Have you seen the new, highly queer Boots festive TV advert? If not, please do be warned: it may masquerade as a light-hearted, well-meaning Christmas promo, but its true agenda is much more sinister. In this article, I shall demonstrate precisely how.
The first time I ever heard of Queer Studies was about 20 years ago, when a BBC Radio 4 stand-up was mocking the way some Queer Literature lecturers had neurotically reinterpreted Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to ‘reveal’ Professor F was gay. The evil genius’s otherwise unfathomable desire to reanimate a male corpse was a subliminal expression of his repressed desire to create a boyfriend for himself, it was said; those versions of the tale where Frankenstein sews his monster/catamite together from various discarded male body-parts were really just his attempts to piece together the ultimate jig-saw male sex-partner from, say, the forearms of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the chest of Geoff Capes and the penis of John Dillinger.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Evil is Made Normal Everywhere
The Lotus Eaters did a dive into Sir Kneels back story ! He is The Chosen One & he is Evil !
Fu-k me – “if you’ll pardon the pun” that was complex but I think he’s “nailed it” ( I can’t stop ) Come on Nigel “pull your finger out “ (oops)
I did like “Bah, bum-plug”, mind.
Sad but true.
One comment, in your table you have the normal on the left hand column and the queen on the right.
As a proud dim right winger I would like to see me and my appalling views and opinions in the right hand column.
That quite put me off my breakfast.
There is one supreme reason for avoiding Boots and their childish, patronising advert. All of their products are over-priced, and alternatives are available in many other shops and supermarkets. When Walgreens bought Boots they vastly overpaid, as a result of which Boots have to keep prices up (a third higher than the same products in Superdrug?)
Just ignore Boots, never buy anything from them
100%. Boots has been more expensive for years, AND has lousy service. To my mind that breaks a cardinal rule in retail – if I’m going to pay more, there has to be a reason.
OK, so Superdrug it is.
Savers are owned by the same people as Superdrug so I’ve been told, and even cheaper.
A nice feature of Superdrug (at least the one in Reading I usually buy stuff at) is that they have no “self-service checkouts.” I stopped buying stuff at Boots when they made self-service the only choice. If I want to serve myself, I can just order stuff online. That’s maybe a bit of a silly idea but these “serve yourself”-computers (Be your own, unpaid shop staff!) always make think something like “What’s next? Bring your own stuff and just pay to play with the self-service machine?”
The ‘self-service’ industry is in my view an oxymoronic cancer disguised as convenience and progress. I find myself now actively avoiding any establishment where I do not have a choice, and for one, I am somewhat gleeful when I see the ‘self-service’ check-outs out of ‘service’ or empty of customers, who I imagine, like me, would prefer to interact with a human being, although I am of a certain age and probably deluded or perhaps not!
I ceased shopping at Boots during the pandemic. My eyes were opened. Boots as we have known them for decades no longer exists.
I’d love to know if the general “woke” anti-white direction of advertising is down to those who make it or those who pay for it, or a combination of both. It’s hard to believe that it is dictated by how effective it is. I’d like to be a fly on the wall to see the dynamic. I do get the impression that a lot of people fancy themselves as social justice warriors and use their purported professions to leave their mark in this regard rather than be remembered for just being good at their jobs.
It’s really hard to tell, are they very stupid or very clever? Time will tell. But you’d think the Bud Light fiasco would have been a lesson to them. Apparently not.
Well how many advertising industry creatives and senior executives from advertising and business are struggling to make ends meet? I doubt many. So probably not stupid.
Some people at Bud Light were certainly stupid, even if they personally got paid plenty of money..
Well as always it depends how you define stupid, and what that person’s goals are. I think it’s quite possible that a lot of these people have the goal of making tons of money and taking the piss out of the people who pay them (the customers) and the people who watch the ads. I’m no convinced they care much about whether the ad actually succeeds in making the product or the brand more popular.
As a regular GB News viewer it is interesting to note the absence of the multi race families in the ads from the small companies that seem to be required in mainstream adverts – with a black male so is the BBC syndrome at work? Generally all of the small company ads reflect the population in the UK. Watching a football match on Portuguese TV the same thing stood out. Only the global company ads were a case of spot the white man.
Interesting. Probably the left have not bothered too hard to try and penetrate the SME sector, maybe in part because that sector is more competitive. It suggests that the pressure for this crap comes more from the customer – assuming the smaller firms are using the same agencies. I would love to hear the conversations. Firm: “Hi there, make us an ad, no woke bollocks please” Agency “What are you, some kind of racist?”
Well stupid me. I thought the mass of Christ was about Christ, his birth, Christianity, and the message of hope, freedom, free will, and the greatness of God’s creation, not to mention forgiveness, charity and helping the poor. This country was built on Christianity.
Stupid me. I guess the mass of Christ does not exist. It is now shopping, presents, ugly, stupid fat queers and non-Whites spreading their massive intelligence, their exemplary attributes, their overwhelming superiority.
Flock off with all of the madness and burn Boots, Jaguar and all the rest in the flames of Sheol
That actress above is the one who infamously commented that the Royal family looked “so white”, or similar, isn’t she? But as we know, white people are forever appointed the role of “oppressor” so ‘people of colour’ can get away with such comments. They are, after all, appointed the role of “perma-oppressed” in society, whereby they get an infinite supply of victim cards.
Anyway, this multi-pronged, relentless attack that we’re enduring can be illustrated in this rather nifty diagram. All of it, literally all of the agendas being pushed on us by the globalists and their puppeticians, has the purpose of weakening society;
https://x.com/FatEmperor/status/1859192713712697547
At my granddaughter’s primary school, there’s a coffee morning to which only Muslims are invited. When challenged on this by a non Muslim woman, she was told she couldn’t come. When she then said But my husband is Muslim, she presented the head teacher with a dilemma – only Muslim women or women married to Muslims and as for Muslim men???
Might consider this doing women a favour.
Everything you write applies equally to the new Jaguar advert, sans car.
flag.
It’s a mystery who they’re targeting, certainly not their existing customer base. Reportedly, the new car will be more expensive than their previous models. I struggle to see that there are sufficient metrosexuals around who will buy it, unless they’ve had the nod from our pink haired minister of transport to say she’ll replace the existing government fleet with new Jags. British diplomats, ministers & mini-potentates could proudly be driven around waving the
When you have a great product, you don’t need to resort to this. Sadly the days of great cars from Jaguar are long gone.
My religious analysis of the subject: the ultimate aim of the devil is total destruction of everything that is sound, healthy, beautiful and true. It is borne out of a fury against the ordered beauty of creation and the desire to take it back to some primordial, featureless chaos, (although I suspect in the end even that is too much and he just wants there to be nothing, absolutely nothing). The actions carried out for this purpose are driven by pure spite; nobody actually gains anything.
Thus everything that is inherently beautiful and true must be destroyed: the family, nature, the inherent beauty of the human body, the self-healing and organizing property of life. Instead everything has to become ugly, disgusting, dysfunctional, toxic. Indeed, a human body horribly disfigured by cancer is a useful example of what the devil wants; although ultimately even that is just a stepping stone towards death.
Anybody who, knowingly or unknowingly signs up to this will invariably start loathing himself or herself. This can be observed in the marxo-fascist but also in the various sexual deviant movements too.
Good news: in the end the whole thing will collapse. It is based on a lie and it is destined to fail.
We are all part of the battle, whether we like it or not.
First of all, an excellent and, as usual, very entertaining article from Steven Tucker.
However:
‘Unsurprisingly, some non-cancerous normative viewers protested, loudly threatening to boycott Boots. Yet this response just played into the advertiser’s hands. For one thing, it easily got it tonnes more free publicity, as was surely intended. And, far more valuable, via standard far-Left Queer Studies tactics of normative inversion, it then allowed those responsible, and their queerleaders-cum-cheerleaders in the wider mainstream media, to disingenuously represent those objecting to the advert for perfectly healthy reasons to be presented as those with the sick minds here.’
But by the same token, Steven’s article, and similar articles elsewhere, also play into the advertiser’s hands for the same reasons!
Regardless of whether it plays into the advertiser’s hands or not, I’ll be boycotting Boots from now on. I went into Boots last week to use up my remaining points on my Boots Advantage card, and that’s me now finished with Boots. They can keep the remaining 20p on my card. I have no reason ever to go into any of their stores again. Unlike, for example, Marks&Spencers (whom I couldn’t boycott if I wanted to, as their food is of much greater quality than any other store near me), everything I ever bought in Boots can just as easily be bought elsewhere.
So from now on, I have no more reason to buy anything in Boots than I would to vote for a candidate in an election whose views and policies I completely disagree with. It’s called voting with your feet.
There is a very significant big difference, which too many people don’t understand, between boycotting and cancelling. Boycotting is exercising one’s freedom to choose – e.g. to choose Superdrug rather than Boots – whereas cancelling someone – e.g. a comedian’s show – is taking away other people’s freedom to choose – e.g. to choose whether to go to see the show or not. Boycotting is about freedom to choose, whereas cancelling is taking away other people’s freedom to choose.
So I’m all for boycotting Boots, regardless of whether it plays into the advertiser’s hands or not.
It’s called voting with your wallet!
On the positive side, you’ve made good progress on your dissertation ‘Queering the (sales) pitch; advertising seen through the queer gaze’
“Werkshop”. Geddit?
Santas little perverts.
In the North when I were a lad “queer” referred to health or mental disposition.
How’s thee grandad? He’s nobbut queer.
Has thou met the new neighbour? Aye, he’s a right queer’un.
We Northerners have a copyright claim. Legal representatives have been engaged.
What a gay day!
I hope Lord Alli doesn’t read this, or his close friend Starmer will have the hate crime police knocking on your door
Michel Foucault was not all bad — There is a quote somewhere where he warned about the medical establishment becoming too powerful etc.
To be fair, Boots has been selling condoms for a while. Remember buying some as a teenager and the guy kept his composure perfectly in a comedy like way.
Does anyone still shop at boots? I left years ago. Too expensive. Simply boycott boots til it comes to its senses. It is so easy.
I’ve always bought my specs from Boots so they’ll lose several hundred pounds of my money every couple of years. My local opticians costs an arm and a leg and I hate Specsavers – brilliant advertising but crap service. Recommendations for alternatives would be much appreciated. Vision Express?
My objection to the Boots advert is about LITTLE CHILDREN who are the only ones who think he does it all by himself. We adults KNOW he doesn’t because, as parents & grandparents, we know it’s done by us. Why would Boots want to ruin the magic for a generation of children? And then we can talk about the blatant racism and misandry
There’s a normative/non-normative opposition of Tucker’s own that puzzles me: ‘gay-people’ v. ‘queers’. If that isn’t ‘good gays/queers’ v. ‘bad’ and hence itself an instance of queering, a sign that he’s got the cancer-virus, too, what is it?
Yes we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that one man one woman is the norm.
Another brilliant article by Mr Tucker. The final paragraph is frighteningly accurate.
Wow! That is quite a rant. Probably breaks every hate speech law in the book – LOL! But as I often note, when I was a child homosexuality was illegal, now it’s compulsory!
I think you can read too much into it. We were made to accept non- normative with the vaccines, remember “safe and effective” ? According to those who should know, anything that goes into a pharmacological product has an intended purpose… Maybe someone thinks the world is overpopulated
There was mention of “harmless sexual preference”. I would like to point out that forcing things into an anus – whether someone else’s or one’s own – is in fact harmful to said anus. Despite consent. That part of the body is not a sex organ, it is in fact designed to eject poop out of the body, not to have those referenced items forced *into* the body.