Most people know it stands for "queer." But you might not know just how radical the term really is.
To understand the modern "LGBTQ" movement, we have to understand "queer theory"—a revolutionary movement born in the 1990s. (1/11)
"Queer," of course, was originally used as a pejorative for gays and lesbians. It was "reclaimed" as a positive identity in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the creation of radical groups like Queer Nation.
But its meaning remains somewhat ambiguous to this day. (2/11)
The institutionalization of the term is generally traced back to the militant LGBT group Queer Nation, founded in New York in 1990.
Queer Nation's manifesto called for "a moratorium on straight marriage, on babies, on public displays of affection among the opposite sex." (3/11)
"Straight people will not do this voluntarily and so they must be forced into it," the Queer Nation manifesto wrote of LGBT rights. "Straights must be frightened into it. Terrorized into it. Fear is the most powerful motivator...Straight people are your enemy." (4/11)
All this coincided with the rise of "queer theory," a radical conceptualization of LGBT identity that placed itself at odds with the more mainstream, "assimilationist" wing of the LGBT movement.
Queer theory sought to subvert mainstream culture rather than join it. (5/11)
Drawing on postmodern and poststructuralist thinkers like Michel Foucault, queer theorists posited that sexuality and gender itself were "social constructs," and attacked what they called "heteronormativity"—i.e., the acceptance of heterosexuality as a social "norm." (6/11)
To take one example: More "conservative" LGBT activists argued for "assimilating" into mainstream society through causes such as gay marriage. But queer theorists argued for abolishing the institution of marriage altogether—the entire mainstream culture needed to go. (7/11)
They made the same case against gay adoption, gay military service, and various other tenets of the mainstream "gay rights" movement.
Instead, the transgender theorist Mattilda Sycamore wrote, they should push for "new ways of loving [and] lusting for...one another." (8/11)
These ideas may have seemed fringe at the time—even now, they might seem distant from all the neutered, corporate "Gay Pride" rhetoric.
But by the end of the 1990s, they had already entered the mainstream, with shows like Queer as Folk.
As one history of the term notes: (9/11)
There is a reason that the "Q" was added to the "LGBTQ" acronym—it is a very explicit, and unambiguous, affirmation of the radicalism of queer theory. When activists use the term "queer" today, that set of beliefs and political objectives are what they're referencing. (10/11)
"Queer theory and politics necessarily celebrate transgression," wrote the queer theorist Jay Stewart.
We should take them at their word: The modern LGBTQ movement isn't about assimilation. It is about subversion—dismantling mainstream norms in favor of radical ones. (11/11)
Like this thread? Great! We're a new account on here. We'll be doing many more threads and videos like this in the coming months.
Our philosophy is simple: America first. America forever. 🇺🇸
If you like our content, give us a follow: @America_2100
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's a familiar dance: The Left abuses its power, and the Right responds by feebly warning that someday, when the roles are reversed, their opponents will come to regret it.
But they rarely do — because Republicans almost never follow through.
A quick thread. 🧵 (1/10)
For more than a year now, conservatives have been angrily predicting that this time, the Left had really gone too far.
When the Left first launched its lawfare campaign against Trump last year, that was the Right's response: "This is going to come back to bite them." (2/10)
But recent history suggests that the Left has no reason to take the Right’s threats seriously — at least thus far.
"Precedents" always seem to bind the Right. They rarely, if ever, bind the Left.
This, from @willchamberlain, is exactly right: (3/10)
"We're going to have to do something dramatic to remove people from this country that are here illegally."
This is now the mainstream position among voters.
For months, the Left has tried to cast the GOP's position on immigration as "extreme."
But it hasn't worked. 🧵 (1/7)
The Left's response to these comments from @marcorubio yesterday was predictably hysterical.
But on this issue, Rubio — and Donald Trump — are far closer to the center of gravity in American public opinion than progressives.
Voters have moved right on immigration. (2/7)
The number of Americans who rank immigration among their top issues has surged over the past six months.
And U.S. public opinion is more hawkish on this issue than it has been in years. Support for Trump's border wall is higher than it has ever been before. (3/7)
NFL star Harrison Butker is being attacked by the Left for telling the truth about feminism in this speech.
Harrison is a devout Catholic, a patriot, and a loving husband and father.
Let's show our support. 🇺🇸
(Thread…🧵)
Butker, the star kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, hasn't shied away from his conservative beliefs. This week, his commencement speech at Benedictine College, he criticized gender ideology, feminism, abortion, and COVID tyranny.
The Left reacted exactly as you'd expect.
Butker has helped the Chiefs win three Super Bowls — and is ranked among the best kickers in NFL history.
He's also a devout pro-life Catholic who regularly attends Latin Mass with his family.
He spoke candidly about his faith in this 2019 @EWTN segment:
Every civilization has a "mythology": We observe holidays and traditions; celebrate great heroes and deeds; and commemorate symbols and stories. It's what shapes our understanding of ourselves.
The Left wants to delegitimize that mythology—and replace it with their own. (2/9)
Today's attempt to deface the Magna Carta — the founding document of the Anglo-American political tradition — is the last in a long line of museum attacks.
Over the past two years, left-wing activists have targeted paintings from Monet, Van Gogh, and even the Mona Lisa. (3/9)
In the 1940s, the political theorist James Burnham described a "managerial revolution" in advanced developed societies: Old, entrepreneurial capitalist economies were being replaced by a new system of technocrats who coordinated and "managed" the process of production. (2/11)
This was neither socialism (in which "the masses" collectively own the means of production) nor capitalism (in which the capitalists own them).
It was a bureaucratic in-between, led by a new ruling class of "managerial elites" in both big government and big business. (3/11)