	“’Quare Studies’” and “What Can Queer Theory Do For Intersex” epitomize recent queer challenges to typical forms of activism; while rallying for the use of ‘political umbrellas’ for occasional political work, they demand queer activism and queer politics to pay especial attention to populations which have not typically been targeted, and to resist assimilationism. Both authors advocate for a proliferation of queer experiences, advocating the use of queer theory to speak to the experiences of non-white and intersex queer people, and to mount stronger and more diverse resistances to anti-queer forces. 
The politics of assimilationism were always deeper than theorists feared. At the borders of white supremacy, compulsory heterosexuality, neocolonialism, and capital, a new nationalism has emerged, homonationalism. 
However, in delineating the terms of homonationalism, special attention must be paid to the histories and politics behind these identities, their constituent persons, and the countries deploying and targeted by homonationalist discourses.
	 To understand the operations of homonationalism in the global theater, the homonationalist subject, that queer subject swayed into the drum roll of neoimperialism, must be well constructed.
   
  Exploring the degrees and fields in which this gendering, racialization, and sexualization function with regards to constructing the homonationalist subject requires an analysis of Puar’s presentation of the ‘terrorist drag’, which merged images of violence, such as in the reflections white supremacist militant, and images of estrangement from capital, as evidenced by elements of ‘welfare-queen hookers’. Examining these, it becomes clear that the rise of homonationalism is inexorably linked to recent proliferations of discourses concerning gay assimilationism, that gayness can operate within and provide support for the functions of capital, as opposed to historical views on gay and queer subjects, which have been marked by the association of poverty and an all-over resistance to the functions of society. 
	Similarly, the homonationalist subject is produced through the means of ‘regulatory queerness’, an extremely modern operation, which distances Muslim subjects from discourses concerning queerness, and summarily makes queer Muslim people invisible. The global operations of homonationalism, too, create a silence among those countries which contribute to U.S. imperialist interests, as exemplified in Puar’s detailing of the lack of international responses to anti-queer violence in Nigeria, and a general lack of international response to anti-queer crime in the U.S., the Anglosphere, or those supporting its interests. And, ultimately, these examples show the relationship between queer rights and imperialism is exploitative, and that the championing of queer rights in the name of imperialist interests provides little relief to queer subjects.
	Examining homonationalism requires careful acknowledgement of the ways in which queerness interacts with race, capital, and gender to produce subjects which can support imperialist impulses and which are targeted by those same forces. The global operations of homonationalism, too, estrange several queer subjects, Muslim queers in particular, from queerness within imperialist discourses. 
