GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Kingdom of Fridet  (Read 19727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #31 on: Sun, Dec 11, 2005, 13:36 »

I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic.  I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.

Surely, there is (and always will be) a strong opposition to the idea of a gay homeland. So what? There is also a strong support for the idea. The  opponents will stay where they are, and supporters will emigrate or at least help how they can. There was never our intention to force the entire gay population into supporting of the idea; our intention is to win sympathysants by explaining and discussing the project. By the way, the early Jewish State movement from beginning was fiercefully opposed by large parts of the Jewish population and various Jewish leaders. This didn't disturb the state of Israel to be established finally (I recommend the lecture of the book "The Jewish State" by Theodor Herzl, in our library :L).

There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post.  It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs.  Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting.  It gets annoying when your reading.

Why, what post was "hacked"? The moderation log shows only 3 recent entries (both myself editing my own posts: 519/523), so non of the moderators had changed anything from you (btw, you would recognize such an action also by yourself by "Last edited by XYZ" in italics). Generally, we do not edit posts, especially not in this section. If a registered member has posted something highly offensive or vulgar, he will be warned and asked to edit by himself (or the entire post will be deleted/moved to archive). What is possible in this board ("Coral Sea Café"), is that someone can use your name while posting - we therefore do warn explicitely in the description of this board about this possibility. That's why it's better to register and post only when you are loged in. I hope this helps, otherwise please send me or Vizier more precise description of the problem (e.g. which contribution was edited/hacked and maybe a screenshot). OK?

We are interested in your ideas, though this not necesserely means we always agree with them (we hardly have a consens within the group itself - this makes it so interesting!).  :T
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #30 on: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 23:51 »

Regarding the current opposition among the LGBT-community to the separatist movement as such, we should be very conservative in our estimations.

The so-called LGBT opposition to a separatist gay movement posseses no organisation comparable to the one which could be raised on the basis
of the idea of gay self-determination.Organisation shall prevail over the lack of it,dont` worry.It shall certainly prevail over the confusion entailed in a constituency which has not so far sorted properly gays from non-gays.The opposition to gay self-determination will sooner or later,and sooner rather than later,be cornered into summoning the assistance of the imperial hethro power in its dispute and argument with us.

K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #29 on: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 04:36 »

I do find it unacceptable the idea of Displacement.  Were not going to take over "quebec" or a similar sized area.  Were not going to do a revolution, control people, or discriminate against hetros.  We are not going to stoop to their level.   The only solution is to aquire a piece of land that has no inhabitants, there are plenty of wilderness of unhabitted areas.  Perhaps you could purchase an entire farm etc...  For me a decent sized island will do.  I don't expect much more than 5000 population, and to be highly urbanized.

I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic.  I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.

There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post.  It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs.  Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting.  It gets annoying when your reading.


Lands with no inhabitants,as I am myself so to speak payed to know it,aren`t without inhabitants for no reason.They are probably uninhabitable.Like for instance Antarctica,which is not even claimed by existing countries.Or most of the territory of Canada,which is empty of population.Islands offer tempting opportunities,but they are vulnerable to blockade.If a state is established on and island,it must have a strong
navy capable of maintining openned its lines of communication by sea,like England has done so for centuries.

K6

fridet

  • Forum member
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Forward Now!
    • Fridet
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #28 on: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 00:42 »

I do find it unacceptable the idea of Displacement.  Were not going to take over "quebec" or a similar sized area.  Were not going to do a revolution, control people, or discriminate against hetros.  We are not going to stoop to their level.   The only solution is to aquire a piece of land that has no inhabitants, there are plenty of wilderness of unhabitted areas.  Perhaps you could purchase an entire farm etc...  For me a decent sized island will do.  I don't expect much more than 5000 population, and to be highly urbanized.

I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic.  I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.

There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post.  It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs.  Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting.  It gets annoying when your reading.

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #27 on: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 00:17 »


While considering absolute numbers of citizens of a (future) gay state we shouldn't forget that the entire population would be renewed solely by immigration.

That is correct.The country where I live (Canada) gets about half of its yearly human replacements by way of immigration.The lowest estimate of the world gay population is of about 175 million.I count here only males,and only those who remain exclusively gay during their entire adult lives (5% of males).That is ten times the jewish population,which in part only populates the State of Israel.I do not think that we would lack human ressources.We could lack place to greet them,if the gay independent state we establish was too small.I would not expect most gays to move to a gay country.The majority would simply regard such a state as an insurance against bad times on the hetro side,and rest content in investing economically in it rather than moving to it.It`s a situation unlike the one of a traditional nation-state without real potential of support abroad.

K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #26 on: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 00:04 »

Hm, in the most developed countries the urban population tends to be somewhat 80%, so there is no real need to posses large territories to flourish and prospere as a nation. A small territory is probably even easier to defend: one can concentrate ressources on a relatively small space and use them most effectively. From the military point of view, taking an urban area is the most dangerous enterprise, unless you really bomb it platy. And, there are for sure no free territories in the size of Québec, so what are you planning to do with the current heterosexual inhabitants???? Sterilize and gather into "refugee camps"? Brrrh! Certainly you don't mean this.

Wherever we want to establish a gay independent state,and whatever the size of that state,there will already be people living there who will not be gay.We are not saddled at present with that issue,because whatever we set up now will be parallel and not separated yet from already existing entities.If existing geopolitical entities disintegrate into chaos,demographic changes and shifts will occur anyway - certain horizontal,others vertical - even if we have absolutely no part in them.What we will not grab under such specific circumstances,others will anyway.


K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #25 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 23:45 »

Why, a perfect world wouldn't be such a bad place to live in! Europeans love their newly re-gained economic power and freedom to move to Italy or Greece without problems, all the benefits of a larger geopolitical entity.

The European Union has the potential to bypass the United States as a world economic power.However,the EU was also unable to
maintain on its own peace and order in its Yugloslav backyard in the early 90s.And it has no common goal or foreign policy with regard
to the situation in Irak.

K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #24 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 23:39 »


Gay separatism is not a value on its own, we can't sacrifice innocent people for political adventurism as a state goal.

I must tell this to gays,that their lives will amount to an adventure anyway.Outside the context of a quest for self-determination,it will in all likelyhood be an adventure without fortune,glory or historical record.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #23 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 19:27 »

[..]It should not be lower than 8 to 10 millions in a place about the size of Quebec,and preferably in a part of the world which is thinly populated like Quebec precisely.When a country is too small - like Israel - ,it takes only a military defeat on the borders to be overrun.We will need some depth for purposes of defense,and enough population either to repel an invasion or to resist a foreign occupation. [..]

Hm, in the most developed countries the urban population tends to be somewhat 80%, so there is no real need to posses large territories to flourish and prospere as a nation. A small territory is probably even easier to defend: one can concentrate ressources on a relatively small space and use them most effectively. From the military point of view, taking an urban area is the most dangerous enterprise, unless you really bomb it platy. And, there are for sure no free territories in the size of Québec, so what are you planning to do with the current heterosexual inhabitants???? Sterilize and gather into "refugee camps"? Brrrh! Certainly you don't mean this.

While considering absolute numbers of citizens of a (future) gay state we shouldn't forget that the entire population would be renewed solely by immigration. Set the average age of immigrants to be 30 years and the average life expectancy to be 70 years, the required renewal rate would be 2,5 % of the absolute population. This makes at least 200.000 immigrants per year, which is pretty much. Try to persuade so many people yearly that they should leave their homes, jobs and families and so on. Regarding the current opposition among the LGBT-community to the separatist movement as such, we should be very conservative in our estimations. For a functioning city with major institutions, i.m.h.o.,  some 250.000 to 500.000 citizens would suffice, which is pretty much, regarding the efforts necessary to maintain the population.
« Last Edit: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 19:30 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #22 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 18:31 »


Why not find our own way with peacefull means and look for a friendly assistance from a larger thin-populated country like Canada? Sure, not everything is en rose there, but we are also not looking for a territory in size of Québec, do we?
 :=SU

Any country of our own we set up will have to contain enough population to be effectively occupied and,the case arising,defended.It should
not be lower than 8 to 10 millions in a place about the size of Quebec,and preferably in a part of the world which is thinly populated like Quebec
precisely.When a country is too small - like Israel - ,it takes only a military defeat on the borders to be overrun.We will need some depth for purposes of defense,and enough population either to repel an invasion or to resist a foreign occupation.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #21 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 13:33 »

We could thus have to follow a course of encouraging separatism elsewhere for our own sake.The unification and geopolitical integration of mankind is a fine thing when contemplated superficially.But it fails to contemplate also a scenario where this would merely unite the world against us,whereas it is in our interest that the world remains divided.Gay political independence itself could hardly become a reality in a stable and unified world,whose components have no other concern than maintaining a status quo which doesn`t serve our interest.

Why, a perfect world wouldn't be such a bad place to live in! Europeans love their newly re-gained economic power and freedom to move to Italy or Greece without problems, all the benefits of a larger geopolitical entity. Also gays living in large stable democratic countries enjoy personal freedoms in a rather high extent. Sure, an empire of evil, consternate on our destruction, would be an awesome enemy - but also many smaller enemies can form a "coalition of the willing" and become highly dangerous. A stable Iran is probably a much better place to live in than the numerous mini-states in Afghanistan under Taliban. Therefore I do not see the necessity to mess with China, Russia and USA and seek their disintegration into many smaller, yet even more barbaric countries?! (Friends from these countries: please forgive me the rhetorical fervour!  >:))

In my view, we can clearly support oppressed peoples such as are Tibetans, but we should not intervene into conflicts which can be solved by the parties themeselves in a way of political discourse (e.g. Canada/Québec). Heterosexuals (even not most of them) aren't a priory our enemies, why should we wish them any harm? On contrary, we should seek to gain as many of them as possible as our allies, though being conscious of our difference.

Even from the practical point of view, in order not to endanger our brothers and sisters living in other states, it would be advisable not to participate in activities directed against moderately gay-friendly states. It's clear that any hostile action against these sovereign nations would only nurture resentments against our people and could bring them immediately and unnecessarily into danger. Actions against countries which have declared war on homosexuals by implementation of death penalty or imprisonment would be, of course, a legitimate self-defence.

Gay separatism is not a value on its own, we can't sacrifice innocent people for political adventurism as a state goal. It's true, the Polish have achieved their independence in course of the First World war... But we shouldn't forget that this process was connected to millions of dead on the battlefields of the WWI and during the Russian revolution. Not to forget that just 20 years later the Polish got lost their independence again and the following WWII swept away further 50 millions lives - I don't think one can wish such developments be initiated again. There must be other ways to gain a self-control over a piece of land, taking into account legitimate interests of other nations, especially the future neighbours. Why seek an armed conflict, when an agreeable solution could be achieved on a peaceful way? For example, India was very generous to Tibetans who had to flee from their homeland, and gave them land and possibilities for national self-determination for free. The Tibetans of course didn't secede then from India, but they have achieved many of their goals within this frame, e.g. offering refuge and life in dignity and work to their people.

Why not find our own way with peacefull means and look for a friendly assistance from a larger thin-populated country like Canada? Sure, not everything is en rose there, but we are also not looking for a territory in size of Québec, do we?
 :=SU
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #20 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 08:29 »


The basic guildlines for estimation of future developements are clear - e.g it's pretty risky to settle in direct neighbourhood of a large, powerfull country, especially if this country has a long-term record of religiously motivated homophobia. Also it's risky to put your feet onto a territory, which is of strategic interest to another powerfull countries - e.g. because of its geopolitical position (e.g. important transport ways) or minerals or hystorical/religious meaning.
 

The hethro world being far more stronger than us in terms of mere figures,it is advisable that it remains divided,preferably in medium size or weak states.We could thus have to follow a course of encouraging separatism elsewhere for our own sake.The unification and geopolitical integration of mankind is a fine thing when contemplated superficially.But it fails to contemplate also a scenario where this would merely unite the world against us,whereas it is in our interest that the world remains divided.Gay political independence itself could hardly become a reality in a stable and unified world,whose components have no other concern than maintaining a status quo which doesn`t serve our interest.In north
America,the setting up of a gay independent state would have to await the disintegration of the US and possibly also of Canada.Much the same way the rebirth of Poland had to await the disintegration of the German,Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in 1918.

K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #19 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 08:14 »


In my understanding, we would have to find a rather poor country with larger territorial posessions - so we would be able to change money for the land at an agreeble ratio. In case we succeed with establishing an economy, the neughbour countries would have some additional revenues from trade with us, I think. As long as our citizens do not make raids to their territory to perform the rapture on their adolescent boys, there is no sensible reason to attack us.  >:)


We could have problems the other way around,because of adolescent boys fleeing to our side,and claiming for motives which would not at first glance appear as unreasonnable to be gays.About one third of male adolescents have homosexual interests,most of the time on a transitory
basis.Melodramatic scenarios of international crisis could be elaborated on the basis of this example.

K6

K6

  • Guest
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #18 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 08:04 »

Surely, the uncertain developements in countries which are now liberal towards homossexuals are one of the reasons why this project should be realized. There must be aplace for us to retrieve in case of necessity, or it just might become too late. Paralelly, the cultural progress in the Diaspora would be intensified, as the most gays and lesbians would for sure stay were they are, but they no less belong to the entire community. You have right when you say that people with shared loyalties will probably not physically join the project but they still belong to us, as well. It might be advisable not to grant citizenship to children at all, instead a right for residency for dependents of a gay citizen. It would be also an option to sign treaties regulating binar citizenship - this would give an option for heterosexual children and not make them "stateless".

A way of tackling the issue of children would consist in regarding them as without yet established sexual orientation an thus as stateless on a temporary basis.They would acquire a clearcut status - either nationals (gays) or foreigners (heterosexuals) - entirely on their own,separately
from their parents and once having become adults.They could not become nationals without deeds and by the mere fact that their parents were themselves nationals,if they were.In the micronation in which I am involved,it is almost impossible for anyone who is a parent to be recognized as gay (and thus as a national).Proof of acquisition of descendants outside heterosexuality is required,either a document of adoption or a medical record of assisted reproduction.And so far and in the area where the above mentionned micronation is established,no parent claiming to be gay was able to provide such documents,which automaticaly made of them heterosexuals.The problem with individuals who are parents is that they inaugurate their relation with us by imposing us the company of non-gays whom we have not chosen as guests,which is difficult to reconcile with geopolitical independence and separation.Not taking into account the completely egoistical aspect of parenthood in their case.There are plenty of young gays of whom a gay who wants to act as a parent could take care of and wherever possible adopt,without having his or her gayness questionned.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Kingdom of Fridet
« Reply #17 on: Fri, Dec 09, 2005, 02:16 »

How are we to assess the probable and future course of action of other political actors ?

Surely, the uncertain developements in countries which are now liberal towards homossexuals are one of the reasons why this project should be realized. There must be aplace for us to retrieve in case of necessity, or it just might become too late. Paralelly, the cultural progress in the Diaspora would be intensified, as the most gays and lesbians would for sure stay were they are, but they no less belong to the entire community. You have right when you say that people with shared loyalties will probably not physically join the project but they still belong to us, as well. It might be advisable not to grant citizenship to children at all, instead a right for residency for dependents of a gay citizen. It would be also an option to sign treaties regulating binar citizenship - this would give an option for heterosexual children and not make them "stateless".

In my understanding, we would have to find a rather poor country with larger territorial posessions - so we would be able to change money for the land at an agreeble ratio. In case we succeed with establishing an economy, the neughbour countries would have some additional revenues from trade with us, I think. As long as our citizens do not make raids to their territory to perform the rapture on their adolescent boys, there is no sensible reason to attack us.  >:)

The basic guildlines for estimation of future developements are clear - e.g it's pretty risky to settle in direct neighbourhood of a large, powerfull country, especially if this country has a long-term record of religiously motivated homophobia. Also it's risky to put your feet onto a territory, which is of strategic interest to another powerfull countries - e.g. because of its geopolitical position (e.g. important transport ways) or minerals or hystorical/religious meaning. The ideal course (politically) would be to choose a half-ways distant, rather barren island a bit aside of basic transport routes and make it a high-tech paradise. The relative lack of natural resources would make it of no interest to any distant greedy nation, but the labour power of inhabitants would provide sufficiently convinient life for them. However, there must be at least enough territory for economical activities and a half-ways acceptable climate.

Every generation will face specific problems and possible conflicts with other nations, but one can prevent at least those difficulties which can be predicted already at the present time.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up