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 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Gay Realpolitiks  (Read 17114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #8 on: Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 00:26 »

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
"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: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #7 on: Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 00:23 »


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

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #6 on: Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 00:04 »

;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

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #5 on: Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 23:28 »

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.
"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: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #4 on: Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 09:01 »


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

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #3 on: Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 08:34 »


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

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #2 on: Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 03:34 »

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.
« Last Edit: Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 03:40 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Gay Realpolitiks
« Reply #1 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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up