brand new interview

[David Fuller]

hey guys - does anyone here remember the viral 'Deep Code' assessment last year - 'Situational Assessment".

Was very popular after the Trump election - really brilliant analysis of how the current paradigm - the Blue Church - is under assault from the Red Religion insurgency.

I just did an interview with the author, Jordan Hall - tying the recent Jordan Peterson / Channel 4 interview to the unfolding of those deep dynamics. 

Take a look - I think it's essential stuff - about where evolution may go next, and how the 'children of Blue' might go to respond to this new insurgency...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEvuQWR3oo

David.

--

---

Journalist & Filmmaker

www.davidfuller.tv

Private commissions via Storyflex

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Interesting interview David.

I see it as the blue church has been infiltrated, by the rigidity of the red church, and as a result left behind the responsibility aspect that it shared with the red church, that the red church is still maintaining.

It is unfortunate that the blue church has gone the direction of an appeal to authority.  Where the identity of a person saying something, carries more weight than the validity of the person saying it.  This appeal to authority leaves out the responsibility to tell the truth.  In my home town of Claremont California, students at the Claremont colleges decided to close down the Reggae festival that was happening every year due to cultural appropriation.  They said that black musicians playing to a mostly white audience is appropriation.  What was troublesome was that no one asked the Musicians themselves how they felt about playing to a white audience.  A friend of mine use to perform there every year, and did not mind one bit performing to white Americans.  To him, if they liked his music, cool!  There was one student who was born in America who's family was from Trinidad complaining about it, and because she had the identity chips on her side, the school agreed to shut it down, treating that one person as some kind of ambassador for all people from the West Indies.  In America the Blue Church has gotten that delusional and ridiculous.  Oberlin University also had students protesting to shut down a sushi bar, because sushi is culturally insensitive. 

Is this really what activism has come down to?  Just nine years ago we were protesting the Military Industrial Complex, as well as crooked investors who created a global financial recession.  Now activism has been reduced to protesting music and food?  Sometimes I wonder just what planet I am living on.  

All the best,

Kenneth

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

[Alexander Bard]

Check environmentalism. It used to be about saving the planet from climate change. Now it's all about what we eat and what we wear (or if we fly) as if the private has become more important than the global. It's all about moralistic appearance and not about saving us from real external threats at all. I prefer to this whole agenda as "the fake left". Although it has now also infected corporate ambitions on a massive and destructive scale.

We refer to this phenomenon as "the decorationist society" in our new book "Digital Libido". The word "decadence" has simply lost that valuable original meaning so we had to come up with a new concept.

Decorationism is a supraideology that is obsessed with appearance, vocabulary, territoriality, surface (who speaks and not what is being said) and it is of course totally useless to build a society on. It is most of all absurdly infantile. Because truth resides in our depths and truth is what is required to survive and construct. It is grown-up.  So the opposite to a "decorationist society" is a "society of truth" as in truth of depth and substance.

And if Claremont closes down a reggae festival, then decorationism is huge problem and not something madly marginal to be ignored. Far from it. Cultural appropriation? Well, appropriating culture is the whole point with culture. Otherwise culture is dead. It is no coincidence that the decorationist take their cue from Rousseau and not from Marx or Nietzsche.

Best

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Alexander,

I know a little of your history, and how you have been at the forefront of gay and transgender rights in the 80s and 90s.  So if you are calling this decadent, that is seriously saying something.

And yes, Claremont closing down a reggae festival of all places is a huge problem.  A city known for being a center of knowledge and a generally open minded community.  I would use the term cultural adoption rather than appropriation.  In terms of racism?  Mass Incarceration is a much more dire concern than white kids smoking pot as a reggae concert.  Children grow up without fathers do to Mass Incarceration.  We need to prioritize. 

I am intrigued by this book Digital Libido you are talking about.  You are saying many things that have been on my mind, and it is refreshing to hear someone I have known to be liberal such as you criticizing this mess. 

Sam Harris is not a racist because of his criticism of Islam.  I may disagree with many things Jordan Peterson says, but he is not trans-phobic or a bigot.  I think Milo Yiannopoulos does shoddy research, and find him a bit insincere, but he should still have the right to speak, as it benefits the side of truth is people who are wrong have the right to speak.  And why did I even have to say that last sentence?  This should be a no brainer to anyone who grew up in the free world. 

 Kenneth

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Check environmentalism. It used to be about saving the planet from climate change. Now it's all about what we eat and what we wear (or if we fly) as if the private has become more important than the global. It's all about moralistic appearance and not about saving us from real external threats at all. I prefer to this whole agenda as "the fake left". Although it has now also infected corporate ambitions on a massive and destructive scale.

We refer to this phenomenon as "the decorationist society" in our new book "Digital Libido". The word "decadence" has simply lost that valuable original meaning so we had to come up with a new concept.

Decorationism is a supraideology that is obsessed with appearance, vocabulary, territoriality, surface (who speaks and not what is being said) and it is of course totally useless to build a society on. It is most of all absurdly infantile. Because truth resides in our depths and truth is what is required to survive and construct. It is grown-up.  So the opposite to a "decorationist society" is a "society of truth" as in truth of depth and substance.

And if Claremont closes down a reggae festival, then decorationism is huge problem and not something madly marginal to be ignored. Far from it. Cultural appropriation? Well, appropriating culture is the whole point with culture. Otherwise culture is dead. It is no coincidence that the decorationist take their cue from Rousseau and not from Marx or Nietzsche.

Best

Alexander

[Alexander Bard]

Well, I am not against gay or transgender rights, not at all. Where did you get that from?

Rather I am for a Classical Feminist Movement (the new Womiphesto is precisely that) and a Classical LGBT Rights Movement. That deals with rights and responsibilities of all citizens towards an egalitarian society (egalitarianism is the grand old idea that we should all be equal before the law). And that is it.

But I am more than happy to kill that pseudoacademic sophistry called gender studies. It provides nothing but poisonous narcissistic propganda.

Because the shift from an egalitarian ambition to a decorationist society happens when The Cult of The Biggest Victim becomes the norm for all. And that is what has happened lately in North America, Western Europe and Australia. We threw out The Hero/The Heroine as ideals and replaced them with destructive and infantile victimhood ideals. That is real decadence, or decorationism if you prefer.

And that is the beginning of the end to any civilised and functional society, as Freud, Marx, Nietzsche and Jung all would agree.

Best intentions

Alexander Bard

2018-02-10 0:41 GMT+01:00 Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristens...@gmail.com>:

Alexander,

I know a little of your history, and how you have been at the forefront of gay and transgender rights in the 80s and 90s.  So if you are calling this decadent, that is seriously saying something.

And yes, Claremont closing down a reggae festival of all places is a huge problem.  A city known for being a center of knowledge and a generally open minded community.  I would use the term cultural adoption rather than appropriation.  In terms of racism?  Mass Incarceration is a much more dire concern than white kids smoking pot as a reggae concert.  Children grow up without fathers do to Mass Incarceration.  We need to prioritize. 

I am intrigued by this book Digital Libido you are talking about.  You are saying many things that have been on my mind, and it is refreshing to hear someone I have known to be liberal such as you criticizing this mess. 

Sam Harris is not a racist because of his criticism of Islam.  I may disagree with many things Jordan Peterson says, but he is not trans-phobic or a bigot.  I think Milo Yiannopoulos does shoddy research, and find him a bit insincere, but he should still have the right to speak, as it benefits the side of truth is people who are wrong have the right to speak.  And why did I even have to say that last sentence?  This should be a no brainer to anyone who grew up in the free world. 

 Kenneth

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Check environmentalism. It used to be about saving the planet from climate change. Now it's all about what we eat and what we wear (or if we fly) as if the private has become more important than the global. It's all about moralistic appearance and not about saving us from real external threats at all. I prefer to this whole agenda as "the fake left". Although it has now also infected corporate ambitions on a massive and destructive scale.

We refer to this phenomenon as "the decorationist society" in our new book "Digital Libido". The word "decadence" has simply lost that valuable original meaning so we had to come up with a new concept.

Decorationism is a supraideology that is obsessed with appearance, vocabulary, territoriality, surface (who speaks and not what is being said) and it is of course totally useless to build a society on. It is most of all absurdly infantile. Because truth resides in our depths and truth is what is required to survive and construct. It is grown-up.  So the opposite to a "decorationist society" is a "society of truth" as in truth of depth and substance.

And if Claremont closes down a reggae festival, then decorationism is huge problem and not something madly marginal to be ignored. Far from it. Cultural appropriation? Well, appropriating culture is the whole point with culture. Otherwise culture is dead. It is no coincidence that the decorationist take their cue from Rousseau and not from Marx or Nietzsche.

Best

Alexander

[Roger Williams]

Hi David,

Great interview - thank you for sharing it! I've been following Greenhall quite closely the past couple of years. He is one of the most insightful thinkers in this space that I am aware of. 

I would be curious to hear his thoughts on syntheism and the role it could play in helping us move to a better integration of "red" and "blue" thinking. He strikes me as very syntheistic in his thinking based on what I have read and feel he would see this movement as part of the solution to the crises he has written about.

Please keep up the excellent work!

Roger

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Bard]

Syntheos is the name for the constructive order that we eventually will have to create or find to get out of the current chaos. The contemporary name for the messianic.

So Greenhall is not there yet but heading in that direction. Right now he is cherishing the chaos predicting that it will at least have to result in a plurarchy (an anarchy with at least superior nodes within the network).

But the construction of a Syntheos has tt take place sooner or later. Think of it as a tribe of leaders over all other tribes. Acting by example (also through its religious practices). Known through its intentions (uncorrupted or rather uncorruptible).

I'm sure both Jordan Peterson and Jordan Greenhall will have to reach that logical conclusion too. They know mythology and they now deep psychology through knowing human history.

Best

Alexander

Roger

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Alexander my brother,

No I never said you were against gay or transgender rights at all.  Quite the opposite.  I said you have been at the forefront of gay and transgender rights.  Anyone can do a google search and see that you've been at the epicenter of such movements.  So hearing from you, about the immaturity of the fake left reaffirms my conviction. 

There are two places in the United States where I would hear your music in the 1990s.  If it was not late night Mtv, it was usually at a gay bar in West Hollywood.  Believe me Alexander I think you are more for feminism, gay rights, as well as trans rights, than most people who claim to be for those things. 

Kenneth

[Alexander Bard]

Thank you, dear Kenneth!

My point is rather that if the society on which those rights are based and executed evaporates, so do the rights. And quickly so.

Q might be an interesting letter in many ways, but Q is not a functioning meme on which to build a rights movement. And certainly not a society within which people can orientate themselves.

LGBT is a rights movement, Q is a cultural experiment. Mixing the two up into LGBTQ was a terrible mistake. It was bound to sooner or later arrive at queer totalitarianism.

Which is what the social justice warrior crowd has become, the new enemy against an open society and against free speech.

Sweden is here just ahead of the curve here. So I know from where I speak, the social experimental workshop of the world.

Best intentions

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Alexander

Ah thank you for the perspective on Q.  Q is an arbitrary thing because in a sense anyone can fit the category of Q.  I mean I am a heterosexual man, who buys his clothes in the men and women's departments.  I typically do manly things.  I like Heavy Metal music, and have been involved with aggressive sports like wrestling and boxing, but I like nice looking clothes.  In the United States there is a lack of nice looking clothes in the men's department stores.  Seriously what I am saying is not 100%, but it sometimes seems that American men unconsciously try to look sloppy to secure their heterosexuality.  When a man takes care of his appearance, he gets called metro-sexual.  In Scandinavia, I don't think there is even a word for metro-sexual.  Perhaps in a gender sense, I could fall under the category of Q, but in reality, I am not trying to look feminine.  I just like nice looking clothes! 

One of the problems with this "progressive" stack that was introduced at Occupy was how it ranked privilege and created an oppression hierarchy over certain identities which were completely arbitrary.   It failed at establishing who is more or less oppressed, and instead just ranked oppression on what is most noticeable.  It was ranked as thus;

1. Race

2. Heteronormativity

3. Sexuality

4. Gender

5. Ability

6. Class

So how does that make sense to put something as arbitrary as Heteronormativity as being more oppressed than women?  I mean all these categories are spectrums of situations and experience to solidify it in such a hierarchy is ridiculous.  I guess that would fall in the Q category.  Truth is by definition most people are queer to greater or lesser degrees. 

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you, dear Kenneth!

My point is rather that if the society on which those rights are based and executed evaporates, so do the rights. And quickly so.

Q might be an interesting letter in many ways, but Q is not a functioning meme on which to build a rights movement. And certainly not a society within which people can orientate themselves.

LGBT is a rights movement, Q is a cultural experiment. Mixing the two up into LGBTQ was a terrible mistake. It was bound to sooner or later arrive at queer totalitarianism.

Which is what the social justice warrior crowd has become, the new enemy against an open society and against free speech.

Sweden is here just ahead of the curve here. So I know from where I speak, the social experimental workshop of the world.

Best intentions

Alexander

[Alexander Bard]

You're not even queer according to SJW standards, dear Kenneth!

In the current hierarchy, you're the slaughtered meat at the bottom of the pyramid. You're a nobody excecpt as a self-hating constant supporters of others "more victimised than yourself".

The gender studies feminists who headed the #metoo campaign last autumn admittedly did not care one bit if a few innocent heterosexual males became victims of their campaign.

That is the attitude of pure totalitarianism. With complete disregard for free speech and the rule of law. Inherited group guilt as ideological motor.

And if you had studied Freud and Lacan before queer theory took off in the 1980s, it was bound to end here, in a Rousseuain victimhood totalitarian stance.

This is where I have always agreed with Zizek that "we need to read Hegel" to understand the times we live in. The "Syntheism" book begins and ends with this call.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-10 19:05 GMT+01:00 Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristens...@gmail.com>:

Alexander

Ah thank you for the perspective on Q.  Q is an arbitrary thing because in a sense anyone can fit the category of Q.  I mean I am a heterosexual man, who buys his clothes in the men and women's departments.  I typically do manly things.  I like Heavy Metal music, and have been involved with aggressive sports like wrestling and boxing, but I like nice looking clothes.  In the United States there is a lack of nice looking clothes in the men's department stores.  Seriously what I am saying is not 100%, but it sometimes seems that American men unconsciously try to look sloppy to secure their heterosexuality.  When a man takes care of his appearance, he gets called metro-sexual.  In Scandinavia, I don't think there is even a word for metro-sexual.  Perhaps in a gender sense, I could fall under the category of Q, but in reality, I am not trying to look feminine.  I just like nice looking clothes! 

One of the problems with this "progressive" stack that was introduced at Occupy was how it ranked privilege and created an oppression hierarchy over certain identities which were completely arbitrary.   It failed at establishing who is more or less oppressed, and instead just ranked oppression on what is most noticeable.  It was ranked as thus;

1. Race

2. Heteronormativity

3. Sexuality

4. Gender

5. Ability

6. Class

So how does that make sense to put something as arbitrary as Heteronormativity as being more oppressed than women?  I mean all these categories are spectrums of situations and experience to solidify it in such a hierarchy is ridiculous.  I guess that would fall in the Q category.  Truth is by definition most people are queer to greater or lesser degrees. 

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you, dear Kenneth!

My point is rather that if the society on which those rights are based and executed evaporates, so do the rights. And quickly so.

Q might be an interesting letter in many ways, but Q is not a functioning meme on which to build a rights movement. And certainly not a society within which people can orientate themselves.

LGBT is a rights movement, Q is a cultural experiment. Mixing the two up into LGBTQ was a terrible mistake. It was bound to sooner or later arrive at queer totalitarianism.

Which is what the social justice warrior crowd has become, the new enemy against an open society and against free speech.

Sweden is here just ahead of the curve here. So I know from where I speak, the social experimental workshop of the world.

Best intentions

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Unfortunately you are right.  SJW's only focus on a few issues of inequality and don't take into account poverty, classicism, or the hardships of those with different abilities.  It's a bunch of self indulgent, mental masturbation that can only thrive in upper middle class to wealthy environments.  When I lived in the projects, no one gave a damn about safe spaces and trigger warnings.  We knew living on the border of four gang territories that safe spaces are a fiction.

No offense taken and best intentions as well.

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're not even queer according to SJW standards, dear Kenneth!

In the current hierarchy, you're the slaughtered meat at the bottom of the pyramid. You're a nobody excecpt as a self-hating constant supporters of others "more victimised than yourself".

The gender studies feminists who headed the #metoo campaign last autumn admittedly did not care one bit if a few innocent heterosexual males became victims of their campaign.

That is the attitude of pure totalitarianism. With complete disregard for free speech and the rule of law. Inherited group guilt as ideological motor.

And if you had studied Freud and Lacan before queer theory took off in the 1980s, it was bound to end here, in a Rousseuain victimhood totalitarian stance.

This is where I have always agreed with Zizek that "we need to read Hegel" to understand the times we live in. The "Syntheism" book begins and ends with this call.

Best intentions

Alexander

[竜虎風森]

Kenneth,

I chartered and presided over an LGBTQ support group in 2013 and 2014. Can confirm that the "Q" was used synonymously with "anything that's not heteronormative" and a vocal minority of the membership body even wanted our group to be titled "Queer-Straight Alliance".

I did push for consistency. If we wanted to involve the Q, I insisted that we provided support for anyone who was struggling with being considered a deviant, and we would have included "metrosexuals" under my direction bc queer = non-heteronormative = anyone getting 'slack' for defying stereotypes.

Since some of the members were too young to vote, it was indeed a cultural initiative. Actually, the LGBT movement of the 1970s in the USA used "queering/queer" as a verb, rather than a classification/adjective. That was when the Q was implicit. It's simply been made explicit now.

--K

On 10 Feb 2018 3.17 PM, "Kenneth Morningstar99" <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unfortunately you are right.  SJW's only focus on a few issues of inequality and don't take into account poverty, classicism, or the hardships of those with different abilities.  It's a bunch of self indulgent, mental masturbation that can only thrive in upper middle class to wealthy environments.  When I lived in the projects, no one gave a damn about safe spaces and trigger warnings.  We knew living on the border of four gang territories that safe spaces are a fiction.

No offense taken and best intentions as well.

Kenneth

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're not even queer according to SJW standards, dear Kenneth!

In the current hierarchy, you're the slaughtered meat at the bottom of the pyramid. You're a nobody excecpt as a self-hating constant supporters of others "more victimised than yourself".

The gender studies feminists who headed the #metoo campaign last autumn admittedly did not care one bit if a few innocent heterosexual males became victims of their campaign.

That is the attitude of pure totalitarianism. With complete disregard for free speech and the rule of law. Inherited group guilt as ideological motor.

And if you had studied Freud and Lacan before queer theory took off in the 1980s, it was bound to end here, in a Rousseuain victimhood totalitarian stance.

This is where I have always agreed with Zizek that "we need to read Hegel" to understand the times we live in. The "Syntheism" book begins and ends with this call.

Best intentions

Alexander

[Alexander Bard]

Dear Keric & Co

None of the queer pioneers, like Judith Butler, ever considered or advocated "queer" as an identity.

Such an identity is simply incompatible with Butler's concept of queer as fluid.

This is why I firmlyh believe that the adding of Q to LGBT made no sense. Either you're running an LGBT rights campaign. Or you're running a Queer Culture Club.

So the launch of LGBTQ (and later further additions of letter inflations)n turned a brilliant rights campaign into a narcissistic dead end.

And if you ever do run a Queer Culture Club, the first thing you must do is deal with the shadows of these "queer people". None of that has really happened in Q circles.

Which is why I advocate a classical LGBT rights movement, just like the eminent Andrew Sullivan and many other LGBT thinkers.

Test: Is a support group just a chat group or does it have a clear goal in sight with its activities? This is the difference between infantility and adulthood.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-11 10:25 GMT+01:00 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com>:

Kenneth,

I chartered and presided over an LGBTQ support group in 2013 and 2014. Can confirm that the "Q" was used synonymously with "anything that's not heteronormative" and a vocal minority of the membership body even wanted our group to be titled "Queer-Straight Alliance".

I did push for consistency. If we wanted to involve the Q, I insisted that we provided support for anyone who was struggling with being considered a deviant, and we would have included "metrosexuals" under my direction bc queer = non-heteronormative = anyone getting 'slack' for defying stereotypes.

Since some of the members were too young to vote, it was indeed a cultural initiative. Actually, the LGBT movement of the 1970s in the USA used "queering/queer" as a verb, rather than a classification/adjective. That was when the Q was implicit. It's simply been made explicit now.

--K

[竜虎風森]

Alex,

You're oversimplifying and drawing false dilemmas. In my area, people are disowned by their families and had just gotten out of high school where the bullying is and has been leading kids to suicide.

I live in the 49th-place province for public education. The 2nd worst and underfunded. Things do get bad, and college is viewed as a means of getting out of here.

Having a support group can't be reduced to infantilism if it's a resource by which our members increased their academic focus and de-triggered their old high-school reactions, becoming more effective and involved students.

When you begin to more vocally point out 'death knells' for various movements, from my experience you tend to see things more in black and white: A group/person is either infantile or adult, constructivist or realistic, Rousseauean or Hegelian, narcissistic or principled, identitarian or pragmatic, feeling or fact-based.

Those dichotomies are not so cut-and-dry, bc people's belief clusters and habits can accommodate contradictions without imploding, so they can have elements of infantile and adult, narcissistic and principled, etc.... at the same time.

Without context, your metrics are false dichotomies. For example, I ran the support group as conversational Culture club, and an organisation for Community/campus involvement and action.

I got our budget (grant from the school administration)) doubled over the course of a single semester, when their budget hadn't increased at all over the last decade.

I had to rely on passive support to retain members, and actionability to qualify as an important investment for the institution.

That club successfully managed to facilitate both LGBT politics AND queer cultural exploration. The average age of our members was 18.

We defy your schematic, so how much have you underestimated our young Leftists of the U.S.?  and how much have you *over*estimated the dysfunctions here in the States?

If you only look at big universities, of course you'll find cases of utter stupidity, but at the grassroots, we allow for disagreement, and we can recognise classifications without identifying with them.

Not every country is Sweden

--K

On 11 Feb 2018 4.32 AM, "Alexander Bard" <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Keric & Co

None of the queer pioneers, like Judith Butler, ever considered or advocated "queer" as an identity.

Such an identity is simply incompatible with Butler's concept of queer as fluid.

This is why I firmlyh believe that the adding of Q to LGBT made no sense. Either you're running an LGBT rights campaign. Or you're running a Queer Culture Club.

So the launch of LGBTQ (and later further additions of letter inflations)n turned a brilliant rights campaign into a narcissistic dead end.

And if you ever do run a Queer Culture Club, the first thing you must do is deal with the shadows of these "queer people". None of that has really happened in Q circles.

Which is why I advocate a classical LGBT rights movement, just like the eminent Andrew Sullivan and many other LGBT thinkers.

Test: Is a support group just a chat group or does it have a clear goal in sight with its activities? This is the difference between infantility and adulthood.

Best intentions

Alexander

2018-02-11 10:25 GMT+01:00 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com>:

Kenneth,

I chartered and presided over an LGBTQ support group in 2013 and 2014. Can confirm that the "Q" was used synonymously with "anything that's not heteronormative" and a vocal minority of the membership body even wanted our group to be titled "Queer-Straight Alliance".

I did push for consistency. If we wanted to involve the Q, I insisted that we provided support for anyone who was struggling with being considered a deviant, and we would have included "metrosexuals" under my direction bc queer = non-heteronormative = anyone getting 'slack' for defying stereotypes.

Since some of the members were too young to vote, it was indeed a cultural initiative. Actually, the LGBT movement of the 1970s in the USA used "queering/queer" as a verb, rather than a classification/adjective. That was when the Q was implicit. It's simply been made explicit now.

--K