, but all the emerging technologies that will soon be unleashed on us. The other day I learned about a special type of ear pod that was announced during a presentation given at the World Economic Forum. The ear pod is a new, wearable device that allows someone to read a person's thoughts. SM: that is really, really creepy. And what's even creepier is that they’re not hiding it. Again, it comes right down to trying to play God in some sense. Although the God I believe bestows free will that allows you to express dissent, if you choose to. But this is a dictator who doesn't allow any choices and wants to read your thoughts. No good human being wants to read the thoughts of everybody else. Of course, we can say to someone, “A penny for your thoughts.” This invasion of privacy is one more way to destroy relationships, the private sphere of life, and any potential for contentment or happiness. NR: The most fundamental thing about being a human being is the ability to have our own private thoughts. Without our own private thoughts, we don’t have a life. We have nothing. SM: Oh, absolutely! Let’s consider your point in light of the first amendment of the US Constitution. It’s divided into five individual rights. And remember: Congress shall make no law to abridge them. The first right is called freedom of religion and that includes your freedom of thought, your freedom of conscience. The second right is the freedom to express those thoughts. The third right says you can record those thoughts in various media. The fourth right is your freedom to associate with the people you want to associate with. Finally, you have a right to complain, to petition your grievances against the Government if you feel your rights are violated. So when you look at the first amendment, in my view, it really is the main protector we have of the private sphere of life, of the right to think your own thoughts, and of course to express them. [END PART II] PART I CAN BE READ HERE: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/defeating-transgenderism-and-tyranny-a-conversation-with-author-stella-morabito-part-i PART III COMING SOON Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of "The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer." Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. She has a Master's degree in Russian and Soviet history. Nancy Robertson graduated from Barnard College with a BA in psychology and then received a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Stanford University. Nancy is retired and has written articles for WoLF, and Women are Human. She grew up in New York City in the middle of the last century. In 2022, she learned that three daughters of a deceased, old college friend were trying to become men through they/them pronouns, wrong sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries. She realized a strange cult of "transgender" madness had sprung up, infecting the US and much of the world. Nancy began to research and write about the gender industry to stop it.

With Nancy Robertson [PART I of 3 Parts] Stella Morabito is a journalist whose work I respect immensely. Her new book “The Weaponization of Loneliness,” is a tour de force examination of how tyrants move populations toward their totalitarian interests. Stella’s perspective as a historian of Russian and Soviet propaganda, is filtered through the lens of Soviet tyranny and herewith is her detailed and brilliant discussion with Nancy Robertson, which I find extremely valuable. I have studied the tyranny underlying the gender industry from a capitalist perspective. In other words: Tyranny, American style. A capitalist market that is unfettered, uncontrolled, and left to run away, by its design, forces all the wealth of society upward, into the hands of oligarchs who then instill their tyranny on the populace via the market, which we see repeatedly with the gender industry and elsewhere. An ideology of transhumanism, positioned as a human right for a male sexual fetish of owning womanhood, is being forced into our universities, institutions, public policies, laws, and language, by capital, and those governing the capital. Oligarchs, such as the Pritzker family, Marc Benioff, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, and capital assets management firms such as Black Rock and Vanguard, who have technological and medical investments in transhumanism and the profits to be garnered from transhumanist augmentations, are tyrannically forcing on the public an ideology that is anti-reality/anti-human. They are doing so with the threat of financial isolation and abandonment from the market, The unfettered capitalist market has functioned as well as any dictator with an ideological bent and a drive for absolute control. It has led to a commoditization of all life, manifesting extreme isolation for all of us, from our families, from our communities, from meaningful rituals, from our land base, and now, with the burgeoning gender industry, from our bodies. All avenues of tyranny lead us to the same dark place from which we will eventually be unable to resist. I hope this discussion inspires you to political action soon. It is my assessment that we are rapidly running out of time to resist this global, totalitarian, juggernaut. Many thanks to Nancy Robertson for outlining and facilitating this important discussion. - Jennifer Bilek The following transcript has been edited for clarity. Nancy Robertson: Today I'm pleased to speak with Stella Morabito, a woman who’s had the most fascinating career. Stella spent ten years working as an analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency where she focused on propaganda and media analysis. She is now a senior contributor at the Federalist, an online magazine that carries her articles that focus on the social fallout of group think, propaganda, and mob psychology. Stella has written an insightful and relevant new book, The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer. This book shines a much-needed spotlight on the rise of totalitarianism which now expresses itself most dramatically in “transgender” ideology. “Transgender” ideology harms us all. It imposes compelled speech, “gender-affirming care” for vulnerable children and adults, and the loss of women’s sports and women’s safe spaces. This pernicious ideology has captured our most important institutions: schools, universities, hospitals, mainstream media, entertainment, corporations, and government. Everyone and everything have been affected. In The Weaponization of Loneliness, Stella explains how tyrants use totalitarian methods such as identity politics, political correctness, and mobs to gain power with devastating results for everyone. Fortunately, Stella doesn't just outline the problem. She explains how the average concerned citizen can work to defeat it. The Weaponization of Loneliness was published by Bombardier Books last year and is available on Amazon. I urge everyone to buy and read this extraordinary book because it will open your eyes and give you the tools and confidence to help defeat one of the greatest threats to humanity. Stella. Welcome. Stella Morabito: Thank you so much, Nancy. It's great to be here with you, and thank you for that introduction. NR: You're very welcome, Stella. Can you tell me about your experience as an analyst for the CIA and how that applies to your current writing on propaganda? SM: I have a master’s degree in Russian and Soviet history. And after I received my degree, I worked as an analyst at the CIA all throughout the 1980s. The focus of much of my work there was analyzing the communist media of the Soviet Union during that Cold War era. My experience gave me a clear window into how propaganda works, especially in a one-party State, which is what all totalitarian systems are. The Soviet Union had only the Communist Party. There was no tolerance for any other point of view. Part of what I studied was the Soviet use of psychiatry as a political weapon where dissidents were consigned to psychiatric hospitals for not accepting the propagandistic narrative. Dissent was considered a mental illness If you disagreed with the narrative, you were punished and ostracized. Unfortunately, I see the same patterns here today that I observed then, even in the fields of psychology and psychotherapy. And we also see this today in China. Their social credit system controls your access to goods and services, depending on how well you comply with their narrative. I fear that that’s what we're seeing more and more of in the United States. NR: Yes, unfortunately. Therapists today are now required to “affirm, affirm, affirm” their patient’s “gender identity.” Therapists will lose their license to practice therapy if they don’t comply. So these therapists tell parents their children will commit suicide unless they “affirm” This situation is growing increasingly dire. Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who some believe may enter the presidential race, recently stated that any parent who doesn’t affirm their child’s “gender” should be accused of child abuse. Child abuse -- it’s alarming! SM: People in the US are being bullied into accepting this narrative. And people are being punished for not accepting it. That's exactly how it works in any totalitarian system or social credit system. And if we don't push back and push back hard, we'll end up in a similar situation. NR: Yes. We must push back now, or the unthinkable will happen. SM: Yes. And that’s why I’m grateful to everyone who is fighting against this, especially Jennifer Bilek. Her 11th Hour blog is so necessary right now, and it’s made such a difference to have people come together and speak out. Women like the author JK Rowling; Kellie Jay Keen, the British women’s rights activist who was physically attacked by a “transgender mob in New Zealand earlier this year; and Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis, who spoke out against men in women’s sports on Twitter. Their actions help people open their eyes to these insidious narratives and programs that are taking over. This encourages people to stand up to the oppression and the bullying we see today. NR: Back in 2017, you gave a very prescient speech for the FRC, in which you said there were four ways in which the “transgender” agenda helps to instantiate totalitarianism. Can you tell us more about that? SM: Yes. I distilled the process by which what we call “transgenderism” is really a vehicle for totalitarianism and censorship. There are four conditions that have to be put in place for that to happen, and to subvert all our institutions, especially schools, universities, and the corporate world. The four conditions are: 1, consolidating state power under the guise of promoting individualism; 2, sowing chaos into the language; 3, state censorship; and 4, an aggressive campaign of propaganda and agitation. Under the first condition, gender ideology as a movement consolidates state power under the guise of promoting individualism and preventing discrimination. But the ideology actually serves to break down and destabilize our sense of identity. Children are told to be their “authentic selves” after activists in schools and culture indoctrinate them or perform what I call mind-rape upon them. You can't sustain the sort of “individualism” that requires us to deny reality to such an extent that we can't even talk to one another anymore. There are no limits. No boundaries. The “transgender” movement also sows chaos into the language. But language is how we communicate with one another. It's how we establish relationships with each other! NR: Yes, those awful new pronouns like “zir” and “zim” and “they” instead of he or she. SM: Linguists like Stephen Pinker describe pronouns as “function words” in a language. Pronouns prop up the structure of language and speech, like scaffolding. A pronoun is not like an adjective that can change, or a noun or verb, or any of those other parts of speech. You can’t change pronouns at will. You need a structure with agreed-upon rules so people can talk to one another. But when you change the pronouns, you've eliminated the structure of the language. NR: And pronouns are only one example. “Transgender” activists also want to abolish the word “mother.” SM: Yes. And ultimately this leads to the destruction of our relationships. It's all about regulating and dictating all human relationships. And in order to do that, you have to isolate people. And that's what this does. It destabilizes a sense of identity, the sense of self, especially for children. And once that's destabilized, you're in a state of isolation, and that makes you a whole lot more controllable. Sowing chaos into the language is number two. The third requirement is state censorship. Imposing “transgenderism” on a society requires state censorship. Everyone knows this deep down. Who hasn't been, you know, mind-raped by the idea of “transgenderism.” Everybody knows it's not true, it's not reality. So, the State shuts people up who don't agree with it. And then we come to the fourth requirement for total social control: a very aggressive campaign of propaganda and agitation, along with censorship, that pushes the narrative forward and forces people to accept it. NR: And now we have propaganda and agitation coming not just from the state, but from our largest corporations, too. Dylan Mulvaney as the “transgender” spokesman for Bud Light. And Target openly displayed tuck-it underwear in a “Pride” display next to colorful children’s clothes. Everywhere we look, we are bombarded with “transgender” propaganda. SM: These are only a few of the tools in the bag of tricks that enforce the narrative of “transgenderism” Meant to socially control everyone to get with the program. Our institutions are being taken over and getting away from their original mission. We see this, for example, in medicine. They are enforcing one particular viewpoint. One particular totalitarian structure. And “transgenderism,” of course, which is the focus of this interview plays a big role in that because it has such an effect on destabilizing the sense of self of the child as well as in all human relationships. NR: Yes. It’s very destabilizing. Let's talk about your new book, The Weaponization of Loneliness. When did you decide to write it? And why? SM: Well, all my life I’ve had a nagging feeling that there’s something more behind all the bullying that we see around us. Bullying on the playground, bullying by a toxic boss, bullying by a cult leader like Jim Jones, who in 1978 convinced almost a thousand people to commit “revolutionary suicide” in that compound in Jonestown, Guyana by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. That’s where the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” comes from. It means following the propaganda. And when you do that, it leads to your own destruction. But all this bullying, from the mean girls at school right on up to the world-class dictators wage war on private life and human relationships in order to gain power. I wrote the book because I wanted to understand how this happens. And at a certain point, I realized the patterns that tie all this together have to do with the impulse to conform. Human beings need to be connected with other people. And this need to connect with others is hardwired into us. That makes it easy for tyrants to exploit and control us. The flip side of this need is fear, the terror of being ostracized, cast into the outer darkness. And this fear is probably stronger than any other human impulse, even hunger. For example, look at what happened with anorexia nervosa. Teenage girls would starve themselves so they could look like skinny fashion models and feel accepted as beautiful. Their need to feel accepted was ever more powerful than their need to eat. The fear of ostracism and the need to be connected dictate so much of human behavior. Political correctness is a primary example. Someone might say to themselves, “Oh, I don't want to say what I really believe, because they might reject me.” That plays a huge role in moving the ball forward for totalitarians. It’s a huge vulnerability on our part. I wrote the book because I felt that we need to be much more aware of these dynamics in order to keep them in check. NR: These tyrants don't just threaten human connections. They also threaten people's livelihoods. SM: Yes, and in fact, the loss of one's livelihood is very connected to one’s sense of self. For example, why are so many American physicians going along with crazy things, including the mutilation of children? Why? Likely, because doctors put a lot of time, money, and effort into getting their degrees. And their occupation as medical doctors provides them with a high level of status and respect. And they don’t want to risk losing that. But they don’t understand that their compliance is a Faustian bargain. In the short term, you may feel like it will save you. But if you don’t push back, it will destroy you. NR: You have called the weaponization of loneliness a war on the private sphere of life. How does the State fill the void of isolation with their tyranny? SM: They just keep making you more and more dependent upon the State. And feeling less and less able to have access to the personal relationships from which we get our strength. Most totalitarians and tyrants know instinctively that the private sphere of life is where we derive so much of our power. The individual human being needs those very strong core relationships—in family, faith, and friendship--to fall back on when they're dealing with the world at large. Totalitarians have been trying to invade that sphere for at least two centuries if you go back to 1848 with the publication of the Communist Manifesto. One of the biggest points made in that pamphlet is to abolish the family. And once that happens, the only thing left is the State. And the State fills the vacuum. In a healthy society, bonding begins with biological bonding, and family bonding. And then it blossoms out into community bonding. So, if you get family breakdown you end up with a community breakdown, too. But when you do have strong bonds to fall back on, you're much more able to express what you really believe, even in the face of those who seem to reject you for doing so. And that’s because you have your family and strong friendships to fall back on. Family and friendships are exactly what totalitarians and those who have that totalitarian impulse want to do away with. Movies such as Gaslight, from which we get the term “gas lighting,” shows how psychological abuse so often begins with isolating the victim and making the victim feel like they’re the crazy one if they don’t agree with the narrative pushed by the perpetrators. And this can occur whether it’s a one-on-one relationship, a cult leader, or the dictator of a country. People are made to feel that if they don’t agree with a narrative, no matter how outlandish it is, they’ll be viewed as a social outcast. And so, the State becomes the Mass State. As the psychiatrist Carl Jung put it in his 1957 book The Undiscovered Self, the Mass State has no interest in the real relationships between people, between human beings. The main objective of the Mass State is to inject psychic isolation into the individual. That’s what “transgenderism” does. It injects psychic isolation, especially on the child. Why would a child go through with all these horrific things that interfere with their development -- whether it's puberty blockers or mutilating surgeries. Why? Because they want to feel connected, want to feel accepted, not rejected. And that’s why rapid onset gender dysphoria affects so many kids in school. Kids tell themselves, “This is the cool thing. I’ll be protected.” There’s so much bullying in schools, that becoming “trans” provides a safe haven because it is protected by anti-discrimination rules. And that can be tempting to them. NR: And unfortunately, “transgender” activists target the most vulnerable children. The children who might be on the autism spectrum or are unpopular for another reason. But if they declare themselves “transgender,” they can suddenly become heroes. SM: Yes, they want to feel accepted. And that need for connection, as I said, is easily exploited. The powers that be, whether it's a teacher or a school administrator or the Federal government, say they will protect you if you become “transgender.” They also tell you the enemy is the “cisgender.” That is, unless you’re a “transgender” ally. And nobody wants to be seen as the enemy or socially rejected. That's usually that's how it plays out in the child's mind and causes confusion. NR: Those poor children. SM: That’s why it’s so important to understand how the weaponization of loneliness affects people and destroys relationships. It isolates us, and therefore makes us miserable, confused, and powerless. [END PART I - PARTS II and III coming soon] Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of "The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer." Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. She has a Master's degree in Russian and Soviet history. Nancy Robertson graduated from Barnard College with a BA in psychology and then received a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Stanford University. Nancy is retired and has written articles for WoLF, Women are Human, and The 11th Hour Blog. She grew up in New York City in the middle of the last century. In 2022, she learned that three daughters of a deceased, old college friend were trying to become men through they/them pronouns, wrong sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries. She realized a strange cult of "transgender" madness had sprung up, infecting the US and much of the world. Nancy began to research and write about the gender industry to stop it.