Hello everyone! This is Isaac Weishaupt from IlluminatiWatcher.com. Today we’ll be taking a look at part four of a five-part guest post by Ken Ammi.
Ken is an independent researcher who has been exposing symbolism and explaining the agenda, and IlluminatiWatcher.com is proud to publish 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 four (*you can read part one: The Occult Roots of the Postgender Movement HERE).
The Postgenderism Re-education of Culture
Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2 and part 3, 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.
Many refer to the concept of the slippery slope as being paranoid and yet, the slippery slope is slippery; and is a slope. One example is how words, terminology, language itself is changed so as to fit certain worldviews. Think of the very concept of freedom of speech versus hate speech and you will readily discern this fact.
The paper notes:
Greg Egan speculates about such an ‘uploaded’ society in his novel, Diaspora, where the inhabitants have largely adopted amorphous gender roles, characteristics and the use of gender-neutral pronouns (Egan, 1997).
Keri Hulme proposed a set of gender-neutral pronouns in her book, The Bone People: ‘ve’, ‘vis’ and ‘ver’ (Hulme, 1984).
Today’s transgender movement is a roiling, radical critique of the limits of gender roles, with folks living in totally new categories, such as non-op transsexual, TG butch, femme queen, cross-dresser, third gender, drag king or queen and transboi.
These genderqueer activists and theorists advocate postgender attitudes, such as promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns such as “ze”, “per”, and “zir,” or the terms pansexual or omnisexual instead of the binary “bisexual.”
Since on a reductionist, naturalist, materialist worldview we are nothing but accidentally conscious combinations of chemicals; what is the difference between one combination or another? Note the evolutionary premise:
A mounting body of ethological and sociobiological research suggests that both human males and females, like our primate and mammal cousins, are genetically inclined to have multiple partners. Even those few species that have been thought to be monogamous and pairbonded for life are now being found to have a high frequency of off-spring not related to the putative father (Barash and Lipton, 2001).
Based on all this evidence Helen Fisher writes in Anatomy of Love that the primordial human “blueprint” is for serial sets of pair bonds lasting about four years — long enough to raise a child to toddlerhood — with clandestine adultery on the side.
The majority of all human societies have been polygamous (Wilson, 1992), and in most monogamous cultures men, at least, have been allowed to pursue extramarital relationships such as concubinage, prostitution, and mistresses.
The paper refers to “social, educational, political and economic reform…by social and political means” so as to get “Beyond Gender Essentialism and Constructionism.”
…as part of a general postgendering of society, the gradual accumulation of neurotechnologies which allow for remediation sexual preference and the gendered brain will complete the postgenderist trajectory.
The paper notes:
…philosopher Peter Singer, who argued in A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (2001) that there is a biologically rooted tendency towards selfishness and hierarchy in human nature which has defeated attempts at egalitarian social reform.
If the Left program of social reform is to succeed, Singer argues, we must employ the new genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of human nature that cause conflict and competition.
Note that he seeks to “modify the aspects of human nature that cause conflict and competition” by exercising aspects of human nature that cause conflict and competition by causing conflict and competition in proposing to modify certain aspects of human nature, in part, in opposition to those who do not agree with postgenerism.
…psychologists such as Sandra Bem (1974), the developer of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, began to reconceptualize gender traits as a continuum, along which it was healthiest to be in the androgynous range. The androgynous had the highest self-esteem, psychological well-being and emotional intelligence, while those at the psychological extremes of gender were re-cast as constrained and disabled (Guastello and Guastello, 2003).
Here you can see that the deterioration of traditional marriage (by heterosexual divorces, same sex “marriage,” etc.) is also being done on purpose:
The spread of legal gay marriage in Europe, and its slower adoption in the US, has accelerated the recognition of legal marriage as an arbitrary contract, rather than a religious, heterosexual, dyadic institution. Therefore laws against polygamy and group marriages must eventually fall, since they are clearly based in religious discrimination.
Eventually co-housing and co-parenting “civil union” contracts should replace civil marriage. Those contracts would recognize the bonds between small groups of people who have made commitments of some duration. The erosion of dyadic marriage will, in turn, help to erode the gender binary.
 Barash, David P. and Judith Eve Lipton. (2001 AD). Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infedility in Animals and People. W. H. Freeman.
Wilson, Glenn. (1992 AD). The Great Sex Divide. Washington D.C.: Scott-Townsend.
 Bem, Sandra L., “The measurement of psychological androgyny,” J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42:155-62. (1974 AD)
Guastello, Denise D. and Stephen J. Guastello, “Androgyny, gender role behavior, and emotional intelligence among college students and their parents,” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, December 2003 AD
What are your thoughts on all of this? Any ideas for how this 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 the grand finale: Part 5!