Episode 17: Unmasking Queer Theory: The Queering of The American Child with James Lindsay

In this thought-provoking episode of "The Dark Side of the Rainbow," host Robert Wallace welcomes renowned author James Lindsay to delve into the controversial topics surrounding queer theory and its implications on society and education. Lindsay, who has topped Amazon charts in philosophy criticism and gay studies, discusses his latest book, "The Queering of the American Child," shedding light on the history, objectives, and methods of queer theory.

The conversation explores the complexities of queer theory, its roots in cultural Marxism, and its pervasive influence on education systems globally. Lindsay emphasizes the destabilizing effects of queer theory on children, families, and communities, comparing it to historical tactics used by totalitarian regimes. He also highlights the insidious nature of social-emotional learning as a tool for data mining and psychological manipulation of children.

Listeners are encouraged to visit QueeringBook.com to learn more about Lindsay's book and explore further resources at NewDiscourses.com. This episode is a must-listen for parents, educators, and anyone concerned about the ideological influences shaping the next generation.

For more information on Gays Against Groomers and our new book, "The Gender Trap," visit TheGenderTrap.com and support our mission at GaysAgainstGroomers.com.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Hi, this is Jamie Michelle, the founder and president of Gays Against Groomers.
I'm so excited to let you know that our organization just launched our first book.
That's right, Gays Against Groomers now has a book.
It's called The Gender Trap, The Trans Agenda's War Against Children,
and it is the book the radical gender mob does not want you to read.

(00:21):
If you are a parent whose son or daughter is questioning their identity,
if you are puzzled by how the radical transgender movement has penetrated every area of life,
if you feel abandoned by an ideology that distorts everything you always knew to be objectively true,
if you have ever been ostracized simply for pointing out the obvious,
or if you just want to know what on earth is going on, this book is for you.

(00:45):
The Gender Trap is available for pre-order right now.
Head to thegendertrap.com to get yourself a copy today. I promise you,
you're not going to want to miss this.
And if you'd like to support Gays Against Groomers and the work we do to end
the war on children, please head to GaysAgainstGroomers.com for ways to donate,
get our official merchandise, or even join the team.

(01:05):
Thank you so much for your support, and enjoy the episode.
Music.
Welcome to the Dark Side of the Rainbow. This is Robert Wallace.

(01:28):
And today we have one of of the number one authors in the world,
and particularly number one in Amazon for philosophy criticism and number one in gay studies.
Last time I checked, we've got James Lindsay here, and we're going to be talking
about his new book, The Queering of the American Child, and what he's learned

(01:51):
in the process of getting to the point of writing this, and.
Talking to the world about it. How are you doing, James? I'm great.
Thank you. How are you? Fantastic.
Well, you've done a lot of work. You're very well known for going into the trenches on the subject.
I've got a little bit of a history with you. We both participated in a film
called Beneath Sheep's Clothing, which is going to be out sometime next month.

(02:17):
And you starred in that. You did a fantastic job. And one of the issues that's
discussed in this film are issues surrounding queer theory, for instance.
So would you give us a little bit of a background about your findings and the
nature of queer theory? Oh, my gosh, that's such a huge question, actually.

(02:39):
So a lot of people don't realize it's a huge question, but it's a huge question
because there are so many different things you could say about queer theory.
And this isn't, you know, I think a lot of people out there in the world almost
have something to say. And so they don't really ever say anything.
And they say things like what I just said. And it sounds like they're about
to say something, but they don't really get to a point.
But the thing is, like, we could talk, for example, about what queer theory

(03:01):
is about. And I think we should.
And what queer how queer theory distinguishes itself.
It's in fact, the Q part of LGBTQ has very little to do with the other letters
and in fact, is hiding behind the other letters. That's a super important topic.
It's it's it's using lesbians and gays and bisexuals primarily and transsexuals,

(03:24):
but not transgender as human shields. And then at the same time,
we could talk about how it's a Gnostic religious cult.
I mean, there's so many different things to talk about. So maybe we should start
with just what queer theory is, where it came from.
There is that whole history, too, which is all super complicated because this
stuff boiled up. This is, I think, the first point that.

(03:46):
Audience needs to hear. And of course, maybe the audience of this podcast is
going to be more familiar with this than most people would be.
But the fact of the matter is, is that queer theory they probably have heard
about for the first time either today or in the last few years.
But as a matter of fact, this has been named since the early 1990s.
It has been a current of thought at least since the 1970s. Its roots as a current

(04:09):
of thought go back to the 1940s and 1950s.
So this thing has been kind of fermenting in the worst possible way in academia for a very long time.
And like I said, there's just so much to say, but let's start with the definition
of queer because it actually unpacks a lot of stuff.
The definition of queer was given by a man named, and this is covered in the

(04:32):
queering of the American child.
So people can see where it came from by a man named David Halperin,
who everybody should go look up a picture of David Halperin and make their own
decisions about what that looks like.
I find that looking up queer theorists is almost always worth the effort to see what they look like.
In this case, you might get some creepy vibes off of this guy.
He's not a flamboyant, but he's a creeper. And so you might want to look that up.

(04:57):
But anyway, David Halperin in his book in 1995 called Saint Foucault.
So he's taking Michel Foucault, the postmodern philosopher.
Kinkster, They're famous for writing things like Discipline and Punish,
which characterizes the entire operation of society as modes of discipline forming
as power, Birth of the Clinic, Madness and Civilization.

(05:20):
So those two books deal with the idea that being mentally ill or being mad or
crazy is actually just a socially constructed category that people use to maintain
their power by excluding views that they don't want.
By saying, well, that's crazy. So that person's crazy. So we don't have to listen to that person.

(05:41):
And so Foucault and then writes, of course, very famously, The History of Sexuality.
And of course, he has about 30 other books, too.
But History of Sexuality, volume one, is basically the kind of original source of queer theory.
He's exploring the idea of what it means to be homosexual on one's own terms,
rejecting all the terms of society.

(06:01):
This is a parallel to how Simone de Beauvoir in the second sex explored the
idea of what is a woman absent definition society might give you on your own terms.
So you have this kind of analysis and you have David Halper in here in the 90s
saying this is where it starts.
This is where the analysis primarily of sexuality, but also of gender and sex

(06:22):
as co-constitutive factors of one's being come into the equation and are really properly understood.
And so he starts off – it's in the middle of the book, page 62 in the kind of
standard version where he finally defines queer.
What in the world is he talking about? He already has this discussion about
how Foucault is talking about when he says the homosexual this,

(06:44):
the homosexual that. That, you know, it's not so much that one is homosexual,
but one becomes homosexual.
He says that it's absolutely unintelligible to assume that what Foucault is
talking about is a sexuality, whether innate or whatever.
It's absolutely clear that he must be talking about a politics related to sexuality.
And so he starts off this paragraph on page 62 with the three words that I think

(07:07):
are the most important for people to understand about what's going on.
Unlike gay identity. So he's going to define queer.
And the first thing he has to say about it is unlike gay identity.
So it's not the same as being gay.
He says, what does he explain? I mean, I can almost quote it from memory and
it's a bunch of academic gobbledygook. But what he says is that.

(07:27):
Homosexual identity or gay identity is rooted in what he calls the positive
fact of homosexual object choice, which means the key words of that are positive fact.
That means it's true. That means it's real. That means whatever caused it is
up to up for grabs, but it's real.

(07:48):
Right. So this is a factor of reality, being gay. Those are gay identities.
He says, unlike gay identities, queer doesn't necessarily refer to any positive
truth or any stable reality.
He says that it doesn't have any meaning in particular.
It doesn't – actually, he says it's an identity without an essence.
There is – and in his exact words, there is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers.

(08:12):
So it's not grounded in reality. It's not grounded in truth.
What is it grounded in instead? Instead, he says it's actually grounded in a
positionality vis-a-vis normalcy and legitimacy.
It is an oppositional position against the normal and the legitimate.
That's a political position. That's not an essential position.
That's not who you are. That's what you believe. It's a completely different

(08:35):
thing. It's a complete category difference.
And he says, in fact, that what qualifies somebody as queer is that it's a term
that doesn't apply, he says, to specific pathologies, to particular sexualities.
It is a term that applies to anyone who is or feels marginalized because of
their sexual practices.
And so it is a political stance rooted off of Michel Foucault's postmodern philosophy

(09:00):
of sexuality that is defiant against the idea of a normal pattern in society
or like anything that could be construed as legitimate.
So that's what queer really is. So we already pick up a few important pieces.
I've given a lot there, I know. But one of the important pieces is gay is a essential identity.

(09:20):
It is something to do with a person. It is who you are.
And queer is what you do. You can only act queer. There's no such thing as a queer identity.
That's a complete lie. So when they say LGBTQ identities, the Q stands for queer. Guess what?
That's false. Turns out that's not correct. There is no such thing as a queer
identity. This one is not like the others.

(09:43):
And so we pick that up. It's not the same as somebody who they are.
So when you hear all this stuff, that's not all abstract. What's practical?
When you hear people say that somebody's gender identity is who they really
are, no, it's not. It's their politics.
It's absolutely not who they really are. Or being able to show up at a parade
in kink wear is them expressing their whole selves who they really are.

(10:06):
No, no, no, no. It's a political act. It is not who you really are. That is a behavior.
And so this distinction is there baked right into the definition.
So we immediately see that there's some line drawn. on.
It's really unfortunate because we kind of need two T's. If it was LGBTQ.
We would split between the two T's.
Transsexual maybe doesn't quite fit with the rest of the alphabet soup there.

(10:32):
But transgender and queer are very specifically political identities.
And we can pick that up immediately from the definition. We hear that it came from Foucault.
We know that it's parallel to the radical feminist thought of Simone de Beauvoir,
which came through people like Gail Rubin, who picked up Foucault,
Judith Butler, who picked up Foucault.
So as a long, rich academic history, and I say rich kind of in the sense of

(10:55):
like there's a lot there, but there's like it's not it's not really deep.
Right. It's like this is, you know, like it's like a little mud puddle with
an oil slick on top that makes a rainbow.
It's really, really not that that that that deep of a field.
But it's an old field. There's a lot of people who have contributed to And has a lot of objectives.

(11:16):
Of course, that's an overwhelming introduction to queer theory.
And so I can leave it there and let you ask another difficult question.
Well, that's what I get for asking such a broad question, but you have masterfully
dissected it as usual, and I think have brought to light a lot of aspects of
the whole queer thing that people are not realizing.

(11:38):
And in summary, what I'm really taking away from what you've just said is that
the queer identity is really about the sexual deviancies or perversions,
these diversifications.
Of course, you know, we can go into it and someone can say, oh,
I'm demisexual, which just means I I need to have some sort of,

(12:00):
you know, connection with somebody before I can, you know, engage in sexual activity with them.
But it goes a lot further than that.
And it really points to what might be termed a deviant heart.
And this is what is writing on the coattails or the veil of the LGBTQIA plus movement.
Movement so what i want to know is if

(12:23):
we are going to maintain a
free and open society with free speech how
are we going to delineate between the people
who subscribe to that versus what's allowed in schools because as we know i
mean this is the specialty of your book people are trying to bring this into
schools as a legitimate sexuality that should not be suppressed oh yeah this

(12:47):
is a The press for this to go into schools is remarkable.
It's scope. It's fervency or fervor.
The drive to get this into schools is almost peculiar.
It's very difficult from a kind of normal person perspective to explain why

(13:10):
they are so adamant at putting this into schools.
And then when objections come up to working around objections,
one of the chapters in The Queering of the American Child details this policy
document out there that's called Navigating Parental Resistance.
It is specifically designed to talk about tricks and lies and manipulations

(13:30):
that the teachers can use or the facilitators can use to implement this stuff
and continue to implement it even when parents start to complain.
Now, one of the examples that we give in the book straight out of that paper
is that they say, well, we're going to have a lesson on literacy and we have
to assign all these different books for kids to read so they can practice reading.

(13:50):
And then when they obviously they're going to assign some book like Lawn Boy
or, you know, God knows which which gender queer or whatever.
One of these books that's on the now list of about 5000, you know,
books that are tailored to driving queer politics through sexuality onto children.

(14:11):
And the parents object. I don't want my kid reading this book.
And the teachers are being trained and the administrators are being trained
to reply with, well, this is a literacy lesson and we just had to pick something.
And if you don't like it, then we can pick another book or whatever.
But this was the book we assigned and it's the book most of the other kids are
doing. So now the parents go home thinking, well, it's just about learning to
read. It doesn't really matter what they read.

(14:33):
That's one example. Another example they give is that they give very biased statistics lessons.
Go look up statistics about murders of gay people or something.
And then you're supposed to formulate some kind of a statement based on this.
And then when the parents say, what the heck are you doing with my kids?
Why is this a fourth grade or third grade or whatever homework assignment that's not appropriate?

(14:57):
I don't want them doing this. They come back and say, well, we're just teaching
them statistical numeracy and the lessons about the math. Or another episode
was it had the kids write something about something about their sexuality.
And the objective was to take it home and have their parents help them with
the punctuation practice, how many commas, where the commas go,

(15:18):
where the periods go. So it's actually about grammar.
And so this is one of the ways. And the other things are just to hide it,
use different language. Don't say you're doing it. Say you're doing something
else. Call it inclusion or whatever else.
And so this is intensely the point of all that is that they are very intent on doing this.
And they are so intent on doing it that even when it's it receives backlash
or back pressure, they immediately come up with ways to get around that and continue doing it.

(15:43):
As we've all seen from the clips on the Internet and whatever,
you know, lips of TikTok has shared a lot. You guys have shared a lot.
That's obviously a major problem. A lot of people don't realize that this is
actually coming from not just the top, not just the United States Department
of Education and a lot of times state departments of education.
This is coming from the United Nations. Comprehensive sexuality education is the kind of,

(16:05):
subject set that this is all embedded within. And that was a project that was
developed in the United Nations in 2003.
So I had the privilege of going to London in a big international meeting last
fall. And I talked to people from all over the world.
And it turns out even in African countries and European countries,
less in European, more in African, believe it or not, this stuff is in the schools there, too.

(16:26):
It's not just America and Canada and Australia. It turns out that Kenya was
one of the examples. We talked to a Kenyan.
There are people who are worried who are from Poland, which is famously kind
of conservative and Catholic.
And now all of a sudden they have a left-wing government. The Green Party is
taking over education and they're positive this is all coming in.
And the common thread is United Nations.

(16:47):
UNESCO developed the project that's United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO developed the project of comprehensive sexuality education.
And almost all the gender and sexuality education stuff that the kids are subjected
to comes within the context of comprehensive sexuality education,
which has the abbreviation just coincidentally, of course, CSE,

(17:10):
which is also child sexual exploitation, CSE.
That's a coincidence. That's just a coincidence. I'm just saying there's a coincidence there.
So this thing is like really driven. So the question becomes,
how do you tell what should be in schools and what shouldn't?
And I think that the simplest rule of thumb is actually an FCC law.

(17:30):
These are all minors. Even 16-year-olds are minors. It doesn't matter when you
get into high school, right? Right.
And FCC law would be very simple. If the FCC would not allow it on the radio or on television,
then it cannot be allowed in a public school setting or even in a private school
setting unless there's specific opt in parental permission signed or whatever.

(17:53):
Right. So you can't slide any of this stuff in and then permission might be
for 16 and up or whatever.
So there are ways to work around this. Now, you see the obvious flaw in this.
If the FCC is captured, it could just start letting soft core porn go on TV,
I guess, or, you know, whatever language.
But at that point, you know, they're compounding their problems faster than

(18:14):
like if they're that desperate to do it, that they're going to change the FCC rules.
That's pretty amazing. Amazing. So that's one line that's actually very easy to draw.
It turns out that that was an idea that was cooked up by a country singer, John Rich.
The FCC rule was his idea. He proposed it to the state legislature of Tennessee.
They liked it, but it lost.
Didn't make it out of committee, I don't think, the first year.

(18:36):
Then Louisiana passed it, and Tennessee's revisiting it, and a bunch of other
states are revisiting it.
So that's one line. The other is that.
It should actually be that the school systems are accountable to parents a lot
more than they actually are.
If parents start complaining, they really shouldn't – like the parents are a
great barometer, right? Parents should be engaged.

(18:57):
We all know that that's been a problem. COVID pulled back a curtain for us,
and now they're more engaged.
But if parents are going to complain, the reaction – the policy reaction should
not be navigating parental resistance.
It should be, oh, no, we messed up, right? Right. And so that that sets a different
a different tone to deal with the problem as it comes up.

(19:17):
I don't think that it's profitable to go around and try to ban specific books
or to, you know, the single books are examples.
They've they proliferate faster than anybody can do anything with them, like thousands of them.
Now you manage you spend a year long campaign getting lawn boy or something
or genderqueer band. And it sells like crazy on Amazon all of a sudden.

(19:38):
And the next thing you know, they've written 50 more books in the in the year,
you know, one per week, roughly.
And you're not solving the problem that way. So ultimately, the parents are
the arbiters of their children and their children's raising.
And so the parent should have an enormous amount of say over what topics of

(19:59):
sex, sexuality and gender is not even real. So, like, that's its own issue that
are getting introduced to their children.
Yeah. And, you know, I think you were just on about one of my favorite subjects,
which is let's look at the top of this pyramid. This is a top down operation.
We've seen some of the content from the World Economic Forum where they're,

(20:22):
you know, pushing this sort of philosophy for their one world government.
And it makes you wonder, yes,
what is the future going to look like if we continue, but more of what is the
end goal or the agenda to this queering of the American child and the world child for that matter.

(20:43):
What is it that they really want to come about as a result of this clarification?
Well, there's kind of three purposes to this, as far as I can tell.
Like, now, let me just be clear. We're putting on our tinfoil hat a little bit here.
We're going to talk about what, you know, nefarious agendas people that say run UNESCO might have.

(21:04):
We can listen to all of their explanations for why they're doing it.
Oh, we don't want, you know, gay kids to fall through the cracks or whatever.
We don't want people to grow up feeling ostracized and bullied.
They have all their excuses.
But it seems to me that there are kind of three primary purposes.
One of these purposes is destabilization.
They need a destabilized population if they're going to do a revolution.

(21:28):
This is just that simple. Nothing I have ever encountered destabilizes society,
a community, or an individual quite like queer theory.
I'm reading the history of Mao's reign in China right now, and there's some
stuff there that rivals it.
But it's truly deranging. It's deranging for adults to encounter.
It's impossible to figure out what it's got to be like in the head of a six or seven year old.

(21:49):
So this idea that it destabilizes, which breaks apart families,
it messes up communities, it confuses people, I think is incredibly important
to their agenda, which if – to the degree that that's one of the goals,
these poor kids that are getting put through this are props for a revolution
who will not be useful after the revolution and will have to be reeducated or done away with.

(22:13):
That's the history that China tells us.
That's the history the Soviet Union tells us is that they would motivate particular
minority groups or whatever to be destabilizers of a county or a region or a
province or whatever, and then they would –.
Get their revolutionary agenda accomplished. In other words,
they would install in those places, Soviet and Mao communist governments over those places.

(22:37):
And once they had their governments, they took all the destabilizers and started
to call them bandits and said that they were too far left and started to just
and they were radicals that were destabilizing and they would then put them
down or send them off to work camps.
Usually the rate for that from what I'm reading about Mao was 1% would get killed,
1% would get put in prison for life, 1% would get sent to the countryside,

(22:58):
and 2% would get tenure sentences and thought reform prisons.
And so then that's 5% of the target population that has been terrorized,
I mean truly terrorized, and most of the rest either end up falling in line
or get picked off one after another for their resistance.
And so like if it's destabilization, that's not a good thing,

(23:21):
but that's what it would be for.
Stability repels revolutions. This is one of my kind of little mantras.
If you want to stop a revolution, you need stable. Well, if you want to have
a revolution, you need an unstable population.
You need an unstable population to be as big as possible. So that destabilization
is, I think, a key aspect of it.
Another aspect is a little bit more tricky because the point is to do psychological

(23:46):
damage to children, which doesn't – not just to destabilize them though.
In order to brainwash people, you have to first make them extraordinarily psychologically
and emotionally vulnerable.
So by traumatizing the kids, by presenting them with age-inappropriate materials –.
By flooding them with sexual content and, you know, gender bending content, which confuses them.

(24:10):
You look at the pictures of these videos of the kids seeing the drag queens.
There's always at least one kid who's horrified.
Looks like they're about to break down crying or something or they're just terrified or whatever.
The goal is to traumatize and the trauma. And that's it. By the way,
we quote that in in the Queering of the American Child.
I'm not making this up. I'm not speculating. There's a queer educator named

(24:31):
Kevin Kumashiro, and Kevin Kumashiro wrote a book – or a paper called Against
Repetition back in 2002,
and he said that the purpose of queer education is in fact to bring children
into an emotional crisis and then structure the environment around them so they
resolve the crisis productively.
So the idea of traumatizing people so that you can bring them into a new value

(24:52):
set is absolutely crucial.
And then the other is – I don't know what to give it as a label,
dismantle or whatever, but it's really to drive apart families and communities.
I said that as part of destabilization, but I'm thinking like social destabilization
and psychological destabilization as two different functions.
And this particular ideology is designed extremely well to break apart families in particular.

(25:19):
The way that that generally works is you introduce this to the children and
you know that the parents are going to have a bad reaction.
So you prime the children for the bad reaction and to misunderstand that reaction.
So they come home, they tell the parents, this is what we learned about,
you know, whatever sexual topic or whatever.
And the parents get angry and they've been primed to believe that the parents are angry at them.

(25:42):
Therefore, we have to keep it a secret. So what that means is you have this
term, this weird term of art that they use called trusted adult.
The trusted adults at the school are trusted and the parents are not to be trusted.
So you start to drive this wedge. You actually drive a schizophrenic wedge individually
into the children, split mind.

(26:03):
Schizophrenia means split mind. What do I mean? Well, they're one person at
school and they're another person at home.
That's a very, very clear dynamic. In fact, with the with the secret social
transitioning, they live at school as one person with different name,
different pronouns, different clothing sometimes that they change into.
And then they go home and the there are instructions in many cases for these

(26:25):
for the for the school officials to use their birth name and,
you know, proper sex pronouns when they talk to the parents,
but not when they do it at school. So that creates this.
Imagine that you're, again, seven or eight years old. You're forming your identity
and you have to live this double life.
And then part of that double life is that you're going home and you're acting.

(26:47):
You have how you are with all your friends and you're getting celebrated at
school. And then you go home with your parents and you have to live this lie
is how you're going to feel about it if you're one of the kids has taken this path.
So now you're living this lie, which builds resentment, it builds envy, it builds frustration.
It's a completely destructive ideology. And so I think that those are three primary purposes.

(27:10):
So I guess that's social and psychological destabilization. But then,
thirdly, the objective of actually introducing psychologically traumatic material
in order to facilitate the brainwashing process.
And I think that those are the real purposes of this. And like I said at the
first at the outset, I really don't think this ends well for any of the people involved,

(27:30):
even if we take off the table, the psychological and then for many of them later
physical damage that they put themselves through as a result of this treatment.
So I think that that's the main set of purposes, all of which are not good.
The sales pitch is, of course, LGBTQ empathy.
We have them in black and white, for example, in the famous,

(27:53):
now infamous, I made it infamous, Drag Queen Story Hour paper called Drag Pedagogy
by Lilmus Hotmas, who's at ASU.
Loomis Hotmas wrote in that paper that, of course, Drag Queen Story Hour uses
these tropes of empathy, but it also shares the criticisms of empathy,
that it can basically focus energy on the wrong things and it can create bad

(28:13):
allyship and all of this.
And so Loomis Hotmas, so he then says that the tropes of empathy are part of
the marketing strategy for Drag Queen Story Hour, but they're not part of what it really does.
It's real point is to introduce queer world making to children.
And then he later says queer world making has always been a project driven by desire.

(28:35):
And so it's like there's a lot of gross and creepy going on right there.
But the point being that we know that when they say it's about empathy and we
could talk about, you know, screening the medical screening procedure.
Like there's a lot of stuff to talk about.
But as it turns out, their claims about it being like, let's catch this small

(28:56):
number of kids who are different and make sure that they don't feel bad,
that that's just a total lie.
Like that doesn't make any sense in any domain whatsoever.
Yeah. So I think that's I don't think that there's any good purposes for it. Not at all.
Yeah, it's certainly not be getting any good results if they ever did claim

(29:19):
there was a good purpose.
I think one of the important things you were really hitting on was reminiscent
of order out of chaos and what we have on the back of the dollar bill.
You know, you create the chaos, the trauma, and then you can rearrange it in the way that you want.
And then when it comes to parents, this is like such a critical area that is

(29:41):
waking people up that you as a parent are being treated as an enemy.
And people don't realize that they are being, the children, are being taught
or trained to see their parents as enemies if they push back against us.
So it's going into the homes and parents are confronting their kids with these mental illnesses.

(30:04):
Yeah, the whole architecture is built to do that, by the way.
It's not just within so-called queer education or queer pedagogy.
The broader topic of critical pedagogy itself is designed that way.
One of the kind of leaders of the critical pedagogy movement,
his name was Henry Giroux.
He probably actually named the critical pedagogy movement.
He took the work – I'm not going to get into all the details of these theorists,

(30:25):
but he took the work of Paulo Freire, who wrote The Pedagogy of the Oppressed
and a number of other books, and he combined it with people like Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault,
Jacques Derrida, the so-called European theorists.
In other words, all these woke protest predecessors from Europe,
you know, in the 50s and 60s.
And so he combined all of those ideas into this idea of critical pedagogy and critical pedagogy.

(30:50):
Has exactly the same program. So one of the things that Giroux put forth is
called the democratic classroom.
And so you have to have democratic classrooms. Another way of phrasing a democratic
classroom is the student led classroom.
So at school, this is how insidious this is. This isn't even a specific technique. This is just insidious.
At school, the kids run the show.

(31:11):
They get to be the most important voices, the most important.
They get to determine what things are in a perfectly democratic or student led classroom.
And you see this all the the time. I learned so much more from my students than
they learned from me. Then, okay, then get out of teaching, dude. Like what?
But they are in this position where they are, they're the bees knees,
right? They're the leaders.

(31:32):
They are the, the front end of everything happening at school.
But then when they go home, their parents are the authority.
So at school, they are, they have their own authority under brand names like
autonomy and all of this crazy stuff.
And the teacher is merely a facilitator, but they get to be totally autonomous
and in fact lead the classroom and lead the discussions and all that.

(31:53):
And they go home and then they're just parent-child relationship and the authority
arrow points the other way.
This is drawn out on purpose in critical pedagogy to make it feel like when
there's an authority structure over you that it's illegitimate,
that a truly great learning or growing environment is one where your autonomy
as the child comes first.
So this, again, poisons the well of the experience of the child at home,

(32:19):
but it also poisons their psychology because children, as they go through the
developmental stages of growth,
have to have proper boundaries at each stage and they have to be allowed to
test those boundaries at each stage in order to develop properly and to grow.
This is all kind of well-known child psychology, and it's all out the window with queer theory.

(32:39):
In fact, it's not out the window. It's turned upside down on purpose.
And again, I suggest that the point is because there's this goal of making sure
that the children are as emotionally and psychologically isolated from their parents as possible,
which is a tremendous reservoir of – like imagine these kids growing up and
then getting in their 20s, and they get that spark of everything that went wrong

(33:02):
in your life is your mom's fault. Or your dad's fault or whatever.
And then they can. This is the kind of stuff that in China they called it.
They called these meetings speak bitterness meetings.
So you were supposed to show up and say all the bitterness that you have toward everybody.
And like this is like a kind of like pop therapy rage among 20-year-olds over

(33:23):
the last decade is to just rage about everything that their parents weren't
good enough about or whatever, right? This is speak bitterness.
It's just literal Maoist toxin that Mao kind of imported and refined from the Soviets.
It's a completely destructive approach. And you see this embedded,
like I said, inside of not just queer pedagogy specifically but more importantly

(33:43):
within its broader umbrella of critical pedagogy overall.
You know, that's, yeah, that is so toxic just to think, speak bitterness.
You know, it's when, at what point do we teach people to be self-sufficient,
handling their emotions and trading evil, you know, love for evil and,
you know, becoming, you know, instead of like really just fuming and raging

(34:06):
like you're talking about.
And I think that's really like the hard part behind what you were just talking
about, the democratic classroom.
And, you know, I've talked to you briefly about my feelings about us,
you know, being referred to as a democracy when we are a republic,
a constitutional republic.
And a lot of people are maybe aware, you know, we do have democratically elected

(34:29):
leaders or a representative democracy in that sense, some might say.
But what a democracy really is, is mob rule.
And so when you're creating the sort of environment you're describing,
you're creating basically an angry mob, a whole generation that's just angry mob.
And it's no wonder that we've got so many violent outtakes from,

(34:52):
you know, these activists, these proponents, these kids who feel like they're
in the right to rage against the machine.
Yeah. And what we see historically, whether it's again, Lenin,
Stalin or Mao, you pick your favorite one or any of the other communist dictators,
is that when they then they come out and rail about democracy.
And I remind people that, You know, it's the Democratic Republic of Korea, right?

(35:16):
So we're dealing with communists using the word democratic this way.
I've even got a little meme placard I post on social media, on Twitter all the
time, which is a summary of Lenin's views on democracy, which I took directly
from State and Revolution, which you wrote in 1917.
And there's this tendency within these totalitarian movements.

(35:39):
And we haven't really talked about how queer theory is a Marxist theory,
but I keep kind of alluding to it because it is.
Just think of private property being replaced with normalcy and legitimacy and
the entire operation just comes into play. You know, there are certain people
who have hoarded normalcy. They said, I'm normal. You're not normal.
So I get to have the goods of society and you don't. And then just create a

(36:00):
Marxist theory of that. And you basically got it.
You get queer theory. It just falls right out of the bottom.
But I keep referencing to these Marxist things because when we look at like
Lenin's views on democracy,
one of the views – one of the ideas that he had was that you don't have real democracy.
So it's mob rule, right? But the goal with the communists is that only the mob will rule, right?

(36:25):
So all moderating voices are called things like – in China, it was like imperialists
or imperialist running dogs.
That was in Soviet Union was imperialists also. they were called.
You know, bourgeois, they were called landlords or whatever,
even though a lot of them, there was no such thing in the peasants societies.

(36:46):
So these people were viciously scapegoated and turned, in fact, into non people.
People so Mao went so far as
to say that there were the people and then there were the enemies of the
people by 1957 he had very he took over
in 49 in 1957 he was very clear
the people who agreed with Mao Zedong thought as it was called were the people

(37:09):
and the people who disagreed with Mao Zedong thought were the enemies of the
people and they were disenfranchised they weren't allowed to vote they had their
property confiscated they didn't have any political rights they could be arrested
on suspicion of anything at any time.
And you had absolutely no protections.
He said citizenship is only for the people. But then who votes?

(37:31):
The people, only the people. But by definition, the people are the people who
support the thing anyway.
So when they start talking about things like democratic classrooms,
what that means is that they have the people who are going along with the ideology.
Let's say it's a queer democratic classroom. You have the kids who support queer
theory or queer ideas, or they're coming around to those ideas and they're allowed

(37:52):
to have speech and discussion and whatever else, and they get to run the show.
But the kids who have what they would call reactionary views who are against
it, well, they're not really part of the program yet. They're not really part of the people.
And when, if, if these, I mean, we all see this from the, from the queer activists,
the trans activists in particular, that if they could make it so that they are the only people Right.

(38:20):
Right.
They would happily disenfranchise every single person or in prison,
every single person who doesn't agree with them.
And it's on the basis that they actually don't believe that those people are people.
They say that they're dehumanized by their transphobia or dehumanized by their homophobia.

(38:42):
And they have lost what it means to be essentially human, which for Marx was
that you're perfectly social, which means that you support whatever it is that
your society wants or needs from you.
And so, in other words, socialist. And so it's very important that when we hear
that they are using these terms like democratic, what that means isn't just mob rule.

(39:02):
It is, in fact, the rule by a minority mob that can be whipped up while everyone
else is too afraid to engage or is silenced or disenfranchised.
With Mao, what he did in particular was he went around and made it so scary for people.
They'd get killed for being accused of being on the wrong side of things.

(39:23):
So you would see, you know, the farmer in your village would be getting bullied
and harangued and you would know he's a good man or the landlord of a particular
set of fields would be getting tied up in stocks and beaten on a stage in front
of people and humiliated for hours on end. And eventually he's going to get murdered.
And you would know that he was an honest and thrifty man.

(39:44):
And you wouldn't dare speak up that it was unjust because you'd be accused of
supporting the bad guy, which means that you must be in league with the bad guy.
So what you ended up with was massive self-censorship, massive self-silencing,
and not just the usual – like if you were in the wrong class,
you weren't allowed to vote in local elections or whatever other things.

(40:04):
There was also this massive self-censorship that came with it because they would
attack anybody who supported somebody who –.
Supported anybody who supported somebody who had been accused so
this level of terror kept a population
unwilling to fight back whatsoever and you
know that's the kind of like this is what it's been we're finally breaking that

(40:27):
spell but this is what it's been for several years maybe almost 10 years now
here in the west that the second you get called transphobic or homophobic or
racist or whatever else that all of a sudden you know everything has to stop
and the person The person who accused you of that is just automatically right,
and your opinion is discarded.
And that's a soft version of creating a minority mob rule.

(40:50):
The mob – the only mob that counts is the mob that supports the agenda or the politics.
In this case, queer theory, but it could be Maoist, communism,
whatever. Everybody else is not.
That's their idea of democracy is that only the enlightened people who have
woke up are the ones who are actually people who understand what it means to

(41:11):
be a person and therefore are the only ones who get to act and behave like people.
And the only ones who have what we might call human rights.
You know, you're telling that story of, you know, just how a local member of
the community might be ostracized or, you know, flogged and punished in that way.
I had this flashback to Jesus, you know, at the time of the cross and the apostles

(41:35):
all of a sudden seeing, ooh, don't want to get involved with that.
Don't want to speak up to that because this is not looking good.
So I know it's a flashback from a very past life.
Cultural Marxism, you know, this film that you're featured in,
that Gays Against Groomers had a presence in also,
BeneathSheep'sClothing.movie, encourage everybody to go pre-order,

(41:57):
watch the trailers, BeneathSheep'sClothing.movie, focuses on how Marxism moved
into the USSR and then it...
Corresponds that or compares that with what's happening in america
today so and you've gone on
extensively about this i know in your new discourses and
other places you've talked a lot about that and this

(42:19):
is happening not just on a local or like national level but this is happening
on a global level what would you say is the main characteristic of a society
that's that's run that This being just maybe one of the cornerstones of destabilization.

(43:03):
What's happening, whether it's, you know, them taking over schools,
whether it's the media propaganda, which is almost univocal.
Luckily, we do have some actual conservative media that's still available and
doesn't really need to be conservative.
To be honest, we just need media that's not on the party line.
But the entire corporate press or virtually the entire corporate press is on
the party lines is very, very bad signature of a totalitarian circumstance.

(43:29):
As for cultural Marxism, I think that it's worth kind of talking about that.
That's a fraught term, by the way.
Of course, they try to make it so that anybody who I'm accused of Southern Poverty
Law Center says that I traffic in the conspiracy theory called cultural Marxism,
which is allegedly anti-Semitic.
And so, of course, I'm not talking about this conspiracy theory,
which is actually on the rise right now.

(43:50):
I'm actually talking about which is that the Jews orchestrated all this to take down the West.
I am talking, in fact, about a current thought That started with people like
Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs.
Who are, I guess, better described rather than using the popular term cultural
Marxist, using the term Western Marxist.
And so their goal was to figure out how to bring Marxism to the West because

(44:12):
it was taking off in peasant societies in the East, particularly in the 1920s.
It was taking off in Russia, which had become the USSR.
But it wasn't taking – and some of the satellites around that area were getting
kind of brought into it. But it was not taking off in Western Europe or the
United States or Australia and – or Japan for that matter.

(44:35):
And they were very curious as to why that would be the case.
Why on earth is there so much resistance in Western societies.
Particularly to communism and to Marxism?
And so they were trying to solve that problem, and this current of thought,
which was born again in the 1910s going into the 1920s, this current of thought
was labeled cultural Marxism,

(44:58):
and this was a fraught but accepted term for it.
But what it realized was what it's based off of is that Western society is actually too successful.
The capitalism actually works to give people good lives.
The workers are unlikely to rally even if they are exploited and working in
bad conditions and whatever.

(45:19):
They're unlikely to try to overthrow the apple cart thinking that it might be
better when in fact it might – they actually have it OK.
So it might actually get worse. There's also strong cultural values of hard
work and being able to climb the ladder and apply your talents that permeate Western civilization.
And there's religious values like being made in the image of God and being a

(45:41):
uniquely dignified individual and all of these things that all hold communist thought at bay.
So, Antonio Gramsci, and I quote this in Beneath Sheep's Clothing,
which, by the way, I'm hearing that it's being, you know, screened here and
there and private internet screenings, and I'm hearing so much incredibly good
energy about this film, like.

(46:02):
It's looking like it's really going to be a big deal and getting very excited
about it. And you, of course, are great in it.
You can we can admit that you're also starring in the film and look great in
your capacity. You got your pin on.
Everything's good. But at any rate, that's a digression.
I quote Antonio Gramsci and he says and I actually misquoted him in the film

(46:26):
so everybody can laugh at me forever. But he said that socialism is precisely
the religion that must overwhelm Christianity.
And I quoted it, overcome Christianity, but it's not. It's overwhelm Christianity.
And so the goal was to figure out how to get inside of the cultural institutions
of the Western civilization, Western society, and start to pervert them from within.

(46:48):
And Gramsci named five particular areas that needed to be infiltrated and subverted.
He said the family, religion, education, media, and law with a particular emphasis on education.
We have to go into the schools. We have to go into educational facilities.
We have to take over the media and get them to start giving a subverted message.
We have to get inside the churches and give a subverted message of Christianity

(47:11):
and so on so that the population over the course maybe of a generation or a
century will become soft and open to socialism where they've been closed to
socialism up to this point.
In other words, get them to lose the idea that they are a unique individual
with a kind of sacred individual dignity that can't be transgressed by the collective

(47:34):
and that they are – whether they believe religiously or not that their children
of God is – or in the image of God is another matter.
And that – get them to believe that this society is not actually working for them.
Cultural Marxism took – or Western Marxism took a turn through what's called
the Frankfurt School, which was really named the Institute for Social Research.

(47:54):
It was in Frankfurt, Germany, and it was composed of a bunch of Marxists trying
to figure out the same question.
How do we penetrate Western European societies? And then the Nazis took over in 1933.
So they all took off out of Germany as fast as possible and ended up in no time
in the United States, fostered by major universities that are in the hot seat

(48:16):
now, like Columbia and UCLA,
UCSD, Brandeis, probably some of the other kind of Ivy level ones.
But those are in particular the ones that NYU, to a degree, Columbia in particular, brought them in.
That was on significant amounts of money from what looks like the Rockefellers.
It was apparently in a very intentional maneuver to bring these guys over to the US.

(48:40):
And they formulated this idea, Max Horkheimer, the creator of the critical theory
as it's called, they formulated this idea that –,
You can't actually understand what an ideal society would look like because
we're stuck in the terms of the existing society.
Herbert Marcuse, another member of this school of thought, called it being one-dimensional.

(49:01):
He said that basically you go work in order to make money, in order to buy stuff,
in order to go work to go make money to be able to buy stuff.
And you live this one-dimensional existence where you're like,
I see the point of what I'm doing. I go work and I make money and then I get
to have like my good weekend and you have – you completely flatten out your analysis.

(49:22):
You can't possibly see another dimension of reality or another dimension of
being because you're satisfied with this kind of one-dimensional work,
get advertised to, buy the stuff on the advertisements, work,
get advertised to, blah, blah, blah cycle.
And so they cooked up this idea that the working class was not going to be what overthrows the West.

(49:44):
It's going to be somewhere else. And the energy that Marcuse identified.
Basically, this is just straight like we can a lot of people want to give Marcuse
all this credit for being this evil genius. And I guess he really was.
But all communists do is steal shit. They don't innovate.
They just steal shit from other people. Right. Somebody else innovated this stuff.
So it's just repackaged Soviet and Maoist nonsense. Now, Marcuse famously said

(50:10):
in an interview in the 60s that every – he said certainly every Marxist who
isn't kind of like the old school is a Maoist today, right?
So he was definitely bought into the Maoist concept, but this is just repackaged
socialism from the Soviets and from Mao.
Mao, he looked at what they did and what was successful if you – I mean they

(50:33):
used the working class in those two contexts and the peasant class.
But if you can't get those people to work, it's you get the students all worked
up. You can definitely brainwash students.
Mao was dedicated from his very first takeover of China in – by 1950.
He was already completely –.
Re remolding is the word ideologically remolding the entire intellectual class,

(50:58):
the teachers, the scholars, the writers, the everybody who has basically a job
with a pen and pencil is an intellectual.
And he completely overhauled that entire.
That entire class of people immediately. And you get why?
Because you can get a bunch of idealistic young people worked up for the revolutionary cause.
So the Soviets knew that, too. And both of them understood the uses of identity

(51:21):
politics. The Soviets had diversity programs.
It's written in Russian, so we don't recognize the word, but they called them diversity programs.
And the idea was to work up, and Mao did this too, was to work up the ethnic
minorities to become wedge agents in the regions that they were in under a doctrine
that the Russians, the Soviets called actual equality,

(51:41):
which if you were to translate that into the modern English would be equity, social equity.
Actual equality is what follows economic equality, and it was an equity program
under the terms that we use today.
So diversity, equity, inclusion, you have to include the party members.
You have to have a cadre present to everything that you do. All of these programs

(52:02):
were what Herbert Marcuse was studying. And what he said was,
well, yeah, we can't use the working class.
So let's radicalize the students and let's radicalize all the minorities and
try to turn them into a single coalition, which is going to be a challenge.
But then he realized that the solution, because the reason is because the preppy

(52:22):
white kids in college are not going to hang out with the ghettos and the gays, basically.
Right. And so the goal was to create a cultural environment where.
Kind of idol worshipping the ghettos and
the gays was what the college students would do while they all studied things
like feminist theory and African-American studies and later critical race theory

(52:43):
and ethnic studies and all of these kinds of airy fairy Marxist theories of
how society works in terms of identity politics.
Meanwhile, you just go straight for direct action.
You go into the black nationalist group and you work them right up and you get
them ready to overthrow society.
Marcuse says explicitly that the benefit is that the ghetto population,

(53:05):
the African-American ghetto population happens to be located right near downtown
financial centers that they can then destroy. And it's like, what?
And of course, this wasn't a hard sell. The black nationalists,
you can read their writings from the 50s and 60s. They were unabashedly.
They're like, yeah, we get our ideas from Mao Zedong.
And so it's unabashedly the same. They have this like, you know,

(53:27):
common traveler kind of energy, kind of like what we see today with,
you know, queers for Palestine, queers and apparently Islamists have apparently some common cause now.
Now, who knew which is destroying the United States as the common cause?
And so it wasn't that hard to get philosophically, get these people kind of
on board. And it was that you got the academic side to go rampant.

(53:48):
Marcuse indicated that it was time in the 70s to go fully into all the professions,
the full long march to the institutions.
And to get these people to basically idol worship the token classes like black
and gay and so on under a brand name of inclusion.
And that's the hallmark of an actualized cultural Marxist society and look around.

(54:11):
That's literally exactly that was the plan. That was the history.
That was the origins. That's how it worked out. And that's exactly what we see today.
Yeah, it, it really is. And, you know, we've, we've got about five,
six minutes left and I want to just touch on something.
We do have Lisa Logan coming on here in a little while.
And, you know, she specializes in social, emotional learning,

(54:33):
the subversion of speech and, and what, could you speak a little bit to that
and how that plays into this transition of our society?
Yeah. Well, first before – I mean I only have a few minutes.
I don't want to go off on a long tangent. So I'm just going to mention this.
And Lisa will talk a lot more about this for sure.
The primary purpose of social emotional learning has nothing to do with social emotional learning.

(54:56):
It is a data mining operation on your children. The primary purpose is to gather data.
What's the parallel to the communists? Well, what did the communists do,
say, in China when they first showed up in a village or a county or whatever
that they wanted to conquer?
The first thing that they did was they did detailed interviews with everybody,
basically at gunpoint, to find out all their biographical information,

(55:18):
to find out who knew who and who owed who what and all of this stuff,
which they then turned everybody against each other using all that information.
So it was a data mining operation at the beginning, and then they apply the
data – the mined data to tear apart that community and the individuals within
it psychologically and socially.
Social-emotional learning starts the same way, and the grift of social-emotional

(55:41):
learning is they mine all this data, lots of surveys, lots of monitoring,
lots of filling out emotional responses.
How did math class make you feel today? Pick whichever emoji.
And then they pass that through an analytic lens of inclusion and equity and
things that are also, you know, like mental health, which are in their wheelhouse of power.

(56:03):
And so they then say, oh, my God, look how many depressed kids we have.
We need even more social emotional learning.
Oh, my God, look how many kids who are struggling with math makes them have negative emotions.
We need more social emotional learning to help them deal with it.
So there's this grift wheel to keep using its own disaster to create more implementation happening.
But what social emotional learning is in practice also after the data mining is the brainwashing.

(56:27):
So they're gathering the data that facilitate the brainwashing also. And I say that because.
I already told you how it works when we talked about critical pedagogy.
They deliberately bring people into emotional crisis and cognitive dissonance.
This is in their literature that justice education does this.
You teach kids who don't think they're racist that they actually are racist.
They have an emotional crisis.

(56:48):
You teach kids that think that they have, you know, good values that they actually
secretly hate gay people and always have or that they might be born in the wrong
body and they have an emotional crisis.
The goal of social emotional learning, the emotional part, is to induce the
emotional crisis so they can then reconstruct what's left in the direction they
want it to go as an activist.

(57:10):
Oh, my God, you feel so bad. There's all these terrible things that happen to
your gay friends. And isn't that so unfair?
So guess what? We're going to break you down, make you feel like you're part
of that problem. But there's a solution.
Come to the Gay Straight Alliance Club or the Gender Sexuality Alliance Club after school.
Cool. And let's talk about these issues in a deeper level where all of a sudden
they can start introducing, you know, some of the very strong grooming factors

(57:32):
that are the reason for the namesake of your organization.
And social emotional learning is deliberately tailored in their own words from
not just from the local and national levels,
but at the UNESCO level to induce cognitive dissonance and then provide strategies for resolving.
In other words, to lead children into vulnerability in order to change their

(57:55):
values, which is as perfect a definition of grooming as one could possibly give.
Yeah, that was fabulous. I know I just gave you like a spring loaded can of
worms there at the very last minute. But again, you handled that expertly.
Would you for the audience direct them to your social media,

(58:16):
to your new discourses, your book where they can? Yeah, sure.
Yeah, we made it easy with the book. The book is called The Queering of the American Child.
The website where you can go pick your favorite retailer is called QueeringBook.com.
So QueeringBook.com is the book.
It's also at the top of NewDiscourses.com. That's my website.

(58:38):
Lots more information, tons of podcasts, lots of articles. And then my social
media is at Conceptual James,
where I am a bit of a troublemaker on all platforms except Facebook,
which permanently removed me for a joke about Canada's suicide program. Of course.
So I want to thank you for joining us. Hopefully you'll come back.

(59:01):
You know, you've got tons and tons of hours of content on the subject.
So we literally know you can speak indefinitely about it, which is amazing. Amazing.
And I want to encourage our listeners, if you want to know more about Gays Against
Groomers or this podcast, go to gaysagainstgroomers.com forward slash podcast.
Find us on Twitter. We also have a new book coming out, which you wrote an amazing

(59:24):
review for, The Gender Trap.
So that will be out here very shortly.
And if you want to suggest any guests or you have any questions or comments,
you can email podcast at gaysagainstgroomers.com. Um, thank you for joining
us audience. Thank you for joining us, James.
And I look forward to doing this again. Yeah, for sure.