The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 80
Thinking Sex Series, Part 2 of 3
In the previous episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay presented the first third of the first Queer Theory paper to have been written, Gayle Rubin’s shocking 1984 essay “Thinking Sex.” In this episode, he continues with a second part of Rubin’s essay in which it becomes clear that Queer Theory is all about breaking down all boundaries and categories between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior using explicitly Marxist-style analysis (Queer Theory is Queer Marxism). Before getting to this section of the essay, however, James also presents a short article from 2016 explaining the fruit Queer Theory is bearing, which makes its Marxist underpinnings completely apparent. Join James to understand more about the origins of Queer Theory.
Subscribe to the New Discourses Podcast on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, or by RSS.
Additional episodes of the New Discourses Podcast are available here.
9 comments
This is all so horrifying
Most of the way through , thanks again , James , for iluminating the semantic , rhetoric and liturature that shapes the back drop of the ideology agenda that is transforming America into the United Socialist States of America , the USSA , thanks to vichy Americans
I still think Marxism is better described as criminality (if not psychopathy).
Marx didn’t like to work, so he invented an ideology to justify his own deficiency. Criminals don’t like to work, or can’t stand to work.
Marx railed against private ownership. Criminals prefer to steal rather than purchase, then often ruin their stolen “possessions.”
Marx had difficulty raising a family. Criminals typically don’t like kids or often can’t even stand to be around them. They prefer to treat sex as something that does not lead to family and the subsequent responsibilities of parenthood.
Marx could not correctly describe the experiences of working people, and criminals tend to think of work as some sort of torture. This is because they are not able to put very much of their attention on their present time environment, which most people are able to do at least well enough to work and cooperate with other people. Criminals are afraid of other people and tend to distrust everbody. However, they are attracted to others who share their attitudes towards life. Criminals cannot honestly imagine how another person thinks and feels, much less express what they actually think and feel. This all has to do with the extreme dispersal of their attention.
While it is OK to tear the Woke arguments apart on rational grounds, that will not handle the Woke, the Marxist, or the criminal. We must on the one hand develop the ability to handle such people without coming under their influence. And on the other hand, we must develop workable methods for handling such people when they go totally off the rails.
When Communists took over Stanford: A Case Study.
https://palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-life/
The meltdown of Progressivism.
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
How is THIS “progressive”? How is THIS moving humanity to a better place?
This is embarrassingly boring and frighteningly ugly autogynophilia run amok. How do children become “diverse” and “authentic” by “celebrating” this heterosexual male fetish (adored by their wives apparently)? Only when people pretend not to know what a woman is can this sad kink pretend to be “revolutionary”. 2+2=5! WAKE UP!
“TG POUFBUNNY PINUP PARLOR Here is a collection of Poufbunnies displaying their finery and telling us a little about themselves”
https://www.pettipond.com/parlor2.htm
“Pride” in 2022 is a mentally ill straight man jerking off in his mother’s crinoline. The West deserves its end. Hurry on sundown. The show is over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DclSrYbSn-E
Ultravox: ‘Fear in the Western World’ — a punk prophecy from 1977
As a homosexual who “came out” in the 1970s, I never understood drag or leather because each always claimed (as the statements quoted below show) to represent “your diverse authentic self” that allowed people to “be free to be uniquely yourself”. If so, then why do all drag and leather practitioners look EXACTLY alike? Literally photocopies of one another. A drag queen today is just another poor imitation of Divine from 1972. A leather person is just another very poor imitation of Brando in ‘The Wild One’ from 1953! How is this “authentic”?
The first time I went into a gay leather bar in the 1970s I said to my gay hippie pal, Is this a boy scout army recruitment centre for biker freaks or something? They are all dressed identically! What is the deal with these robotic replicants? And drag is literally the very same clown costume today as it was 50 years ago when I first saw it and found it cringe-makingly reactionary — Marcel Duchamp’s Rrose Selavy already did it better in 1920! Drag was then and still is repetitive, imitative, boring, old fashioned, woman-hating and a refuge for males who fail at being men so pretend to be “women” so they manipulate “human rights” laws to bully and get revenge on the heterosexual dudes who ignored them as loser assholes in grade eight.
Look at all drag queens — they look IDENTICAL to one another! The same wigs, make-up and costumes. Where is the “uniqueness” of a uniform? A UK punk band the Buzzcocks had a song with lyrics about everyone thinking they were so cool and unique but were nothing more than “different sameness” and “similar difference” — being clones of one another — how is this “progressive”? This is not “free”. This is regressive! This is just a Mao-suit boilerplate in leather or drag to make Identarian Totalitaria seem hip to those who are desperate to be seen as hip (the antithesis of hip!). How can two embarrassingly old fashioned assembly line conformity templates continue to dominate Western culture for 50 years unless they are playing a tactical cultural role for their strategic political puppet masters?
Smash messy and rebellious freethinking individualism and replace it with Red Guard rigid pretend replicas of “authenticity” then feed it to children as something “new” and edgy (to a five year old drag is new and edgy) — a basic recipe for Totalitaria. “We walked in a line. We walked in a line…” Joy Division 1978. Munchausen by Proxy is the Mein Kampf of the 21st century and drag is its lederhosen.
quotes below from:
https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/
“Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.
Our Mission
Drag Queen Story Hour celebrates reading through the glamorous art of drag. Our chapter network creates diverse, accessible, and culturally-inclusive family programming where kids can express their authentic selves and become bright lights of change in their communities.
OUR VISION
We envision a world where kids can learn from LGBTQ+ herstories and experiences to love themselves, celebrate the fabulous diversity in their communities, and stand up for what they believe in and each other. “
“And the wild hyperbole from people who should know better is genuinely worrying. Anyone who encourages trans-identified people to think that women like me want to round them up and put them in camps is engaging in a cruel and dangerous cult technique known as “phobia indoctrination”: presenting the outside world as desperately risky to keep adherents scared and close, and make it less likely that they listen to any other points of view. They are whipping up fear and hatred in an already vulnerable group, and making it more likely that someone does serious harm, either to themselves or to others.”
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-8/
“phobia indoctrination”
https://twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1534586565326143488
“‘Science Vs’ Cited Seven Studies To Argue There’s No Controversy About Giving Puberty Blockers And Hormones To Trans Youth. Let’s Read Them.
The show is strikingly selective in its skepticism
Jesse Singal”
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to?s=r