GLR Forum
General Forum => Open Forum => Topic started by: K6 on Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 00:52
-
This is in response to the answer Mogul posted in alt.politics.micronations today.
We have set out on a path leading to self-determination,which will be beyond our means as individuals to complete.Only future gay generations will have with them the time factor to accomplish this task.As our judges,they will answer present at the end of this journey and quest for collective freedom in a country of ours.But by then,we will have long ago dissapeared from the face of the earth and as individuals.
Once we gays have set out on a path towards self-determination,we should not forget the nature of the world in which we live.This world is a place of conflicting earthly and egoistic interests colliding with one another.A world without deity,morals or arbiter.Other political actors of this world will further their own interests so far as they will not encounter opposition from our part.And our only success so far is that they never conquered us.
Upon becoming gay separatists,we thus will have to become as well more mean spirited than we were formerly while seeking equality and integration.For no one but gays will represent or defend our interest as a people.
K6
-
Of course you have right that interactions on a macropolitical level mostly have to do with earthy interests of the involved political entites. This does not eliminate the possibility of having moral/ethical reasons for some actions, as ethis/beliefs are of course important for political activenes. Indeed, the very idea of having something in common with other individuals (who we do not know personally) is a highly ethical one, and enables us first to contemplate us as a community. What else if not ethics makes us a people?
Personally, I live in a safe country with well functioning democracy - and there is no reason to believe that in my lifetime the situation can turn worse. Neither do I intend to become rich and famous by propagating gay separatism. It is therefore not my personal need which drives me to devote my energy to the idea of a gay state, but solely my ethical beliefs and idealism. Indeed, ethical and moral beliefs have proven to be a very powerfull driving force for human actions in history and in our days.
Therefore, whereas it is certainly true that ethics of political action have to contemplate the entire effective result of the action, it is not said that ethics have not to interfere with politics. In our own cause, it is absolutely legitimate to insist on including lesbians and some other "sexual deviants" into our new-constructed "Volk" - instead of choosing the easier way of limiting the "Volk" only to male homosexuals (without descendancy). You see, out of some reasons you also do not exclude e.g. poor male homosexuals from your definition of "gay" - and your reasons for doing so are for sure not only the consciousness that the gay state would need workers and soldiers for its existence? What if not our ethics will lead us to the conclusion, that sick and old gays are as welcome as young and healthy ones? Ethics do matter.
Personally, I am rather confident that gays can form a souvereign entity even in our lifetimes - it is solely up to us. No heterosexuals prevent us from doing so - only our own inability to cooperate and find a common base made us fail so far. Any souvereign entity indeed does not require a recognition by any other souvereign entity to exercise effective control of its own posessions - that's why it is souvereign. Of course, recognition by at least one territorial state somewhere on this planet would simplify our life immensely - especially to be able to establish the seat of administration without the risk of being permanently raided, disowned and maybe arrested. It is understood, that in those democratic countries which do not recognize our souvereignity, we must act through legal representations in consensus with respective local laws.
The aquisition of territory(s) has not necesserelly to cohere with the process of gaining souvereignity. Whereas it is possible to posess territory without being independent, it is also possible to be souvereign without being a territorial state. To call two (very different) effectively functioning independent organizations: The "Order of Malta" and "Al Qaida" are both effectively souvereign, non-territorial entities. There is no need for us to imitate "Al Qaida", but we certainly can learn effective organization from the "Order of Malta".
It is also possible to entertain gay settlements in souvereign countries without declaring those settlements "independent". Our local representations can actively participate in the live of gay people anywhere - the same way the state of Israel acts in other countries with namable jewish population, or the catholic church acts everywhere in the world. If history offers us then a chance to turn some of our territories into an independent state, we shall use the chance. The preparatory work must be done to enable us effectively use such chances - at the moment we wouldn't be able to establish a state even if Marocco would surrender half of its territory to us.
-
Therefore, whereas it is certainly true that ethics of political action have to contemplate the entire effective result of the action, it is not said that ethics have not to interfere with politics. In our own cause, it is absolutely legitimate to insist on including lesbians and some other "sexual deviants" into our new-constructed "Volk" - instead of choosing the easier way of limiting the "Volk" only to male homosexuals (without descendancy).
The best course of action consists in having a universal definition of who is gay encompassing women *at the exact same conditions as men*.The
opposite sex is to be incorporated into the gay people in a framework of *equality of rights and duties*.It is not us or our definition of who is gay which will most likely produce a sex ratio different from the one of an heterosexual society,but the material and economic situation of women.To
them,sexuality in general and lesbianism in particular do not have the same meaning or consequences as in the case of males.A male doesn`t have to contemplate the possible consequences of the complete absence of women where he lives.A female has to contemplate who is going to perform certain backbreaking or dangerous tasks should males be completely absent.We will thus certainly have far less women,and we could very well have none at certain times or in certain places.Just like in Montreal`s gay district.Lesbians could besides,because such a trend exists among them,decide to secede from males,including gay ones.A male only gay geopolitical entity is not to be pursued as a primary goal.But it is to be contemplated in any plan B,in the case men and women would not agree about what is to be a gay independent Republic.
K6
-
Personally, I am rather confident that gays can form a souvereign entity even in our lifetimes - it is solely up to us. No heterosexuals prevent us from doing so - only our own inability to cooperate and find a common base made us fail so far.
The inclusion of individuals with heterosexual interests will most probably ground politically any separatist gay group.For such a group will then spend most of its time trying to settle arguments or disputes between components of the LGBT constellation who despise one another,rather than busy itself with seceding.The group with an unity of interest and purpose will enjoy an advantage over the one which tries to combine too many,
different and sometimes incompatible interests.
K6
-
It is not us or our definition of who is gay which will most likely produce a sex ratio different from the one of an heterosexual society,but the material and economic situation of women.To them,sexuality in general and lesbianism in particular do not have the same meaning or consequences as in the case of males.A male doesn`t have to contemplate the possible consequences of the complete absence of women where he lives.A female has to contemplate who is going to perform certain backbreaking or dangerous tasks should males be completely absent.
;D You have not at all overcome opinions about male-female dichotomy, do you? 8(( The lesbians who I know would kick you blue and yellow for such statements. >:) Believe in me, women can perform the same work as men if they have proper tools, which is the case in our days. It's just like men can coock when there are no women around - contrary to the wide-spread opinion they can't. Where it is really necessery, two women can join their bodily powers to perform some stupid backbreacking activity which is usually made by one man. But you have of course right that the social and economic situation of women determines often whether they live freely or not. It seems indeed that homosexual males more easily untight their previous social bonds and seek a better place to live. To make it short, gays and lesbians can perfectly live without each other, but they will have more fun and profit if they would join their powers and will live together.
The inclusion of individuals with heterosexual interests will most probably ground politically any separatist gay group.For such a group will then spend most of its time trying to settle arguments or disputes between components of the LGBT constellation who despise one another,rather than busy itself with seceding.The group with an unity of interest and purpose will enjoy an advantage over the one which tries to combine too many, different and sometimes incompatible interests.
1) Sure, strongly contradicting interests would lame any attempt to secede. There is therefore no need to incorporate heterosexuals into the separatist movement. We even can question whether bisexuals would be really happy with us - probably they would not. We can't come around to draw a circle around our target population, but the "borders" should be permeable to a certain degree. This has to do with the "continum" of sexualities and self-perception of individuals. In praxis it must be possible to accept a de-facto bisexual who is persecuted in his country of origin and is a fervent partisan of the idea of a gay state. It must also be possible to give asylum to a persecuted transsexual who wled his/her country upon being tortured by police and paramilitary. Such cases will be rare in absolute numbers and will not endanger the "gayness" of the state, but the refusal to show mercy out of ideological strenghth would spoil and demoralize the society from inside. The clear distinction between "citizens" and "residents" might help to solve the conflict between political interests of gays and the basic requirements of humanity.
2) The diversity is not really a problem - indeed it is a source of an astir public life. We only must learn to recognize our priorities properly - and act together to achieve our common goals. It is an illusion that childless male homosexuals have mostly the same interests - they have not. It will be a difficult task for politicians to find compromises and explain to the people why certain actions must be taken, and decide which interests are of high priority, and which not. The Israeli example teaches us, that even a nation created with knowledge of incredible sufferings is not free from vigorous societal discourses: the question of jewish settlements in palestinian areas is subject of hot controversies within Israel. Of course it is possible to fragmentate even more: racists among us would suggest to establish a separate state only for white male homosexuals, or high-nosed scholars can declare a state only for homosexuals with university degree (no matter male or female, black or white). We can play the game endless and imagine all theoretically possible combinations, but through all these models we will recognize one distinctive token, which would keep all these theoretical societies together: homosexuality. Whether black or white, educated or not, male or female, childless or parents, we have one thing in common: we all are homosexuals, and this should be our starting point. Some particular provisions directed towards state's well-being shall be made if necessary, but one thing must be clear: the gay state must not refuse any homosexual from gaining it's help and protection. The right for citizenship can be bound to certain political requirements, but the right for asylum must stand beyound any question.
-
;D You have not at all overcome opinions about male-female dichotomy, do you? 8(( The lesbians who I know would kick you blue and yellow for such statements. >:) Believe in me, women can perform the same work as men if they have proper tools, which is the case in our days.
Look around you where you live,in Köln.Then using your imagination,erase from the landscape every structure which was not erected by women.
Whats`s left ? No dwelling or transit structure left.Without entering here in the detail of my trade,which lies in the general field of logistics,I encounter everyday the confirmation of the almost complete absence of women in the said field.They would simply not do what I do for a living.
This may not be obvious to someone whose 9 to 5 occurs in an office,or to an intellectual who spends his days in libraries.If women - lesbians -
seceded from men,it would profoundly change their everyday life.Someone would have to hoist that fridge,that oven or that piano in this or that
flat,in that building which has no elevator.
K6
-
1) Sure, strongly contradicting interests would lame any attempt to secede. There is therefore no need to incorporate heterosexuals into the separatist movement. We even can question whether bisexuals would be really happy with us - probably they would not.
The hethroflexibles improperly called bisexuals may perfectly be among the foreigners with whom we will deal diplomatically so to speak.A realistic gay diplomacy should not seek so much their alliance as their neutrality.An alliance with us might well exceed their means,when not their imagination,
which are both constricted by the hethro privilege and interest.The real interest of the hethroflexibles is to remain outside any conflict having to do
with sexual orientation.We cannot of course regard them as gays and take them on board of our flight to self-determination: with such hethro cargo
like the hethroflexibles,the plane will never lift.
K6
-
Look around you where you live,in Köln.Then using your imagination,erase from the landscape every structure which was not erected by women.Whats`s left ? No dwelling or transit structure left. [..] This may not be obvious to someone whose 9 to 5 occurs in an office,or to an intellectual who spends his days in libraries.If women - lesbians - seceded from men,it would profoundly change their everyday life.Someone would have to hoist that fridge,that oven or that piano in this or that flat,in that building which has no elevator.
As a supposed "intellectual" ;D I have had my experiences with hard bodily work as well, therefore I know what you mean. Newertheless, you must recognize that there is no need to perform things in the way they were traditionally handled before simply because there were always men awaylable to schlep heawy things. There is no need to carry the piano upstairs by powers of muscles, as one can comfortably do the same work with a lifting platform. Of course, this would require a carefull planning of entire infrastructure right from beginning, but males do as well consider their bodily limits. All I want say is that only-female society possibly would do many things in different (smarter) ways, while it will surelly be able to comfortably survive on its own.
:=SU
-
As a supposed "intellectual" ;D I have had my experiences with hard bodily work as well, therefore I know what you mean. Newertheless, you must recognize that there is no need to perform things in the way they were traditionally handled before simply because there were always men awaylable to schlep heawy things. There is no need to carry the piano upstairs by powers of muscles, as one can comfortably do the same work with a lifting platform. Of course, this would require a carefull planning of entire infrastructure right from beginning, but males do as well consider their bodily limits. All I want say is that only-female society possibly would do many things in different (smarter) ways, while it will surelly be able to comfortably survive on its own.
:=SU
I am sure that women would do it.They did it after all in Paraguay,in the late 19th century,after a war against all neighboors of Paraguay which wiped out most of its male population.But before women do it,they will try first to avoid doing it.In Paraguay and in the late 19th century,they had no choice but to rebuild themselves the country.So,in a negociation with women,I would expect them to seek to continue with us merely what exists in modern heterosexual societies,taking the positive sides of equality between the sexes but avoiding those having to do with services and duties.However,and while in the company of such males like my humble self women would enjoy a total security against sexual aggression or harassment,they would no longer have the negociating hedge or tools they had in an heterosexual society by way of the oldest trade.They could not sell their bodies nor rent their wombs,as I am completely indifferent to both.Far from constituting something attracting and to be exploited,their eventual material dependence would be perceive by me as a threath to my freedom to roam and to my independence as a male.
Attraction to young males is my main,but not my only motive for being gay.
K6
-
The right for citizenship can be bound to certain political requirements, but the right for asylum must stand beyound any question.
Well,with such an accomplished fact like presence on gay sovereign soil,not being a citizen won`t constitute much an obstacle to further accomplished facts with cumulative effect upon the demographic make up of the state.The hethro lifestyle,with its outward appearance of recreation,also has a speciality for accomplished facts of the biological and reproductive variety,quite remote from the original recreational and lachrymo-humanitarian appearance.If we are to maintain a gay independent state in existence,we will have to be a bit more serious about its
demographic composition and equilibrium.
K6
-
[..] If we are to maintain a gay independent state in existence,we will have to be a bit more serious about itsdemographic composition and equilibrium.
Certainly true. As long as "foreign heterosexual presence" is limited and solely on the grounds of being a guest or a temporarily worker, there is probably no reason to fear being "overrun" by heterosexuals. Being a resident or a visitor does not give a person political rights, any criminal or severe disruptive behaviour can entail extradiction to the home country - all the usual measures known from other countries.
[..] So,in a negociation with women,I would expect them to seek to continue with us merely what exists in modern heterosexual societies,taking the positive sides of equality between the sexes but avoiding those having to do with services and duties. [..]
Not to forget those intellectuals! ;D Seriously, I am most confident that in a society (whether of one or of mixed sexes) work shall be, and usually is shared with regard of individual abilities and skills. It is also true, that personal skills of individual depend on the daily exercise and the factual needs of society in current stage of developement. Means, a librarian who finds himself in a situation requiring heavy bodily work, will suffer much but will be able to develope muscles and skills within a couple of monthes. I would expect that in the first years of any independent gay/lesbian settlement people will have to engage in many kinds of activities they never have done before - simply because there is no one else to do these things. Humans are very universally shaped beings, they can learn new things and cooperate.
-
Certainly true. As long as "foreign heterosexual presence" is limited and solely on the grounds of being a guest or a temporarily worker, there is probably no reason to fear being "overrun" by heterosexuals. Being a resident or a visitor does not give a person political rights, any criminal or severe disruptive behaviour can entail extradiction to the home country - all the usual measures known from other countries.
Diplomats,tourists and cooperants are ok.Because their residency can be terminated should it cause us difficulties.They are the national of other countries,who have an obligation to greet them.Not so the case with heterosexual descendants of gay nationals born on gay sovereign soil.
They could not be expelled if they caused us problems,because there would exist no country with an obligation to take them back.We must take in as immigrants and permanent residents only those who are not likely to reconstitute the basis of an hethro regime.Thus my insistence on a narrow definition of who is gay encompassing only individuals with no ambitions similar to the heterosexuals,like founding a family.Why besides bother with having a family when the possibility will exist for gays to establish polygamous cliques,clans or tribes,which will replace the family structure.A gay State would of course have the proper agencies in the form of consulates and embassies abroad,who would give travel and immigration advice,so that there would be no misunderstanding about what kind of life expects an immigrant and permanent resident.
K6
-
Not to forget those intellectuals! ;D Seriously, I am most confident that in a society (whether of one or of mixed sexes) work shall be, and usually is shared with regard of individual abilities and skills. It is also true, that personal skills of individual depend on the daily exercise and the factual needs of society in current stage of developement. Means, a librarian who finds himself in a situation requiring heavy bodily work, will suffer much but will be able to develope muscles and skills within a couple of monthes. I would expect that in the first years of any independent gay/lesbian settlement people will have to engage in many kinds of activities they never have done before - simply because there is no one else to do these things. Humans are very universally shaped beings, they can learn new things and cooperate.
The first commers,judging by the historical experience we had in north America since the 16th century,will most probably be *adventurers*.Because self-determination will constitute for us nothing less than an adventure,not only in the beginning but on a permanent basis.That`s the advantage of so to speak moderate national political ambitions over extravagant universalists ones.People never tire of national ambitions,whereas they eventually end up having their fill with such internationalists ones like marxism.Once separatism will have become a common trend of political thought among gays,integrationists will have little time left to make a reality of their dreams.History will not grant them millenia or even centuries for that matter.
K6
-
The first commers,judging by the historical experience we had in north America since the 16th century,will most probably be *adventurers*.Because self-determination will constitute for us nothing less than an adventure,not only in the beginning but on a permanent basis.That`s the advantage of so to speak moderate national political ambitions over extravagant universalists ones.People never tire of national ambitions,whereas they eventually end up having their fill with such internationalists ones like marxism.Once separatism will have become a common trend of political thought among gays,integrationists will have little time left to make a reality of their dreams.History will not grant them millenia or even centuries for that matter.
In our days, we already encounter large-scale gay migration from rural areas to few megapolices with outstanding gay culture. Cities like New York, San Francisco, London, Berlin, Cologne and Barcelona (and a couple more) acquire large part of their citizens not by the means of reproduction, but "immigration" from smaller towns and villages. I see no reason why the same mechanism should not work with the gay city-state, provided this state offers its citizens jobs, basic comforts and is of at least, let's say 100.000 inhabitants. The very begionning would be, of course, a very adventure and, in certain respects, a "say-good-by-to-civilization". A gay city of 500.000 inhabitants and a medium standart of live would exercise a tremendous draw to the gay population, from the simple reason that the ways to experience one's identity would raise from the level of close neighbourhood to the state level - with many gay tv-channels, many gay bookstores and many gay films to choose from when you go the cinema.
In a politically independent gay civilisation without family structures or lineages,the proper heir of everything,including litterary productions,should be the State.Individuals,however,will not necessarily trust State agencies,even if they are gay.And other social structures will anyway replace the family and allow for the normal transmission by way of wills.The individual will still have the possibility of transmitting inheritance to individuals of his choice,only that these individuals won`t be relatives.Family names,however,won`t serve any purpose and could eventually be abolished.They could be replaced in official documents - like identity cards - by the "vintage year" of the individual,that is his year of birth.Instead of rivalvy in reference to dynasty as in heterosexual society,individuals would boast about their respective generationd and their accomplishments.
1) The ballance between private and common interests will yet have to be found. I think the state has no right to disown individuals post-mortem, though I give you right that from my private point of view the community would be the proper heir of a gay man. This would probably depend on the way the individuals choose for them to be appropriate - either by marriage, polyandry or single living. In the case of intellectual property the person should of course profit materially from his/her work, but as late as with the death of the author the rights shall fall to the community. We must of course contemplate that we live not isolated from the rest of the world, and that other legislations might conflict with the local laws of the gay state.
2) You and your social engineering! ::) Probably you would enjoy the novell "Jennifer Government" (http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/preview.html) by Max Barry, where individuals are supposed to have the name of their employer as their surnames (State employees are therefore XY Government). >:) I do not dare to mention "Seven of Nine" frm the space ship "Voyager". =))
A scenario which I think to be not entirely surreal is that people could assume clan names, should clan system ever become a common phenomenon in the gay state. I hope these will be not the clans of the Japanse Yakuza style, but rather a sort of Kibbutz's with life-long family bonds. We should think about social models which would enable both individual freedoms and rich societal life, free of social isolation and nepotism. It might prove to be necessary for immigrants to participate in "naturalization programs" where they would learn the country language and political structure of the state, as well as improve their knowledges in gay history.
-
1) The ballance between private and common interests will yet have to be found. I think the state has no right to disown individuals post-mortem, though I give you right that from my private point of view the community would be the proper heir of a gay man. This would probably depend on the way the individuals choose for them to be appropriate - either by marriage, polyandry or single living. In the case of intellectual property the person should of course profit materially from his/her work, but as late as with the death of the author the rights shall fall to the community. We must of course contemplate that we live not isolated from the rest of the world, and that other legislations might conflict with the local laws of the gay state.
I think that for that matter,we should trust the good judgement of the average gay,especially of the average gay writer.He will be clever enough
to draw his own conclusions in relation with his own aims.Through his writings,he only wants to live eternally in a way.Survival and transmission are by no way guaranteed on the hethro side for gay litterature.Even in the hands of well intended and professionnal gay caretakers and archivists.
The later would be powerless against seizure or destruction by hethro vandals,for they do not possess the political power.A gay State - or its residents - would thus appear as more reliable heirs.If we must have a nationalization of gay litterature,I think that the decision must come from
below (individuals) rather than from above (the gay government).Most probably,a large part of gay litterature will end up as national inheritance,
in the hands of the State.Furthermore,the domestic litterary production of a gay State could constitute a serious competitor to gay litterary production from abroad,if only because it would tell different sort of stories.Stories out of a land with no more hethro oppression,and thus endowned with a more optimistic twist.
K6
-
A scenario which I think to be not entirely surreal is that people could assume clan names, should clan system ever become a common phenomenon in the gay state. I hope these will be not the clans of the Japanse Yakuza style, but rather a sort of Kibbutz's with life-long family bonds. We should think about social models which would enable both individual freedoms and rich societal life, free of social isolation and nepotism.
In my novel,the younger generation had a tendency to congregate in polygamous clans,fiercely independent and jealous of each other.Since they depended from the State for their human replacements by way of immigration,they spent a large part of their time intriguing and slandering other clans so as to have a bigger slice of the newcomers group.The most common accusation levelled against other clans was of course that the said clans were riddled with VD.
K6
-
In my novel,the younger generation had a tendency to congregate in polygamous clans,fiercely independent and jealous of each other.Since they depended from the State for their human replacements by way of immigration,they spent a large part of their time intriguing and slandering other clans so as to have a bigger slice of the newcomers group.The most common accusation levelled against other clans was of course that the said clans were riddled with VD.
Have you seen the Film "Gohatto" by the Japanese director Nagisa Oshima? There a 18-year-old youth becomes an object of jealousy and murderous intrigues. I gues these clan rivalries would end up quite similarly! ;D ;D ;D
Btw, VD = Veneral Disease?
-
Have you seen the Film "Gohatto" by the Japanese director Nagisa Oshima? There a 18-year-old youth becomes an object of jealousy and murderous intrigues. I gues these clan rivalries would end up quite similarly! ;D ;D ;D
Btw, VD = Veneral Disease?
Yes,VD means Veneral Disease.
No,I haven`t seen the picture movie you`re mentionning here.But gay though they may be,males remain males with all the instincts of possession entailed,exacerbated by the fact human ressources would not be available directly as in an heterosexual culture,and not in the least moderated or tamed by the presence of a female lesbian population.
In my novel,certain clans simply abducted members from other clans.The type of action which,among gays,could lead to endless blood feuds.
Some clans staged a revolt,which the colonial gay government had to put down.The novel says that thereafter,the ringleaders died in "accidents" or of veneral diseases.After that,clans had to be registered as official polygamous unions,so that were to be no more argument about who belonged to which clan.
K6
-
Interestingly, the lesbians who I know are much more militant than gays. Therefore, personally I tend to belief that gays will have to smooth lesbians in case we should establish a gay state. ;D This might be a stupid prejudice, but male homosexuals in such a state would indeed have good reasons to be afraid of females. =))
Seriously, it is probably in vane to speculate about the social structures of the future gay state. I would expext that different approaches would exist in a parallel way, depending on the original cultures where the immigrants come from. Most certainly, Thai immigrants would generally have very different attitudes from immigrants coming from Iran. This not necessarily must be a source of violent conflicts: on contrary, the diversity can do the society a very good service, if only all the diverse individuals learn to respect eachother. This will be one of the major tasks of the government: to establish common rules of conduct and to enforce these rules with a hard hand.
-
Interestingly, the lesbians who I know are much more militant than gays. Therefore, personally I tend to belief that gays will have to smooth lesbians in case we should establish a gay state. ;D This might be a stupid prejudice, but male homosexuals in such a state would indeed have good reasons to be afraid of females. =))
I am not afraid of females.There is no reason to be.Lesbianism has a weak material and economic basis.The assigned tasks I had yesterday on my work shift,no female even of the most radical feminist variety,would have wanted to be part of it.I don`t think that women,lesbian or not,will
cause us gay males any serious problem or difficulty.They surely know what the consequences would be,if I or another other male ceased to
perform on their behalf backbreaking or dangerous tasks from which they are spared only because they live in heterosexual societies.
K6
-
Seriously, it is probably in vane to speculate about the social structures of the future gay state. I would expext that different approaches would exist in a parallel way, depending on the original cultures where the immigrants come from. Most certainly, Thai immigrants would generally have very different attitudes from immigrants coming from Iran. This not necessarily must be a source of violent conflicts: on contrary, the diversity can do the society a very good service, if only all the diverse individuals learn to respect eachother. This will be one of the major tasks of the government: to establish common rules of conduct and to enforce these rules with a hard hand.
So far,my experiences in the multicultural environment of Canada and while traveling abroad point out to no significant difference between gay
males,except in the color of their skin.Such experiences would rather reinforce my impression that we are indeed a people,one people.We could
have conflicts between gays,but I wouldn`t expect over differences in racial or ethnic origin.Racial and ethnic groups would have no independent
existence on our soil,because of the absence of specific and private reproductive activity of their own.In order to put an end to allegiances to
specific groups of origin and to reinforce our own national identity,we could prohibit identification to a race or to an ethnic group,such as it exists
in the micronation I am representing in alt.politics.micronations.A gay,I think,must identify with the international gay community,and not with any
hethro national group.
K6
-
There will be most probably no need to prohibit identification with any ethnic group, besides how should this function? Any individual grows up in particular cultural ambience, and it is his or her innate right to identify with any group he/she wants. We must go away from "prohibiting" some things which are natural to people, because with too many restrictions and invasions into privacy we would create a country noone is happy to live in. No, it is better to put additional efforts into developing of a gay/queer nationality, so the primary identification with the gay/queer people would come naturally and not by "governmental decrees". One can't force humans into feeleng a nation, but one can nurture these feelings by smart propaganda and real cultural investment. A course in gay history should be mandatory for any candidate for naturalization.
I agree with you, of course, that gays from different countries seem to be very similarly tempered. To describe it more precisely, the differences between ethnic groups are much less significant, than the differences within any ethnic group. However, the cultural differences between people from Asia, South and North America and Europe should not be neglected fully. It will be important to let the people learn about each other's original cultures.
-
One can't force humans into feeleng a nation, but one can nurture these feelings by smart propaganda and real cultural investment. A course in gay history should be mandatory for any candidate for naturalization.
As for naturalization,I`d suggess that we rest content with the individual being a gay according to a formal definition.An individual who has succeded in being gay in an overwhelmingly heterosexual enrivonment has,in my view,passed the test for gay citizenship.So much the better if he did it by being curious enough to study history,even better gay history,but this shouldn`t be a requirement to be a citizen of a gay and independent geopolitical entity,micro or macro.We`re after loyalty and allegiance to a gay sexual orientation primarily.Individuals may achieve that goal by different
ways,based on the local conditions and societies in which they grew up.Their experiences in that respect will be of a prodigious interest,both documentary but also as curriculum material if we ever have a high school level for immigrants in their late teens.
K6
-
I agree with you, of course, that gays from different countries seem to be very similarly tempered. To describe it more precisely, the differences between ethnic groups are much less significant, than the differences within any ethnic group. However, the cultural differences between people from Asia, South and North America and Europe should not be neglected fully. It will be important to let the people learn about each other's original cultures.
I live myself in a multicultural society,where little attention is payed to such differences.It is true,though,that many of the newcomers to Canada
and in the city where I live are closely related culturally to the local Québécois group.Latin american immigrants are so to speak cousins of the Québécois,even linguistically.I am talking here about a society which hasn`t a goal as precise as a gay politically independent society,and yet which works smootly.We do not know on this side of the Atlantic where we are heading exactly with multiculturalism,only that we are part of some new society in the making.
K6
-
[..] An individual who has succeded in being gay in an overwhelmingly heterosexual enrivonment has,in my view,passed the test for gay citizenship.So much the better if he did it by being curious enough to study history,even better gay history,but this shouldn`t be a requirement to be a citizen of a gay and independent geopolitical entity,micro or macro.[..]
The political maturity of citizens will be a central issue for the gay state, as many immigrants will come from less developed areas and will have probably a lower education level, then, let's say is usual in Japan or Western Europe. Democracy can only function well, when the citizenship consists of educated and responsible individuals. Don't get me wrong: we aren't talking about mathematics or chemistry, we are talking about political maturity. This includes first of all the knowledge of (own) history and understanding of democratic principles. The citizens must know the official language, understand basics of economy and know the legal and political structure of the country. I purposefully emphasize the word citizen and make a difference to inhabitants and immigrants here: whereas the country must be open to any gay/lesbian immigrant, it is not said that political rights are free from certain obligations. It can be expected that an individual who desires to achieve the right to vote has also the necessary level of political maturity: therefore he/she must aquire additional knowledges before becoming a full citizen. Simply course in gay history and state theory, and a language course. Everybody can make it, and everybody needs it to be a responsible and participating citizen.
-
I purposefully emphasize the word citizen and make a difference to inhabitants and immigrants here: whereas the country must be open to any gay/lesbian immigrant, it is not said that political rights are free from certain obligations. It can be expected that an individual who desires to achieve the right to vote has also the necessary level of political maturity: therefore he/she must aquire additional knowledges before becoming a full citizen. Simply course in gay history and state theory, and a language course. Everybody can make it, and everybody needs it to be a responsible and participating citizen.
Of course,we are debating here theoretically about a gay independent State.Which doesn`t exist at the moment.In the absence of a gay State,there is no corresponding citizenship.There is only the status of gay,if ever some gay groups did developped it in a formal way.Political
maturity is not something we can require from a gay yet,though we might try to develop it among gays by way of political education.In any case,it remains possible that individuals who haven`t matured quickly all by themselves,and before a separatist gay organization can come in existence in order to educate them politically,won`t have the means to be gay.They will compromise culturally with the hethro side,to the point of being hethro dissidents of the regime bearing the same name,rather than gay opponents to it.Political maturity,for the time being,is only for
the cadres of some eventual gay separatist movement.Once a gay State is in existence,yes we could have a general civic education for all gay
immigrants before they become citizens.Yet,I would retain this feature,borrowed from the jesuit order,to skim the gay society out of its best elements and give them a special and advanced political education,so as to have professionnal cadres for the government of a country of ours.
A sort of a modern and secular monastic order,devoted exclusively to the service of the gay nation and State.All the more than the gay population among which it will be recruited will already be entirely free of any family obligation,and thus available for such a service.
K6
-
It will be important to let the people learn about each other's original cultures.
The citizens of a gay State should know at least a couple of foreign languages.That greatly facilitates relations in a multicultural environment.You
get an idea on how someone else thinks or dreams when you master his linguistic mean of communication.
K6
-
Of course,we are debating here theoretically about a gay independent State.Which doesn`t exist at the moment.In the absence of a gay State,there is no corresponding citizenship. There is only the status of gay,if ever some gay groups did developped it in a formal way. [..]
This is certainly true. We have extensely discussed the issue of being gay, and had to admitt that there are very differing views on "Who is gay" (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=140.0). As this linguistic controversies cannot be arbitrarily decided by few individuals or even by the gay state per decret, all the administration of the future gay souvereign entity can do is to decide who is either gay citizen or gay national (and is therefore under protection of the gay state), and who is definitely non of those 2 categories. A person can become citizen solely by formal naturalization performed by authorized state officers, and certainly not against his/her will. Being a gay national means that the person belongs to the gay people and falls into the spere of interests of the gay state, dispite the formal naturalization could not be accomplished yet by some or other reason. It would be only fair to regard any homosexual person as gay national, unless the person explicitely declares that he/she does not wish to be regarded as such. This approach is very practical, as it would give the gay state the moral right to act on behalf of any homosexual individual without any further paperwork, and at the same time recognize the personal right of self-determination.
One problem sticks at the discussion, and this time the problem linguistics. If we are to become one people, we should decide which term we use to describe us as a people with one word? I am thinking of the dilemma of "gay and lesbian", "queer", "LGBT" and "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people" - over short or long time it becomes pretty tedious to use the appropriate full form in a discussion or a legal document. It would be extremely usefull to find one linguistic construct to encompass all the categories we are meaning, without hurting the feelings of any of the involved groups. Actually, initiall the word "gay" seems to have been was used to describe all forms of homosexuals (male and female), while a "lesb" was of the same level as a "catamite". How comes we are talking of "gay men" and "lesbians" now? The word "queer" is nowadays used for the same purpose as "gay" long time before, but some cautious minds are ironasing already that times of "queer men" and "lesbians" are coming soon. =)) So how shall we proceed in future? Personally I am inclined to suggest the use of the word "gay" encompassing prevalently homosexual men and women as well as transgenders associating themeselves with our culture, therefore "gay state" and "gay homeland" being applied for all the described groups. Of course we could start using the word "queer" instead, but isn't it a bit too arbitrarily used for any slight sexual diviance as well? I am thinking of prevalently heterosexual beings who use to cloth and talk in what they think is a "gay manner", and even have now and then a short homosexual "affair". Nothing be said against this, but this "metrosexual" thing is not exactly what we have in mind when we are talking about the gay culture and gay identity. So what now? It would be a greate help if some lesbians would let us know, whether they are fine with the integrative use of "gay" or whether they feel discriminated against by this.
[..] Political maturity is not something we can require from a gay yet,though we might try to develop it among gays by way of political education.In any case,it remains possible that individuals who haven`t matured quickly all by themselves,and before a separatist gay organization can come in existence in order to educate them politically,won`t have the means to be gay. [..] Political maturity,for the time being,is only for the cadres of some eventual gay separatist movement.Once a gay State is in existence,yes we could have a general civic education for all gay immigrants before they become citizens. [..]
What I had in mind by suggesting the necessity of "political maturity" for citizens was not a particular political belief, but rather the ability to make funded decisions. A person is free to refuse any particular theories, but he or she must know these theories. The citizen can be expected to know how to read and write, know basic history of the mankind and the history of gay movement in particular. The knowledge of different state systems, basic economic and political theories, as well as a minimum knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences shall be made compulsory for anyone desiring to participate in political process. I am not talking about high matematics and extensive studies of greek philosophy, simply about a minimum set of knowledge. One may argue that such a demand would unjustifiably discriminate against those who come from "third world" countries, but I had recently made the experience that even many people from the "industrialized world" are not really informed about how the world functions. It would therefore be in our all interest to offer compulsory curses for those who fail to pas the basic examinations. As far as our knowledge of gay history is concerned, I am most sure that we all will have to take a cours or two to close our education gaps -- there are actually only very few scholars who have an advanced knowledge of this subject.
The education of potential political elites is a quite another topic. Though I am highly impressed by the French approach (nurturing of all the elites in one École), I at the same time dislike the potential danger of totalitarian education. We should avoid monocultures on the field of education, therefore a couple of good schools of various olitical coleur should be accepted as explicitely welcome. The state can impose certain requirements for qualification of its officers, however - this would ensure efficiency of the state apparatus. We should generally not confuse politics and administration - they are pretty different things. Whereas the administration and justice should be the domain of professionals, the field of politics does not require extendedl knowledges - the basic education and common sense are everything one needs. I suggest therefore that the future gay state be a mixture of democracy and meritocracy - the professionals on each field must have the possibility to withhold the politicians from entirely stupid decisions.
The citizens of a gay State should know at least a couple of foreign languages.That greatly facilitates relations in a multicultural environment.You get an idea on how someone else thinks or dreams when you master his linguistic mean of communication.
The experiences in Netherlands show, that the majority of the population can learn one or two foreing languages without further difficulties. It is a good idea to encourage people to learn foreign languages, especially in a multilingual society. With appropriate education programs we could both promote linguistic skills of our people and supply a good part of the population with jobs in this sector.
-
One problem sticks at the discussion, and this time the problem linguistics. If we are to become one people, we should decide which term we use to describe us as a people with one word? I am thinking of the dilemma of "gay and lesbian", "queer", "LGBT" and "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people" - over short or long time it becomes pretty tedious to use the appropriate full form in a discussion or a legal document.
I have been speaking English as a second language since the age of 10.When I speak,write or read in English,I *think* in English.To me,"Queer" sounds derogative.Native English speakers could confirm or infirm that impression.
"Homosexual" also sounds derogative,in any language I speak.
"Gay" is fine.I have explained once its origin,but I shall mention it again for newcomers.The word "gai" (gay in English,same meaning) was used in its current acceptation and in France in the 17th century.It then applied to people like us.How did it made a comeback by way of English and in the 1970s,I do not know.
The LGBT is a coalition of circumstance and of divergent and possibly conflicting interests.It seeks an arrangement within the context of heterosexual societies.Because of its "B","T" and possibly also "L" component,it is too closely associated with the hethro cultural lifestyle and political regime to secede from it.We should confine ourselves to the "G" component,of which loyalty to the gay lifestyle we are certain,and not include people who have profited from hethro domination.
The LGBT has besides its own international movement: the ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association),which within the limitations of its
political agenda still does fine work.Our idea here it to set up a gay independence movement.Not to congregate with other sexual minorities as brothers and pigs.
K6
-
This is certainly true. We have extensely discussed the issue of being gay, and had to admitt that there are very differing views on "Who is gay" (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=140.0). As this linguistic controversies cannot be arbitrarily decided by few individuals or even by the gay state per decret, all the administration of the future gay souvereign entity can do is to decide who is either gay citizen or gay national (and is therefore under protection of the gay state), and who is definitely non of those 2 categories. A person can become citizen solely by formal naturalization performed by authorized state officers, and certainly not against his/her will.
A differenciation between gays and heterosexuals already occurs de facto and in real life.It is performed by both sides and by most individuals.And there is no effective way to oppose it since differenciating people into categories,whatever they are,does not lend itself to physical opposition.If
heterosexuals do not regard us as heterosexuals,we are left only with the option of proclaiming and affirming a distinct,separate and viable gay
identity.In the case of gay separatists,the differenciation between gay and heterosexual will possibly be more elaborate,that is eventually with formal definitions.In the absence of a gay State,gays acting as separatist political agents possess all the authority to decide who is gays and who isn`t.Playing at the game of "us and them" and "nationals and foreigners" do not require a State apparatus.Jews have had a definition of who is a Jew for the last 3,000 years,and for most of that time had no independent State of their own.A gay State,when it comes into existence,will be faced with such an accompished fact as a differenciation between gays and heterosexuals,already performed by gay separatists themselves.
For matters having to do with the handling of cases of treason,individuals will eventually be considered as gays against their will.The purpose of a differenciation and definition,when it comes at sorting individuals into gays and heterosexuals,is not really to serve the interest of the individual.It
is to serve the collective interest of the people.Particularly when it comes to its political independence.
K6
-
I have little admiration for Amnesty International since their claims of support for the rights of gays have always been backed by so few actions. I have heard elsewhere doubts that there is any pogrom against gays in Iraq at all, based entirely upon Amnesty International's silence on the matter. So Amnesty International admits now that they have not been looking at this area. No doubt they are well-pressed with their legitimate concerns for the distress of the heterosexual inhabitants of Iraq. Perhaps they will find time to look into it when the matter reaches the "excavating mass graves" stage.
My sentiment as a gay separatist and towards such international bodies like the UN,the International Court of Justice of the Hague or Amnesty International among others is one of contempt.Wether in real life or in political simulation (like in micronationalism),these systems of so-called
collective security simply do not work in situations of conflict and/or emergency.They cannot be part of any serious political figuring or action.
For their business is confined to one thing: debating.
K6
-
My sentiment as a gay separatist and towards such international bodies like the UN,the International Court of Justice of the Hague or Amnesty International among others is one of contempt.Wether in real life or in political simulation (like in micronationalism),these systems of so-called
collective security simply do not work in situations of conflict and/or emergency.They cannot be part of any serious political figuring or action.
For their business is confined to one thing: debating.
K6, with all respect - I do not agree to your judgment about the UN, Hague Tribunal or Amnesty International (the latter being a non-governmental organization). These organizations are not perfect, but they have achieved significant and real progresses for humanity. Of course, if certained founding members of the UN do not pay their membership dues timely, or recognize the competency of the ICJ over all but their own citizens, one cann't expect huge leaps forwards a real global cooperation. The UN is far from being a really powerfull organization, but again - humble progress is better than no progress at all.
The same must be said about Amnesty - at least they do something. We must admit that the same cannot be claimed for the most people in industriallized countries. The wealthy and healthy prefer to spend their time and money in recreational areas, instead of taking action for something they believe is good. So let us not judge too harshly over those who do something, even if their efforts are not 100% satisfying. This does not hinder us to question why e.g. Amnesty does not pay due attention to persecution of homosexuals.
Besides, we ourselves are doing scarcelly more than debating here - because debating is important. It makes people think, and changes the way they are acting. Therefore it realistically might turn out that a purely debating club has more impact onto the real world than, let's say, a radical revenge commando.
-
K6, with all respect - I do not agree to your judgment about the UN, Hague Tribunal or Amnesty International (the latter being a non-governmental organization).
The political cause I serve is the one of gay self-determination.I am in the service of the gay interest.I do not,as a gay separatist,believe in those universal causes which you are evoking here.
K6
-
The political cause I serve is the one of gay self-determination.I am in the service of the gay interest.I do not,as a gay separatist,believe in those universal causes which you are evoking here.
Whereas being a gay separatist does not necessarily require to be an integrationalist on the international area, it also does not contradict this. I think we must agree to disagree at this point - there is no necessety to be of the same opinion about this issue.
:L
-
Whereas being a gay separatist does not necessarily require to be an integrationalist on the international area, it also does not contradict this. I think we must agree to disagree at this point - there is no necessety to be of the same opinion about this issue.
:L
Such is the essence of diplomacy.
K6
-
Because of our demographic size,we will retain as an eventual State a certain advantage over organized heterosexual societies only if these societies
remain divided.Through such bodies like the UN,we would only encourage if not realistically their complete unification,at least some partial form of unification.It is unlikely that organized heterosexual societies would ever agree on such a thing like uniting on our side.More likely,they may on occasion unite against us,more precisely against some specific and controversial (to them) aspect of our policies.It is preferable that organized heterosexual societies have no common institutional body such like the UN.It will be the task of the diplomacy of a gay independent State to keep
organized heterosexual societies divided,to prevent them from agreeing on anything,to set them up occasionnally one against another,and by way of the balance of power to keep them incapable of effectively pursuing a common goal detrimental to our independence.
K6
-
[..] In the absence of a gay State,gays acting as separatist political agents possess all the authority to decide who is gays and who isn`t.Playing at the game of "us and them" and "nationals and foreigners" do not require a State apparatus. [..] For matters having to do with the handling of cases of treason,individuals will eventually be considered as gays against their will.The purpose of a differenciation and definition,when it comes at sorting individuals into gays and heterosexuals,is not really to serve the interest of the individual. [..]
Still, the question remains, whether it is presumptuos to extrapolate any "gay legislation" upon each and every person who would fit into some arbitrarily established definition of "gay". There are, of course, some practical considerations which would favour such a solution: the government would claim the right to represent some 500 millions people, and all gays would feel the pressure to pay loyalty to this government. Alone, where shall the legitimacy of such a government come from? If we would talk about a government rightfully elected by the majority of gay people, I would perhaps agree to your notion that the remains of the gay population could be regarded as affiliates of this state on a regular basis. Any "government" established by a tiny fraction of the gay population would lack any legitimacy - similarly to certain self-proclaimed kings and emperors we have encountered in the recent history.
The other difficulty which I see, is the relationship between the state and its reluctant citizens. What kind of state shall this be, when the majority of the state vigorously deny their belonging to this state? You cannot seriously suggest that such a state would be acting for the best of its citizens? Or that the citizens simply do not know what is good for them? And, how shall the state institutions work - when the majority of the assumed "citizens" would rather fight this state than to participate in its political life? One cannot "rule" against the declared will of the population - therefore I cannot imagine how any compulsory naturalization shall work.
Certainly, the state must establish certain rules, which serve the community at large even if any particular individual meets some inconveniences by times. Compulsory military or social service are a heavy duty, but the people at lorge does accept it - on the premise that the citizens agree that such duties are necessary for the well-being of the society. Therefore it is clear that citizens cannot arbitrarily decide which legal provisions fit their private interest and which do not - once a citizen, an individual is subject to the law. Alone, a compulsory naturalization against the declare will would create not a new citizen, but rather an "unlawful combattant" even from the most soft-hearted fellow.
-
Still, the question remains, whether it is presumptuos to extrapolate any "gay legislation" upon each and every person who would fit into some arbitrarily established definition of "gay". There are, of course, some practical considerations which would favour such a solution: the government would claim the right to represent some 500 millions people, and all gays would feel the pressure to pay loyalty to this government.
1) The definition of a gay I use myself is restrictive.It generally does not encompasses members from other sexual minorities.
2) There is a statute of limitation,both temporal and territorial.
3) Political organisation prevails over the lack of it.A gay individual or group with a clear concept of who is gay is better organized than any gay individual or group without.Lenin and his associates prevailed in Russia and in 1917 because they knew exactly what they wanted amidts a population who probably didn`t even knew who she was.
K6
-
The nationalist's world view is based on the assumption, that a people can best develope (both culturally and economically) in a nation-state on its own. Naturally, any ambitions from other movements/entities to abolish the nation-state are contrary to the ideology of nationalism. Unlike it is commonly believed, any international cooperation and supranational structures do not contradict the idea of a nation-state - on contrary, the nation-state is the basis of all such activities!
Our difference lies with the method,not really with the essence of international cooperation.Gays,at least,will have to cooperate internationally and closely as heterosexuals never did if a gay independent State is ever to be set up.Political indepence for us gays will not be achieved by some local gay community.I am entirely satisfied with the operation of the balance of power as a method for dealing on an international plane.We need no UN except as a circle of philosophers with no decisional authority and no power to enforce their ideals.Besides,and by the time we get near statehood,the UN will probably no longer exist.Actually,the UN could become irrelevant with the ongoing international crisis over the status of
Iran as a nuclear power.
K6
-
[..] Gays,at least,will have to cooperate internationally and closely as heterosexuals never did if a gay independent State is ever to be set up.Political indepence for us gays will not be achieved by some local gay community. [..]
Certainly, our political independence will be not directly achieved by local gay communities - but we shall not forget what are the goals and what are the means. To say it more explicitely: gay political independence is not a superior goal for gay politics, but the means to enable our people a worthy existence - not more and not less. Our political indipendence will be only a part of the entire gay reality - with most gays living outside of the indipendent gay state. Certainly, the gay state will not only restrict its competencies solely over its residents, but will be closely involved into politics of all the other countries, where gays are residing. In my view, well-organized and well-networked local gay communities will not only essentially improve the cultural and political live of gays, but also will form the best preliminary structures for gay cultural and political indipendence.
And let me explain why: it's because in communities we live our social life - meet other people, make sports, work etc. In communities we experience our living together as a people, indeed, the people is the next stage in the evolution of communities! Our weakness comes from our disorganization - no hetero can be blaimed for that mishap of ours. Organized communities are the place where our people could reach many of our political and cultural goals even before the gay state is actually established.
When the gay state will be established, local communities in "overseas" will be as well an important part of our politics - probably, the most important part of our politics.
[..] We need no UN except as a circle of philosophers with no decisional authority and no power to enforce their ideals.Besides,and by the time we get near statehood,the UN will probably no longer exist.Actually,the UN could become irrelevant with the ongoing international crisis over the status of Iran as a nuclear power. [..]
Certainly, a country must follow primarily it's own interests - and not comply with the interests of other countries, however powerfull they might be. But the question must be allowed, whether our interests weren't best seved as a full-status member state of the UN, shall we once establish a state. Neither the membership in the UN is necessary for an indipendent state, nor is a recognition by other states - but both the recognition and UN membership would be extremely helpful for the work of our government. Both vessels and citizens of an unrecognized state are permanently in danger of being seized and controlled by the personell of foreign states - a very unconfortable situation. Recognition by the most other states would abolish the necessety to heavily arm every merchant ship of ours, and generelly make the life easier both for citizens and for gays in Diaspora.
-
When the gay state will be established, local communities in "overseas" will be as well an important part of our politics - probably, the most important part of our politics.
We will have to be cautious,so as no to interfere in the domestic affairs of other States,at least those which are friendly or not hostile to us.Not
even over the matter of their treatment of the local gay minority.For those States will be necessary to us as areas of transit for gays fleeing hostile hethro countries.It is out of question that we confer the citizenship of a Republic of ours to permanent residents of foreign hethro countries,even if they are gays.As for those gays living under hostile hethro regimes,our policy will be to get them out by any mean found in an history book.It is quite possible that regimes similar to the one of Iran will not even let their gay citizens leave,on top of persecuting them.At that stage,I`d wonder if it wouldn`t be as good for those gays to be arrested and executed as operatives of our intelligence agencies,rather than only for gay sex.That would make at the same time more glorious and usefull,and they would go down fighting in a way,either sending us information,or causing the vertical emigration of some mullah here and there.As in the TV series of the 60s titled "Mission Impossible",we would deny having had any knowledge of their activities.Gay eyes and ears in foreign and hostile hethro countries should not be left without a place and certain tasks on which I`d prefer not to elaborate any further in the context of our foreign affairs.
K6
-
Certainly, a country must follow primarily it's own interests - and not comply with the interests of other countries, however powerfull they might be. But the question must be allowed, whether our interests weren't best seved as a full-status member state of the UN, shall we once establish a state. Neither the membership in the UN is necessary for an indipendent state, nor is a recognition by other states - but both the recognition and UN membership would be extremely helpful for the work of our government. Both vessels and citizens of an unrecognized state are permanently in danger of being seized and controlled by the personell of foreign states - a very unconfortable situation. Recognition by the most other states would abolish the necessety to heavily arm every merchant ship of ours, and generelly make the life easier both for citizens and for gays in Diaspora.
As I said,we will need a certain number of gay friendly countries as areas of transit to ours,alongside with aggreements over airline traffic between us and them.And diplomatic relations in order to be able to conduct normal political business beyond the limits of our country.As for myself,I`d prefer gay immigration by regular methods,that is applicants in a gay embassy or consulate abroad,rather than fugitives jumping the border fence between us and the hethro world in the mist and fog of early morning.
K6
-
Our weakness comes from our disorganization - no hetero can be blaimed for that mishap of ours. Organized communities are the place where our people could reach many of our political and cultural goals even before the gay state is actually established.
That is correct,including the blame against ourselves for not being organized.In liberal hethro countries,we have no excuse not to be organized.
Even before a gay independent State is established,we will be faced with tasks similar to the ones of a State.We had already an example of this right in this forum and with the debate over the definition of who is gay.General and effective action on this is possible on the basis of a common and informal aggreement between gay separatists,similar to those nation-States reach between themselves by way of exchange of notes.There is an aggreement between us that all Kinsey 6 gays are gays.There is none and the discussion is to be continued concerning the other levels of the Kinsey scale.Another matter to be discussed will be the classification of hethro countries in good,bad or indifferent,or in whatever other category we may see fit.We have to do this before we define the ways and means of our own international political line.It is obvious that with certain social-democrat countries,which have been relatively fair to us,we will have to advise gays to remain loyal to them.
Whereas in the case of certain other countries,it will not decently be possible for us to do so.
K6
-
But the question must be allowed, whether our interests weren't best seved as a full-status member state of the UN, shall we once establish a state.
That option might no longer exist for those gays of the future - I salute them - who will establish a gay independent State.They might not have to decide to become or not to become a member of the UN,for the obvious simple reason the UN will have left the stage of world politics and history as its ancestor the League of Nations did in 1939.The remaining option,if the world has become multipolar,will be to join a local or ideological association of States.A gay Republic would probably have an interest in joining an association of *secular States*.
K6
-
We will have to be cautious,so as no to interfere in the domestic affairs of other States,at least those which are friendly or not hostile to us.Not even over the matter of their treatment of the local gay minority. [...] they would go down fighting in a way,either sending us information,or causing the vertical emigration of some mullah here and there. [..]
My personal belief is that such a thing like "foreign domestic affairs" does not exist at all, whenever the interests of a state are concerned. The only issue to be discussed is the form in which one state intrudes into "domestic affairs" of another state. If our people are suffering oppression or are endangered, we must take actions suitable to help them. Wherever our nationals express concerns about their situation, the global "gay government" shall address the problem. It would be wise, of course, to do this in a way with regard to particular situation in that countries: a gay-friendly foreign government can be contacted on diplomatic channels without any unnecessary discomposure, whereas some hostile fundamentalists can be moved out of our way by less diplomatic means. If president of one country gives unsolicited advices to the government of the neighbouring state, it is clearly an offensive action and will entail serious tensions. If special funds of the same president generously support a number of dissident NGO's in the neighbouring country, this is simply "humanitary aid" and hardly can cause a public scandal.
[..] It is out of question that we confer the citizenship of a Republic of ours to permanent residents of foreign hethro countries,even if they are gays. [..]
Why so? I see absolutely no reason why gays permanently residing in other countries shall be deprived of the opportunity to attain the citizenship of the Gay State. On contrary, regarding our natural abundance in the world, we might very well face the cituation when most of our citizens are liveng abroad. This will be, in particular, the case if the Gay State will posess no territory, or the territory under its control will be to small to accomodate any significant population. The state shall unite as many gays as possible under its governance, both to increase its political and economical weight, and "to bring together what naturally belongs together". In no way can I agree to the notion that gays in Diaspora shall be deprived of the beneficence and protection of the Gay State.
In one point you have right, of course – it is out of question that the Gay State might entertain governmental sub-divisions on a foreign souvereign territory. Gay communities "abroad" will have to be self-ruled in compliance with local legislations, and will be, as organizations, no subjects of the Gay State. These communities will, however, entertain close relationship to the Gay State, and members of these communities very well may participate in political life of the Gay State through representatives etc. In some countries it shall be possible to re-claim some part of taxes by a contract with the local governments.
We must, of course, discuss the prerequisits for obtaining the citizenship – and the consequences for the citizen of any given state of residency. In some countries, dual citizenship is allowed, in other countries (e.g. in Germany) the "old" citizenship is lost by attaining "new" citizenship. For such countries, we will have to find creative solutions, which would allow gay individual to participate in the political life of the gay state, without facing unnecessary practical difficulties in the country of his residency. Certainly, we will need also a couple or two heroes, but the vaste majority of the gay population shall not be forced into artificial difficulties. My suggestion is to introduce, along with full citizenship, the category "affiliate" of the Gay State – a kind of second-class citizenship, guaranteeing some basic rights and connected to vew obligations. Though one might feel uncomfortable contemplating the status of "second-class citizenship", this solution would be certainly better than obtaining no citizenship at all.
Furthermore, the competencies of local authorities of the Gay State, and the "Global Gay Government" must be clearly separated. There is no reason why citizens living abroad shall have the right to interfere with internal politics on the territory of the Gay State, or why the local authorities shall have the unrestricted right to speak for the entire gay population of the planet. The actual legal framework is negotiable and is subject of much more elaborated discussion that is possible in this thread (basically, we could either introduce 2 institutions, or guarantee certain amount of seats within the parliament for representatives from Diaspora).
[..] we will need [..] diplomatic relations in order to be able to conduct normal political business beyond the limits of our country.As for myself,I`d prefer gay immigration by regular methods,that is applicants in a gay embassy or consulate abroad [..]
Certainly – the consulate is very suitable not only for processing immigrants, but for maintaining good relations both with the local Diaspora and with the host country. The political, economical and cultural interests of the Gay State would be best served in a civilized procedure. Though, ther will be an amount of countries, where gays will have to go abroad under wrong premises (here I remember my own elopement from the collapsing Soviet Union – knowing that my documents were processed, I went on travel with tourist visum).
[..] Another matter to be discussed will be the classification of hethro countries in good,bad or indifferent,or in whatever other category we may see fit.We have to do this before we define the ways and means of our own international political line. [..]
Whereas it is generally a good thing to entertain good relationships with as many countries as possible, some countries will leave us no choice as to be treated as hostile. More precisely, we shall speak of hostile governments – keeping in mind, that 7-10 % of inhabitants are gays or lesbians. This brings us into the difficult situation that in case of open conflict we have a considerable amount of our people kept as hostages by the enemy. Therefore the gay government will have to consider very carefully its words and actions – sometimes it is required to act undercover, whereby the actions themeselves can be very well of unfriendly nature. If some governments practically declare war on gays, these governments and governmental property shall be targeted with no restrictions – but the populations of those countries be spared from any collateral damage.
[..] those gays of the future [..] might not have to decide to become or not to become a member of the UN,for the obvious simple reason the UN will have left the stage of world politics and history as its ancestor the League of Nations did in 1939. [..]
It is in vane to discuss global issues of tomorrow – every generation of politicians must deal with geopolitical situation of their times. It might come as you say, but it also might come different – in any case, the existence of the state must be preserved, and the interests of the gay people as whole be served in the best way possible. The interests of the future generations of gays must be taken into account as well.
-
I see absolutely no reason why gays permanently residing in other countries shall be deprived of the opportunity to attain the citizenship of the Gay State. On contrary, regarding our natural abundance in the world, we might very well face the cituation when most of our citizens are liveng abroad. This will be, in particular, the case if the Gay State will posess no territory, or the territory under its control will be to small to accomodate any significant population. The state shall unite as many gays as possible under its governance, both to increase its political and economical weight, and "to bring together what naturally belongs together". In no way can I agree to the notion that gays in Diaspora shall be deprived of the beneficence and protection of the Gay State.
Granting the citizenship of a gay Republic to gays residing abroad would prove futile,as we would have no means to enforce it.It would lead us into complications with foreign and friendly hethro governments,who would not accept such a statement of intent from our part upon a significant section of the populations under their jurisdiction.An aggreement with friendly hethro governments would probably allow us to grant the citizenship of a gay Republic to individuals having applied for it in a gay embassy or consulate,and in the process of emigrating to such a Republic of ours.Or better,in transit from some homophobic country.
K6
-
My suggestion is to introduce, along with full citizenship, the category "affiliate" of the Gay State – a kind of second-class citizenship, guaranteeing some basic rights and connected to vew obligations. Though one might feel uncomfortable contemplating the status of "second-class citizenship", this solution would be certainly better than obtaining no citizenship at all.
There should be no second class citizenship for gays.Either gays choose to emigrate to that Republic of ours.In which case,they become citizens upon arrival in the said Republic,or at the soonest on the premises of the local embassy or consulate abroad where they apply to emigrate.Or gays
choose to remain abroad,in which case they renounce to become citizens of a gay Republic.I do not include in the lot those gays who remain abroad against their will.Gays who choose to remain abroad are to be considered as citizens of their own (sic) hethro countries.The treatment they receive in those countries where,again,they chose to remain and whence they are not prevented from leaving,is a strictly internal matter of those countries.
K6
-
We must, of course, discuss the prerequisits for obtaining the citizenship – and the consequences for the citizen of any given state of residency. In some countries, dual citizenship is allowed, in other countries (e.g. in Germany) the "old" citizenship is lost by attaining "new" citizenship. For such countries, we will have to find creative solutions, which would allow gay individual to participate in the political life of the gay state, without facing unnecessary practical difficulties in the country of his residency.
Gays having freely chosen to remain in their own (sic) hethro countries would not participate in the life of a gay State in a formal political manner.
Their role would rather consist,where allowed to,to send economic assistance or contributions to that gay State,as well as observations on the
situation abroad.Given the fact that we are a minority,we won`t have most of the time the option of force in dealing with such foreign organized
societies like hethro States.We will therefore have to outwit them by being far better informed on the world situation than they are themselves.
I mean here not only the government staff of the gay State,but its population as well.We must have a generally well read citizenry,along with people specializing in the study of particular areas of the world,or particular foreign issues (gay or non-gay).In a way,we already have this advantage,as we know the organized hethro societies in which we live far better than they know us.The role of gays having chosen to remain
abroad shall therefore consist to study foreign hethro societies thoroughly,and to pass on their observations to both the government staff and the citizenry of a gay State.
K6
-
Whereas it is generally a good thing to entertain good relationships with as many countries as possible, some countries will leave us no choice as to be treated as hostile. More precisely, we shall speak of hostile governments – keeping in mind, that 7-10 % of inhabitants are gays or lesbians. This brings us into the difficult situation that in case of open conflict we have a considerable amount of our people kept as hostages by the enemy.
That goes double.With gay ears and eyes in every hethro society on earth,we could introduce a factor of insecurity in the lives of homophobic hethro politicians.By way of gossiping in our own yellow press for example: "This or that politician dined last night in this or that restaurant of,say,
Paris,France.He ate this or that,and drank champagne of this or that vintage.Cheating on his wife,he was in the company of this or that prostitute
with this or that specific VD,which he is likely to have caught in the ensuing night spent in suite number such of this or that Hotel".
K6
-
[..] It would be a greate help if some lesbians would let us know, whether they are fine with the integrative use of "gay" or whether they feel discriminated against by this. [..]
To touch an older topic of ours, namely the search for one word describing homosexual men and women: In a (rather unimportant) report (http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=146238&command=displayContent&sourceNode=146064&contentPK=14433206&folderPk=69655) from UK one girl is talking about her being gay - obviously, some lesbian women are not unfriendly to this integrative use of the word.
"[..] Laura [..] says staff and regulars alike know she is gay. [..] 'Everyone knows I'm gay and I've taken my last two girlfriends to the Grapes without any problems, so this has come as a real shock,' said Laura. [..] 'I'm sure they would not have made a fuss if it was a man and a women, this is because we are gay.' "
-
It is not that I exclude gay money from the equation of a geopolitical secession.Gay money will be difficult to mobilize for specific reasons,the same way it will have specific reasons to jump ship or get seasick when a gay State will sail on rough waters.Poor gays won`t have the opportuny to flee abroad and there live off their swiss bank accounts if a country of ours is invaded and temporarily occupied by some hethro power.The poor would like to flee no less than the rich,except that they do not have that opportunity and will have to stay and bear the brunt of the struggle and material and human losses incured to regain independence.
K6
You make an interesting point. Indeed, looking abroad to the wide world gives us many examples of wealthy individuals fleeing their homelands in the times of crisis - e.g. many Russian oligarchs have left Russia in last years and have taken their money with them, having a comfortable life in Switzerland or in Greate Britain now, far away from the problems of the poors. On the other hand, in peacefull times - and such will be ours hopefully - the wealthy businessmen are very active in politics, because they have, of course, a strong interest to preserve their investments. We should, however, take an example on the Jewish people - they have learned from the past and stick together beyound any material interests.
-
On the other hand, in peacefull times - and such will be ours hopefully - the wealthy businessmen are very active in politics, because they have, of course, a strong interest to preserve their investments. We should, however, take an example on the Jewish people - they have learned from the past and stick together beyound any material interests.
The great concerto of gay political independence will be played on and with a variety of instruments.Gay money might participate,but only
as an instrument among others and like any other.Wealthy gays could get the idea that this future country of ours could be bought,which is
too close from that other idea of eventually selling it.I hear all too often that type of suggestion in micronational forums that a country could be bought with money.A country is earned with sweath,tears and blood.
K6
-
Wealthy gays could get the idea that this future country of ours could be bought,which is too close from that other idea of eventually selling it.
I pay tribute to your rhetoric skills :!! but do not agree with your argumentation entirely. Whereas one cannot buy a country, one can buy territory - various examples of huge private posessions, military bases and industrial areas illustrate this. Of course, it is quite unlikely that any foreign government would officially "sale" some territory for the purpose of establishing a gay state on it, but it is not especially unlikely to reach a kind of contract for the territory, giving the owners large freedoms about the area. One of such guaranteed rights would be, for example, the right to freely enter and leave the area for all employees and visitors of the owner, as well as the right to perform business and establish settlements for various purposes. A certain degree of own legal system can also be negotiated - all this things are possible even while preserving the formal jurisdiction of the host country. We wolld not be able to declare a de jura "independence" of the area but we would be able to achieve most of our practical goals de facto: create a safe place for all refugees, establish a gay-majority settlement and develope administrative structures to further our cultural and political developement. If we think of Tibetian people in India, we see that a friendly foreign government can offer some area to a government in exile and its people, wich is certainly better than having no self-determination at all. Should than some opportunity turn out somewhere in the world to take over responsibility over a territory somewhere else during an "interregnum", we would have the ressources for doing so.
-
We wolld not be able to declare a de jura "independence" of the area but we would be able to achieve most of our practical goals de facto: create a safe place for all refugees, establish a gay-majority settlement and develope administrative structures to further our cultural and political developement. If we think of Tibetian people in India, we see that a friendly foreign government can offer some area to a government in exile and its people, wich is certainly better than having no self-determination at all. Should than some opportunity turn out somewhere in the world to take over responsibility over a territory somewhere else during an "interregnum", we would have the ressources for doing so.
The establishment of the Montreal gay district in the early and mid 80s is something I saw with my own eyes.To the best of my knowledge,it was not the result of any gay plan or scheme.It would rather have had to do with the hethro municipal authorities,which were rumoured to have caused difficulties to the former Montreal gay settlement composed essentially of gay bars and located further west on Stanley street.Gays simply openned a few other bars in what now is the Montreal gay district.But this time,gays also started to rent and buy places and settle.In the beginning,there were only a few gay residents (some of them friends of mine) in what constituted a gutted hethro district.But gradually,it became obvious that there were somewhat more gays there than elsewhere on Montreal island.Towards the early 90s,the place obviously had a gay majority.Money,I must admit,seemed to have a role in this.The former residents of the now Montreal gay district were poor,often unemployed heterosexuals.They were no match for gay newcomers who,though not necessarily wealthy and though even perhaps as poor as
the heterosexuals,had nevertheless extra cash which was not available to single parent families.With extra money,but also with extra spare time flowing from its lifestyle,the gay element was more dynamic than the hethro one.That is how it populated the place,buying or renting being in that respect actions among others.Gays also renovated the district,which they could afford.
K6
-
That is a basic political error,especially in a confucian culture which ought to revere established and successfull political authority.Upon its inception,a gay independence movement ought to be rather like a cloud,offering no institutions and no chiefs which could be seized and thus rendered inoffensive.
Beg your pardon, but without institutions and people who actually do something, gay nationalism will remain a chimere, living solely in minds of some individuals, and find no expressions in the real world. Real gay kids get relly beaten up in schools, real gay people loose their real jobs and real gay people are executed by well-organnized real heterosexuals. With gay nationalism solely in our minds, we will achieve nothing. Certainly, we must take care that in case if all our central structures collapse, we still have functioning sub-structures to keep the movement going, but this fear is a rather bad justification to dispense with central structures ab initio. This being said, the "movement" as such always consists from many various groups and individuals, but they would do well to coordinate their efforts - this is the role of an organization and, finally, of the state. How can you seriously propagate establishment of a gay state, and deny the necessity of pre-state gay organizations?
The moment it comes to the mind of certain gays,or that it is noticed as a current of opinion on the internet,gay separatism could spread
very quickly and internationally,and become a political fashion among us gays.In the age of the internet,that is possible.Then,many gay separatist groups will appear,most of which will not remain for very long in existence or which will fail.Political independence is a rather long process which requires time and patience beyond what most people can imagine.It could take two or three generations of gays to elaborate a comprehensive blueprint for political independence,in tune with the realities of this world,and with a chance of success.We will have to be very persistent and singleminded with the idea of political independence if we are to make it a reality one day.
Here I agree with you - three generations sound not that much for me. You belong to the first generation of gay nationalists, my humble self to the second, and the third generation consists of the schoolboys of our days. So, what are we - our 3 generations - going to do?
:=SU
-
Beg your pardon, but without institutions and people who actually do something, gay nationalism will remain a chimere, living solely in minds of some individuals, and find no expressions in the real world.
A specific and local gay separatist group could perfectly have formal institutional and hierarchic structures,and yet be composed of individuals actually doing nothing in real life which would bear any ressemblance with political independence.For instance,it could have or effectively implement no definition of who is gay,in which case political secession hasn`t even started yet.In that respect,I`d tend to prefer the individual who does something specific to the one who bestows upon himself some formal title like President of this or that gay microrepublic.A certain number of
formal actions,like an outright secession or the setting up of a government for example,could besides have no effectivity in the real world.
K6
-
How can you seriously propagate establishment of a gay state, and deny the necessity of pre-state gay organizations?
I think that we must have first and in proper order some aspects of the behavior of political agents of a State before having the formal trappings
of Statehood.Such formal trappings not based upon prior accomplished facts would amount to empty posturing.We could besides have an interest,
as long as no gay State is established,to deny that such a State even exists.Not that I like the comparison,but a bit like the mob,which acts but denies existing.
K6
-
Here I agree with you - three generations sound not that much for me. You belong to the first generation of gay nationalists, my humble self to the second, and the third generation consists of the schoolboys of our days. So, what are we - our 3 generations - going to do?
I don`t think that either you or my humble self will ever see a gay independent State.But the leaders of some large gay independence movement well on the way to that aim are most probably among the younger readers of this forum.Some gay Prince of the future,to use a machiavelian expression,is perhaps among us now.Our role is to act as his advisers.
K6
-
You belong to the first generation of gay nationalists
I wonder wether I am really among the first.The nation State is a widespread concept,which has been developping among hethro organized societies since the 17th century.It is so dominant,obvious and simple that the idea of a gay independent State could have come up to the mind of any gay who has lived in the late few centuries.Perhaps it did,only that we didn`t heard about it.Hadn`t it been for the internet,it is unlikely that we would have ever heard of each other.The same way I have known from the beginning that I was not the only individual in the world to be gay,I suspect that I am not either the first to have been a separatist in the geopolitical sense.In that respect,I see myself as a continuation of something which has existed in the past,as well as a part of something which will outlive me in the future.
K6
-
[..] I`d tend to prefer the individual who does something specific to the one who bestows upon himself some formal title like President of this or that gay microrepublic.A certain number of formal actions,like an outright secession or the setting up of a government for example,could besides have no effectivity in the real world.
Certainly, the form of organization must be adequate to the nature of its actions and purposes. I entirely agree with you that solely the extent of real competency determines between the dignity and the ridicule. Should someone occupy a tiny islet and populate it with 100 gays, that noble person has every good reason to call himself/herself if not an "Emperor", but at least a "Chieftain". Alike, the chief of an urban gay clan might titulate himself "Padre" or whatever. In an international organization serving as a souvereign gay entity, one can have lots of ordinary-sounding titles like "Secretary", "Commisioneer" or "Consul Honoraire" - depending on the actual job the person makes.
I wonder wether I am really among the first.The nation State is a widespread concept,which has been developping among hethro organized societies since the 17th century.It is so dominant,obvious and simple that the idea of a gay independent State could have come up to the mind of any gay who has lived in the late few centuries.Perhaps it did,only that we didn`t heard about it. [..]
Certainly, many reports and ideas have been lost, and even those which were preserved are not necessarily known to us - by times I must learn good lessons proving my factual ignorance. ;D Eventhough, from what we know, the first efforts to achieve a gay majority on a regional level go back into 1970th, when there was a plan to "overtake" a single county in the US.
Ironically, the first ideologists of "gay statism" were probably not gays but heterosexuals - yes, yes, believe it or not. In 1869, a straight man with the name GEIGEL suggested*) to K. H. Ulrichs:
"And here we leave you, Mr Ulrichs! Get vanished! Make us a favour and go, with your 25.000 Uranians, buy some [territory] on the North Pole, but please save our german soil from your presence!"
If this doesn't sound like a suggestion to create an own territorial state for Uranians? >:) Unfortunately, Mr Ulrichs was not able to create even such a little thing as an Uranian association - like he had planned. The reason was simple: from those "25.000 Uranians" (in truth, millions), may be a dozen would join, whereas the others were not at all interested in taking any action (Ulrichs died in great poverty in Italia, which has been for long the place of refuge for many homosexual men those days).
*) [Geigel]: "Das Paradoxon der Venus Urania", p. 34. Quoted from Hubert Kennedy: "Karl Heinrich Ulrichs".
-
Certainly, the form of organization must be adequate to the nature of its actions and purposes. I entirely agree with you that solely the extent of real competency determines between the dignity and the ridicule. Should someone occupy a tiny islet and populate it with 100 gays, that noble person has every good reason to call himself/herself if not an "Emperor", but at least a "Chieftain".
We should rather start with the basics: the citizen and his proper behavior as a political agent and instrument of gay self-determination.When we have a critical number of individuals behaving as citizens,then perhaps - I say perhaps - we can start discussing about functions,titles and forms of organization.The present situation suits me: a central discussion place in the present forum,along with local individuals or small circles who could act
on site and in real life,and report in the discussion place.The method of trial and error,all the more usefull that it will apply in real and different
local conditions.An example of action on site which I once reported here is my withdrawal from participation in local canadian elections back in 1979.What steps gays from other parts of the world have taken on site and in their respective places in connection with local hethro elections is one practical subject among hundreds or thousands which could be discussed in this forum.
K6
-
Eventhough, from what we know, the first efforts to achieve a gay majority on a regional level go back into 1970th, when there was a plan to "overtake" a single county in the US.
Gays,throughout the 70s,tended to be radical politically.I should know,for I was then among the whole lot.But I think that most gay radicals then
banked on a major change in heterosexual societies,rather than on overtaking the said societies.That was the political fashion then,fuelled by the hethro political left,which itself and at that time thought it would overtake the world with its universalists utopias.It vanished in the mid and late 80s when we started to drop like flies because of the AIDS epidemic,and that the geopolitical center of the left - the USSR - disintegrated.
K6
-
Should someone occupy a tiny islet and populate it with 100 gays, that noble person has every good reason to call himself/herself if not an "Emperor", but at least a "Chieftain".
Or the "responsible person".This being said,gay organizations which have appeared a bit too quickly could dissapear as quickly,because of their lack of depht,preparation and dedication.I have often observed that phenomenon in seven years of participation in micropolitical forums,where organizations continuously enter and leave the stage.Most gay separatists groups will follow a similar path,untill one emerges which will display some measure of
continuity.Separatism is not exactly like a hobby in which one indulges only on week ends.It is,if I may express myself that way as an atheist,a priestly task.One serves the cause of gay self-determination during his entire life.
K6
-
If this doesn't sound like a suggestion to create an own territorial state for Uranians? >:) Unfortunately, Mr Ulrichs was not able to create even such a little thing as an Uranian association - like he had planned. The reason was simple: from those "25.000 Uranians" (in truth, millions), may be a dozen would join, whereas the others were not at all interested in taking any action
In the times of Mr Ulrichs,the world population was at around one billion.It is now at seven billion,and with far better and efficient systems of international communications.A gay independence movement could attract and involve over the years several millions of gays.But as one should expect,gays of a rather unilateral type.Gay political independence as a goal will not attract many individuals of the sedentary category with no taste
for roaming or adventure.I wouldn`t expect to see many stereotypical gays (as heterosexuals visualise them) showing up.
K6
-
We should rather start with the basics: the citizen and his proper behavior as a political agent and instrument of gay self-determination.When we have a critical number of individuals behaving as citizens,then perhaps - I say perhaps - we can start discussing about functions,titles and forms of organization.
I do not agree with this notion - we must work with real people as they are and not as they should be. If we had to wait untill some "ideal type" of a gay person evolves, the gay self-determination will newer come. No, the really existing states and organizations teach us every day that greate successes are possible with existing, imperfect human beings as they are - as long as they are clear of their common interests and goals. We can discuss about "proper" and "improper" behavior, but please consider that it is an illusion that one can set up a legislation framework and then bow and bend people untill they will fit into this framework of "ideal citizens".
I know that your approach of gay self-determination is based on the single gay individual who acts morally and politically as a representative of the ideal gay state. I imagine the Gay State in a rather conventional manner: as an entity regulating internal and external matters of an organized
group of people who identify themeselves as gay. In my understanding, the state must serve the interests of the people, not the other way. Of course, before we can talk about "state" we must gather a significant amount of individuals identifying as members of the gay nation, and have established administrative structures as far as they are required. For example, in an organization acting solely on the internet, the positions of a webmaster and a speaker are very important, while there is no need to entertain a "Minister of health" or a "Defence Minister", whereas in an isolated gay village it is exactly the other way.
Therefore we must contemplate what our goals are, what actions must be taken (internet posting, hardcopy publishing, street actions, establishing a settlement ot a permanent camp?), and consider appropriate organizatory structures.
The present situation suits me: a central discussion place in the present forum,along with local individuals or small circles who could act on site and in real life,and report in the discussion place.The method of trial and error,all the more usefull that it will apply in real and different local conditions.An example of action on site which I once reported here is my withdrawal from participation in local canadian elections back in 1979.What steps gays from other parts of the world have taken on site and in their respective places in connection with local hethro elections is one practical subject among hundreds or thousands which could be discussed in this forum.
I am well aware that "many ways lead to Rome". Internet discussions and reporting is an essential contribution to the gay national movement, and I can perfectly live with the fact that you limit your activities to this field. My personal opinion is, however, that we must extend our actions into the physical world as well. This has two major reasons:
1) We must be able to interact with persons who never have heard of "gay nationalism" and therefore never come to the idea of making a search for our discussion forums via Google. Actually, most people do not spend much time on the Internet. Many of them are potentially susceptive to our ideas, so we must watch out for the means to reach this audience via printed magazines and direct propaganda on campuses, in bars and on gay pride events;
2) Collective efforts would enable us to put our activities on a more stable basis, than it is possible solely relying on "heroic efforts of singular individuals." Think of purchase, digitalization and translation of important literature, funding of art and research, establishing a camp for gay youth etc - all this requires money. Of course such high-flying plans will only be taken in consideration when we have sufficient number of members and finances, but somehow we have to start?
[..] This being said,gay organizations which have appeared a bit too quickly could dissapear as quickly,because of their lack of depht,preparation and dedication. [..] One serves the cause of gay self-determination during his entire life.
Only few individuals actually do dedicate their entire life to one idea. Nevertheless, there is a plentitude of organizations which are flourishing since decades (or even centuries), doing good job and generally being very successful. The secret of such organizations is a combination of dedication and ressources with a good, convincing idea. It is good to have idealists dedicating their life to such ideas, but they must have means for their work: without medicine and good supply "Medicines Sans Frontiers" would never be able to help anybody. In our situation, either our folks do not understand that every work requires ressources, or our idea is not convincing enough.
Gay political independence as a goal will not attract many individuals of the sedentary category with no taste for roaming or adventure.
The problem which I see is not only the lack of support for gay separatism, but the general political passivity of gay population. Regarding millions of gays in the western world, it is quite difficult to understand why so few actually do participate in matters of gay politics. For example, in Germany we have some 3.5 - 5.0 millions of adult homosexuals, of them only 3.000 are organized in the German Lesbian and Gay Association (LSVD), this makes less than 0.1% of Germany's gay population. It is generally a wonder, that any progress in gay rights was achieved at all.
-
The problem which I see is not only the lack of support for gay separatism, but the general political passivity of gay population.
Perhaps it is as well like that.We will eventually encounter gays or members of other sexual minorities who will completely and radically oppose
our political designs.That they will have to rely on a passive constituency to counter us is not per se a bad thing.Or that they fear seeing their sexual orientation disclosed in the course of a public argument with us.They will thus probably prefer shutting up and let us do the talk.
K6
-
I know that your approach of gay self-determination is based on the single gay individual who acts morally and politically as a representative of the ideal gay state. I imagine the Gay State in a rather conventional manner: as an entity regulating internal and external matters of an organized
group of people who identify themeselves as gay. In my understanding, the state must serve the interests of the people, not the other way.
If the gay individual,imperfect as we find him in real life and on the street,nevertheless has and affirms certain characteristics having to do with
independence and self-determination,the State itself will eventually and only constitute the cherry on the sundae,a detail.People create States,
not the other way around.
K6
-
We can discuss about "proper" and "improper" behavior, but please consider that it is an illusion that one can set up a legislation framework and then bow and bend people untill they will fit into this framework of "ideal citizens".
The idea is not so much to impose a framework of behavior than to procede to an inventory of the already existing habits,particularly those
which gays in different parts of the world appear to have in common.I am myself a gay individual 24 hours out of 24,and therefore interested
more in permanent attitudes than in spectacular but punctual ones.Or than in formal aspects of political organization,behind which there might
be no permanent practical action or attitude.An age in which a gay independentist movement will develop and flourish will also be one in which
gays will differenciate themselves much more marquedly from heterosexuals than heretofore.Without such a differenciation,gay political independence either (and most likely) cannot get started,or has zero chances of success.
K6