The following is derived from the preparatory notes I made for my February 20, 2024, remarks to the University of Pittsburgh TPUSA chapter, as pictured, which was protested but very well received.
I’m here to talk about Queer Theory. Some major points can be summarized very easily.
- Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult;
- That religious cult is based on sex;
- That sex-based religious cult primarily targets children; and
- Almost none of it has anything to do with gay identity.
Let’s address the last point first because it’s the least obvious.
The term “queer” in “Queer Theory” gets its definition from David Halperin in a 1995 book called Saint Foucault. The first words of the relevant paragraph (on p. 62) are “Unlike gay identity.” There, Halperin explains that gay identities are grounded in a positive fact of homosexuality. That means homosexuality is in some way real. “Queer,” by contrast, he says, need not be based on any positive truth or in any stable reality. There’s nothing in particular to which it refers. It’s an identity without an essence. That means it’s not based in reality.
What is Queer Theory, then, if it’s not based in reality? It’s a radical political view. Halperin tells us “queer” means adopting a politics that is whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant. Just to prove I’m not making it up, here’s the relevant quote.
Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.
To underscore his point, he then continues with,
“Queer,” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices.
In other words, you cannot be queer. You can only do queerness. It’s an act.
So nobody is “queer.” People feel “queer” against some standard, perhaps imagined, and people act queerly. By that, it means they act defiantly against normalcy and legitimacy while denying reality. You can only perform queerness—or, if you refuse, straightness. Performing straightness, to Queer Theory, isn’t being who you are if you’re straight; it’s just another kind of performance, one that upholds the allegedly oppressive “status quo” instead of opposing it.
Now let’s consider the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper from a couple of years ago.
It explains in a section titled “from empathy to embodied kinship” that queer programs are presented as improving LGBT empathy, and that Drag Queen Story Hour makes use of such “tropes,” their word.
It then says that’s not really what Drag Queen Story Hour, queer education, or “queer worldmaking” are about, though. Instead, they use the “tropes” of empathy “strategically” as a “marketing” platform to justify getting it into schools, libraries, and in front of kids, but it’s actually about leading kids to see the world and themselves in a queer way. Here’s how they word it:
Finally, it is often assumed that the primary pedagogical goal of queer education should be to increase empathy towards LGBT people. While this premise has some merit – and underlies many sincere projects in educational and cultural work, including DQSH – the notion of empathy has also been critiqued by feminist scholars of colour and others for the ways in which empathy can enable an affective appropriation of an individual’s unique experiences and reinforce hierarchies of power. … Whether through literature or virtual reality, these tropes tend to reflect an overstated ability to understand difference, as well as empathy’s potential to preclude meaningful relationships of solidarity.
It is undeniable that DQSH participates in many of these tropes of empathy, from the marketing language the programme uses to its selection of books. Much of this is strategically done in order to justify its educational value. However, we suggest that drag supports scholars’ critiques of empathy, rather than reifying the concept…This approach can support students in finding the unique or queer aspects of themselves – rather than attempting to understand what it’s like to be LGBT.
That’s what Drag Queen Story Hour is actually about. It’s not about empathy—that’s a marketing strategy that is, in fact, a bit problematic. It’s about getting kids to discover any aspects of themselves that might be considered “queer” and developing those into a queer political stance that will be conflated with who they believe they are. More than that, they’ll be told they’re not truly allowed to be who that is, even though it’s who they really are. Society will object. Their parents will object. It has to be kept secret from their parents in case it isn’t affirmed by them.
Now, I’m not supposed to use the word “grooming” to describe this grotesque set of activities. It’s part of a major controversy—one the Pitt students showed up (potentially menacingly, but in fact as clowns) to protest outside. So I’ll ask a question instead. I’m going to show you something, and then I want to know what word am I supposed to use for this. This self-characterization for the program comes up shortly thereafter in the same paper.
Drag Queen Story Hour presents itself as “family friendly” in a way that it characterizes as a “preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship.” What does that mean?
It then says that the “family” in “family friendly” refers to a “queer code” for the “other queers [they connect with] on the street.” So they’re not just lying about the empathy but also what they mean by “family”—which is a “queer code” for a “new family” that Drag Queen Story Hour is teaching kids to be “friendly” to.
The paper repeatedly invokes the concept of a “drag family” for the kids too, and then the paper ends with “we’ll leave a trail of glitter that will never come out of the carpet.” What’s the carpet here?
Here’s the full quote of the “family friendly” part, so you don’t think I’m lying.
Queer worldmaking, including political organizing, has long been a project driven by desire. It is, in part, enacted through art forms like fashion, theatre, and drag. We believe that DQSH offers an invitation towards deeper public engagement with queer cultural production, particularly for young children and their families. It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.
So, I’m asking. What word am I supposed to use for that? I know which one I can’t use, and that puts me at a complete loss.
So here’s how Queer Theory works. You can’t describe it unless you support it—just like a cult, one we now see targets kids. If you criticize it, that’s “hate.” The rumor widely printed about me is that my using that word, “groomer,” to describe that, above, implicates me in some social crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” which is very bad, very serious, and utterly toxic. It’s not just “harmful rhetoric” but a “conspiracy theory.” I am a very bad person, apparently, for naming the obvious, not as a result of inference or guesswork but from their own proudly printed writings.
The accusation and resulting social dynamic, which is always hostile, is straight out of Maoist China. I am alleged to be engaging in a crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” and “the right side of” society is to judge me and hold me to account for that crime by whatever means it can manage. This bullying is to continue until I learn to recognize from the “queer position” (that is, standpoint) how what I said was socially criminal and pledge to reform my thought, adopt Queer Theory, and not only do better but also become an activist on behalf of Queer Theory. This is identical to the thought reform of Maoist China with a slightly different ideology.
The accusation is obviously nonsense, but that’s not the point. The point is to initiate the social struggle session on me to “transform” my views. The accusation is of an old Marxist standard form, though. It’s a truth married to a lie.
Here’s the truth: Gays and lesbians fought for decades to break the public perception that they are predators and groomers of children. Here’s the lie: That’s who and what I’m talking about when I criticize their theory and activism, which is the very groomery thing I just described previously, in their own words.
As we saw from Halperin and from the “marketing” admission in the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper, Queer Theory doesn’t represent gay identities. It hides behind them and uses them.
The truth is that “queer” used to be a slur for gay people, one many activists took to describe themselves in defiance of prejudice and bigotry. The lie is that Queer Theory ever represented a civil rights movement for anyone. It’s a destructive form of radical activism that actually historically opposed gay civil rights and equality. Why would it do that? Because gay equality and acceptance would normalize being gay within society and legitimize gay people as fully equal members of society, and Queer Theory is, by definition, radically opposed on principle to anything normal and legitimate. They even have a word for it, homonormativity, which is also very bad.
Gay activists from the 1990s will readily attest that the Queer Activists were often strongly opposed to their ambitions: civil and legal equality, marriage, and social acceptance. Queer Theory needs radical activists, not stable citizens who can go about their lives in a society that doesn’t discriminate meaningfully against them. Those activists fought hard for decades to overcome stereotypes of predatory behavior and the idea that they’re intrinsically groomers. That’s why the Queer Activists can claim that calling out their blatant grooming is an “anti-LGBTQ” theme. Those were stereotypes that good people fought like hell to overcome.
The fact is that Queer Activism, exactly as described here, puts the appearance of glaring truth back into those stereotypes, and then the Queer Activists hide behind gay people and say, “see, they’re attacking you; see, everyone hates you.” Of course, everyday gay people who are good citizens lose the most from this little trick, and the Queer Activists gain the most. Queer activism is strictly parasitic behavior.
On the theme of grooming, specifically into a cult, I want to direct you to another scholar, Kevin Kumashiro, who wrote a paper in 2002 called “Against Repetition.” In that paper, he describes the purpose of queer education of children. Kumashiro explicitly says that teaching children about social justice, including about ideas from Queer Theory, induces emotional and identity-based crises in them.
He then says that’s why it’s important to have queer educators who can guide the vulnerable students who are experiencing their crises to resolve them in favor of social justice and Queer Theory beliefs and actions. The relevant quotes are these:
Repeating what is already learned can be comforting and therefore desirable; students’ learning things that question their knowledge and identities can be emotionally upsetting. For example, suppose students think society is meritocratic but learn that it is racist, or think that they themselves are not contributing to homophobia but learn that in fact they are. In such situations, students learn that the ways they think and act are not only limited but also oppressive. Learning about oppression and about the ways they often unknowingly comply with oppression can lead students to feel paralyzed with anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt; it can lead to a form of emotional crisis. (p. 74)
Once in a crisis, a student can go in many directions, some that may lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance. Therefore, educators have a responsibility not only to draw students into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively. (pp. 74–75)
This practice is indoctrination, and it is knowingly willful and deliberate. In a 2019 paper, Torres and Ferry say explicitly that what their model of education represents is indoctrination. Here’s how they said it.
For all the criticism teachers receive for ‘indoctrinating’ students, turning them into liberal-minded cry-babies, not much has been said in defense. At the very least, a shy denial is made. It is time for educators to own this criticism and admit that is exactly what we do. (“Not everyone gets a seat at the table!” p. 33)
What Kevin Kumashiro is describing, though, is worse than indoctrination. The cycle of inducing crisis and then resolving it toward a doctrine, though, isn’t indoctrination. It’s a technique called trauma bonding, which is a practice of cult grooming and ideological transformation—that is, thought reform or brainwashing.
It can be said plainly, then. Queer Theory practices thought reform because Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is based on sex and primarily targets children, and it has little or nothing to do with being gay.
Nobody joins a cult to join a cult. People join a cult because they are suffering in some way, and the cult offers them a resolution to their suffering. Virtually everyone who has escaped a cult tells the same story: they wanted to belong, they wanted a social circle, they wanted understanding, and they wanted purpose. The cult preys upon these people and slowly locks them in.
Trauma bonding is as harmful and manipulative as it sounds. It is a technique of cult initiation and abuse. It’s like a kind of hazing. The basic formula is simple. First you traumatize your targets until you’ve harmed them enough for the process to work, and then you celebrate them when they do what you want.
In Queer Theory, you tell them the world isn’t at all the way it seems. It isn’t the way they’ve been led to believe. If they’re different, it’s because they’re oppressed. If not, it’s because they’re hurting other people. If they’re interested in exploring, even though they’re young, they should. If they’re uncomfortable with their bodies for any reason, perhaps their body is wrong for who they really are. If their parents might disagree, they shouldn’t be included in the decisions. Queer Theory is then offered as the lens that resolves all of the confusion, shock, dissonance, and pain.
Then you affirm and celebrate them when they show interest. You lead them to believe they’re making brave decisions that are worthy of interest and respect. You coerce their social groups to participate in this ritual and tacitly threaten anyone who doesn’t want to go along with it. You make them feel like they belong and that they—just for being who they are—are special and have a special purpose to fulfill. You teach them special words that describe the very small but growing number of people who identify just like them.
This cult programming—or grooming—takes predictable paths. First, it leads people into emotional vulnerability followed by resolution. This generates personal and social interest, then psychological and social commitment. This is then deepened into an increasingly deep social and emotional commitment achieved largely through trauma bonding techniques, among others, detailed below.
This process creates emotionally and socially bonded members who populate the wide majority of any cult’s membership: those who are socially and emotionally locked in even without necessarily understanding the doctrine. This is sometimes called the “outer school” of the cult. The social, psychological, and emotional cues are steadily deepened over time, particularly increasingly playing upon themes of guilt, shame, isolation, alienation, and confusion on the one hand and hope, excitement, inclusion, and belonging on the other. Shunning “haters” who don’t support and affirm them, even within their own families, is also increased to make sure the cult environment is the predominant influence in the victims’ lives.
When commitment is high enough, a process of “study” begins, where the more committed outer school members start learning the cult doctrine. Here, they’d be studying Queer Theory. They’re not just learning how to use pronouns, present themselves, denounce everything against Queer Theory, and shut people out of their lives for disagreeing with what the cult thinks is good. They’re learning to defend it with pseudo-intellectual arguments based in Queer Theory. They’re also doing a lot of Queer Activism, which in turn deepens commitment. Why would you do this stuff, which is unpopular and difficult, when you have other and better things to do unless you are really committed? These people, who are socially and emotionally dependent on the cult and intellectually committed to it form an “inner school.” They are the “adepts” of the cult, where the “outer school” are its initiates. Most of the scholars and community organizers in the Queer Theory cult are in this tier.
There’s another tier, of course. The so-called “inner circle.” The members of the inner circle of a cult direct it and profit from it. They might or might not believe its doctrine, depending on their motivations. With Queer Theory, undoubtedly some of the biggest organizers and financiers of the movement, which primarily targets our children, do not believe it in itself but fully believe in its destructive and disruptive potential. Others believe in the enormous amount of profit that’s available from destroying lives and turning them into permanent, complicated medical or psychiatric patients. Others see the political utility of a permanently disaffected group with partially legitimate demands against a system they hate. Others see getting millions of people participating in the cult and its affirmations as a way to affirm themselves in their own “journeys,” and they just so happen to have the money to finance a campaign for mass affirmation.
The most important thing to remember about these tiers is the basic structure and the guiding principle behind each. The “outer school” initiates are seeing psychological and social reward through the cult’s manipulative offering, and they’re the overwhelming majority of captured cultists. The “inner school” seeks the same with existential fervor and some degree of intellectual and moral superiority. The “inner circle” is very small in number and ultimately is using the whole cult to their own twisted purposes. In the case of Marxist cults, the inner circle always uses the revolutionary cult of the era and then disposes of it when it’s time to move on to the next “phase of the revolution.”
The environment in which cults transform their victims is worth understanding in greater depth. According to Robert Jay Lifton, who studied the Maoist cult in detail as it was happening, cults effectively take advantage of up to eight qualities. Queer Theory very obviously utilizes all of them in sophisticated ways. I’ll touch upon them briefly.
Milieu control: Cults control the environment and make sure it only reflects cult doctrine. This is why they cut people off from friends, family, and outside information and views. This is your inclusion policies to ensure institutions and people only present cult-agreeable views and affirmation and remove anything that might cause doubt in the cult. This is cancel culture. This is immersive media and messaging from all levels.
Mystical manipulation: Cults create an appearance of total agreement (silencing all disagreement), inevitability (“there’s a change coming and there’s nothing you can do about it but get on the right side of it”), planned spontaneity (organized protests that look organic), and a higher purpose (like being on “the right side of history”) in order to convince their victims of their power and influence. It makes the cult appear more “right” and righteous to those captured within its spells. Think of the film The Truman Show. Jim Carrey’s character, Truman, was at the center of a huge operation of mystical manipulation within a fully controlled milieu.
Demand for purity: Cults are almost always puritanical in their values systems. They present their victims with stark contrasts of good and evil, right and wrong, on virtually every issue, and they demand purity with being on the “right” side of every issue. These dynamics manifest in dichotomies like pure vs. impure, absolutely good vs. absolutely evil, sacred vs. profane, or, specifically in the “social justice” cults like Queer Theory, affirmation vs. existential denial and care vs. “hate.” They are also interested, if not obsessed, with the binary of innocence vs. initiation to various levels of standing within the cult, including inclusion in the cult itself. In the extreme, this demand for purity sets up a dichotomy as stark as “the people” versus “the enemies of the people,” who must be destroyed in the name of “the people.”
Cult of Confession: The demand for purity leads the cult’s victims to readily identify how they fall short of cult perfection, leading them to both fear and desire to confess their failures and evil ways. Cults often encourage this behavior to facilitate the trauma bonding process. The trauma bonding wheel-of-pain is turned through pressuring people to confess—say to homophobia or transphobia or being a made-up gender or sexuality, and then rewarding them when they do—only to later indicate the confession wasn’t sufficiently total or sincere enough, initiating another round.
The milieu control and demand for purity come together to create a uniquely exquisite psychological environment. In this environment, almost everyone believes everyone else is pure while they, themselves, are not. You are the one falling short, even though you see your “classmates” confess to their own failures. You alone have the deepest, darkest failures. The guilt and shame are overwhelming, and they fuel even more accusation (criticism) and confession (self-criticism). This is the part of the environment that does the bulk of the thought-reforming work.
A “Sacred Science”: At the heart of the cult is what Lifton refers to as a “sacred science” that is infallible—though people can and do fail it all the time—into which people are being brainwashed. The point of the cult of confession dynamic is to force people to confess their failure to understand, internalize, enact, and even embody the “sacred science,” while accusing others of their failings as much and often as possible. The point of the confession is to get people to willingly adopt the lens of the sacred science so they can “recognize their crimes” against it and pledge to “do better.” “Do better” means “ideological remolding.” Here, Queer Theory is the correct understanding of sex, gender, sexuality, and all “normal” features of society.
Doctrine over person: Cults place doctrine over people (“History uses people and then discards them.” -Hegel) The person isn’t even a person if they don’t hold and enact the doctrine. “Not to have correct political opinions is like not having a soul.” -Mao)
Loading the language: This is painfully obvious at this point, isn’t it?
Dispensing of existence: At the deepest level, the cult decides whose existence counts and who doesn’t. The punchline is that those who accept the cult doctrine (the “sacred science”) and its application are people, and no one else is. Only the doctrinally legitimate are allowed to exist. Others are “haters,” effectively enemies and non-people, justifying their abuse, disenfranchisement, silencing, etc.
Under the standard Iron Law of Woke Projection, the dispensing of existence aspect of cult environments is why Woke activists say everything is “denying their existence” or a “genocide.” They’re projecting. You don’t have a right to exist if your beliefs “deny their right to exist.” In Queer Theory, this means if you don’t affirm their embodied political activism against the legitimate and the normal, you’re denying their existence. You are therefore beyond the pale of humanity and do not deserve to exist. All totalitarian genocides come from this darkest piece of cult logic.
Frankly, we could go a lot deeper into the cult nature of Queer Theory than this. We could talk about how it’s ultimately a Gnostic and Hermetic conception of the world with “normal society” acting as an evil spirit that imprisons everyone into performing a fake persona for the world so they can never be liberated to be who they truly are. I’ve done that at length elsewhere.
That would require us to talk in depth about one of Queer Theory’s progenitors, Judith Butler, and her belief that gender and sex aren’t actually real but are performances we learn and repeat to satisfy normal society. Her whole body of work could be summarized in six words and a little explanation: “Drag is life; life is drag.” Everyone, always is doing drag in everything they do, whether they realize it or not. Society writes the scripts for how their drag (usually “cishetero”) is to be performed, and that imprisons their souls, which they then have to script physically onto and through their bodies. Becoming aware of the “doingness” of gender and even sex and sexuality opens a door to a “queer horizon” of possibilities beyond the norm.
Judy got those ideas in turn from people like the postmodern philosopher, sadomasochist, and pedophile Michel Foucault, from whose work David Halperin derived his definition from Queer. Foucault was asking what it means to be a homosexual absent society’s definition of the term, absent the homosexual versus heterosexual binary and privileged status of being straight within it, and absent the patterns of discipline and punishment that enforce these definitions on people through society, most frequently through themselves. The idea that it is the soul that imprisons the body, exactly in this way, didn’t originate with Judith Butler. She got it from Foucault.
Interlaced into aspects of Queer Theory from the broader milieu of the sexuality studies and sex-positive radical feminism from which it was born are the ideas of people like John Money and Alfred Kinsey, among others, who sought to divorce sex and “gender identity” completely and to liberate sexuality to the greatest possible extent.
Most of the inspiration, outside of the sexual aspects of Queer Theory, however, derive from gender-critical feminism, as it evolved eventually into the sex-positive branch, which went to war with its prudish sisters primarily through the 1980s and eventually won. That, in turn, means to understand this cult deeply, we’d have to start with the first truly gender-critical feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, who initiated the pressing question of our day way back in 1949: What is a woman? Her point was the same as Foucault’s: what does it mean to be a woman when no one else—and particularly society and patriarchy—are defining it for the people who actually are women?
In short, we are imprisoned by the features of our social reality but can escape with the right hidden insights about who we really are and into what we have been thrown. The thinkers above derived this transformative Sociological Gnosticism from earlier mystics of greater fame. We don’t have time for that now, but it’s not a hard legacy to trace from characters such as Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx through Beauvoir, Foucault, and Butler to arrive at the conclusion that we’re dealing not with social science but social alchemy here. One of its primary laboratories is our children.
Why children? Four reasons, mainly. First, children in schools and even with their entertainment are a captive audience. Second, children have not achieved the necessary cortical development to distinguish reality from fantasy, so the mystifications of Queer Theory can be considered plausible to them where adults would be less interested. Third, children are going through the developmental process of identity formation, which needs to be hijacked for this ideology to take firm root. Finally, children become a gateway and a wedge to other targets, like their families, faiths, and other institutions in which they take part.
So that is Queer Theory. It’s the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is primarily sex-based. It predominantly targets our children. And it has little to nothing to do with being gay. But what can we do?
Normally, we would turn to our institutions and ask them to see the light and step in. That isn’t working. We face a problem of captured institutions. Our institutions accept and promote Queer Theory. We therefore cannot count on our institutions—educational, psychological, medical, or governmental—to help us here. They are all captured. They are all part of the controlled milieu, creating the mystical manipulation, and peddling the sacred science of Queer Theory.
We find ourselves in the position of a pilot who has lost all of his instrumentation on his aircraft and has to fly it safely to a runway and land. No navigation computer, no altimeter, nothing—just him and his wits and hopefully his ability to see what’s in front of him and do the right thing. Our institutions are like the instruments in the cockpit but for society. Right now, they’re putting out all the wrong information. They cannot help us find the runway or land the plane safely, upon which our lives and the lives of others depend. What would we do? We would use our senses directly to find the runway, line up and lower the plane, and land it. We wouldn’t look to the broken instruments at all. We’d look at reality and navigate without the intermediary. That’s what we need to start finding ways to do at the societal level now—one individual at a time.
What, individually, though? What we must do is start with the truth. Not the mediated “truth” peddled by the corrupt institutions. The plain, simple truth. There are two sexes. Most people are straight. Gay happens. Queer isn’t an identity; it’s a defiant political stance we don’t have to tolerate or accommodate. If someone claims to have an identity or sexuality that requires an explanation, it’s fake and doesn’t demand our respect. Predatory behavior of any kind in any place and perversion outside of the confines of consenting adults acting in private do not deserve our tolerance and shouldn’t be given it. Pornography doesn’t need to exist in children’s libraries, and children do not benefit from its presence there. Enough.
Regarding the truth, though, I want to make a point. It’s important to say the truth, but you actually have to do more. You have to love the truth. You have to love the truth with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength, and then you have to love your neighbor enough as you would yourself to tell him the truth that you love. These are basic commandments.
But you have to love the truth. If you love the truth, you’ll say it. You’ll also seek it and defend it. You’ll defend other people saying it. You have to love the truth because if you don’t, when the pressure mounts, you’ll eventually buckle. You’ll be asked to care and affirm, but there’s no caring and no affirmation that isn’t built upon the truth first. So you must love the truth. Every time you tell a lie to be nice or to fit in, you’re selling a piece of your soul. You have to stop doing that. That takes loving the truth.
When you do this—which is what it means to be based—you break the milieu control. You break the mystical manipulation. You call doubt upon the sacred science. You break the cycles of abuse and confession. You tell people that it is okay to trust their eyes and ears and even their gut intuition that what they’re experiencing from Queer Theory is abusive and manipulative.
Queer Theory is the doctrine of a cult religion based on sex that primarily targets our children. It is our necessary responsibility to learn about it and to oppose it. If you are so inclined, I’m releasing a new book, primarily written by Logan Lancing with my contributions, called The Queering of the American Child. I recommend you pick it up and get in the fight.
19 comments
This statement is a misguided outburst of misinformation. It’s crucial to address the broader issue of child exploitation, which unfortunately occurs across all demographics.
Religious institutions and other organizations have indeed been implicated in cases of child abuse, regardless of the perpetrators’ sexual orientation.
To illustrate the point that predatory behavior is not limited to any specific sexual orientation, here are some high-profile convicted heterosexual predators:
1. Jeffrey Epstein: Financier convicted of sex trafficking minors.
2. Larry Nassar: Former USA Gymnastics team doctor convicted of sexual assault of minors.
3. Jerry Sandusky: Former Penn State football coach convicted of child sexual abuse.
4. Jimmy Savile: British TV personality posthumously revealed to have sexually abused hundreds of victims.
5. R. Kelly: Singer convicted of racketeering and sex trafficking.
6.Mary Kay Letourneau: A former schoolteacher who, at age 34, became sexually involved with, and fell pregnant by her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She was convicted of child rape.
7. Warren Jeffs, who built an empire on exploiting underaged girls in name of religion.
None of these groomers and abusers are neither drag queens nor queer.
They are adults with unchecked psycho-emotional problems.
Excellent article 👏 👍
Try this too https://litgram.in/what-is-queer-theory/
The best part of this article: The plain, simple truth. There are two sexes. Most people are straight. Gay happens. Queer isn’t an identity; it’s a defiant political stance we don’t have to tolerate or accommodate. If someone claims to have an identity or sexuality that requires an explanation, it’s fake and doesn’t demand our respect. Predatory behavior of any kind in any place and perversion outside of the confines of consenting adults acting in private do not deserve our tolerance and shouldn’t be given it. Pornography doesn’t need to exist in children’s libraries, and children do not benefit from its presence there. Enough.
Umm
…this is absolute trash, a nonsense article. Yes it is hateful, and untrue. A CULT drag queens….!? What!? No one is trying to take your children and abduct them into a guy culture. You are a terribly afraid and feeble excuse for a man. This is hate speech, absolutely, because it is horrendously misinformed and reaching. To suggest that glitter is a euphemism for something else highlights more about you and your thoughts than anything else. My my, someone needs to be read a bed time story and go to bed out of it.
Diaper change in Aisle One.
A Trans Tantrum’s pooping on Mommy’s carpet for attention again.
We need Ritalin, Thorazine, a Jolly Jumper and air freshener pronto.
pronto
For those excellent remarks i’m awarding you another essentialist metaphysical post structural style ‘blown job’ following the earlier award of the same type to James Lindsay.
Hegelist rights baby !!
You give good egg head.
A reactionary comment, which justifies why Queer it is a religious cult.
…this is absolute trash
James is ALWAYS perfect unless he is speaking about Gnosticism = automatic bent conditioned learned bollocks as they in fact are Jesuits..i’d consider gobbling him off. Myself i’m straight with not even a glimmer of ‘Bi’ or ‘queer’ if he gives up the gnostic hypothesis. Hegel would be forced to admire my incongruence. A.C Grayling & Dawkins are perfectly acceptable trance medium receivers of Hegel about that considering their openly published statements about METAPHYSICS & its scientific potentials in searching the universe !!
”You are a terribly afraid and feeble excuse for a man”
OMG he is. Doris thats exactly what i said to myself when i saw what shejames was saying about gnostics.
”A CULT drag queens”
Crypto fascism is at large i feel = shit stirring. I’ve never met a bad drag queen or trans & i lived in Soho for 7 years. But trans didn’t campaign for these right – BENT FEMINISM DID.
With predicable crypto fascist style results. I.E James Lindsay is ‘more trans’ than the average not trans apologise.
”it is hateful, and untrue”
Thats a bit formula gurl ?
I’d happily agree with you in many ways. Whilst theres definitely shady things going on a lot, there is a respectable community core without a doubt.
If that core will not debate however its not ‘core’ its filth = Probably.
The pro trans social engineers have set up a pernicious societal ecology seeming / looking/feeling ( you choose ? ) concentric environment is 1 problem here.
Your thoughts ?
You go gurl ? – teach this forum its WRONG.
“Here’s the truth: Gays and lesbians fought for decades to break the public perception that they are predators and groomers of children. Here’s the lie: That’s who and what I’m talking about when I criticize their theory and activism, which is the very groomery thing I just described previously, in their own words.”
I can appreciate the delicacy of your position on this matter, so I will take this opportunity go a bit further. As anyone who is gay or has lived among gay men can tell you, they are strongly attracted to pre-adolescent or adolescent boys–they get an erotic thrill from “turning” a confused kid and introducing him to the pleasures of buggery and oral sex; to quote a notorious homo, William Burroughs, they “want that uncut boy stuff,” male animal innocence, a sex object that is not yet confirmed in his sexuality.
It’s possible to see the entire academic edifice destroying the West, “queer theory” as an elaborate rationalization for child-rape that includes a method for making it acceptable as a form of “queering,” a transgression of a major social taboo.. You can get your rocks off and justify it as a revolutionary act, one that contributes to the destruction of the evil, oppressive social fabric. The end goal–if it is anything other than the destruction of “normal” society itself–is as vague as the original worker’s paradise implied by Marx.
I can’t find an “edit” feature, so I’d like to qualify my claim by saying what I assumed would be obvious: MANY (not all) gay men are attracted to young boys. The PR campaign to deflect attention from this variety of homosexual is understandable, and as Mr. Lindsay points out, queer revolutionaries have . . . uh . . . queered efforts at rehabilitating the child-molesting homo stereotype.
“Let all of the poisons that are in the mud hatch out.”
Robert Graves “I Claudius”
You are not incorrect. As a homosexual who was there since the 1970s, I can attest that this phenomenon of homosexual adult males and underage or teenage boys was a known “community” issue emerging in the 1960s and on throughout the 1970s but then virtually vanishing from mainstream gay discourse when AIDS happened in the 1980s and only re-emerging in the 2000s as child Queering and child Transing.
For many “political gays” back then, the underage issue was seen as nothing more than yet another anti-bourgeois shock tactic used to slap conventional society’s face. For others, the Beat/hippie/New Left freedom-at-all-costs ethos led to abstract theoretical support for outrageous issues (no age of consent, public nudity, normalization of SM, “monogamy is treason”, etc.) literally because of the outrage such support caused the “bourgeoisie” and “right wing”. I moved around the periphery of these academic gay political circles but never knew any gay men who had anything but contempt for actual underage-seeking “chicken hawks”, who definitely were around but were viewed as disturbed perverts by most gay men (and were anathema to almost all lesbians back then who castigated Burroughs, Ginsburg and any pedophile apologists).
Having given that history, and in the name of Truth, we cannot and should not attempt to erase the reality of the past for any reason no matter how ugly, incriminating or contemptuous. Here are two very well known examples of deliberately shocking/provocative pedophilia/hebephilia tolerance/promotion articles from an internationally influential gay activist publication (which I wrote for in a much later and less radical incarnation of the magazine in the 1990s) from the 1970s that almost killed the gay movement dead from the public backlash:
“The Body Politic was a Canadian monthly magazine, which was published from 1971 to 1987. It was one of Canada’s first significant gay publications, and played a prominent role in the development of the LGBT community in Canada.
1972 August 23-28 – Outcry from Toronto’s daily newspapers over the Body Politic’s publication of an article by Gerald Hannon entitled ‘Of Men and Little Boys’ in Issue 5.
1977 November 21 – Issue 39 of the Body Politic goes on sale; among its features is an article by Gerald Hannon entitled ‘Men Loving Boys Loving Men’, a frank and non-judgmental discussion of pedophilia.”
”are attracted to ”
Stealth lowering of age of consent via a convoluted pathway.
How low ?
Could be shocking that & certainly alter how the paradigms pf parenting are viewed.
Victims of own success with technologies ? Too clever for our own good ?
The advancing technological scales naturally tilted our expectations toward earlier development vs arrested ?
Sexual obstacles need tacking sooner ?
Look i’ve no idea personally but some inkling of the emergent logical inquiries.
”I can’t find an “edit” feature ”
Neither can the common or garden perfectly acceptable trans people – since the post structuralist crypto fascist call centre fakes were funded to wade in.
Sociological Warfare has many strange customes ( along with an artificial neural system known as ‘the internettttttttt’ )
Quote – But there is also, I suspect, a deeper fear at work here, and an unconscious desire to sublimate guilt. (See how annoying this is, Professor Butler?) The level of projection in this book — by which I mean, attribution of unrecognised features of one’s own behaviour to others, in the Freudian and Jungian sense — is off the scale. Butler sees authoritarian cancellers and enemies of critical thought everywhere, though apparently not so much among those closest to home.
Unquote.
Imho its reasonable to speculate whether the leading feminists europe/usa / et al had long ago sold their ‘brand’. I.e not even in control of material designed and published in their names. The behaviours which this community can illustrate can be very odd. Irigaray for instance can scarcely explain the later work. Additionally the strange story of robin de angelo. Mostly uneducated until 30 , trailer park existence, apparently suffering domestic abuse ? Robin ”realises’ white fragility. Presumably the public are expected to understand the matter as if white fragility is so attractive it caused a person to rise to ivy league professor out of drastic circumstances.
However i’d not personally feel Butler attempting to sublimate guilt. More a case of trying to play catch up concerning social engineering algorithms that are based on the collective unconscious hypothesis. The web itself provided the real psychic undercurrent for this once artificial unconscious. In that sense the ideas of freud / jung et al were bound to work in terms of mass psychosis. What we do not want now is influencers to misunderstand the way out of the maze. The way out of a maze is to retrace the way in by the same methods.
In this sense freud / jung are only the same as Marx. In his day Marx had no intention of creating oppressive environments. What we seem to find as a human intellectual phenomenology is that work that can do good can do evil & otherwise are meaningless. WE could be meaningless when we are not able to tell which work was composed with good in mind / bad in mind. We usually cannot help that accident, for intent is not always clear. Certainly out coherence is marred when we debunk the person who founded the ideas ( in good intent ) – which are later used for ill intent.
Its hard not to be pointless since all systems that ‘work’ do it either way & can deliver freedom or slavery.
One of the reasons freud & Jung were able to give a meaningful hypothesis of the human mind is that it is Binary. The human brain employs all its neurons in on / off sequences in such a way that theres language. There is no surprise that computing would become based on the same form os switching – thats another subject. The point is its difficult to find a hidden meaning to a WAR on a state of 50 % +50 % makes 1 Whole ..
The specific one in question being THE TRUTH.
The globalists believe that they do not want to design an algorithm for running our lives if it would have to calculate nuance concerning what of RIGHT or WRONG. So in many ways the real problem is not about ‘trans’ / gender / race <<< those are just the tools they've used to try normalise the post truth into 1 part Truth to 100 Water solution. Now its very abstract here. But the fact is that it is Mathematics that are the dictator when it comes to screwing down a global sized lid tight on the low number of problems your new NWO algorithm is going to be allowed to solve ( sociologically ). Right now the fragments of this algorithm that are being field tested via the public services show us it demands minimised processes such as on street kangaroo court etc.
We seem to be up against an algorithm thats being instructed to run calculations concerning variable truth contents. Un-paradoxically since it knows what is 'fair' it knows the opposite & can thus deliver infinite amounts of this 'enrichment' sophistication FOR THEM. They'll enjoy is vast never ending complexity & celebrate its lack of brevity & A.I. curiosity. Simultaneously their apologists hunt for accurate in depth analysis and try to debunk I.e – see this on Kathleen Stock :
Quote :
But rather a lot of words to waste on a Pseud’s Corner grifter like Butler, don’t you think? People like this should be dismissed in a single paragraph and then ignored.-
Unquote
The above is not the most common or garden marxist 'too much info' debunk. The apologist has either decided to add realism by calling Butler a grifter, or has their brevity contagion onboard. The globalist know THEY can pump out endless misinformation leading to disinformation. We cannot address it unless we respond in detail & thus its also a war of attrition.
Having seen the book myself i'd not say it was written by someone familiar with Freud et al. More a case of someone whose now gone back to the drawing board pen in hand after a period in life when these chores were done for them.
They know its a freudian based algorithm Period – thats about it.
Excellent essay. Extremely well written and powerful. Bravo.
Yet another light in dark places.
To quote Jorgensen Shmorgensen: “Queer Theory is the Moral Diarrhea of Totalitarianism.” But the counter-Queer tide it seems, at long last, is turning:
Judith Butler, the Queen of Queer, may be about to get the Robespierre treatment from the queered Red Guard monsters she helped spawn. So to save her own power, status and gender-grifter cash cow, Judy Butthole’s gone woke-nuts ballistic lately to publicly proclaim that she (“they”) remains right up the ass of her beloved Hamas, while covering her own skanky-booty by demonstrating her Party loyalty as the ultimate double-plus-good Woke apparatchik/PR shill (a stonebutch Dylan Mulvany with tenure).
Butler also just released a sophomoronic book that appears to be more Rachel Maddow than Michel Foucault. The brilliant UK philosopher and gender-critical writer Kathleen Stock exposes Butler like a cockroach under a microscope and rips J. Buttski a new a-hole in this must-read article from unherd.com. (Also read the excellent comments from readers):
“What Is Judith Butler Afraid Of?
The Academic’s New Book Conjures Enemies At Every Turn”
unherd.com/2024/03/what-is-judith-butler-afraid-of/
Kathleen Stock:
“In producing such a terrible book, what is going on for Butler psychoanalytically? What is she really scared of?
Given their known volatility, one plausible answer is transactivists; a fear also indicated by the author’s submissive observation that her own previously published views on gender have proved ‘questionable in several ways, especially in light of trans and materialist criticisms’. After all, if what passes for acceptable methodology in your own academic discipline includes shaming others in print for unquantifiable harms to a much-mythologised community, sooner or later a grandee like Butler is bound to fall victim to the practice herself. The more venerable you get, the more likely it is that young pretenders will come for your throne, and they have some scary tools at their disposal. If I were her, I would be frightened too.
Still, there is something correct in Butler’s observation that critics of transactivism are getting increasingly intolerant and illiberal. The dominant emotion she attributes to them is fear, but a more accurate description would be fury. It is obvious that many across the world have become angered by the grandiose, narcissistic overreach of academics like her: thinkers indifferent to the real-world havoc wrought by their [absurd] ideas and impenetrable speech codes, and who pillory all objectors as badly intentioned or deeply confused, no matter what the background reasoning.”
The Queen of Queer would look fabulous in a huge powdered wig on a tumbril headed for her heavy date with the National Razor. Chop chop, comrade Butler. Your queer reign of terror is over.
The problem you are having with the activists is similar to their reaction to Libs of TikTok. They their videos out there online, or in your case, in writings, and then get hysterical when others notice. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Excellent article! This is what happens when demands for empathy by people who despise traditional values and mores lead to demands for acceptance to demands to be treated as normal