Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A queer nation, yes please!

Our current program can be found here:

http://gayhomeland.org/program.html

I should read that first *shame on me*

0) Popularization of the idea of the Gay state;

This is the point, we are now. But this is a point very very hard to do.

1) Establishing the Gay state as an sovereign entity without territory (e.i. political network of istitutions and individuals);

This would be a virtual state. This point can be managed.

2) Purchasing/leasing of a minor territory (1-10 kmē) in a friendly country under conditions of exterritoriality for 100 - 250 years, establishing there a settlement, and using this time to collect sufficient financial ressources for step 3.

My opinion: Better using the standard of a leasing of 99 years (like Macao and HK). (Tip: In very poor or in disaknowledged countrys such a leasing would be easy to get.)

3) Purchasing a souvereign territory and establishing a "real" territorial state.

My opinion: You can only buy a piece of land; but not a state. The frontiers of today aren't made by money; they were made by blood. But in 99 years, other Gays should decide, if a Gay-State is worth a war. We both aren't alive then.

Our current program can be found here:

http://gayhomeland.org/program.html

Since states are founded with at least a couple of thousands of people, it makes more sense (in my opinion) to start with popularization of the idea, to enlarge our basis. The purchase of the territory for the state will be only possible after a political network worthy of the word "state" has been established. Such political networks without territory are known from the international law and can be used as a legal precedence case (see Order of Malta, http://www.orderofmalta.org/).

We are of course more than "3.2" people involved in the group. ;-) There is a loose network existing, with members contributing more or less financially and ideally. Counting with your suggested "convertite rate" of 2%, a basis of 1.000 people would yield 20 Gay nationalists, a basis of 100.000 people will yield 2.000. It is clear that the best way to help a Gay state into existence is first to make the idea known to as many people as possible.

A good "minor issue" would be very helpfull as well, of course. This might be the issue of Gay refugees (e.g. from Iran and Iraq), who urgently need asylum in western countries. Running a refugee camp / settlement would be something which comes very close to our stated purposes. The Russian Gay pride issue is managed rather well by Nikolay Alexeev, they not really need help from us.

As for a location for the future territorial Gay state, it must be suitable - this means the life of our citizens there must improve in comparison to what they have had before. Living either without daylight for half a year, or being ambushed between an islamists and a fashist state is certainly not an improvement for anybody, least for Gay people. The concept of Terra Nullis  is not that important in our days anymore (if it has ever been), because virtually anything of worth already is controlled by one or other state - we will have to negotiate anyway. The location needs to be of a habitable nature, and the surrounding countries should be non-hostile to Gays. The governments of Russia, Iran, Saudy Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia are not in the list of our favourite negotiation partners, even if these states might have a plentitude of empty land.

So my suggested road-map looks different:

0) Popularization of the idea of the Gay state;
1) Establishing the Gay state as an sovereign entity without territory (e.i. political network of istitutions and individuals);
2) Purchasing/leasing of a minor territory (1-10 kmē) in a friendly country under conditions of exterritoriality for 100 - 250 years, establishing there a settlement, and using this time to collect sufficient financial ressources for step 3.
3) Purchasing a souvereign territory and establishing a "real" territorial state.

I have a discussion-draft to establish a gay-state - 10 point-plan

A. Pre-Start

1.) We are aware, that this community consists of about 160 people
2.) We are aware, that only 2% of the community is willing of really founding a gay-state and taking all the responsibility and all the trouble with that big work to do. So we would be statistically 3.2 people to do this.
3.) We are aware, that we need as a minimum of 5-7 people for founding. For founding an association, we need at least 7 people - for founding a micronation, we need at least 5 people. So we need some more people.
4.) So we need first a bit of success, before starting the main issue of founding a micronation.
5.) So we first have to start a minor issue

------
B. Starting the minor issue
6.) The minor issue is: A legal Gay-Pride in Russia: This is easier than it seems. For the gay-Nation, the problem of Russia is harsh homophobia. For Russia, the problem is russophobia in the Caucasus.
7.) So a buffer-belt of a free-zone between the mainland and Tschetschenia would be preferable for the Russian Government. In this free-zone, annual Gay-Prides are legalized and (gay)tourists from all over the world are coming. So this powder keg could be appeaced and a Gay-Pride in Russia can take place (a so called win-win-situation). So we have the success and we gain people.

-----
C. Starting the mayor issue
8.) Searching a place for the gay-state in a so called terra-nullius
9.) Founding the gay-state as a micronation
10.) Waiting for settlers to turn the micronation in a macronation, which has as terretory as permanent residentials

What do you think about that?

You can found a state illeagaly and leagaly.

First the illegal options:

• Founding a state on a terretory, where other humans are still living (it's a displacement)
• Founding a state on the terretory of an existing state (it's a violation of the terretorial integrity)
• Founding a state on the terretory claimed by an existing state(it's a provocation; like the micronations in the South-Sea, which provocated the army of Tonga. So those micronations got eradicated by Tonga's Army)

Now there is only one legal option:

• Founding a state on a terretory, where neither other humans are still living, nor on the terretory of an existing state, nor on the terretory claimed by an existing state (

So it must be founded on a so called Terra Nullius:

For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius

so Tarrae Nullii are in range of sinking quality of life:

• Svalbard
• Greenland ?
• Antarctica
• Bir Tawil

Antarctica has far most the least quality of life on this planet. But it's big enough as homeland of hundreds of millions of Gays&Lesbians. Svalbard has a climate, which is on the Western Island Spitzbergen like in Cannada and on the Eastern Islands like on the Pole. Greenland is very harsch in climate. Antarctica is a white hell. Bir Tawil seems to be a pure dessert and lies in the Moslemic-World. But even in Antarctica many hundreds of people live there and survive there.

btw.: In the 17th century, Cap Cod was also a white hell, where nearly nobody thought, that the settlers would survive more than 3 years. And now, the successors of the Pilgrim-Fathers are still living there and through 4 centurys, this settlement changed into a superpower. 

The actual requirement is that straights don't live there, not that straights don't want to live there. This is an important differnce -- there are lovely places on this planet which are naturally life-supporting, but not yet developed.

The easiest way is to chose a once settleled and then left place. So we have houses and reports of natural enemys (e.g. hostile animals and germs). So, the first settlers know, what is dangerous and what is not.

Settling e.g. in the Amazonas or in the inner of the Guayanas would eradicate most of the first settlers in a few years. That cannot be the solution.

Some unpopulated lovely places would bring us environmentalists to stop us, as for them, an undisturbed existance of a frog counts more than a life of a gay. That cannot be the solution.

There are only a dozen places, which got left. There we can settle.

But what shall we do, if one day a settler comes, which claims to be gay but is hetero? We cannot kick him out, if he has helped us. And we cannot jail him, if he makes hetero-sex, because than we would sink down to the very low level of straights. So, we better dont chose a too lovely place.

[..] Officially, in Germany, there should be no homophobia at all.

There are several statistics out there, most of them basically suggest that there are some 1/10 to 9/10 of the population in a given country hating the Gays.

For Netherlands, 9% of the population have serious objections to homosexuality, and some 40% feel uncomfortable if they see two men kissing (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/06/support_for_gay_rights_improve.php).

For Germany, some 17% consider homosexuality to be "immoral" (http://www.stern.de/wissen/mensch/lebensbedingungen-von-homosexuellen-normal-ist-das-nicht-606691.html ). Among schoolboys, 46% of the non-religious and 85% of Moslems consider Gays disgusting (http://www.fr-online.de/wissenschaft/bremer-schuelerumfrage-belegt-homophobie/-/1472788/3266874/-/index.html).

For UK, some 24% think Gays should be put to jai, some 45% are against Gay marriage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships ).

For Belarus, some 63% agree that Gays belong into prison (http://ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/10/Jun/0701.htm ).

For Russia, some 74% think of Gays as immoral or psychically sick, 84% are against Gay marriage, 40% suggest to put Gays in prison or in mental hospital, 4% are in favor of physical "liquidation" (http://www.levada.ru/press/2010080602.html ).
 

There are a dozen terretorial options where the Gay-State can be. We should agree soon for the site and stop the discussion for the site, which is going on since 2005. We should aggree for the site and start settlement as soon as possible. It is clear, that we can only have success, if we choose a site, which is very sparsly populated. And it should also be clear, that a sparsly populated site on this planet  definitely cannot be a holyday paradise, but truely a piece of land, where straights dont want to live.

I beg to disagree at the necessity of a quick decision. Since all of the places already are controlled by one or another state, we can't just choose one of the places and decide it's going to be ours. Each place, even the most unwelcome and hostile to life, would require previous negotiations. As you say, there are many locations which might be suitable -- among them some with mild climate and low population density. The actual requirement is that straights don't live there, not that straights don't want to live there. This is an important differnce -- there are lovely places on this planet which are naturally life-supporting, but not yet developed.

homophobia is even in the gay-friendliest countrys. Officially, in Germany, there should be no homophobia at all. But look: Per definitionem, the Number 2 in Germany is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nowadays, this post is represented by a gay. He does his work in nothing better or worse than the predecessor. But the people want to kick him off. Not, because he make bad work, not because he is antisocial (that were also many others), not because he is very dominant (that were also many others) - no. The only reason for is unacceptance is his gayness.

So my conclusion: Homophobia is everywhere. It's easier to teach a monkey to read and write than to teach a straight, that a gay is a human and not a lunatic.

A Gay-State has to be errected as soon as possible. There is no other goal than that. We don't need no equalization, we don't need no emancipation, like heterosexual women do. We need quite the opposite of this: We need seperation to prevent assimilation. We need local, logical and administrative seperation.

This is only possible in an own state/country, the Gay-State. There are a dozen terretorial options where the Gay-State can be. We should agree soon for the site and stop the discussion for the site, which is going on since 2005. We should aggree for the site and start settlement as soon as possible. It is clear, that we can only have success, if we choose a site, which is very sparsly populated.  And it should also be clear, that a sparsly populated site on this planet  definitely cannot be a holyday paradise, but truely a piece of land, where straights dont want to live.

Why always searching for a land in America?
 
An other option would be Spitzbergen. This huge island belongs to Norway, but has also Russian settlements. It has a rapidly shrinking population of coal-miners. At time, there are less than 2000 people. The main citys are Longyearbyen, which has a Norwegian coal-mine and Barentsburg, which has a Russian coal-mine.

The best is: Every "town" is here a city, which has an autonomous status (This was a requirement and part of the Spitzbergen-Contract, because as Norway as Russia are using the coal-grounds of that huge island) . So a settlement - even if this would only be 5-10 people - in a left town (e.g. Pyramiden or Ny-London) would suddenly bring us to an autonomous gay-city.

No money is needed. You don't have to buy a ghost-city; everyone is glad, if someone revive that ghost-city. Buildings are usable, but there is work to do for repairing windows, chimneys and ovens. The first gay-republican-settlers can live from hunting and fishing. The population is friendly and speaks languages, the first gay-republican-settlers also easyly can do - like boksmal (Norwegian, which is similar to German), English and Russian.

The island lies in the very North at 80° North. It's about 1000km to the North-Pole. Thanks to the Gulf-Stream, the climate is not harder than in Cannada. The only problem is the long summer and the long winter. Summer is Polar-Day, where is nor dawn nor sunset; winter is Polar-Night, where the sun never shines. Living from hunting and fishing is possible - as in the Arctis is very much life on sea (plancton, fishes, seals) and land (ice-bears). In the Arctis, noone has to suffer on hunger. The domestic people can give the first gay-republican-settlers coal and can get bear-meat on exchange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitsbergen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzbergen_(Insel) (with links with nice pictures of the "citys" of Spitzbergen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramiden (that's the ghost-city, which could be occupied)

So the discussion on this thread seems to have reached that a rural option would be the most viable and there seems to still be debate about whether or not to aim for an island or inland.

If political control, rather than influence, is the objective, migration to large cities is about the very best way to guarantee failure.

The charming advantage of rural areas is their relative "emptiness": Even a minor influx of Gay population would effect in a significant shift in demographics, the land prices are low, and the political control can be transferred more easily than control over an urban area. The usual disadvantage of a rural area is, of course, its low attractivity to urban Gays - no  jobs, no culture, no fun (this was the reason why the Alpine County [USA] experiment failed in the 1970ies). Of course, it is neither said that we are limited to urban Gays only, nor that we couldn't urbanize the area in question step by step.

  Investigating other successful secessionist movements
  Select an approach that would suit our circumstances

May I suggest to look upon other successfull nationalist movements rather than secessionist movements? One fundamental difference to most other separatist movements is the diasporic nature of the Gay people. We can't 'secede' by declaring independence of 'our' territory, since there is no such place where we could rightfully claim ancestry or demographic majourity. The other fundamental difference to all other separatist movements is the way Gays are reproduced in nature. We simply can't pursue a strategy of taking over territorial control by extensive breeding - a strategy which has been successfully applied by others.

The specifics of our people basically contain us to the theoretical options of taking over an area by force or by negotiation (purchase by contract), and subsecuent maintaining the population by the means of constant immigration.   

Other nationalist movements which seem interesting in this context is the political Zionist movement and the movement which lead to the foundation of Liberia: both were initiated by diasporic peoples and resulted in establishment of nation-states. Keeping in mind our straight-assisted procreation strategy, structures like the Order of Malta appear to be suitable models for maintaining an entity based on membership instead of procreation.

My suggestion for a viable strategy includes the following steps:

1) Construction of the Gay people as a people sui generis;
2) Creation of an 'atypical subject of international law', a starting point for a Gay state (initially without territory);
3) Creation of a settlement on a territory contractually declared "exterritorial" for 150 - 200 years, whereby the Gay [non-territorial] state will be the guest contracting party; 
4) Purchase or construction of a [new] land to become the sovereign territory of the Gay state. 

1)  Whats that foundation of the current ‘Gay economy’?

We must make a distinction here between the "Gay economy" as in the meaning "economy made for Gays" and in the meaning "economy made by Gays". Clearly, the "for-Gays" economy concentrates on the specifics of Gay life, on things which separate us from straights -- that's mostly the area of socializing, mating, porn, cinema, literature, theater, travel. The "by-Gays" economy, might be indeed slightly biased in favour of the art sector, but in principle we cover the same fields of production as straights do. There are lots of Gay technicians, scientists, doctors, ingeneurs and construction workers - they are just not specifically visible, because their businesses cater to everyone.

I have no doubt that if/when there will be a Gay-controlled settlement, Gay individuals of any required professions will be available for employment in sufficient numbers, either in art, industry, or agriculture. Depending on the ressources of the particular land slip, there might be a chance for the secondary or primary (mining/agriculture) industry. Considering the globalization of world trade and production, there is a good chance that said Gay settlement could establish a couple of manufacturing plants, whatever final customers supplied. Quite another question is, of course, how to generate additional income for the residents of the settlement - there we will have to hark back on the "for-Gays" economy like tourism, film art and literature. 

2)  Where and why do gay people live where they live currently?

There might be a number of reasons for living somewhere: 

1) No other place to go;
2) Job/study is there;
3) Big cities offer better chances to find a boyfriend and a job;
4) Big cities give more freedom and a chance to escape from social control by family/relatives/authorities;
5) Western democracies provide more freedom, better jobs, and give a chance to meet a boyfriend to live with.

In fact, many Gay people live where they do by the simple reason that they have no other (better) place to go. They have their jobs or businesses, their friends and families, are involved into diverse social/political activities and basically have no idea on how their live might be significantly improved.

Those Gays who actually move in quest for a better live, are usually motivated by the urge to find freedom, a job and a boyfriend. Gays from underdeveloped archaic societies attempt to escape to modern Western countries at the first chance; within any given society they move from villages and little towns towards metropoles. Of course, personal freedom can be also safeguarded by a fat pay check to a certain degree, therefore a better job might provide sufficient motivation to move away from a Gay-friendly area to a repressive, unpleasant place.

It is clear that if Gays shall move, they will do so only if they will find:

1) Better jobs;
2) Significantly better supply with cultural and material goods;
3) Significantly better chances for boy-friending;
4) Better secureness;
5) Sufficient medical attendance;
6) Freedom.

Whereas points 1 and 2 initially might turn out as difficult to attract Gays from Western countries, there should be no huge obstacles to ensure the points 1-5 for Gays coming from less saturated societies. With time, the infrastructure would be developed to a level where it might become interesting for Western Gays to look for jobs and a residence there.