By Cake Boy
I watched this video, and I react to it.
I noticed this Queer stuff coming into leftism during 2010s. That’s when everyone became ‘Queer’ although nobody could really define what ‘Queer’ meant. It meant ‘not cis’. But nobody knew what ‘cis’ is. People called me ‘cis’, assuming that I’m okay with this classification.
Lindsay is reading the manifesto of this Queer activist. The Queer activist acts as if there is something like ‘the straight culture’ and she fights against this culture. She acts as if ‘the straight people’ are all the same. This is what identity politics does. It paints a monolithic picture of people. All men, all woman, all blacks, all whites. There is no place for the subjective.
When we look at this stuff in a more realistic manner, questions emerge. What is a straight person? What does that even mean? I would say someone who is attracted to the other sex. But again, then you’re only saying one thing. The other sex? So, a straight man loves woman? Okay, but what kind of woman? And in what kind of manner? In what kind of context? And why? And what even is love? What kind of love? Where does love begin, and where does it end?
It seems that a lot of men who see themselves as straight sometimes actually sleep with men. I would call them bisexual. But they don’t see themselves that way. So, even the word ‘straight’ is not absolute. It seems that a lot of gay prostitutes are visited by supposedly straight men. Then what is the meaning of the word straight, if it could just as well mean bisexual? It seems that it often means something like a bisexual in the closet. A friend of mine was all about conservative values, and men being manly. But in his view its not gay if two men sometimes sleep together, as ‘an act of friendship’. So, it seems that , there are a lot of men who wrestle with their homosexual desires, especially in this whole manosphere, conservative, gymbro movement.
What I want to say is that desire is subjective. Its the most personal thing about someone. You can create language boxes, but you never really get the whole picture. Straight is just a word, and Queer is just a word. If you want to understand a person, you should ask more questions about him/her. But he/she will probably not give you the answers, because these issues are personal and vulnerable, and complex.
It is said that straight people are privileged. This is the picture the Queer activist from the video paints. Straights are happy, Queers suffer. But is this the case? Straight people also suffer, they can be insecure, confused, unloved this/that. You don’t know everything about a person. A person can look happy on the outside, but you don’t know his/her struggles. He/she won’t tell you everything.
This whole Queer movement acts as if their Queer stuff has anything to do with anarchism, or other kinds of leftism. This is not the case. Leftist theory is not about your personal desires. It doesn’t matter if Proudhon was gay, or if Lenin was straight, or if Bernie Sanders is bisexual. It also doesn’t matter if Noam Chomsky loves country music, or if Keith likes the color green or not. By connecting anarchism to Queer culture, they caused a lot of confusion among the public.
Queer anarchism doesn’t exist, just as straight anarchism doesn’t exist.
There was a silly book named “Queering Anarchism” about making anarchism gay and suggesting anarchist men should sleep with other men. Because that will help the cause further? That will undermine the bankers? If only Durutti was gay, than Spanish anarchism would have succeed?
In this book they say that queer anarchism ‘fights against straightness’. This is the most ridiculous thing. I mean, you can’t fight against people being straight. There will always be men who like women, and women who like men. How do these ‘queer anarchists’ want to fight this? Create an antifa police force? The anti straightness taskforce? Anti straight police?
What are you anarchists doing? Fighting the state? Fighting the bankers? Taking the land? No, we fight against straight people. We want to end straightness….
A political movement has to be safe for men, women, blacks, whites, gays, and straights, if it wants to succeed in any way. Hate groups undermine this process.
I don’t always agree with James Lindsay. I think his views on economics are a bit naive. I’m in a way a bit more leftist, you could say. I’m also less conservative, you could say.
But it’s a very good thing, that Lindsay is telling his right-wing followers to not take revenge on the left for this attack on Charlie Kirk.
In the same way, I tell my leftist readers to not use violence against the conservatives/right-wingers. Because what could happen? Antifas and Proud Boys fight each other to he death, while the bankers, and landlords get away with everything
Its all divide and conquer. You let this happen. People are being brainwashed.
Classical Marxists often understand these things better. They understand its about money, power, class, geopolitical interests. They understand its a cynical world out there. They understand the real political battles are hard to win. They understand you can’t ‘end straightness.’
I don’t know anything about conspiracies, but sometimes i have the feeling that these cultural wars/luxury beliefs are installed by design. To derail everything, to make sure we never talk about the real issues. Its a process of psychological warfare.
The moment Occupy Wall Street happened, and the people where really formulating critiques on the money system, the bankers, capitalism. Then this whole identity stuff happened. Then out of the blue people started to hate each other for being gay, or straight, or white, or black. A surprise?
