QUEER THEORY IS A THING

Yesterday I watched the long interview by Dr Jordan Peterson of the inspiring young women and North Korean defector Yeonmi Park.

That interview was entitled "Tyranny, Slavery, and Columbia University".

The flight of ideas expressed here is triggered by the Columbia University bit of that interview, towards the end.

So here goes . . . .

QUEER THEORY is designed to disarm and confuse all of us who have no problem with what is considered NORMAL and NATURAL in family life, social relations, and sexual behaviour.

Normativity - referred to below - is based on the Christian ethos together with post-Enlightenment thinking.

Ethos is not necessarily religion. The dictionary describes it as "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations".

This normative thinking results in liberal democracy, based on individual rights & responsibilities (as opposed to Marxist group-think based on identity politics).

The dictionary describes normativity as "the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible".

This normative thinking is based on the model of reality dreamed up by the scholastic philosophers of old, like Thomas Aquinas and going back to Augustine and further to Aristotle. This thinking is developed further by the great Western philosophers, theologians & scientists of the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th centuries until the rise of what is now called postmodernism. 

So what more could we say about NORMATIVE THINKING?

1) It perceives that man-made laws are one thing, but that there are higher-order laws determined by nature & science. We can call this natural law.

2) For those who believe in a first cause of the universe, conceptualised as God, there exists an even higher law, called divine law. For Christians for example, divine law might be represented by the Ten Commandments

2) Normative thinking is mostly predicated on deism as opposed to atheism.  Where there is atheism, there is no meaning & purpose in evolution & nature.  Everything is queer.  

3) It resulted in great 18th venture liberating documents such as The Rights of Man by Tom Paine and the 1776 AD Constitution of the United States of America. 

4) Normativity  provides normal heterosexual humans with a sense of a natural order in which we can function in our lives & raise our children with meaning, purpose and direction.  On the other hand, Queer Theory aims to de-normalize heterosexuality and in fact de-normalize everything that can be categorized.  It is truly the work of the Devil in the minds of Christians.   In Christian mythology & eschatology Lucifer is perceived both as very attractive angel and the Father of Lies.  In this sense, postmodern Queer Theory is Lucifarian and an evil force in the world. 

Who then has a problem with what we might call this normative thinking?

Answer: it is the LGBT academic ideologues and their allies, who want to pro-actively smash normative thinking, by eating at its roots.

What are these roots of normative thinking? They are described by the branch of philosophy called epistemology.

The dictionary definition of epistemology is "the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion".

Normative thinking based on post-Enlightenment (as opposed to postmodern) epistemology might be compared to a well kept lawn in the analogy we want to make here. 

The turf is healthy, green, pleasing to our senses, yet must be maintained in order for it to be kept in good condition.

Queer Theory can be compared metaphorically to a grass grub.

Eggs of the grass grub are laid in the soil normally hatching after about 2 weeks. The small larvae then feed on the roots of the grass.

Infested turf and pasture turns yellow and dies off, leaving a dead mat of turf.

The epistemological grass grub called Queer Theory is incredibly sophisticated. It arises from very learned and highly educated postmodern neoMarxist philosophers & sociologists who just happen to have homosexual or bisexual  brains.  

To understand this hypothesis, you just need to read the story of Michel Foucault, a leading historical figure and a highly influential philosopher, sociologist and writer, whose ideas have been developed further by LGBT academics into what is now called Queer Theory (a sub-category of general Critical Theory).

A popular book about Critical Theory - that keeps referring back to Foucault when analysing the history of Critical Theory since the early 1960s - has been written by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay.

The book's title is *Cynical Theory*. To this writer, that title was not at all cynical (see link in one of the comments below to a story published on this platform about that book).

By all accounts Foucault had a very disordered brain, psychosexually.

He was into sadomasochistic and promiscuous homosexual relationships. He was a notorious paedophile or pederast, paying money to young Arab boys in Tunisia so he could rape then in graveyards (see story from the UK Spectator in another comment).

Foucault was a vocal proponent of adult-child underage sex and of paedophilia, that he considered a form of liberation for both participants, the child and the adult. He argued that young children could give sexual consent.

Queer Theory is designed by the LGBT founders as an ideological and intellectual weapon to eat away the roots of the proverbial tree that symbolises the knowledge of good and evil. This perception - of a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" - comes from the deeply embedded code in the Bible, namely the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2–3.

To avoid becoming a victim of. and having your heterosexual brain scrambled and disempowered by this highly sophisticated social engineering ideology of Queer Theory, it pays to become cognizant of the intellectual roots in post-modern neo-Marxist academia.

So to conclude, this takes me back to that Jordan Peterson interview mentioned above, wherein the North Korean defector explained that she was wasting her time studying in a humanities course at Columbia University. This was due to the modern university's control by academic neo-Marxists and atheists.

She said that rather than allow her to express her own thinking and views, based on her experience and mind, the lecturers in the field of humanities only wanted to mould and shape her political and philosophical views.

She said it undermined all her notions of freedom within Western society, including intellectual freedom, something she yearned for, and something that is unknown and non-existent in her homeland of North Korea.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-queer-theory/