Can Heterosexuals Be Radicals? 

Queer persons observe heterosexuals' delusions daily, and we immediately recognize such delusions, though they are so frequent that they are rarely pointed out.  There might be an eye roll from one of us to another, or a grimace when we witness how endlessly unaware and delusional heterosexuals are gratis the heterosexual political regime in which they operate, and its fortification and legitimization of myriad delusions and frauds.  The next level of awareness up from pure delusionality is denial, which produces fraudulent behavior in heterosexuals, and we witness this daily also, including its affective behaviors, most prominent of which is a kind of desperate affectation in manner and comportment, manifested in, for example, a kind of false pleasantry combined with insult and in the most ridiculous hypermasculine vocal posture and equally ridiculous carriage in men, another common behavior of which is the abuse of women. 

Queer critiques of the left and of radicalism already exist, but what has not been asked is the palpably relevant question of whether or not heterosexuals can ever really be radicals. The reasons for asking this question are:  1)  For heterosexuals themselves, no amount of opposition they face as whatever else they might be, is targeted against a base of utter powerlessness.  2) When faced with homosexuality and queerness (i.e. reality) heterosexuals always panic.  All so-called radical heterosexuals, when faced with queerness, turn instantly into liberals, sputtering out and throwing out stupidly typical liberal-conservative ideas about liberation, like marriage and acceptance, while lacking any real radicality whatsoever, which radicality would take away every shred of power they have, reducing them to powerlessness - a taking away of all the inarticulable benefits that accrue to those who masturbate along with the rules.  

I went to apply for positions in person at a California university and was ushered right in to the offices of big heteros in chairmanships who wanted to be sure to include queer radicalism in the program, but shunt it into its own niche. " We're looking for someone who can teach queer politics," they panicked.  Not, "we're looking for someone who can teach politics."  All politics is queer, and queer only, and this is the mandate of queer radicalism.  "Politics" as taught by them, in the universities, is a lie told by incompetents. 

On this trip to the university, not only was I immediately shunted into the queer partition, even though I am perhaps most adept at teaching ancient political philosophy, and know the standard hetero interpretations and denials in this terrain backwards and forwards so that I can repeat them in order to win honors and offices.  I was also forced to witness again this panic at finding an out queer person, and thus subjected to false respect, false because it came from a position of false and undeserved power, even if many heteros have gotten good at composing themselves (they have to take deep breaths and it takes practice) in the face of queerness/reality.

There is nothing more radical to the heterosexual mind than simply being queer/gay/lesbian, so forth.  Their panic and incompetence when faced with reality is alone enough evidence to point to where real radicality lies.  We are speaking here of incompetence with regard to radicality, of foreignness to the heaven of reality.

No radical wants to be 'accepted' into the dank dungeon of  heterosexual society, the one that conservative queers vie for, queers who will sell anyone out for a little piece of false power and the dank and sad life of a disingenuous coward.  Conversely, the best that the best of the heterosexuals, those fundamentally disaffected by the regime of heterosexuality, can do is to look for modes of articulation for their plight while still enjoying the power of the regime.

The terrible and repulsive insult of straight men playing roles in movies as sensitive gay men, or of hetero men dressing effeminately while still enjoying great power over those are homosexual, is what the actual lives of heterosexuals who are "socially radical" consists in.   The heterosexual political regime of course gives great credit and accolades to "sensitive" straight men.  But radicalism means taking away every shred of credibility, respect, and decency from heterosexuality. No revolution will be complete until those who hide like worms under the dirt of the heterosexual regime are powerless.

So much for heterosexual radicality, which really means heterosexuals giving up all power and social respect and living a life of insulting, begrudging  "acceptance" and constant sexual assault.

The last time I checked, this was not even close to happening. 

With all due respect then to logic, reality , and to what is truly radical, we must answer the question this essay poses in the negative:  Heterosexuals cannot be radicals.