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: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail  (Read 12332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #19 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 21:48 »

OK, take all the time you need.  :L You could start a new thread and post the code away step by step. It is surelly very interesting - the part with gay duties will be certainly very controversal. 
:=SU

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #18 on: Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 18:36 »

K6, I'm eager to discuss your "Code Civil de Homosexuelles" with your proposed definitions of gayness - come on, post them one by one! =))

It would have to be translated first,for it is written in French.At the moment,I am too busy.What I could for the time being would be to provide a plan of that code,of its structure and subtitles.It is a text with 123 articles,sorted in 18 Divisions and three Parts.Part "A" contents only general provisions applying to all human beings,regardless of their sexual orientation.Part "B" concerns gays only,mainly their political tasks and duties.Part "C"
has to do with activities of support,in relation with the preceding tasks and duties.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #17 on: Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 14:46 »

It remains that integrationists - I mean assimilationists - have a limited amount time to achieve their goals.Whereas we have all the time,in the expectation of their unavoidable failure,to pursue other aims and further other designs.These,naturally,will have to do with gay self-determination.

Ahem, I wouldn't say that's an "us against them" matter... There is generally no black and white in such things - people simply have different backgrounds and set their priorities in different ways - and I say this absolutely without any valuation. It makes little sense to lament that somebody doesn't join the agenda which appears for oneself very important and the only true one.  :L

Who  knows - maybe in 20 years the world would laugh about our "scurille" ideas, in 50 years celebrate us as prophetes and in 100 years forget all of us completely? :E One thing is most certainly true - in controversal discussions one can find weak points of any particular idea and look for solutions to overcome these weak points. It' s also an illusion to believe that a consensus can be achieved on any subject - sometimes one is forced to agree to disagree.

K6, I'm eager to discuss your "Code Civil de Homosexuelles" with your proposed definitions of gayness - come on, post them one by one! =))
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #16 on: Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 02:29 »


Against political enemies one can apply the "Salami tactics", when you struggle with them for each and every centimeter of the terrain. Just force them to agree into one slight concession and half a year later demand for improvements of the "still unsatisfactory situation". This can bring significant improvements with time, though it is very frustrating to fight over decades for some minor progresses.


It remains that integrationists - I mean assimilationists - have a limited amount time to achieve their goals.Whereas we have all the time,in the expectation of their unavoidable failure,to pursue other aims and further other designs.These,naturally,will have to do with gay self-determination.

By the way,there is a message for you in alt.politics.micronations.I haven`t to translate it this time,for it is in German.You may answer it likewise,in German.The group I represent in alt.politics.micronations shall see to that that it is translated and if necessary answered.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #15 on: Wed, Jan 25, 2006, 11:51 »

Actually, it is very usefull to demand too much and then agree into a compromise with a sullen face - this makes the other party think they have made a very fortunate bargain. This is a tactic succesfully used by Dutch merchants and is very practical against political friends like social democrats.

Against political enemies one can apply the "Salami tactics", when you struggle with them for each and every centimeter of the terrain. Just force them to agree into one slight concession and half a year later demand for improvements of the "still unsatisfactory situation". This can bring significant improvements with time, though it is very frustrating to fight over decades for some minor progresses.

It is actually surprising how few people take opportunity of writing an angry letter to one politician or other and demand for improvements. Or go to the office of the unfriendly political party and laudly demand for justice. Or make a sit-in tight there. :)
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #14 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 18:23 »

Exactly - they can loose elections if they are in lack of supportive voices, and then our political enemies inevitably will come to power. Therefore it is possibly not a very good idea to voluntarily withdraw ca. 10% of the overall voices (which form 20% of the liberal-supporting voices) from the elections. No, we should actively participate in the political processes of the countries we are living in - and cooperate with our allies. You know, in the democratic elections the con:lib ratio is very often pending around the mark of 50:50 % and can be shifted to either side by very few percents. Therefore our 10% of overall voices are a very strong power to persuade liberals into supporting our cause. We only should use this power smart and support those parties, who are actually supportive to our cause.

In a situation of balance of power where we hold the balance,that only makes sense.And at a little cost,the one of a piece of paper one slides into a ballot box.But the social-democrat liberals can also face extra-parlementary opposition or extraordinary and revolutionnary situations for which they are no match,owing to the limitations of their non-heroic ideological and philosophical systems.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #13 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 18:10 »

The treatment we receive from the liberals in certain social-democrat countries is fine.It is probably among the bests we ever had.But we ow it solely to the liberals remaining in political power,not to being ourselves in power.The liberals are wonderfull people.But they could be defeated at the polls or otherwise overthrown. [..]

Exactly - they can loose elections if they are in lack of supportive voices, and then our political enemies inevitably will come to power. Therefore it is possibly not a very good idea to voluntarily withdraw ca. 10% of the overall voices (which form 20% of the liberal-supporting voices) from the elections. No, we should actively participate in the political processes of the countries we are living in - and cooperate with our allies. You know, in the democratic elections the con:lib ratio is very often pending around the mark of 50:50 % and can be shifted to either side by very few percents. Therefore our 10% of overall voices are a very strong power to persuade liberals into supporting our cause. We only should use this power smart and support those parties, who are actually supportive to our cause.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #12 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 13:15 »


As to the "merceneries": Why "merceneries"? I would say "tactical allies" - it's always the matter of giving and taking. 

The treatment we receive from the liberals in certain social-democrat countries is fine.It is probably among the bests we ever had.But we ow it solely to the liberals remaining in political power,not to being ourselves in power.The liberals are wonderfull people.But they could be defeated at the polls or otherwise overthrown.And the social-democratic way of life they offer,while being quite confortable,lacks in heroism and sense of adventure and of history.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #11 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 06:49 »


As to the "merceneries": Why "merceneries"? I would say "tactical allies" - it's always the matter of giving and taking. The bargaining is and always has been the daily bread of the politics. You help the Green Party to take nuclear plants from the landscape, they help you to push through the same-sex marriage. You can despise these habits, but they are the only functioning in a democracy. Any conquered terrain must be kept by persisting efforts - sometimes with other tactical allies. I do not think that in the gay state politics would be made any different.


A State deals with foreigners as political associates or allies.But associates or allies standing physically outside its territory.That can be achieved
without a State structure,actually in the context of a micronational or parallel geopolitical structure.It requires no effort other than drawing lines and delineations of one`s choice on a map,and then dealing with members of non-gay political organisations who stand outside the territory
thus enclosed­ as political associates or allies.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #10 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 03:12 »

I am ready not to choose between Canada and my people,the gay people.But I am capable of such a choice,on the sound basis of continuity and eternity.

So am I. Alone, we probably can't demand the same from the vaste majority of our people - some practical ways would be therefore highly desireable. We don't want our people to voluntarily deprive themeselve of the little rights they have. Or else we must agree that only a tiny breach of our overall population will be included into the state structures. Do you think this would be an acceptable solution?

As to the "merceneries": Why "merceneries"? I would say "tactical allies" - it's always the matter of giving and taking. The bargaining is and always has been the daily bread of the politics. You help the Green Party to take nuclear plants from the landscape, they help you to push through the same-sex marriage. You can despise these habits, but they are the only functioning in a democracy. Any conquered terrain must be kept by persisting efforts - sometimes with other tactical allies. I do not think that in the gay state politics would be made any different.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #9 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 00:03 »

Therefore I would advocate to allow the dual citizenship as a regular case, with the exception of higher officials, who will have to give up their foreign citizenship. In the regular case, we should seek bilateral agreements for dual citizenship with those countries, who currently do not allow this.

This solution,while being certainly inspired by the best of intentions,leaves too much room for manoeuver to foreigners and to foreign powers and interlopers.The other part of a dual citizenship is a factor which does not depend from us.It casts some heterosexuals,who could be foreign allies of ours,in the role of mercenaries.Have you read what Machiavelli says about mercenaries in his book titled "The Prince" ? You are at the mercy of mercenaries if they win,and left in the lurch if they are defeated.Besides,it is in the nature of mercenaries to fight politically and otherwise only insofar as it does not put their lives,their physical security or while we are at it their own interests at stake.We should cease to think,as a politically independent people,that others will commit themselves on behalf of our own distinct interests.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #8 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 23:46 »

@K6:
But you do recognize that whenever two peoples share same territory, they must in some way deal with eachother? Even if accepting the premise that gays and straights are belonging to 2 different states, its not said that they cannot be citizens of one common state at the same time. They can, if they wish - many countries allow dual citizenship.

North American Indian and aboriginal separatists would answer you with this picture: two canoes,sailing separately on the same river,and containing different people.

The Canada thing,of which I am a citizen by birthright,is a transitory entity.It appeared on paper and on the map back in 1867.It did not become fully competent in terms of international relations before 1930.And it has severed its so-called legal ties with the UK only in 1982.
It could disintegrate under the impact of Quebec`s separatism.What is Canada to me,a member of a group based on sexual orientation which has existed since the origins of mankind and long before Canada was founded ? A group which will still exist long after Canada has vanished from the world map ?

I am ready not to choose between Canada and my people,the gay people.But I am capable of such a choice,on the sound basis of continuity and eternity.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #7 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 19:29 »

@K6:
But you do recognize that whenever two peoples share same territory, they must in some way deal with eachother? Even if accepting the premise that gays and straights are belonging to 2 different states, its not said that they cannot be citizens of one common state at the same time. They can, if they wish - many countries allow dual citizenship. It is another question, whether the gay state, once established, should allow dual citizenship - many countries do not. Dual citizenships may (theoreticall) arise doubts about shared loyalties or deprive a citizen of the consular support while being in the foreign country, but they also have immense, very earthy advantages. For example, mostly foreigners may not vote, sometimes may not aquire property or form political associations. Foreigners also can be expelled from the country or extradicted to any third party - not necessarily the original (gay) state. In short, foreigners have barely rights and lots of detriments connected to their status.

And there we must come back to the diasporic nature of our people. Any large territorial country has no serious reason to care too much about lack of rights for its citizens abroad, as they can conveniently have all the rights at home. A country like ours, with let's say 99,5 % of the entire population being permanent residents somewhere else, cannot afford the luxus of voluntarily accepting such severe disadvantages for our citizens. Therefore I would advocate to allow the dual citizenship as a regular case, with the exception of higher officials, who will have to give up their foreign citizenship. In the regular case, we should seek bilateral agreements for dual citizenship with those countries, who currently do not allow this.

I understand your conception of extraterritorial jurisdiction, like it was usual custom in the ancient world - but in our modern days this system has changed towards the territorial jurisdiction. Though there are still few exceptional examples of extraterritorial jurisdiction in modern world (e.g. US troups in various occupied territories), these examples are based on unilateral demonstration of power, not on bilateral agreements.

For extraterritoriality see e.g.:

Shin Shun Liu, EXTRATERRITORIALITY - Its Rise and Its Decline (1925)
http://www.panarchy.org/shihshunliu/presentation.1925.html

P.S. I understand, of course, the different experiences we are going through now - therefore there will be very likely no universal solution for every country?
« Last Edit: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 19:34 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Ninja_monkey

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 19
  • Adversus solem ne loquitor
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #6 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 18:40 »

It's a matter of attitude and first principles. Is a heterosexual person, at base, a potential homophobe, or is he a potential ally? Which is the more likely largely depends on where you live. In much of Europe, the treatment of gay people has evolved in a friendly direction, seemingly (to the outsider that I am) as the str8 populace gained greater understanding. That's lovely. In North America, however, what protections we enjoy come as a result of judicial fiat-- occasionally backed up by (mostly unpopular) legislative action that anemically seeks to solidify gains.

What that means to us in North America then, is that just as quickly and entirely as rights and protections were bestowed, they can be revoked. It's something they're painfully learning in Canada right now during the election season. Just a few short months after gay marriage was put in place-- seemingly carved for the ages in judicial and legislative stone-- it is again up for debate as a political hot potato. That which Washington and Ottawa may giveth, Washington and Ottawa may taketh away.

Forgive my cynicism, but we have seen this before in history, issuing first from St. Petersburg and next from Weimar.
It's all about the thumpa thumpa.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Continuation of a debate initiated by e-mail
« Reply #5 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 12:11 »


The problem which I see is, that you (apparently) assume that most straights naturally belong into the enemie's camp. This is not necessary the case. Not every heterosexual is a homophobe, and therefore qualifies as a potential ally, if offered a cooperation. Surelly, being a purist can be a satisfying feeling by times, but it is not very suitable strategy in pursuing some real improvements of life conditions.

I take into consideration the fact that heterosexuals might be either friendly or hostile.But I regard both situations,friendship or hostility,as
tactical and transitory,and besides giving rise to sentiment and subjectivity which have no place in designing a policy.The objective way to regard heterosexuals is as foreigners,which is their permanent status,more predictable than their transitory mood (either friendly or hostile).I do not mind at all heterosexuals as foreigners when it comes only to relations of a personal nature.When it comes to relations of a political nature however,we shouldn`t deal with heterosexuals otherwise than in fashion similar to a State.Among others we should figure on the basis of what their interest - totally different from ours - will determine in terms of general conduct from their part.Truly independent people,and I assume here that we are a people,have no friends.They have only interests,eathly ones,to be defended by earhtly means,not heavenly ones.

K6
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up