Who Owns Big Pharma and the Billionaires Invested in the Gender Industry?

No “transgender” community pushes an ideology of body dissociation around the world—at lightning speed—into language, law, institutions, and the media simultaneously. Oligarchs govern us at the highest echelons of finance, and they have a vested interest in the gender industry.

“Gender identity” ideology is not politically separate from business. Business is no longer separated from politics. We in Western cultures are governed by billionaires in finance who drive policy through our political institutions. A façade of democracy shrouds the oligarchy we live in, just like the gender performances in gender ideology shroud the capitalist profiteering from the colonization of human sex.

Many people view the gender industry as solely or predominantly a political issue, one that sets the rights of one group above or against another’s. While antagonized factions do fight with each other, business reigns.

Jon Stryker is one of the billionaires driving “gender identity” globally. He finances his LGBT non-governmental organization, Arcus Foundation, from his stock in medical multinational Stryker Corporation, to which he is the heir. Vanguard Group, one of the world's biggest investment companies, holds the largest share of stock in Stryker Corporation. BlackRock, the most significant investment company in the world (global assets total $20 trillion), is the third-largest holder of Stryker Corporation stock and the biggest holder of Vanguard Group stock. The fourth is Greenleaf Trust, the financial management company Jon Stryker left to create Arcus Foundation. Cumulatively, these investment houses own Stryker Medical and would hold influence over its operations.

Those at the pinnacle of the global LGBT corporate juggernaut come from banking and investment, not human rights. BlackRock employs a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and a former head of the Swiss National Bank. BlackRock recently rolled out a “queer” credit card through MetaBank, part of Meta Financial Group. Meta Financial Group’s largest shareholder is BlackRock.

BlackRock states that LGBT diversity is “in their DNA” in their LGBT outreach to Asia. MetaBank was one of the banks that sent our stimulus checks to America during the COVID crisis. A CNN report claims, “BlackRock is so powerful that the federal government has asked for its help during each of the past two recessions. In March, the Fed tapped BlackRock to manage the first-of-its-kind vehicle to buy corporate debt, including junk bonds.”

Authentic Brands Group was on the receiving end of an $875 million investment by BlackRock in 2019. Authentic Brands Group owns 50 brands, including Sports Illustrated, which has now featured on its covers not just one but four men claiming womanhood for themselves. Its Aeropostale brand donates money to LGBT causes from its “gender-neutral” collection.

Black Rock owns the lion's share of stock in 38 companies donating to Planned Parenthood, which has become the largest provider of cross-sex hormones to young people. They are also among, or the largest shareholders, along with Vanguard Group, of Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie (the makers of Lupron), Merck, and Novartis. It would be easier to list the Pharma giants not owned by BlackRock. They also own most of our media conglomerates, such as Comcast and Disney, our payment platforms and banks, and our food corporations. They own banks such as Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase, all of whom have shown a keen interest in “gender identity.” They own our textile companies, and they own Big Tech.

BlackRock, along with the Vanguard Group (which they own as well), nearly own the world, and it’s obvious they have an investment in the ideology of “gender identity.” What exactly are they investing in when they financially support this new ideology being driven across the globe?

We must look at what “gender identity” accomplishes in the world to understand this and why the largest banks and investment houses in the world have any interest in a tiny minorities' identity issues. “Gender identity” does double duty. First, it opens markets in sexual identity. Without it, the already massively profitable corporate identities created out of same-sex attraction could not be expanded. Without violating the boundaries of male and female, all that exists are lesbian, bisexual, gay, and straight people as a marketing constituency. Add “gender identity,” which provides an illusion of changing sex, placing it on a spectrum, and the marketing constituency expands infinitely. As “gender” ideologists are fond of reporting, there are as many genders as there are people. Any marketing graduate can tell you that honing your message to smaller and smaller, more distinct groups is a recipe for success. Not only are medical identities profitable in this equation, but profits soar for everyone.

Make-up lines, like Crayola’s new Boing Boing, for so-called “gender fluid” individuals, Jecca, a London-based unisex brand of make-up that launched in 2012, Sephora’s Phluid non-binary fragrance line, clothing lines like TomBoyX which market traditional men’s boxer shorts shaped for women’s bodies, are just a few small examples of the marketing opportunities that occur when the boundary between male and female is blurred, and sex has been pronounced as existing on a spectrum. These product lines help to make the illusion more real that we are not a sexually dimorphic species and that there is some other way to be human while supporting new markets.

The cosmetic industry is worth a staggering $532. Billion dollars. Until recently, males wearing cosmetics were limited primarily to the music industry. “Gender identity” changes all that. It builds a bridge for men to accept hair, fashion, and cosmetic enhancements that were traditionally the sole territory of women. The 2021 catwalks were ablaze with a so-called feminine menswear trend, which the fashion industry calls “male femininity.” The men’s personal-care market is expected to hit $166 billion in 2022. Vogue reported two years ago that high fashion houses like Chanel, Tom Ford, and Marc Jacobs were unveiling make-up lines for men.

“Gender identity” also works as a grooming apparatus that dissociates us from our sexed reality. The language and laws being changed, even in our medical institutions, for “gender identity” ideology are based on the deconstruction of sex. The gender performances in gender ideology obscure the corporate mining of our reproductive capacities for profit. We are being reduced to parts—no longer men and women—but breasts, penises, vaginas, wombs, eggs, and sperm that can be bought by either sex, for either sex.

The gender industry has nothing to do with inclusivity. It is about corporate profiteering.

This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on this Substack, please consider a donation in support. Thank you!