J.K. Rowling ripped into the activists who pushed puberty blockers after the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) banned their use on minors dealing with transgenderism.
NHS England based its decision to ban puberty blockers for children this week on there not being enough evidence on the procedure’s safety or clinical effectiveness. The U.K. government also endorsed the “landmark decision,” hailing at as being in the “best interests of children.” NHS England proposed a ban on the procedure last June and issued the definitive decision following a review from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
Author J.K. Rowling, who has been an outspoken critic of transgender radicalism since 2020, celebrated the decision on social media and called out the activists who pushed this on children.
“How was this allowed in the first place… no words,” one user on X said in reply to her post highlighting the policy change.
“Well-funded lobbying groups drunk on their own power, politicians closing their eyes rather than suffer social media pushback, idiot celeb cheerleaders who’re about to go very quiet, pharmaceutical companies chasing profit, medics who abandoned ethics and should be in the dock,” she replied.
One self-identified “de-transitioner” said, “It breaks my heart it was allowed to go on for so long. The damage done is untold, and the number of detransitioners who have broke down in pain to me will live with me forever.”
“Your orchid is still alive and I think of you every time I look at it,” said Rowling.
Well-funded lobbying groups drunk on their own power, politicians closing their eyes rather than suffer social media pushback, idiot celeb cheerleaders who're about to go very quiet, pharmaceutical companies chasing profit, medics who abandoned ethics and should be in the dock.
In another post, J.K. Rowling called out transgender activist India Willoughby, who advised “families of trans kids” to “seek out private sources of puberty blockers – which are totally harmless, and approved by countless legit health bodies.”
“If safe for cis kids, they’re safe for trans kids,” asserted Willoughby.
Rowling shared a screenshot of Willoughby’s comments and said in response to them: “Willoughby is propagating dangerous lies. Women who were put on Lupron [a type of hormone-suppressing medication] to delay puberty have suffered long-term harm.”
Maria Caulfield, the U.K. health minister, also celebrated the decision.
“We welcome this landmark decision by the NHS to end the routine prescription of puberty blockers and this guidance which recognizes that care must be based on evidence, expert clinical opinion and in the best interests of the child,” said Caulfield.
Martin Sellner being removed from speech by police./Image: @Martin_Sellner/X
Conservative activist Martin Sellner, of Génération Identitaire, was prevented from giving a speech at an event in Switzerland addressing the dangers of European nations taking in migrants.
Sellner shared on X that he had been invited by a local group, Junge Tat (Young Deed), to “talk about remigration and the ethnic vote” and what happened at a recent meeting in Germany.
Armed Police Shut Off Power and Remove Conservative Activist Martin Sellner Before Lecture in Switzerland (Video) via @gatewaypundithttps://t.co/A62mrwYGtA
London Assembly candidate and Parliamentary candidate for Eltham and Chislehurst Mark Simpson with Golden Chippy’s owner Chris Kanizi/Image: @RealMGSimpson/X
However, nearby residents have spoken out in favour of the mural, with one even telling GB News that it reminded them of a Banksy painting.
One resident said: “It doesn’t offend me at all. It’s a fish and chip shop isn’t it? I’ve got nothing against it. It’s just a part of the advertising.”
Another said: “I think it’s quite good and quite beautiful. It shows the flag of Great Britain and I think that’s good. I don’t think they should take it down.”
One other passer-by added: “I think its fantastic artwork. I really like it, it reminds me of Banksy. If it was a Banksy there, then they wouldn’t complain. So why can’t other artists who do fantastic artwork like that also have the opportunity to lighten up the streets joyfully.”
It is not the first time Kanizi, who arrived in the UK in 1977 from northern Cyprus, has fallen foul of Greenwich council with his zeal for celebrating fish and chips.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Golden+Chippy/
In 2016, the town hall ordered him to remove a much larger sign, about 17 feet high, featuring a very similar design, from above the door.
He told The Telegraph: “It’s just something to put a smile on people’s faces. But the council said ‘this is a preservation area – you can’t have that and you’ve got to paint over it.’ They also said people had been complaining, but I don’t believe that. Everyone who has talked to me say they love it.
“I’m going to stick it out for as long as I can…they haven’t given me a date to paint over it yet, but they will. I’ve got so many international customers. They all like taking a photo with the mural in the background.”
A Greenwich council spokesman said: “Following a number of complaints made to local ward councillors, an enforcement case was raised about the mural in question.
“Our Planning Enforcement team is investigating this as it is effectively an unauthorised advert for the chip shop. The owner has agreed to paint over it.
“We will always try to negotiate with the owner before proceeding to a formal planning enforcement notice.”
On Friday (15th March), Islamists attacked a Hindu man named Rajiv Kumar Dey for keeping his shop open during the daytime in the month of Ramzan. The incident took place in Sylhet city of Bangladesh.
As per reports, the accused was identified as Sohail Hassan. He is said to be a member of the Chhatra League (the student wing of the Sheikh Hasina-led-Awami League government).
The victim ran a small shop near the Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital (SOMCH). Rajiv Kumar Dey was asked to pay chada (money) by Sohail Hassan and his accomplice from the start of Ramzan but he refused to give in to their demands.
Injured Rajiv Kumar Dey lying on hospital bed, image via Sylhet Today 24
The victim continued to run his business but put up a curtain outside his shop for the sake of Roja (fasting observed by Muslims during Ramzan). He said that he wanted to cater to the Hindu patients who visited the nearby hospital during the daytime.
In the evenings, Rajiv Kumar Dey would also sell iftari (food consumed during iftar) to his Muslim customers. On Friday (15th March) afternoon, Sohail Hassan and his accomplice went to the victim’s shop and accused him of hurting religious sentiments during Ramzan.
They also told him that a Hindu man could not sell iftari to Muslims. The Islamists then attacked Rajiv Kumar Dey with a sharp weapon and vandalised his shop.
Hindu restaurant owner Rajeev dey fatally attacked by Jihadi mob for keeping restaurant open in Sylhet during Roza days in Ramadan. pic.twitter.com/kQuPj9FyKD
— Voice of Bangladeshi Hindus 🇧🇩 (@VoiceofHindu71) March 16, 2024
The victim was later admitted to the Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital. The brutal attack resulted in 18 stitches on his head. During the unprovoked attack, Sohail and his men also looted the cashbox.
“They broke my cashbox and took money,” the victim lamented. His employee at the shop was also hurt during the attack. On learning about the matter, a police team lead by Officer-in-charge (OC) Mohammad Moinuddin reached the crime scene. A police case has not been registered so far in connection to the case.
This is however not the first time that a member of the Chhatra League has resorted to persecution of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh. In January this year, it came to light that the convenor of the Chhatra League at the Kachua Government Bangabandhu Degree College, Ibrahim Miya, usurped the land of a Hindu family in the Basabaria village of Bangladesh.
A Congolese migrant due to stand trial in France for the double rape of two elderly hospital patients and the rape of a minor two days later has claimed that because he does not have a girlfriend he is “forced” to rape.
Ali Gandega, 28, was arrested in September 2022 after entering the Max-Fourestier Hospital in Nanterre on July 27 and sexually assaulting a 78-year-old patient in bed before fleeing to another ward on the premises and raping a 68-year-old woman suffering from a neurodegenerative disease just minutes later.
Video footage from the hospital showed the abuse suffered by the two elderly victims and DNA evidence taken after his arrest linked him to another rape, this time a 12-year-old girl, that occurred two days later in the same city.
Le Parisien reported how the man had used scaffolding to enter the child’s bedroom window before strangling and molesting her.
At a police interview, Gandega reportedly told officers that he only wanted to “make love” and that he had initially entered the hospital with a view to raping babies, leading to questions about his mental capacity to stand trial.
French media reported how, when Gandega was in police custody, he explained that because he didn’t have a girlfriend, he was “forced” to rape.
“I decided not to ask anymore … and to do what I had to do,” he is cited as saying.
Born in the Republic of Congo, the suspect joined his siblings in France at the age of 18 but soon became addicted to drugs and refused to work, leading to his sisters throwing him out and him becoming homeless.
During his pre-trial detention, Gandega was relocated from a prison to a secure psychiatric facility and has reportedly become a recluse, refusing to leave his prison cell for interrogations.
He did, however, at one point reportedly attempt to rape a fellow patient or inmate.
Despite being diagnosed as psychotic, an expert psychiatric report has recommended that he is fit to stand trial for the crimes, and an indictment order was filed on Jan. 30 for a trial later this year at the Hauts-de-Seine Criminal Court.
Gandega faces up to 20 years in prison for the offenses.
Loretta standing between her mother Annett and her father, mobile phone with picture of Loretta’s Smurf video: “They wanted to make an example of our daughter”, photo: private /Junge Freiheit
German police took a 16-year-old schoolgirl out of her class after she was denounced by her headteacher for expressing political sympathies with right-wing party AfD in a harmless Smurf video. The incident has caused a national scandal in Germany. Now Loretta and her mother, Annett B., speak out publicly for the first time in a interview with conservative weekly Junge Freiheit. The girl feels humiliated; her mother fears for political freedom and civil rights in Germany.
Mrs. B., as a mother, would you ever have thought such a thing possible?
Annett: No, never in my life. It’s unbelievable what was done to my daughter!
Loretta, how are you?
Loretta: I’m doing well again now. I’m overwhelmed by the solidarity I’ve received on social media from complete strangers.
Annett: Please, my daughter was virtually taken away in front of everyone! And Mr. Pegel says that she wasn’t put in handcuffs after all. That’s really cynical!
When confronted with the allegations, the police defended themselves by saying that the classmates in Loretta’s class “didn’t even notice the officers.“
Annett: Numerous pupils were eyewitnesses. At no time did they seem to have thought about how the matter could be discussed discreetly and anonymously.
Loretta, what was it really like?
Loretta: My mother is right. I felt everyone’s stinging eyes on me. It was the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to me.
Annett: You can criticize our conservative political views, you can reject them, find them wrong and reprehensible, we respect that. But to call the police because of a pupil’s opinion—that’s simply unbelievable!
And then to take her out of class and escort her through the school like a criminal and, on top of that, to spread the word in the press afterwards that it was necessary to conduct a kind of ‘endangerment talk’ (a preventive police measure) with her and thus portray a completely innocent minor as a potential criminal in front of the whole world—do these people actually realize what they are doing?
Annett: My daughter’s political opinion does not threaten “public safety or order“ of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern! My God, she posted a Smurf video and a map of Germany on TikTok several months ago!
Loretta, why did you do that?
Loretta: Because I wanted to support the AfD a little bit, because they’re being put down everywhere else. I think that’s unfair. So I posted a few Smurfs together with a map of Germany on which the federal states are colored different shades of blue depending on the AfD state election results and wrote: “The Smurfs are blue—and so is Germany!“
That can’t possibly be everything.
Loretta: I also posted on TikTok that Germany is not just a place, but that Germany is home—and even for many nationalities living in this beautiful country.
Please Loretta, if a 16 year old thinks that Germany is her home, then, your mother is right, it is not a threat to public safety. So: what about, for example, calls for violence, subversion, hatred of minorities or incitement to hatred?
Annett: Excuse me, what kind of person do you think Loretta is?
Something must have happened to justify such a police operation.
Loretta: The police spoke of “incitement to hatred.”
In what way?
Loretta: Well, because of the Smurfs, the map of Germany, and “Germany is home.”
That doesn’t make any sense.
Loretta: I posted other things on TikTok, like that AfD party leader Alice Weidel is my role model, or AfD-politician Björn Höcke’s quote “You raise your children to be sheep and let wolves into the country,” because that’s exactly what I’m afraid of as a girl! But they weren’t mentioned by the police.
Why don’t you tell us from the beginning, what exactly happened?
Loretta: It was on February 27, a Tuesday, just before ten: We were having chemistry lessons, acids and bases. We saw a police car drive up through the window. Three officers got out. They enter the school. Shortly afterwards, school principal Zimmermann is standing in the doorway.
That means, contrary to what this newspaper initially reported online, the officers didn’t enter the room?
Loretta: No, they stayed in the hallway and Mr. Zimmermann asked me to come out.
Did the officers really stay so discreetly in the background that they were not visible to your classmates, as the police claimed?
Loretta: No, that’s not true. There was a knock at the door and Mr. Zimmermann came in, opening the door so wide that the rest of the class could clearly see that there were three officers standing there. We all thought, what’s going on now? And then my name came up—I immediately realized what it was all about.
Why, if your TikTok videos were harmless?
Loretta: Because they’re the only thing I could be accused of, since they were my posts for the AfD and many like to denounce them as ‘anti-constitutional.’ So I walked out and then I went to the staff room: one policeman in front of me, one behind me, one to the side and Mr. Zimmermann on the other side at an angle.
Like a suspect who might trying to run off?
Loretta: I felt a bit like that.
Did the police officers perhaps position themselves like that by chance?
Loretta: Maybe, I don’t know. It’s possible.
Or, on the contrary, were they demonstratively emphasizing the severity of the police action?
Loretta: That’s also possible, I really don’t know. I only know what I experienced and that was being led through the school, surrounded by police officers, through the atrium where at least two senior classes were sitting: All voices fell silent and everyone stared at me—it was really, really uncomfortable.
Thank goodness we finally reached the staff room. But unfortunately, Mr. Zimmermann’s secretary, our janitors and a teacher were still there, which was again very embarrassing for me, because what would they think if I was led in like that?
What exactly did the police officers say to you?
Loretta: That what I would have done had no criminal relevance.
So you didn’t give any reasons for the whole thing?
Loretta: Yes, as I said, there was talk of incitement of the people and, I think, anti-constitutionality.
What now? It was just said that there was no criminal offense?
Loretta: I didn’t understand that either and said that the AfD is not an anti-constitutional or right-wing extremist party. When I said that, I noticed in the corner of my eye how Mr. Zimmermann just rolled his eyes. One of the police officers also said that I had already shown “too much national pride“ on TikTok.
So you weren’t really accused of anything other than expressing your opinion?
Loretta: Yes.
And with what consequences, I mean, what did that amount to? What did the police officers want?
Loretta: Well, that I shouldn’t do that in future.
To express your political opinion freely?
Loretta: Yes, on the Internet.
Annett: Look, I can’t believe that! So much for freedom of expression and democracy.
So there’s nothing wrong with you, yet the police pull you out of class in front of everyone and demand that you renounce your basic constitutional and civil right to freedom of expression in future. Is that really the whole story, Loretta, surely you haven’t left anything out?
Loretta: They then took my personal details and wanted to know where they could find my mother, her phone number and so on.
And you demanded their names and service numbers and told them you were going to lodge a legal complaint for harassment and discrimination?
Loretta: No, I promised them what they wanted.
Why did you do that? If your description is correct, it was extra-legal, political intimidation.
Loretta: Because I stopped making the videos anyway.
Why?
Loretta: Because they kept getting deleted months ago, even though I had read up on them and made sure I didn’t accidentally post anything unauthorized. But it didn’t help and it’s no fun when everything you’ve worked hard to create disappears again. While, by the way, AfD criticism and anti-AfD agitation remains on Tiktok, for example: “AfDler töten” (“Kill AfDers“)
What about the ‘endangerment talk’ that the police spoke of? What threat to the security of the state and order did they use to justify the measure?
Loretta: They said they didn’t know what kind of person I was, whether I might “kick the shit out of others.”
Was it difficult to convince the officers that you weren’t planning to knock other people’s teeth out?
Loretta: No, that’s why they then said it was for my own protection.
Oh, so you’re supposed to give up your freedom of expression for your own good. Because otherwise something might happen?
Loretta: Well, otherwise something could happen to me.
They threatened you?
Loretta: No, I think they meant third parties.
Annett: After they did everything they could to make my child look like a right-wing extremist perpetrator of violence in public, I now actually have this fear! Loretta is a great person with a strong character who, as we have taught her, treats others with respect and is tolerant of other beliefs and opinions. I have never seen Loretta insult, put down, or even bully anyone for no reason.
And otherwise I’d be the first one on the pinnacle! But I don’t need to worry about that, she simply wouldn’t do anything like that! And that’s why it’s completely out of the question that my daughter would ever have posted anything even remotely right-wing. Even the principal could have recognized that. Incidentally, people always talk about right-wing extremism, but nobody talks about left-wing extremism being just as bad.
Mrs. B., was your daughter to be publicly humiliated and paraded in order to set an example or do you think this interpretation is exaggerated?
Annett: I think they wanted to make an example of her: “Look, we’re doing this with pupils who aren’t politically in line with us!“ After all, the school had just launched the ‘Strengthening Democracy’ project, which is supported by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which is close to the SPD. But politics also includes an opposition, because without different opinions there is no democracy. In my opinion, democracy was trampled underfoot in our case.
So will you take legal action against the police?
Annett: For me, the real blame lies with Mr. Zimmermann, the police couldn’t ignore his call and, despite all the criticism of their actions, were basically just doing their job. But how could he even call them instead of contacting the parents first, if there had been a problem at all?
Especially as the school rules state in black and white that in the event of misconduct, a discussion must always be sought with the parents first! It also states that all measures must be checked for proportionality. Both were ignored to the detriment of our daughter!
Why?
Annett: I asked Mr. Zimmermann the same question after I was finally able to reach him by phone.
That means he didn’t even contact you in the second step—although he said the case was so serious that even the police had to be involved?
Annett: No, he didn’t. My phone call with him was also fruitless, he was hiding behind the fact that the Ministry of Education had issued an instruction a few weeks ago that he had to follow.
What kind of instruction?
Annett: To inform the Ministry of Education of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the state education authority in suspected cases and to notify the police in order to have the respective suspected case checked for right-wing extremist, anti-constitutional content. But why don’t we parents know about this?
I now hope that the AfD in the state parliament might be able to clear this up. It is very important to me for my daughter and all other children and their parents that it is clarified who is responsible for this approach at the school and that consequences are drawn from it.
Because the fact is, if there are such guidelines, anyone can make malicious or false allegations about a classmate and get them into trouble—if it’s even worth a Smurf post that the police are called out: this is a free pass for bullying. If schools call the police without at least involving the parents at the same time, then the red line has clearly been crossed!
The great solidarity we are now experiencing shows how angry people are that the state is apparently already politically attacking and persecuting children.
What do you want from the principal?
Annett: After it turned out that my daughter had done nothing wrong, I would have expected him to apologize to her publicly and to make it clear to her classmates that the initial suspicion of right-wing extremism was unfounded.
Loretta: What really scares me is that I did the TikToks in my free time. So why am I being publicly reprimanded by him and at my school? Because the ‘occasion’ has nothing to do with it! Because at school I consistently remain neutral and keep my opinions to myself.
What does that mean, would you be disadvantaged, graded lower, maybe even threatened by classmates?
Loretta: I can’t say that, because apart from Mr. Zimmermann’s police action against me, I’ve only had experiences like that once before, when a teacher asked me after class if I didn’t want to reconsider my political stance because her husband was of a different nationality. She said whether I really wanted her husband and his family to be sent back to their country of origin. I told her that wasn’t true! Nobody who lives here legally, works and has integrated will be sent anywhere, that’s not what AfD stands for.
Your whole school knows now, what does that mean for you?
Loretta: I was really scared at first, but apart from the fact that some politically left-wing classmates don’t like me, fortunately everything is the same as before. Even on the part of the teachers, even though—apart from two or three who are neutral—they all think left-wing and make no secret of their opinion on the AfD in front of us students. In my class, on the other hand, most of them even like the fact that I had the courage to speak my mind openly, at least on TikTok.
Mrs. B., as a mother, what do you hope for the future?
Annett: I would like to see schools advocate more for mutual respect in dealing with each other and tolerance towards other political opinions—as long as they are not extremist in either direction—and not just shout for tolerance when it comes to gendering and different genders.
Annett and Loretta B.*: The 16-year-old lives with her parents in Ribnitz-Damgarten (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) where the ninth-grader attends the Richard-Wossidlo-Gymnasium. *Surname abbreviated for reasons of personal privacy.
This interview was conducted and published by Junge Freiheit.
Pity, First Minister Humza Yousaf, the current head chief of the notoriously corrupt SNP, and therefore of Scotland, who took the position not realizing that the country is, dare one say it, white.
Which DEI advocate can’t empathize with the Pakistani Muslim’s rage at the persistence of white people in the highlands and all the rest of it too.
Scottish PM Humza Yousaf complains that there are too many white people in Scotland 🏴!!!! I am beyond shocked! pic.twitter.com/rxXFPFkneo
Scotland is some 96% white. And Humza Yousaf is running the place.
Yousaf’s native Pakistan is 96% Muslim and any Christian who tried running it or just tried announcing it would be murdered faster than you can say, “Shahbaz Bhatti” who was killed for criticizing Pakistan’s Islamic blasphemy laws which were being used to have Asia Bibi, a Christian woman killed.
In Pakistan, Islamic Sharia is the basis for all legislation. In Scotland, not yet.
Under Sharia law, non-Muslims must be made inferior to Muslims.
Humza Yousaf, scion of a nation where Christians are murdered and churches are burned, where all a Muslim needs to do to have a Christian killed is accuse him of blaspheming an ancient and fortunately long-dead pedophilic warlord, berates Scotland because too many of its officials are ‘white’. He’d like to change that.
A report commissioned by several heritage groups says the countryside is racist. The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge claims that paintings of the British landscape evoke dark “nationalist feelings”. What’s going on here? Historian and broadcaster Rafe Heydel-Mankoo told GB News that those claiming the “Countryside is racist” don’t care about ethnic minorities at all. They are motivated by a deep seated hatred of Britain and the West and seek to undermine them at every occasion. They are engaged in a war of attrition against our culture, our values and our way of life.
Approximately a month after the war began, the popular Israeli satire program Eretz Nehederet published an English satirical language interview in which a BBC reporter is shown expressing sympathy with the leader of Hamas.
The clip went viral on social media and garnered millions of views, but also drew significant criticism against the British network and joined those who accused it of one-sided and biased reporting against Israel. Among those who criticized the channel was a surprising name – Danny Cohen, the network’s director of television until 2015.
“I had not criticized BBC in any forum before the 7th of October, because I’ve been there myself and know that you can feel like it’s coming from all sides,” atCohen stated in a recent interview with the podcast UNHOLY. “Their refusal to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas was misjudged and offensive, and then they doubled down.”
“Every large organization makes errors. When the errors keep coming, does that tell you it’s just a sequence of bad luck, or is there more to it? In my view, this reveals institutional anti-Israel bias, and in some cases racism against Jews. I don’t believe they take anti-Jewish racism as seriously as other forms of racism, because I don’t think this would keep happening if they did. You get the same line over and over again – ‘BBC takes this very seriously’. I think the senior management is more focused on dealing with the crisis than rooting out racism against Jews.”
“The impulse to defend the BBC and get through the crisis rather than dealing with the problem, which is continuing. I have heard from many Jewish workers at the BBC, who feel that bias, and felt that if they spoke out they would lose their jobs. I have heard horrendous stories of antisemitism at the BBC, from workers who felt they could not tell their stories or that the management doesn’t get it.”
He gave one example: “They made two recordings of You’re Fired, a spin-off show from The Apprentice, one with an antisemite and one without. They eventually used the one without – but what on earth was going on? What if he had been racist against any other group?”
He addressed the controversial Oscar acceptance speech by Jonathan Glazer as well. ‘I fundamentally disagree with Jonathan on this. my support for Israel is unwavering. I believe very strongly that the continuation of the war is the fault of Hamas, which continues to hold and abuse the hostages and doesn’t use its tunnels to protect the civilian population.’
He also claims the speech has undercut the message of the film The Zone of Interest, which won the award: “It was a bit of a disappointment. It was a triumph for filmmaking and is one of the truly great films about the Holocaust, and will survive as such for decades – but the discussion this week is about the speech, not the film.”
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.
