Martine Rothblatt, born, Martin Rothblatt, is a transsexual transhumanist who believes that sexual dimorphism is tantamount to South African apartheid. His technological religion, the Terasem Movement, is a cult, based on obliterating the sex (and ultimately bodies) of humans, so they might achieve their lofty place in cyberspace.
Kondratiy Ivanovich Selivanov was the founder of a religious cult during the Russian empire that believed the protruding sex characteristics of men and women were sinful and should be obliterated. He believed himself to be a Christ-like figure. Born in the Russian Empire in the 1700’s, he started his own religious sect in the village of Sosnovka and declared himself “the son of God the Redeemer, who came to save the human race from moltenness (voluptuousness), to crush the soul-destroying serpent and introduce it into the world of fiery baptism. “ Fiery Baptism consisted of removing the breasts of female followers and castrating the male followers of his cult.
“Fiery baptism,” no doubt referred to the hot irons originally used in the castrations of men in the cult. The cult followers, called Skoptsy (castration) (pdf), later transitioned to using knives or razors, with the iron serving only to stop the blood flow. They also twisted the scrotum, destroying the seminal vesicles and stopping the flow of semen.
In women, the Skoptsy removed the nipples or the whole breasts. Occasionally, they simply scarred the breasts. They also often removed the labia minora and clitoris. They did not use anesthetics.
It is striking how kindred the Skoptsy seem to the modern “transgender” craze of carving up the genitals of mostly young adults in the name of self-expression and liberation, so that they may become their true selves.
Rothblatt, is another man with a god complex seeking to deliver people from their sex organs, toward liberation. He is a frequent speaker at Out Leadership, the business networking arm of the LGBT lobby and other LGBT events and conferences. In his book, From Transgender to Transhuman, retitled from a previous version, entitled, The Apartheid of Sex, in which he cobbles together feminist analysis, queer theory, and the horrifically oppressive system of South African apartheid, he crafts what amounts to a blueprint for modern gender ideology. In it he lays out a vision of “transgenderism,” as an onramp to transhumanism, claiming, “transgenderism provides sociobiologists with new evidence of a new species” (pg 13). Rothblatt believes, that with technology, the human race has the potential to leave its sexual dimorphism behind, creating an opportunity for their limitlessly unique sexual identities. By now, most people have heard the term “sex on a spectrum,” or some variation of the idea that there are more than two sexes, which is antithetical to reality, but Rothblatt is intent on this anti-reality and the current LGBT political apparatus is forcing us all into it. Rothblatt believes the “greatest catapult for humanity into a new species lies just beyond the event of transgenderism. Based upon our rapidly accelerating ability to imbue software with human personality, autonomy and self-awareness,” he states, “a movement of ‘transhumanists’ have joined transgenderists in calling for the launch of Persona creatus.”
Rothblatt’s ideas may sound like the ravings of a madman, but the word “woman” has already been socially usurped by men. The, Assistant Secretary of Health of the United States, Rachel Levine, in a recent report, went a step further and claimed the word, “female,” for himself, obliterating the word for half the human species. So, whether Rothblatt is stark raving mad, means little. His ideas are being implemented so it is important to take what he is communicating, seriously.
Rothblatt is seen as a preeminent figure in the world of business and technology. He has worked on the human genome project at the UN level, a multi-billion-dollar exercise in breaking the genetic code of the human race, owned and operated a large biotech corporation, built a robot of his wife, invented Sirius XM satellite radio, and he drafted the first document to bring legal structure to the concept of disembodiment, or gender identity. That bill has been used as a guideline for successive “gender bills” across the world. He also wrote Genes Unzipped/Taking Charge of Baby Making in the New Millennium, born from his work on the human genome project. In chapter five of Unzipped Genes, entitled, Transgenic Creationism: My perfect Monster, Rothblatt discusses transgenics and the potentiality of creating designer babies, merging portions of genes from different persons or species. Did I mention Rothblatt owns a xenotransplantation farm? “With this technology,” Rothblatt says, “children literally have more than two immediate parents - immediate sources of genetic material - and one or more of these parents might not even be human” (pg 72).
In the opening of chapter five, of Genes Unzipped, Rothblatt uses a quote by Dr. Susan Stryker, a man who thinks he’s a woman, and queer theory academician, from his work, My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix, written in 1974:
“I have asked the Miltonic questions Shelley poses in the epigraph of Frankenstein: “Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay to mould me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?” With one voice, , her monster and I answer “no” without debasing ourselves, for we have done the hard work of constituting ourselves on our own terms, against the natural order. Though we forego the privilege of naturalness, we are not deterred, for we ally ourselves with the chaos and blackness from which Nature itself spills forth.”
It behooves us to examine more carefully, why “gender bills” are making their way swiftly through western political systems as they deconstruct womanhood, actual women, our rights, and the bodies of young people, even in the face of intense resistance.
Are we in the throes of a new techno-religious cult, modern cousin to the Skoptsy, but driven by the almost unimaginable powers of modern technology, sewn to unfettered capitalism? In the hands of men like Martine Rothblatt, Susan Stryker, and Rachel Levine, it seems our humanity won’t have much of a prayer, unless we start praying to a life-giving goddess, instead of a machine god.
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/martine-rothblatt-a-modern-day-ivanovich-selivanov
The issue isn't him; but your choice of consent to anything suggested. You already consented to him as the source of information you not want; which under natural law represents your choice of want over need. Not want does not represent need...want vs not want represent a conflict (reason) caused by consent to the same suggestion; while ignoring need.
Ask yourself how you have access to what is suggested to you? In this case MSM through technology; both consented to by your free will of choice to be able to then judge the suggested idol "Martine Rothblatt".
MSM shows you 24/7 that it's irrelevant what kind of truths; lies and contradictions to both they offer; so long as viewers consent to reason (want vs not want) about the suggested. They could eat a baby on livestream; while discrediting it afterwards by putting a pixel over the picture; while claiming it's a deepfake.
In the Allegory of the Cave it doesn't matter what is suggested; only that the onlookers consent to suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Eye of the beholder aka your choice represents evaluation of everything offered. You nailed whatever you choose to nail and don't need anyone else to tell you that you did. Choice represents response to balance; therefore choice represents responsibility over choosing. That responsibility cannot be shared; only ignored.
OMH u/free-will-of-choice answering with understandable text.
What if perception (knowledge) represents the same for all; yet comprehension (understanding) is different for each one?
Also...does nature offer text to our perception; or does someone within nature used choice to shape text out of what nature offered? Did you use choice upon perceived or upon text suggested by others?
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ? Japanese were not recognising difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]
This is where one needs self discernment about ones position. You perceive as ONE from ALL aka as form (life) from flow (inception towards death) aka as within nature from what moves nature. Perception represents senses responding to movement. A schnoz requires moving smell to sense it...
Now ask yourself...if others within nature suggest you something; then where do they got it from? They perceived it from the same nature as you do; but their suggested explanation represents a parasite to the perceived. You perceive inspiration for your choice to respond to; others choose to shape out of perceived inspiration affixed information (words aka idolized meaning); which they then choose to suggest to you.
That's not perceived inspiration; but the temptation of suggested information.
Form a simpler perspective...nature offers choice what's needed; others suggest choice what isn't needed aka wants aka temptations aka choices.
Even simpler...nature offers order; others suggest orders.
Before you make a choice (want vs not want) upon anything suggested; you make a choice within balance (need/want) upon perceived.
What if as form within flow; we represent the subjective response of form to objective flow? Choice can only ever assume within balance; because balance (momentum) is defined as the response to being moved. Motion causes momentum aka velocity (flow) causes its own resistance (form).
What if pink; green and blue don't need to be branded for our choice to respond to them? What if all differentiation is needed for one to perceive inspiration to respond to for ones self sustenance?
If I lack comprehension about what others perceive (pink; green; blue); then what if the differences in comprehension is what I need to use as inspiration to grow my own comprehension? If we sit together and you start segregating the green from the blue gummi bears; then I perceive different behavior as inspiration. I don't need you to tell me why you did it; which would represent a temptation to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information by you. What if I believe you and you start suggesting me that the gummi bears told you to segregate them; because there's a race-war brewing? See how my ignorance can tempt you to exploit me; which in the process tempts you to exploit others until we have the shlomo shit show of today?