Anti-capitalists such as Herbert Marcuse have lamented that capitalism made the working class too content to revolt, and so they have sought to create a new coalition of malcontents including “ghetto populations” and sexual “queers.” What Critical Race Theory does to grow and perpetuate the first group, LGBT—and now Q too—ideology does for the second. LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) ideology is particularly diabolical and effective for anti-capitalists because it uses the seductive power of sexuality to ensnare and damage children.
My book Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage states (pp. 113–114),
The general LGBT theory is as follows. Infants are “polymorphously perverse,” to use Freud’s term. That is, an infant will be sexually excited by anyone and anything anywhere. Freud considered this infantile state an early stage of development. Marcuse and many LGBT activists, in contrast, consider this state the ideal end state for adults. According to Marcuse, people leave this ideal state only because they become repressed, limiting the kinds of sexual responses available to them. The repressed energy of such people becomes channeled into economic production. (I’m not kidding; this is the theory, and the psychological professions buy into it.) That is, productive work is the repressed alternative to blissful, indiscriminate sex. Capitalism, of course the system of greatest economic production, is hence also the system of greatest sexual repression. Heterosexual males, who dominate and oppress other groups under capitalism, are the most sexually repressed and therefore the most driven to production and to dominance over everyone else. The sexual repression and economic productiveness perpetrated by heterosexual males is codified in the socially constructed idea of masculinity. The oppression of women, by these men, is codified in the socially constructed idea of femininity, which entails submissive weakness and the oppressive task of raising children. According to the LGBT movement, the feminist movement figured all this out. And now the LGBT movement has figured out that heterosexual males oppress homosexual men as well as heterosexual women, because homosexual men threaten the notion of masculinity. The solution to this whole problem is to eradicate capitalism, masculinity, femininity, and families, with everyone returning to the polymorphous perversity of an infant, and with the community of such adult infants collectively in charge of rearing actual infants.
LGBTQ ideology at its root is an ideology of subjectivism, holding that sexuality is a mindless indulgence of feelings. That is why LGBTQ activists claim that children—who have not yet developed their faculty of reason—can choose their sex (“gender”) and sex partners. Pedophilia—long advocated by leading LGBTQ ideologues such as Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, and Dennis Altman (pp. 200–202 of his linked book)—is the next LGBTQ frontier.
The connection between LGBTQ ideology and anti-capitalism is no accident, nor is it a mere “marriage” of convenience. As anti-capitalism is a denial of the role of reason and rational selectivity in the realm of production and trade, LGBTQ ideology is a denial of the role of reason and rational selectivity in the realm of romantic love and sexuality.
The LGBTQ movement, which includes many heterosexuals (“allies”) and not all individuals that the initialism is intended to subsume, serves a confluence of interests. To anti-capitalists, the movement supplies recruits: young adults and children groomed for mindless, indiscriminate sexuality as a gateway to adult misery and discontent and therefore to anti-capitalist activism. To pedophiles and other sexual predators, the movement supplies prey. To sexual malcontents, the movement supplies a scapegoat (capitalism) and a means to avoid being judged.
The LGBTQ ideology of subjectivism and anti-capitalism is manifest in a recent academic paper entitled “Drag Pedagogy: the Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.” Co-authors Harper Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess self-describe as “a genderqueer drag performer/scholar and a trans scholar” (p. 443). Their paper lauds “Drag Queen Story Hour” (DQSH), a program alleged to be “pedagogy,” in which drag queens read stories as part of a sex show—for young children. DQSH and this paper represent a nexus of the T, the Q, and the forthcoming P (for “pedophilia,” not “pedagogy”) of LGBTQ(P).
DQSH and the paper by the “scholars” queer/drag and trans are expertly condemned by Charlotte Cushman, James Lindsay (here and here), and Christopher Rufo, all of whom identify subjectivist and anti-capitalist academic roots of the T and Q (and P). I have two points to add.
First the lesser point: The same ideological roots, though less overt, have underlay the LGB—Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual—part of the movement since its inception more than a half century ago. Moreover, these roots dominate not only academia, but also the psychological professions, leading to the coercive demand for unquestioning “affirmation” of homosexuality. For this story, see my book, Chapters 3–5.
Now the greater point: To recognize evil, and to immunize oneself against it, one must understand the good. If any good is to come of this war over sexuality, it will be that heterosexual romantic love will become—out of necessity—more fully understood and embraced. To that end, I offer the following ideas, excerpted from Chapter 1 (pp. 14–18, enclosed below within the asterisks) of my book, that could be taught to young men and women about masculinity, femininity, and romance.
* * *
Even when a man and woman are together in a place already tamed by men, such as a home or a city, it is the man who leads in facing any immediate physical danger that might arise. If an ominous sound is heard, it is the man who goes ahead to investigate it. Even in a casual evening ride home on his and her bicycles, it is the man who rides in front. In any instance of facing an immediate danger or potential danger, when there is no time for discussion or joint consideration, the man must decide for himself what to do and then act accordingly, in defense of the woman even more than of himself.
A man must spend a large part of his time and energy training, planning, and acting to anticipate and neutralize any physical threat against his woman. A man must make sure that his woman is safe at all times, and that she knows it. He must make sure she knows that his superior power will always be available to defend her, and never to endanger her.
The requirement that a man have the courage and ability to fight other men—to the death, if necessary—in order to defend the woman he loves (not to mention their children) is such a basic requirement of manhood that it can aptly be called metaphysical. Every young child knows this requirement on some level. Every era of Western culture contains art that portrays this requirement—from the story of the Trojan War to modern pop-culture movies such as Back to the Future, Braveheart, and Transformers, to children’s cartoons such as Popeye and Mighty Mouse.
The more desirable a woman, the more she will be a target for evil men, and the more courage and ability her man will need to win her and to keep her safe.
A woman needs such a man, a man who is courageous, decisive, and efficacious. To choose such a man, a woman must be a supreme judge of individual men.
A man faces many harsh physical elements in the world at large. His essential asset is his mind, but he also needs his body. As I have discussed, he needs a certain amount of physical strength—guided by his mind, of course—to reshape harsh elements of the world to serve his survival and enjoyment.
A rational man succeeds at this task. It is a difficult, challenging task that requires diverse mental and physical actions, in adherence to the highest moral standards, across wide expanses of place and time.
Then the man faces a woman. The woman exhibits none of the physical harshness or physical resistance that the man encountered in the rest of the world. The woman’s body, with its understated musculature (compared to a man’s), is the final surrender of the world to the man’s power. The woman’s body shows no utilitarian function except to be able to move in ways that enable the woman to feed on the strength of the man. The woman exhibits no physical power except the power to move to please the man. However hospitable and beautiful the man has made his own corner of the world, this woman surpasses his work in those respects.
Everything I have written above [including prior to this excerpt] about the comparison between the bodies of men and women can now be stated essentially in this one paragraph. There are many beautiful things in the world: men, women, horses, dogs, cats, children, landscapes. To a man, a woman’s body is the most beautiful physical thing, because it seems to be organized for no utilitarian function other than to please the man. In a heterosexual relationship, the man and woman view their bodies—always guided by their reasoning minds—in this comparative way: the body of the man is for powerful movements to reshape the physical world, whereas the body of the woman is for leveraging the man’s power and for moving in such a way as to be beautiful to the man.
Now let us see the intellectual and emotional result of this physical difference.
A woman judges a man as if her life depends on that judgment. Her life does depend on that judgment. For a woman, judging a man is the true oldest profession.
A courageous woman chooses to be a judge of men, and to cultivate a body pleasing to men, instead of trying to acquire the physical power of men. For a woman, there is nothing more courageous than to assert herself as a judge of men, and then to trust her judgment to trust a particular man—a soul that far exceeds her in physical power—with her body and her life.
The understated musculature in the woman is not a lack; instead, this understatement accentuates her spiritual power and courage. She brings to the encounter with a man her confidence in her judgment of the man and in her ability to reward him. She has “gone all in” on exploiting her female endowment of beauty and other aspects of her womanhood.
The man that a woman chooses does not have to be the best man in terms of physical power isolated from other attributes of men. He does have to be the best man in terms of his combination of mind and body according to the woman’s personal values. This combination must contain some element of the physical as well as the mental, so that the woman can experience the physical combined with the mental power of man. Her man is not just her partner John (or Frank or Joe); he is her man John. For her, he is the best man among men.
For a man, it is marvelous, or terrifying, to behold another soul—in a much weaker body, because the soul has eschewed physical power in favor of utmost beauty—that has the audacity yet to face the man proudly and, through her actions, pronounce judgment on him.
Of course, both man and woman must judge everything, including each other. But there is something about a woman judging a man that is more intense, more focused, more elevated, more solemn, more audacious, more central to the very existence of the judge. To a man, the mind of a woman is the purest essence of judgment. The woman is judging whether the man is fit for—and worthy of—survival. The woman is also judging whether the man is fit to be the woman’s primary defense against all physical threats from nature and other men.
In short, a woman judges the metaphysical worth of a man. The man that a woman judges to be worthy of her becomes part of her metaphysics.
For a man, Judgment Day is every day that he is naked—in body and spirit—before a woman. The proud, courageous man embraces this test. The coward hides from it. The proud, courageous man seeks the judge with the highest standards. The coward seeks the lowest, or no judge at all.
The woman’s inviting body and stern mind express the challenge, “Show me how you have shaped the world, and I will judge your work.” Romance for a man is his meeting of this challenge. Romance is his condensed reenactment of his lifelong course of having shaped the world into a form most auspicious to his life. But there is another, most crucial form of condensation that romance provides: the woman’s body is connected to the woman’s mind, a mind that understands conceptually the meaning of all the diverse and dispersed actions taken by the man over the course of his life.
Thus the woman is more than simply a metaphorical “mirror” for the man. The man sees, in the woman, more than just a reflection of his own character traits. The man sees a condensation, through his effect on the consciousness and body of the woman, of the entirety of his effect on the world.
* * *
With understanding such as this, any young man or woman—or boy or girl—will be intellectually equipped to laugh, with contempt, the likes of drag queen story hour off the world stage.
Although defeating evil requires understanding the good, defeating evil is not the greatest benefit of understanding the good. As Ayn Rand writes (“Philosophy and Sense of Life,” in The Romantic Manifesto, p. 33),
Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then—and only then—it is the greatest reward of man’s life.