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. 

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.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Thursday, January 25, 2024
We could with justice call Hodge a Protestant Nationalist. Hodge explains the way in which God’s moral law must be the foundation of American political life like this: The people of this country being rational, moral, and religious beings, the government must be administered on the principles of reason, morality, and religion. By a like necessity of right, the people being Christians and Protestants, the government must be administered according to the principles of Protestant Christianity.

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) was the third professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, once the leading institution of Reformed pastoral education and theology in America. He was also one of the most significant and able defenders of orthodox Christian theology in the years in which theological liberalism began to dominate so many churches, seminaries, and other institutions in America. Hodge was a prolific scholar, writing biblical commentaries, devotional works, and often addressing contemporary cultural issues. His most famous work, however, is his three-volume Systematic Theology, published between 1871–73.
This trilogy, though it does not normally address contemporary political issues, has one major section that does. It is found in Hodge’s treatment of the fourth commandment. In Hodge’s day (and for decades afterward in many places) the majority of American cities and states had “blue laws,” laws requiring businesses to close on Sunday. The basis for such laws was the Bible. Was it right, Hodge asked, in a republic that granted the free exercise of religion to its citizens, to impose upon those citizens biblical injunctions they might not agree with? Hodge devotes eight pages (out of a total of twenty-seven on the fourth commandment) to answer this question. His discussion is beneficial beyond what he says about the Sabbath itself because certain foundational political principles can be extracted from it. It also provides a stimulating treatment for American Christians to consider with regard to the various contemporary debates about the role of Christianity in relation to America’s political system.
Hodge begins his argument with the caveats
(1.) That in every free country every man has equal rights with his fellow-citizens, and stands on the same ground in the eye of law. (2.) That in the United States no form of religion can be established; that no religious test for the exercise of the elective franchise or for holding of office can be imposed; and that no preference can be given to the members of one religious denomination above those of another. (3.) That no man can be forced to contribute to the support of any church, or of any religious institution. (4.) That every man is at liberty to regulate his conduct and life according to his convictions or conscience, provided he does not violate the law of the land.
Some of these sentiments are incompatible with Reformational views on the relationship between the state and the church (some were not even true in America’s more distant past). In that older perspective, although the church and state must always be distinguished vocationally, the state is understood to possess a mandate (within its unique sphere of authority) to see that true religion is protected and promoted in church and society at large.
However, Hodge is not a modern secular liberal either. After the quote above he continues:
On the other hand it is no less true, that a nation is not a mere conglomeration of individuals. It is an organized body. It has of necessity its national life, its national organs, national principles of action, national character, and national responsibility.
Therefore, since
men are rational creatures, the government cannot banish all sense and reason from their action, because there may be idiots among the people. As men are moral beings, it is impossible that the government should act as though there were no distinction between right and wrong. . . . As it is impossible for the individual man to disregard all moral obligations, it is no less impossible on the part of civil governments.
Perhaps some modern liberals and progressives could agree with Hodge up to this point, but he then brings religion into the discussion. Religion, Hodge writes,
must influence [man’s] conduct as an individual, as the head of a family, as a man of business, as a legislator, and as an executive officer. It is absurd to say that civil governments have nothing to do with religion. . . . A civil government cannot ignore religion any more than physiology.
Although Hodge maintains that civil government “was not constituted to teach either the one [religion] or the other [physiology] . . . it must, by a like necessity, conform its action to the laws of both.” That is to say, the state is not ordained by God to teach theology (even Calvin would agree with this), but it cannot act wholly independently of religion any more than it could totally disregard the physical constitution of men and women (though our own society is doing its best to prove Hodge wrong on this latter point). “Indeed,” Hodge continues “it would be far safer for a government to pass an act violating the laws of health, than one violating the religious convictions of its citizens. The one would be unwise, the other would be tyrannical.” One example of how the state should “conform its action to [God’s] laws” is through statutes banning public blasphemy, whether by individuals, or even by publishers.
God’s moral law, even if true religious worship and doctrine should not be enforced by the state, is the only true foundation for a just and healthy society. “It is time,” says Hodge,
that blatant atheists, whether communists, scientists, or philosophers, should know that they are as much and as justly the objects of pity and contempt, as of indignation to all right-minded men [BCD: the Old Princeton mood?].
Read More
Related Posts:

An understanding of these particular perspectives will help clarify the division over the current crisis in the Middle East. Christians who oppose Marxist ideology and who agree on the root essentials of the faith should maintain their Christian fellowship even if they have different approaches to this particular question.

On October 7, 2023, terrorists from the Palestinian organization Hamas in Gaza invaded the nation Israel and killed more than thirteen hundred Israelis, mostly civilians. The terrorists also engaged in rapes, mutilations and kidnappings. In response, the nation of Israel declared war against Hamas. In America, the reaction to these events has been quite diverse. On one extreme have been those who openly side with Hamas. On the other extreme have been those who promote unconditional support for the nation Israel as a religious obligation. In the middle are two other views which have had less exposure. I believe that a brief explanation of these four perspectives would bring needed clarity to this issue.
Let’s begin with those who openly side with Hamas. This group would include those who are themselves radical Islamists, but the group is broader than that. The larger group also includes many who are committed to wokeism or cultural Marxism.
Classical Marxism believes in a dialectical struggle between workers and the capitalist owners of the means of production. According to Karl Marx, this struggle between these two antithetical economic classes should naturally develop into the synthesis of a communist society. This prediction failed to materialize because the wealth gap between workers and owners of the means of production decreased over time in capitalist countries rather than increased. Workers who share in a growing material prosperity are not inclined toward Marxist revolution.
Some Marxists reacted to this failure by looking for potential areas of dialectical struggle other than economic class. The result was critical theory, which categorizes people as members of identity groups and labels these groups as either the oppressed or oppressors. Critical theory largely negates the concept of individual responsibility by emphasizing the guilt or innocence of the identity group. If one is a member of an oppressed identity group, then whatever he does is justified as a form of resistance to oppression. If one is a member of an oppressor identity group, then whatever he does is condemned as an effort to maintain the power to oppress. The most that a member of an oppressor identity group can do to redeem himself is to become an ally of the appropriate oppressed identity group. This involves confessing his own guilt due to a group identity that he cannot change, condemning his own identity group and championing the cause of the oppressed identity group. Critical theory has identified as oppressed identity groups people of color, indigenous people, the LGBTQ community, the handicapped, the obese and others. Many advocates of critical theory have decided to categorize Hamas as an oppressed identity group and Jews as an oppressor identity group. This means that even if Hamas engages in murder, mutilations, rape and kidnappings, these are accepted as justified means of resistance to oppression. This means that even if the nation Israel engages in self-defense through a traditional just war, this is condemned as a means to maintain its power to oppress. Hopefully the inclusion of a terrorist group such as Hamas in the big tent of cultural Marxism will accelerate the growing backlash against wokeism and cultural Marxism.
The above perspective is probably the one with the most public exposure through news reporting. A second perspective has received a lot of public exposure through advertising. This second perspective unconditionally supports the nation Israel as a religious obligation. This perspective is a relatively recent variation of the prosperity gospel.
In general, the prosperity gospel teaches that anyone can through faith obtain health and wealth. There is some truth in this message in that God does at times reward obedience in this life, not because God has any obligation to do so but because God freely chooses to do so. God rewards a Christian’s obedience in this life only as far as it serves for God’s glory and the Christian’s good (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 66). As demonstrated in the book of Job, God sometimes has reasons for allowing the faithful to suffer. The prosperity gospel contradicts this biblical balance through a one sided emphasis on divine blessings in this life.
In the past, preachers of the prosperity gospel challenged people to exercise faith by sending money in support of their ministry. This was presented as fulfilling a vow or sowing a seed that would ensure divine blessings. In recent years, some prosperity proponents have adjusted their message by presenting faith as sending money in support of their ministry to the nation Israel or needy Jews. One favorite proof text has been God’s promise to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you…” (Genesis 12:3a). This is presented as a divine promise that any individual or nation that blesses the nation Israel or a needy Jewish individual will receive divine blessings. Another favored proof text has been “‘Comfort, yes, comfort My people!’ says your God” (Isaiah 40:1). This is presented as a command from God for people to help the nation Israel or needy Jewish individuals. There has developed in recent years an international coalition of groups with this perspective. They are now the strongest Christian advocates for unconditional support for the nation Israel and for needy individual Jews. They tend to prioritize support for Israel over evangelistic missions to Israel.
Read More
Related Posts: