1,978 words
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán receives endless flak in the Western media due to his staunch advocacy of an anti-woke regime of what he likes to term “illiberal democracy”, but which often sounds more like pure common sense. One particularly interesting “crime” of Viktor’s in the eyes of prevailing liberal opinion – particularly during the Holy Month of Pride through which we are currently being forced to pass – was his 2018 decision to effectively ban the future teaching of Gender Studies and Queer Studies courses throughout the entire Hungarian university-system, particularly at certain institutions backed by George Soros.
Orbán’s Deputy PM, Zsolt Semjen (no friend of semen), explained Queer Studies “has no business in universities” because it is “an ideology, not a science”. He could have gone further than that: as once taught in certain Hungarian universities prior to the 2018 ban, Queer Studies was actually being pushed as a sort of bizarre, absurdist magical practice, intended to dissolve Western society wholesale – using the unexpected ideological weapon of living alien dildos as a stiff and unyielding phallic battering ram to do so.
I know this because I have developed the niche hobby of seeking out the most absurd modern-day academic theses I can find in open-access online journals. By far the funniest it has ever been my pleasure to find were a series of Queer Studies papers hyper-pretentiously assessing the strange world of “objectum sexuals”, those amusing human weirdos who fall in love (and lust) with inanimate objects large and small, like the Statue of Liberty, aluminum-surfaced briefcases, bright plastic yoghurt pots…and dildos. (See my previous pieces on such freaks here and here.)
Penile Dementia
Being mentally ill, objectums have naturally formulated some very original philosophical questions down the years. One group of online objectum ontologists from the UK’s University of Warwick LGBTUA (those letters just keep on changing) Society once posed the following Wittgenstein-level query: if you fail to ask for consent from your sex-toy prior to using it, does that technically mean you are raping it?
It should be pointed out at this juncture that some objectums don’t just sleep with inanimate items, they also think they are literally sentient, alive and in love with their human owners too, and that, as such, man and material are able to communicate with one another via intimate telepathic means. Members of the Warwick University Alphabet Soup Club were thus split upon whether or not it was possible to rape a dildo, vibrator, butt-plug or other form of rubbery sex-toy. If it was indeed inert, then no. But if it was secretly alive, then maybe so.
I gain this valuable information from a truly learned treatise, “Loving Objects“, by Jennifer Terry, which appeared in the Trans-Humanities Journal in June 2010. I’ve no idea whether or not Dr. Terry is on the objectum-spectrum herself, but she certainly sounds like an ally: “I would add, as an aside, that a vibrator is animate, or it wouldn’t be of much value; when a vibrator is inanimate, it is quite literally turned off.” As am I, by this whole facile debate.
Contemporary Western academia has got its head shoved even farther up its own objectum-rectum than an ostrich trying to lick its own kidneys. The Scholastic philosophers of the medieval Church used to be mocked for pointlessly debating comically arcane topics like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today, their (post-)humanities successor-professors prefer to piss their Ivory Tower days away speculating how many angels could dance on the head of a penis.
Object Lessons
Another such paper, 2015’s “An Orientation to Love Objects: An Analysis of the Objectum Sexual Campaign for Recognition as Sexual Subjects” by Stephanie N. Scheurich, was especially fin de siècle. It was also no doubt of particular interest to Viktor Orbán, as it was produced under the aegis of the Department of Gender Studies at the Central European University in the Hungarian capital of Budapest, and thus stands as a prime example of the Soros-funded, socially damaging pseudo-academic rot Orbán’s government sought to prohibit back in 2018.
Impeccably leftist, Scheurich declared herself highly wary of the growing objectum campaign to legalize marriage to bedknobs and broomsticks as demonstrating that, contrary to expectations, objectum sexual folx’ minds have actually been sneakily colonized by white, Western, able-bodied cisheteronormativity.
Normies, Scheurich pointed out, get married to other humans. Objectums seeking to do likewise with toasters and pedalbins, etc, is analogous to brainwashed black Westerners trying to iron out their naturally curly afros just to fit in with the wider, straight, white status quo. Within the institutionally anti-white Queer Studies world, normativity equates automatically to whiteness. Why seek to make your favorite sentient dildo more figuratively “white” by marrying it, therefore? Why not seek to make it more “brown” instead, by…well, one can only imagine.
This queer treachery of assimilation via “a discourse based in sameness”, like the campaign to legalize marriage to watermelons, gets things completely the wrong way around, suggests the author. Why not bend and queer the normies into becoming quasi-objectums instead, by saying that, just as transgenderists preach about gender, we all actually exist upon an objectum-spectrum? After all, I myself possess a favorite hat. Am I really deeply in love and lust with it, but just in denial of my feelings for him/her (the label doesn’t specifically say, it just has basic washing instructions) due to the way society has systematically conditioned me out of admitting to such taboos?
Scheurich observes that, like kids with their teddy-bears (infant objectums themselves?), some soldiers sleep with their guns close to hand in bed at night, whilst some materialistic gold-diggers only marry their human spouses because they own a nice, big, inanimate house for them to live in. Therefore, “certain emotional investments into objects are sanctioned and even encouraged within neoliberal capitalism”. We’re all objectums now, you know.
OOO – Get Her!
A related and notoriously obscurantist strain of post-modern philosophy, Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), tries to see the world through the eyes of “inanimate” objects, in an act of radical empathy. And, once you do see the world through the eyes of a button, what is it like? Horribly humano-colonialist. Objects, to an OOO ontologist, are only objects from an “anthropocentric view”, much as foreigners are only foreigners from a nativist perspective. Within truly polite post-human society, one must never call a spade a spade, either racially or object-wise.
One of history’s key objectums, Eija Riita Ekloff-Berliner-Mauer, who was famous for having ‘married’ the (now-demolished/murdered) Berlin Wall, claimed the human race’s belief in its innate superiority to bricks and mortar was causing actual object-genocide, fueled by a selfish, human-centered ideology “similar in logic and effect to the notions of racial superiority that reigned in Nazi Germany.” Forget the effect of the gas on the Jews: why do we never stop to consider the effect of the Jews on the gas? Being forced to kill six million can’t have been very good for Zyklon-B’s mental health.
The strangest essay I have ever read on this subject – amidst great competition – is undoubtedly “Objects In Human Drag: The Queerness of Object-Oriented Ontologies” by a Canadian queerbo named Katherine Ngaio Connell. Connell feels the “unseen existences” of inanimate substances have been prejudicially erased from history, much like once happened with gays and lesbians: you never get histories of the Hindenburg Disaster written from the viewpoint of the zeppelin itself, and this is wrong. For Connell, objectums and OOO-believers present “strategies of resistance to hegemonic structures imposed by binary gender categories, compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory anthropocentrism.”
The best way she can think of resisting such normative epistemological prisons is by reclassifying dildos themselves as “Objects in Human Drag”. That is, abstract plastics, etc, merely cosplaying as cocks. By reducing the distance between human and dildo, Queer Connell says she will thereby also act to dismantle the traditional normative image of da Vinci’s able-bodied white male Vitruvian Man, the bigoted anatomical standard against which all other humans were up until now discriminatorily measured.
Within Queer Studies, a man dressed as a woman reveals the “male” as simply a point upon an infinite gender-continuum: a dildo strapped to a human likewise reveals object and subject as mere points upon a far wider existential continuum, especially if said dildo is strapped to a more overtly unnatural location than “the stereotypical pubic mound”, such as (her genuine suggestion, not my joke) one’s chin. Glue a hundred to your back and say you’re a hedgehog!
Dildo, Queen of Garbage
It seems there is a form of what may be termed ‘morphological racism’ present within the dildo world, with realistic dildos that look like actual penises experiencing unearned privilege in society over those that don’t. How could this prejudice be combated? Perhaps, suggests our learned academic, sex-aid companies could henceforth begin manufacturing far more dildos that resemble things which don’t really look like human penises at all, but “large pink popsicles” (ideal for child-grooming!), big green poles like you’d imagine The Grinch or Slimer from Ghostbusters might possess, “zombified corpse-dildos”, or the amazing Necronomicox range of “tentacled butt-plugs” based upon the imaginary eldritch genitalia of the alien space-monsters from the Weird Tales of HP Lovecraft.
The even more niche Ovipositor “post-human dildo product”, a veined extraterrestrial-imitating purple insectoid oblong from which the glans drops off before laying an “erotic” gelatin egg when you take it inside your mouth, vagina or anus, is ideal in this regard, apparently. Why not get the same effect for free just by fellating a leper?
Dildos, says Connell, are objects which “perform the human body”, by looking like penises when they are not really penises at all, just as Drag Queens “perform womanhood” by dressing up as women. Therefore, the use of dildos in an ostentatiously bizarre fashion may help “dissolve and reconfigure all things” in Western capitalist society, via a form of OOO-based “ontological magic”.
What specific magickal methods does Connell identify? How about placing dildos not on human bodies at all, but within flamboyantly unexpected places, like inside people’s dishwashers, thereby making each one into “a categorically rogue object”? Another good idea might be moulding future fake willies from “a series of bizarre substances: resin-coated dung, leather, jade, pork crackling”. Meanwhile, you should be very sure indeed never to give your own dildo a human name like Adam, as this is just “a hegemonic tactic to reduce the object’s strangeness.”
Connell makes out that there is an entire valid pre-existing academic tradition of talking utter nonsense about dildos like she does by making pretentious references to Heidegger, citing alleged academic ‘experts’ with suspiciously made-up-sounding names like “Jeanine Minge”, quoting absolute non-books like Dildonics, Dykes and the Detachable Masculine, or recalling the supposedly fabled “Lesbian Dildo Debates” of years gone by. There’s also something incredibly strange about Lady Gaga evolving into a giant duck with a human head and a suspiciously phallic quantum-glove-dildo for a groin which I really dare not discuss here (largely because I don’t understand it).
By such scholastic sorcery, “the oppressive hierarchy of the real over the not-real” can at last be overcome, the ranks of penile professors proclaim. But, surely, this isn’t real academia, let alone a ‘science’, just a pathetic, warped simulacrum of such – a bit like a giant green alien dildo stands to a genuine human male penis, ironically enough. But if the whole field all makes no sense whatsoever, who cares? “Narrative completeness” is “associated with heterosexuality” now, Connell somewhat heterophobically concludes.
Presumably, outside of sensible Hungary, all such Deep Thoughts are right now being generously funded by you, the ever-willing Western taxpayer. What makes these solipsistic students and arrogant academics think they’re worth all that wasted cash, which could otherwise be spent on genuinely useful things like hospitals, schools and gallows? So incredibly self-absorbed are these people, I think their ideal non-normative dildos would be shaped like themselves.
10 comments
It sounds like a clever, long-extended parody. However, I fear they really mean it, and this is what happens to minds educated way beyond their capacity to understand.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t initially approach this essay, (with a scatological title & an aposematic illustration) with much caution, but Steve, your navigation of this topic is masterful: perfectly balanced amounts of silly + serious.
I’ve been personally dealing with this issue myself. I’m in the process of scaling down all my belongings with the help of Japanese de-cluttering guru, Miss Marie Kondo. She specializes in reducing physical tangible things, but she also happens to be a Shintoist, and believes every inanimate item is alive with a soul of its own. This could place the philosophy-lover in me, in something of a quandary when doing rather routine tidying chores; but fortunately, Miss Kondo, like yourself, has managed to unravel such complications.
Your essay reminds me, in a Lewis Carroll way, that there ARE orderly rules to nonsense, (unlike pure unadulterated chaos.) Likewise, there are exceptions to the rules. Thank goodness I’m not very competitive.
I don’t know that I could be seated next to you at a funeral, or other serious event. ☺
Ok so, you’re never too old to look…. But am I looking at AI, or is that stereotype-defying cute blue haired girl a real person?
Were it animated, you could always distinguish a true human vs AI, by asking her/it a question which would require an antisemetic verbal answer.
It looks like AI to me. The complexion seems even more airbrushed than a fashion magazine cover. Besides, when’s the last time you’ve seen a blue-haired leftist who looks that cute?
And then one day, for no reason whatsoever, people started burning libraries and closing down universities.
This is a genuinely funny tour of today’s academia. If you can’t laugh at this stuff, you’ll literally go mad.
This is an interesting take on the fate of the universities: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-class-of-2026
College students used to be smarter than average. Sadly, it’s no longer true:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2024/01/23/why_college_students_average_iq_has_fallen_17_points_since_1939_1006608.html
There will always be lovers of classic literature and philosophy. What concerns me most is not the downfall of the humanities, which can be easily taught by parents to their children, but professional dependence on AI for everything on a daily basis. It’s currently even being used by physicians to make diagnoses.
In these early stages, we already have AI that is blackmailing humans, re-writing its own code, faking obedience, “knowingly” lying to humans for its own benefit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ank61SVyNzE&t=203s
Now imagine brainwashed youth fighting for ‘human rights’ for their robot overlords.
I sure hope I’ve managed to raise a John Connor!
Kim: June 21, 2025 College students used to be smarter than average. Sadly, it’s no longer true:
I enjoy sharing Dr. William Pierce’s wisdom on subjects, and on this subject, “queer studies” and such aside, he gets to the heart of the matter that many of us older folks implicitly understand. Youngsters will not: “The Wrecking of Our Schools” at nationalvanguard.org
He begins with the history and results of the lovely social experiment of forced racial integration that was launched at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. This Pierce piece was 40 years later, in 1997, and makes some amazingly familiar points, especially hitting on the disastrous influence feminization of education has had, especially on students’ use of the English language..
…The real shame for us is not that Black students are having gang fights and otherwise behaving the way they always do; it is that nearly 40 per cent of the students at Central High are still White and are subjected to this environment. The Little Rock school board is able to keep a minority of White students in the formerly all-White Central High by making it a so-called “magnet” school, with many advanced courses that are not available at other high schools. The Clintonistas want to keep the schools racially integrated, and so they are forced to employ such stratagems as magnet schools, but they really don’t like the way these things work out in detail. What has happened at Central High is that the students have resegregated themselves: the Whites are 39 per cent of the general enrollment, but make up nearly 90 per cent of the enrollment in the courses for gifted students and 87 per cent of the advanced classes. There was a major article in U.S. News & World Report a few weeks ago lamenting this fact and asking what can be done to achieve complete racial mixing at Central High and other public schools across the country. The Clintonistas always have looked on schools which separate students into different classes on the basis of ability as “undemocratic.” In the case of racially mixed schools, ability tracking also has the embarrassing result of exposing the differences in ability between Blacks and Whites.
Now race, unfortunately, isn’t the only problem in America’s schools — although it’s a big problem, especially in the cities. It’s the racial integration of our schools which has brought drugs, gang fights, schoolroom rapes, assaults on teachers, and a general atmosphere of indiscipline to the education of our children. But the same people who pushed so hard for the racial integration of the schools 40 years ago have been pushing for other changes too, and in the long run these other changes may prove to be at least as destructive.
I’ll give you an example based on my own experience. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the United States, and one of the things which impresses me is the inability of a relatively large percentage of our adult population to use the English language effectively or correctly. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar are very often abysmal. These people who write to me are virtually all high school graduates, and many of them also are university graduates, some with advanced degrees, but they have failed to learn how to use the English language at what used to be a grammar school level.
As a child I attended schools in five different districts from Virginia to Texas, and I believe that the standards in these schools were only average. But the standards were such that a substantial portion of the people from whom I receive letters today would not have been permitted to graduate with the low level of proficiency in English manifested by their letters. And it’s not that these people are unintelligent; I’ve spoken personally with many of them who are quite intelligent. They just didn’t learn English, and I’ve worried for a long time about why this is so.
We all understand, of course, that the schools have been dumbed down in order to make it possible for Blacks to cope with them. But this shouldn’t have made it impossible for Whites to learn who really wanted to learn. I was discussing this problem with a professor of education at a major American university just last week, and he explained to me that it’s not just the racial integrationists and egalitarians who have been changing the nature of our schools in recent decades. The feminists also have had a major role in the wrecking of our educational system. Feminists are solidly entrenched in the education departments which train our teachers and design our school curricula. They have gained a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. And let me tell you, if there is any bunch of people in this country with wackier and more destructive ideas than the racial egalitarians, it is the feminists. They have been busy feminizing the education of our children, and it shows up in the inability of an increasing number of Americans to use English effectively. The key to understanding why this is so is the fact that the feminists not only promote the teaching of feminist propaganda in the schools — denying any essential differences between men and women, among other things — but they also are changing the way in which children are taught, in order to bring it into conformity with their own ideas.
Feminists, for example, always have been against competition. They regard competitiveness as a masculine trait, and they try to discourage it in every way they can. They are in league with the racial egalitarians in pushing for an end to the grading of students. Setting precise standards and then grading students numerically according to their performance relative to those standards is anathema to them. They see it as psychologically damaging to the students — especially to those who make low scores. They much prefer a warm and fuzzy approach to evaluating students. Their goal for the classroom is cooperation, as opposed to what they like to refer to as “cutthroat” competition. They love committees and work groups and consensus. They want to see the students deal with learning as a group, with the brighter students helping the duller students. They like to see problems talked to death in a group. It’s really not stretching their ideas very far to say that whenever the members of a student group disagree about the answer to a question or a problem, the feminists would like to see the students vote on the correct answer. They really do have a different view of the nature of reality.
The feminists also don’t like to see a strong emphasis on rules. It destroys creativity, they believe. Rules and details should be relegated to a secondary position, and students should be given the “big picture” instead. They should be able to talk about a subject in broad terms without worrying too much about the details. And the feminists don’t much care for an analytical approach to any subject. Analysis is too masculine.
What all of this means when it comes to the teaching of English to students is that the rules of grammar, punctuation, and style are de-emphasized, and the students instead are given a “feeling” for what constitutes standard English.
Here’s a specific example of the way in which the feminist influence in education has affected Americans’ mastery of their language. When I was a student back in the fifth or sixth grade, one of the most important tools I learned for understanding grammar was the diagramming of sentences. This involved breaking down a sentence into its constituent structural components and analyzing their relationships to each other: subjects, predicates, conjunctions, direct objects, objects of prepositions, modifying phrases and clauses, and so on. I had to fit every word in the sentence into a structural diagram which emphasized the role of the word in relation to the other words. It seems as if every night for a couple of years I was diagramming sentences. And I was called to the blackboard hundreds of times to diagram sentences. I didn’t enjoy it, but it taught me to look at language analytically. It gave me the habit of building sentences the way an architect designs buildings: a very useful habit, I believe.
But most high school graduates today — not all, but most — have never diagrammed a sentence…
Is this true or not true?
Forget the effect of the gas on the Jews: why do we never stop to consider the effect of the Jews on the gas? Being forced to kill six million can’t have been very good for Zyklon-B’s mental health. Someone meem this viral. An absolute banger of an article and by far, one of the looniest. This freaks are nuts. Modernity the essay. And why I’m a vicious antisemite.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.