Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 639 | The Queerification of American Kids | Guest: James Lindsay

Episode Date: July 7, 2022

Today we welcome James Lindsay back to the show to take us on a deep dive into the history of "queer theory," which is basically just gender identity mixed with Marxism. He goes over what these people believe, the major historical figures in the movement, how queer theory connects to Marxist ideology, and how it has been used as an attempt by the Left to normalize pedophilia throughout history. --- Today's Sponsors: Moms for Liberty is building an army of moms who are joyful warriors fighting for the survival of America — with a smile on their faces, and absolutely NOT co-parenting with the government. Go to MomsForLiberty.org/ALLIE to find out more! Raycon's Fitness Earbuds help you take your workout to the next level with the power of premium sound & smart tech. Right now, save $20 off a pair at BuyRaycon.com/ALLIE, plus Relatable listeners get an extra 15% off with promo code 'ALLIE15'! Bambee provides a dedicated HR manager that helps you navigate the more complex parts of HR for your small business — and guides you to compliance, available by phone, email, or real-time chat. Go to Bambee.com/ALLIE right now for your free HR audit! Good Ranchers guarantees meat that is born, raised, & harvested right here in the U.S. Every cut is aged to perfection, and every box is superior in quality, flavor, & value! Right now, save $30 off your order at GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE when you use promo code 'ALLIE'. --- Previous Episodes Mentioned: Ep 636: How BDSM, Porn, & Pedophilia Are Tied to Transgender Ideology | Guest: Genevieve Gluck https://apple.co/3Paj8s1 Ep 335: Understanding the Biblical Telos of Gender https://apple.co/3IpKWXu --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise- use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash Alley.

That's good ranchers.com slash Alley. Okay. I've got a show for you today. I am interviewing my friend James Lindsay. He has been on the show several times every time he is. it is always a long interview because I am just, my brain is like firing off all cylinders when I'm talking to him because he has so much insight and so much knowledge. And I always have a million and one questions for him. You know when you're listening to something or

you're talking to someone and your brain is like tingling because it's so just intellectually stimulating for you and it's so fascinating? That's always how I feel when I am listening to James Lindsay talk. And I know you will feel that way too. You're going to have to like pause this interview several times and just like try to take in what he's saying. It's also going to send you down probably little rabbit holes of your own that you want to study independently and that you want to research more on. I didn't even get to cover everything that I wanted to cover today. But we are talking about the ins and out, the foundation of queer theory and how it leads to the idea of the abolition of the family and stealing away a child's innocence, how these things are

actually inherent in this ideology that is becoming more and more prevalent today. It's really important that we understand the philosophical roots of this. But you'll also hear towards, I think, the last half of the interview, me referencing the Bible and how this ideology really contradicts the biblical idea of male and female, of women, of sex and marriage of just human nature. And so that's obviously a very important aspect to us as well. And an important aspect to all of us if we are trying to understand where this is coming from and how we combat it with what God says is good and right and true.

Now, James is not coming from a Christian perspective. He's very knowledgeable of the Bible, but he is not a Christian. He is, as far as I understand, and agnostic. But thankfully, he has a good grasp on what the Bible says. and so he kind of helps us grapple with the differences between this ideology that we're talking about and with and Christian theology. So I'm super, super excited for you to listen to this episode. I know you are going to love it. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest

issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll

join us. James, thanks so much for joining us once again. People can go back and listen to our previous interviews, we've talked about critical theory, critical race theory. Today I want to talk to you about something that I've seen you discuss a lot on Twitter, and that is a subset, I believe, of critical theory, which is queer theory. So, big question, lay it out for us. What is queer theory and why should we care about it? Yeah, I've had really, really great feedback, by the way, about our previous episodes. So I'm excited to be here again. Everything's been so positive. But, you know, we're going to the dark side today with queer theory. Queer theory is really, I mean, at a turning point event last year,

their America Fest or whatever they do in December, I sat on the stage with Charlie Kirk and I said that queer theory opens the gates to hell. And I kind of mean that as close to literally as I can. Queer theory is, as you said, it is a critical theory. It's derived from this weird fusion of kind of critical Marxism, which is another name for critical theory and sex positive feminism. these were stewing around in the 1980s, especially within the subset of sex, this gets all complicated, subset of sex positive feminists who are also butch lesbians. And so they were really concerned with the

fact that, you know, they don't want to have to act like a woman just because they happen to have certain parts. And they didn't want to be, you know, discriminated against and so on if you want to kind of give them a charitable interpretation of what they were about. And so they called in In 1984, a woman named Gail Rubin called for a new radical politics of sex and sexuality in a paper called Thinking Sex. And this is really where queer theory was born. And what it is is it's a way of looking at the idea that society constructs a concept called normalcy or being normal.

And certain people assign themselves the status of being normal that gives them privileges in society. They get, you know, they're not considered freaks or perverts. They can have jobs. They can dress the way that they normally dress at their jobs. So what they would call the cis hetero. Yes, the cis hetero whatever. And yes.

And you have to say the whatever because they can just keep tacking on more and more prefixes to make more and more designations if they wanted to. And so they oppress people outside of that realm of normalcy by virtue of. creating the category of normal versus abnormal and that category can be normal with it with regard to sex normal with regard to sexuality normal with regard to gender identity and like I said the the mere act of categorization oppresses people in fact they they call it a violence of categorization it does violence to people who don't fall within that realm so in a sense queer theory is a war on the normal is what they say is is making these categories society society at large and so this is really complicated this is their idea this is judith butler's

idea of let's say gender performativity coming into play so for judith butler who is kind of the fairy godmother of queer theory even though i just mentioned to gail reuben as the person who wrote the first paper judith butler really advanced the ideas at the beginning really the most and her um two big books were in 1990 and 1993 the the first one was called gender trouble. And the second one is called Bodies That Matter. And in these books, she lays out this whole idea of gender performativity. And the idea is that gender only becomes real because we put it on like a play.

And not quite like a play. There's this older idea on philosophy. This takes a lot of unpacking because it's really weird. So I'm sorry we have to do this for a minute. This is what people like. I like the unpacking of it. So go for it. Yeah, we have to go backwards.

There's a guy, J.L. Austin. before Judith Butler, who was investigating this idea of performance of roles in society and came up with this concept of performativity. So you could take the idea of a judge or a police officer or something like this in his professional capacity. So, you know, maybe you know this guy. Maybe he's your next door neighbor. Maybe he's just Joe, right? Or whatever, Joe the judge. And you know him, but he's Joe and he's just cooking burgers and, you know, hanging out with his kids or whatever he does as Joe working on his car.

But then he puts on the black robe and he goes and he sits at the bench and now he's your honor, right? And he speaks a certain way and he sits a certain way and he dresses a certain way and he acts a certain way. Same thing with your buddy, you know, Billy who happens to be a doctor. You know, he's Billy at home and then he puts on the white coat and the next thing, you know, he's a doctor, right? And so you become the professional role, the professional role, Austin was saying, doesn't really, exist. It's not a real thing. It's a performance that people do when they adopt that role and they teach that performance to other people. So judges, kind of groom future judges into being judely and doctors groom future doctors into acting like doctors would. And there's this performativity that

brings out the existence of that role. And Judith Butler saw this like, that's what gender is, which is absolutely crazy. She said that people are born into the world. Some of them have male genitalia, some of them are female genitalia or chromosomes or gametes or whatever level of sex identification you want to go with. And then society is like, well, this is what little boys do and this is what little girls do. And then the people that are saying that, though, just like the judge is performing the judge role is performing the role of man or woman and teaching the child to perform the role of man or woman. And this whole elaborate scheme of performing the roles of man and woman is what shapes the little girl to grow up as a girl and into a woman and the boy to grow up as a

boy and into a man. And it kind of creates a reified, fake thing made real out of gender and gender identity. And we're all actually just performing it. So if you performed it differently, you could disrupt that system. And now you start to see where queer theory has these ideas about drag queens and trans, not just transvestite in a dressing across, but also, you know, transgender, non-binary, gender fluid, gender non-conforming. We'll skip some of the other terms they use because they like to throw the F word into a lot of their theory quite literally. It's even weird using the word queer, the way that they do after so many years of it being

just a slur, but they throw the F-bomb into things, gender F-Bond, For example is a deliberate activity that they undertake to make gender more complicated and more weird. And so this is sort of where these ideas come from. But what it is is it's a Marxist theory of sex gender and sexuality or a Marxist theory of normalcy is what it boils down to. Yeah. The normal is a special privilege status that some people give themselves to exclude other people. Those people are called queer. They can seize that name for themselves, use it as a positive discourse of resistance.

They can take up queer activism to disrupt the normal through various performative and other means. Judith Butler recommended politics of parity. So you mock what gender roles are by exaggerating them and being sarcastic and making like a drag queen. Kind of. Like a drag queen. Yes, exactly.

And the goal is to disrupt the categories themselves so that normal loses its meaning. Where Karl Marx said that the point of communism can be summarized in a single sentence, which is to abolish private property, Judith Butler didn't say, but could have said that the point of queer theory could be summarized in a single sentence, which is to abolish the concept of normalcy at all. So there's nothing normal, anything goes.

Right. So in the same way that Marxism in its original form was kind of class warfare between the categories of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, this being a subset of Marxism, is trying to subvert or I guess get rid of categories of male and female. And so just as Marxism saw the class hierarchy as a form of oppression, then queer theorists would see the gender categories as a form of oppression. Because

Marxists in general really see hierarchy as the enemy. So critical race theorists, they categorize primarily white and black. And so we have to kind of obliterate, I don't, I don't know. I don't exactly how to describe it, but that's, I guess, how it seems like they're all connected. They are. They're literally, it's really just the same, the best way to think of it is to think of Marxism like a computer program. I mean, this is a dorky thing, but it's an operating system on your computer. Like, if you have an Apple, it's running, you know, iOS and iOS does what iOS does. And it doesn't matter what program iOS is running. It doesn't matter if you've opened Safari. It doesn't matter if you've opened Skype. It doesn't matter which one you've opened. And so with Marxism,

And what Marx did before he wrote capital, before he even wrote the Communist Manifesto, which was in 1848, is he wrote these other treatises like in 1844. He wrote a lot and they're extremely religious. And what he did was he laid out the architecture that is what, in my opinion, is the real essence of what Marxism is about. And that's the operating system, which is what you're saying. There's this stratification of society. There's this idea that anywhere you find hierarchy, hierarchy is creating a benefit for the people on top and oppression for the people. below. The people on top rig the system to keep their benefit, even if they don't know it. The people on bottom are taught through ideological means to believe that they're stuck where they

are or they're supposed to be where they are or they should accept where it is. That's Marx's famous line about religion being the opiate of the masses. It numbs you to your suffering so that you won't rise up and end the causes of your suffering. That's really what that's actually the argument he's making. They made that in January of 1844 in a critique of Hegel. Later in 1844, he writes in the economic and philosophic manuscripts that the idea is to transcend private property entirely to get to a true communism where man realizes his true essential nature as a social being, which as a social being, there's no longer any hierarchy. So it's a man without hierarchy that you're actually trying to get to. And he saw private property by that point as the thing that's causing the issue.

But this software, this operating system can run any software. So if you take and plug in, you know, the economic software, you get what people call classical Marxism. Oh, it's about economics. It's about, you know, capital. It's about capitalism, blah, blah, blah. But you can unplug that and you could plug in race. And then you have whiteness as a special kind of property. And you have white people assigned, that created the categories of race the way they are to give themselves and disadventage and preserve it for themselves.

People of color are excluded. They need a racial consciousness awakened so that, you know, the whole thing, right? And so you can plug in race. Well, you can plug in normal as well, being considered normal. And that kind of starts with Michelle Foucault, who's talking about madness and homosexuality. And that's who these, the postmodern philosopher, and that's who these so-called post-structuralist feminists who gave birth to queer theory had really turned to predominantly was the postmodernist Michelle Foucault, who was. the postmodernist Michelle Foucault who was trying to say that no matter how we've categorized homosexuality in the past, it's always been a disaster and it's always going to be a disaster.

And their main mechanism of abolition then is for queer theory is to queer things, which is to make them complicated, to make them so complicated that people throw up their hands and say, I can't answer what a woman is. That's not possible. Yeah, let's hear a little bit more about Foucault because it does go back. You talked about the 80s in the early 90s, those queer feminist trying to queer up as they would say what gender is, and they see it as a form of liberation for them. You mentioned that they were seen as not normal if these people were butch lesbians. And so they felt like, okay, well, let us just kind of redefine what gender is.

And so we will no longer be a part of this oppressed, marginalized class from their perspective. But it really does go back further than that. I mean, you mentioned Foucault, but we can also look at a lot of the sexologists from the 60s and 70s, like Dr. John Money, like Dr. Alfred Kinsey. And so can you take us back even further? And then I think you could definitely argue that it goes back even further than that to, you know, the philosophers of hundreds of years ago who kind of questioned what even is the body, what is material reality? Can't you just declare what you are? So take us back first to maybe like the 60s and 70s, how that helped lead us where we are. And maybe then we can go back even further. Yeah. So

everywhere man is born free, but, sorry, man is born free, but everywhere he's in chains. So that's the 60s, right? So that's Rousseau, though. That's the 1760s. But by the 1960s, you had Michelle Foucault explaining that the social milieu that people find themselves in, especially if they're considered crazy or mad, as he referred to the social construction of insanity, or if they're considered homosexual or in other way sexually deviant, one mode or another, that they're having a limitation placed on their potentialities of being. So they were born free, but everywhere they remain in chains. And those chains are socially constructed by the way that things like madness and homosexuality

are regarded. So in this sense, Michelle Foucault really kind of becomes the first genuine queer theorist, because he's the first one really trying to take the issue specifically of sexuality and normalcy and pull it into question. kind of in a profoundly deconstructive and critical way. And we all kind of know why, right? I mean, Foucault, on the one hand, if we want to stay philosophical, believed himself to be a profound Nietzsche.

I think it's probably the case that he believed he was becoming Nietzsche's Zarathustra, the Superman, the Uber Munch that has achieved that status by transcending all morals, has thrown off all morals, and therefore has become unconstrained. therefore is Superman. I think he thought he became that by throwing off all morals entirely. But the reasons are a little baser than that. The man was a homosexual that had a proclivity for kinky sex and including with children. And society wasn't exactly facilitating any of that.

And that was that was one thing that he really argued for when he was kind of at the peak of his career in the 60s is that we should normalize he was saying underage sex, that there was. really yeah in fact in 1977 he signed the french petition to get rid of the age of consent completely which by the way at the time was um at 15 years old so he was like having to wait till they're 15 way too long way too late um it's not like he's talking about 18 19 or whatever like we have in the united states or in certain states he's looking at children 15 right and you know saying what that's we got to get rid of it completely and you know not to put all the blank on him, all the French postmodern philosophers signed the same petition to do away with it. And like I said, that was in 77.

So all through the 60s and 70s, he's grappling with his own demons, if you will, about his sexuality, about his proclivities toward children, about his literally kink, like bondage, S&M type brutal sex that he was into and the fact that society wasn't exactly accommodating him. And so he viewed the entirety of society as being in a prison, very much like Rousseau's, man is born free but everywhere he's in chains. It's a prison that's constructed by the way that people regard these attitudes. So let's complicate these attitudes.

Let's break these attitudes down. Now you have kind of two other veins. One is the sexologist you mentioned. John Money, total freak. He's the guy who invented gender identity in the first place. He is a sordid character. I don't know enough about him to talk about his history in tremendous depth. But I do understand that the story involves that there was a

pair of twins that was born. And he categorized this as intersex, but I think it was actually a botched circumcision. It was. Yeah. And so there was a botched circumcision of one of the twins. And so John Money decides to step in and say, well, let's just cut it off and raise them as a girl. Call the Barbara. Yeah.

This doesn't work. It didn't work at all. It was an absolute catastrophe. And so they lied to the twin, ends up to both. these people grow up and end up committing suicide, just total catastrophe. And gender identity was believed by this guy for whatever sadistic purposes he had to be something you could kind of just foist on people in a sort of very gross blank slate kind of way, which was sort of the same questions that Foucault was arguing around and in. But I don't know how much crossover the two

of those guys had. And let me just pause just so people, and I know people who listen to this podcast a lot have probably heard the story of Dr. John Money and the Rimer twins. But it wasn't only that that he tried to make this little boy, David Reimer, into a girl named Barbara. The parents went along with it. But he also forced these twin boys when they were little to commit sex acts on each other while other doctors watched. And he said, of course, it was for sex research. And then not only did both men grow up and commit suicide, but the little boy whose parents

tried to raise him as a girl realized when he was an adolescent, I'm not a girl. This doesn't feel right. I'm a boy. And so his parents let him so-called transition back into, you know, a boy, a man. But, yeah, then we also have this, you know, as you said with Foucault, we also have this, this strand of pedophilia that we see in Dr. John Money, that he was a pedophile apologist, that a lot of the work and research that we have on minor attracted people, which is kind of what they're referred to as today, really comes from. the apologist work of Dr. John Money, who believed, again, that it should be considered normal behavior. Right. Yeah. Actually, you find this in Gail Rubin very clearly as well, that paper thinking sex. Being a butch lesbian, I don't know if she actually had anything beyond theoretical interest in children.

Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. But she talks extensively in that paper from 1984 about how important. important it is that we understand that, you know, the criminalization of child porn is a terrible thing. We shouldn't be criminalizing that. This is just a big panic around this and this is a moral panic that's causing people to make bad laws and these laws will be used to repress and suppress people and to cause them, you know, all this injustice. She has all of this discussion. She does say that she thinks the pedophilia is, you know, a special case, but then she talks about cross-generational sexual relationships and says that those shouldn't be stigmatized. But the way that she describes these cross-generational sexual relationships in the paper

doesn't give you the vibe that it's like a 25-year-old dating a 50-year-old. Like people might look, but nobody, the way she describes it is that people have this incredible moral revulsion and da-da-da-da-da. But this isn't what we actually see and wouldn't even have seen then about, you know, a 25-year-old and a 50-year-old. But it is what you would see with, say, a 30-year-old and a 10-year-old. And so she knows she's not supposed to be talking about pedophilia, but she's still apologizing for and defending pedophilia throughout thinking sex. So this is a thread, a vein that never quite goes away in queer theory,

whether it's Foucault, whether it's money. Alfred Kinsey cannot really be resurrected here. I can't speak about the kind of third vein that this all comes from, which is like the weird, you know, the second-sex feminists, you know, Simone de Beauvoir being a huge influence on the later queer theorists. But I don't know if, I actually don't know if back in 1949 people like Simone de Beauvoir later in the 50s and 60s, Betty Frieden were pedophiles. But where you get to the queer aspect outside of the feminist aspect, you definitely see this thread that never goes away. Whether it's the people inventing gender identity, whether it's the people blowing open the idea that homosexuality is normal,

whether it's Foucault or Kinsey in various ways, and it's endemic kind of in everybody, and we have to complicate what it means. By the time you get to Gail Rubin and the other queer theorists, it's just always there. It just keeps coming back up. Yeah. The sexualization of children and the destruction of childhood innocence

is an explicit goal where queer theory enters into early childhood education in papers over the last five to 10 years, for example. Yeah. And I have my theory as to why that is, but can you explain like why that seems to be a common thread? I have a, I, I wish I could say this is really simple and just say, well,

they're evil and they want to dittle kids. But it's, I think there are multiple motivations in multiple places and multiple people. I don't think, for example, I would be very surprised if Gail Rubin was interested in dittling kids. Maybe. I would be very surprised.

Michelle Foucault is not even a question. He very definitely not only wanted to do that, but did do that. So with people like Foucault, well, actually, I don't know about Alfred Kinsey, but definitely John Money. Yeah. And so with people like Foucault and money, there's just a rationalization of their own pathologies.

Like Nietzsche warned about, philosophers tend not to write philosophy, but to rationalize their own proclivities and pathologies. And so there is that. If I had to make a guess, you know, queer theory is the only academic discipline in the universe that's kind of. of even dipping into the pedophile waters. So if you're a pedophile that wants to sound smart about your pedophilia, where are you going to go? The selection bias into queer theory is going to be enormous.

So the field itself is going to attract pedophiles who are looking for what sounds like intelligent and rational justifications for breaking open the stigma around who they are, whether that's for malicious intent or because they're just kind of pathetic. On the other hand, there's this big trend within all of this theory. to just have the most like crazy avant-garde thing to make everything. So to make everything, everybody realize that everything's a social construct. So if you obliterate the barrier between male and female or obliterate the barrier between adult and child, well, you've really done something amazing.

If you've reconstrued that in terms of social constructivism, that which is so clearly a manifestation of physical reality, then you've really achieved something. So there's this weird academic side to it too. there's also a weird narcissistic side that feeds into it it's you know um you see this a lot with queer theory which is that where you're actually heading is toward i get to choose my own identity and i can kind of groom the people around me into the identities that i want them to have to become my narcissistic supply and so again you see kind of another pathology at the heart of this that isn't necessarily about pedophilia at that point it's about and i think that's about and i

think you're going to see some pedophilia issues around all this drag queen stuff. All of it's going to start coming out eventually. Some of it already has. Yeah, we've already seen several stories recently. There was some drag queen that goes by diamond, something or other who was just charged with several counts of child pornography. And if that were like the only case, okay, but we've seen several of those headlines. There will be a lot.

I don't know what the proportion would be, but I would guess it'd be upwards of 30 or 40% at a minimum of the people. involved in no adult man who's healthy and normal wants to dress up as a woman in a sexualized manner and perform sexualized sassy things in front of children and people try to say oh so you're saying that um uh missed out fire that that was like unhealthy people but i mean that's gaslighting like we know it's not the same thing dressing up as a joke or a performance is one thing but the way that drag queens are dressed are not just a caricature of women it's also a sex sexualized caricature of women with, you know, giant boobs and fishnet tights and makeup and hair that we would never actually wear.

There is a sexual aspect to it no matter what people say. There is by definition. I mean, if you actually figure, I don't know if we could go to like, you know, the dictionary and look up drag queen. But if we actually were to, we were to get to the heart of what makes a drag queen a drag queen as opposed to a cross dresser or as opposed to, you know, whatever we would call this character, there's some British term for the Mrs. doubtfire character that is very, very British, but I forgot what it is. It's a rather hilarious term, but we can see the clear differences, which is that it's obviously not about sex, and drag queen has sex right at the heart of it. And they know it does.

They say it does. And then they kind of give this wink, wink, it's family friendly attitude. They've written papers about it explaining it. I would guess, just to be fair to this, that the production. The dominant proportion of the drag queen phenomenon is actually raging narcissists who are turning children into their brood of narcissistic supply. Some of them are probably going to be pedophiles. But the idea that you can get yourself all this attention and then surround yourself with people that you can mold into being like little copies of you is kind of a narcissist dream. So there's going to be a huge element of narcissism worked in behind all of it as well.

So what does queer theory develop then? It develops the rationalizations and justifications in a Marxist way to convince society to not only allow this, but to celebrate it. And I'm sure that most parents who take their kids to these things and even most of the drag queens, they probably couldn't even define queer theory for you in the same way that so many people say, oh, I'm not a critical race theorist, but white people are oppressor. So they believe it act out the tenets of critical race theory without even really knowing. what critical race theory is. And of course, I think it's the same thing here when it comes to bringing kids to drag queen story hour or pushing gender ideology in the classroom. It really does have philosophical roots in this kind of postmodern idea that we create our own truth, that we define existence, that social constructs are inherently oppressive. And so you could see that any kind of

ideology like Marxism that believes that all categories or all hierarchies or all hierarchies or all structures and systems are inherently oppressive, you can absolutely see why they would want to obliterate the category of adult and child because what is age, according to them, or what is the like assignment that we place on age but a social construct? Sure, age might be a biological reality, but maybe according to the Marxist that doesn't believe in these kinds of categories, they might ask, why do we assign certain innocence to certain ages? and certain maturity to certain ages. I mean, you can kind of see that.

And you could also see the argument because these are theories that hate Westernism are what they perceive as Westernism, of them arguing that this idea of age of consent, they might say is just a Western constructs because in a way it is. In a lot of the Eastern world today, they do not view what we would call pedophilia as something that is perverted. I mean, child brides are taken regular. in most of the Eastern world today. It is actually because of the Judeo-Christian worldview that we even have the category of children and the category of child innocence. So, I mean, you can see how this battle is playing out and is going to play out, even if the people who are proponents of queer theory don't want to admit that.

Right. Yeah. So, you know, and this is the kind of thing they would do is it would point at what you just said. And they would say, we'll see, it's arbitrary. It's actually completely arbitrary in other countries at different times in history, et cetera, that we've done different things. And they, of course, would argue that A, that proves a difference is possible. And B, what they would then do is point to cases where there have been problems that have arisen in the Western context as a result of the imperfection of the application of something like age of consent. Oh, well, she's a very mature 17 or whatever, you know.

And she was just dating a 21-year-old. And so now this person's in jail for statutory rape over this kind of very, you know, you have somebody who's two days from their 18th birthday dating a 21-year-old. They say, this is an obvious, you know, abuse or whatever. This is an obvious mistake. And that harm doesn't arise in a context that isn't so rigid about this. And this is the game that they play. And you could stop and say, well, they have a point.

And that's the point is to get you to say, well, they have a point. Right. As if there were no other solution to that than to completely obliterate the concept entirely and to do away with children. And I know you don't necessarily, we don't have the same views on abortion. This is not an abortion conversation. But it does remind me of what they do in the abortion conversation. It's the same. Yes, they hold up the tiny, tiny radical exception.

And the only reason they're doing that is not to say, okay, abortion should be reserved for that radical exception, the 10-year-old who is. raped by her uncle. The only reason they hold that up is so you can say, okay, well, maybe you have a point. But really what they're arguing for is abortion subsidized through all my months. So similar strategy. Keep going. I mean, we'll just make the point in both cases then that it's like they pretend we don't have these people called, what are they called judges who are able to judge peculiar cases that come up in certain circumstances that are not the norm caught by the law. it's like they think that this isn't possible. Nobody's quality.

This is actually kind of a postmodern view, by the way. Or I don't even see postmodernism is distinct from Marxism any longer. So it's in a sense a deeper Marxist view because it comes out of that market, Marxist architecture or operating system that runs beneath it. But because the privilege get to assign themselves the status of being reasonable or capable of adjudicating or whatever it happens to be, there's nobody that really is reasonable. There is no reasonable person that could. actually make a decision. Everybody's just contoured by the social construction. It's a social

milieu that they're in. For Marx, it was material determinism. It was that the material conditions determine their character, their understanding of the world. Now it's this weird structural determinism that they talk about that has some material elements, but mostly not. And what they think is that there's no way that you could possibly set up, say, a law, like an age of consent law or with the abortion situation that we were just talking about these fringe cases that are not zero. There's no way that you could set up a law and then have a judge who the archetype of a judge is a very wise person who would then be able to sit back and adjudicate and say, wait, this is a special case and this is why as a special case when those things arise in a court that was

literally built for the purpose of dealing with those situations when they arise. So it's like, it's really a frustrating thing or with the age of consent. It's as if we couldn't write legislation that says, you know what, if you're within four years of one another's age, you know, forget about it. That legislation could be written. I don't know that it's a good idea, and I'm not saying that it is, but it conceivably could be written. There are other workarounds than obliterate everything and let us have anything goes. Right. And they're not really concerned about those exceptions, as you were saying earlier.

It's not like they're actually concerned with those anecdotes that they are giving. concerned that the categories exist in general. Like I even there's I mean this is real there is a real um there's a real law in California thanks to a state senator named, um, named Scott. Is it Scott? His last name is Weiner and obviously that is memorable for a number of reasons. But he has put forward many pieces of traveling legislation, but one of them is trying to, uh, take sex offenders off the sex offender list.

their victim was within 10 years and 10 years of their age. And so you're talking about if a 22-year-old assaulted a 12-year-old, then he would not be on the sex offender list in California. And that is actually law in California now. So, I mean, they're outright about this. This is a justification of pedophilia. He would say, though, that the sex offender list disproportionately discriminates against LGBTQ people. I'm not even sure what the rationalization is for that, but he claims that there was discrimination there and that this kind of age of consent or age gap will room that he has now given or this new standard that he has now applied is going to help gay people. And this is the same guy who made it, who it went from a felony to a misdemeanor to knowingly have sex with someone while you were HIV positive but not television.

that you're HIV positive, that used to be a much harsher penalty in California. Now the penalty is very low because of state Senator Weiner. So, I mean, this is out like they are actually doing this now. They are trying to obliterate the categories now. Right. And state Senator Weiner is the one that's put forth the bill in California currently to make it a trans sanctuary state, as they're trying to call it, where essentially the state will, I don't know what all the details of this bill are, but it's a catastrophe.

I just glanced at it last night, and I didn't read it, and I should have, unfortunately, now. But it is the idea that it's going to become a trans and LGBTIQIA plus BS, whatever it is. Sanctuary State. And in that sense, you know, whether they're paying for the transitions, whether they're bringing people to California to allow it, people should look at the bill. but this is another one of his monstrosities. And of course, it's not a big surprise that if you go look up Senator Weiner, you will also find that there are pictures of him

dressing in kink in public in parades for the pride parades and whatever else. And so you see the same kinds of themes. Like, he thinks that there should be no boundaries because he thinks that there shouldn't be these rules placed on him. But there should be actually, You do have to have boundaries and rules to have a society that functions. But if we want to get deep, the Marxists have understood whether the queer theorists derive this

intentionally or not, I don't know and I don't think they did. I think they were much too busy staring at their own navels and their own genitals to have thought this up. But for over 100 years, Marxists have known that if you sexualize children, it's much, much easier to overthrow a society. Yes. And in fact, if you sexualize a society, the sexualized a society, the sexualized liberation movement was actually part of this. Right. So is that like, and I'm sure it's multifaceted,

but the intention of a lot of what we're seeing, which is introducing kids to drag and having kids dress up in drag and people who don't follow the lips of TikTok and who aren't on Twitter a lot, you like you may not have seen some of this footage. And we're not exaggerating when we are talking about very sexual footage of grown men, dress as women with fake boobs on, sometimes naked fake boobs like shimming, twerking for money with children in attendance. They're knowingly doing this. And when conservative, it's typically conservatives calling this out, Democrats either they do the whole, you know, song and dance, either this isn't happening or it's really good that it's happening and you're evil if you say that it shouldn't be happening. I mean, people on the left

are really defending the stuff. And then you've also got video after video that lives of TikTok posts of these teachers who are coming out to their students or ensuring that they have, you know, the new inclusive pride flag or they're talking about transgender ideology to their kids. Like is the motivation behind all of this? Is it what they view as liberation? Is it the narcissism piece that you mentioned earlier? Is it because these people are actually predatory? Or, I mean, Do the motives really vary behind all of this? Or does anyone feel like they have a virtuous motivation behind introducing this stuff to kids? Well, I would say that there's some of all of it, to be honest with you.

And some of the people who are introducing it, and by some, I mean probably the ones who are the most normal and thinking maybe it's just a good idea to mix in or it's innovative and whatever else. They're probably, they probably have these. virtuous, if you will, kind of underlying motivations, but I'd say that they're likely to be in the minority. The queer theorists themselves are heavily plagued by what I would describe flatly as pathologies, whether that's narcissism, whether that's, you know, the predatory aspect, it's going to vary from individual to individual, but it's, whether sometimes it's, it's borderline or antisocial personality, the abusive personality disorders. There's a term that I can't use a slang term for this because we'll be in big trouble if we use that term. There's a term that's

actually used for the phenomenon when certain men who are often abusive and abusive to women start getting called out for it in progressive spaces that they suddenly identify as trans because it makes them sort of invincible. And so that's, you know, that's not narcissistic or pedophilic. That's borderline psychopathy is what that is. Right. Now, as far as the drag queens go, They know there's a paper. There's an academic paper that was written, it was published last year in 2021 at the beginning of the year, written by a drag queen and a trans person. And in the paper, which is about a drag pedagogy, that's the title of the paper. I just did a podcast on it.

I read through the entire paper for a new discourses podcast on my platform. They actually explain that, you know, oh, well, we sell it. We know it's a strategic thing. We sell this paper or with this program, drag queen's start. hour as though it's about raising empathy for LGBTQ people, but that's not what it's really about. It's really about focusing on the drag queen and teaching people to live queerly. We actually have other agendas. They actually say in the paper, we sell the idea that it's about empathy, but it's not really

about empathy. It's about other things. So they know. In another place in the paper, they explain that they brand it as family friendly so that it's acceptable, but they kind of with a wink, they acknowledge that what they mean. mean by family is the queer family you leave your real family for when you come out on the street. And that's, I mean, I wish I was making this up, but that's what they actually say. So there's an element to where the people doing this know they're doing it.

And they have even proudly written that they know they're doing it. And that they're that they're, you know, billing it as family friendly and as a generative pedagogy and all of this nonsense, specifically because it enables them to sell it. But in this same paper, since we mentioned Foucault, you know, what they're saying is, let me just read this little piece here because I couldn't find the piece that I wanted to very quickly while we're talking. But this part right here ties this really together. It's talking about classroom management. And this is classroom management as a framework relies on rules and procedures as a sort of factory model for quality control. That's a weird way to think about managing a classroom, but okay.

It says it stifles creativity and aims toward order, marching toward a mirage of identical outcomes and efficient productivity. This reinforces what Michelle Foucault called the carcoral continuum, which disproportionately funnels minorized students toward prisons and other forms of confinement. So they're framing it out in terms of the idea that if we manage the classroom and we don't, the next thing that they talk about is as an art form, drag is all about bending and breaking the rules. And so what they're trying to get to is that if we don't teach children to break the rules with adults that are in sexualized environments, and in fact, they say to believe that there are no rules to question every rule. in a situation with adults dressed up as sexualized women doing performances with children.

I'll just put that point back on it. If we don't do that, then we're actually engaging in what we call it the carceral continuum, which isn't just a school to prison pipeline like they allege here. It's the belief that life itself, because of the social constructions, imprisons everybody. Everybody is in a prison created. Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. It's warmed over Rousseau for the fifth time until the, you know, you've heated up the spaghetti so much.

It's just kind of a bowl of mush. Yeah. But that you can see that they know what they're, there's, there's an element where they know what they're doing. And they say in this paper that the point of it is to induce children to learn, and I quote, they put it even in italics inside of their own paper to live queerly. Right. It's groomers.

There's not another word for that. Yeah. And it really doesn't matter whether or not someone who, is doing that thinks that they are. I would say, as you said, the majority of them aren't. Some of them truly think that they are being inclusive, that they are creating some kind of liberating and comfortable environment for people. And so we're not indicting the motives of every single person.

We're just talking about where this comes from and what the effect actually is. One thing that we know from psychology and child psychology, especially the psychology of victims and predators, is that one tactic of sexual predators is, is to get a child comfortable with conversations about sexuality, inappropriate conversations about the body, showing children pornography, and trying to sexualize them in an early age. I don't even want to talk about some of the research that's been done into this

and some of the quotes that are being used by pedophiles and how they prey upon kids and sexualize kids. So whether or not the intention of these drag queen story hours, or of every single drag queen in these drag queen story hours and child drag shows is predation, is pedophilia, whether or not the motivation of every teacher talking about this stuff to children is pedophilia. That is, I mean, predation is part of the effect of this. If you are talking, especially without the consent and the presence of the parents here,

like if you were talking to a child about something that has to do with their genitalia, whether or not you say that is sexual, that is sexual, nature. At the very least, it is sexually confusing for a child, which ironically actually will lead them to the very sort of psychological oppression and chaos that these queer theorists say that they are trying to liberate society from. The sexualization of children, introducing children to these topics actually leads to a lot of psychological distress and suicidal ideation and all of the things that they say that the cis hetero system is placing on children. Yeah, it's funny what happens when you invert reality.

Yeah, it's a big shock. It's actually true. You know, you talk about the psychology around victims and all of this and that's all 100% accurate. And then there's another side to this too, though, which is that this is where personality disorders are born. Children of narcissistic parents usually grow up to have a suite of personality disorders because becoming somebody's narcissistic supply and foil undermines your identity formation in yourself.

Children who have inappropriate romantic or emotional relationships with adults often grow up to be schizoidal, which is another personality disorder. It's not the same as schizophrenia. So personality disorders are often induced in children by putting them in inappropriate circumstances that blur the boundaries between adult and child or that perpetuate cycles of what we should really just call cluster B personality disorder abuse. And cluster Bs give birth to other cluster Bs. If you have a cluster B around, these are going to be your kind of narcissistic borderline antisocial personality disorders.

You have those in adults around children, the children are going to develop some or others of the same types, cluster B personality disorders themselves. And these people become destabilized, unstable, very much. moldable to make into activist weapons. So that's part of the Marxist scheme a century old. But they also, when you tap into their sexuality, especially with somebody, you know, these kind of groomer situations, they come home and they say, they tell their parents what they are.

And then their parents say, know, what are you talking about? And they lash out back against their parents. It's very easy to get a child to cut off from their own family if you do it through sexualization. It's easy to get them to cut off from their religion to say that Christianity's old-fashioned, that it's archaic, that it oppresses, that it hates gays, that it hates women, blah, blah, blah. It's very easy to get them to say these things and throw off these pillars of culture that keep them stable, family, religion, nation, culture, and so on. And again, I'll just read another piece, the very last part, the very last two sentences, as a matter of fact, of this

drag queen paper, which is an education paper in an actual education journal. Curriculum Inquiry is the name of the journal. This is what they see themselves as doing. They say, we're dressing up, we're shaking our hips, and we're finding our light, even in the fluorescence. We're reading books while we read each other's looks, and we're leaving a trail of glitter that won't ever come out of the carpet. What do you do with that? They know what they're doing. And at that point, you know, for me, you know, I can get into the, I can theorize, I can appallate, I can even say, you know, I know a whole bunch of, they're not, they don't talk to me much. more, but a bunch of progressive people who we talked about the trans, you know, the explosion

of trans a year or two ago. And they were like, wow, it's just amazing. It's the most naive thing I've ever heard in my life. I frankly, we'll just rat them out on that one. They're like, it's amazing how many people were trans and we never knew until it became acceptable. Right. And now that's what they think is, they don't think that people are being groomed into confusion. They think, oh, wow, they're just able to finally express who they really were and they never

were able to before. And that's kind of like the la la la land that. that's supporting this. But you think that, and then you read, we're leaving a trail of glitter that won't ever come out of the carpet and you realize the carpet is your children's psychology,

your children's psyche. And you're like, these people need to go to jail. Like, there's no, they know what they're doing. It's not acceptable in any regard. And it doesn't matter how many theoretical justifications they give for it.

It doesn't matter what, you know, kind of la la land naive, you know, oh, well, we have to be inclusive and help these people, poor kids who otherwise would have had a hard time. It doesn't matter any of that. At this point, you can do nothing but say these people know what they're doing and it's child

abuse. You mentioned this kind of naive idea that, wow, society has made this more acceptable and that's why we have so many more people now who are realizing that they've always been the opposite gender. And there is a study that I'm sure that you've seen as well that shows the percentage of each generation that identifies as LGBT. And of course, if you look at each generation, if you look at 2017, so 10.5% of Generation Z, which is born between like, I don't know, 1997 and 2012 or something like that, generation after millennials,

10.5% said they identify as LGBTQ. Now in 2021, 20% of 5th of all Generation Z say that they identify as LGBTQ among millennials that went from 7.8 to 10.5 and then among baby boomers 4.1 to 4.2 and then the I guess the silent generation only 0.8% it didn't change at all. Point 8% from 2012, 2017 to 2021 identify its LGBTQ and people say oh well this is just because society has become more liberated and more accepting and they believe that there I guess has been no brainwashing, no indoctrination by the media, by our political leaders, by teachers. I mean, the power of suggestion in kids is so strong. Of course, a child in its most formative years.

If they hear, hey, if you want to be special, you can identify as something else. They're going to internalize that and perhaps manifest that. But I don't, it's really actually confusing for me because progressives tend to believe in like the nature versus nurture debate that everything is nurtured. That's where they get this idea that everything is a social construct. And so human beings can be changed by like society's different standards. And we know conservatives to realize that there is like an actual fixed nature of people. And yeah, when it comes to this, they believe that there is such a fixed nature of so-called queerness that it couldn't possibly like queerness can't be a social construct.

But being straight is being transgender can't be a social construct. But being male and female is, it's just very strange and contradictory to me. Yeah, it's self-serving, I think, is the term for it. So what do you think about this growth, this trajectory of Generation Z, and why there's just been this explosion of so-called queer identification among this generation? I think there's a lot. There's several reasons. One of the reasons is exactly what you said. You know, this environment, first, let's take it off the table before we do that.

there is probably a very small percentage of people who would not have otherwise felt comfortable identifying as they actually are, especially with gay and lesbian, who now feel more like the environment is accepting of that. And so there's probably some very small percentage. By far the larger percentages of these people, though. And we see it not just with the, you know, this generational difference, but there are these weird differences that appear geographically as well. I don't have that study in front of me.

what I just saw this a couple weeks ago, that it's regional, which you would not expect if it was a socially constructed phenomenon given the kind of national milieu that we're in. And so what you're actually seeing is that people are being induced at a young age into the idea of questioning it. And when they're questioning it and they're being told things in schools, for example, or through the media that, hey, you know, if you ever feel awkward about how you are, then maybe you're something else. or, you know, if you're a girl who likes to play sports and thinks that the color blue is great, maybe you're actually a boy. Have you ever considered that that's possible?

That what you're going to have is within children, you're going to have people who start to explore with that. When you add in the fact that if you call it, oh, well, did you know that there's this identity? You can identify as this. That they're going to have some people who identify as it. And as anybody knows who's ever taken up a religion or a political position or anything, that once you identify as something, you get interested in it and you start looking into it. And you're like, well, what am I supposed to be to be a good? LGBTQ or a good whatever. And you can actually start digging into it. And these, this stuff's all over

the internet. So any kid who's connected to the internet is going to be able to go look at, look this up and find, you know, oh well, there's this whole constellation of genders that I could explore. Which way do I really feel the most? And they kind of can get pulled into this. Actually, the entire system between the grooming and the media and then the school being set up to be affirmative in whatever the children bring is set up to kind of pull kids into this. Meanwhile, you're beating the kids over the head, and we can't lose sight of critical race theory still existing. You're beating the kids over their head with regard to their race. So what you're going to see is, well, you're a terrible person, you're a basic,

boring white girl, but did you know that if you're bisexual, you're really interesting? And I'm always kind of reminded of this conversation I had with a friend of my daughters, you know, 10 years ago or whatever. And, you know, they, they were all proud something about being pansexual or something. And we were like, what in the world is this? And it was like, well, have you ever kissed a girl? And they were like, ew, why would I do that? Ew, why would I do that? Okay. Um, right. So you've adopted a label that makes you cool. There's this huge pressure. You get made cool. You're uncool for being who you just happen to be. And you're cool if you adopt one of these cool radical identities. There's a huge pressure.

That's what I think is causing the vast majority of this. It's not even social contagion, like, oh, I want to be cool like Becky, so I'm going to become bisexual this week, too. There's that. But then there's this pressure that it's like, you're not cool as you are because you're in the oppressor class if you're a basic straight white girl. So let's be, you know, radically queer because being a racial ally, they've already learned is impossible. No matter what they do, they did it wrong. It's just a bullying circuit. So, well, you can't touch me now. I have some really weird, demisexual, whatever, they're being told in their schools. They are being told if you are uncomfortable with what's happening to your body during

puberty, that might be a sign that you are in the wrong body, that you're the other gender. Like, I don't, you're not supposed to say, we're supposed to say kids are smart and all this stuff. No, kids are, we'll say impressionable, because I was going to call them dumb. They're very impressionable. Yes. They're also tend to be very open-minded to kind of explore the once they get out of like three-year-old concrete thing where, you know, they're like, I'm a boy. You know, once they get past that phase where they freak out about it, they're very impressionable.

They're very curious. They're very open to explore these ideas. And so like I've told people a lot of times I got published in the Washington Post saying this that when I was five, I wanted to be a fire truck. Like the idea of the possibilities of being or the potentialities of being were pretty wide open to me when I was when I was five. the idea that, you know, there are certain limitations on what I can actually grow up to be, as in I cannot become a truck, didn't occur to me. My best friend at the time wanted to be an eagle when he grew up. It turns out that people can't grow up to be eagles.

And it turns out that boys cannot grow up to be women. It just is how it is. You can't do it. But children can believe these things and they can be kind of sucked into a path to try to affirm that. This is how we do that. Did you know that gender is really complicated? blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so I think that, I mean, I started calling them groomers last year for a reason. I don't think it's all sexual grooming. I think there's a lot of identity grooming,

or if we need a word for it, or cult grooming into this, and I will say, this religion of gender and sexual identity that they've constructed, where normalcy is kind of the fall of man, and that you have to overcome that and get back into the idyllic garden where there was no differentiation of sex, gender, and sexuality, and everybody could just do what they wanted, and everything was great. Before, you know, we ate from the fruit of true knowledge and saw that we were naked and were embarrassed, which is, but if you see this from the perspective, nobody understands this, maybe you'll understand this. They're Gnostics. If you read their other papers, I didn't talk about Eve Sedgwick, another key queer theorist. She has this paper she wrote in 1988 called

the Epistemology of the Closet. It's confusing because she turned it into a book by the same title in 1990 and the the the in the the paper is the first chapter um of the book but that paper is literally the single most gnostic document i've ever read outside of just straight gnostic mystical religion stuff they believe that we're in a prison but the depression gives you access a glimpse of absolute knowledge of what it's like back in the garden And so... Noticism is special knowledge just so people know. That's right.

It's a belief. And four of it has always been around. I mean, if you read the book of Colossians, that's what Paul is dealing with. He's like all these Gnostics that say that you have access to special knowledge through X, Y, Z. So humans have always kind of been fascinated by that. And yes, we've talked about that before with standpoint epistemology and all of that as well. I thought you were actually going to bring up the book of Genesis in the chapter three. Well, that's true.

This is the perennial, literally the perennial. fight with humanity is that there are people who think that they have access to gain special knowledge and it's going to give them special abilities and special access and it's actually a catastrophe. Yes, did God really say? That's what Satan first said to Eve. Did God really say that if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die? And basically how Satan tempts Eve is, no, no, no, no. He's basically God is just jealous. He's just scared that you're going to become like him, that you're going to become so powerful. And I do think that that is what people are still believing, that lie, that temptation today. You can be like God with access to special knowledge. We can remake our

bodies however we want. But what we have here then is the normal or the bourgeois or the whites, basically telling people, no, no, no, no, no. We can't destigmatize. We'll stay with the normal, the queer thing for the sake of the discussion. But the normal people are telling the freaks, The perverts, as Gail Rubin calls them, no, no, we can't destigmatize because then you'll be like us. And so we have to oppress you. We have to keep you in ignorance. We have to keep you excluded. We have to keep you what Paul O'Fraidy calls a culture of silence where you don't even have a voice to speak up and you're fully oppressed.

We have to. Otherwise, you'll become like us. And you can see, it's literally the same story. This is why I recently made a meme. I took one of the, you know, famous classical art of the fall of the, the fall of man, one of the paintings that some, you know, Renaissance artist did. And I took it and I put on there kind of like a headline that you would see in the news today, you know, serpent tells Eve if you either the fruit of tree of knowledge, you will not

surely die, but if you do it, it's a good thing. And here's why. Which is the lie that they always tell. But this is the same thing. It's literally the same thing. And queer theories, I think, I can't read it and not see narcissism. You're trapped in a body. You're imprisoned in a body.

But there's a special knowledge that everything. socially constructed. And if you understand that special knowledge, the social construction of reality, then you can escape the prison and you can escape the prison with everybody else. And that's all it really boils down to. Yeah. And wow, there are so many different connections to kind of just the very, what seems like a very superficial message that primarily women here, which is this idea that your path to self-discovery and self-fulfillment will also give you a kind of special knowledge that will make your relationships come together will make you more successful, will make you able to make more money and be more satisfied. And it's connected in this idea that you really are your own God.

You are self-discovering, you are self-creating, self-decuring, self-satisfying, and who you really are is buried underneath all of these societal expectations and capitalism and the patriarchy. And once you throw all of those things off, you find this inner goddess and you let her out who that may or may not match your body, may or may not, not your physical reality. But what's important is that you find her, that you manifest her, and then you truly will be successful. It is a form of narcissism.

And it's very superstitious. And there's also a reason why it is so hostile to Christianity because Christianity says the opposite. Christianity says you are not self-defining or self-creating. There is a God who created you. And he has put you in this so-called prison of your body of gender in the first chapter of Genesis. we see, okay, first of all, God made the heavens in the earth.

He's the authority. He says what is and what is it, what's right and what's wrong. He also makes you male and female. So there we get gender. There we get the Christian definition of marriage. But also, I'm just realizing, is that he makes man and woman. That is the definition of marriage. Not man and girl.

That would be a different Hebrew word. Not girl and boy, but man and woman. He tells him to be fruitful and multiply, which also tells us that there is a physical maturation and the woman that, you know, makes her a woman to be able to have children. So we see, like, the contradiction of all of this queer theory actually in the first chapter of the Bible. Yeah, it's really all there. When you understand it as a Gnostic thing, it just gets really apparent.

And what you just described, by the way, you described it in the feminist terms, in this kind of mystical feminist, if you read the economic and philosophic manuscript from 1844, written by Karl Marx, that's what he describes Marxism as. The whole thing is a religion. He's saying, in fact, that the point of what he's laying out is for man to discover his true nature, which has been covered up by the division of labor coming in and creating social and material conditions and labor relations. And that's kind of what he focuses all of his time and effort on. But what those do is that they limit your ability to understand your true self. And your true self is actually as a creator.

You are a creative subject. What he says defines man as apart from animals. Remember, he's thrown down God so he doesn't believe there's God. What defines man as different from animal is the fact that every time a man does something, he makes something in the world, everything a human does. He envisions it in his mind before he creates it. So he says that it all starts with a subjective impression. And then you unify the subjective and the objective by the labor that you do. That's why the hammer and sickle are a religious symbol for him.

labor brings your subjective vision into reality. And so what he says is that when you divide labor, when you have the boss and the worker, what the boss is able to do is he holds the vision in his head and makes somebody else do the work to produce it. So the person that's doing the work, maybe they get money, which is this abstract thing. And he has lots of stuff he says about money and how much he doesn't like money. But the thing is, is that he's not bringing his own vision into the world. So he doesn't see himself through the dialectic of subject and object. He doesn't see himself as a creative subject, as a creator of the world that he wants to inhabit.

And so he has what's truly human to him stolen from him by the fact that he has a boss who's paying him to do work to bring his own vision into the world. That's the estrangement from labor, estrangement from one another, alienation, et cetera, that Marx is talking about incessantly in his work. And the idea is that there's some division in society, upper class and lower class that causes a lot of, a mechanism of exploitation, and that exploitation steals from you what makes you essentially human, and what makes you essentially human is that you are a creator. You are as God. And in the end, we finally realize that by coming all together in a perfect social union with a perfect social mentality, which is our actual underlying true nature, stripped of the fall, stripped of the sin of capital and labor, then we actually are as gods. And we will remake the world.

We'll remake society. We'll remake man so that it is what it was always intended to be. Herbert Marcusa in the 50s in his book Eros and Civilization writes that the way that we get back into the garden is by taking a second bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That's actually he says that. That's Gnosticism. Wow. It's just what this is. This is a huge Gnostic religion.

Everything you just said that came out of feminism that people would have read, you know, and women will have heard a lot in the past 30 years. It's just a, again, it's just like, let's. take what Marx wrote in 1844, cram it into a new box, put a pretty pink bow on it and sell it to girls so that they can ruin their lives. And the same way that Marx ruined, you know, Russia and China and everywhere else in the world. Yeah. Does this go back to like Descartes? I think, therefore, I am that kind of idea. Is that like a self-creating, self-declaring idea? I mean, do its roots go back that far? I mean, I hear people say that. I very rarely blame Descartes for this one. Maybe I, if you had to say, all right, James, this is an old construction, by the way, of R.C. Spruill that I'm

borrowing from. You have a gun and you have two bullets and you can go back in history and take care of whatever you have to take care of. What are you going to do? And R.C. used to say that you go back and you put both bullets in Rousseau's head. So I really blame Rousseau here, primarily. I did not know that R.C. Sproles said that. We're big fans of R.C. Sprole on this show. I did not. I did not know that he said that. Yeah, I have R.C. Sprole privilege. So as it turns out that Rousseau actually laid down a lot of this architecture, Rousseau obviously had that gnostic impulse. You know, man is born free, but everywhere he's in chains. He believed that the social structure around him caused the chains. He looked at the savages and the areas that were being colonized by Europe at the time and said, look how free they are back to nature, you know, that whole noble savage kind of mentality, which was a fiction he was writing on top of what he was reading. But he saw that and he said, well, here we are constrained. We have to dress a certain way.

We have to talk a certain way. We have to laws. We have to be reasonable. We have to, he really didn't like having to be reasonable all the time. He complained a lot about it. But on the other hand, we have cities. We have all this kind of good stuff. And so he came up with this idea that you have to put them in a relationship with one

another to kind of average them out. He called it savages made to live in cities. We're going to release our true instinctual, emotive, imaginative nature. But unleash it in a way that it harnesses through reason to create, you know, know, cities and developed society and so on. And then we're going to be able to live in our true nature. And this is ultimately the birth of leftism. It's the birth of being able to transform reality through the social construct so that we can come up with the ideal circumstance that frees all a man and causes a French revolution and everybody's heads to come off and then

all their heads to come off later too, because it's really a catastrophic idea. Is this where kind of the romantic idea comes from that seems to be on the left that I haven't heard them articulate explicitly, but it does seem like they romanticize and glorify like pre-civilizational world, like the Aztecs. Like the Western white man just came along, civilized everyone, and that is when oppression started. And it kind of seems like they think the Native Americans, you know, before America was discovered, were just these like peace loving gender fluid communists who never warred with one another, never stole each other's land. Is that kind of where that idea comes from? Yes. So is it, yes, just unambiguous, yes. And so, you know,

Rousseau is the father of romanticism. So all these kind of romantic notions, but especially the back to nature, noble savage kind of thing, is all Rousseau. But then that thing that I just said about the savages made to live in cities came by way of a German philosopher named Schiller to another German philosopher named Hegel, with the term Alfhaven, which means to abolish, but also to keep and thus to lift up onto a higher level of understanding. And that was the basis for Hegel taking Kant's dialectic, which is a philosophical tool for Kant and turning it into a sociopolitical tool in order to try to do what, to awaken the absolute idea or to get the absolute idea to realize itself, which is literally a mystery religion about how you get God to realize that he's God. So God stops being a being

that is and becomes a being that becomes through this process for Hegel. And that's the religion, literally the theology that Marx turned upside down by actually incorporating even more of Rousseau's Gnosticism, whereas Hegel was very interested in this kind of alchemy process that he saw in the dialectic. Marx brought a lot more Rousseau back into it with the centrality of the imagination, the emphasis on social construction, and the social limitation of man. and the whole kind of Gnostic element of that. And so this is what we're talking.

So I don't know if we want to blame Descartes. I would blame Rousseau overwhelmingly. And everywhere you've seen Rousseau's ideas get taken up in one derived form or another, you've seen calamity, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, the collapses of communism everywhere. This is all warmed over Rousseau with Rousseau as the father of leftism. and actually the progenitor of the dialectical method that the left uses that Hegel refined and Marx made actionable. And one commonality that we see in the different forms of these ideologies or the different manifestations of them throughout history and different countries is the breakdown of the family in order to recruit child soldiers.

And of course we see that in 1984, the separation of the family, the turning, of kids against their parents. And there is a book that was recently published by a feminist. I think she's a self-proclaimed communist. Her name is Sophie Lewis. And she wrote, I don't know if you're familiar, she wrote a few years ago, full surrogacy now. She basically believes that all women should be paid for their labor in that we should

not be gestating our biological children, but that everyone should be donating their sperm and their ag and that that would lead to kind of the breakdown of the family, which she sees is oppressive. And then she recently published a book that is, that calls for the abolition of the family. She thinks that motherhood is toxic, that it's an impressive force. Same thing with fatherhood. And that, I mean, that is a form of Marxism. And it also just has the effect of making children vulnerable. If they don't have caretakers, if they don't have people that have an investment in their safety and protection, of course, that makes them more vulnerable to not just sexual predation, but ideological predation as well. But even if you don't fully legally abolish the family,

which just to be honest, I don't really see that actually happening soon, at least, you do see the kind of wedge that is being driven between children and their parents through this ideology being taught at school. School is saying, you don't have to tell your parents. We've got a transition closet. And you will, you know, call you by your new pronouns and your new name, and we're not going to tell your parents. So the abolition and of the family is a key part of queer theory, correct? And we're already seeing it. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it was for Marx as well, but we don't have to talk about Marx. It is actually a key element. That's what, what, if I, if you were to say, you know, cut the crap, James, what is

queer theory for? I would tell you that it is, it is literally designed to a destabilized children. That's number one, most important and most valuable. Number two, it's to sever the link to their family. Number three, it's to sever the link to their religion. That's what I would tell you that the strategic purposes, one, two, and three in that order of queer theory is to destabilize children so that they are not going to grow up mentally and emotionally healthy. And secondly, it is going to sever the link to their family, which is going to be like that. It's in a sense the first and last anchor that a child has to kind of their roots. And then thirdly is to separate them from their religion.

Queer theory throws all of that into extraordinary turmoil. And I would say that that is actually the goal. Again, the Marxists have realized at least for 100 years that one of the things that Western civilization does very effectively, whether we're talking about Antonio Gramsci or George Lukach, who are contemporaries writing in the 1920s about this issue, both extremely influential communists. What they understood was that what Western societies do very, very successfully, following World War I and trying to figure out what happened there.

Why didn't the workers come together as workers and form kind of their own thing and overthrow the capitalist system during the war while they had the chance because they all cleave to their national identities and their family identities, their clan identity? So they said that West, the West transmits culture and values of culture very, very effectively and efficiently. So what's necessary is actually to get into those and to sever them. You have to sever them if you want to have a communist, a new culture, be able to be able to to take a root. And so that is, you know, queer theory is this kind of very made stupid and

self-indulgent derivation of that. But in some ways, it's also very sophisticated. It tries to complicate everything instead of just trying to break it down, for example. They don't sever the link to family. They complicate the link to family. What does a family mean? What does it mean to be gay or straight? There's this whole thing, by the way, a lot of people don't know within queer theory. What does it mean? What am I about complicating things? Well, they're complicated. The definition of man and woman, for example, by adding in trans men and trans woman under the umbrella. But they're also complicating, say, heterosexuality by saying that there are all these people, will they identify as heterosexual, but sometimes they have homosexual sex, but most of the time,

and they have attraction, but they still don't identify as bisexual. They actually identify as straight. And because they identify as straight, what they actually are is that they're, they're still heterosexual, but they're heterocomplicated. And the goal is to make it so that just like Kintanji Brown Jackson on the stand in front of the Senate, she couldn't answer what is a woman. The goal is that they don't want people to be able to answer what is straight, what is gay. And when you introduce this into a child, you now have a confused child who can't categorize the world in a structured way. They can't navigate the world.

So in all cases, why is it that Kintanji Brown Jackson can't answer what a woman is? The answer isn't just to make it complicated. It's because there are the enlightened Gnostics who get to tell you what a woman is. They get to tell you whether you, Allie, qualify as a woman, or if I said, well, I'm a woman now, they get to say, no, James, you're faking it. Because they're the ones who know what really makes a woman and no one else does. They're giving themselves the power to dictate that. Same with straight and gay, et cetera. Now, it's one thing when you try to assert that power on an adult, but you can see it's a completely different game when you're asserting that power over a child who hasn't formed a fully functioning.

and stable understanding of the world. And so I would say that the goal is to disrupt the family and to disrupt the child's understanding of the world. So that's goals number two and one in reverse order right there. And then, of course, when they are presented with, you know, this isn't a Christian way because it's something so intrinsic, their identity, they're like little budding feelings of sex and sexuality. They're going to say, you don't know who I am.

Christianity doesn't understand. That's 5,000 years old or 2,000 years old. depending on which book of the Bible we're talking about. That's out of date. That's old oppressive, patriarchal nonsense. That's homophobic, yada, yada. And then the Bible's in the trash in the next step. So you're severing their link to themselves, literally.

If we go back to Marx, you're estranging them from themselves. They're estranging them from their family and you're estranging them from their religion is the objective of queer theory. Yeah. And it really is cruel. You talked about how kids are at a young age. They're figuring out categories, not just male and female, although I, have two little ones and so I'm seeing that. They're eager to distinguish between male and female because they're trying to make sense of the world. Mom and dad, Papa and Grammy, they're trying to

make sense of, okay, what does this mean? Why do these people appear different to me? What does it mean to be different? And not just male and female, but they're also, okay, couch versus floor. It's okay for me to stand on the floor. It's not okay for me to stand on the top of the couch. All of these categories and contexts are really important for their sense of safety as well as for their sense of self. And when you think about the nitty gritty of not being able to even have the language of male and female, when you think about true child predation and child exploitation and sexual assault, if a child is unable to tell you, while this was a man, they're confused because this man happens to be wearing a skirt and they've been told that it's wrong to assume someone's

gender, it's been, it's wrong to assume someone's pronouns. They might not even have the ability to tell you that they've been abused. They might not even have the ability to articulate that this was wrong because you have so limited their understanding of reality by limiting their language and confusing them. And as we said before, I think that is part of the intention of the confusion

and the chaos. But parents who play along with it in the name of empathy and inclusion, you are actually placing your children on the altar of this ideology, whether it's through being unable to report sexual assault, like I said, or leading themselves down this path of gender mutilation and detachment from yourself.

It's really scary. Men are sometimes women, straight or sometimes gay, you know, and, you know, of course, you know, Mrs. so-and-so talked to me about my, my, you know, pee because we do that sometimes. Sometimes it's not appropriate, but sometimes it is. And, you know, Mrs. so-and-so can tell us when it is and when it isn't. And you can see that the exact, again, they always do this. They always project. They say, well, we have to teach these things in order to protect children from predation.

So they'll know when something inappropriate is going on. But what they actually do is create the conditions under which the authority figures in their lives, sometimes it's okay and sometimes it's not. And obviously, children are not going to have a well-developed and sophisticated understanding because the categories aren't there. And they're going to have those dissolved before they take any form. And so you're actually creating the conditions where there are not, like you said, they're not going to be able to report abuse because sometimes men are women. Sometimes sometimes, sometimes people who call themselves straight are actually, they have a little bit of gay in there.

Sometimes, you know, we talk about sex at school and sometimes it's okay and sometimes it. And they're less likely to report it because, well, sometimes we do this. And when it gets inappropriate, well, maybe this is just the next escalation. And this is exactly what groomers do. They get children comfortable with being around them, with talking about sex, then with touching, then with laying on, then with why don't you, this feels good. Don't you want to help people feel good? This is the grooming process in that regard.

So the whole thing is just a fantasy and a catastrophe. I like the way that you phrased it, that the parents who think that they're going along with is for inclusion or so that they can avoid looking like that terrible homophobic nightmare parent that was in the media every other day in the 1990s that we all grew up afraid that we were going to become the hateful parent who throws out their gay child or whatever it is that there was the big meme of the decade, you know, you are laying your child on the altar of a religion that is sacrificing your child to the, as Hegel put it, you know, history uses people and then discards them so that it can move toward its ultimate goal.

If you don't think history uses people and then discards them as their mentality, by the way, look at feminism. They used feminism. They got all they could get out of feminism. Now nobody knows what a woman is because they've used feminism and now they've used feminism and now they're discarding it. Yeah. The radical feminists are these kind of weird co-belligerents with even very conservative Christians,

et cetera now who don't agree with them on anything else over this idea of sex and gender because the queer theorists have now cannibalized feminism. History used it and then discarded it. Well, that's going to be your children too. They need activist goals achieved. If they break your children to get them done, well, your children did a great thing for the cause. Thank you. Yeah, right.

There's this post. I don't know if you follow Colin Wright. He's an evolutionary biologist who talks about gender and a woman named Christina Buttons. She describes yourself as an ex-S-JW. And they wrote this article about this mom who is a part of a group, trans people and the allies who support them. And she posted on December 30th of 2021, my daughter, seven years old, was extremely excited to receive these books for Christmas and I couldn't have been more proud. and they are children's books about a boy becoming a girl and vice versa. And then a month later, this mom posts that her daughter, who is seven years old,

just came to me and said that she thinks she wants to be a boy. Now we are strong allies, and I've always taught her that there's nothing wrong with this, but I don't think that she's a boy inside. She's always been a girly girl, but she is like friends with this boy, and she's been made to believe that maybe she is a boy because she likes the same things. And so this mom, in an effort to be inclusive, I don't think this mom is a, sexual predator or has, you know, sexual motivations behind this. But in the name of empathy and inclusion, introduced her daughter to this. And as we have said, many times in this interview,

the power of suggestion with children, because they are naturally malleable, because they want the approval of their parents or, you know, people of authority in their life, of course they are going to internalize this. And they are going to think that they are this. As you said, it is a form of grooming and it's destructive. Yeah. And if you, you know, I saw that. Colin and Christina are friends of mine. And they're great.

But I saw, I saw that. And the, the lady actually says, I think when she starts having her panic post a month later, so I think I actually confused my child. Yes. Yes. And then she, I think she says something like my husband said, you know, before we do this inclusion stuff, it's going to cause problems. And so that's what's happened.

You introduce confusion into a child rather, I mean, the goal of parenting well is actually to set the right boundaries so that your child can grow in a healthy way to navigate child development in an healthy way and that requires a lot of boundaries because they don't understand the world that they're interacting with. You start breaking down certain among those boundaries. You end up with this kind of confusion. And then this poor parent now is going to get blasted by the other people because by asking the question, she's not being trans inclusive enough. she's supposed to take his gospel that her child's true identity has been discovered through this one book and a friend who's a boy. And there's no working out. She's either going to get red-pilled or she's going to go down this very destructive path of cross-exformals. Or you'll see a story like what happened with Yaley Gallimus in California, which is a Peruvian woman came to America, immigrated legally, gets her kids in the school.

Next, you know, socially transitioned. Yale gets socially transitioned at the school. Yep. The school teaches her how to get CPS to get involved, to take her out of the home. Yeah. Because her mom isn't inclusive in affirming enough. Ends up out of the home going through lots of transition. But then at 19 years old, commits suicide.

And it has a tragic end of that story. Because this is a, for every one person whom this path helps, there are going to be hundreds who it destroys. And this is just kind of the nature. If you want to get kind of coldly clinical again, what I see when I look at leftism is a utter failure to understand a basic statistical reality. If you put it in terms of what they call type 1 and type 2 errors, false positive and false negatives, the attempt to completely eliminate one type of error, regardless of how many of the other type of error it creates is kind of a recurring theme through all of this. Yes, that's true. That's true in economics too. That's true in all of their policy. It's what Thomas Soul calls cosmic justice.

They see one inequality. They say, oh, this is because of oppression or discrimination when they don't even know if that's true. And in order to correct that, they cause all these other political, economic social ills. Right. But if they happen to the privileged, so what? Right. Because they're already privileged. So that's just leveling the playing field.

Right. And that's actually the sick, destructive mentality, which is why I've said, you know, equity equalizes downward and other little cute aphorisms that I hope people can. can remember, but that's, it's what it is. And then Carl Marx wrote a destructive theology is what he wrote. And it doesn't matter how you repackage it, race, sex, gender, sexuality, ability, whatever, it doesn't matter. And the thing is with queer theory is it's always a slippery slope and there is no bottom. Whatever you think is the worst thing they could possibly advocate for, I guarantee you they can do worse. There's no bottom. Yep, yep, we're not even to the bottom of

the slippery slope yet. And the slippery slope is real. Fortunately, it's not a fallacy. Now, we don't. I like to say it's kind of gross, but the queer theorists are actually, it's not just a slippery slope. They're actually lubing it. Oh, gross. Yeah. Make it slippery.

Yeah. Yeah. And they don't, they seem to be more and more brazen about it, too. I originally tweeted, you know, Republicans should criminalize the, you know, drag shows that purposely involve children because it will force Democrats to defend it. And that was naive because Democrats were more than ready to defend it. They weren't even scared to defend it. They didn't hesitate to defend it. There was no one like, oh, this is a little too far.

This is, you know, a little stigmatizing. I'm sure there were some, you know, normal Democratic voters who wouldn't come out in favor of that kind of thing. But, I mean, the president of the United States, they have no problem defending this kind of thing. We've got this presidential administration who is actually pushing the transition of children. And if you've talked to detransitioners, what they will tell you is exactly. what James has said is that one of the reasons why they transitioned is because someone told them that they should. Someone told them that this is easy. Someone told them that this is good. They were on Tumblr. They were on Reddit. They formed Roblox. They formed communities with these people.

And they were. I got this tragic message the other day from this girl who's a detransitioner. And she is married. She was able to get pregnant. Thank God. Most of them can't. Which again, I feel like this plays in even to the depopululal. goal that a lot of people, a lot of elites want. But she said, she asked me so tragically, how do I get over the guilt of not being able to breastfeed my baby because I got a mastectomy when I was young, because I was convinced. I mean, we have not seen all of these chickens come home to roost yet. I mean, we're talking psychological distress and destruction like we have never seen. And at this point, it's inevitable. We can't stop what is going to be reaped from what has already

been so. I agree. I mean, I saw that. It's just horrific. Being coldly male sometimes, I've been telling people for a long time, they're like, should I go to college? You know, everybody has these questions when I go around and talk around the country. Should I go to college? What do I do? And I'm like, well, if you can stomach it. And if I were you, I would kind of veer toward medical malpractice law because there's probably going to be a river of gold like nobody's ever seen in that here in the next decade or so. And you are right. These chickens have not yet come home to roost and they are going to.

And we've already seen like the first small echo of it with kind of older millennials who bought into the feminism line who are now reaching their late 30s and had forgone a family and are an incredible distress over it. Having chosen career first and then TikTok ran out of time. And that doesn't look like an option for them any longer. and you know it's we you could pick whichever famous blue checks you want on Twitter that that promote these views from like rationalizing that that you want and pretty horrific but uh those chickens coming home to ruse is already a big mess and this is going to be like a hundred of that at the same time it's just going to be a disaster yeah i wish we had more time to talk about this and i wanted to bring it up a while ago but then we ended up going down

another another path but just for people who have not listened and james you should listen to it too. Last Thursday's episode with a woman named Genevieve Glock, she talks about some of the roots of transgender ideology and she argues, because you mentioned Foucault and how he tried to normalize really BDSM, which was something that he was a part of. And she talks about how a large part of what is now modern transgenderism, not the people, this tiny percentage of people who truly have gender dysphoria, but the men who all of a sudden they say, oh, I'm a woman. And I should even, you know, pre-transition. I'm going into women's prisons and I'm going into women's locker rooms. She argues that it's a perversion, that there's a sexual aspect to it, that

powerful men are actually getting off on this, that has nothing to do with gender identity. She argues that it actually has to do with certain subsets of pornography and specifically BDSM. And this fantasy by a lot of these men of becoming submissive like women and submissive like girls. and she's done a lot of stomach-churning research into this, but that's just an interesting connection, what we are seeing today, the normalization of that kind of stuff, what she called sissy porn all the way back to Foucault.

And that's exactly what he was also trying to normalize too. So it really is all connected. Yeah, I think that's probably spot on. I mean, I think almost all of this has various attempts to rationalize sexual pathology in psychological pathology. that's manifested in a way that's very fruitful to look like it's academic, to look like it's transgressing boundaries in an intelligent way with lots and lots and lots of words.

But I think that there's a lot of perversion and sexual perversion. Fetishes and such really hiding at the bottom of a lot of it. Yep. And unfortunately, we will see the consequences of that in coming years we already are starting to. but as you said, we haven't even gotten close to the bottom of the slippery slope, unfortunately. All right, that's all we've got time for today. As always, I could talk to you for seven more hours probably and still not get through everything that I want to talk about.

Tell everyone where they can find you, where they can buy your books, all that good stuff. Yep. So you can find me on social media at the handles at Conceptual James. I met most of them, mostly on Twitter actively. my company is new discourses. It's new discourses.com. I do the new discourses podcast and a couple other podcasts there. So you can go listen to mostly by reading of Marxist literature

and explaining what it actually says and what the actual goals are. Working a lot in the critical education theory right now to kind of take that apart. But there's a lot of stuff on this queer theory that I did for to celebrate Pride Month. And I'll be kind of sticking in that as well. also at Conceptual James, at New Discourses, New Discourses.com. That's where you can find me and my work. Thanks so much, James. I appreciate you taking the time, as always.

Yep, thank you. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality.

We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.