Why Globalist Organizations Push for Gender Fluidity
The tyrannical potential of a globalist motif
Globalism is happening so fast that sometimes it’s hard to see just how glaring the cultural changes have been. Nowhere is this more evident than in advertising, where it seems like overnight companies have changed from mass market capitalists to bleeding heart activists. There’s a big fat question hanging in the air that few have attempted to answer. WHY do Superbowl advertisers suddenly care so much about immigration? WHY does Exxon Mobil suddenly care so much about feminism? What does transgenderism have to do with selling beer, soda, or cheeseburgers?
The answer, I believe, lies in a new morality rapidly filling the spiritual vacuum caused by the erosion of religion in the West. That morality is globalism. Globalism, briefly defined, is an a-spiritual, science-based morality that eschews metaphysical ideas of God and natural law and replaces them with humanist ideals emphasizing individual rights, compassion for the weak, justice for the disenfranchised, and the elimination of any cultural differences that get in the way of those goals. Progressive Western governments are increasingly globalist, and they thus find themselves strange bedfellows with the corporate conglomerates they used to abhor.
Canada is home to many of these new globalist governments and laws, some of which are indicative of globalism’s tyrannical potential. Yesterday, the news came down that Ontario passed the Supporting Children, Youth, and Families Act, AKA Bill 89,which allows the state to retain custody over a child if the parents refuse to acknowledge the child’s “gender identity” or “gender expression.” In other words, in Ontario, if your kid is transgendered, you no longer have the unfettered right to disapprove.
Children rebel. Parents socialize. This natural law governs all mammals. It’s the way of deer and rats, of bears and giraffes, and it should be the way of humans. We, however, are often more like bacterial colonies than monkey families, and in the past we have allowed societies to interfere with the parent-child relationship in ways that made us extremely unhappy (e.g. slavery). Over the centuries, however, we have learned to organize society in way that secures the natural right of parents to raise their children freely and independently. Yet for humans in Ontario, Canada, the state now has the right to decide whether your kid is just rebelling, or if he is actually a she.
You might think that science, as the most important reason for the rise of globalism, would stand in the way of this sort of tyranny. There is no scientific basis for transgenderism (that is, outside of genetic disorders or hermaphroditism, which are generally not what is meant when someone refers to a trans person today). There are no identifiable genetic or physiological roots that dictate the phenotypic result of a biological man feeling like they are a woman. Thus, acceptance of a child’s claims about their gender identity rely on a metaphysical construct, a belief that a person’s true self has a gender, or a lack thereof. A male child in Ontario deciding that they are actually a female is no different, from a scientific perspective, than a Native American child deciding that their spirit animal is an eagle.
Let me be clear that I don’t mean transgenderism is somehow evil, wrong, or unnatural. Rather, both transgenderism and spirit animals are are equally valid and acceptable as manifestations of the cultures in which they arise. There is nothing wrong with a parent socializing a child via spirituality, and oftentimes that spirituality does have some unseen relation to the physical world, e.g. Hindu or Kosher rules that originally arose for practical reasons. My point is only that parents should always be able to choose their own methods of socialization free from state intervention.
Ontario believes that it is saving children from abuse, but what it’s really doing is supplanting one religion for another, and then enforcing the latter religion, globalism, to a tyrannical extent. It says “if you don’t believe what we believe with regard to metaphysics, you are evil.” In this sense, it is the same brand of fundamentalism that has justified hatred and war since the beginning of history. It is particularly hypocritical coming from an ideology that supposedly celebrates our vibrant differences.
My point is not to say that globalism is evil or tyrannical on its own, only that, lacking self-awareness, the potential for it to become tyrannical is much higher. It’s important to consider why globalists are so obsessed with transgenderism, and for what reasons.
Like any moral order, globalism has a driving force behind it and that force is the source of its power. In the case of globalism that force is money. For proof of this I recommend two sources, one long, one short, that provide a peak behind the curtain of major globalist entities. One is Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, in which Perkins, an economist, details his work for several major globalist organizations including the World Bank, IMF, USAID and a few Fortune 500 companies. Through his travails, the reader learns that the true purpose of these organizations is to engage in economic colonization under the guise of morality. Phrases like “human rights,” “tools for independence,” and “empower towards self-governance” are thrown around, but ultimately the goal, according to Perkins, is to indebt as many people in as many places as possible in order to control them. The second source is an article by Thomas Frank titled “Nor a Lender Be” which illustrates the same phenomenon with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Goldman Sachs. Frank attends an event where Hillary Clinton unveils a supposedly world-saving Goldman Sachs micro-lending program which will “empower” female entrepreneurs across Africa. Frank, a progressive himself, suddenly realizes the whole thing is a charade, nothing more than a celebration of colonial power under the guise of moral superiority, essentially the White Man’s Burden all over again.
In both sources, the pattern is the same. Debt cloaked in goodness. Control disguised as protection. Unfettered access to labor framed as the mission to save the disenfranchised. Without any spiritual reasons to justify their dominance, the controllers must find something to explain it, and that justification has become globalism. If you take a look around, whether it’s at Superbowl commercials or the mayors of sanctuary cities, the message is consistent: we are in control because we are beneficent, we are beneficent because we are compassionate, and if you define compassion differently than we do, you are evil.
Like Christianity, the globalist religion enforces a morality that helps it survive. Where Christianity relied on so-called “traditional gender roles”—basically monogamous heterosexuality—globalism favors individual sexual exploration. The reason for this is because, where Christianity needed reproduction and self-restriction, globalism needs labor and self-indulgence. Work hard and play hard is another way of saying labor extreme and consume extreme. Globalism wants you, whether you’re male or female, to be working constantly to gain and spend as much money as possible, which will in turn drive up revenues, which will in turn drive up the equity-based incomes of the controllers of the system. The biggest threat to globalism is the elements of human happiness that don’t cost money—family, spirituality, free access to nature—while Christianity was overly dependent on those same elements. Globalism loves gender fluidity because it separates individuals from conglomerative values that threaten its viability.
This is why seemingly everywhere you look there is a globalist entity supporting feminism, gay rights, and transgender rights. Again, this is not problematic in and of itself. There are many reasons (e.g. individual freedom, preventing overpopulation) why supporting gender fluidity is good. However, any time the governing structure creates the right for itself to actively interfere with the natural right of a parent to socialize their child as they see fit, it turns the corner into tyranny. The Ontario law approaches jus primae noctis, in which a feudal lord had the right to have sex with a peasant’s wife the night before marriage. The excuse for this horrific policy was not “I’m a tyrannical lord and I get to do what I want” or “My genes are better than yours so she should be having my baby instead.” No, it was rooted in some excuse about divine right and morality. Tyranny always comes packaged in morals.
The Ontario bill is justified by the moral avoidance of “abuse.” If your child is trans and you deny them the right to be trans, you are an “abuser,” which, like the words “racist” or “bigot,” is contemporary shorthand for “violator of the moral code.” Why are you an abuser? Because you adhere to a metaphysical, non-scientific view that runs counter to the metaphysical, non-scientific view of the ruling class.
We have come too far as a species to go back to tyrannical leaders interfering with familial independence. Gender fluidity is not problematic, it is indeed no more than a manifestation of the dominant culture in the West. However, enforced gender fluidity is problematic. It is tyrannical. And in order to recognize that, we must continue to define and understand globalism itself.