Dr. James Lindsay exposes Marxist-inspired "queering" of children—a rejection of biological and scientific norms—rooted in David Halperin’s 1995 Saint Foucault, where "queer" means ideological rebellion over truth, like Soviet Lysenkoism. He cites Quebec’s Radio Canada pushing puberty blockers for underage teens without parental consent and activists framing all children as inherently queer, weaponizing them to destabilize families and faith groups via tactics like "#FreeMomHugs." Lindsay warns this Gnostic cult risks eroding societal trust in institutions, prioritizing subjective identity over proven science, and echoes historical patterns of deception and coercion. [Automatically generated summary]
This is an interview you're not going to want to miss.
One of the smartest guys I know.
Seriously, last time I talked to him, I had to Google a word he used, and that took me about an hour to understand it.
Oh, boy, he's smart and he sees things, and he gives a vocabulary to us to help us explain what's going on.
I find him so helpful to understand the world.
His name is Dr. James Lindsay.
His new book is called The Queering of the American Child.
And by the way, it has very little to do with sexuality.
Queering can apply to anything, queer math, queer history, queer science.
I'll tell you all about it.
We'll be talking to him for almost an hour.
Let me invite you to get the video version.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
Not only do you get the daily video from the show, but you get the satisfaction of knowing that you're keeping Rebel News strong.
Because as you know, we don't take a dime from Trudeau, and it shows.
All right, here's today's broadcast.
Tonight, a terrifying new book about politics and your kids.
It's called The Queering of the American Child.
It's March 12th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I know you think I'm joking, but there's an idea out there of teaching queer math.
I'm not...
I'm not joking.
I thought it was a joke myself.
How can math be queer?
Doesn't queer mean gay?
I mean, isn't 2 plus 2 4 no matter what?
And yet, if you look just a little bit, you'll see that queering math is everywhere.
And you'll find out that 2 plus 2 doesn't necessarily equal 4.
I've seen the most absurd explanations for this, like 2.4 plus 2.4.
Well, the twos round down to a two, and the 2.4 plus 2.4, that's 4.8.
That rounds up to a 5.
So you see, 2 plus 2 can equal 5.
I know that sounds crazy.
That's queer math.
And it's queer everything these days.
And really, it has very little to do with sexuality.
There's a new book on the subject called The Queering of the American Child.
And yes, there are some sexual parts to it, but it's about a total destruction of norms and a total attack on society.
At least that's what I think.
Here to join us for the course of the next half hour is the author of the book, The Queering of the American Child, our old friend, Dr. James Lindsay, who joins us now via Skype.
Dr. James, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time.
Yeah, good to see you, Ezra.
Have I properly, in that nutshell, explained what queer means in terms of Marxist theory and the deep state of academia?
Have I properly said it basically means smashing old norms that could be sexual norms, but actually applies to everything?
Did I get it?
Yeah, that's a very good summary.
The definition of queer in queer theory, it doesn't mean gay, as it turns out.
It comes from a book called Saint Foucault that was published by David Halperin in 1995.
And David Halperin is very clear.
The paragraph in which he defines queer for the first time, giving it its technical definition in the academic literature, starts with the words, unlike gay identity.
He then argues that gay identity is rooted in a positive fact.
What that means is a truth, something real.
He then says that unlike gay identity, which is rooted in a positive fact, queer, he says, need not, and this is his own words, need not be rooted in any positive truth or any stable reality.
There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers.
So what does it mean?
He says, it's adopting a position, which means a political position.
It doesn't mean who you are.
It means how you act politically.
Adopting a position vis-à-vis normalcy that intrinsically opposes whatever, in his own words, whatever is considered normal, legitimate, or dominant.
So anything normal, anything legitimate, and of course, this is a woke theory.
So anything that they can tie to the word dominance has to be resisted on principle.
Even if queer theory were to be normalized, it would have to resist itself on principle, as a matter of fact.
You know, who would think up such a thing?
I mean, basically what you're saying is, I guess like the phrase critical theory, we know what the word critical means to critique something, to criticize it, to attack it.
I guess this is just an extension of critical theory to queer theory.
You're celebrating, well, again, abnormalcy.
And we're not necessarily using the term sexuality sexually.
In statistics, you talk about the norm.
And basically what queer theory is, if I'm getting you right, is it's whatever the establishment says, whatever is accepted, whatever is regarded by most people as good, attack it.
And whatever is dissident and an outlier and is called deviant, support it.
It's basically declaring every day opposite day.
Is that, is that, I mean, help me out here because I'm in a really sneaky place.
You're absolutely right with one actual correction.
I'm going to take you a little deeper.
It's not just what everybody expects.
It's not just the political norm, the social norm.
That's what they would have you to believe.
But even if it's normal according to what we might refer to kind of in an antiquated language as the laws of nature and nature's laws, the laws of nature themselves, that the overwhelming preponderance of a sexually reproducing species will want to engage in sexual reproductive activity, for example.
In other words, most people are straight.
I didn't say everybody's straight.
I didn't add a judgment to this whatsoever.
A bare fact that most people are straight.
That has to be questioned at its fundamental reality, that in a sexually reproducing species that exhibits sexual dimorphism and sexual reproduction, that you will see that there are, on average, differences in how men and women behave, how men and women court one another, how they approach the entirety of the set of behaviors, which could go as far as homemaking, career,
everything that lead into what creates a suitable partner for one another, all has to be resisted.
There can be no natural explanation.
There can be no scientific explanation.
There can be no social expectation.
All of that has to be rejected and resisted on principle.
Anything that tells queer theory no has to be resisted on principle.
So it has no limiting principles.
It has no finish line.
It has no stopping place.
All it can do is critique and destroy relentlessly because it's a Marxist theory that doesn't hold up economic capital specifically as the bourgeois property that must be abolished and transcended.
It holds up the idea that some people get to consider themselves within the range of normal and other people fall outside of that range, say if they have a mental illness or if they have some proclivity, particularly a sexual proclivity, but not always, that's outside of the range of normal.
For example, bringing fetish into public at a pride parade in front of children is not widely considered normal.
But for them, that expectation has to be challenged.
I guess, I mean, what you're saying there, there's certain natural laws.
Queer theory would say challenge those.
I guess that gets back to math.
I mean, there's nothing more impervious to opinion than math.
You can be black, you can be white, you can be smart, you can be dumb, you can be whatever.
Math is math.
It's not going to change.
And that's one of the reasons it's such a meritocracy is you can't have a little footnote saying, but I tried.
But queer math is that.
Queer math says, no, two plus two doesn't necessarily have to be four.
And they're taking that to the hard sciences now too, aren't they?
Yeah.
So let me remind you, where Halperin said that it's not rooted in any positive fact or any stable reality, there's nothing in particular to which it must refer.
When it comes to the question of two plus two, two plus two necessarily must equal four.
There is no ambiguity on this.
There is no getting around this.
If we go into what the words two and plus and equals and four mean, this is an absolutely unavoidable conclusion.
There's no wiggle room.
There's no argument.
There's no debate.
However, what they would say is there's nothing in particular to which two plus two refers.
It doesn't necessarily refer to four.
And then they pull all sorts of different tricks.
Maybe you do it in base three arithmetic, in which case the symbol for four in base three is written with two ones.
It looks like what we would call 11.
As it turns out, that's still four, even though it's written down differently.
But they want to tell you that that doesn't necessarily, it looks like 11, therefore it is 11, but even though it's 11 identifying as four, and you can't question that fact.
All you can say is that it's too narrow and reductive a way of thinking.
It's a constraining and oppressive way to think that 2 plus 2 must equal 4.
They don't say that it must equal 3 or must equal 5 or must equal 17 or 11.
They say that 2 plus 2 can equal, in effect, other things.
And who knows what those are?
And in fact, they frequently say it that way, that what the queer world looks like is out beyond a horizon of possibilities.
They don't try to tell you what it looks like.
It's just a potentiality out there past the horizon.
That's literally the way they describe this, almost like it's a religion with the kingdom of queer God off over the horizon that we can get to eventually if we abolish all of our norms and expectations.
It's so weird.
Like it's such a, you know, that old phrase, how many angels dance on the head of a pin?
The phrase there is, why are you spending so much time about an obscure irrelevancy?
But here it's worse than that.
I mean, you could have a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because you want to know the answer, but there's no answer here.
There's just questioning and destroying and critiquing and undermining.
And it's so luxurious in a way.
Like it's got nothing to do with feeding people, healing people, helping people with prosperity, with raising people up.
And even other isms couldn't say, well, we're trying to increase the prosperity of the working class.
We're trying to raise up minorities.
There was a goal for some of these other isms, but this just seems a kind of nihilism, a kind of corrosive termite that just eats at anything.
And as you said, it could eat at itself too.
Well, this is what I think we spend a lot of time talking about how it goes after normalcy.
And I think that's very important, obviously, for every reason that immediately comes to mind.
But I think it's actually more important that it says that it is intrinsically designed to be, it is intrinsically whatever as opposed to legitimacy as well.
The idea that we will consider not just certain modes of behavior, but certain ways of doing mathematics or certain ways of doing science or certain ways of organizing society that we would consider those legitimate is automatically called into question.
And that's overwhelmingly destructive.
And what it actually is, what this boils down to, is the ability to set up a cult.
The people who are priests in the cult, the people who are higher up, who have understood and taken this on and figured out how to ruin people's lives if they don't agree, more or less, that's how it actually works.
The people who have gone higher in the cult get to decide what is and is not true, what is and is not legitimate on a case-by-case basis.
So you always have to defer to them so they get all the power.
Cult Power Dynamics00:07:10
That was kind of epitomized when Marsha Blackburn, the senator from Tennessee, where I live, questioned Kentanji Brown Jackson in her Supreme Court hearing and the Senate and said, What is a woman?
And everybody laughed because Kentanji Brown Jackson, who is a woman, said, I don't know.
I am not a biologist.
But what she actually said there is that I'm not an expert.
I have to find somebody to whom I can defer who has this magical rainbow glasses that they can put on.
And that person can tell me whether I qualify legitimately as a woman or not.
And it's destructive as anything when we're talking about adults.
But imagine doing this to a five-year-old who hasn't developed the prefrontal cortex necessary to distinguish fantasy and reality.
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
No.
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
You know, that reminds me.
I mean, I think sometimes about what is it about transgender athletes in particular who don't just want to compete against women, but who want to go into the changing room.
Forget about the unfairness, the unsportsmanlike conduct of a biological man competing against biological women in sports that where strength and muscle density and size and weight make a difference.
It's unfair, but there's always that added flourish of, I want to change in the same change room as you.
I want to invade those places.
Part of it is, I think, a sexual fetish that they want to be confirmed.
Only a woman would be allowed in the change room with the other women.
So this proves I'm a woman in my mind.
But so I think there's a sexual or a psychological selfishness there.
But I think it's also to destroy natural instincts of people, stranger danger.
There's a man in the women's room.
Be careful.
Who is that marauder?
It's to beat down our natural instinctive caution about strangers.
It's to destroy what our parents teach us about predators.
I think the legitimacy that's being destroyed by transgender athletes is the legitimacy of being afraid or being private about your private life.
What do you think of that?
I agree completely, as a matter of fact.
So over the weekend, as it turns out, since you bring this up, I was with Riley Gaines over the weekend and she challenged me to a swimming race in the Pacific Ocean.
And just for a reviewer, she's an American athlete who spoke out against men competing against her.
I think it might have been a good idea.
Okay, so yeah, I'll give a little more color to who Riley is because it matters for why I ended up not swimming against her.
Riley actually swam against a transgender athlete named William Thomas, who goes by Leah Thomas, who appeared in his senior year suddenly at the University of Pennsylvania after having been, you know, relatively poorly ranked in the men's swimming and appeared on the women's as the number one swimmer in America.
And Riley went to the national finals, the national championship, to swim for a national title and it was in the final race against so-called Leah Thomas.
And Thomas and Riley Gaines tied.
So she actually tied this six foot four, as she phrases it, fully intact male in the finals, but they gave the trophy to Leah and made Leah the center of attention instead of letting Riley have it specifically because of the transgender.
And the reason I bring it up isn't because I was able to dodge the humiliation ritual of swimming against America's fastest swimmer in the ocean, which would have been really, I don't think I could have run on the beach as fast as she could swim, to be honest with you.
But at any rate, I sort of wish I had done it now, but I missed the swimming opportunity.
But the fact of the matter is that the only part of the story, I've heard her story personally, I've heard it when she gives it on stage a few times.
I've heard it in interviews, and she tells this story very consistently.
The only part of the story that she ever talks about feeling the vulnerability, the invasion, the having to, like you said, override natural instinct was when it was this Thomas character in the changing room with them, six foot four, fully intact male, wearing no clothing, inches away from these women.
And that's where she starts talking in terms of vulnerability.
Where are our dads?
Where are our coaches coming in to rip this character out of this place?
And I think you are right that part of the forcing to accept this is to override those natural instincts of this is dangerous.
I'm in a dangerous situation.
Something bad could happen that otherwise would not be able to happen very easily.
And you teach yourself to override those instincts in order to be inclusive.
But what you're actually doing is teaching yourself to open up circumstances, not necessarily with Thomas, but in many cases, to where, again, I go back to children, where children are learning to override their this feels wrong, something might not be right.
And when you have this fact of the matter that schools, even before all of this, are an overwhelmingly frequent site of sexual predation on children.
This just completely eliminates any of the natural filtering mechanisms that might have helped stop that problem in addition to whatever else it invites by, say, intentionally hiring people who probably would not have been easily hired anyway.
It overrides every preventative mechanism, every limiting principle, and it teaches people to override them in themselves, which leads them into harm's way.
Yeah.
I mean, the most astonishing thing, our reporter, David Menzies, you probably, if you don't know him by name, you would recognize me.
Where's that fedora?
And he's out there at swim meets or at rugby games.
He's really one of the only journalists in Canada, if not the world, who covers that beat.
And the number one thing he reports on TV, and when I talk to him privately about it, is how astonished he is at the silence of the moms and dads.
And it's not just the kids who are being taught shut up.
It's the moms and dads.
Because the threat is usually: if you speak up, you are a harasser.
You are intolerant.
We will punish you and your daughter.
And what?
Your daughter's been practicing swimming, wants to make the national team, has been doing this for 10 years, can taste the Olympic team.
We're going to destroy her entire dream, wreck her entire social life if she doesn't obey.
And you bloody well better obey too, dad.
You better shut up.
In fact, not just shut up.
I'm taking notes on who's clapping.
You better clap.
You'd better cheer.
And we know this.
We have a friend in Canada, April Hutchinson, who dared to speak out.
She's a female powerlifter.
She spoke out against a man.
She was suspended from her team.
This was her life's goal.
So the fear is not just being targeted at the children.
It's being targeted at their protectors too.
It's terrifying.
Soviet Ideology's Agricultural Impact00:08:36
Hey, let me bring the subject back a little bit.
I mean, there there's sexuality involved, but as you've affirmed to us today, queering means destroying the legitimacy of anything.
And you used a word in a speech I heard you give in Calgary, and then I've seen you use the word.
I didn't understand it, so I Googled it.
And I love learning new words.
And I feel like, you know, I feel like I have a lot of words, but I'd never heard this word before.
You used the word Lysenkoism, and I Googled it, and it's named after a man, Lysenko.
He was a Soviet communist in Russia.
And I want to see if I understand it.
Maybe you can explain it.
You talk about Lysenkoism.
Is Lysenkoism, and it was the man, I forget his first name, Lysenko, did he actually try to queer science and to say, I deny the science of agricultural genetics.
I have a Marxist explanation, and we have to actually silence the actual empirical scientists instead.
Help me understand what's Lysenkoism?
Is it part of queer theory?
Did I understand it correctly?
I just started reading about Lysenkoism and Lamarckism and genetics.
And I thought, what am I doing?
Let me ask Dr. James Lindsay, what's Lysenkoism and how does it apply to our lives?
Well, I appreciate you setting me up to tell you in, you know, paraphrase of one of the greatest of all time that I have the best words.
That is true.
I have absolutely the best words.
But Lysenkoism is an important word.
The first name you're looking for is Trofim.
Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet agriculturalist name.
And in the technical definition of the word queering, he would not have recognized the word queering.
The Soviet Union was not particularly nice to gay people.
But in what the word means, to override legitimacy in favor of ideology, certainly he was queering agricultural science.
And what he believed was absolutely insane.
He believed that if you applied communist theory to plants, that they would grow better, but you might have to actually teach the plants or lecture to the seeds.
So you have people reading Soviet literature or Marxist theory to seeds before they plant them.
And they would plant them in high density areas, not with inadequate water, within adequate fertilizer and soil conditions, thinking that they would communally help one another and grow better.
And in fact, that the oats could become barley under the right conditions because he rejected Western so-called bourgeois genetics, which turned out to be correct.
And he came up with a different kind because he couldn't have what the West uses.
And he applied this science.
And more importantly, Stalin behind him put the full weight of the Soviet state behind this bogus approach to science.
And the result was exactly what you would predict, famines, massive famines.
Trofim Lysenko was famous for having remarked that given enough time, you could convince the oranges to grow in Siberia.
And so he thought that you could override nature completely in terms of the vision of the ideological structure of Soviet communism.
In this case, it's a different theory that we can override nature and biology completely by applying queer theory to developmental psychology, to chemistry, to whatever else.
So it's the same model.
And what we see happening in medicine very widely supporting these transgender medicine policies and so on really boils down to a medical Lysenkoism that uses queer theory.
It's not agricultural Lysenkoism, but the result will be the same.
If you apply a bogus theory to a science that has to do with living and dying, many people are going to die.
So we can expect, we can predict, we don't have to guess.
There will be millions of people who are psychologically or physically injured.
It's called eatrogenic harm.
Psychologically or physically mutilated through surgeries and through chemical manipulations.
We can predict that this will happen with 100% certainty because this is what happens when the state begins to enforce a ideology that rejects legitimacy, that rejects reality, that rejects positive facts and stable truth in favor of whatever this belief system happens to be.
You know, I think there was some agricultural Lysenkoism at play in Sri Lanka recently when they decided to reject almost a century's worth of knowledge about fertilizer and modern agriculture, the green revolution that Norman Borlaug helped birth.
And no, no, that's going to be a word they use.
Sustainability.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, sustainability is the word that they're using for agricultural and energy production Lysenkoism today.
And it had devastating effects in Sri Lanka.
They're trying to do it in the Netherlands.
They're talking about doing it in Canada too.
That's Lysenkoism.
That's ideology overcoming scientific biology.
That's telling farmers, we have better ideas than you.
We've never set foot on a farm.
Our hands are smooth.
We think food comes from a grocery store, but we are going to instruct you farmers on the better way to farm that's ideologically superior.
They are saying almost exactly those words right now.
You know, I remember here's a clip of the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, lecturing farmers about just farming better.
Here, take a look at this blast from the past.
Thank God she's not in the cabinet anymore, but now she works for the UN.
Take a look.
It's basically her saying farmers ought to learn some better systems.
And I've seen amazing innovations in farming, for example.
Zero-till agriculture, using less water, using smart technologies, artificial intelligence to figure out how you can use less fertilizer, how you can do a better job tilling, how you can get better results.
We can all do this.
But if we don't, the impact will be dire on farms.
That is a 21st century Lysenkoist telling farmers how to farm better.
We're going to all starve if this actually happens.
We're going to have plane crashes if they replace heteronormative cisgender engineering with queer engineering.
We're going to have a lot of people dying if we allow the queering of science on the things that we depend on for our lives.
This is textbook Lysenkoism.
You're absolutely right.
The consequences are you're absolutely right.
Why Stalin backed Lysenko was because he was giving a refutation of so-called Western bourgeois agriculture and biology in favor of a Soviet one.
So if Lysenko was proved right, two things would happen.
First, the Soviet Union would become the most productive nation on earth, and it will have done so by validating Marxist theory.
And so because of the structure of the Soviet regime, which was completely ideologically captured, Lysenko had to be right.
In other words, he had to be forced to be made right.
So all the scientists who disagreed, they took away their medical licenses.
Oh, I'm sorry, wait, that's COVID.
I mixed up my eras.
All the scientists who disagreed actually got sent to re-education in the gulag, which is roughly the equivalent.
They were chased out of their universities.
They were chased out of their laboratories, or they were killed, outright murdered, for disagreeing with Lysenko and his ideas, and they were completely purged.
This actually caused a secondary problem in Soviet Union, which was that they had a massive brain drain.
And so later, when things got a little further on and World War II rolled around and they suddenly needed rocket scientists, quite literally, they needed physics, they needed rocket science, they needed munitions and rations for their troops.
They had a major problem on their hands because they didn't have the stock.
They didn't have scientists at new science anymore.
And they had to start building that from the ground up.
And they lost a lot of that.
And it took them a very long time.
It may very well be that part of the reason that they ultimately lost the Cold War, at least in the explicit sense, was because of this huge brain drain that it caused them in the 1930s, primarily through the Lysenkoist experiment.
You know, the audacity of saying if we give communist ideas to seeds, they'll grow better.
It's so absurd, but I know what happened.
And I know that's what Catherine McKenna wants.
Farmers to do.
Losing Scientific Consciousness00:15:04
It's the same thing.
So I know it's real.
You must think of yourself as semi-divine, that you can say something and the laws of nature will change to it.
It's like the legend of King Canute, whose advisors were such flatterers.
And King Canute was actually the hero of the story.
He said he commanded the tides not to come in.
And he was doing this to show his advisors not to be so obsequious to him.
He showed that he couldn't stop the tides.
But whether you're a Stalinist agricultural communist or a sustainable development communist, these people, I don't know.
I mean, do they actually want to change the world?
Do they just like being the emperor who can speak things into existence like some sort of a god?
Like, what would motivate people to believe that they can alter the will, alter the arc of the universe, alter the facts of time and space and physics just by uttering a word?
I mean, it's one thing to be arrogant, but that is, that sounds like a mental illness.
I think that that's the primary motivation.
In fact, their literature reflects this.
The critical pedagogue, Paolo Freire, who is a Brazilian Marxist who organized a system of education we use throughout the West called critical pedagogy to this day, actually said that his purpose for educating that way was to teach people to learn to speak the word, to speak the world.
So I think this literally is very much so one of their motivations.
But if we look at the communist or the Marxist ideology, this is all consistent with that.
You have to fully understand that while some of the people may be doing this cynically or through incredibly arrogant or hubristic, you know, megalomaniacal beliefs, the vast majority have been convinced that Marxism is the true science of the world.
So the seeds, speaking communist theory to a seed sounds stupid to people who are outside of that.
But if you've been brainwashed into this cult, you don't believe that you're teaching the seed communism.
You believe that the seed already knows communism and has to be awakened to it, that it's the fundamental truth of reality.
And so you're just Doing that.
And we're saying with people or children.
And there are actually queer activists out there.
Lindsay Maire is one name on Twitter who explicitly said, and this is in their academic literature as well, though, that explicitly said, all children, all children, therefore all people are intrinsically queer.
Most just don't know it.
So with queer theory, the goal is to actually awaken you to your true nature, which suggests that this is very much akin, and this is how we structured the book, very much akin to a religious cult where there's a true nature of humanity that's been hidden from human beings by whatever, whether it's an evil demon or a trickster god or whatever, on the one hand, or maybe it's by the bourgeois elements of society or the people who declare themselves to be normal to exclude other people.
In this case, that there is this order to reality that only the secret elect people that have taken the study know what it is.
And everybody else lives in a false delusional consciousness.
So they think they know the real true nature of reality.
So they're not speaking over reality.
They actually think that reality itself is an illusion.
Reality itself is a distorting lie to prevent them from being who they really are.
You know, I first heard that idea about class consciousness that the Marxists would say to working class people who like going to the factory and then saving some money and buying a house and maybe buying a boat and maybe having a nice lifestyle.
The Marxists would say, that's false consciousness.
You're not a winner in society.
You should be a radical revolutionary proletariat.
Come on, wake up.
You've got nothing to lose but your chains.
So I think economic Marxism tried to say to people, you should be mad.
You should be against the status quo.
Don't you know?
And it sounds like that false consciousness, that attempt to radicalize workers is now radicalize everyone against everything to basically be, well, I mean, how did Hobbes describe the world before there was order?
A war of all against all, where life was nasty, brutish, and short.
You know, I mean, when we're all the time fighting against every norm, every political norm, social norm, cultural norm, sexual norm, and even scientific norm.
Like it's basically a call for everyone to be in a revolution against everything and everyone.
I mean, I'm not particularly religious, but what is that other than would the Greek God for chaos or Satan himself defy everything, challenge everything, tear down everything?
We're really touching on religious ideas here.
Destroy everything, upend everything, the opposite of everything, anti-Christian.
What's the queer response to Christ?
Antichrist.
I'm going into areas where I don't have a lot of intellectual strength, but that's what it seems like to me.
Well, so here's the thing.
You are absolutely right.
What I described without saying the magic word with the secret knowledge and the true nature of reality before is the old religious cult that is identified frequently with satanic distortion that's called Gnosticism.
And the secret Gnostics are the ones who know all of the secret knowledge of the world.
I've actually just left the word out so as I didn't distract from the fact, but we are dealing with religious ideas.
When you brought up the idea of the class consciousness with the Soviets or with the Marxists, that, you know, and the class should be awakened to who they really are, that they have nothing to lose but their chains, that they're not winners in society and they should be mad.
They should be mad as a class.
What we have there is a, like literally class consciousness.
It is a group that's being unfairly treated.
So what the weakness of that is compared to what we're dealing with now is that you have to think, well, even if I'm doing pretty good, somehow I'm being cheated.
I'm doing good, even if the group I'm in isn't.
So I'm a traitor to my group, blah, blah, blah.
What you have now, that you have that mentality, but with the identity politics and especially with the sexual identity politics, which is so subjective and so individual, it's all focused on each person.
It's individuals are the ones who are actually rebelling against the entire system.
So it feels much more, quite literally, Satan was an individual cloaking himself as an angel of light who would liberate humanity from God's order.
And this is quite literally what we're dealing with.
The individuals themselves are at war with everything.
But again, in the name of a class identity, the poor LGB kids or whatever are not being recognized in society.
The poor trans people have it really hard.
So we're doing it in somebody else's name.
That's we're cloaked as an angel of light.
But in fact, it's all narcissistic.
It's all about me, me, me.
Here's my pronouns.
Here, I get to reorder pronouns for myself.
Some of them are made-up words nobody's ever heard of and can't remember or ever use.
But you better, or else we're going to reorder, organize society, and you're going to be in the gulag or you're going to lose your job or whatever it is.
We're not just going to have that, but here's my sexuality.
Here's my romantic orientation.
And here's a 10-paragraph word that nobody knows what it is that describes who I really am.
And I have a flag.
It's me, It's so overwhelmingly narcissistic.
And it turns, as you said, all against all.
And the life that you live in this situation is, in fact, nasty, brutish, and short.
The West figured out that Hobbes doesn't have to be right, but this actually throws us into the condition that Hobbes was outlining.
And it is a very fundamentally religious architecture where the deity, the thing that's actually being worshipped at the end of the day, is the self as the perfect avatar of a class of other people that you think that you get to believe that you're helping.
You know, they say nature abhors a vacuum.
And if there's no religion, people will create one.
And if there's no God, people will appoint themselves God, I suppose.
It's terrifying.
The book we're talking about, just if you're only joining us now, the book is called The Queering of the American Child.
The author is Dr. James Lindsay, who we've had on the show before.
The idea of speaking absurd things into the world and making them come true.
By the way, that's a biblical Jewish concept that when God would say a word by saying the word, it would come to life.
And that's why there's some obscure Jewish approach of looking deeply into the meaning of the word, like the word Adam, A-D-A-M, comes from Adam, the earth.
And like you can look too deeply into words if you believe that, but there's only one person who could make things come alive by saying the word, and that's God.
But imagine speaking things and expecting them to come to life.
But there is one group, and I'd like you to respond to this: there is one group to whom you could say absurd, insane things, and it will come to life.
And I think this goes to your book.
The book is called The Queering of the American Child.
And when you have unformed people who are still learning and still trusting of authority, and they are told by teachers, by guidance counselors, by doctors who have an agenda, that no, you're not just a tomboy.
You're actually a man trapped in a girl's body.
No, you're not just, you know, going through puberty and have a lot of hormones and emotions.
You are actually in the wrong body.
And we have to fix that with extreme surgery and puberty blockers.
And we're going to speak into existence.
You're a boy, you're a girl.
We're going to absolutely change the most fundamental nature of you.
I think the most successful place where a kind of human biological Lysenkoism is happening is to children.
We saw, it was actually an incredible story in Quebec, the Canadian state broadcaster called the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
It has a French counterpart in Quebec called Radio Canada.
It's the same corporation, it's just en français.
They sent someone in, sort of like a teen, an undercover person to one of these clinics.
And in 10 minutes, they were getting directions from the doctor to go on puberty blockers.
In 10 minutes.
So I guess the one place where you can speak insane things into action, not talking to seeds, not talking to math, but talking to children without their parents there, you can indeed change lead into gold and change men into women and women into men.
They're going.
Go ahead.
I was going to say that's the goal, but I want to hear your last thought there.
No, I was going to say that is, I think, the reason why they're targeting children is because that's the one place where you can say up is down, down is up.
Male is female, female is male.
And you might actually get the kids to believe it because that's the thing about kids.
That's why we say taking candy from a baby.
They're impressionable and the mama bears aren't there to protect them.
That's exactly right.
That is exactly what one of the primary reasons they target children.
And then the other, of course, is that the children will then go home and become disruptive agents in places that they can't easily reach, like private homes, like in churches and faith groups.
So the children will come and you don't understand me anymore.
And it becomes a point of drama in the state's taking the child's side and has primed the pump by saying, we're trusted adults and your parents might not affirm you and might not love you right, but we can be your mom now.
Free mom hugs is a hashtag that these very creepy people are saying, if your mom won't affirm you, I'll give you free mom hugs, even though I'm not your literal mother.
And they describe this in their literature as being part of a quote queer family.
And so they are trying to bring children into a new family that constantly affirms them.
Because at the heart of this crazy religion that we're actually describing, this cult with the speaking things into truth, they don't understand truth.
They fundamentally, truth is not one of their values.
For them, that which everybody assents to is true.
So everything at 2 plus 2 equals 4, that if you drop something off the roof, it'll fall due to the force of gravity and accelerate at negative 9.8 meters per second squared.
These are not facts about reality.
These are things that people have been made to assent to and believe.
So if you can get the environment to assent and affirm and believe something, it is, for all intents and purposes, true.
And this is genuinely how they think about the world.
Well, children are a very captive and primed audience to accept outlandish things if you can get the adults around them to pretend and play.
Or adults are very, it turns out, very receptive things if you can create the conditions around them to be very coercive.
Their social circle, their professional lives, perhaps their real, their lives themselves, not just their livelihoods and lifestyles, but their physical life.
If you can put those at risk, you can get people for decades on end to assent to absolute absurdities.
And Marxists, queer theorists, you know, as one in the same kind of spirit, fully believe that that which people will assent to is true.
So again, just to draw the satanic, and you know, I'm not religious either.
So just to draw the satanic imagery again, what does Satan mean in the Hebrew?
Well, it's prosecutor.
So he deceives and then he accuses.
So he says boys can be girls.
And if you don't agree, you're a transphobe and you might lose your livelihood.
That is the motif behind this entire program.
The accusation causes people to assent to a lie, Satan being alleged to be the father of lies, causes people to assent to a lie.
And once you assent to the lie, you've given away part of your soul to that system, and you can no longer be righteous or live an upright life or pass through the straight and narrow, as Jesus commands in the gospel.
And it's because of this belief that whatever is assented to is real that they act this way, because they can force or coerce or trick or with children especially just in a kind of pied piper sort of way, lead them into believing and assenting.
And of course, reality at the end of the day is real, and reality at the end of the day doesn't care because reality is a thing you run into when your beliefs are false.
High Trust Society Dilemma00:10:30
But their game is to make this run as long as they can until that all happens.
And when it collapses, to blame those awful transphobes who didn't let us do it right because it would have worked if they did.
You know, there's the near past and then there's prehistoric past and then there's things that are in our histories that don't seem right.
They seem like they're exaggerations or legends.
Whether we're talking about the golden calf, did they really make a golden calf?
What exactly were they doing when they were dancing around it?
You know, what's the truth behind that?
Is it a legend?
Is it a myth?
Is it an allegory?
Is it an exaggeration?
What do they actually do then?
And so many things that were lost in the sands of time, so many cultures and civilizations about which we heard things, but just little wisps here and there.
One of my favorite movies is Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, which gives you a flavor of what Central America was like before Columbus came, the human sacrifice.
What I'm getting at here is there are certain things.
It's a kind of deep madness, an evil so deep that we would probably lack the language for it today.
And when we see traces of it in Bible or in ancient codifications, we assume it's an exaggeration.
But I think that is actually the ooze from which we've pulled ourselves, not just evolutionary ooze, but over 50,000 years of human civilization, if that's how long it's been, you can imagine how long it went wrong and how hard it was to make it right.
And I feel that we're undoing ancient taboos and we're rediscovering ancient evils.
Horrors that have not been seen in thousands of years, I think are being unlocked.
And I'm not trying to be spooky and I'm not trying to be mysterious.
I'm just saying I see flashes in it that in life these days, whether it's, you know, transgender library day or whatever those are called, like the absolutely insane, and I'm going to say the word satanic accoutrements and costumes, teaching young children, teaching young children, and with no intermediary there, you've got these absurd,
often dressed sort of like a ram's head kind of over-the-top wig and the children and being given access to it.
And I think this feels biblical.
This feels like a story that we were told that was supposed to scare us.
And we always thought, oh, peshaw, come on, it wasn't like that.
You know, like Sodom and Gomorrah and turning back.
Like, no, no, no.
That's an allegory.
That's a warning.
That's a problem.
That's like an Aesop's fable.
But I feel like we have glimmers of things that haven't been seen in thousands of years.
I don't know.
makes me think of W.B. Yates' poem, The Second Coming, and what rough beast, you know, it's our come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born, if I'm remembering it right.
I feel like we are opening up a box that has been closed for thousands of years, and it is terrifying to me.
Last word to you, Dr. James.
Yeah, since we've gone in that direction, we wrote the book.
The first sentence of the book explains that this is a religious cult.
Queer theory is a religious cult.
It has a grip on our children.
It's based on sex.
It has only a little bit to do with being gay.
Very little, as a matter of fact.
Most actually gay people either do or would oppose queer theory if they realized that they're dealing with queer theory and its contents.
And queer theory has been historically an enemy to gay civil rights movements.
It opposes equality and acceptance because those are stabilizing forces and they need radicals.
This is all historical.
This is in their literature.
You can easily verify what I'm saying.
But we've hit on this cult religion motif and we've talked about this satanic.
And again, I urge you to remember, I'm not actually religious, so I'm in water myself.
I'm not particularly comfortable with following this particular, whether it's metaphor or more, line of description.
But Satan as prosecutor, that's what the word means.
What is it?
It's to deceive and then to accuse and to give birth to lies.
So what does it do?
See how often I want your viewers to just see how often this pattern in one domain or another, whether it's the queer sexual stuff, whether it's the race stuff we have with critical race theory, whether it's the environmental stuff, whether it's just politics, you know, down here it's, you know, the MAGA crowd up there.
You've got the people who are fighting against Trudeau.
How often has this pattern played out that there's a deception in play?
Oh yeah, we're just trying to help poor kids who might commit suicide.
And if you don't go along with it, there's an accusation.
And the accusation is that you're a transphobe and it's your fault that it's not working.
And that forces you, in other words, gives birth to a lie in your heart when you assent to it to fit in, to be nice, to be supportive or inclusive or empathetic as they ask you to do.
This pattern plays out far too often to be comfortable.
And you'll see it again and again.
Deceive, accuse, give birth to a lie.
Deceive, accuse, give birth to a lie over and over and over again.
And so, again, I'm in uncomfortable waters, but I want people to understand that this is, as you're alluding to, very dark.
And I think it's an ancient, identifiable, named in the book cult of Gnosticism playing out through social means.
And I think that we are, as you said, opening a box that we, I think, have a narrow window still in which to mostly shut and keep the worst from coming out.
But it takes people understanding what we're really dealing with and that their calls to empathy are distortions and, in fact, lies, but also lures.
And so that's why we wrote the book, The Queering of the American Child, was to equip parents and grandparents, everyday normal people who have children or work with children in particular, to understand what we're dealing with so we can make that stand and shut this dark box.
You know, I said that was the last word, but you made me, every time I listen to you, I think of five more things I want to say.
And I'm going to take the liberty of saying one more thing and then I'll let you close.
You know, how long does it take to learn to trust someone?
Deeply trust them?
Months, years, maybe a lifetime.
How long does it take to build a high trust society that you deeply trust not just your family, but your neighbors and others who you don't even know closely, but you've built a high trust society, a whole town.
How long does it take to build up a town where people feel comfortable leaving their doors unlocked or women walking on the street by themselves?
I would take it, I tell you, that takes generations, generations to build up a high trust society like that.
And when people come from a low trust society that take advantage of it, they can destroy it very quickly.
But before they've destroyed it, they take enormous advantage.
I feel like part of this is destroying, part of this is a high trust society issue.
We always trusted that schools would be safe for our kids.
We always trusted that the other moms or the teachers would care.
So part of it has to do with taking advantage of a high trust society.
But it's also, it took us centuries to get to where we are as a civilization.
And we don't even realize how hard-fought every single thing in our culture is.
And I think we risk falling back centuries, not just years, but centuries.
And the loss will be incalculable.
And we will, God forbid, if we don't change course, realize pretty soon that we will be living in the ruins of a superior civilization.
You can see that sometimes architecturally, but I think we'll soon be able to say that morally and in terms of personal safety.
We are regressing.
And I don't know.
I think the ideas you've talked about here are terrifying.
And I don't know if I made any useful contribution in the last two minutes there, but you made me think about what we take for granted and what we're losing.
And I think it's been targeted on purpose.
If you have a final thought, feel free to say it.
I think I just rambled a bit there, but my God, this is scary.
No, you're right.
And what I would say is, you know, we talk about a high trust society in terms of walking down the street at night, especially for a woman, or leaving your doors unlocked or leaving valuables in your car outside or something like this.
But we also should, you finally said it there, too.
Leaving your children in the hands of other adults for significant numbers of hours while you go off to do other things, whether it's to work for your home, if you're a homemaker, or whether it's to do your job if you have a job outside of the home.
But to leave your children in the hands of other people, that's an extraordinarily high trust phenomenon.
That's a phenomenon that can only happen in a society that has worked over many generations to become very stable so that we can trust other people with our children.
And what I want to say is, like I said, we wrote this book to reveal the simple fact to parents, grandparents, and teachers and other adults with their heads on their shoulders.
They are betraying that trust at an enormously quick rate.
And they are taking advantage of that trust.
And I agree with you completely.
It is intentional.
The goal is the destruction, the destruction of our children and by extension of their families, the destruction of the faiths that have held families together.
The destruction is absolutely intentional, and it is targeting, using our children as weapons because they are using our children and their captive state in our high trust society in our schools to bring them, induce them into a religious cult that we have to understand as quickly as possible.
The Queering of Trust00:00:14
The book is called The Queering of the American Child.