Anti-Normativity

 

I subscribe to some videos and articles from Christopher F. Rufo. He sent out an article called The Anti-Normative Society—the campaign against sexual “normativity” is a revolt against reality—and must be resisted.

 

Let me quote from Rufo and then comment on what he writes: “The most potent line of attack from radical Queer theory is the discipline’s assault on so-callled sexual normativity . . . which provides a criticism of well-adjusted, psychologically integrated people. The general idea is that these are norms, promoted by society and reinforced by the economic system of capitalism, that appear to be oriented toward health, reproduction, and psychological integration, but, in fact, are used as a mechanism of oppression against non-normative groups—for example people who don’t fit into the gender binary or the heterosexual ideal.”

 

My response: The majority of our society are heterosexual and part of the gender binary and that is how it should remain. That way of living, its users, and its existents, are healthy, normal and well-adjusted and do not need to be remade and redirected by anti-normative minorities. The latter are human too and have a lac at the table, but they cannot and should not be allowed to run society. The heterosexual, normal, normative majority run things and must, but all minorities should and are not oppressed in America. If minorities want to make a splash let them rely on their intersectional categories, and maverize, allowing much cultural richness from their singular perspective. Radicals driving queer theory and other postmodernists attacks on the American Way must not be allowed to hold sway. Or redefine the American narrative.

 

Rufo continues: “If we break it down further, we see that Queer Theory makes an implicit two-part argument. On the surface, you have a relativistic argument, which says that normative ideals are arbitrary social constructs, and, contrary to the traditional view, society can prioritize either the normative or non-normative at will. In other words, there is no inevitable human hierarchy. On the contrary, these structures are all reproduced through oppressive systems and should be ruthlessly interrogated and deconstructed, because, ultimately, none of them have a monopoly on human values.”

 

My response: in part both normative and non-normative ideals are social constructs, but they are also implicit social structures built into human nature, as society becomes more populous, integrated, and complex, and God wants the normative ideals to be the norms of society, but not for reasons of persecuting or subjecting ay minority, but instead this domination is desirable to provide happiness and stability for the great majority of citizens.

 

Traditionalists must fight back hard against queer theory radicalists out to deconstruct and overthrow traditional values and gender roles. The anti-normativists are revolutionaries and nihilists overturning all that is good and beautiful, turning society into an unworkable hellhole and mess. Their relativism is their disguised cover behind which they are in revolt and at war with society, intent upon overthrowing it in all aspects.

 

Rufo continues: “The second part of the argument, which is hidden and implicit, is an absolutist argument, because, in fact, the queer theorists are not saying that everything is relative and that, therefore, there should be no hierarchy or set of values above any other set of values. Under the surface, they have a desire to achieve the hegemony of the non-normative, to displace the old society with what might be called a ‘queer-normative society,’ a ‘fat-normative society,’ a ‘mental-illness-normative society.’”

 

My response: Radical queer theorists, like CRTists and all other neo-Marxists revolutionaries and postmodernist true-believers, talk the relativist game to undermine traditional ways and values, but their sincere belief and desire is to install a new cultural norm of absolutist, totalitarian nature, one that they will rule all from with an iron fist. The non-normative groups will be the new ideal, whether these groups are queer or fat or mentally ill. Such sick standards and values will rot away all in society. Society will cease to function and collapse.

 

Rufo continues: ‘And so, the two-part operation of this argument is, in a sense, relativism against the enemy and absolutism on behalf of a friend. And the goal isn’t tolerance or pluralism, which you often hear deployed as a surface-level rhetorical argument. The goal is to achieve and inversion and the hegemony of the non-normative ideal, which you see valorized in the academic literature on all these different-axes—gender, sexuality, body type, or psychological health.”

 

My response: Relativism is the values assault to overthrow their enemies, the normative majority, their ideals, their values. It is war, all-out attack on normal people. Not that the non-normative types should be picked on, oppressed, or marginalized, but they must not be allowed to run society or set the values for the majority either. These non-normative postmodernists seek not equality and acceptance, but they want to be the new elite, and to rule and oppress all from the normative majority, in a Marxist prison camp society as likable and Nort Korea.

 

Rufo continues: “This is no longer merely theoretical; it is actually happening in our society.”

 

My response: The woke revolution is upon us, and the rot runs very deep as they seek to topple traditional society in American. Rufo goes on to complain that mental illness is now cool, not a non-normative identity to be cured or ameliorated through therapy, but now is a banner of merit for the young.

 

Rufo continues: “This is a significant change. We see a cultural process that is flipping the concept of normativity on its head. And it is not only activists and intellectuals, but corporations that are wielding this cultural power in order to slowly re-engineer society as a whole. And so the key thing to understand here is that these are not identities that you would think of as traditional racial or sexual or religious identities; these are political identities. And, in fact, the bait-and-switch from Queer Theory is precisely this: they are taking, what are, on the surface, gender identities and sexual identities, and they’re transforming them into a political identity that has a valence that in some cases is related to, but in many other cases is not related to, the spoken sexual identity.” 

My response: The silent majority must wake up, organize, and fight back. Normativity must be the norm for America, though non-normative minorities deserve their place at the table too, but they must not be allowed to overthrow what is, setting up a sick, twisted narrative ruinous to all and not sustainable.

 

That all these revolutionary, non-normative identities, sexual and intersectional, and the normative identities, to be overthrown, are actually transformed into political identities for these postmodernist Marxists so all will live in their newly assigned caste roles in the vast governmental bureaucracy constituting the new totalitarian Communist state, reveals that they are ideologues and revolutionaries;  these hailed categories of the oppressed are meant are meant to serve as a battering ram to smash down the gates of society as a traditional, fortified city, to overturn traditional society and rules. The former oppressors will be the new oppressed groups and revenge will be exacted upon them. Equality and leveling the playing field was never the aim, but supremacy by a new non-normative elite was the goal all along and, if they are victorious, they will not be beneficent rulers.

 

Rufo continues: “The goal here is not to create a ‘non-normative society’—meaning a relativistic society in which no one system has any more value than another—but to create an ‘anti-normative-society.’ And this is a key distinction because they’re reducing the idea of normativity to a plastic conception of power.  They are taking an almost Marxist categorization of oppressor and oppressed along the axis o gender and sexuality, which must be inverted to achieve liberation . . . is that they want to abolish the normative society, to tear down the normative society.”

 

My response: I think they do want to create a non-normative society and it is an absolutist society. Their radical, anti-normative society is to abolish all that is, all that is good and beautiful, and their intent and their wills are wicked and demonic.

 

Rufo continues: “And in this ‘anti-normative society,’ you see also a hidden ideal . . . We might categorize this new ideal as a ‘gender-neutral, non-binary, obese, mentally disturbed, ‘they/them’ pronoun user, operating as a radically autonomous individual that is totally disconnected from any of the traditional bonds, relationships, and constraints.’ In a way, this is a person who, in the ideal type typology, transcends the limitations of the hetero-patriarchal structure, transcends the limitations of the gender binary, and transcends the expectation that is imposed by society for psychological integration and psychological health.”

 

My response: These anti-normative categories and identities are not ideal at all, and these marginalized, angry, unhappy people cannot give us a set of values and structures to building human civilization. They are pure nihilists. They seem like radically autonomous individualists, but they are not maverizers but are groupist, mobbed joiners without order, values, God or love. They are not rebels so much as deformed, godless, pathetic destroyers, and they should not be attacked, but their sick values are not to be popular and heeded anymore.

 

Rufo, in clear, simple language, lays out what we are up against. He is so smart and learned, understanding them so well that their actions, their secrete schemes, their vicious intentions and totalitarian uniformity are now made known for the public, and we may yet take back our country and culture, and brilliant thinkers like Ruo have let us knw who the enemy is and what we are up against, and what we should be doing about it.

 

Rufo continues: “As a social matter, this new ideal is not able to serve as a functioning substitute; the queer theorist cannot posit a replacement for a society governed on their principles. Rather, the new ideal functions almost entirely on the process of negation: dissolving, attacking, dismantling, and deconstructing. Those are the verbs and the loaded meaning behind all their intellectual work. And then you can think of the human work that you see as a social movement as a left-wing Nietzchean inversion—a total transgression of the given norms of society, and a way for the left-wing gender activists to get beyond the gender binary, to get beyond the hetero-patriarchal society, and to achieve an almost purely negative form of liberation.”

 

My response: Rufo is spot on: this anti-normative, woke ideal is not a functional substitute for our Judeo-Christian American, capitalist society with its constitutional republic. I disagree with Rufo a bit: these Marxist true believers are not rebelling as individualists seeking pure freedom—their lawless anarchy is the calm before the storm before totalitarian Communism and its ideological rigidity are brought in to fill the vacuum. There will be no liberation and no individualism allowed for anyone, and this is the cause that these woke losers are touting and are willing to die for.

 

Rufo continues: “That’s ultimately the only remaining value embedded in the ideology: the idea of totally shattering the structures that would inhibit the individual and tether the individual to a series of expectations, and getting beyond them into an almost amorphous and undefinable unknown . . .”

 

 

My response: we need traditional structures to inhibit the group without laws and order more than the individual, but even the individual needs some limits, though better internally disciplined  and self-imposed for a generation of coming maverizing supercitizens. Ordered liberty, not pure lawless anarchy and mindless freedom without discipline, is the objective.

 

Rufo continues: “ . . . But the ultimate problem is that a society based on an anti-normative ideal will eventually fail. It’s something that is fundamentally unstable. It has a self-devouring standard . . . it’s a self-extinguishing society . . .”

 

My response: I believe it says somewhere in the Bible that no house divided against itself can fail to fall, and that is what woke anti-normative ideologues are bringing against America.

 

Rufo goes on to lay out why Queer Theory has succeeded: “I think, in part, because it’s successfully deployed a stigma against the articulated defense of normative society. It’s considered taboo to provide an explicit intellectual defense of heterosexuality, biological sex, the gender binary, the two-parent family, and psychological integration. Consequently, you see very little intellectual output defending those systems and hierarchies; people have simply tacitly accepted them. And, if we want to be fair to gender theorists, they’ve been successful in bringing those systems up to the surface, undermining these certainties, providing a critique that creates doubt and then a taboo against their defense, which again, had previously been accepted as unstated fact.”

 

My response: Rufo insightfully delineates that gender theorists brought these issues to the surface, and caught all off guard in over-criticizing traditional values and ways. It was considered racist,, sexist, capitalist and homophobic to defend traditional values written off by these intersectional postmodernists and all corrupt and unjust.

 

Rufo continues eloquently: “And, in my view, the best outcome would be to create a generally normative society with space and respect for people who don’t automatically fit into those categories, while recognizing that, for example, the sex binary is fundamental, unchanging and universal. The ultimate goal is to create a society that respects the basic laws of human nature, that provides for equal dignity for people who don’t automatically fit categories of masculinity and femininity, but orienting a society that is going to establish a hierarchy of values that leads towards a notion of the transcendent, towards the true, the good and the beautiful.”

 

My response: He is a genius; he understands what is going on, and uses such clear, concise simple speech to lay it out and provide the prober response to these complex attacks upon the America way.