Hello everyone! This is Isaac Weishaupt from IlluminatiWatcher.com. Today we’ll be taking a look at part three of a five-part guest post by Ken Ammi- an independent researcher who has exposing symbolism and explaining the agenda on many platforms.
Ken reached out to me and I was flattered to oblige and provide a location for this series of posts about a taboo subject: the post gender movement.
Ken Ammi will be breaking down the occult roots of this controversial agenda through a five-part series, with the following being part three (*you can read part one: The Occult Roots of the Postgender Movement HERE).
The “Feminist Revolution” and Postgenderism
Herein we continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering the paper Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary by George Dvorsky and James Hughes, PhD (Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies – IEET Monograph Series, March 3, 2008 AD).
We will consider the evolutionary worldview behind the postgender movement which sees our bio-chemistry, and thus our gender, as being arbitrary. How radical feminism plays into it. That which I will term re-education with regards to gender issues. The ultimate goal(s) of the movement. And transhumanism.
As the title of this article states, we are dealing with the “feminist revolution” as opposed to the “feminist movement,” as the paper elucidates as per this quote:
In her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex socialist-feminist Shulamith Firestone argued that, just as the material reality of the means of production determined the power differential between the owners and workers, the material reality of women having to bear children determined the gendering of power in society.
“The heart of women’s oppression is her childbearing and child-rearing roles…
To assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass
(women) and seizure of control of reproduction:…so the end goal of the feminist
revolution must be unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the
elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself; genital differences
between human beings would no longer matter. (Firestone, 1970: 12)”
Thus, the “feminist revolution” views the feminine gender and roles thereof to be oppressive, seek the elimination of sexual classes and, of course, calls for revolt.
These concepts are peppered thorough “feminist revolution” literature, as the paper elucidates:
…oppression is her childbearing…burden of childbearing…Women are more impaired in the workforce by pregnancy and childbirth…liberate women from biology…contraception and abortion freed women from being constrained by childbearing…unburdened by the constraints of sex and gender…liberate women from the dictates of reproduction…free them from the necessity of bearing children…freeing them from the neurological gendering of their sexuality.
As per the previous segment on Postgenderism as transhumanist technology, reference is made to:
…new sub-discipline of “cyborgology” (Gray, 1995) or “cyberfeminism” (Plant, 1998; Sollfrank, 2007) and “technofeminism” (Wajcman, 2004).
Within her 1984 AD essay “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s,” she:
…argued that it was precisely in the eroding boundary between human beings and machines, in the integration of women and machines into a new liberatory androgynous archetype, that we can find liberation from patriarchy and capitalism. Haraway says “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess.”
The postgender transhuman “feminist revolution” seeks the “dismantling the heritage of patriarchal power, culture and thought.”
Strides in this direction are seen to have been made via “Post-industrial production, contraception and abortion” which “have eliminated most of the rationale for gendered social roles.”
Efforts to ameliorate patriarchy and the disabilities of binary gender through social, educational, political and economic reform can only achieve so much so long as the material basis, biological gendering of the body, brain and reproduction, remains fixed…
During the 1970s the dominant position on nature-nurture among feminists and progressives was “social constructionism” (Delamater, 1998). Patriarchal attitudes and behaviors, gendered differences in abilities and interests, and sexual preferences, were all the result of culturally specific patriarchal and heterosexist socialization. Drawing on Freud, humans were assumed to be naturally “polymorphously perverse,” or at least bisexual, until they were conditioned to only respond to heterosexual genital sex.…
Donna Haraway emerged in 1984 as a postgender theorist arguing for technological transgression to liberate both women and men from the gender binary…
…a new “genderqueer” politics emerged which challenged all gender binaries. One critical genderqueer text was the 1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler. Butler argued that feminists had mistakenly reified the sex/gender binary, while simultaneously insisting that biology was not destiny.
A truly liberatory feminism would seek to deconstruct and free us from the enforced linkages between biological sex, performative gender, and heterosexual desire. She called for intentional subversion of the gender binary – “gender trouble.”
Shulamith Firestone articulated in 1971 in favor of artificial wombs as a means to deconstruct the biological basis of patriarchy…
Many feminists are suspicious of assisted reproduction on the grounds that it is an effort to assert patriarchal technological control over women, and of course there is an entirely legitimate critique of maledominated obstetrics behind such a view. However, some feminists have argued that technologies that liberate women from the dictates of reproduction were necessary….
…reproductive technologies give women control over their own biology and potentially free them from the necessity of bearing children.
Pregnancy is the temporary deformation of the body of the individual for the sake of the species. Moreover, childbirth hurts and isn’t good for you. At the very least, development of an option should make possible an honest examination of the ancient value of motherhood…
“In the 1980s influential socialist-feminist Alison Jaggar” noted:
…the ultimate transformation of human nature at which socialist feminists aim…the capacities for insemination, for lactation and gestation so that, for instance, one woman could inseminate another, so that men and nonparturitive women could lactate and so that fertilized ova could be transplanted into women’s or even into men’s bodies. (Jaggar, 1983: 132)
 Firestone, Shulamith. (1970 AD). The Dialectic of Sex. Bantam Books: N.Y.
 Gray, Chris Hables. Ed. (1995 AD). The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Plant, Sadie. (1998 AD). Zeros and Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture. Fourth Estate: London.
Sollfrank, Cornelia, “The Truth About Cyberfeminism,” 2007 AD
Wajcman, Judy. (2004 AD). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press.
 Delamater, John D., Janet Shibley Hyde, “Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality – The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality,” Journal of Sex Research, v35(Feb):10–18. (1998 AD)
 Jaggar, Alison. (1983). Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, N.J: Rowman & Allanheld.
What are your thoughts on all of this? Any ideas for how the feminist movement could be a tool of the “Illuminati?” Leave a comment at the bottom.
Here is where you can connect with the author of this guest post- Ken Ammi:
Thanks again for reading and be sure to check back for part 4!