General Forum > Gay Homeland - General discussions

A Fairytale

<< < (3/3)

K6:

My idea of the genesis of a gay independent State was always based on the demise of some previous existing State,not on its consent which then won`t be necessary.A scenario more or less on the lines of the East Prussian,Pomeranian or Silesian one (vintage 1945) as benefited to Poland in its present boundaries.People who know their history shall understand what I mean here.

K6

Mogul:
Ron, thanks a lot for the highly interesting compillation of articles - an insightfull lecture this was, indeed.

"Rajneeshpuram exemplifies both the best and the worst of modern cult phenomenon.  The collective activity of the commune residents gave rise to the greatest intentional community experiment the modern age has seen.  In an article in The New Yorker, journalist Frances Fitzgerald detailed some of the accomplishments the commune had managed by 1983:  cleared and planted 3,000 acres of land, built a 350-million-gallon reservoir and 14 irrigation systems, created a truck farm that provided 90% of the vegetables needed to feed that Ranch, a poultry and dairy farm to provide milk and eggs, a 10 megawatt power substation, an 85-bus public transportation system, an urban-use sewer system, a state-of-the-art telephone and computer communications center and 250,000 sq. feet of residential space."

There are/were various colonies projects around the world, both successfull and failed, but this one is very interesting because it was attempted in USA of 1980, a country with effective legal system. It is remarkable that the Rajneesh movement found so many followers in the US so that they were able build up a city inmidst of a desert within few years. Why did they eventually fail? Probably it is because they were building a community politically isolated from the US legal system, a notion which was inevitably to induce conflict with US authorities. Probably they would have more chances for success if they tried to implement the project in India from beginning.

The lack of internal discourse and missing democracy have certainly contributed significantly to the failure of the project - showing that a community is better built on decentralisid affection among citizens, rather than on a personal cult. A vital community wouldn't fall apart if the persons on top were arrested or killed, because in a healthy society new leaders of sufficient competences would pick up the responsibility. It might be convenient for a leader to contemplate himself indespensable, but he better makes sure there are people who can replace him in case of necessity.

It is clear that communities/colonies in existing countries can have only such an extent of rights as the local jurisdiction allows them, therefore any attempts to gain "political control" over a city or town is a risky enterprise with limited prospects. The political options of a city council are very limited, and never expand into spheres of immigration or legislation on criminal punishment. Even a singular state of Massachussets which allows same-sex marriages is unable to override US-federal legislation on taxes or immigration - with the effect that binational gay married couples still have little chances to live together in the USA. Therefore, even if spacially separated gay communities in straight majority countries are still a very favourable solution for gay cultural developement, we shall always keep in mind the very limitations of this approach.

Some prominent examples of mislead and failed movements are the "Colonia Dignidad" in Chile, and the Aum Shinryoko in Japan, the latter making the mistake of attempting to become a state within a state without just negotiations.

The successfull example of making the best out of circumstances is the Tibet Government in Exile which achieved a contract with the government of India for accomodation of all refugees and establishing all necessary infrastructure without some "formal secession" from India.


--- Quote from: K6 on Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 10:22 ---Even should there be no population in a place,that place will nevertheless and at normal times be the part of some already existing State.We stand zero chance of establishing a State of our own in a place still defended and administered by another State.We might have a better luck in a geopolitical vacuum,where a State has disintegrated [..]

--- End quote ---

This is true. But it is also true, that even if the Gay State were established and posessed some territory "rightfully", there always would be other states/organizations eager to take advantage of its territory or natural ressources, or simply to eradicate it from the face of the planet. It is therefore essential that the Gay State is able and willing to defend its interests in an armed conflict - whether in a "geopolitical vacuum" or against some other state(s). Certainly, any organisation must carefully evaluate its own strength and choose realistic options only. It is understood that in the current situation any attempt to secede by force a piece of territory from some well-going state would result in a senseless massacre. On the other hand, if we had the personell and the money, we could take over responsibility over a piece of Somalia which exists as state only on paper, and I am sure there would turn many opportunities even in the next few decades. The real problem is therefore not the lack of "geopolitical vacuum", but solely our own inability to organize and gather ressources for this purpose. 


--- Quote from: Feral on Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 05:34 ---There is a peculiar and widespread belief that there is no space left on Earth to move to. This is manifestly untrue. There are many places in the world where very few people live. There is, of course, often a very good reason why no one has chosen to live there. As one can plainly see from these two examples,  there are many reasons why such projects fail. That there is no space left on Earth is not one of those reasons.

--- End quote ---

Oh yes, most people look onto their school globus and see the borders clearly dividing the planet's surface into states and they think that there is no free place anymore to put a new country on it. Most of the disputants being somewhat youthfull and not much informed on what is actually going on in many regions of the Earth, they gently ignore the fact of fall and rise of empires and moving boundaries. A fair collection of prejudices can be found here.

The most striking argument was that one is in first line "American" and only then gay. I certainly acknowledge the right of a gay person to remain an American, but what make the American identity more legitimate than the Gay identity? In a country where almost everybody is an immigrant of various ethnic origin and color, and with XX% of the population practically not speaking the official language at all, the (undoubtedly existing) common identity is a product of purest artificial construction! If this isn't the best proof that we can create our own identity as a people, what is?

There is plenty much free space on this planet, and the only difficulty to find a solution to our territorial question will be located on the field of diplomacy and subsequent military strength. Initially, there will be two ways to go: first seeking recognition as non-territorial souvereign entity by some friendly country (if necessary, "money for frienship" can be an option), and second renting/buying territory for large embassy and/or military base. The territory in question might remain under the formal souvereignity of the host country, while at the same time the contracts clearly stating that our own jurisdiction applies for the term of the contract. Such a solution for the initial period would enable us to accomodate certain amount of refugees and build up our military forces. It is clear that the host country will be an absolute taboo in the subsequent discussions about a state territory, as it is out of question that we can assault the few friends we would have. Such a semi-territorial solution would be of course not entirely satisfying, but it would establish a de-jura souvereign entity with a de-facto control over a sufficiently large piece of territory, while elegantly helping the host country out of a "face-loose" situation by reserving the possibility to terminate the contract with an appropriate cancellation period (say, 99 years). As gay people usually do not have descendancy and will be anyway immigrating into the gay city-state we are proposing, there will be sufficient time either to solve the territorial question once for ever or to make a new contract somewhere else. The Gay State shall be rather rich in worldwide organization and be able to shift its posessions from one country to another. It is of course highly recommended to keep good relationships to the countries where one's money is deposited, whereas playing sinking ships with foreign countries would be a very bad idea.

We can indeed learn very much from the Souvereign Military Order of Malta - and our primary task will be to organize properly and to find at least one country or a "stable de-facto regime" which would recognize us and allow us to establish a however small embassy under our jurisdiction. With modern technologies (and sufficient funding, of course) we could effectively offer living space and offices for hundreds to thouthands citizens even as a "non-territorial" entity. Once recognized as a souverign something, it will be solely up to us to grow financially and personally, and look out for a territory whenever an opportunity turns out - in the ideal case through negociations with a poor and less-populated country. Taking over responsibility during a chaos phase somewhere might be an option as well, though many would find it a less attractive idea.

K6:

Even should there be no population in a place,that place will nevertheless and at normal times be the part of some already existing State.We stand
zero chance of establishing a State of our own in a place still defended and administered by another State.We might have a better luck in a geopolitical vacuum,where a State has disintegrated,when no other one has yet replaced it,and in circumstances where a high level of organization on our side may allow us to prevail against unorganized people.We cannot destroy an organized hethro society on our own.In that later respect,the job of tearing down a society and causing the downfall of a State - thus making way for another - will for the most part find itself in the hands of the heterosexual population.Most organized societies and States established by heterosexuals and in history haven`t and won`t last.We might be impressed by such societies,particularly by such modern Empires like for example the United States,but we shouldn`t.The Roman Empire,from the time of Emperor Constantine,outlawed homosexuality.The Roman Empire is now history,whereas we still exist.

K6

Feral:
Spare a moment or two for a brief fable, a parable, a fairytale if you will. In 1981 some rather controversial people paid altogether too much money for an otherwise undesirable ranch. This group was not without it's difficulties. Ultimately they failed. What has become of their endeavors is here. Another version of the fable, this time told by the victors, is here. Like many small groups, they have been inspired to install a small bronze plaque. They well deserve their modest monument. The weapon of choice may have been the democratic process, but the town did suffer a coup d'etat. They did indeed survive what was indeed an invasion. Though I fail to see where they prevailed because of their own actions. The flaws of the invaders were many, and fatal. The population of Wasco County is still quite low.


The entire affair brings to mind Alpine County. The 2000 census found that there are two gay couples living there now. The fable of Alpine County is much shorter, and lacking in details. This is because it never actually happened. Bits of the project can be dug up here and there.


--- Quote ---As the movement grew in size and power, debates on strategy and tactics occurred, most dramatically between those gays who wanted to withdraw into separate ghettos, and those who wanted to enter mainstream society. The most extreme proposal was made in California by Don Jackson, who suggested establishing a gay territory in California's Alpine County, about 10 miles south of Lake Tahoe. It would have had a totally gay administration, civil service, university, museum -- everything. The residents of Alpine County were not pleased with the proposal. But before the situation turned really ugly, Jackson's idea was abandoned because of lack of support in the gay community. In the end, the movement concentrated on integration and civil rights, not separatism.
--- End quote ---
Source


--- Quote ---GLF member Don Jackson had proposed that some two hundred gay men and lesbians should move to the tiny community of Alpine County, California, register to vote, and then take control of the local government.

Jackson's plan was to proceed quietly, but that was not Kight's style. In short order he and fellow GLF member Don Kilhefner were calling press conferences to announce the new "gay Mecca." The story received nationwide coverage but also drew a lot of hostility, and the plan never went forward. Kight's heavy-handed tactics caused a rift between him and some other leaders in the gay rights movement, but he never stopped working in the way that he thought best.
--- End quote ---
Source

There is a peculiar and widespread belief that there is no space left on Earth to move to. This is manifestly untrue. There are many places in the world where very few people live. There is, of course, often a very good reason why no one has chosen to live there. As one can plainly see from these two examples,  there are many reasons why such projects fail. That there is no space left on Earth is not one of those reasons.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page